D&D 5E Magic Missile vs. Mirror Image

[Arial Black]

And this is why I hate Twitter...

First, Jeremy could have cleared things up a lot by saying, "No, a spell can't hit an object if it only targets creatures." That would be a lot clearer. But he seems to have an aversion to using "Yes" or "No".

Second, there is no explanation as to why eldritch blast or ray of frost can't hit an object.

Third, this is no description of how a caster is prevented from targeting an invalid target. Does the spell just fail? Does a mysterious force impede his casting? Does the spell go off and hit, but just has no effect?

We have no idea! Because a complete answer can't be given in 140 characters or less!

So frustrating!

Amen.

 

[Yunru]

Amen.

But 'forums are a thing of the past, anything that needs to be said can be done via social media', right?

 

[Arial Black]

But 'forums are a thing of the past, anything that needs to be said can be done via social media', right?

???

You've lost me! Where does that quote come from?

BTW, I'm relatively new to forums (although I enjoy the few I'm on), and avoid social media like the plague.

 

[Yunru]

???

You've lost me! Where does that quote come from?

BTW, I'm relatively new to forums (although I enjoy the few I'm on), and avoid social media like the plague.

It was the excuse Hasbro gave to shutting down their MtG and DnD forums. It's clearly just because they don't want to admit it's purely money-saving but yeah, rubbish excuse is rubbish.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

But 'forums are a thing of the past, anything that needs to be said can be done via social media', right?

Anything that needs to be said can be done via social media.

That's true, even with this instances of some (not all) people not finding Jeremy Crawford's statements to be clear enough - because there is no guarantee that being allowed to use more than 140 characters would make Crawford change the phrasing of his posts in such a way that those not already finding them clear would find them clear. Most clearly illustrated by that the recent complaint was not that he hadn't said enough, but that he said something more verbose than the required "No."

In that particular example, I think the fault actually lies in the question asked including a second part in asking "...or is the phrasing intentional?" that would have made a simple answer of "No." seem self-contradicting if applied to both parts of the question - though, yes, Crawford would have been more clear by saying "The phrasing is intentional," rather than choosing to use a synonymous phrase that also covered the reverse circumstance of spells that say "object" and how they can't target creatures.

And even after all of that, there will still be complaints along the lines of not having been given a proper explanation as to why the rules say what they do, and that's not a new consequence of the devs only using social media to communicate - it's a long-time truth that most devs just aren't spending the required amount of time sitting online talking about the game with the fans (presumably because they are busy making or playing the game and living their lives).

 

[Lord Twig]

Anything that needs to be said can be done via social media.

That's true, even with this instances of some (not all) people not finding Jeremy Crawford's statements to be clear enough - because there is no guarantee that being allowed to use more than 140 characters would make Crawford change the phrasing of his posts in such a way that those not already finding them clear would find them clear. Most clearly illustrated by that the recent complaint was not that he hadn't said enough, but that he said something more verbose than the required "No."

In that particular example, I think the fault actually lies in the question asked including a second part in asking "...or is the phrasing intentional?" that would have made a simple answer of "No." seem self-contradicting if applied to both parts of the question - though, yes, Crawford would have been more clear by saying "The phrasing is intentional," rather than choosing to use a synonymous phrase that also covered the reverse circumstance of spells that say "object" and how they can't target creatures.

And even after all of that, there will still be complaints along the lines of not having been given a proper explanation as to why the rules say what they do, and that's not a new consequence of the devs only using social media to communicate - it's a long-time truth that most devs just aren't spending the required amount of time sitting online talking about the game with the fans (presumably because they are busy making or playing the game and living their lives).

What you are missing is that the question can only be 140 characters as well. This prevents us from asking a question with a full explanation of what we are trying to determine and examples of play where it might come up. So yes, the simple question could have been answered with a "No, the phrasing is intentional." A more complete question would have asked why it was the case or not, and how that would play out in an actual game.

Instead we get conversations like this: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0337.html

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

What you are missing is that the question can only be 140 characters as well. This prevents us from asking a question with a full explanation of what we are trying to determine and examples of play where it might come up. So yes, the simple question could have been answered with a "No, the phrasing is intentional." A more complete question would have asked why it was the case or not, and how that would play out in an actual game.

Instead we get conversations like this: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0337.html

Exaggerated characterization aside, I've never seen a question that was phrased in a way that it needed further explanation to be fully understood and answered that couldn't also have been phrased in a more brief and more clear form.

