Crawford says monk stuff ain't magic

[Dalebert]

EDIT: I definitely get the feeling that the lore about ki was never intended to cause the bulk of the monk's class features to be treated as magical for things like anti-magic fields. This is Crawford backpeddling when he realized a lot of DMs were interpreting it that way. Shame he didn't anticipate that confusion when he was writing the book and it should really be errata-ed.

Good to know. I always thought it was a little silly for so much monk stuff to be nullified in an antimagic field.

He describes things that are part of the background magic of the world and which don't count as magic for things like antimagic fields or magic resistance.
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-february-2016

And he has tweeted (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/11/does-stunning-strike-is-not-a-magical-effect-for-magic-resistance/) that ki falls under that background magic and is not considered magical for such things.

Neither the Ki feature nor the Stunning Strike feature (PH, 78 & 79) is defined as magical for game purposes.
The lore about ki is a great example of the magic-enhanced nature mentioned in this month's Sage Advice.

Of course if you're using ki to actually cast a spell, that's still magic, e.g. a shadow monk casting Darkness or Silence.

[Chugger]

But this doesn't answer "can I dispell the darkness created by a shadow monk?" or suppose the module I'm running has a trap that stops teleportation from solving a pit trap (blocks all flying and tp) - but is the shadow monk exempt? I guess the answer is that magic effects influence non-magical things. So yes you can wipe out shadow monk darkness with other light spells (but what level?) - but can you dispell it with dispell magic? I think this is getting needlessly complex.

[Kuulvheysoon]

But this doesn't answer "can I dispell the darkness created by a shadow monk?" or suppose the module I'm running has a trap that stops teleportation from solving a pit trap (blocks all flying and tp) - but is the shadow monk exempt? I guess the answer is that magic effects influence non-magical things. So yes you can wipe out shadow monk darkness with other light spells (but what level?) - but can you dispell it with dispell magic? I think this is getting needlessly complex.

Jeremy Crawford actually went on a little about this exact thing in the Dragon Talk dropped this week about AMFs. Basically, if it calls out as casting the spell, it's considered a spell in all ways. So yes, it would be vulnerable to dispel magic, other magical light sources - Hells, you can even counterspell it.

[Tanarii]

Why did you think non-spell Monk abilities were nullified in an antimagic field in the first place? I mean, what he's saying pretty much matches common sense.

Aka what makes sense to me. :smallwink:

[UrielAwakened]

If only abilities had tags that indicated what their power source was.

Like, say, Martial, Arcane, Divine, Primal, or Psionic.

Just spitballing.

[Chugger]

Oh, thanks for posting this, though - it's always good to know what these guys say. Even if the issue (at least to me) remains cloudy.

[lunaticfringe]

If only abilities had tags that indicated what their power source was.

Like, say, Martial, Arcane, Divine, Primal, or Psionic.

Just spitballing.

No. Feel Shame.

[Chugger]

Jeremy Crawford actually went on a little about this exact thing in the Dragon Talk dropped this week about AMFs. Basically, if it calls out as casting the spell, it's considered a spell in all ways. So yes, it would be vulnerable to dispel magic, other magical light sources - Hells, you can even counterspell it.

Thx, good to know. The problem I still have is that this wasn't addressed initially int he phb and that I have to consult a zillion SA's to really know the game. Maybe they'll consolidate in X ... but they won't. And that could have probs, too.

I think the main phb prob is that rules were written in a very minimal style (or were written sparsely) with few examples. Those few spells, for example, that have examples attached are much more clear than the other ones. Most of us learn by emulation, and the phb writers don't seem to grasp this. I like 5e, but I don't like this aspect of the phb (complex system; lean or sparse rule descriptions).

[UrielAwakened]

No. Feel Shame.

It worked.

[imanidiot]

Thx, good to know. The problem I still have is that this wasn't addressed initially int he phb and that I have to consult a zillion SA's to really know the game. Maybe they'll consolidate in X ... but they won't. And that could have probs, too.

I think the main phb prob is that rules were written in a very minimal style (or were written sparsely) with few examples. Those few spells, for example, that have examples attached are much more clear than the other ones. Most of us learn by emulation, and the phb writers don't seem to grasp this. I like 5e, but I don't like this aspect of the phb (complex system; lean or sparse rule descriptions).

The game is specifically designed for you to make these rulings yourself. Even in AL the DM has lots of leeway. I agree with Jeremy Crawford in this instance but I've never looked up a SA ruling. I don't care what he thinks.

[Unoriginal]

If only abilities had tags that indicated what their power source was.

Like, say, Martial, Arcane, Divine, Primal, or Psionic.

Just spitballing.

That makes no sense, 5e doesn't really make the difference between arcane and divine, there is no "primal" power source, psionic is just a different magic tradition, and there is no exclusively martial power source

[JBPuffin]

If only abilities had tags that indicated what their power source was.

Like, say, Martial, Arcane, Divine, Primal, or Psionic.

Just spitballing.

Honestly, I want to do this with every game I design. It makes writing certain types of abilities so much simpler. You want to limit something to a certain type of character? Stick it under the appropriate Tag! Obvious, but effective.

[No brains]

It worked.

I got your back Uriel! I, for one, enjoyed the differentiation between (Ex)traordinary, (Sp)ell-Like, and (Su)pernatural abilities.

[Pope Scarface]

Seems like a setting specific question, so this SA is really only relevant for whatever the 'default setting' is.

Does AL use SA as 'official?'

[Hypersmith]

I got your back Uriel! I, for one, enjoyed the differentiation between (Ex)traordinary, (Sp)ell-Like, and (Su)pernatural abilities.

It is such a simple distinction too. Ah well, they really went in on simplifying 5e as much as possible so I suppose they just decided to classify most stuff as spells and call it a day.

[Pex]

The game is specifically designed for you to make these rulings yourself. Even in AL the DM has lots of leeway. I agree with Jeremy Crawford in this instance but I've never looked up a SA ruling. I don't care what he thinks.

(Gets on soapbox)

We agree 5E is purposely designed this way but there are those of us who find this a poor decision and thus a flaw of the system. We want consistency of rules and not have to relearn how to play the game depending on who is DM that day.

(Gets off soapbox)

[lunaticfringe]

The only reason this would ever be an issue IS BECAUSE someone played too much 3.5 and is making dumbass assumptions based on how a previous editions worked. Bringing it back is a step in the wrong direction.

Sorry if your DM Sucks, why don't you do better.

[Tanarii]

The only reason this would ever be an issue IS BECAUSE someone played too much 3.5 and is making dumbass assumptions based on how a previous editions worked. Bringing it back is a step in the wrong direction.

Or possibly because PHB pg 77 Monk character class very first section The Magic of Ki talks about how Ki is magical. And it's easy to see how someone might think a 4e Monk's Fangs of the Fire Snake or Water Whip are magical. Especially since the first sentence of Disciple of the Elements reads: "when you choose this tradition at 3rd level, you learn magical disciplines that hardness the power of the four elements."

I mean, I assumed Ki generally and even the non-spell 4e features are "background" magic or "internal" magic, like a Dragon being a Dragon. But it's easy to see how someone might arrive at the conclusion that they're just magic. (My joking post above notwithstanding.)

[Dalebert]

Why did you think non-spell Monk abilities were nullified in an antimagic field in the first place? I mean, what he's saying pretty much matches common sense.

I agree. The whole thing rubbed me the wrong way at the time but there were threads here where many folks were making calls like anything that calls for spending ki as magical including things like stunning strike. This was all based on that bit of lore about ki being a magical force.


Does AL use SA as 'official?'

Many turn to it for guidance but it is not binding. Only the RAW is binding. That would include things like errata of course.

[Deleted]

It isn't arcane magic, but ki is described as magic in the description of the monk.

Maybe when they can get on the same page with themselves I'll start taking them seriously.

Maybe don't say one thing and then try to say another?

[Kane0]

I got your back Uriel! I, for one, enjoyed the differentiation between (Ex)traordinary, (Sp)ell-Like, and (Su)pernatural abilities.
I prefer [Magical] and [Nonmagical] myself. Saves a lot of frustration when two sorts of magic interact (looking at you, 3.5 warlock and PF SR/dispel vs supernatural/spellike).

[Zalabim]

And it's easy to see how someone might think a 4e Monk's Fangs of the Fire Snake or Water Whip are magical. Especially since the first sentence of Disciple of the Elements reads: "when you choose this tradition at 3rd level, you learn magical disciplines that hardness the power of the four elements."
Elemental Disciplines actually are all magical because of that.

[Deleted]

I prefer [Magical] and [Nonmagical] myself. Saves a lot of frustration when two sorts of magic interact (looking at you, 3.5 warlock and PF SR/dispel vs supernatural/spellike).

What's fun is that the class feature *spell casting* was an extraordinary class feature. It just produced magic. Anti-magic fields didn't stop your spells from being active, just suppressed them. There was also a few monsters that had spell casting put as an extraordinary feature...

Fun!

[Dalebert]

But this doesn't answer "can I dispell the darkness created by a shadow monk?"

It does actually explicitly answer that. It's actually letting you cast a spell. That's the second bullet in the list to decide if it's considered magical.

So yes.

[Dudewithknives]

(Gets on soapbox)

We agree 5E is purposely designed this way but there are those of us who find this a poor decision and thus a flaw of the system. We want consistency of rules and not have to relearn how to play the game depending on who is DM that day.

(Gets off soapbox)

Preach it man.

*grumble DC 10 to clime a tree in one game, DC 16 in a different one...*

[Deleted]

Preach it man.

*grumble DC 10 to clime a tree in one game, DC 16 in a different one...*

Unless its raining (or other extreme issue) or you're in battle, why is that even a check?

Mind. Blown.

[Dalebert]

Unless its raining (or other extreme issue) or you're in battle, why is that even a check?

I use DC 10 but only in the heat of battle. Otherwise just do it. I feel like DMs call for checks way too often. Many things don't matter unless there's a time issue, like enemies are closing on you.

[Anonymouswizard]

The game is specifically designed for you to make these rulings yourself. Even in AL the DM has lots of leeway. I agree with Jeremy Crawford in this instance but I've never looked up a SA ruling. I don't care what he thinks.

Not all of us agree with the decision. I feel like 5e was half-hearted about it. 'We want GMs to have the final say, but we're going to give classes lots of abilities that do very specific things.'

Heck, properly used keywords don't really infringe on rulings, they just make interactions easier. If we had say a spell keyword that all spells have, we could have an ability that says 'suppresses all spells in an area' and know exactly what abilities it suppresses (a Shadow Monk's Darkness but not their Flurry of Blows).


(Gets on soapbox)

We agree 5E is purposely designed this way but there are those of us who find this a poor decision and thus a flaw of the system. We want consistency of rules and not have to relearn how to play the game depending on who is DM that day.

(Gets off soapbox)

Yes. 5e chucked out al the rules, then chucked out the idea that players should have an idea about how competent their characters are.

[Puh Laden]

Well, there goes me trusting SA ever again.

[Deleted]

I use DC 10 but only in the heat of battle. Otherwise just do it. I feel like DMs call for checks way too often. Many things don't matter unless there's a time issue, like enemies are closing on you.

I'm the same for the most part, though I reserve checks for the meat of the action... Like climbing the tree isn't the check, jumping from tree to tree is a check.

Cooler and more mechanically advantageous things get the checks.

[Dalebert]

Yes. 5e chucked out al the rules, then chucked out the idea that players should have an idea about how competent their characters are.

Definitely sympathize with you folks. This is particularly a problem in AL. Normally you could make a character build that's based on a certain use of certain abilities and check with your DM to make sure it's okay. If he says "no", then you just chuck it and go a different direction. In AL, there are some rulings that will nerf a character into oblivion. There are so many people clamoring for a hard ruling from an admin on certain Facebook groups and the common expression used to answer such things is often "expect table variation". It's frustrating. The only real work-around is to have multiple options of characters to play at any particular game. I might show up planning to play my wild magic sorcerer only to get discouraged when I find out the DM is stingy with wild surges and just switch characters realizing my character is nerfed in his games.

[Deleted]

Definitely sympathize with you folks. This is particularly a problem in AL. Normally you could make a character build that's based on a certain use of certain abilities and check with your DM to make sure it's okay. If he says "no", then you just chuck it and go a different direction. In AL, there are some rulings that will nerf a character into oblivion. There are so many people clamoring for a hard ruling from an admin on certain Facebook groups and the common expression used to answer such things is often "expect table variation". It's frustrating. The only real work-around is to have multiple options of characters to play at any particular game. I might show up planning to play my wild magic sorcerer only to get discouraged when I find out the DM is stingy with wild surges and just switch characters realizing my character is nerfed in his games.

I found it's worse in AL. Total crapfest of what to expect and not expect.

[KorvinStarmast]

I feel like DMs call for checks way too often. yeah.

This SA ruling leaves me scratching my head. Most of the SA rulings make sense to me, but this one is ... trying to have it both ways.

If the PHB had chosen to make ki separate from the weave, more like psionics, you could still identify a given power as a spell like effect and leave the rest as clearly a separate kind of power.

Oh well, yet another thing to work out at table. I can see the frustration with how ki works at AL tables if the rulings leave the AL DM's puzzled.

[Dalebert]

I'm not clear on what people are frustrated about. I'm frustrated as well that they didn't make these things clearer up front in the PHB. But it's pretty str8-fwd now. The checklist he gives spells it out pretty well.

[Psyren]

I got your back Uriel! I, for one, enjoyed the differentiation between (Ex)traordinary, (Sp)ell-Like, and (Su)pernatural abilities.

Don't forget (Na)tural, and all the wonderful arguments it caused.

But I agree with you, these tags served a purpose, and they did not overcomplicate the game. At the very least, they could just keep it at (Sp) and (Ex), dumping (Su) and letting all magical effects interact with each other.


I prefer [Magical] and [Nonmagical] myself. Saves a lot of frustration when two sorts of magic interact (looking at you, 3.5 warlock and PF SR/dispel vs supernatural/spellike).

Or this too. Maybe a line like - "a monk's ki is an inherent part of his being, and can be used to create both magical and extraordinary effects." From that you know the question "can I dispel this" when it comes to a monk ability could have different answers depending on the ability.

[KorvinStarmast]

Dale:
I think that your thread title is incorrect and misleading, both.
Some Monk Stuff is indeed magic. (Indeed, your reference to the checklist seems to show that you probably agree)
From Crawford

In D&D, the first type of magic is part of nature. It is no more dispellable than the wind. A monster like a dragon exists because of that magic-enhanced nature. The second type of magic is what the rules are concerned about. When a rule refers to something being magical, it’s referring to that second type. Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions about the feature:
• Is it a magic item?
• Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description?
• Is it a spell attack?
• Does its description say it’s magical?If your answer to any of those questions is yes, the feature is magical.

Let’s look at a white dragon’s Cold Breath and ask ourselves those questions. First, Cold Breath isn’t a magic item. Second, its description mentions no spell. Third, it’s not a spell attack. Fourth, the word “magical” appears nowhere in its description. Our conclusion: Cold Breath is not considered a magical game effect, even though we know that dragons are amazing, supernatural beings. Four elements stuff usually comes off as spell like, or as a magical effect.

The Open Hand Monk's powers tend to be more like Dragon Breath. (Or so I read Crawford's intent).

[Tanarii]

Elemental Disciplines actually are all magical because of that.
If that's the case, anything spending Ki is magical. Because the Monk class says they are, right in its introduction.

I see your logic, it qualifies under the SA "does it say it's magical" checkbox.

So Jc is being inconsistent if he says any monk Ki abilities are non-magical (for purposes of dispel / AMF). The Monk class says they are all magical.

[Spore]

Why did you think non-spell Monk abilities were nullified in an antimagic field in the first place? I mean, what he's saying pretty much matches common sense.

