D&D 5E On FAQs and Twitter

[brehobit]

There's no ambiguity as far as I'm concerned. Both the rules and common sense indicate "yes" to the former and "no" to the latter.

I agree, but that's not what the Twitter call was. It was exactly the opposite in fact.

Well, I think there is some ambiguity--apparently a shield can count as a holy symbol. And you can use the hand that holds a material component for semantic gestures. I'd probably allow that (I think it's the intent of the "shields as holy symbols" rule), but I'd be fine with not.

In order to argue otherwise, you have to take a very unintuitive, semantically tortured approach to the rules. This is exactly the kind of approach you are not supposed to take in 5th edition, which means that is the argument that must be incorrect.

I get why this makes you uncomfortable, really I do, but the fact is, that's just the kind of game 5th edition is. I hope you can find a way to get good with it, because a lot of people feel this makes the game a lot stronger, not weaker.

I would like them to have been really explicit here--there's no good reason not to have been. You could argue that it's obvious, but the designer is coming down on the opposite side you are. So I think that's a pretty strong indication that it's not obvious. Or that the Twitter-clarifications could use more thought... Both of which I think are the case. And in fact the point of the thread.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

There are plenty of unclear bits of the PHB that shouldn't come down to DM fiat, not because the DM is a tyrant bound only by the law of the rulebook, but because it's inconvenient to require his intercession in basic stuff.

Like, the PHB is unclear whether a level 5 warlock with 16 charisma and agonizing blast deals 2d10+3 or 2d10+6 damage with his eldritch blast. Slightly better wording would have made this a non-issue. As it is, the DM has no real basis for making a ruling other than his vague guess at which is more "balanced." But honestly it's not his job to balance the basic game mechanics; that's why we're paying for a rulebook made by professionals who have done all the excel voodoo to make sure classes are balanced.

Mearls has said repeatedly that a big goal of this edition is to make DMing easier and more inviting. Expecting the DM to have an extensive knowledge of all the game rules AND the system math behind it just so that he can tell a player how his spell is intended to work does not serve that goal.

 

[Mistwell]

That's not what subsequent means. It's not "the next" round, but any round that follows, be it the next one or a round 3 hours from now.

Depends on which definition you look at. I picked the first two that came up in a Google search.

Google says:

coming after something in time; following. synonyms: following, ensuing, succeeding, later, future, coming, to come, next.

Webster says:

following in time, order, or place.

For me, my read of it is that it follows, but only in time, order, or place. In this case the "time" frame in question is "turn". So, the following time (turn). Or, if looking at "following in order", the orderly thing is "turns", IE the turn that comes in order after the last turn. And finally "following in place", if you were to line up a series of turns, the one that follows the turn that triggers is the next turn in place.

So by any read I can think of for that Webster's definition, it's the next turn.

The Google definition includes many things, but in particular I looked at succeeding and next, both of which imply the turn right after the triggering turn. A turn that comes at a random point after hundreds of other turns is not the succeeding or next turn.

Overall, I think it's one reasonable way to read that sentence, that a subsequent turn means a next turn following in time, order, or place. IE, the next/succeeding turn after the triggering turn.

It also helps that it makes more sense in context. You don't hold a target spell target-less for hours, particularly not a curse. You're supposed to be re-directing your "bewitchment", not sitting around juggling it for hours contemplating the possibility you will curse someone with your existing curse at some point in the future.

And of course we now have the author of the rule telling us what his intent was for the rule, which also helps.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I'd really appreciate it if, once the DMG is done, we get a decent FAQ/errata.

FYI Jeremy Crawford confirmed on twitter yesterday that an official FAQ was on the way!


@JeremyECrawford An official FAQ is in the works!

 

[wedgeski]

We should always treat Twitter (and the like) for what it is: a quick thought in a throw-away medium.

As soon as people get in the "gotcha" business, the designers will simply retreat into their formal communication channels and everything will become slow and sanitised and we'll just start complaining about the lack of community engagement. Let them be human beings and we'll have all the community engagement we like.

 

[Morrus]

We should always treat Twitter (and the like) for what it is: a quick thought in a throw-away medium.

It's basically a global chatroom where you decide who you want to see. A big, continuous conversation where you see what's being said right now, rather than what was said yesterday.

 

[Joe Liker]

Depends on which definition you look at. I picked the first two that came up in a Google search.

Google says:

coming after something in time; following. synonyms: following, ensuing, succeeding, later, future, coming, to come, next.