And we are comparing false-equivalents at this point anyway - the truth is that we had forums that WotC staff basically never visited so they basically never answered questions there regardless of the phrasing or clarity of those questions, and now we have social media on which WotC staff are actually accessible, available, and providing answers on an almost daily basis.

There is no, and hasn't been in a very long time, this theoretical forum in which longer more explained questions are answered by the WotC staff.

 

[Lord Twig]

Exaggerated characterization aside, I've never seen a question that was phrased in a way that it needed further explanation to be fully understood and answered that couldn't also have been phrased in a more brief and more clear form.

And we are comparing false-equivalents at this point anyway - the truth is that we had forums that WotC staff basically never visited so they basically never answered questions there regardless of the phrasing or clarity of those questions, and now we have social media on which WotC staff are actually accessible, available, and providing answers on an almost daily basis.

There is no, and hasn't been in a very long time, this theoretical forum in which longer more explained questions are answered by the WotC staff.

And I did not say, or have ever said, that they did.

I did say that Paizo manged to do a good job of it, and still do to the best of my knowledge. The fact that WotC apparently can't is a problem.

And I disagree with your first statement. There have been many rule clarification tweets that have erupted into arguments, with each side claiming it supported their interpretation of the rules precisely because of the brief and vague answer given.

And this very thread has an example of a tweet that is somewhat vague and incomplete. Sure we can say with most likely a greater than 90% probability that spells that target creatures can only target creatures, but that is not actually what he said. He said, "If the text says "creature" or "object," it means creature or object." He did not say only a creature or object. We have to infer the only part.

And even if he had included the "only", which he could have and still been under 140 characters, we still wouldn't know why or how it would play out in a game. And that explanation definitely wouldn't fit in under 140 characters.

So yes, Twitter is still better than nothing, but it is a whole lot less than they could be doing.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

There have been many rule clarification tweets that have erupted into arguments, with each side claiming it supported their interpretation of the rules precisely because of the brief and vague answer given.

That isn't magically prevented by longer answers which, again, have no guarantee of being less vague. People will argue about the rules even if the designers specifically and clearly tell them their stance is wrong. All that changes is whether the complaint is "these answers are vague" or "these designers don't know what is good for the game"

And this very thread has an example of a tweet that is somewhat vague and incomplete. Sure we can say with most likely a greater than 90% probability that spells that target creatures can only target creatures, but that is not actually what he said. He said, "If the text says "creature" or "object," it means creature or object." He did not say only a creature or object. We have to infer the only part.

The tweet in question reads as explicit to me, thanks to context provided by the asked question. There really isn't any other meaning to be taken from the words Crawford used than that the wording is deliberate when a spell says "creature" instead of some other word that might be more broadly applicable.

Others might insist the answer is vague, but I expect that is just because they do not like the answer so they choose not to accept it.

And that explanation definitely wouldn't fit in under 140 characters.

That explanation is also something that isn't actually needed, no matter how much someone might like to have it - they can play the game as-is without it (I do, haven't even bothered to consider why spells work they way they do), or provide their own explanation which will be more suitable to them and their group than anything WotC could hope to provide.

So yes, Twitter is still better than nothing, but it is a whole lot less than they could be doing.

It's not just "better than nothing", it's better than it has ever been.

But then, I consider the fact that forums in which designers discuss the game with the fans invariably include people insulting the designers and/or arguing with them over their own rules (because they don't like the answer given, and are trying to convince the designer to make the answer they would like official) to be a massive stroke in the "against" column - so I don't see your example of Paizo (where I have personally seen the behaviors I mention here) as being better off in any way than the WotC contact via social media situation.

Yes, I know that people might be offensive and argumentative at 140 characters a pop - but it takes them a lot more effort and is a lot easier to ignore without just ignoring everything, and because most people are using social media for reasons outside of talking about gaming, there is more perceived disincentive to being a jerk because it's not just the gaming portion of your life that will see how you choose to behave.

But sure, there theoretically could be some better situation than the current - literally best we've ever had - situation, so let's all be smarmy and dismissive like the post that started me in on this topic and pretend it's not unreasonable.

 

[Lord Twig]

I don't have a Twitter account and don't intend to get one, but I do appreciate when someone posts an official Twitter response to a question. Sometimes it is a simple question with a simple answer, and that's enough. Other times it really isn't though.

Indeed, sometimes WotC does say more. They will take questions from Twitter and elaborate on the answer in an Unearthed Arcana. And they elaborate in Unearthed Arcana because they sure can't do it in Twitter.

Anyway, I'm glad you get what you need out of their Twitter responses. I would just like a little more.