D&D General Reification versus ludification in 5E/6E

[Micah Sweet]

Half-editions aren't a thing. They are versions of the same edition or they are a new edition. 3.5 is either part of 3e OR it's really 4e. I can't make that any clearer.

Ok, then I don't really agree. 3.5 is different enough from 3.0 to count as a new edition to me. It's certainly has more changes than 1e to 2e IMO, and those are definitively separate editions. To me, 5.0 and 5.5 fall into the same 1e to 2e category so far as how much has changed. In some cases more so, what with all the classes being re-written and the sweeping lore replacements.

But of course, all both of us are discussing are subjective personal opinions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which is? The stat block is unclear per RAW...

Well then I'm going to have to move beyond RAW in order for that to make setting sense. Fine by me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My point is, you'll never get a satisfactory answer in D&D, and no edition of D&D has provided a satisfactory answer to the question of game rules vs in-world logic. Not even 3.x, which I played and ran extensively, because its core rules do not make a lick of sense if you play them as in-world physics.

In my opinion you have to look outside D&D to find a satisfactory answer. It could be a gamey game like Free League's Year Zero games, and in the context of fantasy it would be Forbidden Lands, or it could be something much more granular like GURPS or Mythras.

I agree official D&D doesn't have all the answers I want. That's why I picked a version of the current edition that comes closest to what I want (A5e in my case) and make changes in my game on top. If I had my way and didn't have to make sure my players were on board, I'd play the Without Number series or ACKS II (both of which do a better job of handling the sim and old school vibe I want, albeit in different ways). But my players like 5e, so I compromise.

 

[Remathilis]

Ok, then I don't really agree. 3.5 is different enough from 3.0 to count as a new edition to me. It's certainly has more changes than 1e to 2e IMO, and those are definitively separate editions. To me, 5.0 and 5.5 fall into the same 1e to 2e category so far as how much has changed. In some cases more so, what with all the classes being re-written and the sweeping lore replacements.

But of course, all both of us are discussing are subjective personal opinions.

The issue though is subjective use of edition gets people riled up. Is Essentials a half-edition? If Unearthed Arcana (1e)? Is Tashas? Does an edition need a new printing of the core rules? What about the three revisions to Basic?

It's ultimately a pointless exercise.

 

[Remathilis]

Well then I'm going to have to move beyond RAW in order for that to make setting sense. Fine by me.

I assume you will use such techniques to explain hobgoblin poison bows and longswords. Problem is solved.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I assume you will use such techniques to explain hobgoblin poison bows and longswords. Problem is solved.

What techniques? "Go beyond RAW" isn't a technique, it's a philosophy, one I can follow just as easily without re-buying WotC's core three.

 

[Remathilis]

What techniques? "Go beyond RAW" isn't a technique, it's a philosophy, one I can follow just as easily without re-buying WotC's core three.

Whatever technique you use to go beyond RAW. My point is that if you can solve the issue of 2014 assassins having quantum poison damage on their blades, the 2024 hobgoblin is no greater enigma.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Whatever technique you use to go beyond RAW. My point is that if you can solve the issue of 2014 assassins having quantum poison damage on their blades, the 2024 hobgoblin is no greater enigma.

Different things I'm afraid. Fixing the assassin is a matter of adding an entry to their inventory. The hobgoblin longsword question requires me to make up a new ability that somehow makes longswords not use 1d8 as their damage die, but only in their hands. Why would I do that when they can just use the weapon like everyone else?

 

[Teemu]

Different things I'm afraid. Fixing the assassin is a matter of adding an entry to their inventory. The hobgoblin longsword question requires me to make up a new ability that somehow makes longswords not use 1d8 as their damage die, but only in their hands. Why would I do that when they can just use the weapon like everyone else?

I'm sorry but that's intellectually dishonest. The Assassin does not have an action, a bonus action, or a trait that allows it to apply poison to both its weapon attacks. By default applying poison would either be a bonus action or an action, just from baseline rules when interacting with poisons and other similar items. Thus, you would also have to create a custom trait for the 2014 Assassin, which would allow it to apply poison to both attacks, above and beyond what a creature could normally do. That is absolutely no different than giving the hobgoblin a trait that increases the weapon's damage die or dice when the hobgoblin wields that weapon.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm sorry but that's intellectually dishonest. The Assassin does not have an action, a bonus action, or a trait that allows it to apply poison to both its weapon attacks. By default applying poison would either be a bonus action or an action, just from baseline rules when interacting with poisons and other similar items. Thus, you would also have to create a custom trait for the 2014 Assassin, which would allow it to apply poison to both attacks, above and beyond what a creature could normally do. That is absolutely no different than giving the hobgoblin a trait that increases the weapon's damage die or dice when the hobgoblin wields that weapon.

And like the aarakroca javelin, there is no rule for the 7d6 poison in the PHB or DMG. It can't be bought, created, and the rules for use are murky. Nor is it listed as an inventory item. So you have magical quantum poison that only that NPC can use, never runs out and doesn't exist outside the statblock of the NPC.

But sure, 2014 was great for versimillitude.