Aka what makes sense to me. :smallwink:

There is no common sense in a game that handles the supernatural and abnormal.

[Tanarii]

There is no common sense in a game that handles the supernatural and abnormal.
For sure. I should have used some blue text in that post. :smallyuk:

[Deleted]

There is no common sense in a game that handles the supernatural and abnormal.

The rules can make sense within the context of the game or reality, even if the rules call for supernatural stuff.

[Anonymouswizard]

Definitely sympathize with you folks. This is particularly a problem in AL. Normally you could make a character build that's based on a certain use of certain abilities and check with your DM to make sure it's okay. If he says "no", then you just chuck it and go a different direction. In AL, there are some rulings that will nerf a character into oblivion. There are so many people clamoring for a hard ruling from an admin on certain Facebook groups and the common expression used to answer such things is often "expect table variation". It's frustrating. The only real work-around is to have multiple options of characters to play at any particular game. I might show up planning to play my wild magic sorcerer only to get discouraged when I find out the DM is stingy with wild surges and just switch characters realizing my character is nerfed in his games.

Yeah, this is a major problem. Most of my problems would be solved in they just put an 'easy/challenging/hard/legendary' table in the PhB so I had an idea of what skill bonuses meant, but the 'rulings nerf characters into oblivion' is a major problem.

(I think the worst I saw was returning the druid's animal companion, full 3.5 style. It was alright as it was, but if that group plays again I've been considering an archer ranger, maybe even a beastmaster, and would not like the druid getting an improved subclass feature for free.)

[Max_Killjoy]

Magic is as magic does.

[Tanarii]

Most of my problems would be solved in they just put an 'easy/challenging/hard/legendary' table in the PhB so I had an idea of what skill bonuses meant
Good thing that's on PHB page 174.

[Finlam]

So is the shadow-monk's shadow step magical? Can it be counter spelled? I'm still not clear on this.

[Dalebert]

So is the shadow-monk's shadow step magical? Can it be counter spelled? I'm still not clear on this.

On the first part--not according to Crawford. On the second part, definitely and unambiguously no. It's not a spell.

[Deleted]

So is the shadow-monk's shadow step magical? Can it be counter spelled? I'm still not clear on this.

Do you go by what the book says or from what Crawford wants the book to say?

[Dalebert]

Dale:
I think that your thread title is incorrect and misleading, both.

That's a bit harsh. What he's saying is that the default is no, it's not magical despite the lore about ki; hence the title of the thread. That's not saying there aren't exceptions. The general rule is they are not.

That said, the checklist he provides does seem to affect certain things like the 2nd level spells shadow monks can cast at 3rd level and much of the elemental monk. The elemental monk is basically a very poorly-designed spellcaster after all (IMHO).

[KorvinStarmast]

That's a bit harsh. What he's saying is that the default is no, it's not magical despite the lore about ki; hence the title of the thread. That's not saying there aren't exceptions. The general rule is they are not.

That said, the checklist he provides does seem to affect certain things like the 2nd level spells shadow monks can cast at 3rd level and much of the elemental monk. The elemental monk is basically a very poorly-designed spellcaster after all (IMHO). A fair reply, and I see your point more clearly now. Thanks.(Maybe I should edit that post and tone it down a bit?)

[j_spencer93]

Oddly...his rulings is how i have always done it. Maybe its a carry over from 3.5 but i just assumed they weren't magical unless casting a spell.

[JackPhoenix]

Oddly...his rulings is how i have always done it. Maybe its a carry over from 3.5 but i just assumed they weren't magical unless casting a spell.

I'd say most of JC's rullings are just what's already written in the books or common sense, but common sense isn't as common as it should be, and few of the rulings are weird.

[Eric Diaz]

+1 to "this is just common sense".

Of course everything is magical in D&D. Giants couldn't really walk if they weren't, dragons couldn't fly etc. But SPELLS are a different thing.

Antimagic Field says "Within the Sphere, Spells can't be cast, summoned creatures disappear, and even Magic Items become mundane."

I don't see much of a problem here... of course it also says "Spells and other magical effects, except those created by an artifact or a deity, are suppressed in the Sphere and can't protrude into it.", but since EVERYTHING is more or less magic in D&D, those "other magical effects" must be summoned creatures and Magic Items.

I am having a hard time thinking of a situation where the result wouldn't be obvious.

So the TLDR is: ki is only magic if used to cast spells.

EDIT: OTOH, it seems to me that spells are ALWAYS spells. No matter if they are cast by a gith or innately used by any given race (or, in my games, if your spells are created by your kobold iron man armor), they won't work within an Antimagic Field and can be Counterspelled. Which means, oddly enough, that the latest UA about giths and eladrin indicated that the gith's misty step can be counterspelled, but the eladrin's misty step ability cannot!

[Pex]

Good thing that's on PHB page 174.

No, that says what the numbers are. It does not define what constitutes being assigned a particular number leading to inconsistency of application based on who is DM that day.

[Zalabim]

Or this too. Maybe a line like - "a monk's ki is an inherent part of his being, and can be used to create both magical and extraordinary effects." From that you know the question "can I dispel this" when it comes to a monk ability could have different answers depending on the ability.
How about a line like "Monks harness this power within themselves to create magical effects and exceed their bodies' physical capabilities." Ki can be used to create magical effects, which are suppressed in an antimagic field, and also as a separate concept, Ki can be used to exceed the bodies' physical capabilities in a way that is worth mentioning outside of magical effects.

If that's the case, anything spending Ki is magical. Because the Monk class says they are, right in its introduction.

I see your logic, it qualifies under the SA "does it say it's magical" checkbox.

So Jc is being inconsistent if he says any monk Ki abilities are non-magical (for purposes of dispel / AMF). The Monk class says they are all magical.
The magic of Ki says Ki is magic in the same way that dragons are magic. They use Ki for things that are magical effects as well as things that are physical effects. Elemental Disciplines is the description for a specific ability the monk can gain and that description says these abilities are magical.

So is the shadow-monk's shadow step magical? Can it be counter spelled? I'm still not clear on this.
It's not magical. It's not a spell, so it can't be counterspelled. You still can't use it in an antimagic field because there's no teleporting in an antimagic field.

[Blacky the Blackball]

It isn't arcane magic, but ki is described as magic in the description of the monk.

Yep.

The first time this came up in our game (a monk in a party fighting a beholder) we looked at the book, noticed that ki was described as being magic, and then agreed as a group that monk abilities that require the expeniture of ki points count as magic and are therefore vulnerable to anti-magic; but monk abilities that don't require the expenditure of ki points aren't magic and therefore aren't vulnerable.

We're happy with our ruling and won't be changing it just because Jeremy Crawford says differently.

[KorvinStarmast]

A Fighter's Second Wind isn't magic, even though it provides healing. That may be another lens through which to see this.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, this is a major problem. Most of my problems would be solved in they just put an 'easy/challenging/hard/legendary' table in the PhB so I had an idea of what skill bonuses meant, but the 'rulings nerf characters into oblivion' is a major problem.


No, that says what the numbers are. It does not define what constitutes being assigned a particular number leading to inconsistency of application based on who is DM that day.Allow me to requote what I was replying to so you can see that my response was exactly on point and completely accurate given the exact complaint being made. And that your disagreement, while totally in line with your personal complaints about the system, does not stop my answer from being totally correct given the specifics of Anonymouswizard's complaint. The page I referenced in the PHB is where "they put a [very easy/easy/medium/hard/very hard/nearly impossible] table in the PHB" to allow people to have an idea of what the bonuses mean. It just doesn't tell you what qualifies as those difficulties, but he didn't say anything about that.

Also Nyah-Nyah-Nyah and raspberry tongue. :smalltongue: :smallwink: :smallbiggrin:



The magic of Ki says Ki is magic in the same way that dragons are magic. They use Ki for things that are magical effects as well as things that are physical effects. Elemental Disciplines is the description for a specific ability the monk can gain and that description says these abilities are magical.
Sorry, is this argument a variation on : it's just fluff text unless it's under a feature?

Or is it: one specifically says its background/inner/inherent and the other doesn't specify?

Trying to be clear on what you're saying here.

[Eric Diaz]

No, that says what the numbers are. It does not define what constitutes being assigned a particular number leading to inconsistency of application based on who is DM that day.

Pex, I don't remember if you participated in the most recent discussion about that, but if you didn't, let me give you my 2c: while I agree that some guidelines would be nice, they would STILL lead to inconsistency of application based on who is DM that day - unless you go the 4e route and calculate the DC based on your level.

For example: let us say the DMG explicitly says an iron lock is DC 10 and a mithral lock is a DC 20 to pick.

You'd think you have an idea of what your PC's abilities are... but your GM can STILL create a dungeon full of iron locks OR mithral locks with no prior warning. So, until you enter the dungeon, you have no idea of how effective your lock-picking will be.

Or course, if you're running a published adventure, or if your PC is currently examining the lock, I'd say the DC should be explicit.

[Pex]

Also Nyah-Nyah-Nyah and raspberry tongue. :smalltongue: :smallwink: :smallbiggrin:


I'm telling Mom!


Pex, I don't remember if you participated in the most recent discussion about that, but if you didn't, let me give you my 2c: while I agree that some guidelines would be nice, they would STILL lead to inconsistency of application based on who is DM that day - unless you go the 4e route and calculate the DC based on your level.

For example: let us say the DMG explicitly says an iron lock is DC 10 and a mithral lock is a DC 20 to pick.

You'd think you have an idea of what your PC's abilities are... but your GM can STILL create a dungeon full of iron locks OR mithral locks with no prior warning. So, until you enter the dungeon, you have no idea of how effective your lock-picking will be.

Or course, if you're running a published adventure, or if your PC is currently examining the lock, I'd say the DC should be explicit.

I wouldn't know what's in any dungeon before I enter it more than just locks. That's not relevant. What is relevant is that when I actually do come across an iron or mithral lock I know my character's ability to open it without the key.

However, let's not derail the thread any further.

[Tanarii]

Or course, if you're running a published adventure, or if your PC is currently examining the lock, I'd say the DC should be explicit.
Can't have the DM communicate the DC for the specific task in front of you. It'd be mother-may-I.

Now, DMs not communicating DCs , on a regular basis, not even as a general range (ie Easy, Medium etc)? Yeah, that's a problem. Complaints that you can't judge how difficult a specific situation in front of the PC will be, when the PC should be able to have a rough idea, and the player isn't being given any way to judge it ... totally fair.

Complaints that you have no idea if a DM isn't going to bother with Int checks at all making the ability score useless vs use them in an even and consistent manner making Int useful. Both somewhat fair, and welcome to D&D.

Personally I'm happier with an edition that empowers the DM to make appropriate rulings based on what's going on in the game-world, as instead of imposing tyrannical players, via "RAW or you're a Bad DM" & hard-coded rules with no freedom to adapt to the in-world situation. After all, no two in-game situations can possibly ever be identical.

[Eric Diaz]

What is relevant is that when I actually do come across an iron or mithral lock I know my character's ability to open it without the key.


Now, DMs not communicating DCs , on a regular basis, not even as a general range (ie Easy, Medium etc)? Yeah, that's a problem.

Completely agree. If your PC is currently examining the lock, I'd say the DC should be explicit.


However, let's not derail the thread any further.

Agreed!

[Deleted]

A Fighter's Second Wind isn't magic, even though it provides healing. That may be another lens through which to see this.

Bad example.

The book says that HP isn't just meat. HP is a number of different things including meat, luck, ability to go on, endurance, and whatever other fluffy thing you want to call it.

It also doesn't say that the fighter's second wind is magic.

The book also says that ki is specifically magic.

Anything using ki is magical. If JC doesn't want to read the book before making a ruling, you get discussions like this.

[Pex]

Bad example.

The book says that HP isn't just meat. HP is a number of different things including meat, luck, ability to go on, endurance, and whatever other fluffy thing you want to call it.

It also doesn't say that the fighter's second wind is magic.

The book also says that ki is specifically magic.

Anything using ki is magical. If JC doesn't want to read the book before making a ruling, you get discussions like this.

So a monk can't use Flurry of Blows in an anti-magic field?

[Deleted]

So a monk can't use Flurry of Blows in an anti-magic field?

Yup.

If it was a non-magical ability it would bebone thing, like the extra attack feature, but Ki is specifically magical.

It's like the haste spell. It gives you an additional attack, not because of what you can do, but because you're using a performance enhancing substance/drug (magic).

Extra Attack isn't magic but Flurry of Blows is.

[Zalabim]

Sorry, is this argument a variation on : it's just fluff text unless it's under a feature?

Or is it: one specifically says its background/inner/inherent and the other doesn't specify?

Trying to be clear on what you're saying here.
This is a plain English "the fluff does not say what you think it says" thing. The fluff doesn't say everything monks use Ki for is magical effects. So it's left to the individual ability descriptions to say.

It also doesn't say that the fighter's second wind is magic.

The book also says that ki is specifically magic.

Anything using ki is magical. If JC doesn't want to read the book before making a ruling, you get discussions like this.
Ki is a magical energy. Monks use Ki to "create magical effects" and "exceed their bodies' physical capabilities." Antimagic Field suppresses spells and magical effects. It does not suppress magical energy. Magical energy can still be used in an antimagic field. Only magical effects are suppressed. "Exceed their bodies' physical capabilities" is a separate ability from "create magical effects." If exceeding their bodies' physical capabilities, or enhancing the speed and strength of their unarmed strikes, were magical effects, it wouldn't list creating magical effects separately.

[Tanarii]

This is a plain English "the fluff does not say what you think it says" thing. The fluff doesn't say everything monks use Ki for is magical effects. So it's left to the individual ability descriptions to say. Okay so first, you are claiming its fluff, not a rule.

Second, it does, in fact, say that all Ki is magical. Quite clearly, in plain English. "Monks make a careful study of a magical energy that monastic traditions call Ki. This energy is an element of the magic that suffuses the multiverse - specifically the element that flows through living bodies." Ki is magical energy, part of the same magical energy that suffuses the multiverse. No ifs, ands or buts.

As such, AMF should, by its second sentence, prevent any Ki use it's area of effect, if it does what it says it does. AMF specifically says "This area is divorced from the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse." That should include Ki, if the spell is going to actually do what it says it does.

[Zalabim]

Okay so first, you are claiming its fluff, not a rule.

Second, it does, in fact, say that all Ki is magical. Quite clearly, in plain English. "Monks make a careful study of a magical energy that monastic traditions call Ki. This energy is an element of the magic that suffuses the multiverse - specifically the element that flows through living bodies." Ki is magical energy, part of the same magical energy that suffuses the multiverse. No ifs, ands or buts.

As such, AMF should, by its second sentence, prevent any Ki use it's area of effect, if it does what it says it does. AMF specifically says "This area is divorced from the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse." That should include Ki, if the spell is going to actually do what it says it does.
(Shouldn't be necessary, but apparently it's necessary.)

Ki is a magical energy. Monks use Ki to "create magical effects" and "exceed their bodies' physical capabilities." Antimagic Field suppresses spells and magical effects. It does not suppress magical energy. Magical energy can still be used in an antimagic field. Only magical effects are suppressed. "Exceed their bodies' physical capabilities" is a separate ability from "create magical effects." If exceeding their bodies' physical capabilities, or enhancing the speed and strength of their unarmed strikes, were magical effects, it wouldn't list creating magical effects separately.

[Deleted]

(Shouldn't be necessary, but apparently it's necessary.)

Ki is a magical energy. Monks use Ki to "create magical effects" and "exceed their bodies' physical capabilities." Antimagic Field suppresses spells and magical effects. It does not suppress magical energy. Magical energy can still be used in an antimagic field. Only magical effects are suppressed. "Exceed their bodies' physical capabilities" is a separate ability from "create magical effects." If exceeding their bodies' physical capabilities, or enhancing the speed and strength of their unarmed strikes, were magical effects, it wouldn't list creating magical effects separately.

