Comparing Wings

[RSP]

So I’ve been looking at different abilities associated with wings and flying. I might be missing some, but I’ve been reviewing the Draconic Sorc and DS level 14 abilities, and the Protector Aasimar ability.

What initially stands out, is neither DS or Protector actually have real wings, and as such, aren’t using the physics of wings to fly (that is, they don’t flap and move air); while the Draconic Sorc actually grows real wings.

The fact the Draconic has real wings creates some issues. First, these don’t seem to be “magic” wings, but something related to their genetic bloodline. As they aren’t magic, they should permeate through Anti-Magic Zones and whatnot, which is nice. But it also means they need to use in-game science (whatever that is, though my assumption would be it matches ours, if just so a DM doesn’t need to rewrite physics) to fly.

For instance, a tied up Protector can, RAW, use their ability to fly; yet, the Draconic would either not get their wings out, our destroy their bonds. Would growing their wings, therefore, also break a grapple?

And, at least per our real world science, the wingspan on the Draconic would need to be at least 20’ (most likely more) in order to work. They’d also be ridiculously strong. That essentially makes the Draconic a huge creature in terms of size taken up, at least while flying.

Technically, as they’re big and strong enough to move the medium-sized humanoid they’re attached to as regular movement, they should be powerful enough to move other, similar or smaller, sized creatures as movement. It also means they should be able to generate significant winds, like what’s required to disperse a Cloudkill or Fog spell effect.

I just found this to be a fascinating difference in the abilities. It seems there should be in-game differences to magically incorporeal or spectral wings, and real wings that are, RAW, affected by and affect, physical objects around them. That is, the RAW armor and clothing interaction limitations on the Draconic ability should mean they also interact with other physical things.

Thoughts?

[hamishspence]

The usual answer to "dragons are too heavy to fly, with such small wings" is "magic, but a form of magic that doesn't go away in antimagic fields".

The same may apply here. How can a giant eagle fly, and lift a person on its back? Or a griffin? Magic. Same with humanoids with smallish wings flying.

[Segev]

While these seem largely good rulings if you like them, I should point out that full dragons' wings are not large enough to carry them by our physics, so perhaps draconic sorcerers' wings can be smaller by D&D physics.

In terms of running it, again, you can rule as you suggest if you like, but it is noteworthy that the rules don't car bout the practical limits of physical wings. But yet again, 5e is about rulings, not rules, precisely because of the myriad situations that can come up that it is just better to let tables figure out what keeps their verisimilitude going.

[Unoriginal]

So I’ve been looking at different abilities associated with wings and flying. I might be missing some, but I’ve been reviewing the Draconic Sorc and DS level 14 abilities, and the Protector Aasimar ability.

What initially stands out, is neither DS or Protector actually have real wings, and as such, aren’t using the physics of wings to fly (that is, they don’t flap and move air); while the Draconic Sorc actually grows real wings.

The fact the Draconic has real wings creates some issues. First, these don’t seem to be “magic” wings, but something related to their genetic bloodline. As they aren’t magic, they should permeate through Anti-Magic Zones and whatnot, which is nice. But it also means they need to use in-game science (whatever that is, though my assumption would be it matches ours, if just so a DM doesn’t need to rewrite physics) to fly.

For instance, a tied up Protector can, RAW, use their ability to fly; yet, the Draconic would either not get their wings out, our destroy their bonds. Would growing their wings, therefore, also break a grapple?

And, at least per our real world science, the wingspan on the Draconic would need to be at least 20’ (most likely more) in order to work. They’d also be ridiculously strong. That essentially makes the Draconic a huge creature in terms of size taken up, at least while flying.

Technically, as they’re big and strong enough to move the medium-sized humanoid they’re attached to as regular movement, they should be powerful enough to move other, similar or smaller, sized creatures as movement. It also means they should be able to generate significant winds, like what’s required to disperse a Cloudkill or Fog spell effect.

I just found this to be a fascinating difference in the abilities. It seems there should be in-game differences to magically incorporeal or spectral wings, and real wings that are, RAW, affected by and affect, physical objects around them. That is, the RAW armor and clothing interaction limitations on the Draconic ability should mean they also interact with other physical things.

Thoughts?

Your premise is incorrect. It is not because something is physical that it is not magical, and in this case it is not because it is a physical body part that it isn't fantastical.

D&D Dragons are fantastical. They would *not* be able to fly without the D&D reality's background magic field which allows living creatures to do fantastical things (the same thing that allow an high level Monk to become invisible without using Weave-type magic).

The Dragon Sorcerer's wings are similarly fantastical, and *not* bound by real-life science.

Now it's true that as physical body parts the DS's wings interact with the world differently than the Protector Aasimar's immaterial ones. But that doesn't make one less fantastical than the other.

[RSP]

Your premise is incorrect. It is not because something is physical that it is not magical, and in this case it is not because it is a physical body part that it isn't fantastical.

D&D Dragons are fantastical. They would *not* be able to fly without the D&D reality's background magic field which allows living creatures to do fantastical things (the same thing that allow an high level Monk to become invisible without using Weave-type magic).

The Dragon Sorcerer's wings are similarly fantastical, and *not* bound by real-life science.

Now it's true that as physical body parts the DS's wings interact with the world differently than the Protector Aasimar's immaterial ones. But that doesn't make one less fantastical than the other.

It’s not incorrect: I specifically pointed out it would need to go by in-game science, rather than our real-world science: you choosing to ignore that I stated that distinction doesn’t make my premise incorrect, as you suggest.

I’m not saying the wings need to adhere to our real-world science (though I did state I was assuming it mostly applies so as to not have to create new scientific laws for the in-game world); I’m saying, as corporeal wings capable of carrying a medium-sized creature sans magic, they need to adhere to the in-game science, and not magic, that allows that.

[LudicSavant]

And, at least per our real world science, the wingspan on the Draconic would need to be at least 20’ (most likely more) in order to work. They’d also be ridiculously strong. That essentially makes the Draconic a huge creature in terms of size taken up, at least while flying.

It's not just them, either. Aarakocra have a 20 foot wingspan in canon lore. And yet somehow they fly in a 5 foot square. Do they just clip through walls?

[Tanarii]

D&D Dragons are fantastical. They would *not* be able to fly without the D&D reality's background magic field which allows living creatures to do fantastical things (the same thing that allow an high level Monk to become invisible without using Weave-type magic).

The Dragon Sorcerer's wings are similarly fantastical, and *not* bound by real-life science.
Right. D&D 5e has at least two kinds of Magic:
1) spells & Magic items
2) non-spell

Dragons flying, dragon breath, Monk non-spell Ki abilities, Draconic Sorcerer flying, and a whole host of other class features that are magical but not spells/Magic time, all fall into the latter.

IIRC there was a Sage Compendium write up that broke it down.

[Dork_Forge]

So I’ve been looking at different abilities associated with wings and flying. I might be missing some, but I’ve been reviewing the Draconic Sorc and DS level 14 abilities, and the Protector Aasimar ability.

What initially stands out, is neither DS or Protector actually have real wings, and as such, aren’t using the physics of wings to fly (that is, they don’t flap and move air); while the Draconic Sorc actually grows real wings.

The fact the Draconic has real wings creates some issues. First, these don’t seem to be “magic” wings, but something related to their genetic bloodline. As they aren’t magic, they should permeate through Anti-Magic Zones and whatnot, which is nice. But it also means they need to use in-game science (whatever that is, though my assumption would be it matches ours, if just so a DM doesn’t need to rewrite physics) to fly.

For instance, a tied up Protector can, RAW, use their ability to fly; yet, the Draconic would either not get their wings out, our destroy their bonds. Would growing their wings, therefore, also break a grapple?

And, at least per our real world science, the wingspan on the Draconic would need to be at least 20’ (most likely more) in order to work. They’d also be ridiculously strong. That essentially makes the Draconic a huge creature in terms of size taken up, at least while flying.

Technically, as they’re big and strong enough to move the medium-sized humanoid they’re attached to as regular movement, they should be powerful enough to move other, similar or smaller, sized creatures as movement. It also means they should be able to generate significant winds, like what’s required to disperse a Cloudkill or Fog spell effect.

I just found this to be a fascinating difference in the abilities. It seems there should be in-game differences to magically incorporeal or spectral wings, and real wings that are, RAW, affected by and affect, physical objects around them. That is, the RAW armor and clothing interaction limitations on the Draconic ability should mean they also interact with other physical things.

Thoughts?

Personally I think you're overthinking this, and there's no reason why in game their wingspan should be so huge. I'm also not sure why you're treating the wings so differently, either the other sources of wings work... as wings, or they fly as if by the Fly spell and the wings just act as a weird status icon. If they actually function as wings there's no reason most of what you said shouldn't apply.

Growing wings shouldn't break a grapple imo, nothing is saying that you're being grappled in a way that sprouting wings would help.

[Dr. Cliché]

I'd be leery of trying to extrapolate the size of the wings from the weight of the creature. Hence, I think saying that the wings would need to be 20ft across and so the creature would need that much area to fly might be a little too much.

However, I can understand saying that confined spaces (e.g. a 5ft square pit) leave the Dragon Sorcerer with insufficient space to fly (as even proportionately small wings couldn't flap in that sort of space.).

[RSP]

I'm also not sure why you're treating the wings so differently, either the other sources of wings work... as wings, or they fly as if by the Fly spell and the wings just act as a weird status icon. If they actually function as wings there's no reason most of what you said shouldn't apply.


Since it was unclear: I’m treating them differently because the RAW on them is different: DS and Protector specifically state they aren’t physically manifested wings, while Dragon states otherwise.

[Dork_Forge]

Since it was unclear: I’m treating them differently because the RAW on them is different: DS and Protector specifically state they aren’t physically manifested wings, while Dragon states otherwise.

They're stated as being spectral (DS) and incorporeal (Protector), this does not mean they do not interact with the physical world. The same thinking would mean that Ghosts and Spectors couldn't interact with anything physically, but there's no reason to assume that and I don't think it's expected either. Whilst the text may use those words, it does not provide any actual interactions based on them like we see in those monsters' stat blocks.

Either the wings the DS and Protector create are functional wings, or they are just status icons to show their flight is activated, if it's the former then they should largely interact like dragon wings. If the latter, well that's not really my cup of tea, nor I think what most people think of when these characters sprout wings and start flying with them.

[JackPhoenix]

For instance, a tied up Protector can, RAW, use their ability to fly; yet, the Draconic would either not get their wings out, our destroy their bonds. Would growing their wings, therefore, also break a grapple?

Tied up Protector can't, by RAW, fly. Being tied up imposes restrained condition, which means his speed is 0. That means he can't move. As Radiant Soul doesn't give ability to hover and doesn't say the flight is magical, it doesn't get around that (it also means that being knocked prone mid-flight means the aasimar still falls). Same with Divine Soul. "Spectral" or "incorporeal" has no mechanical meaning in RAW unless the relevant ability specifically says it does.

[MaxWilson]

Right. D&D 5e has at least two kinds of Magic:
1) spells & Magic items
2) non-spell

Dragons flying, dragon breath, Monk non-spell Ki abilities, Draconic Sorcerer flying, and a whole host of other class features that are magical but not spells/Magic time, all fall into the latter.

IIRC there was a Sage Compendium write up that broke it down.

Plus nonmagical but fantasy physics, such as gravity which is either exactly 1g or off and Aristotelian elements.

It's weird that 5e birds and dragons can all hover like hummingbirds but also can barely move faster than a middle-aged jogger. Maybe flying doesn't work the same way there that it does on Earth.

[Naanomi]

The physics of DnD, even without ‘magic’, are pretty bizarre if you go by old lore; elemental atoms with positive and negative spin and charge (which are different but related); crystallized ideas made semi-manifest, astral thought-energy... I always just assume all of that adds up to ‘things work the way that say they work; and an in-game scientist could probably explain how’

[Unoriginal]

It’s not incorrect: I specifically pointed out it would need to go by in-game science, rather than our real-world science: you choosing to ignore that I stated that distinction doesn’t make my premise incorrect, as you suggest.

I’m not saying the wings need to adhere to our real-world science (though I did state I was assuming it mostly applies so as to not have to create new scientific laws for the in-game world); I’m saying, as corporeal wings capable of carrying a medium-sized creature sans magic, they need to adhere to the in-game science, and not magic, that allows that.


The premise is incorrect because it is based on the idea that physical wings must follow any kind of "science". You are the one choosing to ignore what I said because I mentioned real-life science, even if you yourself freely admits that your assumptions of "in-game science" would be functionally identical to real-life science.


Your premise is "Dragon Sorcerer's wings are physical body parts, therefore they must follow in-universe science, which I assume is similar to real-life science". That is not a correct statement, in 5e.

I apologize if I sounded/sounds unreasonably harsh.


Plus nonmagical but fantasy physics, such as gravity which is either exactly 1g or off and Aristotelian elements.


The physics of DnD, even without ‘magic’, are pretty bizarre if you go by old lore; elemental atoms with positive and negative spin; crystallized ideas made semi-manifest, astral thought-energy... I always just assume all of that adds up to ‘things work the way that say they work; and an in-game scientist could probably explain how’


Not to mention phlogiston-filled space, semi-ubiquitous beings powered by worship, stars that can be living entities or distant reality bubbles or burning plasma balls, ...

[Greywander]

And, at least per our real world science, the wingspan on the Draconic would need to be at least 20’ (most likely more) in order to work. They’d also be ridiculously strong.
Yup. There's a reason why birds are very top-heavy, with skinny legs and a swole upper body. I remember looked at winged tieflings a while back, and my conclusion is that a "realistic" winged humanoid would have an extra set of limbs connected to their pelvis, probably about 20 to 30 feet long, with bat-like webbing stretching up to their arms and neck, and down to and between their legs (tail optional). And those limbs will be hella strong, too.

Any character with wings is also going to have an exponentially larger appetite. Flying takes a lot of energy, so you need to eat a lot more calories. Sweets or fatty foods probably make the most sense, as it's less about nutrition (which is about the same as a non-winged character) and more about raw calories, though they might need more protein as well to rebuild their wing muscles.


It's not just them, either. Aarakocra have a 20 foot wingspan in canon lore. And yet somehow they fly in a 5 foot square. Do they just clip through walls?
I'm not sure if there's actually a rule about this, but confined spaces are typically one of the checks against winged characters. It's one of the reasons magical/psionic flight is generally stronger than wings.

I'm not sure where I heard this, perhaps from the custom race guide by James Musicus, but IIRC winged creatures default to a wingspan that is twice their height. As such, you'd need at least a 10 foot wide space to fly. But again, this might not actually be in the rules.


Right. D&D 5e has at least two kinds of Magic:
1) spells & Magic items
2) non-spell

Dragons flying, dragon breath, Monk non-spell Ki abilities, Draconic Sorcerer flying, and a whole host of other class features that are magical but not spells/Magic time, all fall into the latter.

IIRC there was a Sage Compendium write up that broke it down.
This isn't quite right, per se. All spells and magic items are considered magical, and are blocked inside an anti-magic field. Also, yuan-ti, satyrs, or character's wearing a robe of the archmage have advantage on saving throws versus those magical effects. There are also some magical effects that aren't spells, such as a basilisk's gaze; they would also have advantage on saves against the gaze, and an anti-magic field would block it. A dragon's breath is not considered magical, so you wouldn't get advantage to your save, and anti-magic does nothing.

This is kind of what you're saying, but the distinction can be important. Dragon breath isn't magical, so effects that stop or protect against magic don't do anything. It could be accurate to say that dragon's breath is a supernatural ability, however, which isn't that different from saying it's "magic". But there are also things like the basilisk's gaze, which is magical, and thus can be stopped by anti-magic.

[JoeJ]

Any character with wings is also going to have an exponentially larger appetite. Flying takes a lot of energy, so you need to eat a lot more calories. Sweets or fatty foods probably make the most sense, as it's less about nutrition (which is about the same as a non-winged character) and more about raw calories, though they might need more protein as well to rebuild their wing muscles.

