If you haven't read the first post in the series, How To Read Rules, I recommend doing so. It lays out what I think is pretty basic, clear, and easy-to-understand rule from B/X, and explains how to interpret that rule. But most rules arguments aren't about easy-to-understand rules. Unless you are Derek. NO, DEREK, I DON'T NEED TO HEAR YOUR DIATRIBE ABOUT WHY FIGHTERS IN 5e REALLY GET d12 HIT POINTS AGAIN, DEPENDING ON THE DEFINITION OF "HIT" AND "POINTS!"
Instead, it can be because rules are complicated, written poorly, or don't play well with other rules. And, in some cases .... there are no obvious or correct answers because the rules themselves conflict with other rules, in whole or in part. So today, I am going to provide some examples of rules from the past that still leave a lot of people scratching their heads, and why there is no simple answer to them.
Note the first- this doesn't include flat-out mistakes, like when AD&D originally used the wrong tables (as thieves) for monks (as clerics) that were later corrected. There are flat-out conflicts. Why? GYGAX!!!!!!!
Note the second- I am using examples from older editions because, with time, passions fade. As we have all learned because no one cares to argue about 4e anymore. Right?
So, let's go through some examples and analysis!
1. Soulless, dead-eyed elves stay dead. OR DO THEY?
If there's one thing we all know, it's that the only thing more satisfying than a dead elf is two dead bards. But if there is another thing we all know, it's that there is a great puzzle at the heart of AD&D. Specifically- what do you do with a dead elf? I mean, other than celebrate? Let's start with the basic fact- Gygax liked to bury some important rules, so a lot of people who played back then weren't even aware of this very important rule- ELVES COULD NOT BE BROUGHT BACK FROM THE DEAD. That's right. You couldn't resurrect them. You don't bring 'em back, they don't pass go, they don't collect 200 electrum pieces. So, why was this rules obscure? Two reasons-
1. The rule, like the elves, sucked. I mean ... it was classic Gygaxian "balancing." "Sure, Ima make Elves get all these cool bonuses and abilities, in exchange for NEVER BEING ABLE TO GET RESURRECTED IN A SUPER DEADLY GAME! Muahahahahahaha. How you like demGygax apples?" And the one thing we know is that rules that suck get applied ... inconsistently. See also, level caps on demi-humans.
2. The rule was genuinely obscure. Here is the text of the resurrection spell in 1e-
Explanation/Description: The cleric employing this spell is able to restore life and complete strength to the person he/she bestows the resurrection upon. The person can have been dead up to 10 years cumulative per level of the cleric casting the spell, i.e. a 19th level cleric can resurrect the bones of a person dead up to 190 years. See raise dead for limitations on what persons can be raised. The reverse, destruction, causes the victim of the spell to be instantly dead and turned to dust. Destruction requires a touch, either in combat or otherwise. The material components of the spell are the cleric's religious symbol and holy/unholy water. Employment of this spell makes it impossible for the cleric to cast further spells or engage in combat until he or she has had one day of bed rest for each level of experience of the person brought back to life or destroyed.
It says nothing about elves! Oh, but wait. "See raise dead for limitations on what persons can be raised." Huh. Do signals mean anything in AD&D? Um, yeah. So let's look at the relevant portion of Raise Dead to see the "limitation on what persons can be raised."
"When the cleric casts a raise dead spell, he or she can restore life to a dwarf, gnome, half-elf, halfling, or human." Oh. It gives a list and it omits elves. There has to be Latin for that (there is). So that is why the rule is so hidden. If you went to resurrection, you'd have to see the cross-reference to raise dead buried in it, then go look at raise dead, and then notice that elves are specifically omitted from the list of critters you can resurrect. This also answers questions like, "Why is there a separate reincarnation spell, and why does that spell specify that 'Any sort of player character can be reincarnated{?}" So the rule is somewhat difficult to tease out, but once you see it, you can't unsee it. What's the conflict? Well, the next year, we had the publication of the DMG. And in it-
Rod of Resurrection: This rod enables the cleric to resurrect the dead — even elven, dwarven, gnome, or halfling — as if he or she were of high enough level to cast the spell, and no rest will be required as the rod bestows the lifegiving effects.