You might need to read the Monk again.

You're arguing that something doesn't say something that it clearly does say.

Are you just a Crawford fanboy and trying to defend him just for the sake of defending him or have you not read the monk?

I'm being completely legit when I ask this and I'm not tryibg to be mean.

[Cybren]

I think you're reading too much into it. Yeah, there's a section titled "the magic of ki", but they're not literally saying "ki is magic just like a spell". They're saying "ki is supernatural in some capacity". Ki is small-m magic, whereas an anti-Capital-M-Magic field suppresses capital M Magic. It's careless in the sense that they're reusing the same word, but it's no more careless than titling the fighter subclass "Eldircht Knight" and then only ever using "Eldricht" as an adjective to describe warlock abilities (I've seen a non-zero number of EKs assume they can take Eldricht Blast, after all, their class is literally called an _Eldricht_ knight!)
EDIT: not sure why my phone autocorrect hates spellings eldritch correctly if it's capitalized but fixing it is more effort than it worth

[LeonBH]

Yup.

If it was a non-magical ability it would bebone thing, like the extra attack feature, but Ki is specifically magical.

It's like the haste spell. It gives you an additional attack, not because of what you can do, but because you're using a performance enhancing substance/drug (magic).

Extra Attack isn't magic but Flurry of Blows is.

Just curious. Do you think a dragon's breath weapon shouldn't work in an antimagic field?

Dragons are clearly magical creatures. Physics/evolution cannot justify the existence of a fantasy dragon, let alone ice-breathing ones. Also, Draconic Sorcerers draw from their magical dragon bloodline. So, dragons are magical creatures.

Do they fall dead in an antimagic field? Or at the very least, do their breath weapons stop working?

[Zalabim]

Zalabim used Reading Comprehension.

Deleted dodged the attack.

Well I tried.

Like, we know that spells are included because Antimagic Field says spells all over the place, but the book also flatly states that spells are magical effects. Page 201, "What is a Spell? A spell is a discrete magical effect, a single shaping of the magical energies that suffuse the multiiverse into a specific, limited expression." And even from spells, some of the end results of a spell are no longer magical effects, like the permanent wall of stone or a skeleton still animated long after animate dead was last used. These exceptions are often called out specifically.

Conversely, since there's no blanket assumption that "being a monk" or "using Ki" is a magical effect, class abilities which are magical effects say that they are, like Elemental Disciplines. That actually seems to be the only one in the PHB which is. Other abilities run afoul in antimagic fields by being named spells without having to say they're magical separately.

If I were to explain the fluff behind it, I'd say that the antimagic field doesn't penetrate a creature's body. Of course the real reason is that class features are class features and the writeup before that is not class features but background fluff. I just wanted to prove that the fluff doesn't say all uses of Ki are magical effects anyway. Because it doesn't.

[Cybren]

Yeah re-reading the text of antimagic field I'm not sure why you would assume non-spell monk abilities would be effected. It's explicit in what it suppresses, and doesn't give a general "Magic can't happen" ruling. The language about suppressing 'other magical effects' reads to me that it suppresses continuous/permanent magical things not one use non-spell abilities

[Tanarii]

(Shouldn't be necessary, but apparently it's necessary.)

Ki is a magical energy. Monks use Ki to "create magical effects" and "exceed their bodies' physical capabilities." Antimagic Field suppresses spells and magical effects. It does not suppress magical energy. Magical energy can still be used in an antimagic field. Only magical effects are suppressed. "Exceed their bodies' physical capabilities" is a separate ability from "create magical effects." If exceeding their bodies' physical capabilities, or enhancing the speed and strength of their unarmed strikes, were magical effects, it wouldn't list creating magical effects separately.
So ... You're just going fail to read and comprehend the text that says everything you said here doesn't matter?

The Magic of Ki specifically says Ki is the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse.

Antimagic Field specifically says it divorces the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse, which explicitly includes all Ki, in its area.

I get you're trying to say 'but the the details of AMF only talk about magical effects specifically'. But that doesn't allow you to just ignore, which by the way is the exact opposite of reading comprehension, that AMF specifically says it cuts out exactly the magical energy that Ki is part of.

Edit: in other words, your statement that "[AMF] does not suppress magical energy" is false. AMF says it suppresses magic energy. In plain English.

[LeonBH]

So ... You're just going fail to read and comprehend the text that says everything you said here doesn't matter?

The Magic of Ki specifically says Ki is the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse.

Antimagic Field specifically says it divorces the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse, which explicitly includes all Ki, in its area.

I get you're trying to say 'but the the details of AMF only talk about magical effects specifically'. But that doesn't allow you to just ignore, which by the way is the exact opposite of reading comprehension, that AMF specifically says it cuts out exactly the magical energy that Ki is part of.

Edit: in other words, your statement that "[AMF] does not suppress magical energy" is false. AMF says it suppresses magic energy. In plain English.

In your opinion, would a dragon's breath weapon work in an AMF?

Dragons are clearly magical creatures. Draconic Sorcerers can cast magic through their draconic bloodline. Their breath weapons are also magical since science would not support the existence and evolution of an ice-breathing creature as large as an Ancient White Dragon. WotC also recognizes the fact that dragons are magical creatures. They exist because of magic.

I'm curious to know if you think a dragon would drop dead in an AMF, or at least if it can use its breath weapon against someone standing inside an AMF.

[Tanarii]

In your opinion, would a dragon's breath weapon work in an AMF?In my opinion any Ki that isn't specifically a spell should work in AMF. I'm nit-picking where the language of of AMF doesn't match the rest of the spell.

I know some people like to divide things into "just fluff" and "mechanics", but I'm not one of those people. I'm simultaneously pointing out where the text of the spell does not support the argument being made, and complaining its internally inconsistent. All AMF needed to say was it divorces "certain aspects" of the magical energy that yadda yadda etc. then what follows would be clearly a limited list of exactly what aspects of the magical energy were suppressed.


I'm curious to know if you think a dragon would drop dead in an AMF, or at least if it can use its breath weapon against someone standing inside an AMF.As written, I'd be seriously inclined to rule in favor of any player arguing it should suppress Dragon Breath. Then I'd go spend some time re-reading the Dragon entry in the MM to see what it had to say. In fact, I'm going to go do that now. :smallwink:

But no, I wouldn't kill a dragon, no matter what. AMF suppresses. It shouldn't permanently kill.

[KorvinStarmast]

In my opinion any Ki that isn't specifically a spell should work in AMF. I think that this line of thinking is what's behind Crawford's tweets and what he is saying about Dragon Breath.

What has people confused is that for Ki Empowered Strike he was saying that the effect is suppressed, the ability gained at sixth leve, but the 5th level effect, that costs a Ki point, isn't suppressed since (I think) it doesn't get described as a spell like ability or a spell effect.

Yeah, it's a head scratcher.

[Tanarii]

I'm guessing that's because Ki empowered strikes mimics a magic weapon's effect, so 'logically' it makes sense for it to be suppressed like a magic weapon.

[Deleted]

Just curious. Do you think a dragon's breath weapon shouldn't work in an antimagic field?

Dragons are clearly magical creatures. Physics/evolution cannot justify the existence of a fantasy dragon, let alone ice-breathing ones. Also, Draconic Sorcerers draw from their magical dragon bloodline. So, dragons are magical creatures.

Do they fall dead in an antimagic field? Or at the very least, do their breath weapons stop working?

If the dragon's breathe weapon literally said it was magic, then its magic... If it says it isn't then it isnt magic.

It isnt a hard concept to grasp.

Ki is literally magic.

[Astofel]

I'm guessing that's because Ki empowered strikes mimics a magic weapon's effect, so 'logically' it makes sense for it to be suppressed like a magic weapon.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here. The actual ability description says that "your unarmed strikes count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.", emphasis mine. Does this mean that the unarmed strikes aren't actually magical, and only overcome resistance and immunity as though they were, and thus still function in an Anti-Magic Field?

For what it's worth I don't actually care what the RAW says about some poorly-defined 'magic' that is blocked by the AMF. As far as I care, it blocks spells, effects that replicate spells, psionic stuff, and anything else is decided on a case-by-case basis. For me, Flurry of Blows still works in an AMF, as do most monk abilities bar the shadow monk's casting and the 4E monk disciplines.

[TheUser]

I want you to imagine a world where Jeremy Crawford Tweets do not exist and you were left only with the text of the PHB:


PHB page 76:
THE MAGIC OF KI
Monks make eareful study of a magical energy that most
monastic traditions call ki. This energy is an element
of the magic that suffuses the multiverse..."


PHB page 213:
ANTIMAGIC FIELD
8th-leveI abjuration
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self (IO-foot-radius sphere)
Components: V, S, M (a pinch of powdered iron or
iron filings)
Duration: Concentration, up to I hour
A 10-foot-radius invisible sphere of antimagic surrounds
you. This area is divorced from the magical energy that
suffuses the multiverse....




If we only take a cold reading of the RULES OF THE GAME. We see that Antimagic field, irregardless of what we as players want, from a strictly mechanical and narrative perspective, restricts any feature which is reliant on the manipulation of Ki.

There is no confusion, no RAI, no ambiguity. The rules clearly state what Ki is and what Antimagic field does and if any DM were to rule that an anti-magic field suppresses the use of Ki, I as a player would expect that result from a proper reading of the rules. End of story.

The point is to read the rules and establish consistent expectations of results.
Having a twitter ruling (which I'm guessing JC doesn't put a whole lot of thought into), override clear cut wording in the PHB creates a terrible precedent that destabilizes the effect that common literacy and interpretation has. How can we trust any rule in the book actually means what is written if we throw it all away on a 120 character blurb from ONE developer of the rulebook (he's not the only one who worked on this system guys).

[Coffee_Dragon]

I'm curious to know if you think a dragon would drop dead in an AMF

Maybe it wouldn't... but maybe a ki-rin would?

ahaha

AHAHAHAHA

[Zalabim]

So ... You're just going fail to read and comprehend the text that says everything you said here doesn't matter?

The Magic of Ki specifically says Ki is the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse.

Antimagic Field specifically says it divorces the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse, which explicitly includes all Ki, in its area.

I get you're trying to say 'but the the details of AMF only talk about magical effects specifically'. But that doesn't allow you to just ignore, which by the way is the exact opposite of reading comprehension, that AMF specifically says it cuts out exactly the magical energy that Ki is part of.

Edit: in other words, your statement that "[AMF] does not suppress magical energy" is false. AMF says it suppresses magic energy. In plain English.
It is still possible to spend spell slots to cast spells in an antimagic field. You're clearly not cut off from magical energy. Those spells are suppressed however and have no effect. Again I would describe this as the AMF not penetrating creatures' bodies. The internal power is still there, but it can't produce any effect in the antimagic environment.

I want you to imagine a world where Jeremy Crawford Tweets do not exist and you were left only with the text of the PHB:


PHB page 76:
[I]THE MAGIC OF KI
Monks make eareful study of a magical energy that most
monastic traditions call ki. This energy is an element
of the magic that suffuses the multiverse..."


PHB page 213:
ANTIMAGIC FIELD
8th-leveI abjuration
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self (IO-foot-radius sphere)
Components: V, S, M (a pinch of powdered iron or
iron filings)
Duration: Concentration, up to I hour
A 10-foot-radius invisible sphere of antimagic surrounds
you. This area is divorced from the magical energy that
suffuses the multiverse....




If we only take a cold reading of the RULES OF THE GAME. We see that Antimagic field, irregardless of what we as players want, from a strictly mechanical and narrative perspective, restricts any feature which is reliant on the manipulation of Ki.

There is no confusion, no RAI, no ambiguity. The rules clearly state what Ki is and what Antimagic field does and if any DM were to rule that an anti-magic field suppresses the use of Ki, I as a player would expect that result from a proper reading of the rules. End of story.

The point is to read the rules and establish consistent expectations of results.
Having a twitter ruling (which I'm guessing JC doesn't put a whole lot of thought into), override clear cut wording in the PHB creates a terrible precedent that destabilizes the effect that common literacy and interpretation has. How can we trust any rule in the book actually means what is written if we throw it all away on a 120 character blurb from ONE developer of the rulebook (he's not the only one who worked on this system guys).
Of course the real reason is that the part you're quoting from Magic of Ki isn't game rules but a description of the default example of the in-world reality and you quoted only the barest sliver of the text of either section. Almost dishonest, really.

[LeonBH]

In my opinion any Ki that isn't specifically a spell should work in AMF. I'm nit-picking where the language of of AMF doesn't match the rest of the spell.

Oh. I'm a bit confused then, because you did say "Antimagic Field specifically says it divorces the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse, which explicitly includes all Ki, in its area." I thought you were saying that all ki, regardless of if it's a spell or not, should not work in an AMF?

Or is your stand more of, you understand what AMF is supposed to do as intended (and as stated by Crawford), but disagree that the spell's text says what it says it does?


As written, I'd be seriously inclined to rule in favor of any player arguing it should suppress Dragon Breath. Then I'd go spend some time re-reading the Dragon entry in the MM to see what it had to say. In fact, I'm going to go do that now. :smallwink:

The entry says: "Dragons are also magical creatures whose innate powers fuels their dreaded breath weapons and other preternatural abilities."

This implies that not only would a dragon lose their breath weapon, but also their flight, frightful presence, blindsight, truesight, damage immunity, and even ability to move (the math of scaling mass vs volume prevents something as large as a dragon from moving).

Perhaps they wouldn't die, but they would be totally suppressed inside an AMF, if that area is entirely divorced from magic.

[LeonBH]

If the dragon's breathe weapon literally said it was magic, then its magic... If it says it isn't then it isnt magic.

It isnt a hard concept to grasp.

Ki is literally magic.

It does say that a dragon's breath weapon is magic. On MM 87:

"Dragons are also magical creatures whose innate powers fuels their dreaded breath weapons and other preternatural abilities."

Not only is their breath weapon fueled by their magic, their preternatural abilities are, as well (preternatural meaning "beyond what is normal or natural"). So their blindsight, truesight, frightful presence, and even flight and movement should be canceled out in an AMF. Science/the mundane cannot support the existence and effective functioning of dragons, if they didn't have magic.

[TheUser]

Of course the real reason is that the part you're quoting from Magic of Ki isn't game rules but a description of the default example of the in-world reality and you quoted only the barest sliver of the text of either section. Almost dishonest, really.

Mental gymnastics at it's finest everybody.

Not only is my respect for people's time and attempt at clarity by minimizing reading necessary being construed as dishonesty but it doesn't matter anyway because the description of Ki in the Player's Handbook isn't actually a rule...

See, if the rest of either quotes contradicted what I concluded you would have a point, but the description of Ki at no point in time deviates from what I've outlined, nor does the description of anti-magic field.

While you can try and paint my minimalist approach as "almost dishonest" your unwillingness to recognize that the description of Ki in the PHB constitutes rules is actually dishonest. It is there specifically to establish narrative and mechanical clarity on what Ki is.

Ki is magic. Antimagic field surpresses magic. Ergo, abilities which are described as using, manipulating or spending Ki do not work in an antimagic field. While this may not have been true in other editions it's pretty cut and dry from a RAW perspective such that a RAI ruling otherwise is not only disingenuous but bordering on completely ignoring the rules.

Here's a full excerpt from both just to put it to bed:

THE MAGIC OF KI
Monks make careful study of a magical energy that most
monastic traditions call ki. This energy is an element
of the magic that suffuses the multiverse-specifically,
the element that flows through living bodies. Monks
harness this power within themselves to create magical
effects and exceed their bodies' physical capabilities.
and some of their special attacks can hinder the flow of
ki in their opponents. Using this energy. monks channel
uncanny speed and strength into their unarmed strikes.
As they gain experience, their martial training and their
mastery of ki gives them more power over their bodies
and the bodies of their foes.