What you need to eat are hot foods, especially spices that are known to produce a warming effect. You see, wings contain a higher proportion of fire than most other body parts and fire, being the most sublime of the elements, naturally rises. Therefore you want to eat food that contains a relatively higher proportion of fire. An excess of cold food might, over time, interfere with the ability to fly.

[Naanomi]

What you need to eat are hot foods, especially spices that are known to produce a warming effect. You see, wings contain a higher proportion of fire than most other body parts and fire, being the most sublime of the elements, naturally rises. Therefore you want to eat food that contains a relatively higher proportion of fire. An excess of cold food might, over time, interfere with the ability to fly.
Or lightning, being both air (for flight) and positively charged (for biological energy); which we know is found locked in some metals (that is why they spark when you let it out on impact) so... high iron and zinc intake?

[Tanarii]

This isn't quite right, per se. All spells and magic items are considered magical, and are blocked inside an anti-magic field. Also, yuan-ti, satyrs, or character's wearing a robe of the archmage have advantage on saving throws versus those magical effects. There are also some magical effects that aren't spells, such as a basilisk's gaze; they would also have advantage on saves against the gaze, and an anti-magic field would block it. A dragon's breath is not considered magical, so you wouldn't get advantage to your save, and anti-magic does nothing.

This is kind of what you're saying, but the distinction can be important. Dragon breath isn't magical, so effects that stop or protect against magic don't do anything. It could be accurate to say that dragon's breath is a supernatural ability, however, which isn't that different from saying it's "magic". But there are also things like the basilisk's gaze, which is magical, and thus can be stopped by anti-magic.
Dragons breath is magical. As is Ki, Channel Divinity, etc. That's the point.

From the Sage Advice Compendium:
You might be thinking, “Dragons seem pretty magical to me.” And yes, they are extraordinary! Their description even says they’re magical. But our game makes a distinction between two types of magic:
• the background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse’s physics and the physiology of many D&D creatures
• the concentrated magical energy that is contained in a magic item or channeled to create a spell or other focused magical effect

[Greywander]

It's kind of a weird semantic thing. Yes, it's magical, but it's not affected by anti-magic fields, nor to yuan-ti get advantage on their saves against dragon breath. Lore-wise, it's a type of magic, but mechanically it is not considered a magical effect.

D&D is full of fantastical things that defy real world logic. Generally if I say something isn't magic, I'm just talking about how it interacts mechanically with things like an anti-magic field or Magic Resistance. It would be a lot easier if they used different terms for these.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It would be a lot easier if they used different terms for these.

Agreed.

I use the term "fantastic" or "fantastical" for all those things that are
a) impossible in our reality
b) "normal" (ie not supernatural) in their reality.

Magic is generally a subset of fantastic for me, the part that involves coherent, generally artificial effects that can be disrupted.

Then there are miracles and other supernatural events which are even outside that. They're the sort of thing that even the most magic-steeped world denizen would look at and go wow, that's not supposed to happen.

[RSP]

The premise is incorrect because it is based on the idea that physical wings must follow any kind of "science". You are the one choosing to ignore what I said because I mentioned real-life science, even if you yourself freely admits that your assumptions of "in-game science" would be functionally identical to real-life science.


Your premise is "Dragon Sorcerer's wings are physical body parts, therefore they must follow in-universe science, which I assume is similar to real-life science". That is not a correct statement, in 5e.

I apologize if I sounded/sounds unreasonably harsh.

5e assumes Laws of Nature exist, such as gravity, needing to eat and sleep, etc. The laws may not be the same as ours, but they exist. For instance, characters heal at an incredible rate in 5e (wounds gone after 8 hours resting regardless of how damaged the body was).

However, assuming this means there aren’t in-game Laws of Nature is incorrect. 5e bats still need to flap their wings.

Your statement seems to be “the RAW doesn’t say gravity exists so, therefore, everyone floats around.” I don’t agree with this idea: the general assumption in the PHB is that things generally act like they do in our world, unless otherwise noted.

As magic isn’t used in the Draconic Sorc’s flight, yet we know it can fly, it then must fly using mundane means.

[Unoriginal]

As magic isn’t used in the Draconic Sorc’s flight, yet we know it can fly, it then must fly using mundane means.

A spell isn't used in the Draconic Sorcerer's flight, and neither is a magic item nor anything that is on the "concentrated magic" list of the Sage Advice, yet we know:

a) they can fly

b) humanoids cannot fly using anything resembling real-life science or mundane means, since their wingspan is too small and they have way too high a body density to allow it with mundane means

Therefore they are using fantastical (aka "background magic") means to fly.


Being able to grow wings is already fantastical by itself. And to add to the "this is background magic" list, there is nothing stopping a Warforged Draconic Sorcerer for growing said wings.



However, assuming this means there aren’t in-game Laws of Nature is incorrect. 5e bats still need to flap their wings.

Dragons also still need to flap their wings to fly, yet of the two, only the bats would be able to fly in non-fantastical conditions.


the general assumption in the PHB is that things generally act like they do in our world, unless otherwise noted.

And dragons being able to fly is very much not like how things act in our world.


Your statement seems to be “the RAW doesn’t say gravity exists so, therefore, everyone floats around.”

No, my statement is "fantastical things exist in the D&D world, and real-life or real-life-like assumptions shouldn't be applied to them."

[False God]

Especially in 5E, I strongly advice against implementing "you can't do that because *something* *something* physical reality".

It does not, IMO, typically serve to improve gameplay or increase fun, but instead limits fun via unnecessarily burdening people with the Dm's opinion on how the game should work, as opposed to what the player signed up for when they read the ability they thought was cool.

This thread is a classic example of 3.5 "logic" and "verisimilitude" being applied to D&D in order to restrict and punish those who choose to do things via non-magical means.

[Unoriginal]

This thread is a classic example of 3.5 "logic" and "verisimilitude" being applied to D&D in order to restrict and punish those who choose to do things via non-magical means.

I wouldn't go that far, I don't think OP wants to restrict or punish anyone.


It's true it's generally the end result. Especially when the same "logic" and "verisimilitude" (or how many people spells it, "realism") is used to make spells more powerful. But let's not attribute nefarious intent to Rsp29a.

[False God]

I wouldn't go that far, I don't think OP wants to restrict or punish anyone.


It's true it's generally the end result. Especially when the same "logic" and "verisimilitude" (or how many people spells it, "realism") is used to make spells more powerful. But let's not attribute nefarious intent to Rsp29a.

Fair. To correct myself instead of "in order" it would be better said "that is often used".

[RSP]

A spell isn't used in the Draconic Sorcerer's flight, and neither is a magic item nor anything that is on the "concentrated magic" list of the Sage Advice, yet we know:

a) they can fly

b) humanoids cannot fly using anything resembling real-life science or mundane means, since their wingspan is too small and they have way too high a body density to allow it with mundane means

Therefore they are using fantastical (aka "background magic") means to fly.

Whether the physics in-game allow them to be smaller than what’s needed in our world is moot: they still need to be strong enough to lift the humanoid, hence why they can push a Fog.

The DS and Protector have no such issues as their wings don’t have a way to physically interact with the world.



Being able to grow wings is already fantastical by itself. And to add to the "this is background magic" list, there is nothing stopping a Warforged Draconic Sorcerer for growing said wings.


I’m certainly no expert on Warforged, but RAW, if they don’t have blood (and bloodlines), they actually can’t be Draconic Sorcerers: “Your innate magic comes from Draconic Magic that was mingled with your blood or that of your ancestors.” If they have blood, then, yeah, the magic is capable of growing wings.



Dragons also still need to flap their wings to fly, yet of the two, only the bats would be able to fly in non-fantastical conditions.

Again, the physics are different but the dragon’s wings are powerful enough to lift them, and are, similarly, able to knock creatures prone just by moving them. Since Draconic Sorc literally get the same things, they should be similarly able to interact with the environment (and, possibly, hindered by it, if applicable). Not that they’re large enough or strong enough to knock creatures prone, but acts relevant to their size should certainly be doable.

[RSP]

Especially in 5E, I strongly advice against implementing "you can't do that because *something* *something* physical reality".

It does not, IMO, typically serve to improve gameplay or increase fun, but instead limits fun via unnecessarily burdening people with the Dm's opinion on how the game should work, as opposed to what the player signed up for when they read the ability they thought was cool.

This thread is a classic example of 3.5 "logic" and "verisimilitude" being applied to D&D in order to restrict and punish those who choose to do things via non-magical means.

I’m not sure why you’re coming to the conclusions you are. I’m comparing the RAW of similar, but differently worded abilities and analyzing what effect the different wording has in the in-game universe.

What are you thinking I’m saying some can’t do?

[RSP]

Tied up Protector can't, by RAW, fly. Being tied up imposes restrained condition, which means his speed is 0. That means he can't move. As Radiant Soul doesn't give ability to hover and doesn't say the flight is magical, it doesn't get around that (it also means that being knocked prone mid-flight means the aasimar still falls). Same with Divine Soul. "Spectral" or "incorporeal" has no mechanical meaning in RAW unless the relevant ability specifically says it does.

Not sure this is correct. Where are you getting that being tied up equals the Restrained condition? Being tied up, to me, means your limbs are secured, but doesn’t necessarily mean your tied to something that prevents you from hopping or log-rolling. If one were tied up, in that they couldn’t move their limbs, that wouldn’t prevent someone from flying who didn’t need to flap wings (though, I’d imagine, the growing of Dragon Wings may actually break or shift the ropes, much like they may destroy clothes, but thats clearly ruling territory).

[Greywander]

Whether the physics in-game allow them to be smaller than what’s needed in our world is moot: they still need to be strong enough to lift the humanoid, hence why they can push a Fog.
Not necessarily, it kind of depends on how wings work. Sure, they can be used to fan things, but as far as flying it's possible that all winged creatures, not just winged humanoids, have some magic inherent in their wings that allows them to fly. Maybe it makes them lighter so that they're easier to lift with wings that would normally be too small. In any case, it's possible to imagine a mechanism whereby flight is possible but the wings aren't strong enough to push things just through the force of flapping them.


Again, the physics are different but the dragon’s wings are powerful enough to lift them, and are, similarly, able to knock creatures prone just by moving them. Since Draconic Sorc literally get the same things, they should be similarly able to interact with the environment (and, possibly, hindered by it, if applicable). Not that they’re large enough or strong enough to knock creatures prone, but acts relevant to their size should certainly be doable.
Dragons are bigger, so their wings are stronger. It would certainly depend on what you were trying to do with your wings. I'd probably default to assuming that your wings are about as strong as your arms and/or legs. Normally, this would be too weak to allow flight, but some unknown mechanism allows you to fly with them anyway. So you could generate a gust by flapping them, but it would be comparable to swinging a giant fan with your arms.

The problem is that winged humanoids, as portrayed in popular culture, aren't realistic at all. Wings like that shouldn't be able to fly, period. Starting with the assumption that they can fly and working backwards to figure out how strong their wings needs to be ends up giving them abilities that winged humanoids aren't usually portrayed as having. You either need to (a) accept that their wings aren't that strong yet they still fly somehow, just so that you can maintain the trope, or (b) rebuild the setting with "realistic" winged humanoids, which will dramatically change them and the setting they're in.

[JoeJ]

Not sure this is correct. Where are you getting that being tied up equals the Restrained condition? Being tied up, to me, means your limbs are secured, but doesn’t necessarily mean your tied to something that prevents you from hopping or log-rolling. If one were tied up, in that they couldn’t move their limbs, that wouldn’t prevent someone from flying who didn’t need to flap wings (though, I’d imagine, the growing of Dragon Wings may actually break or shift the ropes, much like they may destroy clothes, but thats clearly ruling territory).

Tied up isn't a condition, though, so you're already in ruling territory no matter what you do. If you decide that it's not equal to one of the PHB conditions, then you're basically on your own as to the effect it has.

[RSP]

Not necessarily, it kind of depends on how wings work. Sure, they can be used to fan things, but as far as flying it's possible that all winged creatures, not just winged humanoids, have some magic inherent in their wings that allows them to fly. Maybe it makes them lighter so that they're easier to lift with wings that would normally be too small. In any case, it's possible to imagine a mechanism whereby flight is possible but the wings aren't strong enough to push things just through the force of flapping them.


Dragons are bigger, so their wings are stronger. It would certainly depend on what you were trying to do with your wings. I'd probably default to assuming that your wings are about as strong as your arms and/or legs. Normally, this would be too weak to allow flight, but some unknown mechanism allows you to fly with them anyway. So you could generate a gust by flapping them, but it would be comparable to swinging a giant fan with your arms.

The problem is that winged humanoids, as portrayed in popular culture, aren't realistic at all. Wings like that shouldn't be able to fly, period. Starting with the assumption that they can fly and working backwards to figure out how strong their wings needs to be ends up giving them abilities that winged humanoids aren't usually portrayed as having. You either need to (a) accept that their wings aren't that strong yet they still fly somehow, just so that you can maintain the trope, or (b) rebuild the setting with "realistic" winged humanoids, which will dramatically change them and the setting they're in.

Again, it doesn’t have to be our world realistic, but, rather, it should hold up to its own in-game science/physics.

We know huge dragons can knock down other creatures with its wings. So a medium-sized creature should be able to do similar to smaller sized ones, as there’s no reason their wings wouldn’t be respectively powerfully.

As for your idea that magic makes the creatures with wings lighter when they fly, well then wouldn’t that make the creatures easier to carry, or shove, or more likely to be blown off course by strong winds?


Tied up isn't a condition, though, so you're already in ruling territory no matter what you do. If you decide that it's not equal to one of the PHB conditions, then you're basically on your own as to the effect it has.

Agreed, that’s why I was asking Jack why he thought tied up=Restrained according to RAW. It’s certainly possible I’m missing a rule, but, if not, then that seems like it was just a personal ruling of Jack’s and not RAW. Though, again, I’m curious if I’m missing something.

[Greywander]

We know huge dragons can knock down other creatures with its wings. So a medium-sized creature should be able to do similar to smaller sized ones, as there’s no reason their wings wouldn’t be respectively powerfully.
Sure, you can definitely knock bugs off-course by swinging a fan. I suppose if you wanted to try this, I might call for an opposed STR check or something. You'd have to be pretty close anyway, so maybe it would just be a refluffed shove? That's actually probably the best way to handle it.


As for your idea that magic makes the creatures with wings lighter when they fly, well then wouldn’t that make the creatures easier to carry, or shove, or more likely to be blown off course by strong winds?
Who knows? It's probably one of those things where they just threw it in without thinking about how it works. I'm just spitballing potential explanations, we can probably just assume it's some kind of fantasy science that doesn't apply in the real world but is understood well enough in the fantasy world; well, about as well understood as bird flight was understood in the medieval times.

Continuing the idea that wings make them lighter, perhaps weight and mass aren't connected in the same way as they are in the real world, allowing a creature to become lighter while still being as massive. Then they wouldn't have a problem with being blown off-course. Alternatively, maybe they don't actually become lighter, but they act as though they were lighter. Thus, another creature trying to lift them would find them to be just as heavy, but when they try to lift themselves with their wings, they're lighter for some reason. Heck, all flight could be the result of some kind of telekinesis that is controlled by the wings. Like I said, who knows?

[RSP]

Sure, you can definitely knock bugs off-course by swinging a fan. I suppose if you wanted to try this, I might call for an opposed STR check or something. You'd have to be pretty close anyway, so maybe it would just be a refluffed shove? That's actually probably the best way to handle it.

Who knows? It's probably one of those things where they just threw it in without thinking about how it works. I'm just spitballing potential explanations, we can probably just assume it's some kind of fantasy science that doesn't apply in the real world but is understood well enough in the fantasy world; well, about as well understood as bird flight was understood in the medieval times.