Wait, wut? It functions like the spell. Cool. But it provides an "even" exception for elves, dwarves, gnomes, and halflings. Except .... except than dwarves, gnomes, and halflings can already be resurrected! This makes no sense as an explanation, or a rule. So ... how can we harmonize the rules conflict?
Elves cannot be resurrected, unless it is by a rod of resurrection. Specific beats general.
But wait, there is another conflict waiting. In 1981, we have Deities & Demigods providing the full explanation- AD&D assumes that the anlma, that force which gives life and distinct existence to thinking beings is one of two sorts: soul or spirit. Humans, dwarves, halflings, gnomes and half-elves (those beings which can have a raise dead or resurrection spell cast upon them) all have souls: all other beings that worship deities have spirits. This latter group Includes (but is not limited to) elves, orcs, half-orcs, and the other creatures specifically mentloned in the NONHUMANS DEITIES section of this work.
Now, the general "best practices" when construing rules is that newer material supersedes older material. Here, we have full explanation that the reason you can't bring elves back from the dead is that (as always) Snarf was right and they are soulless and dead-eyed. Also? Because resurrection and raise dead only work on souls, not spirits. So the entire premise of the Rod of Resurrection doesn't work on elves. Except it explicitly states that it does, even though the mechanism cannot.
So, that's one example of a conflict. Or maybe not? MAGIC!
2. "You think Gygax hates Thieves? Hold my beer." -Every Illusionist
This one is much more simple and straightforward. This is from the description of the 1e Illusionist-
The magical items usable by illusionist class characters are enumerated below:
-all potions not restricted to fighters only
-illusionist scrolls and magic-user scrolls which contain spells usable by illusionists
-all rings
-rod of cancellation, staff of striking, and wands of enemy detection, fear, illusion, magic detection, metal & mineral detection, secret door & trap detection, wonder
-miscellaneous magic items usable by every class of characters, crystal balls (but not with any added powers), all robes (excluding robe of the arch-rnagi), and books and similar written works readable by magic-users
-artifacts which are not proscribed items with respect to illusionists (such as armor, swords, axes, etc.)
-magic daggers
There's a lot that's wrong with this, but to show you how stupid it is, and the easily-seen conflicts it creates, let's concentrate on the RSW (rod/staff/wand) provision- specifically, just the wands. I am going to list the wands that an illusionist can use, followed by the classes allowed to use that wand in the DMG-
enemy detection (any)
fear (C,M)
illusion (M)
magic detection (any)
metal & mineral detection (any)
secret door & trap detection (any)
wonder (any)
Following are a list of additional wands that are in the DMG that, supposedly, ANY CLASS CAN USE-
Wand of Illumination
Wand of Magic Missiles
Wand of Negation
Lets' be clear- the illusionist class has a specified list of magic items- it says that the items they can use "are enumerated." And it's not an accident, because it includes five (5) wands that can be used by any class. But it also specifically and conspicuously omits three wands- that's right, Olaf the Drunk Fighter can use a Wand of Magic Missiles, but the illusionist can't. The monk (THE MONK) can use a wand of illumination, but the illusionist can't. And Nervous Pervis the Assassin can use the Wand of Negation but the illusionist? Nope.
An enumerated list of items ... versus items that say that anyone can use them. What do you think about that? Which should control?
3. Conclusion
I am putting in these two examples (there are so so so many others ....) because they illustrate a point. Rules do not exist in a vacuum. As we add rules, as the different rules interact with each other, and as the rules get released and played by all sorts of different tables ... it is natural that there will be disputes and disagreements about the interpretations of these rules. No game has the prolixity of a legal code, and if it did, we wouldn't want to play it. Moreover, the more complexity that is added to explain things and handles different situations, the more likely there is to be an unintended rules conflict.
Instead, it's often best to view rules analysis through two lens. First is what I call "the good-faith analysis of the RAW." In other words, try and determine, to the best of your ability, what the rule actually is. So above, I've gone through the steps and tried to explain what the framework and the rule is.
For resurrection, my best good faith analysis is that there is a soul/spirit divide, and elves cannot be resurrected or raised. Ever. Except that the powerful Rod of Resurrection can do so, for reasons. And magic. And Gygax. And there is no satisfying way to reconciled it other than to say, "It is what it is."