ANTIMAGIC FIELD
8th-leveI abjuration
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self (IO-foot-radius sphere)
Components: V, S, M (a pinch of powdered iron or
iron filings)
Duration: Concentration, up to I hour
A 10-foot-radius invisible sphere of antimagic surrounds
you. This area is divorced from the magical energy that
suffuses the multiverse. Within the sphere, spells can't
be cast, summoned creatures disappear, and even magic
items become mundane. Until the spell ends, the sphere
moves with you, centered on you.
Spells and other magical effects, except those created
by an artifact or a deity, are suppressed in the sphere
and can't protrude into it. A slot expended to cast
a suppressed spell is consumed. While an effect is
suppressed, it doesn't function, but the time it spends
suppressed counts against its duration.
Targeted Effects. Spells and other magical effects,
such as magic missile and charm person, that target
a creature or an object in the sphere have no effect
on that target.
Areas ofMagic. The area of another spell or magical
effect, such as fireball, can't extend into the sphere.
If the sphere overlaps an area of magic, the part of
the area that is covered by the sphere is suppressed.
For example, the flames created by a wall of fire are
suppressed within the sphere, creating a gap in the wall
if the overlap is large enough.
Spells. Any active spell or other magical effect on a
creature or an object in the sphere is suppressed while
the creature or object is in it.
Magic ltems. The properties and powers of
magic items are suppressed in the sphere. For
example, a +1 longsword in the sphere functions as a
nonmagical longsword.
A magic weapon's properties and powers are
suppressed if it is used against a target in the sphere or
wielded by an attacker in the sphere. If a magic weapon
or a piece of magic ammunition fully leaves the sphere
(for example, if you fire a magic arrow or throw a magic
spear at a target outside the sphere), the magic of the
item ceases to be suppressed as soon as it exits.
Magical Travel. Teleportation and planar travel
fail to work in the sphere, whether the sphere is the
destination or the departure point for such magical
travel. A portal to another location, world, or plane of
existence, as well as an opening to an extradimensional
space such as that created by the rope trick spell,
temporarily closes while in the sphere.
Creatures and Objects. A creature or object
summoned or created by magic temporarily winks out
of existence in the sphere. Such a creature instantly
reappears once the space the creature occupied is no
longer within the sphere.
Dispel Magic. Spells and magical effects such as
dispel magic have no effect on the sphere. Likewise, the
spheres created by different antimagic field spells don't
nullify each other.

[Talamare]

If only abilities had tags that indicated what their power source was.

Like, say, Martial, Arcane, Divine, Primal, or Psionic.

Just spitballing.

The thing about 4th edition is that 80% of it are VAST IMPROVEMENTS TO DnD 3.5

and the other 20% tried to make it into a video game.

So despite 4th edition... BEING THE BEST EDITION OF DnD EVER MADE

People will look at the bad 20% and call it the worst.

I blame Pareto

[Vaz]

Just curious. Do you think a dragon's breath weapon shouldn't work in an antimagic field?

Dragons are clearly magical creatures. Physics/evolution cannot justify the existence of a fantasy dragon, let alone ice-breathing ones. Also, Draconic Sorcerers draw from their magical dragon bloodline. So, dragons are magical creatures.

Do they fall dead in an antimagic field? Or at the very least, do their breath weapons stop working?

I mean if you want to draw on previous editions as an influence, you can surmise that that's the intention that a Dragon's Breath was magical because it was marked as Su; Supernatural, and thus switched off in an AMF. Of course, irrelevant in this edition, now that Dragons are boring Breathing Flying Creatures unless you give them spellcasting.

[Unoriginal]

The thing about 4th edition is that 80% of it are VAST IMPROVEMENTS TO DnD 3.5

and the other 20% tried to make it into a video game.

Being a vast improvement to 3.5 isn't an accomplishment.

So no, I would never call 4e "the best D&D edition ever made".


As for the question of Monk Ki or Dragon's Breath working in antimagic area or not, I think the edition writers had something in mind, or perhaps they had different ideas, but they just didn't think to include it in the spell's description explicitly.


If you want to got by pure RAW, while Antimagic Field would suppress the magical effects of a Monk's Ki, it wouldn't affect their "exceed their bodies' physical capabilities" capacity, technically.


Of course, irrelevant in this edition, now that Dragons are boring Breathing Flying Creatures unless you give them spellcasting.

Ah, yes.

Because monsters are boring unless they have spells, eh?

For the life of me I'll never get how people can consider something as awesome as a flying scaly death machine to be "boring" just because they can't cast fireball or haste.

[Vaz]

The thing about 4th edition is that 80% of it are VAST IMPROVEMENTS TO DnD 3.5

and the other 20% tried to make it into a video game.

So despite 4th edition... BEING THE BEST EDITION OF DnD EVER MADE

People will look at the bad 20% and call it the worst.

I blame Pareto

What vast improvements?

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

+1 to "this is just common sense".

Of course everything is magical in D&D. Giants couldn't really walk if they weren't, dragons couldn't fly etc. But SPELLS are a different thing.

Antimagic Field says "Within the Sphere, Spells can't be cast, summoned creatures disappear, and even Magic Items become mundane."

I don't see much of a problem here... of course it also says "Spells and other magical effects, except those created by an artifact or a deity, are suppressed in the Sphere and can't protrude into it.", but since EVERYTHING is more or less magic in D&D, those "other magical effects" must be summoned creatures and Magic Items.

I am having a hard time thinking of a situation where the result wouldn't be obvious.

So the TLDR is: ki is only magic if used to cast spells.

EDIT: OTOH, it seems to me that spells are ALWAYS spells. No matter if they are cast by a gith or innately used by any given race (or, in my games, if your spells are created by your kobold iron man armor), they won't work within an Antimagic Field and can be Counterspelled. Which means, oddly enough, that the latest UA about giths and eladrin indicated that the gith's misty step can be counterspelled, but the eladrin's misty step ability cannot!

Completely Agree.

[Deleted]

What vast improvements?

Many of the things that you know and love about 5e!

Simplified rules! In 4e the DM would give +2/-2 to situations that warrant it... They changed that to advantage and disadvantage in 5e (which is essentially + or - 3.3333). Combat advantage was a condition that gave +2/-2 dependimg on the situation... Really streamlined things.

Simplified Actions! Action, Minor Action, Immediate Reaction, Immediate Imterupt, and Move Action is way more simple than 3e's action economy... They just further simplified that.

Lower ceiling, higher floor! You still have an unbalanced game (4e was more balanced but still had fringe issues), but 4e started the trend of lowering the ceiling of classes while raising the floor.

Easier to DM than 3.e! 5e's system sucks compared to 4e's when making encounters (the fact no one seems to understand the DC system or monster creation is proof enough) BUT still light years ahead of 3e. Monsters are a bit lame in 5e, but homevrewing interesting things on them works easy enough.

The rogue! Seriously, the 4e rogue was awesome and the 4e essentials rogue was a small step backwards in some regards but a good step further in others... It gave us a great 5e class. Actually the essentials Rogue is directly ported over to 5e in many ways.

Also here is what the 4e wizard would look like in the skin of 5e... With some changes to add in some 5e ideologies...

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?540802-4e-Wizard-in-5th-Edition-(Thought-Experiment)

I didn't even have to change the powers actually. Just took some wording from 5e (vancian casting stuff), put rituals back in spell casting, and blamo you got the 4e wizard looking awfully 3e5e.

[Morty]

With the rules being as vague as D&D's magic has always been, if not more, I think the better question is whether or not monk abilities should cease to function in an anti-magic field. That is to say, does it benefit the game if they do? I honestly don't think so.

[Deleted]

With the rules being as vague as D&D's magic has always been, if not more, I think the better question is whether or not monk abilities should cease to function in an anti-magic field. That is to say, does it benefit the game if they do? I honestly don't think so.

Well, MORTY, I don'... Burp... Think that any person with a reasonable...Buuuurp... Reasonable IQ would think anti-magic zones is good for the game to...burp... Begin with.

:smalltongue:

Actually, unless it's something like a beholder or something special, I don't think it-s good for the game to have things that glat out stop magic like this. This includes counter spells. I get why they are in the game but... Meh... There are tons of other ways to screw with players that isn't so lazy.

[LeonBH]

Well, MORTY, I don'... Burp... Think that any person with a reasonable...Buuuurp... Reasonable IQ would think anti-magic zones is good for the game to...burp... Begin with.

:smalltongue:

Actually, unless it's something like a beholder or something special, I don't think it-s good for the game to have things that glat out stop magic like this. This includes counter spells. I get why they are in the game but... Meh... There are tons of other ways to screw with players that isn't so lazy.

I read that in Rick's voice. Hehe.

I've never seen a player ever cast AMF before since it shuts them down too, but I suspect it might be fun to see a player AMF used to disable a more powerful enemy caster.

[Unoriginal]

Well, MORTY, I don'... Burp... Think that any person with a reasonable...Buuuurp... Reasonable IQ would think anti-magic zones is good for the game to...burp... Begin with.

:smalltongue:

Actually, unless it's something like a beholder or something special, I don't think it-s good for the game to have things that glat out stop magic like this. This includes counter spells. I get why they are in the game but... Meh... There are tons of other ways to screw with players that isn't so lazy.

Why do you assume it's to screw up with players?

Antimagic spells and counter spells are pretty good for PCs to use, too. That's a good thing to be able to stop or restrict a Lich's spells beyong "clench your teeth and hope you survive", for exemple. And it's pretty damn satisfying for a Gish to shut down an enemy's spells before demonstrating there is a use to being able to magic and to stab people.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If all ki is magic, then why do monks need the level 6 feature? Their flurry should already bypass resistance and immunity.

[Deleted]

I read that in Rick's voice. Hehe.

I've never seen a player ever cast AMF before since it shuts them down too, but I suspect it might be fun to see a player AMF used to disable a more powerful enemy caster.

I've seen plenty of 3e games with AMF used by the players. 5e, not so much as my groups stay lower levels.

I've played in plenty of higher level 5e games though, and it's typically used by lazy DMs.


Why do you assume it's to screw up with players?

Antimagic spells and counter spells are pretty good for PCs to use, too. That's a good thing to be able to stop or restrict a Lich's spells beyong "clench your teeth and hope you survive", for exemple. And it's pretty damn satisfying for a Gish to shut down an enemy's spells before demonstrating there is a use to being able to magic and to stab people.

Antimagic isn't made in such a way to challenge players, only take things away for the sake of taking them away. It's one of the scummiest spells in the game and it's no different than just taking weapons away from martials on a whim.

AMF is very rarely used correctly. It can be from time to time if things are set up correctly, but typically AMF is used as a surprise attack by DMs who like to pretend that players always expect it.


If all ki is magic, then why do monks need the level 6 feature? Their flurry should already bypass resistance and immunity.

The magic, ki, with Flurry isn't making their attacks stronger. It is just allowing them to attack more often. They are still attacking with a non-magical weapon. This is the same way with haste, haste doesn't give you a magic weapon, just the ability to make a new attack with what you already have.

The Magic Weapon spell gives you a magic weapon (essentially) to attack with, just like the Ki-Empowered Strikes give you a magic weapon (essentially) to attack with.

[Vaz]

Many of the things that you know and love about 5e!
Uhoh.


Simplified rules! In 4e the DM would give +2/-2 to situations that warrant it... They changed that to advantage and disadvantage in 5e (which is essentially + or - 3.3333). Combat advantage was a condition that gave +2/-2 dependimg on the situation... Really streamlined things.
Not sure what this manages to achieve really apart from slightly reduce the maths required. It made the game mlre accessible, not an improvement. Call of duty is accessible, but it'snot as good as Arma. Pokemon is accessible, competitive pokemon less so.


Simplified Actions! Action, Minor Action, Immediate Reaction, Immediate Imterupt, and Move Action is way more simple than 3e's action economy... They just further simplified that.
Action, Swift, Move and Immediate, vs Action, Bonus, Reaction and you can move whenever.

Lower ceiling, higher floor! You still have an unbalanced game (4e was more balanced but still had fringe issues), but 4e started the trend of lowering the ceiling of classes while raising the floor.
So place an artificial one or provide loot to improve the fighter.


Easier to DM than 3.e! 5e's system sucks compared to 4e's when making encounters (the fact no one seems to understand the DC system or monster creation is proof enough) BUT still light years ahead of 3e. Monsters are a bit lame in 5e, but homevrewing interesting things on them works easy enough.
I'm lost. You say that noone understands it, and yet there is an entire forum with like 4-5 times the posts.


The rogue! Seriously, the 4e rogue was awesome and the 4e essentials rogue was a small step backwards in some regards but a good step further in others... It gave us a great 5e class. Actually the essentials Rogue is directly ported over to 5e in many ways.
Sweet. Subjectivity.


Also here is what the 4e wizard would look like in the skin of 5e... With some changes to add in some 5e ideologies...

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?540802-4e-Wizard-in-5th-Edition-(Thought-Experiment)
What.

I didn't even have to change the powers actually. Just took some wording from 5e (vancian casting stuff), put rituals back in spell casting, and blamo you got the 4e wizard looking awfully 3e5e.
You have literally descended into gibberish, and it stems from 'urgh, can't maths'.

Not sure how that's an improvement per se, apart from you like it more. I like it because it has given me some new groups to play with, but that's like saying I go down to Working Mens club and play bridge because that gives me new people to play with.

[Morty]

Well, MORTY, I don'... Burp... Think that any person with a reasonable...Buuuurp... Reasonable IQ would think anti-magic zones is good for the game to...burp... Begin with.

:smalltongue:

Actually, unless it's something like a beholder or something special, I don't think it-s good for the game to have things that glat out stop magic like this. This includes counter spells. I get why they are in the game but... Meh... There are tons of other ways to screw with players that isn't so lazy.

I can see it for anti-magic field specifically, but countering and dispelling each other's spells is just what spellcasters do. You're spending your own resources to counter your enemy's.

Anti-magic field requires a 15 level caster, has to be centred on them and extends for 10 feet, so... it's not like it even sees much use outside of Internet arguments. Dead magic zones and other setting-specific phenomena are a different story.

[Deleted]

Uhoh.


Not sure what this manages to achieve really apart from slightly reduce the maths required. It made the game mlre accessible, not an improvement. Call of duty is accessible, but it'snot as good as Arma. Pokemon is accessible, competitive pokemon less so.


You have literally descended into gibberish, and it stems from 'urgh, can't maths'.

Not sure how that's an improvement per se, apart from you like it more. I like it because it has given me some new groups to play with, but that's like saying I go down to Working Mens club and play bridge because that gives me new people to play with.

Ok, if you hate 4e because of looks, you can say that, but ignoring all the things 4e gave to 5e is silly.

[Tanarii]

Or is your stand more of, you understand what AMF is supposed to do as intended (and as stated by Crawford), but disagree that the spell's text says what it says it does?
Yes, that's my position.

AMF as written, RAW reads like the list of things AMF does is inclusive, not exclusive. Ie things not specified, but in the DM's judgment are related to being cut off from the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse, will need to be handled on an ad-hoc ruling basis by the DM.

I think RAI was intended to be exclusive, especially given JC's comments.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes, that's my position.

AMF as written, RAW reads like the list of things AMF does is inclusive, not exclusive. Ie things not specified, but in the DM's judgment are related to being cut off from the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse, will need to be handled on an ad-hoc ruling basis by the DM.

I think RAI was intended to be exclusive, especially given JC's comments.

I find that 5e tends to work better when the default for lists is exclusive. Unless the text specifies that it is inclusive, lists are closed. Spells and abilities are designed to be read atomically. That's why things like dark-vision and expertise are spelled out each time. Interactions must be explicitly called out in the text of the ability.