Continuing the idea that wings make them lighter, perhaps weight and mass aren't connected in the same way as they are in the real world, allowing a creature to become lighter while still being as massive. Then they wouldn't have a problem with being blown off-course. Alternatively, maybe they don't actually become lighter, but they act as though they were lighter. Thus, another creature trying to lift them would find them to be just as heavy, but when they try to lift themselves with their wings, they're lighter for some reason. Heck, all flight could be the result of some kind of telekinesis that is controlled by the wings. Like I said, who knows?

Well, telekinesis brings us back to magical means of flying. If that’s how you want to run your world, though, go with it. I stand by my previous statement that the RAW assumes Laws of Nature similar (though certainly with noted differences) to ours. Birds and bats fly using the same physics, gravity exists, light travels basically the same way. If a DM wants to decide all this occurs with magic, cool, but then the ramifications of that should occur (such as no creatures can fly in an Anti-Magic Zone).

So my point is that it should be consistent throughout the in-game world. Whatever a specific DM decides the in-game science is behind the wings working to achieve flight, that should be consistent with the Draconic Sorc ability; for better or worse, depending on the situation. However, with the spectral/incorporeal wings of Protector and DS, they don’t follow the same rules as they don’t interact with the physical world.

[Valmark]

So I’ve been looking at different abilities associated with wings and flying. I might be missing some, but I’ve been reviewing the Draconic Sorc and DS level 14 abilities, and the Protector Aasimar ability.

What initially stands out, is neither DS or Protector actually have real wings, and as such, aren’t using the physics of wings to fly (that is, they don’t flap and move air); while the Draconic Sorc actually grows real wings.

The fact the Draconic has real wings creates some issues. First, these don’t seem to be “magic” wings, but something related to their genetic bloodline. As they aren’t magic, they should permeate through Anti-Magic Zones and whatnot, which is nice. But it also means they need to use in-game science (whatever that is, though my assumption would be it matches ours, if just so a DM doesn’t need to rewrite physics) to fly.

For instance, a tied up Protector can, RAW, use their ability to fly; yet, the Draconic would either not get their wings out, our destroy their bonds. Would growing their wings, therefore, also break a grapple?

And, at least per our real world science, the wingspan on the Draconic would need to be at least 20’ (most likely more) in order to work. They’d also be ridiculously strong. That essentially makes the Draconic a huge creature in terms of size taken up, at least while flying.

Technically, as they’re big and strong enough to move the medium-sized humanoid they’re attached to as regular movement, they should be powerful enough to move other, similar or smaller, sized creatures as movement. It also means they should be able to generate significant winds, like what’s required to disperse a Cloudkill or Fog spell effect.

I just found this to be a fascinating difference in the abilities. It seems there should be in-game differences to magically incorporeal or spectral wings, and real wings that are, RAW, affected by and affect, physical objects around them. That is, the RAW armor and clothing interaction limitations on the Draconic ability should mean they also interact with other physical things.

Thoughts?

I wouldn't add needlessly complicated rulings- the sorcerers' wings only give you the ability to fly and strip off your shirt (unless custom-made for those) as a bonus action. No size increase, no fog dispersion, no breaking bonds unless said bonds are too flimsy and tied around the same area the wings come out of.

I don't see how it'd break grapples either way. The wings grow from the back so unless you're catched in something like a bear hug (which isn't how grapples work in 5e) it shouldn't have any effect. A case could be made for tentacle grapples, or constrictor snake-like grapples- and even then if the wings aren't strong enough to break padded armor I strongly doubt they can break a snake's hold.

I also wouldn't say that DS' and Protector's wings don't flap etc.- keep in mind that they can be knocked down exactly like a Draconic's. They aren't capable of hovering like other beings that fly without using wings (like animated objects and ghosts)- so while they could be similar to the Fly spell (which gives you fly speed without being able to hover and without using wings) it could also be like the Draconic's.

We know fully well that incorporeal beings can interact phisically in D&D after all.

[RSP]

I wouldn't add needlessly complicated rulings- the sorcerers' wings only give you the ability to fly and strip off your shirt (unless custom-made for those) as a bonus action. No size increase, no fog dispersion, no breaking bonds unless said bonds are too flimsy and tied around the same area the wings come out of.

...

We know fully well that incorporeal beings can interact phisically in D&D after all.

Incorporeal and spectral retain their common English meaning in the RAW, which is that they don’t interact with physical bodies, or elements.

What are you referring to, specifically, when you say “We know fully well that incorporeal beings can interact phisically in D&D”?

Unless a creature has a specific ability/trait, it is corporeal (such as we see from the Basic Rules: “Each creature takes up a different amount of space.”). Creatures like Ghosts and Spectres, which I’m assuming you’re referring to here (but please correct me if I’m wrong), have no such features: that is, they take up space just like any other creature.

[JackPhoenix]

Not sure this is correct. Where are you getting that being tied up equals the Restrained condition? Being tied up, to me, means your limbs are secured, but doesn’t necessarily mean your tied to something that prevents you from hopping or log-rolling. If one were tied up, in that they couldn’t move their limbs, that wouldn’t prevent someone from flying who didn’t need to flap wings (though, I’d imagine, the growing of Dragon Wings may actually break or shift the ropes, much like they may destroy clothes, but thats clearly ruling territory).

It's simple: RAW, there's no "tied up" condition, but there's restrained condition. If the tied up creature isn't restrained, there are no limitations on what it can do. If its speed isn't 0 from being restrained (or grappled), it can fly normally, no matter what it uses to fly.

You can homebrew your own rules for being tied up but not restrained, but at that point, you can't use RAW as an argument.

[Unoriginal]

Incorporeal and spectral retain their common English meaning in the RAW, which is that they don’t interact with physical bodies, or elements. [...] Creatures like Ghosts and Spectres, which I’m assuming you’re referring to here (but please correct me if I’m wrong), have no such features: that is, they take up space just like any other creature.

Are you arguing that Specters are not spectral?

Also, just to say, but the Specter statblock includes:


Incorporeal Movement
The specter can move through other creatures and objects as if they were difficult terrain. It takes 5 (1d10) force damage if it ends its turn inside an object.

[RSP]

Are you arguing that Specters are not spectral?

Also, just to say, but the Specter statblock includes:

Indeed, the RAW says a Spectre is not “spectral.” It’s a scenario where the common English meaning of a word is based off a phenomenon/idea in our real world, that doesn’t hold the same properties in 5e. In our real world, we use the word “spectral” to say something doesn’t have a physical form, however, in 5e Spectres have a physical form and can interact with other physical forms.

And that ability, “Incorporeal Movement”, is a specific game feature that does what it says, as opposed to trying to attribute a conclusion of what it’s common English meaning would be. The Spectre having that feature means that it can do what the feature says it can do, it does not mean the Spectre is “incorporeal”.

[Unoriginal]

Indeed, the RAW says a Spectre is not “spectral.” It’s a scenario where the common English meaning of a word is based off a phenomenon/idea in our real world, that doesn’t hold the same properties in 5e. In our real world, we use the word “spectral” to say something doesn’t have a physical form, however, in 5e Spectres have a physical form and can interact with other physical forms.

And that ability, “Incorporeal Movement”, is a specific game feature that does what it says, as opposed to trying to attribute a conclusion of what it’s common English meaning would be. The Spectre having that feature means that it can do what the feature says it can do, it does not mean the Spectre is “incorporeal”.

So if I follow what you are saying, for you the word "Specter" does not have the same meaning in 5e than in does in real life, but the word "spectral" does have the same meaning than in real life?

And furthermore, the word "incorporeal" used as a descriptor in an ability does have the same meaning as in real life, but the word "incorporeal" used as a descriptor in a different ability does not have the same meaning as in real life?



I also have to point out that using the "it can do what the feature says it can do" point entirely undermine what you've been wanting to do in this thread, since this thread is about finding things that the features do not actually say they can do.


If the "it can do what the feature says it can do" principle was the one you used, you wouldn't ask yourself "does the DS's wings interrupt grappling?", because you already would have the answer.


"Feature does what it says it does" and "let's think of what the feature does beyond what it says it does based on X implications" are fundamentaly incompatible positions.

[Witty Username]

I will go on record saying I would prefer giant wings even if it limits my flight options simply because I would look badass.

[RSP]

So if I follow what you are saying, for you the word "Specter" does not have the same meaning in 5e than in does in real life, but the word "spectral" does have the same meaning than in real life?

And furthermore, the word "incorporeal" used as a descriptor in an ability does have the same meaning as in real life, but the word "incorporeal" used as a descriptor in a different ability does not have the same meaning as in real life?

A 5e Spectre, a creature within the 5e ruleset, follows the rules of 5e, and, specifically, the rules of being a 5e creature. These rules include taking up physical space within the in-world environment.

The English word “spectral” has a meaning within the English language that is, at least in part, derived from what is considered to be a “spectre”, or ghost, or spirit; within certain real world cultures. That word means not having mass or physical form.

The two words, though similar in appearance and sound, do not have the same meaning, particularly since one, the 5e “Spectre”, is defined by a specific ruleset.

You’re also mixing up how incorporeal is used. When used as a descriptor in the ruleset, it retains its common English definition. However, when used as part of the name of the ability “Incorporeal Movement”, it’s not being used as it’s common English meaning, but is now a specifically designated game term, that operates as it says it does within the 5e ruleset. You cannot take that ability’s name and say it defines the word “incorporeal” within 5e, because the name of the ability is not “incorporeal” but rather “Incorporeal Movement.”

For instance, the Protector Aasimar does not gain the Incorporeal Movement ability, simply because its Radiant Soul ability describes its wings as incorporeal.

[Tanarii]

I will go on record saying I would prefer giant wings even if it limits my flight options simply because I would look badass.
Interesting. There's no way I would ever play a winged Tiefling, or an aarokocra even with normal size ones. Because I don't want big silly looking wings that I have to worry about getting in the way, no matter the mechanical advantages. Even on-use ones like Dragon Sorc 14 don't appeal.

Spectral or Incorporeal wings would be passable. But wingless flight is where it's at.

This prejudice may be a holdover from Heroes Unlimited. :smallamused:

[Unoriginal]

A 5e Spectre, a creature within the 5e ruleset, follows the rules of 5e, and, specifically, the rules of being a 5e creature. These rules include taking up physical space within the in-world environment.

The English word “spectral” has a meaning within the English language that is, at least in part, derived from what is considered to be a “spectre”, or ghost, or spirit; within certain real world cultures. That word means not having mass or physical form.

The two words, though similar in appearance and sound, do not have the same meaning, particularly since one, the 5e “Spectre”, is defined by a specific ruleset.

You’re also mixing up how incorporeal is used. When used as a descriptor in the ruleset, it retains its common English definition. However, when used as part of the name of the ability “Incorporeal Movement”, it’s not being used as it’s common English meaning, but is now a specifically designated game term, that operates as it says it does within the 5e ruleset. You cannot take that ability’s name and say it defines the word “incorporeal” within 5e, because the name of the ability is not “incorporeal” but rather “Incorporeal Movement.”

For instance, the Protector Aasimar does not gain the Incorporeal Movement ability, simply because its Radiant Soul ability describes its wings as incorporeal.

So the fact the Protector Aasimar's wings are described as incorporeal does not mean the 5e ruleset includes an ability which let them go throught objects or creatures, if I follow your logic.

[Tanarii]

So the fact the Protector Aasimar's wings are described as incorporeal does not mean the 5e ruleset includes an ability which let them go throught objects or creatures, if I follow your logic.
That's pretty much the exact opposite logic of "wings must be bigger to carry the weight" or "wings can't be used if the space is too small" or "wings that are bound can't be used to fly".

[RSP]

?
I also have to point out that using the "it can do what the feature says it can do" point entirely undermine what you've been wanting to do in this thread, since this thread is about finding things that the features do not actually say they can do.


If the "it can do what the feature says it can do" principle was the one you used, you wouldn't ask yourself "does the DS's wings interrupt grappling?", because you already would have the answer.


"Feature does what it says it does" and "let's think of what the feature does beyond what it says it does based on X implications" are fundamentaly incompatible positions.

No. That’s an incorrect take on what I’m discussing in this thread.

Features in 5e do what they say they do in the 5e ruleset, yes; but the effects of features can also interact with the rest of the rules, in-game: that’s how role-playing, and 5e specifically, works. I’m taking a feature in the 5e ruleset and discussing what we know that feature can do, and how that interacts with other aspects of the 5e ruleset in how it does what it says.

Dragon Wings grow from your back and you can fly. That involves a change in the physiology of the humanoid character. The ability doesn’t tell us what that entails, but it does happen, and does have ramifications.

Similarly, PCs can, RAW, destroy a wall, however, the RAW doesn’t tell us what destroying said wall will result in when interacting with the in-game science, and/or other RAW rules.

[Unoriginal]

That's pretty much the exact opposite logic of "wings must be bigger to carry the weight" or "wings can't be used if the space is too small" or "wings that are bound can't be used to fly".

I know. Rsp29a is contradiction themselves, that's what I'm pointing out.

[Unoriginal]

That's pretty much the exact opposite logic of "wings must be bigger to carry the weight" or "wings can't be used if the space is too small" or "wings that are bound can't be used to fly".

I know. Rsp29a is contradiction themselves, that's what I'm pointing out.


No. That’s an incorrect take on what I’m discussing in this thread.

Features in 5e do what they say they do in the 5e ruleset, yes; but the effects of features can also interact with the rest of the rules, in-game: that’s how role-playing, and 5e specifically, works.

[...]

Dragon Wings grow from your back and you can fly. That involves a change in the physiology of the humanoid character. The ability doesn’t tell us what that entails, but it does happen, and does have ramifications.

So features do what they say they do, but they don't ONLY do what they say they do?


I’m taking a feature in the 5e ruleset and discussing what we know that feature can do, and how that interacts with other aspects of the 5e ruleset in how it does what it says.

You're taking a feature in the 5e ruleset and arguing that it does more than what what we know that feature can do, based on "in-universe science" assumptions, then arguing that it affects the 5e ruleset.

"Flying creatures need a big wingspan to fly, so a Dragon Sorcerer's size category would increase with their wings out" is creating a ramification. By the "feature does what the feature says it does" principle, we know that no, the DS's size category does not change.

[Valmark]

Incorporeal and spectral retain their common English meaning in the RAW, which is that they don’t interact with physical bodies, or elements.

What are you referring to, specifically, when you say “We know fully well that incorporeal beings can interact phisically in D&D”?

Unless a creature has a specific ability/trait, it is corporeal (such as we see from the Basic Rules: “Each creature takes up a different amount of space.”). Creatures like Ghosts and Spectres, which I’m assuming you’re referring to here (but please correct me if I’m wrong), have no such features: that is, they take up space just like any other creature.
Wrights (I think it's them?) are called incorporeal but can interact phisically with people and objects, if creatures like ghosts don't qualify for you as incorporeal beings.

Indeed, the RAW says a Spectre is not “spectral.” It’s a scenario where the common English meaning of a word is based off a phenomenon/idea in our real world, that doesn’t hold the same properties in 5e. In our real world, we use the word “spectral” to say something doesn’t have a physical form, however, in 5e Spectres have a physical form and can interact with other physical forms.

And that ability, “Incorporeal Movement”, is a specific game feature that does what it says, as opposed to trying to attribute a conclusion of what it’s common English meaning would be. The Spectre having that feature means that it can do what the feature says it can do, it does not mean the Spectre is “incorporeal”.
The RAW never says that. The absence of a position doesn't mean that it's not- if it doesn't say that it's spectral it doesn't mean that it isn't.

Regardless of the fact that spectral has multiple meanings (it can also be a creepy place, for example).

I will go on record saying I would prefer giant wings even if it limits my flight options simply because I would look badass.
Oh, absolutely. I had a DM that enforced such a rule in 3.5- still would have kept those wings even if I had known about it beforehand.

A 5e Spectre, a creature within the 5e ruleset, follows the rules of 5e, and, specifically, the rules of being a 5e creature. These rules include taking up physical space within the in-world environment.

The English word “spectral” has a meaning within the English language that is, at least in part, derived from what is considered to be a “spectre”, or ghost, or spirit; within certain real world cultures. That word means not having mass or physical form.

