Missing Rules

[Maxperson]

There is a different between clear rules and ambiguous rules and between reading and hostile reading.

There was no "hostile" reading. "Hostile" just a buzzword you are using.

My reading is as it is written. It has two opposing rules. One says each magic missile targets a creature. The other says several creatures. You and I(assume you anyway) have the advantage of having played the game before, so we are aware of what Magic Missile is intended to do. New players are extremely unlikely to be on forums or twitter, or look online for errata. If [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION]'s completely unsubstantiated claim that 50% of the people who play 5e are new players to the game, there are a lot of people who are going to be confused by the contradiction in the Magic Missile rules.

 

[Maxperson]

When thinking about what the words for Jumping and Athletics literally entail, I am thinking about RAW. In that mode I don't consider what the designer intends: only what the words on the page imply. What confounds our debates somewhat is a tendency to drift between RAW, RAI and RAF. People sometimes jump on the catchphrase "rulings not rules" and wave it as a flag to somehow prove that they can never be wrong. No one can be wrong under RAF (well, unless they aren't having fun I suppose), but anyone can be wrong under RAW and RAI. I have been myself... recently! Consider an example, does anyone think that "cover a number of feet" in Jumping means your character spreads out thinly like a blanket, to cover that whole distance? Likely not, and the reason is that words can have a settled meaning given context.

"Rulings not rules" calls our attention to the DM as a bridge between what is defined, and what can be imagined.

For me, Rulings not Rules comes about because, as I mentioned before, the game is rife with contradictions and vague statements. Just look at all of the rules debates this edition has spawned and the myriad of ways people are reading it. It's worse than 3e in that regard!!

Personally, since I'm cynical sometimes, I think that the designers realized how much they had to correct in the edition and instead of doing that, coined the term "Rulings over rules" to cover themselves. That's just a personal opinion though. I really don't have anything back that up other than how often they've messed up in the past.

 

[Mistwell]

Huh?

 

[Maxperson]

Huh?

Was it [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]? Pretty sure one of you two came up with that one and refused to back the claim up.

 

[Oofta]

For me, Rulings not Rules comes about because, as I mentioned before, the game is rife with contradictions and vague statements. Just look at all of the rules debates this edition has spawned and the myriad of ways people are reading it. It's worse than 3e in that regard!!

Personally, since I'm cynical sometimes, I think that the designers realized how much they had to correct in the edition and instead of doing that, coined the term "Rulings over rules" to cover themselves. That's just a personal opinion though. I really don't have anything back that up other than how often they've messed up in the past.

I have no idea what "rife with contradictions" you're talking about. There's a fair amount left to DM discretion and leeway to run different types of games. They didn't try to codify every nook and cranny of the rules because it's a never-ending rabbit hole of clarifications. I understand that doesn't work for some people, but it seems to work for a whole heck of a lot of people.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Was it [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]? Pretty sure one of you two came up with that one and refused to back the claim up.

Really not sure which of the three of us you're insulting here, but someone should probably be upset!

 

[Maxperson]

I have no idea what "rife with contradictions" you're talking about. There's a fair amount left to DM discretion and leeway to run different types of games. They didn't try to codify every nook and cranny of the rules because it's a never-ending rabbit hole of clarifications. I understand that doesn't work for some people, but it seems to work for a whole heck of a lot of people.

Everywhere you look there is vagueness or sometimes, contradiction. It's fine. I love that sort of game. However, it does pose problems when discussing RAW.

 

[Maxperson]

Really not sure which of the three of us you're insulting here, but someone should probably be upset!

Three of us? Oh my god! I've insulted myself!!! No, wait. Nobody was insulted. Pretty sure it was Mistwell who made the claim and refused to provide any backing whatsoever for it, though. Without backing, that claim means about as much as claiming 50% of new players are aliens from Omicron Persei 8.

 

[Hriston]