[Tanarii]

I find that 5e tends to work better when the default for lists is exclusive. Unless the text specifies that it is inclusive, lists are closed. Spells and abilities are designed to be read atomically. That's why things like dark-vision and expertise are spelled out each time. Interactions must be explicitly called out in the text of the ability.
That's a fair position to take, and I agree that generally that's a good idea. But in this case we have a entire class feature that matches word for word what a spell specifically says it is designed to stop.

To ignore that, we have to dismiss either the spells wording or the class features wording as "just fluff" or description considered "not really a rule". Neither of which I find an acceptable standard, especially since 5e supposedly doesn't do that.

Note that other spells have similar problems. Despite being clear on their intent to ignore the false dichotomy of fluff vs mechanical rules (see various commentary on plain English), the 5e designers still managed to regularly follow the format 'description of thing' then 'how to resolve the thing' in spells. :smallmad:

[LeonBH]

Yes, that's my position.

AMF as written, RAW reads like the list of things AMF does is inclusive, not exclusive. Ie things not specified, but in the DM's judgment are related to being cut off from the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse, will need to be handled on an ad-hoc ruling basis by the DM.

I think RAI was intended to be exclusive, especially given JC's comments.

In that case, since we know how AMF is supposed to work, then that really simplifies the issue. If the text is written differently as to how it's supposed to work, well... this isn't the first time RAI conflicted with RAW. See the infinite spell slot hack by Sorcerer/Warlocks.

If we took AMF literally, dragons would not only be unable to use their breath weapons, but all their abilities would also be disabled. Moreover, on the basis of "this is what the exact text says," you should also allow the various hacks that the 5e system offers because they technically stay true to the RAW. A Sorlock in your group will be justified in casting an infinite number of spells as long as they never take a long rest.

[Vaz]

Ok, if you hate 4e because of looks, you can say that, but ignoring all the things 4e gave to 5e is silly.

Why? I don't personally think crowbarring in a weak interpretation to extend an adventuring day (re Warlock and Arcane Archer) in favour of 3/day abilities vs 1/day abilities is an improvement, nor do i feel maths simplification is worthy of what else was removed the game.

[furby076]

I want you to imagine a world where Jeremy Crawford Tweets do not exist and you were left only with the text of the PHB:


Having a twitter ruling (which I'm guessing JC doesn't put a whole lot of thought into), override clear cut wording in the PHB creates a terrible precedent that destabilizes the effect that common literacy and interpretation has. How can we trust any rule in the book actually means what is written if we throw it all away on a 120 character blurb from ONE developer of the rulebook (he's not the only one who worked on this system guys).

Wait, did you just liken Crawford to Trump? :smallyuk:

[furby076]

even ability to move (the math of scaling mass vs volume prevents something as large as a dragon from moving).


Bee's and helicopters run into the same issue, but it works.

Dragon wingspans are enormous.

[TheUser]

Wait, did you just liken Crawford to Trump? :smallyuk:


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=precedent

[LeonBH]

Bee's and helicopters run into the same issue, but it works.

Dragon wingspans are enormous.

Bees are small and their wings flap insanely fast. The issue doesn't apply to them.

Helicopters have rotors that spin at 300 RPM (5 spins per second). The longer the blades are, the slower they spin, because they have to resist the forces that will literally rip them away from the rotors as a result of centripetal force.

Dragons have wings that have to carry them up, they don't flap nearly as fast, and if they did, their bones/muscles would have to be stronger than steel to withstand those forces without magic -- which implies they must be heavy, which implies they have to flap faster, which implies they have to be heavier... and so on.

Magic makes a dragon's movement possible.

Anyway, even if they were able to fly, their increased mass is still an issue if not supported by magic.

And even if they could move without magic, their other preternatural abilities, like blindsight, truesight, fearful presence, and dragon breath, still draw on their innate power as magical creatures.

If AMF disables all magic (including ki), these abilities of a dragon should also be shut down due to a RAW reading.

Otherwise, if dragons can still move about in an AMF and use their various abilities which are powered by magic, monks should be able to use their ki inside an AMF as well.

[Dalebert]

The Magic of Ki
Monks make careful study of a magical energy that most
monastic traditions call ki. This energy is an element
of the magic that suffuses the multiverse—specifically,
the element that flows through living bodies. Monks
harness this power within themselves to create magical
effects and exceed their bodies' physical capabilities,
and some of their special attacks can hinder the flow of
ki in their opponents. Using this energy, monks channel
uncanny speed and strength into their unarmed strikes.
As they gain experience, their martial training and their
mastery of ki gives them more power over their bodies
and the bodies of their foes.

Look at the bolded parts. Think about the bolded parts.

1st part: Ki flows through living bodies. All living bodies? YES, ALL; not just monks. See the 2nd part for confirmation.
2nd part: Some monk abilities can hinder the flow of ki in their opponents. What's an example? Stunning Strike.

Stunning Strike starts with:

Starting at 5th level, you can interfere with the flow of ki in an opponent’s body.

But wait. Are you saying an AMF disrupts ki? Why don't all creatures get stunned by an AMF? You're saying a monk can't disrupt the flow of ki in an opponent's body if he's in an AMF because ki is suppressed. Based on this interpretation, why would he even need to? The flow of ki should already be suppressed. Everything should get stunned in an AMF. Well, at least based on this extremely counter-intuitive and selective interpretation of a purely fluff description of how monk abilities work. If you insist that AMFs suppress the ki of monks what does it do to everything else? It should do something. But it doesn't, because ki is an integral part of everything, just as much as breathing.

Here's an analogy. An AMF is a fire suppressor. We have the exact same reaction going on inside our cells on a micro level--carbon combining with oxygen and producing CO2. Without oxygen, the internal fires that support our lives go out and we die. Fire extinguishers put out fires but they don't put the fires out that happen inside our bodies. Think of spells and the other specifically designated by AMF things as the external fires that an AMF can suppress.

Practically every feature and every spell starts with a fluff description and then follows with how that is represented in the mechanics. Notice that many of the questions Crawford answers have to do with people assigning extra mechanical effect based purely on fluff descriptions. He often just repeats what the rules already spell out--specifically the latter portion that describes the mechanical effect, and that's all he's doing here. People have been applying mechanics based on what is clearly fluff and lore about monks and he's pointing out that error. That most monk abilities aren't suppressed in an AMF is just common sense and it's what the rules already say as long as you aren't extrapolating extra mechanics based on the fluff.

[Talamare]

Look at the bolded parts. Think about the bolded parts.

1st part: Ki flows through living bodies. All living bodies? YES, ALL; not just monks. See the 2nd part for confirmation.
2nd part: Some monk abilities can hinder the flow of ki in their opponents. What's an example? Stunning Strike.

Stunning Strike starts with:


But wait. Are you saying an AMF disrupts ki? Why don't all creatures get stunned by an AMF? You're saying a monk can't disrupt the flow of ki in an opponent's body if he's in an AMF because ki is suppressed. Based on this interpretation, why would he even need to? The flow of ki should already be suppressed. Everything should get stunned in an AMF. Well, at least based on this extremely counter-intuitive and selective interpretation of a purely fluff description of how monk abilities work. If you insist that AMFs suppress the ki of monks what does it do to everything else? It should do something. But it doesn't, because ki is an integral part of everything, just as much as breathing.

Here's an analogy. An AMF is a fire suppressor. We have the exact same reaction going on inside our cells on a micro level--carbon combining with oxygen and producing CO2. Without oxygen, the internal fires that support our lives go out and we die. Fire extinguishers put out fires but they don't put the fires out that happen inside our bodies. Think of spells and the other specifically designated by AMF things as the external fires that an AMF can suppress.

Practically every feature and every spell starts with a fluff description and then follows with how that is represented in the mechanics. Notice that many of the questions Crawford answers have to do with people assigning extra mechanical effect based purely on fluff descriptions. He often just repeats what the rules already spell out--specifically the latter portion that describes the mechanical effect, and that's all he's doing here. People have been applying mechanics based on what is clearly fluff and lore about monks and he's pointing out that error. That most monk abilities aren't suppressed in an AMF is just common sense and it's what the rules already say as long as you aren't extrapolating extra mechanics based on the fluff.

Confirmed, Anti Magic Field KILLS everyone inside it.

[Max_Killjoy]

Welcome to the results of kitchen-sink, rule-of-cool "worldbuilding" (if you can even call it worldbuilding), with no thought given to the underlying workings of the fictional reality until after the fact, and then only in the attempt to reconcile or justify the rules or the throw-everything-in grab-bag.

Ki is magic, but not magic, because if it's magic it interacts with other rules and has follow-on implications that cause terrible effects for the game, and if it's not magic it interacts with other rules and has follow-on implications that cause terrible effects for the game.

There's no consistent, coherent, underlying fictional reality upon which to base rulings or evaluate the rules -- so there's nothing but a vast web of one-off, only-in-this-specific-case rulings trying in vain to reconcile 1000s of moving parts into a whole that doesn't contain contradictions or traps.

[LeonBH]

Welcome to the results of kitchen-sink, rule-of-cool "worldbuilding" (if you can even call it worldbuilding), with no thought given to the underlying workings of the fictional reality until after the fact, and then only in the attempt to reconcile or justify the rules or the throw-everything-in grab-bag.

Ki is magic, but not magic, because if it's magic it interacts with other rules and has follow-on implications that cause terrible effects for the game, and if it's not magic it interacts with other rules and has follow-on implications that cause terrible effects for the game.

There's no consistent, coherent, underlying "fictional reality" upon which to base rulings or evaluate the rules -- so there's nothing but a vast web of one-off, only-in-this-specific-case rulings trying in vain to reconcile 1000s of moving parts into a whole that doesn't contain contradictions or traps.

Or there is, as explained in the Sage Advice Compendium (https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf).

Or there isn't, and as result, we should all declare nobody should play this game anymore. I'm not certain, but your statement leads me to believe this is the conclusion you're hinting at.

But actually, if Ki is background magic (as explained in Sage Advice), it doesn't have terrible effects for the game. It is the type of magic that AMF does not suppress... so monks can go on using their powers inside an antimagic field, dragons can continue being dragons, and the antimagic field goes on and does its job to shut down casters. There are no adverse or terrible effects for the game that way.

[PhoenixPhyre]

There is an alternate first-principles understanding of spells and magical effects that is compatible with the text and resolves the quandry (and answers many other such questions).

The Resonance Theory of Magic
Postulate 1: Surrounding and permeating all of reality is an ambient field of energy. For the purposes here, I will call it aether.
Postulate 2: Some individual souls can concentrate this aether within themselves and release it in various ways. Call this innate magic--any action that is impossible for a "normal" person in the setting is an example of innate magic.
Postulate 3: Some individuals (not necessarily the same as those in postulate 2) can manipulate aether by imposing a resonant pattern on it, using personal energy Call these resonant patterns spells.
Postulate 4: Enchanted items resonate with the aether in a similar manner to spells. The source of the energy used to induce this resonance varies--some from stored, concentrated aether (potions, items with charges), some from the wielder (items that are constant effect).
Postulate 5: Some innate magic manipulates the aether in a spell-like resonant fashion. Other innate magic does not operate against external aether but instead is used inwardly or exhaled in a burst of concentrated elemental force, like a dragon's breath.

Given these postulates and definitions, spells and magical effects are those resonant manipulations of ambient magical energy. They're patterned, and may or may not be of extended duration (as a corollary to Postulate 3, concentration spells and effects require a constant, metered flow of personal energy to sustain the resonant pattern) or cover an extended area. The important thing is the resonant pattern. If that pattern is disrupted, the spell effect ceases (at least for that area).

Result 0: Spells do only what they say. Fireball doesn't conjure a piece of elemental flame, doesn't heat the air to burning. It creates a resonant effect within the area of effect that creates the same end result. Ray of frost can't freeze a pool of water, because the cold isn't there. It's a resonant effect that fades once the energy disperses. Etc. These may or may not follow the usual laws of physics, but certainly one cannot import physical reasoning unless the spell specifies so.

Result 1a: Counterspell. Counterspell is a counter-resonant pattern. It's a momentary, localized noise burst that takes effect quickly, preventing the resonance from forming if successful. Higher power spells are harder to jam.

Result 1b: Counterspell and non-spell effects: Counterspell only works on actively-produced resonant effects (ie spells). You can't counterspell a dragon's breath weapon. That's not a resonant effect.

Result 2a: Antimagic Field. Antimagic Field creates a persistent cancelation field. Any effect that requires a sustained resonance (like fireball, or a magic item) to function is suppressed since the resonance cannot take place within that area. One way of thinking about it is an adaptive damping field (like active noise cancellation) that imposes a pattern that is the inverse of the attempted resonant pattern (effect). This is both complex and requires high power, so it's an 8th level spell that has a limited reach.

Result 2b: Antimagic Fields and innate magic. Innate magic (like non-spell ki, or a dragon's flight, or a dragon's breath) does not require a resonance pattern. Thus it is unaffected by an antimagic field (since damping resonance does nothing against a purely physical, natural effect such as ki-fueled punches. The punches are not resonant, nor is there resonance involved in throwing the extra punch (flurry of blows). The monk is drawing against personal energy to temporarily exceed the normal limits of his body. Dragons keep flying (and breathing) and their breath still works (since the conversion is wild and non-resonant). Barbarians can rage just fine--while this draws on innate magic (because it's not possible for a "normal" person), it is not a patterned effect.

In my opinion, this model and the resulting theory reconcile RAW and RAI on this topic (and answer a whole bunch more questions to boot). Whether or not it is a true model is irrelevant--it's a useful model that allows predictions.

[Talamare]

Simple Theory...

Monks are actually Punching Sorcerers.

[Tanarii]

Practically every feature and every spell starts with a fluff description and then follows with how that is represented in the mechanics. Notice that many of the questions Crawford answers have to do with people assigning extra mechanical effect based purely on fluff descriptions. He often just repeats what the rules already spell out--specifically the latter portion that describes the mechanical effect, and that's all he's doing here. People have been applying mechanics based on what is clearly fluff and lore about monks and he's pointing out that error. That most monk abilities aren't suppressed in an AMF is just common sense and it's what the rules already say as long as you aren't extrapolating extra mechanics based on the fluff.And ultimately this is the problem. 5e conceptually did away with false dichotomy of fluff vs mechanics. But it didn't always make it clear when certain rules are followed by an inclusive way to resolve it vs an exclusive way to resolve it. Ie limiting the first statement vs expanding on it.

Another example where JC has made it clear the follow ups are only inclusive, and the resolution described does not limit it to being the only way the general rule applies, but rather expands on it: Hiding.

One where it's still not clear if it's inclusive or exclusive, and if the resolution method described limits or expands on the general rule ('DM determines surprise'): Surprise

I agree that with AMF it's supposed to be an exclusive list following a general rule, but only because JC has made that clear in SA. But in 5e there is no assumption that certain parts of the rules are supposed to be the mechanical part and the other fluff, or descriptive limited by an exclusive list, before an SA ruling is made. Trying to make that a generally assumption is just you still mistakenly trying to divide the world of RPGs in fluff vs mechanics.

Edit: conversely, I made the mistake of assuming it was an inclusive list, giving only some ways the general rules at the start of the spell applies. Which is particularly stupid when there is already an SA saying that's not the case. :smallredface:

[Max_Killjoy]

Practically every feature and every spell starts with a fluff description and then follows with how that is represented in the mechanics. Notice that many of the questions Crawford answers have to do with people assigning extra mechanical effect based purely on fluff descriptions. He often just repeats what the rules already spell out--specifically the latter portion that describes the mechanical effect, and that's all he's doing here. People have been applying mechanics based on what is clearly fluff and lore about monks and he's pointing out that error. That most monk abilities aren't suppressed in an AMF is just common sense and it's what the rules already say as long as you aren't extrapolating extra mechanics based on the fluff.