The two words, though similar in appearance and sound, do not have the same meaning, particularly since one, the 5e “Spectre”, is defined by a specific ruleset.

You’re also mixing up how incorporeal is used. When used as a descriptor in the ruleset, it retains its common English definition. However, when used as part of the name of the ability “Incorporeal Movement”, it’s not being used as it’s common English meaning, but is now a specifically designated game term, that operates as it says it does within the 5e ruleset. You cannot take that ability’s name and say it defines the word “incorporeal” within 5e, because the name of the ability is not “incorporeal” but rather “Incorporeal Movement.”

For instance, the Protector Aasimar does not gain the Incorporeal Movement ability, simply because its Radiant Soul ability describes its wings as incorporeal.
You can't just take the "5e meaning" or the "common English definition" when it suits the most. If you judge something within a 5e POV you need to keep at it- or rather, you can pick the most advantageous meaning, but then it's likely other people are going to disagree.

Interesting. There's no way I would ever play a winged Tiefling, or an aarokocra even with normal size ones. Because I don't want big silly looking wings that I have to worry about getting in the way, no matter the mechanical advantages. Even on-use ones like Dragon Sorc 14 don't appeal.

Spectral or Incorporeal wings would be passable. But wingless flight is where it's at.

This prejudice may be a holdover from Heroes Unlimited. :smallamused:
Probably, since there's nothing that makes them get in the way- especially for a tiefling who already has a 5 feet long tail that naturally coils and agitates when emotional.

No seriously, that would be so uncomfortable IRL.

[RSP]

So the fact the Protector Aasimar's wings are described as incorporeal does not mean the 5e ruleset includes an ability which let them go throught objects or creatures, if I follow your logic.

The ability including the description that they are incorporeal is what lets them go through objects or creatures, because that’s what incorporeal means. You do not need a second ability to state that.

[Unoriginal]

You can't just take the "5e meaning" or the "common English definition" when it suits the most. If you judge something within a 5e POV you need to keep at it- or rather, you can pick the most advantageous meaning, but then it's likely other people are going to disagree.

Indeed.

You can't "let's use the common English definition, then the 5e meaning, then the common English definition" your argument into results.


The ability including the description that they are incorporeal is what lets them go through objects or creatures, because that’s what incorporeal means. You do not need a second ability to state that.

So the Protector Aasimar's wings are incorporeal because they are said to be incorporeal in the 5e ruleset ability describing them, nd there is no need for a second ability stating they are incorporeal due to said description, but Incorporeal Movement does not mean the Specter is incorporeal because it's a 5e ruleset ability describing them, and 5e ruleset abilities only do what they say they do?

[RSP]

I know. Rsp29a is contradiction themselves, that's what I'm pointing out.



So features do what they say they do, but they don't ONLY do what they say they do?

The feature does what it says it does: it causes Dragon Wings to grow from the Draconic Sorc’s back. That has implications, same as how the Attack Action or any other 5e may have in-game implications when used.



You're taking a feature in the 5e ruleset and arguing that it does more than what what we know that feature can do, based on "in-universe science" assumptions, then arguing that it affects the 5e ruleset.

"Flying creatures need a big wingspan to fly, so a Dragon Sorcerer's size category would increase with their wings out" is creating a ramification. By the "feature does what the feature says it does" principle, we know that no, the DS's size category does not change.

First off, I think you still have my position wrong on the size of the wings; my statement on the size of the wings is a personal ruling as I would see it.

Separately, the RAW does assume there are physics that are about the same as our real life physics (gravity for instance), though they do state differences.

Separately from that, whatever in-game science a particular DM uses for non-magical flight (comparable to our real-works physics or not) , should be upheld through the in-game science.

We know size categories in 5e represents not a creatures actual size, but rather the space it needs to be effective in combat: “A creature’s space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions.”

So if a medium sized creature grows Dragon Wings, changing its physiology and the area it needs to control when flying, that then interacts with other rules.

If you had a creature under a Fly spell, flying while squeezing would be possible (under half moment, RAW). However, if you have a winged flying creature flying while squeezing probably isn’t possible: as the wings must be able to operate in order lift the creature. This is how different rules within 5e can interact.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Separately, the RAW does assume there are physics that are about the same as our real life physics (gravity for instance), though they do state differences.


This is neither RAW nor truth.

The physics of D&D must be completely, 100% different at the core level than what we see around us every day. Similar bulk-level results if you don't look too hard, but very different fundamentals.

And there is no evidence that it assumes that the physical laws are about the same. Heck, even gravity works completely differently (being a constant value, having odd interactions in extra-dimensional spaces, not being tied to mass (since dragons can fly and huge creatures can move under their own power), etc.

For that matter, the basic conservation laws are not present. They cannot be, because magic exists.

So no. D&D physics != real physics at any meaningful level.

[RSP]

So the Protector Aasimar's wings are incorporeal because they are said to be incorporeal in the 5e ruleset ability describing them, nd there is no need for a second ability stating they are incorporeal due to said description...

Correct.



...but Incorporeal Movement does not mean the Specter is incorporeal because it's a 5e ruleset ability describing them, and 5e ruleset abilities only do what they say they do?

The RAW tells us creatures, as a general rule, are not incorporeal.

IM doesn’t say the creature in incorporeal, so it is not, therefore, incorporeal - it still follows the general rules of creatures because there is no exception present to the general rule. It does say the creature can move through other creatures and objects at half movement, so long as it doesn’t end its movement there (which is an exception to the general rules of 5e and creatures moving).

[RSP]

This is neither RAW nor truth.

The physics of D&D must be completely, 100% different at the core level than what we see around us every day. Similar bulk-level results if you don't look too hard, but very different fundamentals.

And there is no evidence that it assumes that the physical laws are about the same. Heck, even gravity works completely differently (being a constant value, having odd interactions in extra-dimensional spaces, not being tied to mass (since dragons can fly and huge creatures can move under their own power), etc.

For that matter, the basic conservation laws are not present. They cannot be, because magic exists.

So no. D&D physics != real physics at any meaningful level.

Disagree: at no point do the RAW state “there’s gravity” but it does assume there is gravity, as seen here: “For example, you don’t provoke an opportunity attack if an explosion hurls you out of a foe’s reach or if gravity causes you to fall past an enemy.”

We know what gravity is here, not because it’s a game term that’s described elsewhere in the 5e rules, but because it’s used as it’s common English meaning (which technically should probably entail corresponding rules of physics, but I’m not a physicist and, as such, don’t particularly care about the specifics).

Likewise, the RAW are written in this way: assuming the general rules of our world physics apply to the in-game world, where not specifically noted to be otherwise.

[RSP]

Wrights (I think it's them?) are called incorporeal but can interact phisically with people and objects, if creatures like ghosts don't qualify for you as incorporeal beings.

Creatures don’t qualify as incorporeal because the RAW states they do, in fact, have physical presence and take up space. I don’t have stars for a Wright, but if you post them, I’ll look them over.



You can't just take the "5e meaning" or the "common English definition" when it suits the most. If you judge something within a 5e POV you need to keep at it- or rather, you can pick the most advantageous meaning, but then it's likely other people are going to disagree.

The “5e meaning” is the common English definition, unless something is specifically defined within the 5e ruleset (therefore becoming a “game term”). So incorporeal means it’s usual meaning when it’s present in the 5e ruleset, just like every other word found in the rules that isn’t otherwise given a specific designation.

IM is the title of a specific ability, but that ability does not grant incorporealness to the creatures who have it.

[Unoriginal]

IM is the title of a specific ability, but that ability does not grant incorporealness to the creatures who have it.

Would the sentence "can move through solid creatures and objects as easily as a mortal creature moves through fog" grant incorporealness to the creature described?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Disagree: at no point do the RAW state “there’s gravity” but it does assume there is gravity, as seen here: “For example, you don’t provoke an opportunity attack if an explosion hurls you out of a foe’s reach or if gravity causes you to fall past an enemy.”

We know what gravity is here, not because it’s a game term that’s described elsewhere in the 5e rules, but because it’s used as it’s common English meaning (which technically should probably entail corresponding rules of physics, but I’m not a physicist and, as such, don’t particularly care about the specifics).

Likewise, the RAW are written in this way: assuming the general rules of our world physics apply to the in-game world, where not specifically noted to be otherwise.

That's not how this works. If you claim something is RAW, you need direct statements on the matter. Not "well, we can presume because they didn't say it wasn't that way." RAW doesn't say that characters can't shoot lasers out of their eyes at will either.

Edit: And furthermore, things that are directly stated require that D&D physics be nothing like real-world physics.

* Dragons can fly. Heck, dragons can exist in direct violation of the square-cube principle.
* Tarrasques can exist and move under their own power.
* Fireball hits a defined area and nothing outside of that area. It also doesn't light people or attended objects on fire.
* lightning bolt moves horizontally and in a linear fashion and is unaffected by things like being grounded or not.
* There is no momentum conservation.
* Cold is an elemental force, not the absence of heat.
* You can create darkness that cannot be illuminated by normal light.
* A rogue can completely dodge a fireball that explodes directly next to them, on an empty plane with no cover, taking no damage and suffering not even a singed cloak. Just by being nimble enough. But a fighter or monster with identical dexterity cannot do so. All without any reference to magic.

And the list goes on. Each and every one of these requires that D&D physics is completely different from real physics, except at the gross level. The sort of things a 12-th century peasant would understand (ie things fall if I drop them, heavy things are harder to move).

[Valmark]

Wraith (https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/wraith). The meaningful parts being the first sentence (where it's called incorporeal) and having no exclusion from occupying a space.

[RSP]

That's not how this works. If you claim something is RAW, you need direct statements on the matter. Not "well, we can presume because they didn't say it wasn't that way." RAW doesn't say that characters can't shoot lasers out of their eyes at will either.

Edit: And furthermore, things that are directly stated require that D&D physics be nothing like real-world physics.

* Dragons can fly. Heck, dragons can exist in direct violation of the square-cube principle.
* Tarrasques can exist and move under their own power.
* Fireball hits a defined area and nothing outside of that area. It also doesn't light people or attended objects on fire.
* lightning bolt moves horizontally and in a linear fashion and is unaffected by things like being grounded or not.
* There is no momentum conservation.
* Cold is an elemental force, not the absence of heat.
* You can create darkness that cannot be illuminated by normal light.
* A rogue can completely dodge a fireball that explodes directly next to them, on an empty plane with no cover, taking no damage and suffering not even a singed cloak. Just by being nimble enough. But a fighter or monster with identical dexterity cannot do so. All without any reference to magic.

And the list goes on. Each and every one of these requires that D&D physics is completely different from real physics, except at the gross level. The sort of things a 12-th century peasant would understand (ie things fall if I drop them, heavy things are harder to move).

The fact that all those are stated differences is evidence in my argument: the RAW assumes real world physics/laws of nature, except where otherwise indicated.

[JackPhoenix]

There is no momentum conservation.

There's *some* momentum conservation, because we have ranged attacks.

[Naanomi]

* Cold is an elemental force, not the absence of heat.
To be fair, cold *used to be* an elemental energy; but since the inner planes reconfigured in ancient times; cold is instead associated with neutrally charged air and water energies

Heck, traditionally Vacuum is a type of elemental atom; and the inner planes guide mocks the idea that it is inherently cold. It is also different than Void, which is a spiritual energy not a fundamental particle

[Unoriginal]

The fact that all those are stated differences is evidence in my argument: the RAW assumes real world physics/laws of nature, except where otherwise indicated.

Except there is no "by the way, a dragon does not obey the real world physics" or "by the way, Giants do not obey the square/cube law" indications.

[RSP]

Would the sentence "can move through solid creatures and objects as easily as a mortal creature moves through fog" grant incorporealness to the creature described?


Wraith (https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/wraith). The meaningful parts being the first sentence (where it's called incorporeal) and having no exclusion from occupying a space.

I’m assuming you’re referring to this: “ A wraith is malice incarnate, concentrated into an incorporeal form that seeks to quench all life.”

That, to me, indicates a 5e Wraith is, in fact, incorporeal.

The fog statement seems more a comparison to let people know how it moves in terms easily understood.

Either statement is seemingly contradicted by the Wraith also having Incorporeal Movement as an ability as creatures in 5e don’t move through fog as difficult terrain, nor do creatures generally take damage when stopping their turn in fog.

So I’d take this to be a case of poor writing as the RAW directly contradicting itself; and not as an example of how the 5e rules should work (which, obviously, generally don’t contradict themselves.

If either of you want to try and use it as a point in some argument, please feel free to explain, and I’ll consider it (though again, it’s not a good example of anything as it’s clearly a contradiction).

[PhoenixPhyre]

The fact that all those are stated differences is evidence in my argument: the RAW assumes real world physics/laws of nature, except where otherwise indicated.

No. Physical laws doesn't work that way. You can't have "the same but with these differences" anymore than you can have 2+2=5 and simultaneously 2+2=4.

Internally consistent, earth like, magic. Choose 2. You cannot have earth like physics with magic unless those laws are internally inconsistent and in fact incoherent. In which case you can't reason from them at all


To be fair, cold *used to be* an elemental energy; but since the inner planes reconfigured in ancient times; cold is instead associated with neutrally charged air and water energies

Heck, traditionally Vacuum is a type of elemental atom; and the inner planes guide mocks the idea that it is inherently cold. It is also different than Void, which is a spiritual energy not a fundamental particle

None of those are stated in 5e lore. Thus they do not exist. You can create a line of cold (without freezing anything but your target, by the by). You can breathe cold. You can have a creature that is cold (an ice elemental). For all practical purposes, there is an "element" of cold. Whether it has its own elemental plane or not.

Heck, no where is it stated that there are real (in the earth sense) elements. And in fact, the fact that creatures can change elements into each other, and that rust monsters can rust metals that can't rust (no exclusion for gold, for instance) without nuclear reactions is evidence that chemistry as we know it does not exist in D&D. The fact that you can have an ooze that maintains a cubical shape, or any number of the other non-magical creatures, the fact that dragons can breed with humans (not just a different species, but differences several levels higher) and create fertile offspring means that earth-genetics does not apply.


There's *some* momentum conservation, because we have ranged attacks.

Not necessarily, at least in the way that we think of it as scientists today. Earth arrows work via conservation of momentum. D&D arrows work...but how is completely unstated. So by RAW you can't make any statement about how they work. That's the peril of RAW--it only says what it says. Nothing else. You can't step outside the text at all, not even for an instant and still be doing RAW.

If you knock a flying dragon prone (which is a rather odd image anyway, but...), it falls in that exact square, just on the ground. Instantly (or within 6 seconds). The momentum of even a young dragon flying[1] means that that statement is 100% incompatible with real-world physics. And once you've discarded it once, you must discard it entirely and rework the whole thing. Or accept that your physical laws aren't self-consistent (which precludes any sort of reasoning).

[1] By RAW, dragons can stay stationary (within their space) while flying. "Hovering" isn't something that creatures larger than a hummingbird can do, because physics says no. Forward motion is required for lift in any sane sense. So even here we're telling real-world physics to go take a hike.

[RSP]

Except there is no "by the way, a dragon does not obey the real world physics" or "by the way, Giants do not obey the square/cube law" indications.

I’m not sure what the “square/cube law” is.

As for dragons, in 5e, they apparently can fly, regardless of their dimensions. However, I have looked, but haven’t been able to find any official references in 5e to dragon’s actual dimensions, so if you have any, I’m willing to take a look; otherwise, it’s probably just further assumptions whether they fit within our ideas of physics or do not.

[RSP]

No. Physical laws doesn't work that way. You can't have "the same but with these differences" anymore than you can have 2+2=5 and simultaneously 2+2=4.

Internally consistent, earth like, magic. Choose 2. You cannot have earth like physics with magic unless those laws are internally inconsistent and in fact incoherent. In which case you can't reason from them at all

So what do you propose gravity is in 5e?

[PhoenixPhyre]

So what do you propose gravity is in 5e?

