The Trouble With Rules Discussions

[TiQuinn]

I'm going to guess that the 2nd ed version was pretty similar to the 1st ed version:

This ring enables the wearer to move and attack freely and normally whether attacked by a web, hold, or slow spell, or even while under water. In the former case the spells have no effect, while in the latter the individual moves at normal (surface) speed and does full damage even with such cutting weapons as axes and scimitars and with such smashing weapons as flails, hammers, and maces, insofar as the weapon used is held rather than hurled. This will not, however, enable water breathing without the further appropriate magic. (DMG p 130)​

Because it's AD&D, it's very unclear how it is supposed to generalise. Are web, hold and slow spells illustrative examples, or an exhaustive list? Does this ring negate the effects of ghoul paralysis?

A PC in the first AD&D game I GMed had one of these rings, but I can't recall now how we ruled it. It's possible we didn't even notice its effects beyond the water movement stuff.

FWIW, we always treated it as a very powerful item in 2e, and took the list of spells and the underwater effect as examples, not as the only instances the ring took effect. The use of “whether” and “even while” suggests to me that these are illustrative examples, and the PCs movement cannot be restricted. I remember the PC who had it would use it to slip bonds and manacles, because thieves tended to get arrested.

 

[aco175]

I recall a big argument when my thief got slippers of spider climbing. I thought I would be able to attack with my sling while walking sideways and upside-down, but the DM ruled that "Gravity, you know" affected the ability to load and twirl around a sling. I think we ended up allowing thrown daggers and after 2 levels I would have practiced enough to use slings.
There was also the argument about gold falling out of my pockets while walking upside-down. "You know, gravity."

 

[TiQuinn]

I recall a big argument when my thief got slippers of spider climbing. I thought I would be able to attack with my sling while walking sideways and upside-down, but the DM ruled that "Gravity, you know" affected the ability to load and twirl around a sling. I think we ended up allowing thrown daggers and after 2 levels I would have practiced enough to use slings.
There was also the argument about gold falling out of my pockets while walking upside-down. "You know, gravity."

That’s called giving someone a magic item and then sucking all the fun out of it.

 

[tetrasodium]

That’s called giving someone a magic item and then sucking all the fun out of it.

I don't think you and I are picturing the same events from what was described in the post @aco175 made, there is a perfectly reasonable ruling and it is even a ruling that is in line with how some ranged weapons/attacks worked in more than one edition and one of those is 5e.

• Rogue gets slippers of spider climbing
• Rogue wants to attack with sling while walking on walls and ceilings
• Rogue gets told use thrown daggers or eat disadvantage on the wall/ceiling walking sling use for 2 levels

We probably aren't in disagreement with that summary, but the italicized while is a point where interpretation of that word critically alters what is being described in the scenario.

In 3.x one of the crossbows took a move action to reload. Saying that a sling would as well when defying gravity in a way that made the PC largely immune to risk from most monsters likely to be going after the other party members unless a higher bar is met still allows quite a bit of benefit.

Daggers weigh more and are less replaceable than sling stones. Attacking from walls and ceilings while not moving is a different scenario.

 

[TiQuinn]

I don't think you and I are picturing the same events from what was described in the post @aco175 made, there is a perfectly reasonable ruling and it is even a ruling that is in line with how some ranged weapons/attacks worked in more than one edition and one of those is 5e.

• Rogue gets slippers of spider climbing
• Rogue wants to attack with sling while walking on walls and ceilings
• Rogue gets told use thrown daggers or eat disadvantage on the wall/ceiling walking sling use for 2 levels

We probably aren't in disagreement with that summary, but the italicized while is a point where interpretation of that word critically alters what is being described in the scenario.

In 3.x one of the crossbows took a move action to reload. Saying that a sling would as well when defying gravity in a way that made the PC largely immune to risk from most monsters likely to be going after the other party members unless a higher bar is met still allows quite a bit of benefit.

Daggers weigh more and are less replaceable than sling stones. Attacking from walls and ceilings while not moving is a different scenario.