If the mechanics aren't reflective of the "fluff" and lore, then that's inherently a problem.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And ultimately this is the problem. 5e conceptually did away with false dichotomy of fluff vs mechanics. But it didn't always make it clear when certain rules are followed by an inclusive way to resolve it vs an exclusive way to resolve it. Ie limiting the first statement vs expanding on it.


Citation needed. Citation very much needed. 5e did better with linking fluff to crunch, but there are explicit cases where the fluff is descriptive and not prescriptive. See the intro to the race entries, where alignment and age are specifically called out as non-binding.

You're imposing your own conceptions on the text, instead of trying to reconcile it in context. That's the root of almost all interpretation issues.

The first paragraph describes what happens, the following text gives the mechanical effect of that first paragraph. You cannot import your own meanings beyond what the spell says.

[Dalebert]

TL;DR version of what I wrote:

Ki is naturally flowing through all living things. Spells are like squirting some out of your body and creating a sustained fire. That fire can be suppressed by an AMF--think harmless glowing embers that re-ignite after the field passes.

Ascribing additional effects based on extrapolating that all ki-related things are suppressed by an AMF would mean that all living things should be substantially negatively affected in some way by an AMF--at the very least, stunned, as stunning strike is described as a disruption of the natural flow of ki. Monks are enhancing and/or controlling the already existing and completely natural flow of ki in their bodies to do amazing things. Fighters enhance their muscles and train them to be stronger and more agile, and to develop muscle memory for fighting techniques while monks are more focused on this more obscure spiritual type of aspect of their bodies.

Thus, you cannot decide AMFs suppress ki based on the fluff in a consistent and rational manner without drawing a line somewhere and that line is drawn already, i.e. is the ki being used to generate a clearly magical effect.

[PhoenixPhyre]

TL;DR version of what I wrote:

Ki is naturally flowing through all living things. Spells are like squirting some out of your body and creating a sustained fire. That fire can be suppressed by an AMF--think harmless glowing embers that re-ignite after the field passes.

Ascribing additional effects based on extrapolating that all ki-related things are suppressed by an AMF would mean that all living things should be substantially negatively affected in some way by an AMF--at the very least, stunned, as stunning strike is described as a disruption of the natural flow of ki. Monks are enhancing and/or controlling the already existing and completely natural flow of ki in their bodies to do amazing things. Fighters enhance their muscles and train them to be stronger and more agile, and to develop muscle memory for fighting techniques while monks are more focused on this more obscure spiritual type of aspect of their bodies.

Thus, you cannot decide AMFs suppress ki based on the fluff in a consistent and rational manner without drawing a line somewhere and that line is drawn already, i.e. is the ki being used to generate a clearly magical effect.

Agreed. The interpretation preferred by Tanarii, etc. leads to absurdities and huge, unspecified consequences. A more natural reading doesn't, and so should be preferred. If one interpretation is absurd and there are interpretations that aren't, choose one of those instead. Spells and abilities are cabined by their own, bounded context. Importing definitions and uses of words from other contexts is an interpretation error.

[Tanarii]

Citation needed. Citation very much needed.Um. Every single thing the devs have said about plain English, RAW and RAI. Including in the intro to the SA PDF itself.


Agreed. The interpretation preferred by Tanarii, etc. leads to absurdities and huge, unspecified consequences. A more natural reading doesn't, and so should be preferred. If one interpretation is absurd and there are interpretations that aren't, choose one of those instead. Spells and abilities are cabined by their own, bounded context. Importing definitions and uses of words from other contexts is an interpretation error.Actually, I'm inclined to agree. Given the SA clarifies that RAI is for the AMF list to be exclusive, my reading definitely isn't "more natural". I don't prefer it. I was operating under the erroneous conclusion that the default way to read it had to be inclusive.

I often assume that with 5e. One good thing I've got out of this thread is to (hopefully) remind myself that it's not a default situation. The rules are in places inclusive (the details give examples of the general rule), and in other places exclusive (the details tell you exactly how the general rule works).

[Max_Killjoy]

Agreed. The interpretation preferred by Tanarii, etc. leads to absurdities and huge, unspecified consequences. A more natural reading doesn't, and so should be preferred. If one interpretation is absurd and there are interpretations that aren't, choose one of those instead. Spells and abilities are cabined by their own, bounded context. Importing definitions and uses of words from other contexts is an interpretation error.

Shouldn't terminology be consistent across a work, and not be compartmentalized to each little specific segment?

To me this compartmentalization is part of what makes D&D (some editions of, at least) so deeply vulnerable to the sort of counter-counter-counter-move, 5d-chess, encyclopedia-driven gameplay that has been discussed at length elsewhere.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Shouldn't terminology be consistent across a work, and not be compartmentalized to each little specific segment?

To me this compartmentalization is part of what makes D&D (some editions of, at least) so deeply vulnerable to the sort of counter-counter-counter-move, 5d-chess, encyclopedia-driven gameplay that has been discussed at length elsewhere.

No. The most "consistent" edition was 3.5, and that was the 5D chess edition. This is a common property of legal terms--the more you try to be consistent, the more edge-cases and loopholes open up. 5e went the exact other direction--context matters. Words have multiple meanings. Each ability (feature, spell, etc) is atomic and can be understood with only reference to the general resolution mechanics and the specific exceptions in the text of the ability. Trust the DM and the table together to find the interpretation that facilitates fun.

Yes, this is frustrating for those who want algorithmic rules. But TTRPG rules can't be algorithmic without sacrificing openness. Trying to do so represents a fundamental misunderstanding of language and of open-ended, exception-based game-play. Only a board game (with fixed conditions and a closed rule system) can be comprehensive, and even those need continual patching in competitive areas (like Magic: The Gathering) because people find new interpretations.

[Max_Killjoy]

No. The most "consistent" edition was 3.5, and that was the 5D chess edition. This is a common property of legal terms--the more you try to be consistent, the more edge-cases and loopholes open up. 5e went the exact other direction--context matters. Words have multiple meanings. Each ability (feature, spell, etc) is atomic and can be understood with only reference to the general resolution mechanics and the specific exceptions in the text of the ability. Trust the DM and the table together to find the interpretation that facilitates fun.

Yes, this is frustrating for those who want algorithmic rules. But TTRPG rules can't be algorithmic without sacrificing openness. Trying to do so represents a fundamental misunderstanding of language and of open-ended, exception-based game-play. Only a board game (with fixed conditions and a closed rule system) can be comprehensive, and even those need continual patching in competitive areas (like Magic: The Gathering) because people find new interpretations.

From here, no edition of D&D (prior to 5e, have no read through 5e) appears internally "consistent" -- each spell, each feat, each rule, appears to be largely compartmentalized as its own thing.

[Cybren]

No. The most "consistent" edition was 3.5, and that was the 5D chess edition. This is a common property of legal terms--the more you try to be consistent, the more edge-cases and loopholes open up. 5e went the exact other direction--context matters. Words have multiple meanings. Each ability (feature, spell, etc) is atomic and can be understood with only reference to the general resolution mechanics and the specific exceptions in the text of the ability. Trust the DM and the table together to find the interpretation that facilitates fun.

Yes, this is frustrating for those who want algorithmic rules. But TTRPG rules can't be algorithmic without sacrificing openness. Trying to do so represents a fundamental misunderstanding of language and of open-ended, exception-based game-play. Only a board game (with fixed conditions and a closed rule system) can be comprehensive, and even those need continual patching in competitive areas (like Magic: The Gathering) because people find new interpretations.

That said, titling it "the magic of ki" was probably a mistake. call it 'the mystery of ki' or 'the strength of ki' or something...

[Tanarii]

That said, titling it "the magic of ki" was probably a mistake. call it 'the mystery of ki' or 'the strength of ki' or something...
Why? It is magic. It says so quite clearly. It's just that there is a (definitely necessary) division between naturally / inherently / internally magical, and direct magical effects.

Or are you saying they should have made it not necessarily magical? Then there would have been a question as to how it was used to create spells. And whether or not those spells were still magical or not.

(In 4e they went the other direction and just put the whole thing under Psionics. Which IMO wasn't a bad move.)

[Cybren]

I feel like this thread is sufficient example why they made a poor decision in calling it "The Magic of Ki"

[Tanarii]

I feel like this thread is sufficient example why they made a poor decision in calling it "The Magic of Ki"
I feel it's sufficient example why AMF needed to specify the list of things it affects is exclusive, as opposed to hedging out all magic. Ki being magic isn't the problem*, AMF needing to be clear it only hedges out a limited subset of magic is the problem. But at least RAI the RAI is clear now.

*necessarily the problem. They could have made it psionic or not-magic. But the issues with AMF would still remain.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Side note--I'm still waiting for a list of Max_Killjoy-approved worldbuilding examples :smallsmile:


From here, no edition of D&D (prior to 5e, have no read through 5e) appears internally "consistent" -- each spell, each feat, each rule, appears to be largely compartmentalized as its own thing.

The amount of (relative) consistency has changed between editions. Sure, from an absolute standpoint it's not very consistent and never has been. But I'd say that that's at least not a flaw--consistency to me is only important between things that are otherwise the same. Different things may benefit from different approaches.

Before 3e: Total inconsistency (or at least only accidental consistency). Each subsystem is atomic and interactions are at the DM's whim. Often entries are inconsistent within the same entry.

3e: Attempted system consistency--shoving everything into the D20 system. This got buried under an explosion of material, much of which payed little attention to the consistency rules such as they were. As a result, there is factorial combinatoric complexity--every new game element interacts with and modifies a whole universe of other items, often in unpredictable or bizarre fashions. The role of the DM is greatly reduced (at least culturally). Understanding a single element (feat, subsystem, spell, etc) requires looking at the whole range of things that it can interact with and trying to make sense of things.

4e: Pinnacle of system consistency. Every class, monster, etc follows the same AEDU framework for powers. All classes gain feats at the same rate, and the mechanics are locked into a tight box. Essentially, all classes have a very similar chassis. This edition is panned by long-term fans as feeling "samey-samey", like everything is a video game. Every status effect is codified, every ability range/damage type is standardized. As a result, you get weird things like proning an ooze, where the default term (and mental image) for the mechanical bundle of effects is wildly out of sync with the in-universe fiction. This is done to reduce the number of entries in the definitions section needed.

5e: Natural-language consistency, with atomic game elements and increased (compared to 3e or 4e) DM role. To understand a 5e class feature (or spell, or feat, etc), you generally only need to reference the basic resolution mechanics and the text of the entry itself. This results in a lot of duplication of wording (every race that has darkvision includes the same wording), but it drastically reduces both the interaction surface (since game elements only interact if they say they do either specifically or by direct category reference) and limits the amount of reference material needed by a player. For a non-spellcaster, they need their class entry, possibly a racial entry, and the rules for items and combat. Worst case, the player can simply state what action they attempt and the DM can decide how to mechanically resolve that action. For me, it's the best of both worlds. You get the crunch where needed but don't have to cross-reference a bunch of sources.

As an example, let's compare the spell fireball between the last 3 editions. I've marked with numbers the things you need to reference another source to know how to handle.



School(1) evocation(2) [fire (3)]; Level (4) bloodrager 3, magus 3, sorcerer/wizard 3; Domain (5) fire 3; Elemental School (6) fire 3

CASTING

Casting Time (7) 1 standard action (8)
Components (9) V (10), S (11), M (12) (a ball of bat guano and sulfur) (13)

EFFECT

Range (14) long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level (15))
Area (16) 20-ft.-radius spread (17)
Duration instantaneous (18)
Saving Throw Reflex (19) half (20); Spell Resistance yes (21)

DESCRIPTION

A fireball spell generates a searing explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (marked above) (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended (22) objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure (23).

You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body (24) or solid barrier (25) prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. An early impact results in an early detonation. If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack (26), or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.

The fireball sets fire to combustibles (27) and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points (28), such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it (29), the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect (30) does.


Total count: ~30 references to other things you'd have to know to resolve the spell.





Fireball Wizard Attack 5 (1)
A globe of orange flame coalesces in your hand. You hurl it at your enemies, and it explodes on impact.
Daily (2) * Arcane (3), fire (4), implement (5)
Standard Action (6) Area burst 3 (7) within 20 squares (8)
Target (9): Each creature in burst
Attack (10): Intelligence (11) vs Reflex (12)
Hit: (13) 3d6 + Intelligence modifier fire damage
Miss: (14) Half damage


Only 14 external references, but whole big chunks of the 3e spell are missing (the setting fire to things, bursting early, etc.)





3rd-level (1) evocation (2)

Casting Time (3): 1 action (4)
Range (5): 150 feet
Components (6): V (7), S (8), M (9) (a tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur) (10)
Duration: Instantaneous (11)

A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw (12). A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.

The fire spreads around corners. It ignites flammable (13) objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried.

At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the damage increases by 1d6 for each slot level above 3rd.


Only 13 references (all to things that are common resolution mechanics shared between most spells), and most of the 3e stuff is there (minus the bursting early). This is done by condensing language and incorporating things like what "unattended" means directly into the spell text. Exceptions to the general case are fully specified in the text, not specified by reference. The removal of caster level scaling also is a tremendous simplification.

[pwykersotz]

Side note--I'm still waiting for a list of Max_Killjoy-approved worldbuilding examples :smallsmile:

Me too. I'm very much looking forward to them. I have many, many sources of inspiration that fuel the imagination, but grounding it is often a trying task. If there are some examples that live up to 1/10 of what Max says he prefers, they will be excellent worldbuilding help.

[Max_Killjoy]

Side note--I'm still waiting for a list of Max_Killjoy-approved worldbuilding examples :smallsmile:



Me too. I'm very much looking forward to them. I have many, many sources of inspiration that fuel the imagination, but grounding it is often a trying task. If there are some examples that live up to 1/10 of what Max says he prefers, they will be excellent worldbuilding help.


Frankly, I'm having trouble coming up with published worlds specifically/originally designed for RPGs that don't run into major issues, either in and or themselves, or because of the systems they were paired with implying radically different worlds than those presented. In and of themselves even, the only worlds I've ever been happy with are original/homebrew, or have had serious issues reworked by the group for use in the game (see, the entire White Wolf line, etc). Then there are the adapted settings that came into gaming adaptation with their existing deep flaws, such as the Star Wars setting (and man did we file some rough edges and fill some deep cracks in that thing).

[Cybren]

I feel it's sufficient example why AMF needed to specify the list of things it affects is exclusive, as opposed to hedging out all magic. Ki being magic isn't the problem*, AMF needing to be clear it only hedges out a limited subset of magic is the problem. But at least RAI the RAI is clear now.

*necessarily the problem. They could have made it psionic or not-magic. But the issues with AMF would still remain.
There'd be no thread if "the magic of ki" wasn't named that. AMF isn't the problem.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Frankly, I'm having trouble coming up with published worlds specifically/originally designed for RPGs that don't run into major issues, either in and or themselves, or because of the systems they were paired with implying radically different worlds than those presented. In and of themselves even, the only worlds I've ever been happy with are original/homebrew, or have had serious issues reworked by the group for use in the game (see, the entire White Wolf line, etc). Then there are the adapted settings that came into gaming adaptation with their existing deep flaws, such as the Star Wars setting (and man did we file some rough edges and fill some deep cracks in that thing).

If I ran into something like that, I'd worry that my standards were out of sync with the common understanding of such things (and of gaming)--that is, that I'm asking something of worldbuilders that they make no pretense of trying. The worldbuilding you must do for single-author fiction is very different in my (limited) experience than that for RPGs. There are many worlds I love for fiction that would be very difficult to make playable (at least for a TTRPG). But maybe that's my foolish addiction to assuming competence. I'd rather assume that their assumptions/goals were different than mine and try to match my assumptions to theirs, judging a work in the light of what the author(s) intended it to do as opposed to holding it up to some idiosyncratic personal standard. Judging a rake as poor because it's not good for eating soup with seems unfair.