Depends on the setting. In something like FR, it's a property of matter decided by the gods. In other settings it might be more aristotelian--things fall because it is the nature of massive objects to fall when not supported. There are any number of answers.

But the one you can't get is that gravity is a distortion in spacetime due to non-zero stress-energy tensors that causes the local geodesics to change (the very very layman's version of General Relativity). You can't even say that Newtonian gravity (which doesn't attempt to explain it at all, merely giving parameters for the observed effect) is in effect, because Newtonian gravity doesn't allow for dragons to fly. Or the planets to move in their described orbits.

Edit: You can't say that without proposing internally-inconsistent, incoherent laws of physics. Because the earth-like laws are all interdependent--each one depends on all the others and is depended on by all the others. Change one of them, even just a little[1], and you no longer have laws of physics that look like earth's as the whole structure has to change to accommodate even the tiniest of changes.

Second edit: There's not even a guarantee (or even a reasonable assumption) that D&D worlds have physical laws as we understand that term. The nature of existence and the laws that describe physical phenomena could be entirely arbitrary decisions by some bored over-deity, subject to its every whim. In fact, that's the most reasonable interpretation in my book for most settings. Ao said it works this way, so it does. Yes, that's entirely incoherent. But that means that reasoning from RAW and real-world physics is pointless. Dragons fly because Ao said they can. Dragonborn sorcerers can fly even in a 5' tall, 5' wide corridor because Ao prefers it that way.

[1] No, not even the masses of things. Those are part of physical law, even if we don't know exactly how yet. That's what it means for it to be physical law.

[Unoriginal]

I’m not sure what the “square/cube law” is.

The napkin science explanation is that having something be bigger does not make it proportionally stronger, due to the muscle surface increase not compensating the mass increase.

In other words, the body of a creature like the Tarrasque would not be able to support its own mass.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The napkin science explanation is that having something be bigger does not make it proportionally stronger, due to the muscle surface increase not compensating the mass increase.

In other words, the body of a creature like the Tarrasque would not be able to support its own mass.

More detail:

Mass scales with volume, which goes like the cube (x^3) of length.

Bone and muscle strength scales with cross-sectional area, which goes like the square (x^2) of length.

This is why ants can famously lift many times their own weight and why you don't see really big creatures with exoskeletons (as those scale with the thickness, which is even worse than normal bones). And why the biggest animals around are aquatic--the water buoyancy compensates for the additional weight. Something the size of a blue whale on land would be completely unable to move, even if it were entirely muscle.

Beyond that, there's the heat problem. Heat dissipation scales with surface area, while heat production scales with volume. So a Godzilla sized monster would literally burn itself to death via its own body heat. Exothermic life (cold-blooded) get around this slightly (by not producing as much internal heat), but pay substantial costs, especially in activity levels.

[RSP]

Depends on the setting.

That doesn’t work, though, as we know from the RAW, that it works a certain way, regardless of setting.

Much like how 5e isn’t meant to be a system of function economics, I don’t think the designers intended it to be an engine for alternate physics.

In the same way they say “things cost this” they say “physics works like this”; and it’s kept to resemble real world parallels, with exceptions.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That doesn’t work, though, as we know from the RAW, that it works a certain way, regardless of setting.

Much like how 5e isn’t meant to be a system of function economics, I don’t think the designers intended it to be an engine for alternate physics.

In the same way they say “things cost this” they say “physics works like this”; and it’s kept to resemble real world parallels, with exceptions.

Except RAW doesn't say anything like that. It's silent on the matter. Which means that any interpretation is beyond RAW.

And you can choose incoherent physics if you want. Which is what you're doing by saying "real world except." But you can't then talk about reasoning from it. It's incoherent.

And by the by, setting overrules RAW. RAW is actually not a binding thing on anything. Even the basic facts of the cosmology and metaphysics are subject to setting changes. Nothing about how the in-universe reality works is bound by RAW in the slightest. That's because the rules only present themselves as a game UI, a translation convention so that we (who are not in those universes) can play as if we were. That's it. That's the entire, by RAW, function of the rules. The rules exist for purposes of the game and for no other purpose at all. Which is good, because they're completely incoherent and inconsistent and useless for trying to divine anything else.

Live by RAW, die by RAW.

[Tanarii]

And you can choose incoherent physics if you want. Which is what you're doing by saying "real world except." But you can't then talk about reasoning from it. It's incoherent.What's really jumps out at me is you ended up here. Normally someone knowing underlying theories IRL makes them even more likely to attempt to house rule the game to be more 'realistic', in ways that may be helpful or may be detrimental, but really has nothing to with real life.

Hearing someone who understands physics at a deep level say "look the game isn't a model for real life physics in any way" is like a HEMA fighter stepping in to a discussion that weapons be modified due to pop-culture understanding, and saying "look, the game isn't supposed to model real weapons or fighting". :smallamused:

[Unoriginal]

What's really jumps out at me is you ended up here. Normally someone knowing underlying theories IRL makes them even more likely to attempt to house rule the game to be more 'realistic', in ways that may be helpful or may be detrimental, but really has nothing to with real life.

Hearing someone who understands physics at a deep level say "look the game isn't a model for real life physics in any way" is like a HEMA fighter stepping in to a discussion that weapons be modified due to pop-culture understanding, and saying "look, the game isn't supposed to model real weapons or fighting". :smallamused:

Knowing a lot about X usually lead you to realize that something is notX. Doesn't mean the conclusion has to be "but it should be X, so we must modify it".

[PhoenixPhyre]

Knowing a lot about X usually lead you to realize that something is notX. Doesn't mean the conclusion has to be "but it should be X, so we must modify it".

Exactly. In fact, most of the "realism seekers" I've known aren't the most educated about natural laws--they're the over-enthusiastic amateurs. The ones who know enough to be dangerous but don't have the experience necessary to feel how deeply connected things are. Or who don't really care about the settings themselves, but that's separate.

I care very deeply about setting coherence. And early on realized that attempts at realism were both
a) damaging to the game itself (I have yet to see one that improves playability or fun for anyone but the person making the rule)
b) damaging to setting consistency (due to the jarring effects of shoving magic into a "real" physics scenario)
c) rampant fodder for munchkins exploiting the broken effects by selectively choosing when to consider real physics and when to focus on "RAW" (or what they call RAW, which is usually just proof-texting and context-ignoring).

Whereas if I abandon that and listen to what the rules and the settings are telling me about the physical laws and build settings that lean into those, I get something that works. No loopholes, no weird dysfunctions. In fact, it's rather elegant. Of course it's not entirely scientific, because I'm starting with the conclusion and working backward to fit the setting to it. But that's fine. I'm not doing science at the table. Because really, doing science is 99% utter boredom and the rest of the time puzzlement.

[RSP]

Except RAW doesn't say anything like that. It's silent on the matter. Which means that any interpretation is beyond RAW.

And you can choose incoherent physics if you want. Which is what you're doing by saying "real world except." But you can't then talk about reasoning from it. It's incoherent.

And by the by, setting overrules RAW. RAW is actually not a binding thing on anything. Even the basic facts of the cosmology and metaphysics are subject to setting changes. Nothing about how the in-universe reality works is bound by RAW in the slightest. That's because the rules only present themselves as a game UI, a translation convention so that we (who are not in those universes) can play as if we were. That's it. That's the entire, by RAW, function of the rules. The rules exist for purposes of the game and for no other purpose at all. Which is good, because they're completely incoherent and inconsistent and useless for trying to divine anything else.

Live by RAW, die by RAW.

The RAW tells us gravity exists, so it’s fair to assume they mean gravity like in our reality; as opposed to mentioning it, but having a completely different physics behind it.

Likewise, if a character throws something (like a ball, not something as part of an attack), the assumption is it would travel in-game in a similar way than it does in the real world.

You seem to have a very good grasp on physics: that’s great, but I don’t think the designers are banking on that knowledge to play the game. The rules reflect this: things will basically happen in the 5e world, as they would in the real world.

You don’t need to be Stephan Hawking to DM: just assume it’s the same unless something tells you otherwise.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The RAW tells us gravity exists, so it’s fair to assume they mean gravity like in our reality; as opposed to mentioning it, but having a completely different physics behind it.

Likewise, if a character throws something (like a ball, not something as part of an attack), the assumption is it would travel in-game in a similar way than it does in the real world.

You seem to have a very good grasp on physics: that’s great, but I don’t think the designers are banking on that knowledge to play the game. The rules reflect this: things will basically happen in the 5e world, as they would in the real world.

You don’t need to be Stephan Hawking to DM: just assume it’s the same unless something tells you otherwise.

The bold is not RAW. That's your assumptions based on the text. Which is fine. But absolutely not RAW. Or even necessarily intended. And in fact I'd assume that it can't be intended or actionable unless you want an incoherent setting.

And the gross physical phenomena (things fall in arcs, generally) are similar, no questions there. But the underlying reasons, which touch all the rest of things (including how wide wings need to be, etc) must be completely different if they are to be coherent.

And none of that is needed for play, but it is important when DMs start imposing "realism" consequences that don't fit the world at all and in fact damage verisimilitude because they clash with the rest of the world's assumptions.

[JackPhoenix]

Beyond that, there's the heat problem. Heat dissipation scales with surface area, while heat production scales with volume. So a Godzilla sized monster would literally burn itself to death via its own body heat. Exothermic life (cold-blooded) get around this slightly (by not producing as much internal heat), but pay substantial costs, especially in activity levels.

I like to think that's what the bone plates on Godzilla's back are for: radiators. Bit small, but the rough texture increases surface further. Could explain the Tarrasque's spikes too, come to think of it, if they weren't smooth. Both serve little defensive purpose. Also, Godzilla's semi-aquatic, which also helps.

[Unoriginal]

The RAW tells us gravity exists, so it’s fair to assume they mean gravity like in our reality; as opposed to mentioning it, but having a completely different physics behind it.

According to the 5e rules, all creatures fall at a rate of "immediately 500ft, then 500ft/turn until they hit the ground".


I think we can all agree is not how gravity works in our reality.

But let's assume that the fall was 500ft per 6 seconds:

Height is 1/2 gravity x the square of the time falling, or h = 1/2gt2

meaning

500 = 1/2g(62)

0r

500= 36(1/2 (g))

or

500/36 = (1/2 g)

or

g = 27.76 ft/s2

In other words, if you go by RAW and then apply the assumption that the laws of nature work as they do in real life, the "standard" value of gravity assumed by the 5e rules is 27.76 ft/s2 and not 32.17 ft/s2, or 86% of Earth's gravity.

Which would among other things mean that all the weights given in the D&D books do not correspond to our planet's weights.

So... either the laws regarding gravity do not work as it does on our world, or weight doesn't.

[Valmark]

I’m assuming you’re referring to this: “ A wraith is malice incarnate, concentrated into an incorporeal form that seeks to quench all life.”

That, to me, indicates a 5e Wraith is, in fact, incorporeal.

The fog statement seems more a comparison to let people know how it moves in terms easily understood.

Either statement is seemingly contradicted by the Wraith also having Incorporeal Movement as an ability as creatures in 5e don’t move through fog as difficult terrain, nor do creatures generally take damage when stopping their turn in fog.

So I’d take this to be a case of poor writing as the RAW directly contradicting itself; and not as an example of how the 5e rules should work (which, obviously, generally don’t contradict themselves.

If either of you want to try and use it as a point in some argument, please feel free to explain, and I’ll consider it (though again, it’s not a good example of anything as it’s clearly a contradiction).

So when it suits your stance on the discussion it's ok and when it directly disproves it it's 'poor writing'. I guess I should have expected that with the thing about picking your preferred meaning from earlier in the thread.

[JoeJ]

According to the 5e rules, all creatures fall at a rate of "immediately 500ft, then 500ft/turn until they hit the ground".


I think we can all agree is not how gravity works in our reality.

But let's assume that the fall was 500ft per 6 seconds:

Height is 1/2 gravity x the square of the time falling, or h = 1/2gt2

meaning

500 = 1/2g(62)

0r

500= 36(1/2 (g))

or

500/36 = (1/2 g)

or

g = 27.76 ft/s2

In other words, if you go by RAW and then apply the assumption that the laws of nature work as they do in real life, the "standard" value of gravity assumed by the 5e rules is 27.76 ft/s2 and not 32.17 ft/s2, or 86% as strong as Earth's gravity.

That formula neglects air resistance, though. It's possible that gravity works exactly the same way it does in the real world, but object interactions with the atmosphere work differently (possibly in a way that also allows gigantic creatures to fly).

[Unoriginal]

That formula neglects air resistance, though. It's possible that gravity works exactly the same way it does in the real world, but object interactions with the atmosphere work differently (possibly in a way that also allows gigantic creatures to fly).

So you're in agreement that no matter what, the laws of nature cannot be assumed to be like in our world, regardless if it's gravity or atmospheric interactions that differ?


If we were to use a formula that does take air resistance into account, we would find that the 5e rules give all creatures the same air resistance (since their falling speed is the same). Which is quite unlike the laws of nature in our reality, too.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That formula neglects air resistance, though. It's possible that gravity works exactly the same way it does in the real world, but object interactions with the atmosphere work differently (possibly in a way that also allows gigantic creatures to fly).

For most cases and objects, the falling distance equation is close enough even accounting for air resistance. Air resistance has a linear (usually small coefficient) term and a quadratic term. The linear term is small under most circumstances and the quadratic one is small at low speeds. At high speeds the air resistance has that velocity-dependence which ends up causing terminal velocity.

However, D&D "gravity" is always a constant number. Everything is always at terminal velocity. Fall from 10k feet? 500 ft/6 seconds the whole way down. Project yourself upward during your term (ie have an initial velocity upward when you start falling? You fall 500 ft/6 seconds. Flying forward 60' a round and get knocked prone? You fall 500'/6 seconds straight down. Jump off of an airship traveling at 5 mph? You land exactly below the spot you fell from. There is no momentum from motion in RAW.

And what's worse is that, by RAW, you don't fall 500 ft/6 seconds. You fall 500 ft instantly, before the next action. Get knocked prone on the first attack of a level 20 fighter? The next 3 attacks are with you 500' below your position. Aren't leaky abstractions wonderful?

This is why treating RAW as anything like a source of information about physics directly is silly. You can glean information from the content (there are dragons that can fly, rogues can dodge fireballs in an empty field, a fighter with a feat and 8 STR can load and fire 8 aimed heavy crossbow bolts while running 30' in circles and wearing 119 lbs of gear in 6 seconds, there are creatures made out of pure fire that can be nevertheless hurt by sticking mundane swords into them) that implies that the physics can't be very earthlike. But RAW is not a physics engine. It's a game UI.

[Unoriginal]

For most cases and objects, the falling distance equation is close enough even accounting for air resistance. Air resistance has a linear (usually small coefficient) term and a quadratic term. The linear term is small under most circumstances and the quadratic one is small at low speeds. At high speeds the air resistance has that velocity-dependence which ends up causing terminal velocity.

However, D&D "gravity" is always a constant number. Everything is always at terminal velocity. Fall from 10k feet? 500 ft/6 seconds the whole way down. Project yourself upward during your term (ie have an initial velocity upward when you start falling? You fall 500 ft/6 seconds. Flying forward 60' a round and get knocked prone? You fall 500'/6 seconds straight down. Jump off of an airship traveling at 5 mph? You land exactly below the spot you fell from. There is no momentum from motion in RAW.

And what's worse is that, by RAW, you don't fall 500 ft/6 seconds. You fall 500 ft instantly, before the next action. Get knocked prone on the first attack of a level 20 fighter? The next 3 attacks are with you 500' below your position. Aren't leaky abstractions wonderful?

This is why treating RAW as anything like a source of information about physics directly is silly. You can glean information from the content (there are dragons that can fly, rogues can dodge fireballs in an empty field, a fighter with a feat and 8 STR can load and fire 8 aimed heavy crossbow bolts while running 30' in circles and wearing 119 lbs of gear in 6 seconds, there are creatures made out of pure fire that can be nevertheless hurt by sticking mundane swords into them) that implies that the physics can't be very earthlike. But RAW is not a physics engine. It's a game UI.