Webster says:

following in time, order, or place.

For me, my read of it is that it follows, but only in time, order, or place. In this case the "time" frame in question is "turn". So, the following time (turn). Or, if looking at "following in order", the orderly thing is "turns", IE the turn that comes in order after the last turn. And finally "following in place", if you were to line up a series of turns, the one that follows the turn that triggers is the next turn in place.

So by any read I can think of for that Webster's definition, it's the next turn.

The Google definition includes many things, but in particular I looked at succeeding and next, both of which imply the turn right after the triggering turn. A turn that comes at a random point after hundreds of other turns is not the succeeding or next turn.

Overall, I think it's one reasonable way to read that sentence, that a subsequent turn means a next turn following in time, order, or place. IE, the next/succeeding turn after the triggering turn.

It also helps that it makes more sense in context. You don't hold a target spell target-less for hours, particularly not a curse. You're supposed to be re-directing your "bewitchment", not sitting around juggling it for hours contemplating the possibility you will curse someone with your existing curse at some point in the future.

And of course we now have the author of the rule telling us what his intent was for the rule, which also helps.

First, Google is not a dictionary. Second, the second half of that Google "definition" is a list of synonyms and related words from a thesaurus, which is not remotely the same as a definition.

"Following" means "coming after." Period. It does not carry any additional connotation about how soon it comes after, or whether other things occur in between.

EDIT: I just realized maybe it's the article ("a" versus "the") that is throwing you off. When we use a definite article ("the"), we are referring to a specific instance of a thing. In the case of "the following X," we sensibly take it to mean the very next X in line. But that is because the article forces us to narrow it down to a single instance of X, not because "following" inherently requires any such restriction. If we use the indefinite article ("a"), it can be any of a number of instances of the thing. So "a subsequent X" means "any X that comes after this one." As the spell in question says "a subsequent round" and not "the subsequent round," it can refer to any round after the one in which the previous target died.

Furthermore, there are many examples of spells you hold until you are ready to discharge them. Length of time isn't really relevant unless you go past the stated maximum duration of the spell, which, in this case, was intentionally increased between the playtest and release so that you could "juggle" it longer.

So again, I completely agree that some clarifications would be helpful, and I also agree that Twitter is the last place that should happen. Mearls is batting well below .500 on the accuracy of his remarks there, and I'm confident many of his so-called "rulings" will be reversed in the official errata.

However, that doesn't make the game harder to play or DM. I don't participate in organized play, so maybe I don't have a good sense of how delicate the game becomes in that venue. But my guess is, it's not that big a deal. If I did participate, I would do so with the understanding that not all DMs rule the same way on every little thing, and I'd learn to work around it. None of the rules discussed in this thread would destroy a character if the ruling were reversed.

 

[Sadrik]

I hope this is not going to happen. Rule lawyers and RAW fans have destroyed RP in the previous edition. I hope I'm not going to hear things like "Action economy" or "Hands economy".

DM's call should be the standard answer to any question.

I agree with you. Though think it may be slightly more nuanced than this. Things like action economy exist and when game designers make this a "feature" of the game it has to be addressed somehow. Notice that you did not hear these types of concepts until late in 3e. The reason is their was great emphasis on adding those types of spells, actions and magic items. Bonus actions, extra actions are here and they are a major feature of the rules design. Whereas I would like to go back to a simpler architecture of the "action economy" 5e is not that game without house rules.

I am all for house rules and I know exactly what you mean by RAW fans or my term RAW warriors.

 

[Umbran]

That's not what subsequent means. It's not "the next" round, but any round that follows, be it the next one or a round 3 hours from now.

Depends on which definition you look at.

Guys, let me suggest that 5e is not, in fact, an engineering book. If you have to start debating the *exact* definition of a word in order to interpret the rules, you are probably barking up the wrong methodological tree.

 

[77IM]

It seems to me that Mearls and Crawford are playing good cop / bad cop with their sage responses. Mearls's answer is always "sure, I'd allow that" and Crawford is like "RAW, big fat no."

I kind of like this dynamic, as it highlights areas that need improvement or clarification. It also makes me feel better about allowing the DM to just rule things -- interpreting the RAW strictly isn't a fun-killer, but playing it fast-and-loose isn't a game-breaker, either.

My hope is that they'll clarify some of these rules for the next printing. I'm not looking for more rules; I think a lot of edge-cases should be left to the DM to decide. But I think if a rule is worth having, it should be as clear as possible.