[pwykersotz]

Frankly, I'm having trouble coming up with published worlds specifically/originally designed for RPGs that don't run into major issues, either in and or themselves, or because of the systems they were paired with implying radically different worlds than those presented. In and of themselves even, the only worlds I've ever been happy with are original/homebrew, or have had serious issues reworked by the group for use in the game (see, the entire White Wolf line, etc). Then there are the adapted settings that came into gaming adaptation with their existing deep flaws, such as the Star Wars setting (and man did we file some rough edges and fill some deep cracks in that thing).

If you have some examples of published worlds that aren't designed for RPG's that still meet your standards, I'd be happy to hear those too. It's tougher to incorporate those because the author doesn't have to be concerned with gameplay balance, but it would be cool to check out anyway.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If you have some examples of published worlds that aren't designed for RPG's that still meet your standards, I'd be happy to hear those too. It's tougher to incorporate those because the author doesn't have to be concerned with gameplay balance, but it would be cool to check out anyway.

Same. I'm also always looking for things to read for inspiration (and to feed the fiction addiction I have).

[Max_Killjoy]

If you have some examples of published worlds that aren't designed for RPG's that still meet your standards, I'd be happy to hear those too. It's tougher to incorporate those because the author doesn't have to be concerned with gameplay balance, but it would be cool to check out anyway.


Same. I'm also always looking for things to read for inspiration (and to feed the fiction addiction I have).

Right off the top of my head, Bujold's Vorkosigan setting.

[LeonBH]

Frankly, I'm having trouble coming up with published worlds specifically/originally designed for RPGs that don't run into major issues, either in and or themselves, or because of the systems they were paired with implying radically different worlds than those presented. In and of themselves even, the only worlds I've ever been happy with are original/homebrew, or have had serious issues reworked by the group for use in the game (see, the entire White Wolf line, etc). Then there are the adapted settings that came into gaming adaptation with their existing deep flaws, such as the Star Wars setting (and man did we file some rough edges and fill some deep cracks in that thing).

Declaring that the only worlds you've found to be satisfactorily self-consistent are homebrew ones means we cannot check what your standards are for ourselves. Your games could be full of loopholes you don't know about because they're self-created.

Declaring that all TTRPG worlds have no self a consistency is just a bit naive. Are you sure you've tried all of them yet?

Finally, if your games truly are tightly self consistent, do you never follow the Rule of Cool? 5E makes a point to emphasize that the DM is free to ignore any rule if it produces the most fun at the table. The Rule of Cool demands the occasional contradiction to be handwaved away.

[Max_Killjoy]

I treat the "rule of cool" as entirely constrained by the need to work that element into the setting coherently. I'm not going to sacrifice the integrity of the setting and establish a bad precedent -- that would actually reduce my fun. There are things I'll include in a setting because I think they're "cool", but it always has to be made to make sense in context (and the other way around, too). I fully admit that this makes viable gaming settings challenging to create, and I'm experiencing it firsthand in the setting I'm working on in that thread over in general discussion.

I'm not declaring that all TTRPG worlds have no self a consistency -- I'm stating that I can't think of any I've played or read that met my own personal standard for consistency and coherence.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Right off the top of my head, Bujold's Vorkosigan setting.

Read and enjoyed, but I never noticed that it was unusually consistent. I may be less attuned to that than some though.

[Max_Killjoy]

Read and enjoyed, but I never noticed that it was unusually consistent. I may be less attuned to that than some though.

It use clothing as a metaphor, I don't notice that a shirt is comfortable nearly as readily as I notice that a short is uncomfortable.

It's less that I actively notice the Vorkosigan setting is consistent and coherent, and more than while reading those books nothing jumps out at me as irritatingly inconsistent or incoherent.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It use clothing as a metaphor, I don't notice that a shirt is comfortable nearly as readily as I notice that a short is uncomfortable.

It's less that I actively notice the Vorkosigan setting is consistent and coherent, and more than while reading those books nothing jumps out at me as irritatingly inconsistent or incoherent.

For me, consistency errors have to be glaring and obviously unintended (so not just an unreliable narrator) to really stands out. I'm much more likely to get annoyed by pretentious blather or misused jargon (in fiction claiming to be "hard"). Or anvilicious message pushing, but we've discussed that in the past. I read fiction for the mental imagery, the turns of phrase (I love a good word play or bon mote) and the narrative more than for the details of the world anyway.

[pwykersotz]

Right off the top of my head, Bujold's Vorkosigan setting.

I have not read that. I'll check it out.

[LeonBH]

I'm not declaring that all TTRPG worlds have no self a consistency -- I'm stating that I can't think of any I've played or read that met my own personal standard for consistency and coherence.

What RPGs have you tried and evaluated as unsatisfactory? How many?

I'm curious to learn your credibility as for evaluating RPGs consistency problems in terms of your experience playing RPGs (not necessarily designing it). An empty list of games that pass your test just looks like you haven't tested that many systems yet. Designers of all kinds, not just game designers, usually have an example of a thing they pull inspiration from, which serves as a guide for their design decisions.

[Max_Killjoy]

What RPGs have you tried and evaluated as unsatisfactory? How many?


The tangent at hand was settings, not systems.




I'm curious to learn your credibility as for evaluating RPGs consistency problems in terms of your experience playing RPGs (not necessarily designing it). An empty list of games that pass your test just looks like you haven't tested that many systems yet. Designers of all kinds, not just game designers, usually have an example of a thing they pull inspiration from, which serves as a guide for their design decisions.


On the subject of systems:

D&D
AD&D
AD&D 2e
WEG d6 Star Wars, every edition.
Multiple d20/OGL products, from the Thieves' World adaptation to a bunch of random stuff I picked up used cheap
HERO 4th and 5th (6th went full-lawyer-mode sideways, and anyway the guy who runs their forums started imposing a political-opinions litmus test on the moderators and decided I didn't pass, so I broke off any involvement with the place).
Every edition of Vampire through utter disappoint that was Requiem.
Multiple editions of Warewolf.
Read through and studied (but didn't directly play) all the other White Wolf products through about that time.
Traveller
GURPS (only read, not played)
Mechwarrior (Battletech-setting RPG)
Pendragon
Legend of the Five Rings (4th ed)
Mythras (read for reference)
The Burning Wheel (reading it right now as I get time)
The most recent Conan RPG (reference)
Literally scores of free and sample products off DriveThru RPG (mostly read through for reference)

And I'm sure that's not a complete list.

I even forced myself to read through some of Ron Edwards' pretentious little products.

[Pex]

Or there is, as explained in the Sage Advice Compendium (https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf).

Or there isn't, and as result, we should all declare nobody should play this game anymore. I'm not certain, but your statement leads me to believe this is the conclusion you're hinting at.

But actually, if Ki is background magic (as explained in Sage Advice), it doesn't have terrible effects for the game. It is the type of magic that AMF does not suppress... so monks can go on using their powers inside an antimagic field, dragons can continue being dragons, and the antimagic field goes on and does its job to shut down casters. There are no adverse or terrible effects for the game that way.

It's not me you're responding to, but I'd like to butt in anyway. :smallyuk:

I wouldn't go so far to say 5E shouldn't be played, but this topic is further evidence that the on purpose decision to have 5E be based on rulings and not rules was a poor one. Obviously 5E has rules, but there are many things so vaguely worded it causes a lot of confusion. It's not enough to say let the DM handle it. He shouldn't have to handle it. That was the game designers' job.

Personally I hadn't any issue of monks in an Anti-Magic Field. For me it's obvious the monk can flurry in it but Burning Hands or shadow teleporting wouldn't work. Apparently it's not so obvious to others. It could be my obviousness is due to 3E thinking of how it works, but 5E purposely works differently.

It would be nice if there was a definitive solution, but that would require a universal rule, not a DM ruling. 5E doesn't want to do it that way.

Edit:

Re Fireball

Simpler does not equal better. Doesn't equal worse either. People aren't complaining how 5E Fireball works because it's not vague. People complain how 5E Conjure spells work because they are vague despite being simple, namely they don't define who determines the creatures conjured. People aren't complaining how 3E Fireball works despite the so called plethora of references because it's not vague. People also don't complain how the Summon Monster spells work because they are also not vague. (Technically some people do complain the summoned monsters add to combat time because the player's turn takes longer. It's a footnote but not important to the point.) If it takes 2 weeks to learn the 3E PHB compared to 1 week to learn the 5E PHB, that proves 5E is easier to learn but no one is disputing that. Once 3E is learned the number of references are irrelevant. What relevant is that the references are known, defined, and consistent. Some people may not like what the 3E rules say, but they know what the 3E rules mean. Nothing is perfect and there can exist a vagueness here and there in 3E, but they are less in percentage of rules than 5E (opinion) and more easily figured out how they work because of consistent and defined terms.

[KorvinStarmast]

I even forced myself to read through some of Ron Edwards' pretentious little products. We thank you for taking one for the team.

[Max_Killjoy]

We thank you for taking one for the team.

That was me. :smallwink:

[PhoenixPhyre]

That was me. :smallwink:

Yes. Absolutely. As far as game systems go, I'm a relative newbie. I've only really focused on 5e, but have read through Fate (Accelerated? Core? Not sure.) and 3.5e; I have 2e experience only through the D&D CRPGs.

I'm allergic to pretentious stuff. :smallsmile:

[2D8HP]

....I even forced myself to read through some of Ron Edwards' pretentious little products.


I actually liked Ron Edwards
Sorcerer and Sword (https://www.amazon.com/Sorcerer-Sword-RPG-Ron-Edwards/dp/0970917619)
game supplement (great bibliography), but I just didn't care for his Sorcerer, the game it was a supplement for.

[Tanarii]

Edit:

Re Fireball

Simpler does not equal better. Doesn't equal worse either. People aren't complaining how 5E Fireball works because it's not vague. People complain how 5E Conjure spells work because they are vague despite being simple, namely they don't define who determines the creatures conjured. People aren't complaining how 3E Fireball works despite the so called plethora of references because it's not vague. People also don't complain how the Summon Monster spells work because they are also not vague. (Technically some people do complain the summoned monsters add to combat time because the player's turn takes longer. It's a footnote but not important to the point.) If it takes 2 weeks to learn the 3E PHB compared to 1 week to learn the 5E PHB, that proves 5E is easier to learn but no one is disputing that. Once 3E is learned the number of references are irrelevant. What relevant is that the references are known, defined, and consistent. Some people may not like what the 3E rules say, but they know what the 3E rules mean. Nothing is perfect and there can exist a vagueness here and there in 3E, but they are less in percentage of rules than 5E (opinion) and more easily figured out how they work because of consistent and defined terms.
Not to edition edition war, because I loved every edition of D&D at the time, but that's not how I remember it going down.

What I remember is lots of long stupid extended discussion (and online, arguments) about minutia rules interactions that people still disagreed on or couldn't understand, despite the attempt to be exact.

Whereas now in many areas, the answer is simple: ask your DM.

5e has in some places become to vague. And AMF may well be one. But in general it's done wonders to free the DM from the tyranny of rulezlawyer players.

[Morty]

There are elements of the game that it's best to leave vague, but it has to have some benefit. I don't see much of a benefit behind making it unclear what is and isn't shut down by an anti-magic field.

[Tanarii]

There are elements of the game that it's best to leave vague, but it has to have some benefit. I don't see much of a benefit behind making it unclear what is and isn't shut down by an anti-magic field.
Totally agree.

But it's my 'job' to generally disagree with Pex on anything related to vagueness of 5e vs specificity of 3e. Even though I loved it generall during the 3e era, and when in the specific case he may have a point. I wouldn't want him to be disappointed in me. :smallamused:

[Cybren]

Totally agree.

But it's my 'job' to generally disagree with Pex on anything related to vagueness of 5e vs specificity of 3e. Even though I loved it generall during the 3e era, and when in the specific case he may have a point. I wouldn't want him to be disappointed in me. :smallamused:

To some extent questions like that ARE things you might want to have variable by table though. "What is magic and how does it work" is something I'd rather the rules are vague on, not specific, because it constricts world building.

[PhoenixPhyre]

To some extent questions like that ARE things you might want to have variable by table though. "What is magic and how does it work" is something I'd rather the rules are vague on, not specific, because it constricts world building.

Very much agree. My settings magic is decidedly nonstandard, with large setting consequences. Tying things down tighter would cause dissonance, where it fits currently.

[Vaz]

To some extent questions like that ARE things you might want to have variable by table though. "What is magic and how does it work" is something I'd rather the rules are vague on, not specific, because it constricts world building.

But given that as the world builder, you can change that, or make exception via McGuffin its entirely in World Builders hands anyway.

'I want someone else to tell me I'm not limited' sounds like a needless extension of 'I'm not limited'.

[Tanarii]

To some extent questions like that ARE things you might want to have variable by table though. "What is magic and how does it work" is something I'd rather the rules are vague on, not specific, because it constricts world building.
Honestly, that's exactly why I've come to prefer the 5e approach overall. Table variation is expected ... on purpose.

[Pex]

Honestly, that's exactly why I've come to prefer the 5e approach overall. Table variation is expected ... on purpose.

Table variation is good for the tone of the campaign, the make up of the party, the plots of the adventures. It is not good for the fundamental rules of how to play the game.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Table variation is good for the tone of the campaign, the make up of the party, the plots of the adventures. It is not good for the fundamental rules of how to play the game.

Ipse dixit.

YMMV. De gustibas. Let's not have this debate again. We all know where we all stand on it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But given that as the world builder, you can change that, or make exception via McGuffin its entirely in World Builders hands anyway.

'I want someone else to tell me I'm not limited' sounds like a needless extension of 'I'm not limited'.

I'm going to expand on my last point, since I'm no longer on mobile in the car.

Even among published settings, magic works quite differently in each setting. The spells (game mechanics) are similar, but the underlying theories are different and so the worlds respond in different patterns. Combine that with an explicit decision not to have a default setting (Forgotten Realms is only the setting for AL, not for the books entire), and you get a need to not pin things down tightly to one world.

There's a trade-off with consistency. To get consistency (with magic), you need to have a working model of how magic works in the particular setting. The more consistent you make that model, the more restricted it is to one particular setting, and the greater the expectations that players have on that being the case. Effectively, setting a hard default raises the barriers to player buy-in, because you're eventually making a whole new system. Since doing so gets exponentially harder the more pinned-down, specific rules there are, the probability of dissonance rises greatly since no DM can keep track of all the moving parts.

For example, take the Great Wheel planar model of most of 3e. The assumption that there is a Lawful outer plane that contrasts with a Chaotic outer plane, or a Positive Energy plane that contrasts with a Negative Energy plane pervades the rules (especially as far as the spell and ability tags go). It forces a particular view of outsiders and results in a very specific feel. My setting, where alignment specifically, and in-universe, is not a thing would not work without a major overhaul. There are too many mechanical and expectation pieces that depend on alignment being a thing, and certain races/types having certain alignments. As I've said on other threads, my angels are not necessarily good (some are, some aren't)--they're defined by their purpose and the source of their power (the Great Mechanism). Devils are not evil (some are, some aren't)--they're defined by their refusal to swear allegiance to the Powers and to the Mechanism and their resulting need for a source of power (which they find in making and keeping contracts with mortals). Demons aren't evil either, nor are they chaotic--they're defined by their goals (which all involve the overthrow of the gods and the Mechanism) and their power source (consuming mortal souls). Some gain their diet of souls in fair trade for services rendered without deceit; some delight in corrupting and consuming unwary souls.