For illusionists my best good faith analysis is that ... the illusionist is screwed. The language in the PHB is restrictive, Gygax was being a jerk, and the inclusion of most (but not all) of the "any" wands was a choice, not an error.
The second step, once I've understood (for myself) the actual rule ... is to try and decide if I want to play using that rule, or to modify/remove the rule after I've understood it.
Instead, it can be because rules are complicated, written poorly, or don't play well with other rules. And, in some cases .... there are no obvious or correct answers because the rules themselves conflict with other rules, in whole or in part. So today, I am going to provide some examples of rules from the past that still leave a lot of people scratching their heads, and why there is no simple answer to them.
Note the first- this doesn't include flat-out mistakes, like when AD&D originally used the wrong tables (as thieves) for monks (as clerics) that were later corrected. There are flat-out conflicts. Why? GYGAX!!!!!!!
Note the second- I am using examples from older editions because, with time, passions fade. As we have all learned because no one cares to argue about 4e anymore. Right?
So, let's go through some examples and analysis!
1. Soulless, dead-eyed elves stay dead. OR DO THEY?
If there's one thing we all know, it's that the only thing more satisfying than a dead elf is two dead bards. But if there is another thing we all know, it's that there is a great puzzle at the heart of AD&D. Specifically- what do you do with a dead elf? I mean, other than celebrate? Let's start with the basic fact- Gygax liked to bury some important rules, so a lot of people who played back then weren't even aware of this very important rule- ELVES COULD NOT BE BROUGHT BACK FROM THE DEAD. That's right. You couldn't resurrect them. You don't bring 'em back, they don't pass go, they don't collect 200 electrum pieces. So, why was this rules obscure? Two reasons-
1. The rule, like the elves, sucked. I mean ... it was classic Gygaxian "balancing." "Sure, Ima make Elves get all these cool bonuses and abilities, in exchange for NEVER BEING ABLE TO GET RESURRECTED IN A SUPER DEADLY GAME! Muahahahahahaha. How you like dem
2. The rule was genuinely obscure. Here is the text of the resurrection spell in 1e-
Explanation/Description: The cleric employing this spell is able to restore life and complete strength to the person he/she bestows the resurrection upon. The person can have been dead up to 10 years cumulative per level of the cleric casting the spell, i.e. a 19th level cleric can resurrect the bones of a person dead up to 190 years. See raise dead for limitations on what persons can be raised. The reverse, destruction, causes the victim of the spell to be instantly dead and turned to dust. Destruction requires a touch, either in combat or otherwise. The material components of the spell are the cleric's religious symbol and holy/unholy water. Employment of this spell makes it impossible for the cleric to cast further spells or engage in combat until he or she has had one day of bed rest for each level of experience of the person brought back to life or destroyed.
It says nothing about elves! Oh, but wait. "See raise dead for limitations on what persons can be raised." Huh. Do signals mean anything in AD&D? Um, yeah. So let's look at the relevant portion of Raise Dead to see the "limitation on what persons can be raised."
"When the cleric casts a raise dead spell, he or she can restore life to a dwarf, gnome, half-elf, halfling, or human." Oh. It gives a list and it omits elves. There has to be Latin for that (there is). So that is why the rule is so hidden. If you went to resurrection, you'd have to see the cross-reference to raise dead buried in it, then go look at raise dead, and then notice that elves are specifically omitted from the list of critters you can resurrect. This also answers questions like, "Why is there a separate reincarnation spell, and why does that spell specify that 'Any sort of player character can be reincarnated{?}" So the rule is somewhat difficult to tease out, but once you see it, you can't unsee it. What's the conflict? Well, the next year, we had the publication of the DMG. And in it-
Rod of Resurrection: This rod enables the cleric to resurrect the dead — even elven, dwarven, gnome, or halfling — as if he or she were of high enough level to cast the spell, and no rest will be required as the rod bestows the lifegiving effects.
Wait, wut? It functions like the spell. Cool. But it provides an "even" exception for elves, dwarves, gnomes, and halflings. Except .... except than dwarves, gnomes, and halflings can already be resurrected! This makes no sense as an explanation, or a rule. So ... how can we harmonize the rules conflict?
Elves cannot be resurrected, unless it is by a rod of resurrection. Specific beats general.