For the same reason that avoiding discussions on physics in games and what is possible in reality versus fantasy, I would rule that whatever magic item effects apply to the PC applies to the items they carry as well. Why would I, as a DM, want to suddenly adjudicate what stays on the PC’s person? IMO, that’s a net negative for everyone involved. It makes the DM have to look through the PCs equipment list to determine what is affected by gravity and what isn’t, what actions can be taken while spider climbing and what can’t, and all the while, the player is being told the item is not worth using because they will always have to ask the DM beforehand if something is allowed, making them feel subject to something totally arbitrary (why two levels? Why not one level? Why not three levels? Why not just the first combat?) all while slowing the game down for everyone at the table. And all because the DM doesn’t like the idea of using a sling while using a magic item to climb a wall or ceiling.

Just not the way I envision the game. This was a learned behavior during the early days of D&D that I was happy to unlearn and the game improved dramatically as a result. Again, IMO.

 

[aco175]

(why two levels? Why not one level? Why not three levels? Why not just the first combat?)

It was back in 2e days and the the argument was over 15 minutes going back and forth. I said something about training to use it once I received it so it should work and the DM said it would take a long time to train with it. I think he said it would take a month of training and I came back with that might be 4 levels. We ended up at 2 levels, which was a week or two of game time.

It was not a bad compromise and we ended up having fun with it later in the campaign. It was a shorter argument then when I thought it would speed up play if I just rolled all the dice for everyone. I was a teenager then and thought it would help, but found out people like to roll dice. Now I try and have the players roll all the dice, even monster saves and damage against them from monsters.

 

[TiQuinn]

It was back in 2e days and the the argument was over 15 minutes going back and forth.

How did I know it was a 2e game already?

It’s just very emblematic of the way DMs were taught to adjudicate games back then.

 

[tetrasodium]

For the same reason that avoiding discussions on physics in games and what is possible in reality versus fantasy, I would rule that whatever magic item effects apply to the PC applies to the items they carry as well. Why would I, as a DM, want to suddenly adjudicate what stays on the PC’s person? IMO, that’s a net negative for everyone involved. It makes the DM have to look through the PCs equipment list to determine what is affected by gravity and what isn’t, what actions can be taken while spider climbing and what can’t, and all the while, the player is being told the item is not worth using because they will always have to ask the DM beforehand if something is allowed, making them feel subject to something totally arbitrary (why two levels? Why not one level? Why not three levels? Why not just the first combat?) all while slowing the game down for everyone at the table. And all because the DM doesn’t like the idea of using a sling while using a magic item to climb a wall or ceiling.

Just not the way I envision the game. This was a learned behavior during the early days of D&D that I was happy to unlearn and the game improved dramatically as a result. Again, IMO.

You are talking about something else. Physics nothing, gravity was the excuse to counter what would have obviously forced an immediate choice between adversarial encounter design or ignoring how one PC deciding to godmode through every indoor encounter impacts the fun of the other players

The very fact that the rouge was using a sling when no player uses a sling unless they have no better option even hints that "ok I'll use a sling" very well may have been the first step in adversarial loophole seeking when the GM said don't along the lines of "but your thrown daggers is down there and quivers tend to empty when turned upside down."

 

[TiQuinn]

You are talking about something else. Physics nothing, gravity was the excuse to counter what would have obviously forced an immediate choice between adversarial encounter design or ignoring how one PC deciding to godmode through every indoor encounter impacts the fun of the other players

The very fact that the rouge was using a sling when no player uses a sling unless they have no better option even hints that "ok I'll use a sling" very well may have been the first step in adversarial loophole seeking when the GM said don't along the lines of "but your thrown daggers is down there and quivers tend to empty when turned upside down."

Gravity is not physics?

And no one uses a sling therefore the sling must’ve been the first move towards an adversarial loophole? Sorry, I don’t follow that logic.

This was also a 2e game and slings were a much more common weapon for thieves, wizards and druids to use than in later editions.

Again, I wouldn’t want to give a player an item like that and then have to tell the player your arrows fall out, your sling bullets drop as you try to load them, anything in your pockets falls out, your spell components drop from your hand, etc, etc, etc.

 

[Emerikol]

@James Gasik
<snip>
However, I find that on these threads, it doesn't come up as often so long as you are carefully delineating what it is you are discussing. If you carefully note that you're trying to understand the exact RAW, you usually get a bunch of good and thoughtful responses.
<snip>

While apt to ignore this good advice at times, it is very good advice. The more precise you can be the less misunderstanding there will be. People misread what seems plain all the time. I think it has something to do with their built up understanding of who is typing and they read into the text what they think a person like that would say.