D&D 5E Is it houseruling to let a torch set fire to things?

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[pemerton]

It seems to me, that we 'demand' (used extremely loosely) that in this instance the mechanics and fiction must interact in an RPG in a logical way and that the explanation of 'it's magic' is rather weak, but somehow we seem to loosen the reins when it comes to DOAM and the Warlord's screaming-healing powers.

You have "demand" in inverted commas, but it seems to me that you should have "we" in inverted commas.

The relationship between fiction and mechanics for DoaM and for inspirational healing (which in 4e is not just the warlord, but all surge-based healing where another character triggers the surge use) is quite straightforward to me, and rests on the principles for hit points (and related notions like the attack roll and the saving throw) set out by Gygax on pp 61 and 80-82 of his DMG.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm interested in the more general question of the relationship between mechanics, fiction, and adjudication of action resolution. I think that key to a RPG (as opposed to a board game or CCG) is that the fiction and mechanics interact, so that if a certain outcome is mechanically mandated than the fiction must somehow accomodate and express that; and if a certain state of affairs is known to be true in the fiction (eg a spell created a great ball of flame) then the outcomes resulting from mechanics must conform to that prior fiction.

I... how do you possibly reconcile this statement with your defense of LOL, who clearly violates the central argument here by absolutely divorcing the fiction from the mechanics to the point of having her fiction run directly counter to the mechanics.

 

[pemerton]

I... how do you possibly reconcile this statement with your defense of LOL, who clearly violates the central argument here by absolutely divorcing the fiction from the mechanics to the point of having her fiction run directly counter to the mechanics.

Per me, post 344: "if a certain state of affairs is known to be true in the fiction . . . then the outcomes resulting from mechanics must conform to that prior fiction." In the case of Eloelle, we know something to be true in the fiction - she is a genius who is precluded from deploying her genius by the instructions of her patron, to whom she accedes. Hence the outcomes resulting from mechanics must conform to that fiction. Also, "if a certain outcome is mechanically mandated than the fiction must somehow accommodate and express that" - in the case of Eloelle, the mechanically mandated outcome is that she not deploy or act on any better information than any other character with an INT of 5.

The only times this causes any real complexity is when a mechanical effect (some sort of compulsion or mind-reading effect, such as Zone of Truth) purports to give direct access to the contents of Eloelle's mind without it being mediated by her voluntary choice of what to disclose. But it is easy enough for the fiction of such effects to accommodate and express the mechanical mandate (resulting from the 5 INT) in a way which also conforms to the established fiction of Eloelle's thwarted genius: if the player rolls and fails the save against the effect then Eloelle shares all the ignorance and nonsense that her patron has obliged her to speak; and in the fiction this is the result of her patron's intercession to blunt the full force of the effect.

This is a high degree of fortune-in-the-middle (or if not exactly that, some similar principle of narrative flexibility) but it doesn't involve any disregard of fictional positioning, or treating fireball's flames as "pseudo-flames".

 

[Ovinomancer]

Per me, post 344: "if a certain state of affairs is known to be true in the fiction . . . then the outcomes resulting from mechanics must conform to that prior fiction." In the case of Eloelle, we know something to be true in the fiction - she is a genius who is precluded from deploying her genius by the instructions of her patron, to whom she accedes. Hence the outcomes resulting from mechanics must conform to that fiction. Also, "if a certain outcome is mechanically mandated than the fiction must somehow accommodate and express that" - in the case of Eloelle, the mechanically mandated outcome is that she not deploy or act on any better information than any other character with an INT of 5.

The only times this causes any real complexity is when a mechanical effect (some sort of compulsion or mind-reading effect, such as Zone of Truth) purports to give direct access to the contents of Eloelle's mind without it being mediated by her voluntary choice of what to disclose. But it is easy enough for the fiction of such effects to accommodate and express the mechanical mandate (resulting from the 5 INT) in a way which also conforms to the established fiction of Eloelle's thwarted genius: if the player rolls and fails the save against the effect then Eloelle shares all the ignorance and nonsense that her patron has obliged her to speak; and in the fiction this is the result of her patron's intercession to blunt the full force of the effect.