But wait, there is another conflict waiting. In 1981, we have Deities & Demigods providing the full explanation- AD&D assumes that the anlma, that force which gives life and distinct existence to thinking beings is one of two sorts: soul or spirit. Humans, dwarves, halflings, gnomes and half-elves (those beings which can have a raise dead or resurrection spell cast upon them) all have souls: all other beings that worship deities have spirits. This latter group Includes (but is not limited to) elves, orcs, half-orcs, and the other creatures specifically mentloned in the NONHUMANS DEITIES section of this work.
Now, the general "best practices" when construing rules is that newer material supersedes older material. Here, we have full explanation that the reason you can't bring elves back from the dead is that (as always) Snarf was right and they are soulless and dead-eyed. Also? Because resurrection and raise dead only work on souls, not spirits. So the entire premise of the Rod of Resurrection doesn't work on elves. Except it explicitly states that it does, even though the mechanism cannot.
So, that's one example of a conflict. Or maybe not? MAGIC!
2. "You think Gygax hates Thieves? Hold my beer." -Every Illusionist
This one is much more simple and straightforward. This is from the description of the 1e Illusionist-
The magical items usable by illusionist class characters are enumerated below:
-all potions not restricted to fighters only
-illusionist scrolls and magic-user scrolls which contain spells usable by illusionists
-all rings
-rod of cancellation, staff of striking, and wands of enemy detection, fear, illusion, magic detection, metal & mineral detection, secret door & trap detection, wonder
-miscellaneous magic items usable by every class of characters, crystal balls (but not with any added powers), all robes (excluding robe of the arch-rnagi), and books and similar written works readable by magic-users
-artifacts which are not proscribed items with respect to illusionists (such as armor, swords, axes, etc.)
-magic daggers
There's a lot that's wrong with this, but to show you how stupid it is, and the easily-seen conflicts it creates, let's concentrate on the RSW (rod/staff/wand) provision- specifically, just the wands. I am going to list the wands that an illusionist can use, followed by the classes allowed to use that wand in the DMG-
enemy detection (any)
fear (C,M)
illusion (M)
magic detection (any)
metal & mineral detection (any)
secret door & trap detection (any)
wonder (any)
Following are a list of additional wands that are in the DMG that, supposedly, ANY CLASS CAN USE-
Wand of Illumination
Wand of Magic Missiles
Wand of Negation
Lets' be clear- the illusionist class has a specified list of magic items- it says that the items they can use "are enumerated." And it's not an accident, because it includes five (5) wands that can be used by any class. But it also specifically and conspicuously omits three wands- that's right, Olaf the Drunk Fighter can use a Wand of Magic Missiles, but the illusionist can't. The monk (THE MONK) can use a wand of illumination, but the illusionist can't. And Nervous Pervis the Assassin can use the Wand of Negation but the illusionist? Nope.
An enumerated list of items ... versus items that say that anyone can use them. What do you think about that? Which should control?
3. Conclusion
I am putting in these two examples (there are so so so many others ....) because they illustrate a point. Rules do not exist in a vacuum. As we add rules, as the different rules interact with each other, and as the rules get released and played by all sorts of different tables ... it is natural that there will be disputes and disagreements about the interpretations of these rules. No game has the prolixity of a legal code, and if it did, we wouldn't want to play it. Moreover, the more complexity that is added to explain things and handles different situations, the more likely there is to be an unintended rules conflict.
Instead, it's often best to view rules analysis through two lens. First is what I call "the good-faith analysis of the RAW." In other words, try and determine, to the best of your ability, what the rule actually is. So above, I've gone through the steps and tried to explain what the framework and the rule is.
For resurrection, my best good faith analysis is that there is a soul/spirit divide, and elves cannot be resurrected or raised. Ever. Except that the powerful Rod of Resurrection can do so, for reasons. And magic. And Gygax. And there is no satisfying way to reconciled it other than to say, "It is what it is."
For illusionists my best good faith analysis is that ... the illusionist is screwed. The language in the PHB is restrictive, Gygax was being a jerk, and the inclusion of most (but not all) of the "any" wands was a choice, not an error.
The second step, once I've understood (for myself) the actual rule ... is to try and decide if I want to play using that rule, or to modify/remove the rule after I've understood it.