Here’s an expanded chart for those who like lots of granularity in their TotM.
[table="width: 500"]
[tr]
[td]DC[/td]
[td]running long jump[/td]
[td]standing long jump[/td]
[td]running high jump[/td]
[td]standing high jump[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]4[/td]
[td]4 feet[/td]
[td]2 feet[/td]
[td]—[/td]
[td]—[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]5[/td]
[td]5 feet[/td]
[td]2 feet 6 inches[/td]
[td]6 inches[/td]
[td]3 inches[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]6[/td]
[td]6 feet[/td]
[td]3 feet[/td]
[td]1 foot[/td]
[td]6 inches[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]7[/td]
[td]7 feet[/td]
[td]3 feet 6 inches[/td]
[td]1 foot 6 inches[/td]
[td]9 inches[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]8[/td]
[td]8 feet[/td]
[td]4 feet[/td]
[td]2 feet[/td]
[td]1 foot[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]9[/td]
[td]9 feet[/td]
[td]4 feet 6 inches[/td]
[td]2 feet 6 inches[/td]
[td]1 foot 3 inches[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]10[/td]
[td]10 feet[/td]
[td]5 feet[/td]
[td]3 feet[/td]
[td]1 foot 6 inches[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]11[/td]
[td]11 feet[/td]
[td]5 feet 6 inches[/td]
[td]3 feet 6 inches[/td]
[td]1 foot 9 inches[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]12[/td]
[td]12 feet[/td]
[td]6 feet[/td]
[td]4 feet[/td]
[td]2 feet[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]13[/td]
[td]13 feet[/td]
[td]6 feet 6 inches[/td]
[td]4 feet 6 inches[/td]
[td]2 feet 3 inches[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]14[/td]
[td]14 feet[/td]
[td]7 feet[/td]
[td]5 feet[/td]
[td]2 feet 6 inches[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]15[/td]
[td]15 feet[/td]
[td]7 feet 6 inches[/td]
[td]5 feet 6 inches[/td]
[td]2 feet 9 inches[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]16[/td]
[td]16 feet[/td]
[td]8 feet[/td]
[td]6 feet[/td]
[td]3 feet[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]17[/td]
[td]17 feet[/td]
[td]8 feet 6 inches[/td]
[td]6 feet 6 inches[/td]
[td]3 feet 3 inches[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]18[/td]
[td]18 feet[/td]
[td]9 feet[/td]
[td]7 feet[/td]
[td]3 feet 6 inches[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]19[/td]
[td]19 feet[/td]
[td]9 feet 6 inches[/td]
[td]7 feet 6 inches[/td]
[td]3 feet 9 inches[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]20[/td]
[td]20 feet[/td]
[td]10 feet[/td]
[td]8 feet[/td]
[td]4 feet[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]21[/td]
[td]21 feet[/td]
[td]10 feet 6 inches[/td]
[td]8 feet 6 inches[/td]
[td]4 feet 3 inches[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]22[/td]
[td]22 feet[/td]
[td]11 feet[/td]
[td]9 feet[/td]
[td]4 feet 6 inches[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]23[/td]
[td]23 feet[/td]
[td]11 feet 6 inches[/td]
[td]9 feet 6 inches[/td]
[td]4 feet 9 inches[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]24[/td]
[td]24 feet[/td]
[td]12 feet[/td]
[td]10 feet[/td]
[td]5 feet[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]25[/td]
[td]25 feet[/td]
[td]12 feet 6 inches[/td]
[td]10 feet 6 inches[/td]
[td]5 feet 3 inches[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]26[/td]
[td]26 feet[/td]
[td]13 feet[/td]
[td]11 feet[/td]
[td]5 feet 6 inches[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]27[/td]
[td]27 feet[/td]
[td]13 feet 6 inches[/td]
[td]11 feet 6 inches[/td]
[td]5 feet 9 inches[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]28[/td]
[td]28 feet[/td]
[td]14 feet[/td]
[td]12 feet[/td]
[td]6 feet[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]29[/td]
[td]29 feet[/td]
[td]14 feet 6 inches[/td]
[td]12 feet 6 inches[/td]
[td]6 feet 3 inches[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]30[/td]
[td]30 feet[/td]
[td]15 feet[/td]
[td]13 feet[/td]
[td]6 feet 6 inches[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

You only have to roll if the distance exceeds the distance of your normal jump.

This chart allows PCs to exceed current world records, but not by too much (except maybe in the running high jump).

 

[clearstream]

For me, Rulings not Rules comes about because, as I mentioned before, the game is rife with contradictions and vague statements. Just look at all of the rules debates this edition has spawned and the myriad of ways people are reading it. It's worse than 3e in that regard!!

I think it's just that more people are accessing forums these days, so debate is more evident. Every group I met using 3e had running debates on rules issues. I love 3e, but previous editions are on the whole less well written than 5e. What's changed is that 5e gives characters far more that they can try and do. This leads to highly varied play at the table, and more places where a ruling is needed. Rules and rulings: that's 5e. But it was always so.

Personally, since I'm cynical sometimes, I think that the designers realized how much they had to correct in the edition and instead of doing that, coined the term "Rulings over rules" to cover themselves. That's just a personal opinion though. I really don't have anything back that up other than how often they've messed up in the past.

I don't think so at all, but where does that phrase come from? Perhaps the context will help us.