D&D 5E Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."

[Lanefan]

I see no mechanic stating that fighters don't have that special ability. If he wants to throw the sword 100 yards at an orc, he's in trouble due to the thrown mechanics. If he wants to use the Moon Split special ability that the rules don't say that he doesn't have, that sword flies all the way to the moon and cracks it in half without dealing damage. That's how this ability that the rules don't say he doesn't have works.

Er...the same range mechanics that stop the throw vs. the orc also stop the throw at the moon*, unless the moon has got just a little too close for comfort!

* - the Moon Split ability (more like a spell, really) generates a brief illusion of the moon splitting when a sword is thrown at it, consuming the sword in the process.

Lan-"'broken moon' - there's a song in there somewhere"-efan

 

[Teemu]

If a setting does not discuss how magic works, then it automatically works like the base books. If it were different, it would say so. That's how settings work. They use the base edition rules and lore, then tell you how the setting is different from that. There have been no exceptions that I am aware of.

By that logic, 3rd edition Greyhawk would have magical astrology then, wouldn't it, since the rules presented in the Dragon issue are setting neutral and completely official. There's very little mention of astrology in GH material, thus you'd use the base rules, which are given in Dragon #340.

 

[Maxperson]

But what if the lore has no backing mechanic at all?

The later editions (3e and onwards) have tried to put mechanical backings behind more and more of the lore; and if that's where your experience lies then I can see how it would be easy to lump lore and rules together. In earlier editions this wasn't quite as prevalent...if I wanted to play a swashbuckler-type in 1e, for example, I could certainly do it but it would mostly be on the RP and 'lore' side; there weren't many mechanics for me to lean on to divorce it from a straight Fighter or Fighter-Thief. Some don't like this, and want the mechanics to more directly reflect (or allow for at all) the character they want to play. Personally, I'm not that concerned with the mechanics and don't mind just doing it through roleplay and lore.

Not all lore should have mechanics to them. Swashbuckler is a good example, since nothing about it inherently cries out for mechanics. You can put on little or no armor, grab a rapier and Errol Flynn away. Mechanics make it more fun, though, which is why mechanics were added to archetypes like that later.

Dwarves, though, are described physically a certain way and stats represent physicality in D&D. Describing dwarves as very strong and hardy is a failure of lore if there isn't a mechanic to back it up. They actually NEED to be stronger and more hardy as a race.

Lan-"does a swashbuckler swash buckles or buckle swashes?"-efan

Depends on which way he swings

 

[Maxperson]

Er...the same range mechanics that stop the throw vs. the orc also stop the throw at the moon*, unless the moon has got just a little too close for comfort!

Not true. Special abilities supersede general mechanics all the time, and have since the game began. If the special ability says that the fighter can hit the moon way up in orbit, then the fighter can hit it.

 

[Maxperson]

By that logic, 3rd edition Greyhawk would have magical astrology then, wouldn't it, since the rules presented in the Dragon issue are setting neutral and completely official.

Dragon rules are also 100% optional. So no, that argument doesn't work. It only applies to the core three books.

 

[Teemu]

What isn't optional? Everything is optional. Races and classes from the Player's Handbook are optional.

 

[Maxperson]

What isn't optional? Everything is optional. Races and classes from the Player's Handbook are optional.

You don't recognize the difference between being required to opt into something(everything but the core three books), and being required to opt out of something(the core three books)? It's a profound difference, which is why unions fight so hard against laws requiring workers to opt in.

 

[Teemu]

But it's impossible to consider everything in the core books to be opt-out since there are conflicting rules in the DMG. Ergo, the rules are optional. Besides, the Dragon astrology rules are setting neutral, so following a certain logic would result in those rules being the assumed default in Greyhawk, at least if playing 3e.

 

[Maxperson]

But it's impossible to consider everything in the core books to be opt-out since there are conflicting rules in the DMG. Ergo, the rules are optional. Besides, the Dragon astrology rules are setting neutral, so following a certain logic would result in those rules being the assumed default in Greyhawk, at least if playing 3e.

This isn't edition specific and I assume that you are talking about the 5e DMG with it's optional rules, which makes those rules opt in. In general, the core three books are all opt out. Fighters do exist in your game unless you opt out. The same goes for every race, class, spell and magic item. Unless it is written to be opt in, it's opt out.

 

[billd91]

Printing X instead of Y is replacing, perhaps, in the sense of putting something else in the book. New editions of dictionaries replace words that have gone out of use with words that have come into use. A new MM replaces, in the same sense, creatures that are seen as non-central or redundant with creatures that are seen as more useful for the game.

This doesn't mean that the new words are supposed to be synonyms for the old ones. And it doesn't mean that the new monster is, from the perspective of the fiction, a version of the old one. Not even if they recycle a name for it.

If the dictionary replaced an older definition with another yet used the same word for it, we'd assume it was a change in the meaning of the word, not an addition because they'd leave the old definition in for that, and not just "recycling" the word. WOTC changed what it meant to be an archon.

Elemental archons aren't the same creatures as hound archons or lantern archons. Whereas a 4e Ghaele is intended to be a version of the 2nd ed PS creature.

Clearly the archons of 4e are not the archons of 2e/3e, yet they are the archons of 4e, not one of two groups known as archons. The meaning of archon was changed.