This is a high degree of fortune-in-the-middle (or if not exactly that, some similar principle of narrative flexibility) but it doesn't involve any disregard of fictional positioning, or treating fireball's flames as "pseudo-flames".

Except that LOL expressly narrates against the failed INT check to begin with -- that's the starting condition, not the following ZoT that causes the mechanical break you're alluding to here. And, in the post above, you expressly state that, "if a certain outcome is mechanically mandated than the fiction must somehow accomodate [sic] and express that...." LOL does not accommodate or express the outcome of the failed INT check, she narrates directly opposite it, as in, "I really know/solved that puzzle/figured out the riddle, I'm just not telling the answer." This is the break that fails your statements above. Unless, of course, you're using non-standard definitions of 'accommodate' and 'express.' Your choice of response skips over this and jumps directly to the part where that fiction is established and your bending other mechanics around the fiction.

 

[Imaro]

But the general object damage rules (SRD, p 87; Basic PDF, p 66) expressly state that:

Characters can also damage objects with their weapons and spells. Objects are immune to poison and psychic damage, but otherwise they can be affected by physical and magical attacks much like creatures can.​

But this says objects can be affected by physical and magical attacks much like creatures can... Creatures can only be affected by spells that specifically target creatures... right? So that seems to back up the assertion that a spell has to specifically target objects in order to affect them... While weapon attacks don't have that restriction. I also think this may be part of the effort to reign in magic vs. mundane in 5e as it gives weapons more versatility while reducing that of spells.

 

[seebs]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], [MENTION=61529]seebs[/MENTION]:

You seem to be assuming that "dispel" in the Sunburst spell description means "dispel magical effect". I think [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s point is that "dispel" is more naturally read as having its ordinary meaning (to drive off or bring to an end). In this sense, Sunburst will dispel natural darkness, if only for a moment. Which appears to contradict the "exclusionary"/"preclusionary" principle

Yes, I am assuming that the term of art the game rules use exclusively to refer to a specific thing you can do to spells is being used to refer to a specific thing you can do to spells, and no, I don't think it is "more naturally" read as having its ordinary meaning. It says it dispels certain spells. That's what it means.

I can't even take the claim that you think that's "more natural" seriously. It's explicitly talking about spells. It says so.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's a strange logic. Natural darkness isn't something that exists of itself; it is the absence of light sources.

Well, sure, if you believe in 'science.' ::scoff::

But, in a universe where the elements each hang out in their own extra-dimensional club, and those include the 'negative material plane' opposite the 'positive material plane' that's full of light, not to mention a plane of shadow. Well, maybe darkness is a thing, not just an absence of a thing.

And, hey, if that sounds crazy, consider that's what people actually believed just a few centuries ago (not in the D&D style negative material plane, but that darkness was a presence, not an absence).

 

[delericho]

Well, sure, if you believe in 'science.' ::scoff::

Or the bit in the rules that reads, "The presence or absence of light in an environment creates three categories of illumination: bright light, dim light, and darkness."

 

[Sadras]

You have "demand" in inverted commas, but it seems to me that you should have "we" in inverted commas.

No, because I don't have a problem with DoaM or Surge Healing.

The relationship between fiction and mechanics for DoaM and for inspirational healing (which in 4e is not just the warlord, but all surge-based healing where another character triggers the surge use) is quite straightforward to me, and rests on the principles for hit points (and related notions like the attack roll and the saving throw) set out by Gygax on pp 61 and 80-82 of his DMG.

But not on the principles as set out by Gygax under the paragraphs 'Zero Hit Points' or the 'Recovery of Hit Points' which would mean you select, as is your choice to, which Hit Point principles you choose to follow/accept.