Indeed. The rules are here to support thematic conventions in a ludic context, not to simulate physics.

[RSP]

The bold is not RAW. That's your assumptions based on the text. Which is fine. But absolutely not RAW. Or even necessarily intended. And in fact I'd assume that it can't be intended or actionable unless you want an incoherent setting.

And the gross physical phenomena (things fall in arcs, generally) are similar, no questions there. But the underlying reasons, which touch all the rest of things (including how wide wings need to be, etc) must be completely different if they are to be coherent.

And none of that is needed for play, but it is important when DMs start imposing "realism" consequences that don't fit the world at all and in fact damage verisimilitude because they clash with the rest of the world's assumptions.

I never said anything other than the RAW assumes the physics of the 5e world works like ours, with noted exceptions.

As another poster pointed out, ammo only goes a certain distance, so something is stopping it.

Again, I don’t claim to know physics as well as you apparently know it; but I find it ridiculous you believe the intent is that the DM must be an expert in physics to properly DM. The intent is the world of 5e behaves as our world does, with exceptions noted.

[RSP]

The rules are here to support thematic conventions in a ludic context, not to simulate physics.

Exactly: the designers made rules to help resolve narratives; it’s not meant to be precise physics. They do, however, assume the laws of nature essentially operate as they do in general for Earth.

[JoeJ]

So you're in agreement that no matter what, the laws of nature cannot be assumed to be like in our world, regardless if it's gravity or atmospheric interactions that differ?

Given that I still use Spelljammer as my reference for D&D physics, you could say that I agree.

[RSP]

So when it suits your stance on the discussion it's ok and when it directly disproves it it's 'poor writing'. I guess I should have expected that with the thing about picking your preferred meaning from earlier in the thread.

I don’t know what you’re referring to. What was disproved? It’s a contradiction: mortals don’t move at half speed in fog, nor do they take damage for ending a turn in fog. A Wraith does move at half speed through creatures or objects, and takes damage when ending their turn there.

Therefore, a Wraith does not move as easily through solid objects and creatures as a mortal moves through fog. Yet the RAW also says it does. That is a contradiction.

Out of curiosity, what do you think was disproven?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I never said anything other than the RAW assumes the physics of the 5e world works like ours, with noted exceptions.

As another poster pointed out, ammo only goes a certain distance, so something is stopping it.

Again, I don’t claim to know physics as well as you apparently know it; but I find it ridiculous you believe the intent is that the DM must be an expert in physics to properly DM. The intent is the world of 5e behaves as our world does, with exceptions noted.

Except that that first bold statement isn't RAW at all. It is at best your assumption about what you believe the RAI is.

And that second statement is so far from the truth that I'm not sure where else to take this.

Edit: and the issue about ammo rather disproves your point. Arrows have a fixed, unalterable maximum range that is independent of the bow. Not only that, at all distances in their short range they are equally effective. And cannot bypass cover (by angled shooting). That's anything but earth-like.

My stance is
* RAW is not physics at all. It's a game UI.
* Adding real-world physics beyond what the rules explicitly say is bad for the game and disastrous for the worlds.
* The only parts we're sure of is that the gross level phenomena are roughly understandable by someone without any training. There is no expectation in any direction that adding more physics (or chemistry or anything else) will improve anything.
* Real world physics and magic don't mix, unless you're willing to allow inconsistent, shallow worlds that are nothing more than set dressing. Which, I must add, is a valid way of doing things. Just one I happen to dislike. Any serious D&D world has to grapple with the fact that real world physics must heavily change to allow magic to be meaningful and not do violence to the meaning of the words "physical law".

Rules do exactly and only what they say they do. Can a draconic sorcerer fly in a 5' wide, 10' tall hallway? Yes, because otherwise it would say so. Adding in "realism"[1] based restrictions or buffs is always and everywhere a negative in my opinion.

I prefer that setting designers take this seriously and consider what the content of D&D implies about the physics, metaphysics, and nature of the world. I find most standard worlds extremely annoying because they take the (IMO) super lazy route of just saying "well, it's earth but with magic stapled on. That really doesn't change anything." Why not? Because that would take effort. The very existence of magic changes everything. You can get similar surface phenomena by carefully tweaking the dials, but the underlying reality is fundamentally different. But I don't expect anyone else to care all that much.

I have found that players, even those who don't really care about the underlying details, really appreciate having a world that behaves like it has depth. Where the DM can answer questions like "how does a dragon fly?" without handwaving or oodles of math. Where the world is both fantastic[2] and vital. And a side benefit is that once you accept that real-world physics does not apply directly, things like the Guy at the Gym and the vast majority of magical dominance go out the window. Both because you allow martials to be fantastic without casting spells and because you can finally apply setting-based limitations to magic. Something that "magic's an exception to the rules" fundamentally cannot do. If magic is an exception to natural law, then there is no limiting principle other than whatever the DM thinks. If magic is part of the natural law, then it is limited by those same factors and is part and parcel of the world itself.

[1] which are always someone's half-remembered, lazily applied high school physics, filtered through a munchkin's mind.
[2] too many worlds that attempt to be realistic fail at this. And too many DMs only apply fantasticness to spells

[Valmark]

I don’t know what you’re referring to. What was disproved? It’s a contradiction: mortals don’t move at half speed in fog, nor do they take damage for ending a turn in fog. A Wraith does move at half speed through creatures or objects, and takes damage when ending their turn there.

Therefore, a Wraith does not move as easily through solid objects and creatures as a mortal moves through fog. Yet the RAW also says it does. That is a contradiction.

Out of curiosity, what do you think was disproven?

I think you might getting me and Unoriginal mixed up (and I might have mixed up your replies). I didn't talk about the fog bit- I talked about the wraith being an incorporeal being (defined as such in the text) that does indeed occupy a space (which you said means a creature isn't incorporeal).

[Mellack]

I never said anything other than the RAW assumes the physics of the 5e world works like ours, with noted exceptions.

As another poster pointed out, ammo only goes a certain distance, so something is stopping it.

Again, I don’t claim to know physics as well as you apparently know it; but I find it ridiculous you believe the intent is that the DM must be an expert in physics to properly DM. The intent is the world of 5e behaves as our world does, with exceptions noted.

Except the game world very much does not follow our physics, so that assumption must be wrong. Lets look at that ammo you mentioned. The game says my character can shoot their arrow from a longbow 600 feet and hit someone doing a certain amount of damage. They are perfectly able to do this in a corridor that is 10 feet wide by 10 feet tall. It doesn't matter if you are firing upward or downward. It works equally well shooting 600 feet flat, downward, or up a mineshaft. If the target steps back 5 feet, it is now impossible to hit them at all, again without concern for elevation. All of this is the same for both the 8 STR or 20 STR character.

None of that even reflects anything close to how it works in the real world.

[RSP]

Except the game world very much does not follow our physics, so that assumption must be wrong. Lets look at that ammo you mentioned. The game says my character can shoot their arrow from a longbow 600 feet and hit someone doing a certain amount of damage. They are perfectly able to do this in a corridor that is 10 feet wide by 10 feet tall. It doesn't matter if you are firing upward or downward. It works equally well shooting 600 feet flat, downward, or up a mineshaft. If the target steps back 5 feet, it is now impossible to hit them at all, again without concern for elevation. All of this is the same for both the 8 STR or 20 STR character.

None of that even reflects anything close to how it works in the real world.

Right: because having to do the math of launch angles and air pressure, altitude, moisture levels and whatever else would be needed, isn’t fun for the mass majority of people trying to play a RPG with their friends. So the designers assume an arrow fired from a bow in 5e will do what it basically does in our world, but add in some rules to limit the analysis done every time a character uses a bow.

[RSP]

I think you might getting me and Unoriginal mixed up (and I might have mixed up your replies). I didn't talk about the fog bit- I talked about the wraith being an incorporeal being (defined as such in the text) that does indeed occupy a space (which you said means a creature isn't incorporeal).

I’m not: I put both your earlier quotes together because you were referring to Wraiths. The Wraiths write up indeed says it’s incorporeal and that it moves through fog as easily as a mortal moves through fog; however those statements are directly contradicted by the IM rule. That’s why it’s bad writing: both things cannot be true, nor does it disprove anything as, since both cannot be true, yet both are stated; using either point as proof also brings forth the opposite point.

[Kane0]

RAW is not a physics engine. It's a game UI.

I like that quote.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I like that quote.

That was a realization that changed everything for me. I used to try to apply physics to everything and treat the game as if it were physics. Or binding law. Once I realized it was just a game UI, everything opened up. And I was able to use it as it was designed, as a tool to keep the narrative moving. To resolve player-world interactions in a fair, fun, flexible manner. That's it. It's not a contract. It's not physics. It's just a game's UI.

[Mellack]

Right: because having to do the math of launch angles and air pressure, altitude, moisture levels and whatever else would be needed, isn’t fun for the mass majority of people trying to play a RPG with their friends. So the designers assume an arrow fired from a bow in 5e will do what it basically does in our world, but add in some rules to limit the analysis done every time a character uses a bow.

It is a game, as you say. That is why trying to apply physics to it does not work. That gravity you are so concerned about when something has wings has zero effect of arrows. They instead fly in a straight line. Clearly it does not follow anything like the physics in our world.

[Unoriginal]

Exactly: the designers made rules to help resolve narratives; it’s not meant to be precise physics. They do, however, assume the laws of nature essentially operate as they do in general for Earth.

... no, they do not assume anything like that.

Again, applying the laws of nature to the 5e rules would mean the gravity is 27.76 ft/s^2, which in consequence would mean every weight given in lbs in the books is *not* accurate.

[RSP]

... no, they do not assume anything like that.

Again, applying the laws of nature to the 5e rules would mean the gravity is 27.76 ft/s^2, which in consequence would mean every weight given in lbs in the books is *not* accurate.

Nothing tells us how sound travels in 5e, yet we all have to use it somehow. Do the wings flap, creating something that can be heard?

I’m assuming the vast majority of players (including DMs) play sound exactly like it would be in our world. Do you agree?

Would that not mean they’re assuming (like the rules do) that sound works the same way?

Do you think every DM recreates physics in their world, undoubtedly confusing their players with how sound travels?

[Unoriginal]

I’m assuming the vast majority of players (including DMs) play sound exactly like it would be in our world.

The fact that a first-level caster can generate enough sound to kill a person on the spot without even risking to slightly hurt or deafen the people standing next or behind the killed-by-sound person demonstrates by itself that your assumption is incorrect.

So is the fact that humans can produce precise sounds underwater without any hindrance.


Would that not mean they’re assuming (like the rules do) that sound works the same way?

The rules assume no such thing. See above.



Do you think every DM recreates physics in their world, undoubtedly confusing their players with how sound travels?

No, most DM will in fact realize that applying physics does not work and will instead arbitrarily decide what can or cannot be heard, depending on circumstances and what is thematically appropriate.

[RSP]

The fact that a first-level caster can generate enough sound to kill a person on the spot without even risking to slightly hurt or deafen the people standing next or behind the killed-by-sound person demonstrates by itself that your assumption is incorrect.

So is the fact that humans can produce precise sounds underwater without any hindrance.



The rules assume no such thing. See above.



No, most DM will in fact realize that applying physics does not work and will instead arbitrarily decide what can or cannot be heard, depending on circumstances and what is thematically appropriate.

Whole heartedly disagree (if that wasn’t obvious by this thread so far).

PCs are spread out in a complex. Something happens in one room. Do the PCs in other rooms hear it?

Do you believe most DMs in this situation default to applying real world logic on what would and wouldn’t be heard?

[Unoriginal]

Whole heartedly disagree (if that wasn’t obvious by this thread so far).

PCs are spread out in a complex. Something happens in one room. Do the PCs in other rooms hear it?

Do you believe most DMs in this situation default to applying real world logic on what would and wouldn’t be heard?

I do not believe that. Most DMs lack the knowledge of acoustic and architecture that would allow them to apply "real life logic" on such a situation.

Most DMs will default to what they think "makes sense" both in term of thematic relevance and in term of believability.

In fact it is much more likely that DMs will apply real world *illogical* assumptions, because a) there is a lot of myths and false information out here b) most DMs do not have accurate frames of reference to identify what would happen in real life c) the very game system we're talking about uses and perpetuates myths and inaccurate frames of reference for its rules (ex: how cumbersome armor is).

[Segev]

I do not believe that. Most DMs lack the knowledge of acoustic and architecture that would allow them to apply "real life logic" on such a situation.

Most DMs will default to what they think "makes sense" both in term of thematic relevance and in term of believability.

In fact it is much more likely that DMs will apply real world *illogical* assumptions, because a) there is a lot of myths and false information out here b) most DMs do not have accurate frames of reference to identify what would happen in real life c) the very game system we're talking about uses and perpetuates myths and inaccurate frames of reference for its rules (ex: how cumbersome armor is).

I would point out that "what a DM thinks makes sense" may not reflect perfect models of real-world physics, but do reflect his best understanding of his experience with real-world physics where applicable. So an argument that he would use "what makes sense" and not "real physics" is a poor one in the context it is being used, here. A DM being a flawed physics engine does not invalidate the assumption that the game and probably the DM are both defaulting to an assumption of real-world physics, even if the DM evaluates things technically wrong by those standards.

[Unoriginal]

I would point out that "what a DM thinks makes sense" may not reflect perfect models of real-world physics, but do reflect his best understanding of his experience with real-world physics where applicable. So an argument that he would use "what makes sense" and not "real physics" is a poor one in the context it is being used, here. A DM being a flawed physics engine does not invalidate the assumption that the game and probably the DM are both defaulting to an assumption of real-world physics, even if the DM evaluates things technically wrong by those standards.

Untrue.

If a DM uses assumptions about real life physics which are false, then by definition they are NOT using real life physics logic.


A DM's "what makes sense" is an arbitrary decision based on what feels relevant, among which the DM's (mis)understanding of science can or cannot play a role, but it is rarely if ever using the actual laws of nature.

5e does not attempt to simulate real life physics logic, its three concerns are "is it playable?", "is it fun?" and "is it believable?" as a distant third.

[RSP]

I do not believe that. Most DMs lack the knowledge of acoustic and architecture that would allow them to apply "real life logic" on such a situation.

Most DMs will default to what they think "makes sense" both in term of thematic relevance and in term of believability.

Isn’t “believability” based on real world expectations, though?

“You can hear a bird’s wings flap, under certain circumstances. It, then, is believable that, given a larger creature [a medium-sized humanoid in this case], they would be noticeable when flapping their wings in certain situations.”

Nothing in what I’m suggesting requires knowledge of physics like some on this thread have displayed: it shouldn’t be required to play the game. I can’t imagine the designers had such an elitist idea when they were writing the rules.

Yes, not being educated to such a high degree will lead to errors in fictional duplications of real world physics; but thats still the basis for how we (players and GMs) determine how the in-game functions.

Characters generally see what’s in front of them, because it’s assumed light and sight functions like it does in our real world. You don’t need to jump into rods and cones, how light bounces off objects; you just play it like you think it would be in our real world.

Characters hear each other talking because it’s assumed sound traveling and creatures’ hearing work the same way they do in our real world.

These are very basic assumptions (and, yes, the RAW assumes this is the case as well) about the in-game world working like our world in terms of laws of nature, physics, whatever.

The game has rules to simplify things, yes, in part because a high level of physics understanding is not something the designers want to be required. But the base assumption is stuff in the in-game world works like our world.

If, as some suggest, you can attach anything to abilities that is not explicitly stated in the ability, such as attributing sound to the flapping of wings; then all winged flight is completely undetectable by hearing.

Likewise, a giant eagle can fly up a 5’ diameter circular shaft.

The rules expect rulings such as the Giant Eagle and where they can fly, no? Doesn’t that imply that the DM is meant to take information from abilities and apply them to the situation presented in-game, including the laws of nature for the in-game world?