Same goes for the magical system. There is no Weave in my setting--magic pervades and makes up everything (as anima). There is no mundane--everybody is magical (but not necessarily a spell-caster). This magic is created by life and growth, discovery and innovation. This makes souls the magical currency of the universe. Manipulating them, consuming them, paying with pieces of a soul, etc. All of this requires very few changes to mechanics--only to the descriptions of things. This means that in-play, I can stick close to the text without dissonance with the setting. All of this is exactly courtesy of the "vagueness" of the rules. Doing this in 4e would have been reasonably easy, due to the strong fluff/crunch dichotomy of that system. Doing this in 3e would have been nearly impossible and involved an entire rewrite of the monster manual, the spell system, basically everything to account for the differences.

Game systems can go one of two ways--
* Maximum consistency, leading to a single-setting system. The various WarHammer game lines are that way. You can port to other settings, but it's really really hard since so much presumes that setting.
* Maximum setting flexibility, leading to a tool-kit approach. These (in the extreme) end up mainly only restricting the genre and/or tone of the game. FATE and Powered By the Apocalypse systems are like this.

D&D has always sat on the fence (which is both good and bad). It's not a totally build-the-setting-to-fit-the-game system like FATE, nor is it a single-setting system like Only War or Dark Heresy. That means that the designers have to carefully walk the line--not setting too hard of defaults and not baking too much of the fluff into the crunch, but also not divorcing the two entirely (like 4e was accused of doing).

[LeonBH]

The tangent at hand was settings, not systems.




On the subject of systems:

D&D
AD&D
AD&D 2e
WEG d6 Star Wars, every edition.
Multiple d20/OGL products, from the Thieves' World adaptation to a bunch of random stuff I picked up used cheap
HERO 4th and 5th (6th went full-lawyer-mode sideways, and anyway the guy who runs their forums started imposing a political-opinions litmus test on the moderators and decided I didn't pass, so I broke off any involvement with the place).
Every edition of Vampire through utter disappoint that was Requiem.
Multiple editions of Warewolf.
Read through and studied (but didn't directly play) all the other White Wolf products through about that time.
Traveller
GURPS (only read, not played)
Mechwarrior (Battletech-setting RPG)
Pendragon
Legend of the Five Rings (4th ed)
Mythras (read for reference)
The Burning Wheel (reading it right now as I get time)
The most recent Conan RPG (reference)
Literally scores of free and sample products off DriveThru RPG (mostly read through for reference)

And I'm sure that's not a complete list.

I even forced myself to read through some of Ron Edwards' pretentious little products.

You've found glaring contradictions in all those settings? (Now that I think about it, I'm actually not surprised.)

Have you considered looking into "tiny RPGs"? If you're looking for a consistent world with no contradictions, the most obvious way to cut down on them is to cut down on the scale of the world. Less world, less mistakes.

Mechanical Oryx (https://200wordrpg.github.io/2017/rpg/winner/2017/04/15/MECHANICALORYX.html) paints a freeform world.

Everyone is John (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Everyone_Is_John) lays down a world viewed through the lens of a schizophrenic (and any contradictions that result in the setting, can be explained by their schizophrenic delusions).

I also notice you didn't list D&D 5e. Are you not a 5E player, or did you consider it was just a given?

[Tanarii]

Have you considered looking into "tiny RPGs"? If you're looking for a consistent world with no contradictions, the most obvious way to cut down on them is to cut down on the scale of the world. Less world, less mistakes.If you're looking for a constistent world with no contradictions in the underlying rules structure, best move out of this universe. :smalltongue:

[LeonBH]

It's not me you're responding to, but I'd like to butt in anyway. :smallyuk:

I wouldn't go so far to say 5E shouldn't be played, but this topic is further evidence that the on purpose decision to have 5E be based on rulings and not rules was a poor one. Obviously 5E has rules, but there are many things so vaguely worded it causes a lot of confusion. It's not enough to say let the DM handle it. He shouldn't have to handle it. That was the game designers' job.

Personally I hadn't any issue of monks in an Anti-Magic Field. For me it's obvious the monk can flurry in it but Burning Hands or shadow teleporting wouldn't work. Apparently it's not so obvious to others. It could be my obviousness is due to 3E thinking of how it works, but 5E purposely works differently.

It would be nice if there was a definitive solution, but that would require a universal rule, not a DM ruling. 5E doesn't want to do it that way.

Edit:

Re Fireball

Simpler does not equal better. Doesn't equal worse either. People aren't complaining how 5E Fireball works because it's not vague. People complain how 5E Conjure spells work because they are vague despite being simple, namely they don't define who determines the creatures conjured. People aren't complaining how 3E Fireball works despite the so called plethora of references because it's not vague. People also don't complain how the Summon Monster spells work because they are also not vague. (Technically some people do complain the summoned monsters add to combat time because the player's turn takes longer. It's a footnote but not important to the point.) If it takes 2 weeks to learn the 3E PHB compared to 1 week to learn the 5E PHB, that proves 5E is easier to learn but no one is disputing that. Once 3E is learned the number of references are irrelevant. What relevant is that the references are known, defined, and consistent. Some people may not like what the 3E rules say, but they know what the 3E rules mean. Nothing is perfect and there can exist a vagueness here and there in 3E, but they are less in percentage of rules than 5E (opinion) and more easily figured out how they work because of consistent and defined terms.

I agree that systems should have well-defined rules, games or not. But for me, the clarity of those rules in a game that sells itself as a system open to tweaking, isn't that important. I can accept that 5E sometimes produces these issues that people can debate about online, as long as at the table, when a vague rule comes up, everyone respects when the DM says "this is what happens. Now, let's move on."

If you look at it another way, without this vagueness of the rules, there would be no debates. What's the fun in that?

[LeonBH]

If you're looking for a constistent world with no contradictions in the underlying rules structure, best move out of this universe. :smalltongue:

How true. I had a laugh at this remark. Hehe.

[McNinja]

There is no common sense in a game that handles the supernatural and abnormal. By that logic, if Cthulhu rises from the ocean and walks into New York, you should try to fly by jumping off a building, because a supernatural being exists, and the things like gravity couldn't possibly still govern us.

I hate seeing absurd logic like this. Reality still exists. Quantum mechanics, physics, gravity, all still exist. Being able to shoot fire from your hands does not mean that the laws and rules of reality don't exist, it just means you, or whatever character or creature, can bend them.

[Zalabim]

Back from my weekend, and I'm pretty sure all spells and class features are exclusive lists, while general rules are more likely to be inclusive lists. Certainly anything not specifically described, like flowers blooming or potatoes growing in the ground, is still included in general principle. (Or excluded in the case of potatoes, for some settings.)

Also, it doesn't change anything about spells, but all the class entries in the SRD are class features only. Things like Sworn and Beholden or The Magic of Ki simply do not appear in the barebones 'just the rules' format of the SRD. As in, the class features are rules and the descriptions in the write-ups before that are not necessarily rules.

[PhoenixPhyre]

1) Back from my weekend, and I'm pretty sure all spells and class features are exclusive lists, while general rules are more likely to be inclusive lists. Certainly anything not specifically described, like flowers blooming or potatoes growing in the ground, is still included in general principle. (Or excluded in the case of potatoes, for some settings.)

2) Also, it doesn't change anything about spells, but all the class entries in the SRD are class features only. Things like Sworn and Beholden or The Magic of Ki simply do not appear in the barebones 'just the rules' format of the SRD. As in, the class features are rules and the descriptions in the write-ups before that are not necessarily rules.

1) Yes. Certainly class features and spells are exclusive--as exceptions they have to specify exactly what they're modifying. Most general rules specify that they're not exclusive with words like "examples such as...", etc. Every spell or feature stands alone on the general mechanics except where it explicitly references another feature or spell. "It doesn't say I can't" is invalid reasoning in this edition. Unless you have an exception written into a feature or spell, you can only do those things that every other character can do, those things covered in the general resolution mechanics.

2) I very much agree. Those entries are default conceptions that hold for the standard worlds. A baseline, if you will. But any part of a class entry not in the SRD is expected to be one of
a) additional examples of sub-classes (which a DM can add or remove at will, they're atomic)
b) expected setting variation material. Your paladins may not be the same as my paladins. AND THAT'S NORMAL. How ki (or magic) works is part of expected setting variation in this edition. As a result, it shouldn't directly interact or modify mechanical elements like spells. DMs should consider the interactions when worldbuilding (for consistency and fit-and-polish if nothing else), but the mechanics don't care how magic works.

[Tanarii]

Back from my weekend, and I'm pretty sure all spells and class features are exclusive lists, while general rules are more likely to be inclusive lists. Certainly anything not specifically described, like flowers blooming or potatoes growing in the ground, is still included in general principle. (Or excluded in the case of potatoes, for some settings.)AMF may be a specific to the general rules, but there's no particular reason to assume that the general statement that it blocks out the magical energy of the multiverse, is then followed by an exclusive list of the only ways it how it does that. Making the general statement, in effect, not completely true.

OTOh there's no particular reason to assume the list of how it does that is inclusive, or merely sub-set of all the possible ways it blocks all magical energy, either. And that the general statement is just a (minorly) inaccurate prelude comment to the details.

The issue in this case isn't the section titled The Magic of Ki in the Monk class. The issue here is that, as they did with not a few spells, they tried to have their cake and eat it too. They put in something that is apparently meant to be treated as descriptive (usually referred to as fluff), followed by something meant to be treated as resolution (usually referred to as mechanics) ... and those two things don't completely line up, as the latter is merely a subset of the former*. And they do this in an edition where the rules are supposed to be an organic whole, ultimately rejecting the false dichotomy of fluff vs mechanics in favor of plain English.

The problem is sometimes plain English is kinda wonky. No getting around that, which is why some people foolishly try and hold on to the concept of fluff vs crunch.

Edit: * of course the other possible way to look at it is simple: they do line up if you don't try to automatically treat the part about blocking the magical energy of the universe as a standalone statement and look at it in the broadest possible way. Context and all that. That's why plain English can be a little wonky, and I jumped down the wrong trouser leg. And honestly still haven't managed to let go of completely, as this post is evidence of. /facepalm

That said, I still hold that the 'problem' is more with the language of AMF itself, internal to the spell description if you will. Not with a specific vs general between the spell description and the class features.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That said, I still hold that the 'problem' is more with the language of AMF itself, internal to the spell description if you will. Not with a specific vs general between the spell description and the class features.

I agree. It's reasonably easy to misread this particular spell. That's why I emphasize the basic scope concepts--you can't read any sentence in a spell as an individual unit. The whole spell stands alone, individual sentences don't. That's a context mistake (commonly called proof-texting when it's done maliciously instead of mistakenly). The minimum safe context size for 5e in my experience is an ability (although sometimes you can get away with a single paragraph).

[KorvinStarmast]

There is an alternate first-principles understanding of spells and magical effects that is compatible with the text and resolves the quandry (and answers many other such questions).

The Resonance Theory of Magic
Very much enjoyed that post. Have you considered sending it in to Crawford or Mearls as a way to help resolve some of the weird corner cases?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Very much enjoyed that post. Have you considered sending it in to Crawford or Mearls as a way to help resolve some of the weird corner cases?

I'm glad you enjoyed it. It's made things more straightforward for me as a DM since I thought of that model.

I'd write it up more formally first--it's an idea I have for my world, so some of the terminology (anima) is specific for that. I'm also not on Twitter, so I'm not sure how to bring it to their attention. I can write it up on my setting blog (where I also do some more theoretical posts), but from there...not sure.

[Max_Killjoy]

You've found glaring contradictions in all those settings? (Now that I think about it, I'm actually not surprised.)


The question keeps getting blurred, and I'd really like to keep it clear -- there are two separate questions:

1) Is the setting itself, as a fictional reality, internally consistent and coherent?

2) Are the system and setting in sync? Is the system a good "map" of the fictional reality? (I'm trying to avoid using "model" because that causes an entirely different discussion about models).

[Tanarii]

I agree. It's reasonably easy to misread this particular spell. That's why I emphasize the basic scope concepts--you can't read any sentence in a spell as an individual unit. The whole spell stands alone, individual sentences don't. That's a context mistake (commonly called proof-texting when it's done maliciously instead of mistakenly). The minimum safe context size for 5e in my experience is an ability (although sometimes you can get away with a single paragraph).Yup. I got stuck on 'plain english' vs 'fluff/mechanical' again. That's not really the issue, or at least not in the direction I was trying to make it out to be an issue. The issue is I was parsing the spell and then taking out of context. Which is sorta the exact opposite of 'plain english'.

Once I did that, then fluff/mechanical becomes a division I ended up needing to make out of necessity, even though I was trying to dance around it and avoid it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yup. I got stuck on 'plain english' vs 'fluff/mechanical' again. That's not really the issue, or at least not in the direction I was trying to make it out to be an issue. The issue is I was parsing the spell and then taking out of context. Which is sorta the exact opposite of 'plain english'.

Once I did that, then fluff/mechanical becomes a division I ended up needing to make out of necessity, even though I was trying to dance around it and avoid it.

I wrote a bigger piece on interpreting rules text and really should clean it up and post it somewhere...

Basically I think of the rules as being made of 4 pieces

*resolution mechanics. These are the "general rules" most commonly dealt with.
* descriptions. These give insight into the in-universe workings of things. Not fluff exactly, but usually the first to get changed, often variable between tables.
* Facts. Tables of defaults. A longsword does 1d8 slashing damage and is versatile and a martial weapon.
* Exceptions. These are the core of the abilities and spells--they modify a fact (this longsword does 1d8 + 1 slashing damage and pierces immunity to non-magical slashing damage) or a resolution mechanic (add CHA instead of STR to that attack roll).

Spells (especially) pair descriptions with exceptions. The description tells why it works in-universe (to give a mental picture and ground expectations), the exception text tells how it works in-game (the mechanical piece). Usually it's clear which is which, unless the spell or ability is badly worded. The exception is the binding part--the description is mutable with table consent (can you cast burning hands without touching your thumbs together, for instance if tied up? Mechanically, you can cast it normally while restrained. In-fiction...that's up to the group to decide if they like that).

[Tanarii]

Spells (especially) pair descriptions with exceptions. The description tells why it works in-universe (to give a mental picture and ground expectations), the exception text tells how it works in-game (the mechanical piece). Usually it's clear which is which, unless the spell or ability is badly worded. The exception is the binding part--the description is mutable with table consent (can you cast burning hands without touching your thumbs together, for instance if tied up? Mechanically, you can cast it normally while restrained. In-fiction...that's up to the group to decide if they like that).
I think that's a false division. A rule is a rule is a rule. Like I said, I'm not seeing the problem isn't a mismatch between description and mechanical rule. I see it is attempting to parse one part of a rule and another, and read them independently. I was doing that, and then choosing to interpret one of them in a way that disagreed with the other. And once I did that the only possible way to reconcile them is to designate one part "description/fluff" and the other part "actual rule/mechanical".

That's why I call the fluff/mechanical distinction, or description / resolution if you prefer, a false distinction. It relies on parsing. The end result is inevitably silly interpretations of things and online arguments.

[Xetheral]

Re Fireball

Simpler does not equal better. Doesn't equal worse either. People aren't complaining how 5E Fireball works because it's not vague

It may not be vague, but the wording does produce problems. In particular, the use of the word "target" in the spell text is inconsistent either with the targeting rules or the rest of the text of the spell.

Namely, if "target" in the spell text means "the target of the spell", then it conflicts with the targeting rules, which state that the target of an AoE should be a point. If "target" in the spell text means "is affected by" then it conflicts with the fact that objects are simultaneously not targets (the spell limits "targets" to creatures) and yet are still affected by the spell (they don't take damage, but can be ignited).

Fortunately, this inconsistent use of "target" isn't likey to produce a problem at the table, because the intent can be inferred: (1) the target of the spell is a point, (2) creatures must save and take damage, (3) objects take no damage but can be ignited. But it's still frustrating to have to rely on inferrence to figure out what Fireball does in this edition. Had they replaced the word "target" in the spell description with "creature", it would have instead been explicitly clear.