Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 8985019" data-attributes="member: 6777737">From my reading of the thread, you're the one making claims that you're not supposed to use prior edition rules, or that new editions always totally invalidate existing rules. You're the one claiming that, as a rule, teleport no longer involves planar travel because the spell description doesn't say that.I think you're the one that needs to provide evidence, because there's not really any justification in the rules that actually leads to the conclusion you're making. I'm saying that the game works actually just fine if you incorporate every rule from prior editions... provided that it doesn't directly contradict or is directly incompatible with new rules. It's a fine decision to make as a DM if it's right for your table, but it's a DM decision to do it. It's neither supported nor prohibited by the rules. I don't see anything in any edition of the game that demands the rules be taken independently. That seems to be what you're claiming. To be fair, many old rules do directly contradict or are directly incompatible. But many of them don't.I'm saying, "Where does it say we must or even should discard rules that are neither directly contradictory nor directly incompatible?" Because teleport being astral travel is entirely compatible. Even other effects that block astral travel similarly block teleportation. Dimensional shackles, magic circle, private sanctum, forbiddance, and forcecage all work the same.I'm asking you to show me where the rules support that claim. So far, all you've really said is, "Well, it's obvious and self-evident," or, "Well, not everybody would have them," or, "Well, that can be complicated." To the former, I say, no, that's an assumption. To the rest, I say that doesn't mean fewer rules are inherently virtuous.Is 5e a different game? Maybe in some senses, but at pretty fundamental levels the answer is no. Even the game's publishers tell you to reuse as much of the prior editions as you want or can. In fact, I think one of the things that keeps the game attractive and coherent across editions is precisely that the rules continue to fit.And rules don't need to refer to each other to be valid. The skill rules hardly reference combat rules at all. Does that mean you shouldn't use one of them? The rules for daggers don't say anything at all about gnomes. Which one is actually a rule?The game doesn't necessarily accommodate every conceivable rule, but it does tell you to add or modify the game however you wish and in whatever manner you choose. The game is designed to be mutable at the most basic design level. That's been foundational to not just this game but the entire hobby for 50 years. The most minimal form of the game is still mutable by design. The fact that you might end up with a broken or unworkable game isn't really a consideration. Indeed, sometimes you get that out-of-the-box! The ability to change a rule doesn't mean it's not an overpowered or broken rule, but that doesn't mean there's virtue in blindly following rules that are broken or overpowered... or incomplete.No, at this level I'm saying the distinction between "fluff" and "mechanic" is wholly contrived. It's rules lawyering in the pejorative sense. I'm saying that the game itself places no weight or importance on one over the other. We know that because it never actually guides us on interpreting rules. It always leaves that decision up to us. The game doesn't ever tell us that fighter is more important than wizard, or that darkvision is more important than 50-foot rope. There is no rule that dungeon is more critical than dragon. I see no reason to think that they are anything but equal in the eyes of the game. Each rule is presented to stand on it's own merits.What I'm really saying that if your argument concludes, "We can ignore this part because it's just fluff," then you're not really interested in the rules as rules for a roleplaying game. Take the description for fireball:"A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one."The fire spreads around corners. It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried."At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the damage increases by 1d6 for each slot level above 3rd."There are some parts that are clearly hard mechanics. The Dex save. The 8d6 fire damage. The higher level spell slot scaling. The rest of it is not really explicitly one or the other. Even the most descriptive and least crunchy elements like the "bright streak [that] flashes from your pointing finger" have a real effect in-game. It's extremely difficult to visually conceal the source of a fireball, even if it's cast from a dark corner. Most people rule that the "spreads around corners" rule means that cover doesn't apply. Do fireball or the Cover rules ever actually state that explicitly? No!How about this: An Order of Scribes Wizard uses Awakened Spellbook to cast a cold fireball by way of glyph of warding. Does it still ignite flammable objects? An extremely literal interpretation says yes, but is that really creating a credible game world? How about the fact that wall of fire, a spell that literally creates it's namesake for a much longer timeframe than fireball... and it does not say that it ignites flammable objects. If I evoke a wall of fire in a room filled with gunpowder, is it credible that nothing happens to the powder? Does that create a world that feels real? Does that tell a story that makes sense? Have you used the game rules to invent a game world that provides verisimilitude? Sure, magic isn't obligated to make sense. But it isn't truly about being maximally nonsensical.And if we don't value that verisimilitude or that realism in the game world, then why are we playing a role-playing game at all? How can we expect that taking creative actions outside the red box or having our characters behave as though everything is real will even work at all if we demand all mechanics to be complete and comprehensive and deterministic? Is it the game's job to do that? I don't think so. That's why they put a referee at every D&D table.Indeed, I don't think it's even following the <a href="https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/introduction#HowtoPlay" target="_blank">plainly given rules for How To Play D&D</a> from the first pages of the Player's Handbook:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The DM describes the environment.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The players describe what they want to do.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions.</li> </ol>The rest of the game is a framework or toolkit designed to facilitate this basic system. This is the root of the game. This is the core. Not the dice. Not the character sheet. Not the classes or spell descriptions or equipment lists. If this is the turtle's back, why do we treat subjective DM interpretation or in-game lore as something to be avoided or diminished?</blockquote>

Verification