That’s what the RAW tells us:

The DM describes the environment.
The players describe what they want to do.
The DM narrates the results of their actions.

This can only happen if the DM assumes the laws of nature in the in-game world (otherwise how can they describe the effect of interactions within the game world?).

Yes, as suggested by Phoenix, they could write their own laws of physics, different than our own; but I absolutely believe, to an amazingly overwhelming degree, that most DMs just assume the in-game world works like ours, only deviating from that reflection when the RAW specifically tells us of a specific result (like the distance arrows travel).

Will that include errors in physics? Sure, but it’s still consistently used to resolve in-game situations.

[Unoriginal]

Isn’t “believability” based on real world expectations, though?

"Real world expectations" are *not* "real world physics logic". Not by a long shot.

Most people expect a lead weight to fall faster than a pillow, yet by physics logic it is not the case (save minute differences due to air friction).



Nothing in what I’m suggesting requires knowledge of physics like some on this thread have displayed: it shouldn’t be required to play the game. I can’t imagine the designers had such an elitist idea when they were writing the rules.

Indeed. The game does not require knowledge of physics, because it does *not* use physics of any kind.



Yes, not being educated to such a high degree will lead to errors in fictional duplications of real world physics; but thats still the basis for how we (players and GMs) determine how the in-game functions.

You can't use "people use real world physics to determine how the in-game functions" and "people use erroneous real world physics" as arguments in favor of the same position.



Characters generally see what’s in front of them, because it’s assumed light and sight functions like it does in our real world. You don’t need to jump into rods and cones, how light bounces off objects; you just play it like you think it would be in our real world.

D&D 5e characters see at 360 degree. Someone who is 45 feet away from a burning torch is just as visible as someone in complete darkness.



Characters hear each other talking because it’s assumed sound traveling and creatures’ hearing work the same way they do in our real world.

D&D 5e characters can speak to each other underwater. Someone can stand next to a blast of sound intense enough to be lethal and be unaffected.



These are very basic assumptions (and, yes, the RAW assumes this is the case as well) about the in-game world working like our world in terms of laws of nature, physics, whatever.

Those assumptions are both not RAW and untrue.




The game has rules to simplify things, yes, in part because a high level of physics understanding is not something the designers want to be required. [QUOTE=Rsp29a;24959887]

Indeed. They do not require any understanding of physics.

[QUOTE=Rsp29a;24959887]
But the base assumption is stuff in the in-game world works like our world.

No.



If, as some suggest, you can attach anything to abilities that is not explicitly stated in the ability, such as attributing sound to the flapping of wings; then all winged flight is completely undetectable by hearing.

Any movement may or may not be detectable by hearing. This is up to the DM to determine.



Likewise, a giant eagle can fly up a 5’ diameter circular shaft.

That is indeed what the rules say.



The rules expect rulings such as the Giant Eagle and where they can fly, no? Doesn’t that imply that the DM is meant to take information from abilities and apply them to the situation presented in-game, including the laws of nature for the in-game world?

The rules expect nothing. They inform, and you are free to rule differently.



That’s what the RAW tells us:

The DM describes the environment.
The players describe what they want to do.
The DM narrates the results of their actions.

Indeed. See how at no point it is mentioned "the DM uses X or Y assumption to determine what the narration will be".




This can only happen if the DM assumes the laws of nature in the in-game world

Untrue. As you've said many times now, the game does not expect the DM to re-create any laws of nature to make their decision.



(otherwise how can they describe the effect of interactions within the game world?).

As I said above, a DM arbitrarily decides "that makes sense", based on several factors.



Yes, as suggested by Phoenix, they could write their own laws of physics, different than our own; but I absolutely believe, to an amazingly overwhelming degree, that most DMs just assume the in-game world works like ours, only deviating from that reflection when the RAW specifically tells us of a specific result (like the distance arrows travel).

Will that include errors in physics? Sure, but it’s still consistently used to resolve in-game situations.

They assume that the in-game world works. That's it. It demonstrably does not work like ours in term of physics, science, or anything in that register.

The *effects* may look similar enough to our world to make some assumptions , but the *causes* are not and oftentime the effects are not either. Explaining why people can stand next to lava and not die from the heat.

To use a different example: 5e's acid, both as a damage type and as substance, is pure nonsense from the point of view of real life chemical laws.

If a DM goes "you need some base to make that acid harmless", they are a) making the assumption that D&D acid has the same properties as real life acids, despite it being demonstrably not the case b) adding elements to the game based on that assumption c) ignoring the fact that neutralizing an acid with a base can create very much non-harmless salts, like potassium dichromate (which causes chemical burns if in contact with flesh).


And furthermore, to echo what PhoenixPhyre has been saying: you CANNOT claim that something is RAW unless it is written in the rules. Since "use real life assumptions to determine what happens when the rules are silent on the matter" is written nowhere in the rules, is is by definition not Rules as Written.

[Segev]

Untrue.

If a DM uses assumptions about real life physics which are false, then by definition they are NOT using real life physics logic.


A DM's "what makes sense" is an arbitrary decision based on what feels relevant, among which the DM's (mis)understanding of science can or cannot play a role, but it is rarely if ever using the actual laws of nature.

5e does not attempt to simulate real life physics logic, its three concerns are "is it playable?", "is it fun?" and "is it believable?" as a distant third.

That doesn't change that the arguments being supported by "but it's not real-world physics!" don't really get supported by the claim that a DM won't perfectly simulate physics.

A DM is going to, under most circumstances, closely-enough model real-world physics that it won't matter. And in the cases where he doesn't, the game already more or less calls out the differences (e.g. giants and dragons exist, and the latter can fly). Leaping from that to "any consideration of real-world physics is therefore invalid" - which the arguments are generally attempting to use to justify throwing out basic assumptions of real-world experience being a basis for DM judgments - is, well, QUITE the leap of logic.

DMs will, in general, be using their mental model of real-world physics to adjudicate things, unless the game has already set up a situation where the rules are clearly different from in the real world.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That doesn't change that the arguments being supported by "but it's not real-world physics!" don't really get supported by the claim that a DM won't perfectly simulate physics.

A DM is going to, under most circumstances, closely-enough model real-world physics that it won't matter. And in the cases where he doesn't, the game already more or less calls out the differences (e.g. giants and dragons exist, and the latter can fly). Leaping from that to "any consideration of real-world physics is therefore invalid" - which the arguments are generally attempting to use to justify throwing out basic assumptions of real-world experience being a basis for DM judgments - is, well, QUITE the leap of logic.

DMs will, in general, be using their mental model of real-world physics to adjudicate things, unless the game has already set up a situation where the rules are clearly different from in the real world.

But claiming "that's not how physics works" is not a valid counter to a DM's claim. Physics in D&D works exactly and only how the intersection of the rules and the DM's judgement says it does. The real world is 100% irrelevant. And actually counterproductive 99% of the time.

I taught physics for years. Most people's mental model of real-world physics is no better than a 12th century alchemist. And in some ways, much worse. Most people have crappy physical intuition and worse formal understanding. And their understanding of chemistry is nonexistent. But you know what? It works for D&D. And in fact, the worst experiences I've had were with people who were trained in those things and tried to apply it to D&D. Because D&D physics and real-world physics don't mesh. One is a game UI with magic, the other is a self-consistent set of knowledge and prediction-generating rules.

It's an uncanny valley effect. It only works because people have really bad ideas about what science (especially physical science) are really saying. And if you try to make it more realistic, it only falls apart entirely. There is no middle ground--you've either got full realism (in which case you're in the real world and you don't have a game) or you don't even try. Better is to accept that D&D is not realistic--it's fantastic. And accept it for what it is and run with that model instead. Do what's fun, playable, and makes sense in the world you're constructing together.

[Segev]

But claiming "that's not how physics works" is not a valid counter to a DM's claim. Physics in D&D works exactly and only how the intersection of the rules and the DM's judgement says it does. The real world is 100% irrelevant. And actually counterproductive 99% of the time.

I taught physics for years. Most people's mental model of real-world physics is no better than a 12th century alchemist. And in some ways, much worse. Most people have crappy physical intuition and worse formal understanding. And their understanding of chemistry is nonexistent. But you know what? It works for D&D. And in fact, the worst experiences I've had were with people who were trained in those things and tried to apply it to D&D. Because D&D physics and real-world physics don't mesh. One is a game UI with magic, the other is a self-consistent set of knowledge and prediction-generating rules.

It's an uncanny valley effect. It only works because people have really bad ideas about what science (especially physical science) are really saying. And if you try to make it more realistic, it only falls apart entirely. There is no middle ground--you've either got full realism (in which case you're in the real world and you don't have a game) or you don't even try. Better is to accept that D&D is not realistic--it's fantastic. And accept it for what it is and run with that model instead. Do what's fun, playable, and makes sense in the world you're constructing together.

Your mistake is assuming that a 12th century alchemist's mental model of physics is not based on real-world physics. For most people in most cases, the 12th century peasant's mental model of physics is sufficient to get reasonable results in a narrative setting. Yes, we IRL self-styled nerds like to think about things down to actual hard physics as best we know it, especially in white-room discussions, but ultimately "the intersection of the rules and the DM's judgement" is going to have a lot informing it from real-world physics, especially the very basic observables of Newtonian physics.

I'm not saying it will model real-world physics to the point you need to pull out your textbooks on atomic theory and the math for ~(1/rn) force-decay laws, but rather that claiming that there is insufficient basis in real-world physics to draw expectations from daily observable life is a poor argument. Especially when, as it seems to be here, it's used to extend into (and I paraphrase) "...and therefore these things entirely alien to observable reality must perforce be true despite the rules saying nothing about them without two or three extrapolations."

[Unoriginal]

That doesn't change that the arguments being supported by "but it's not real-world physics!" don't really get supported by the claim that a DM won't perfectly simulate physics.

A DM is going to, under most circumstances, closely-enough model real-world physics that it won't matter. And in the cases where he doesn't, the game already more or less calls out the differences (e.g. giants and dragons exist, and the latter can fly). Leaping from that to "any consideration of real-world physics is therefore invalid" - which the arguments are generally attempting to use to justify throwing out basic assumptions of real-world experience being a basis for DM judgments - is, well, QUITE the leap of logic.

DMs will, in general, be using their mental model of real-world physics to adjudicate things, unless the game has already set up a situation where the rules are clearly different from in the real world.

"A given individual's idea of how X happens in real life" is not "real life physics/laws of nature".

Noticing that things fall when you drop them does not mean that one understands any law of nature. Making a ruling based on one's real life expectations do not mean basing them on physics. As I said earlier, it's often the contrary: many facts of physics are counter-intuitive and defy expectations.

Also, "like real life unless noted otherwise" sounds like the "Guy at the Gym" fallacy with extra steps. It restrains characters into the limit of real life (or rather, what the DM deems to be "realistic") unless it's specified otherwise... so magic-using features come with dozens upon dozens of exceptions to real-life limits while non-magic features get "I dunno, it seems like this would be bound by the laws of physics, even in ways the rules don't mention".

[Segev]

"A given individual's idea of how X happens in real life" is not "real life physics/laws of nature".

Noticing that things fall when you drop them does not mean that one understands any law of nature. Making a ruling based on one's real life expectations do not mean basing them on physics. As I said earlier, it's often the contrary: many facts of physics are counter-intuitive and defy expectations.

Also, "like real life unless noted otherwise" sounds like the "Guy at the Gym" fallacy with extra steps. It restrains characters into the limit of real life (or rather, what the DM deems to be "realistic") unless it's specified otherwise... so magic-using features come with dozens upon dozens of exceptions to real-life limits while non-magic features get "I dunno, it seems like this would be bound by the laws of physics, even in ways the rules don't mention".

So?

Are you saying that the laws of nature don't have things fall when you drop them? Of course you're not.

My point is that all these "but it's not real world physics!" arguments, while they are correct if you get to the nitty-gritty of the difference between a simplified non-physicist's mental model of "what seems reasonable," don't really justify the extreme leaps of "and therefore" they seem to go to after that.

Just because a hypothetical 10th grade DM who is barely interested in his Earth Sciences class doesn't even know that the square-cube law would mean giants can't exist IRL (not just don't, but can't) doesn't mean that suddenly he is going to rule that a 1 mm separation from a wall he's chained to having heat metal cast on it will protect him from any and all fire damage, nor that he's incapable of making determinations based on realism (at least as far as his experience with the real world goes) over whether incorporeal wings go through objects and physical wings do not.

[Unoriginal]

But claiming "that's not how physics works" is not a valid counter to a DM's claim. Physics in D&D works exactly and only how the intersection of the rules and the DM's judgement says it does. The real world is 100% irrelevant. And actually counterproductive 99% of the time.

I taught physics for years. Most people's mental model of real-world physics is no better than a 12th century alchemist. And in some ways, much worse. Most people have crappy physical intuition and worse formal understanding. And their understanding of chemistry is nonexistent. But you know what? It works for D&D. And in fact, the worst experiences I've had were with people who were trained in those things and tried to apply it to D&D. Because D&D physics and real-world physics don't mesh. One is a game UI with magic, the other is a self-consistent set of knowledge and prediction-generating rules.

It's an uncanny valley effect. It only works because people have really bad ideas about what science (especially physical science) are really saying. And if you try to make it more realistic, it only falls apart entirely. There is no middle ground--you've either got full realism (in which case you're in the real world and you don't have a game) or you don't even try. Better is to accept that D&D is not realistic--it's fantastic. And accept it for what it is and run with that model instead. Do what's fun, playable, and makes sense in the world you're constructing together.

Thank you, that's eloquently put.



Your mistake is assuming that a 12th century alchemist's mental model of physics is not based on real-world physics.

It isn't. We do not live in a geocentric universe where all metals are one matter that is found in different states depending on the pressure it was subjected to.



So?

Are you saying that the laws of nature don't have things fall when you drop them? Of course you're not.

Of course I *am*.

By the laws of nature, things do not fall. Things with mass attract things with less mass, that's all.

"Fall" presuppose that there is such thing as a scientific "up" or "down" directions, and since we live on a sphere rotating through a vacuum we know it is factually not the case.

While on the sphere, things are attracted to it, we traditionally give "toward the sphere" the name of "down", and as a result we call the direction away from the sphere "up".

Because neither our brains nor our cultures are wired to acknowledge this reality on a day-to-day basis. We are made to think in term of intuitive shortcuts and narrative concepts.

Someone thinking "I am seeing this item fall" is engaging in a multi-layered, societally-perpetuated, storytelling-logic-fuelled misunderstanding of real life physics.

And it's ok. Everyone does it, and it narratively make sense. But it is not physics nor natural laws.

[RSP]

Any movement may or may not be detectable by hearing. This is up to the DM to determine.

But the ability doesn’t state it makes noise: just that the wings grow.

So, you are of the opinion then that RAW abilities are not contained to what is explicitly stated in them? That is, though the Draconic Sorc ability does not state that the wings make sound, the RAW is written as such that they do make sound, assuming that’s how the DM sees the in-game world?

In this sense, then, the RAW do assume that the DM will use the RAW with the DMs understanding of how the laws of nature work in-game.

Which seems like a contradiction to me, in that your fine with DMs assuming that dragon wings will flap and make noise while doing so as being part of the game; but not the wings flapping being obstructed by objects. So DMs, then, as I understand your point, can only assume the in-game world affects abilities in terms of the in-game physics of sound but not of two different pieces of matter occupying the same space.

(I’ll try to get to the rest later, depending on how much of the thread I lose as posts progress - apologies: the rest isn’t being ignored)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Your mistake is assuming that a 12th century alchemist's mental model of physics is not based on real-world physics. For most people in most cases, the 12th century peasant's mental model of physics is sufficient to get reasonable results in a narrative setting. Yes, we IRL self-styled nerds like to think about things down to actual hard physics as best we know it, especially in white-room discussions, but ultimately "the intersection of the rules and the DM's judgement" is going to have a lot informing it from real-world physics, especially the very basic observables of Newtonian physics.

