D&D 5E Swallowing may cause blindness

[Saeviomagy]

If they're freedom of movemented, shouldn't that prevent them from being swallowed in the first place?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Man, this really brings me back--reminds me of the incredible vitriol (not that it was insane, but rather that there was vitriol at all, made it incredible) spewed at 4e for having oozes that could be knocked prone, even if the physics of that are hard to grasp. It's not identical, but it's not that far off either.

Of course, with that particular set of buffs, I'd probably have said, "You're not Blinded if you're trying to see something inside your new squiddy location. If, on the other hand, you're trying to see anything outside? Tough luck, those spells don't get you diddly--even if you aren't "blinded" per se, you're as good as blinded, by the moist, sticky mucosa of the undulating mollusc enveloping you."

 

[Bacon Bits]

I think the difference here is that 3e and 4e had a culture of "follow these comprehensive rules in the books blindly regardless of the outcome; you should assume everything was intended to function exactly as written," whereas 1e/2e/5e has a culture of, "follow the sometimes roughly-presented rules as best you can, but be prepared to make judgement calls; we can't think of everything so we don't pretend we did."

So it's a choice between, "these rules are stupid and make no sense," and "my DM is stupid and makes no sense." I think it's probably important to play under both systems and then pick the one you and your group prefers or where the line lies.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think the difference here is that 3e and 4e had a culture of "follow these comprehensive rules in the books blindly regardless of the outcome; you should assume everything was intended to function exactly as written," whereas 1e/2e/5e has a culture of, "follow the sometimes roughly-presented rules as best you can, but be prepared to make judgement calls; we can't think of everything so we don't pretend we did."

So it's a choice between, "these rules are stupid and make no sense," and "my DM is stupid and makes no sense." I think it's probably important to play under both systems and then pick the one you and your group prefers or where the line lies.

Perhaps. I prefer the former because, if we're supposed to follow a rule that "is stupid," I at least have a chance of convincing the DM to do something else. If we're supposed to follow a DM that "is stupid," I'm SOL.

 

[Stormonu]

If they're freedom of movemented, shouldn't that prevent them from being swallowed in the first place?

No, it just means you reach the exit a lot quicker than others.

Also known as oil of Exlax

 

[Tony Vargas]

Perhaps. I prefer the former because, if we're supposed to follow a rule that "is stupid," I at least have a chance of convincing the DM to do something else. If we're supposed to follow a DM that "is stupid," I'm SOL.

That's not the right false dichotomy, at all.

In classic D&D (and 5e), rules were (are intentionally) sketchy and can't function without a DM, so the DM is always changing rules and making rulings, and the players are entirely dependent on the DM to play, at all - but the DM has a /lot/ of work to do. In 3.x and 4e, the rules were fairly functional, so the DM didn't need to constantly change and overrule them as a matter of course. Once players got accustomed to the rules in the book being the rules they actually got to use in play, they came to expect it - and, in 3.5, exploit it, leading to the whole RAW thing, and to 4e being more carefully balanced.

In 1e AD&D, EGG came right out and advised the DM to keep the players in the dark about the actual rules. In 5e, there is often no way to use the rules until the DM makes a ruling. Different approaches, but similar results: the DM role is difficult, but indispensable.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's not the right false dichotomy, at all.

I'm...not sure what to make of that sentence, to be honest.

In classic D&D (and 5e), rules were (are intentionally) sketchy and can't function without a DM, so the DM is always changing rules and making rulings, and the players are entirely dependent on the DM to play, at all - but the DM has a /lot/ of work to do.

I'm not disputing that, so I'm...not sure what you're saying here. I'm saying that the work done by the DM may be just flat-out wrong. If so, I have no recourse, because the rules by themselves won't help me and the DM has already worked out a conclusion I oppose.

In 3.x and 4e, the rules were fairly functional, so the DM didn't need to constantly change and overrule them as a matter of course. Once players got accustomed to the rules in the book being the rules they actually got to use in play, they came to expect it - and, in 3.5, exploit it, leading to the whole RAW thing, and to 4e being more carefully balanced.

Okay. Again I'm not sure quite why you're bringing this up. Yes, I personally have come to expect this, but taking a step back and looking at both, I'd rather deal with the failure case of "the rules should just work; the rules are not working; we will find a fix" rather than the failure case of "the rules don't work by themselves; the rules as the DM uses them are not working; somehow a fix must be found."

In 1e AD&D, EGG came right out and advised the DM to keep the players in the dark about the actual rules. In 5e, there is often no way to use the rules until the DM makes a ruling. Different approaches, but similar results: the DM role is difficult, but indispensable.

Yes, I'm well aware of the "punish the players if they have the AUDACITY to read your book!!!" thing. I figured the hobby had matured past such things--if only in the sense that it's unrealistic for DMs to insist that players have no knowledge of the DMG anymore.

 

[PnPgamer]

... t-that's what SHE said?

Thats what mother said...

 

[Mercule]

It's just a blindfold.... A really big, acidic, hostile blindfold.

 

[PnPgamer]

It's just a blindfold.... A really big, acidic, hostile blindfold.

I am willing to gamble that there exists a monster like that from ages past.