Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Psionics in Tasha
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8099383" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>That is not how DnD effects work. This is not a system with a dozen different interactions between types of the same ability. If their years of effort is "not trying very hard" within the context of the system they created, then what you really want was for them to completely remake 5e. And 5 years into the cycle, that isn't going to happen. </p><p></p><p></p><p>And, just to give a taste of the problem with trying to do what you are proposing within our current system, let us look at two things that are very explicit. </p><p></p><p>See Invisibility</p><p>Faerie Fire</p><p></p><p>Both of these abilities state that they cancel the Invisibility mechanic, in different ways. See Invisibility just states outright "you can see invisible creatures as though they were visible." </p><p></p><p>Now, imagine you have someone cast this spell, to see an invisible enemy. And the DM replies that "You can't see him, his invisibility works by affecting your mind to make you believe you aren't seeing him, so this spell wouldn't let you alter your mind to break that."</p><p></p><p>Or, let us take Faerie Fire, which cancels invisibility by attaching to the creature, and outlining it. And you try that a different time, and the DM responds "You can't see him. This invisibility works by phasing him partially into the Far Realms, he isn't really here and it is only his mind that is attacking you, so the Faerie Fire will simply pass through and do nothing." </p><p></p><p></p><p>Two just very basic ways that your proposed ideas would wreck the game. See Invisibility would be worthless, because it would be "See Some Invisibility as long as the DM determined this type of invisibility was the type that can be seen through" This also opens up all sorts of exploits that would be pointless. "I'm sorry, I know you created an anti-Magic bubble, but this Cone of Cold works by opening a tiny portal to the Plane of Endless Ice, the cold that flowed out and hit you was real cold, not magical cold, so your anti-magic didn't stop it. Would have worked if the enemy hadn't been able to get out of the bubble, but since they can mentally fold space to teleport using just the power of their mind (which isn't magic as I explained, and since it wasn't a spell I can still cast Cone of Cold by opening the portal) but since they could, they could still do this." </p><p></p><p></p><p>No. Yes, it can be cool and interesting to have things work that way in fiction. Heck, if you build a system that can handle that from the start, it can make a good game. But DnD was not designed with that sort of exception based ruling in mind, so adding it in now would be a disaster.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 8099383, member: 6801228"] That is not how DnD effects work. This is not a system with a dozen different interactions between types of the same ability. If their years of effort is "not trying very hard" within the context of the system they created, then what you really want was for them to completely remake 5e. And 5 years into the cycle, that isn't going to happen. And, just to give a taste of the problem with trying to do what you are proposing within our current system, let us look at two things that are very explicit. See Invisibility Faerie Fire Both of these abilities state that they cancel the Invisibility mechanic, in different ways. See Invisibility just states outright "you can see invisible creatures as though they were visible." Now, imagine you have someone cast this spell, to see an invisible enemy. And the DM replies that "You can't see him, his invisibility works by affecting your mind to make you believe you aren't seeing him, so this spell wouldn't let you alter your mind to break that." Or, let us take Faerie Fire, which cancels invisibility by attaching to the creature, and outlining it. And you try that a different time, and the DM responds "You can't see him. This invisibility works by phasing him partially into the Far Realms, he isn't really here and it is only his mind that is attacking you, so the Faerie Fire will simply pass through and do nothing." Two just very basic ways that your proposed ideas would wreck the game. See Invisibility would be worthless, because it would be "See Some Invisibility as long as the DM determined this type of invisibility was the type that can be seen through" This also opens up all sorts of exploits that would be pointless. "I'm sorry, I know you created an anti-Magic bubble, but this Cone of Cold works by opening a tiny portal to the Plane of Endless Ice, the cold that flowed out and hit you was real cold, not magical cold, so your anti-magic didn't stop it. Would have worked if the enemy hadn't been able to get out of the bubble, but since they can mentally fold space to teleport using just the power of their mind (which isn't magic as I explained, and since it wasn't a spell I can still cast Cone of Cold by opening the portal) but since they could, they could still do this." No. Yes, it can be cool and interesting to have things work that way in fiction. Heck, if you build a system that can handle that from the start, it can make a good game. But DnD was not designed with that sort of exception based ruling in mind, so adding it in now would be a disaster. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Psionics in Tasha
Top