Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 9033866" data-attributes="member: 58197">The D&D rules do not attempt to answer this question. The goal of the rules is to make it clear in 95% of cases what a given spell can or cannot do (with the remaining 5% being left to DM adjudication). The rules are not trying to explain how the spell does what it does, nor to formulate a consistent theoretical basis for magic*.IMO, this is very much the correct approach. <soapbox> There is a widespread idea that a magic system where the principles of magic are laid out in detail is more predictable than one where no such principles are given. What I've noticed is that this is not, in practice, the case. Just like real-world science, there is a vast gap between theoretical first principles and actual practical application, and you can stuff all kinds of "magic technobabble" into that gap to justify whatever ass pull you have in mind. Trying to evaluate the technobabble based on first principles is like trying to use particle physics to evaluate your mechanic's explanation for why the car won't start. </soapbox>For a magic system to be predictable (which an RPG with spellcasters very much needs), it must specify not principles but outcomes. The rules don't need to say how the magic works. They do need to make it clear that spell X can do Y and cannot do Z.*They put a little bit of theory into 5E with the sidebar about the Weave. No previous edition felt the need to bother with this; the Weave was a Forgotten Realms notion that didn't apply in other settings. And even in 5E, that sidebar ties into nothing else in the rules and can be dispensed with at will.</blockquote>

Verification