New FAQ: What's different/added?

[Artoomis]

The FAQ serves several purpose, I think:

1. "Officially" clarifies the rules - which of course only matters for things like "official" games like RPGA tournaments and the like. For this purpose it might be clarifying or even adding or changing rules- either way it is offical, whether or not it follows what it really is supposed to do or not.

2. Helps provide a consistent set of rules across games, which can be very helpful for those who play in more than one game, or for games with rotating DMs.

3. Gives advice that one may accept or reject about certain aspects of the game that may be less than claar form the rules. In this sense it is "offical" advice, but is not meant to tell you how to run your own D&D games.

So, the FAQ is most certainly part of the "official" rules, for whatever that's worth. Certainly it has been wrong, and I think is wrong even now in a couple of places, but that makes it no less "official."

Take it or leave it, that's an individual decision, but it always has a place in any discussion about "offical" rules.

Among other things, the FAQ, from a rules debate perspective, creates yet another reason why many rules debates really end up with more than one "correct" answer, however much both sides may not want to admit it.

 

[Felix]

1. "Officially" clarifies the rules - which of course only matters for things like "official" games like RPGA tournaments and the like. For this purpose it might be clarifying or even adding or changing rules- either way it is offical, whether or not it follows what it really is supposed to do or not.

2. Helps provide a consistent set of rules across games, which can be very helpful for those who play in more than one game, or for games with rotating DMs.

It does not help the FAQ's case when it contradicts itself. Which official answer is official? Or perhaps the FAQ is written in Doublethink, where one may hold two conflicting ideas simultaneously to be true.

 

[tomBitonti]

Choice of frame of reference

There is another matter that allowing teleport *between* selected frames of references causes. *If* teleport can handle speed changes on the order of 100 mph, then not only should it be able to get you still relative to a target location, but it should be able to set you in motion at a target location as well.

So, pick a nearby Cow (sorry Bessie) (that you have somehow led into a dungeon ) and teleport them 10' to be in front of an opponent, but moving at 100 mph towards said opponent. (Or, above them, plummeting downwards.) Splat?!

I don't see any clear way out of this predicament. Either you go splat when teleporting between frames where your local environment is moving relative to the target environment, or you don't go splat, but could choose to by careful definition of the target frame. Or, the spell adjucates several difficult decisions when adjusting for the target location. (Say, teleporting to a spot 10' above an airship moving at about 50 mph. Is the target reference frame relative to the ground, or relative to the airship?)

 

[mvincent]

There is another matter that allowing teleport *between* selected frames of references causes. *If* teleport can handle speed changes on the order of 100 mph, then not only should it be able to get you still relative to a target location, but it should be able to set you in motion at a target location as well.

Magic is not science. Rather it is an art. The end result is generally based on belief rather than what should be possible (i.e. it is more inline with the "thought is the basis of all reality" theory rather than hard-core physics).

 

[Plane Sailing]

I find it difficult that anyone would research a teleport spell which didn't just put you safely where you wanted to be (within the normal teleportation hazards).

teleportation and momentum would be a fine issue to discuss (or pontificate upon) in a sci-fi setting, but in a fantasy setting? It just doesn't make sense.

 

[mvincent]

I find it difficult that anyone would research a teleport spell which didn't just put you safely where you wanted to be (within the normal teleportation hazards).

They might well have, but the common/easiest one (i.e. the one that likely corresponds the commoners belief of how teleportation works) evidently just puts you at your destination exactly as you were.

Their are doubtless others that have been made that alter or improve you (or your condition) in some way, but they are likely harder to cast.

(yes: this is all just providing an in-game explanation of an arbitrary game mechanic concept, but that appears to be what you were looking for. While I too didn't like the Sages explanation at first, I'd like think I have the imagination to cope.)

 

[Felix]

I'd like think I have the imagination to cope.

One shouldn't have to construct explanations for the Sage when he is purportedly providing a clarification of the rules, especially when the ruling he makes is groundless as well as arbitrary.

And the logical conclusion to your post is that such non momentium-transferring teleportation spells do exist. If they are higher level, then there exists a Dimension Door that protects you from falls is now 5th level. If they are not higher level, then the *splat* Door will fall into disuse. Or perhaps it's propogated through cursed scrolls written by evil wizards who want other wizards to suffer falling damage. :\ Maybe you'd like those pecularities in your game, but neither of them add anything beneficial for me.

 

[mvincent]

One shouldn't have to construct explanations for the Sage

And yet you insist on them anyway, challenging anything that doesn't fit your viewpoint, even if it possibly fits the viewpoint of a large percentage (or in many cases; the majority) of players.

 

[Felix]

And yet you insist on them anyway, challenging anything that doesn't fit your viewpoint, even if it possibly fits the viewpoint of a large percentage (or in many cases; the majority) of players.

Shall I challenge something that doesn't fit your viewpoint instead? Shall I poll other gamers, "This doesn't make sense to me, but I want to make sure I'm in the majority before I question it"? Whence comes your rancor?

What do I insist upon? That FAQ rulings be based in the rules? Should they not be? This ruling is not based upon the rules present, but rather upon the absence of them. It makes a statement that cannot be defended by existing rules text, only by its own existance. How does this make sense?

Insist upon a flavor explanation? If a ruling is not based upon the text then no amount of flavor explanation will make it grounded in the rules; it will remain fluff. This is not necessarily a bad thing except when flavor is paraded as game mechanics. I rather enjoy flavorful spell descriptions, but they are not rules, and something in the flavor descriptions won't stop a caster from completing the spell when he would otherwise be able to do so.

Had the sage, or the FAQ, noted, "There are no rules for this, so it is up to the DM." and then continued with ways the DM could rule, I'd applaud. It is not a bad thing to make clear what the rules don't cover; it is one purpose of eratta to establish rules where there was no rule before; I don't think they cover Teleportation momentum, but if you can show them to me, I'll apologize for undue antagonism.

 

[mvincent]

Shall I challenge something that doesn't fit your viewpoint instead?

As mentioned, the ruling didn't fit my viewpoint, but I didn't challenge because it did not explicitly contradict the rules, and it was not completely unreasonable. Had it been in the core rules themselves, I would not have had issue with it (there are certainly odder things in the core rules). I just want a ruling.

Shall I poll other gamers, "This doesn't make sense to me, but I want to make sure I'm in the majority before I question it"?

I actually like the polls here (even though some people still ignore them if they don't correspond to their own beliefs). In the absences of other rulings, they can help resolve things.

Whence comes your rancor?

From yours.

I could describe how the constant protests make someone seem to me, but I'm guessing there would be no point. Maybe we could have a poll?