D&D (2024) Is anyone at WOTC paying attention to what they print any more?

[Paul Farquhar]

RAI and RAW are not the same thing. RAW it is not possible to make the save unless you have some thing that makes you immune to being Paralyzed or removes the Paralyzed condition from you.

The "specific beets general" rule means you do not need to read through all the rules to look for contradictions, then write a paragraph to explain how they are overruled on this occasion. In effect, it means that RAI overrules RAW, so RAI is RAW.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

After 1 minute, it succeeds automatically.

But you just said it fails automatically. Which is true, does it automatically succeed or automatically fail?

Also to be clear this is a save against being Poisoned, not a save against being Paralyzed and it is possible to make it if for some reason you are not Paralyzed.

Er, what is the point in mentioning this? You make this special save against being poisoned, and are no longer poisoned if you succeed. If you are no longer poisoned, you are no longer paralysed. This is clear and unambiguous.

 

[ECMO3]

The "specific beets general" rule means you do not need to read through all the rules to look for contradictions, then write a paragraph to explain how they are overruled on this occasion. In effect, it means that RAI overrules RAW, so RAI is RAW.

First off I don't. The mechanics are clear if you know the rules and there is no contridiction.

Further I am not sure the 5E "specfic beats general" principle still applies since I don't even think this is in the 2024 rules.

 

[TiQuinn]

First off I don't. The mechanics are clear if you know the rules and there is no contridiction.

Further I am not sure the 5E "specfic beats general" principle still applies since I don't even think this is in the 2024 rules.

Okay, that’s a far too strict parsing of the rules for me.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

First off I don't. The mechanics are clear if you know the rules and there is no contridiction.

Good. So you play that the character is paralyzed forever (since it's impossible to save, and the effect is only ended by a successful save).

It's not the first time you have argued for totally bonkers interpretations of the rules, so you will excuse me if I conclude that you have nothing else worth saying.

 

[ECMO3]

But you just said it fails automatically. Which is true, does it automatically succeed or automatically fail?

This would be an example of where specific beats general (if you subscribe to that rule). It states in the specific text that it succeeds after a minute. This overrides any other rules about this.

Er, what is the point in mentioning this? You make this special save against being poisoned, and are no longer poisoned if you succeed. If you are no longer poisoned, you are no longer paralysed. This is clear and unambiguous.

You can be Poisoned and not Paralyzed if you are immune to being paralyzed or something removes your paralyzed condition but not the poisoned condition.

The logic underpinning your argument is that because it affords the opportunity to save, you must not be in a condition where you automatically fail it. The save itself is not against being Paralyzed. That is a secondary effect (and one that causes you to automatically fail against the primary effect).

 

[ECMO3]

Good. So you play that the character is paralyzed forever (since if it's impossible to save, and the effect is only ended by a successful save).

No only for one minute or earlier if someone ends the poisoned or paralyzed condition. But even if it was permanent, that would hardly be the end of the game (unless the entire party got paralyzed).

It's not the first time you have argued for totally bonkers interpretations of the rules, so you will excuse me if I conclude that you have nothing else worth saying.

It is not the correct interpretation and there is an entire reddit thread on this. What is in question is if it is intentional. I think it is not and in that repect I think the game designers did a poor job with this (and many other things in 2024).

 

[Maxperson]

The action's (it is not a spell) specific language does not say it allows you to succeed at Dex saves while Paralyzed from the Crawler Poison nor that you can succeed at this particular dex save while Paralyzed in such a way. If it did you would be right, but it does not say that.

So in your mind the designer was like, "There's no way to make a dex save, but just for kicks and confusion I'm going not only put one in, but I'm going to include language about what happens when you succeed. Muahahahahahaha!"?

Language like that is only included if it works. Because it talks about not only a dex save while paralyzed, but what happens when you succeed, it means you can succeed.

Also to be clear this is a save against being Poisoned, not a save against being Paralyzed and it is possible to make it if for some reason you are not Paralyzed or something breaks your Paralyzed condition.

There is no clarity there. Poison, paralyzation, fireball, it doesn't matter what the save is against. It says you can make a dex save vs. its ability and succeed.

Paralyzing Tentacles. Dexterity Saving Throw: DC 12, one creature the carrion crawler can see within 10 feet. Failure: The target has the Poisoned condition and repeats the save at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself on a success. After 1 minute, it succeeds automatically. While Poisoned, the target has the Paralyzed condition.

I bolded the portion that would not be there at all if you were correct. It's inclusion means that you get save and can suceed. I underlined the portion allowing success.

It is a dex saving throw, not a dex check and the wording does have language about success:

Acid Breath (Recharge 5–6). Dexterity Saving Throw: DC 22, each creature in a 90-foot-long, 10-foot-wide Line. Failure: 67 (15d8) Acid damage. Success: Half damage.

Doesn't matter if it was a smelly foot check that used dex. There is no language there that allows it to happen while paralyzed, unlike the carrion crawler ability.

 

[Maxperson]

First off I don't. The mechanics are clear if you know the rules and there is no contridiction.

Further I am not sure the 5E "specfic beats general" principle still applies since I don't even think this is in the 2024 rules.

It applies 100%. They have said both editions are in full force simultaneously and we can use any rules we want from either one. That's what it means when they claim it's all 5e. If those rules were not in force, 5.5e could not possibly be 5e.

 

[Maxperson]

No only for one minute or earlier if someone ends the poisoned or paralyzed condition.

Or they make a successful dex save at the end of their turn per the more specific carrion crawler RAW. You can argue until you are blue in the face and that more specific RAW will not disappear.