I'm not saying it will model real-world physics to the point you need to pull out your textbooks on atomic theory and the math for ~(1/rn) force-decay laws, but rather that claiming that there is insufficient basis in real-world physics to draw expectations from daily observable life is a poor argument. Especially when, as it seems to be here, it's used to extend into (and I paraphrase) "...and therefore these things entirely alien to observable reality must perforce be true despite the rules saying nothing about them without two or three extrapolations."

Lots of things are "based in" real world physics if you're willing to take a very tenuous link as being based in.

12th century alchemists were wrong about everything of import, at least as far as the real world is concerned. Not just in their explanations for why, but in their understanding of what. However, 12th century alchemists are closer to being right than real physicists about D&D physics. D&D physics is not based in modern science at all. Or even Newtonian science. There are similarities at the very most surface level in phenomena (objects placed at some distance above the ground without support will tend to move until they are on the ground), but the details and the reasons are completely different. And must be. D&D matter is not made of atoms with subatomic particles. There are no chemistry elements. There are no conservation laws. All matter is composed of infinitely-divisible combinations of a small set of elements which can be transformed into other combinations via normal means.

[Segev]

Of course I *am*. My apologies. I was trying to avoid accusing you of making an absurd claim. Now, you swiftly clarify it as a semantic disagreement, which I will go ahead and respond to:


By the laws of nature, things do not fall. Things with mass attract things with less mass, that's all. Yes, and when one thing is attracted to the other in such a fashion that the other's movement is imperceptible while the one thing's causes it to accelerate greatly, that is defined as "falling." The word does have a meaning, and it is something that happens in nature.


"Fall" presuppose that there is such thing as a scientific "up" or "down" directions, and since we live on a sphere rotating through a vacuum we know it is factually not the case. Actually, there is. "Down" is objectively towards the dominant center-of-mass of a system. It is not meaningless to say that one floor of a building is "down" relative to the one that has a higher potential energy due to distance from the center of the planet on which the building is built. There is an objectively correct answer to the question, "Which way is down?" when you are standing anywhere on Earth.

This is, of course, purely semantic, because we're dealing with definitions of words.

It remains factually wrong to state that a DM who decides that an object falls when the player lets go of it is somehow concocting a physics he makes up from whole cloth and is in no way operating off of the model of the reality in which he lives that he has in his head. Nor is it reasonable to assume that he is so blatantly wrong in that mental model that there is not a significant, even overwhelming bearing that real-world physics has on the occurrences he rules happen in his setting based on his understanding of "how things work" in his real-world experience.

Finally, all of this is a distraction when the only reason I object to the characterization that real-world physics has nothing to do with in-game physics is because it's used to start justifying things that most DMs, operating from "what seems right based on [their] real-world experience," would say "no, that's ridiculous." Justifying that things will take on jarring, verisimilitude-breaking meanings and happenings in a world adjudicated by a DM because the DM is not a perfect physics engine for real-world physics is a very, very bad argument.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It remains factually wrong to state that a DM who decides that an object falls when the player lets go of it is somehow concocting a physics he makes up from whole cloth and is in no way operating off of the model of the reality in which he lives that he has in his head. Nor is it reasonable to assume that he is so blatantly wrong in that mental model that there is not a significant, even overwhelming bearing that real-world physics has on the occurrences he rules happen in his setting based on his understanding of "how things work" in his real-world experience.

Finally, all of this is a distraction when the only reason I object to the characterization that real-world physics has nothing to do with in-game physics is because it's used to start justifying things that most DMs, operating from "what seems right based on [their] real-world experience," would say "no, that's ridiculous." Justifying that things will take on jarring, verisimilitude-breaking meanings and happenings in a world adjudicated by a DM because the DM is not a perfect physics engine for real-world physics is a very, very bad argument.

You're way overstating what we're saying here.

There is a resemblance. And for the very gross-level things (basic phenomena), the resemblance between DM!model, D&D!model, and real-world!model is close enough for game purposes. But extrapolating beyond that very surface level is wrong. DM!model and D&D!model are (defined to be) identical--the model of physics in use at that table is whatever the DM says it is (just like every other fact of life in D&D). But DM!model and real-world!model are not the same. Or even necessarily close. They may be accidentally close, or a DM may choose to use their understanding of that real-world model. But D&D does not presume that they are the same beyond the very surface level.

My contention is that setting D&D!model == real-world!model for all cases where there aren't defined exceptions is bad for the game and is, generally, a lie. It won't actually correspond to how people feel it should be, and it ends up contradicting the content of D&D. That, or you quickly realize that everything has an exception. Or implies that an exception must be made. Plus, since DM!model and real-world!model are only very loosely connected even if they're a physics expert[1], trying to go beyond the surface layer is absolutely pointless and in fact dangerous. And it all results in DM-may-I and mis-match between DM!model and player!model.

D&D expects (not as RAW, but as RA-necessary-for-play) that the surface-level phenomena are earth-like, generally. It does not and cannot expect that the underlying physical laws that produce those phenomena are the same. Or even remotely similar. Because that's just flat out false and impossible, of the "2+2 == 5 && 2+2 == 4" variety.

[1] Physics experts aren't also chemistry experts, sociology experts, geology experts, biology experts, and all the other things you'd need to be to have any reasonable correspondence between DM!model and real-world!model. And yes, they're all inter-related. You can't have one correct unless and until you have all the others correct. That's what self-consistency means.

[Unoriginal]

But the ability doesn’t state it makes noise: just that the wings grow.

So, you are of the opinion then that RAW abilities are not contained to what is explicitly stated in them? That is, though the Draconic Sorc ability does not state that the wings make sound, the RAW is written as such that they do make sound, assuming that’s how the DM sees the in-game world?

The ability does not state that the wings make noise.

However, as I stated in the post you're quoting, the rules are that the DM decides if movement in general (or rather, if anything) make noise.


Hiding
The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check's total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.

You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly, and if you make noise (such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase), you give away your position. An invisible creature can't be seen, so it can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, however, and it still has to stay quiet.

In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen.

PHB p.177.

If the Dragon Sorcerer's wings make noise have nothing to do with the "has wings" abilitly, and everything with the "attempting stealth" ability (or abilities).


You're way overstating what we're saying here.

There is a resemblance. And for the very gross-level things (basic phenomena), the resemblance between DM!model, D&D!model, and real-world!model is close enough for game purposes. But extrapolating beyond that very surface level is wrong. DM!model and D&D!model are (defined to be) identical--the model of physics in use at that table is whatever the DM says it is (just like every other fact of life in D&D). But DM!model and real-world!model are not the same. Or even necessarily close. They may be accidentally close, or a DM may choose to use their understanding of that real-world model. But D&D does not presume that they are the same beyond the very surface level.

My contention is that setting D&D!model == real-world!model for all cases where there aren't defined exceptions is bad for the game and is, generally, a lie. It won't actually correspond to how people feel it should be, and it ends up contradicting the content of D&D. That, or you quickly realize that everything has an exception. Or implies that an exception must be made. Plus, since DM!model and real-world!model are only very loosely connected even if they're a physics expert[1], trying to go beyond the surface layer is absolutely pointless and in fact dangerous. And it all results in DM-may-I and mis-match between DM!model and player!model.

D&D expects (not as RAW, but as RA-necessary-for-play) that the surface-level phenomena are earth-like, generally. It does not and cannot expect that the underlying physical laws that produce those phenomena are the same. Or even remotely similar. Because that's just flat out false and impossible, of the "2+2 == 5 && 2+2 == 4" variety.

[1] Physics experts aren't also chemistry experts, sociology experts, geology experts, biology experts, and all the other things you'd need to be to have any reasonable correspondence between DM!model and real-world!model. And yes, they're all inter-related. You can't have one correct unless and until you have all the others correct. That's what self-consistency means.

Again, thank you for putting it better than I could.

[Segev]

D&D expects (not as RAW, but as RA-necessary-for-play) that the surface-level phenomena are earth-like, generally. It does not and cannot expect that the underlying physical laws that produce those phenomena are the same.

The trouble is, I am seeing people make arguments in this and another thread that seem to extend from "the underlying physical laws that produce these phenomena cannot be the same" and are thus leading to "and therefore the phenomena themselves cannot actually be the same, so this counterintuitive result that doesn't comport with what might be expected by real world experience must be the case."

Such as arguments over the notion that physical wings being used to fly can't be bound up to prevent the flier from flying, because that's basing assumptions on the physics of the real world being such that wings have to actually engage with the air in order to fly, and since the underlying physics are perforce different, they obviously don't need to flap or otherwise catch the air in order to be used to fly. :smallannoyed:

[PhoenixPhyre]

The trouble is, I am seeing people make arguments in this and another thread that seem to extend from "the underlying physical laws that produce these phenomena cannot be the same" and are thus leading to "and therefore the phenomena themselves cannot actually be the same, so this counterintuitive result that doesn't comport with what might be expected by real world experience must be the case."

Such as arguments over the notion that physical wings being used to fly can't be bound up to prevent the flier from flying, because that's basing assumptions on the physics of the real world being such that wings have to actually engage with the air in order to fly, and since the underlying physics are perforce different, they obviously don't need to flap or otherwise catch the air in order to be used to fly. :smallannoyed:

I would say that basing any ruling on anything below the surface at all is a mistake. The rules are what they say they are. And say what they say, nothing more or less.

I've taken "no hidden rules" to heart. I'll deviate (noting the deviation) when it's amusing[0], but I'm not going to houserule something based on my own understanding (or lack thereof) of real-world physics, chemistry, or anything else. That's an abstraction violation. I may change some abilities based on my understanding of the physics of the setting (which I've taken significant thought to), but those are explicitly setting-based rules and I don't expect them to apply outside of my own games.

So does the ability say that you can't fly if you are restrained (which it does, since that implies speed == 0)? Then you can't. Not because of physics, but because that's part of the ability. Going beyond the "you're tied up, so you're restrained, so you can't move" abstraction is a mistake, the UI doesn't expose those parameters. We can't reason at all beyond that point, at least in the abstract.

[Tanarii]

Would you prevent someone from using a pike/glaive/halberd, greatsword, or greataxe effectively in a 5ft tall by 5ft wide corridor?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Would you prevent someone from using a pike/glaive/halberd, greatsword, or greataxe effectively in a 5ft tall by 5ft wide corridor?

Me? No. Despite knowing that it would be highly impractical in real life.

[Tanarii]

Me? No. Despite knowing that it would be highly impractical in real life.
General question for everyone. I think it's a useful clarifying point.

AD&D had weapon lengths for this and other purposes. OTOH AD&D didn't have post-3e close-to-uninterruptible Magic, nor post-4e at-will & unlimited cantrips. The balance between martial and caster was very different. So Guy-at-the-Gym limitations via "realism" or "natural laws" or whatever, with a lack of corresponding caster "realism" decisions, didn't cause so many problems.

[JackPhoenix]

But the ability doesn’t state it makes noise: just that the wings grow.

So, you are of the opinion then that RAW abilities are not contained to what is explicitly stated in them? That is, though the Draconic Sorc ability does not state that the wings make sound, the RAW is written as such that they do make sound, assuming that’s how the DM sees the in-game world?

In this sense, then, the RAW do assume that the DM will use the RAW with the DMs understanding of how the laws of nature work in-game.

Which seems like a contradiction to me, in that your fine with DMs assuming that dragon wings will flap and make noise while doing so as being part of the game; but not the wings flapping being obstructed by objects. So DMs, then, as I understand your point, can only assume the in-game world affects abilities in terms of the in-game physics of sound but not of two different pieces of matter occupying the same space.

(I’ll try to get to the rest later, depending on how much of the thread I lose as posts progress - apologies: the rest isn’t being ignored)

Having wings gives no penalty on Stealth checks, even when actively flying. Fun fact: Every single dragon is proficient in Stealth. Even gargantuan dragons are fully capable of flying silently enough to be unnoticed.

[Mellack]

Having wings gives no penalty on Stealth checks, even when actively flying. Fun fact: Every single dragon is proficient in Stealth. Even gargantuan dragons are fully capable of flying silently enough to be unnoticed.

I love that point. I did a little checking and it turns out that an gargantuan ancient gold dragon is exactly as stealthy as the Assassin from the Monster Manual whose whole career is about being sneaky. Seems they fly very quietly on those giant wings.

[Unoriginal]

Having wings gives no penalty on Stealth checks, even when actively flying. Fun fact: Every single dragon is proficient in Stealth. Even gargantuan dragons are fully capable of flying silently enough to be unnoticed.


I love that point. I did a little checking and it turns out that an gargantuan ancient gold dragon is exactly as stealthy as the Assassin from the Monster Manual whose whole career is about being sneaky. Seems they fly very quietly on those giant wings.

This reminds me of the "dragons are sheep-thieves in 5e" ancient meme.

[RSP]

Having wings gives no penalty on Stealth checks, even when actively flying. Fun fact: Every single dragon is proficient in Stealth. Even gargantuan dragons are fully capable of flying silently enough to be unnoticed.

Is your point that flapping wings don’t make noise because dragons have stealth? I mean, they’re apex predators, I imagine that has something to do with it.

Stealth, like other ability checks still comes done to what the DM believes is doable, and what requires a roll to determine success or not.

For instance, if a creature is emitting a consistent audible noise, it’s plenty fair for a DM to rule they cannot be hidden (which entails being unheard).

Likewise, I think it’s fair for a DM to rule a Protector Aasimar using Radiant Soul cannot hide using normal darkness as the wings are described as “luminous.”

Those are consistent with RAW regardless of whether the character in question has Stealth as a proficiency or not.

[JackPhoenix]

Is your point that flapping wings don’t make noise because dragons have stealth? I mean, they’re apex predators, I imagine that has something to do with it.

Stealth, like other ability checks still comes done to what the DM believes is doable, and what requires a roll to determine success or not.

For instance, if a creature is emitting a consistent audible noise, it’s plenty fair for a DM to rule they cannot be hidden (which entails being unheard).

Likewise, I think it’s fair for a DM to rule a Protector Aasimar using Radiant Soul cannot hide using normal darkness as the wings are described as “luminous.”

Those are consistent with RAW regardless of whether the character in question has Stealth as a proficiency or not.

Does that mean you can't use Stealth while you're breathing either, because breathing emits "constant audible noise"?

Entire point of Stealth is hiding the noise (and other signs) you're making.

[Tanarii]

Having wings gives no penalty on Stealth checks, even when actively flying. Fun fact: Every single dragon is proficient in Stealth. Even gargantuan dragons are fully capable of flying silently enough to be unnoticed.
They're infamous in lots of media for being deadly silent in clouds or mist, so that even checks out.

[RSP]

Does that mean you can't use Stealth while you're breathing either, because breathing emits "constant audible noise"?

Entire point of Stealth is hiding the noise (and other signs) you're making.

Up to the DM: is the character wheezing? Or is it calm normal breathing? What’s the surrounding noise like?

All of these things are taking into consideration the environment the character is in, in relation to the RAW; same as taking into account the physical space available for wings to flap while flying.

[Unoriginal]

Up to the DM: is the character wheezing? Or is it calm normal breathing? What’s the surrounding noise like?

All of these things are taking into consideration the environment the character is in, in relation to the RAW; same as taking into account the physical space available for wings to flap while flying.

Hold on. Is it up to the DM, or is it depending on environment?

[RSP]

"Real world expectations" are *not* "real world physics logic". Not by a long shot.

I don’t mind clarifying my position to “people assume the in-game world behaves like they assume the real world behaves.” The point still stands: the rules are written with that assumption in mind.



Indeed. The game does not require knowledge of physics, because it does *not* use physics of any kind.

If using the term “in-game world physics” or similar is appalling, I can use “in-game world laws of nature” more, though I’m assuming you understand my point either way.



You can't use "people use real world physics to determine how the in-game functions" and "people use erroneous real world physics" as arguments in favor of the same position.

You sound like you’re insulted others don’t know as much about physics as you. I don’t believe anyone knows all about physics, so errors are bound to happen. Apologies if those errors about physics have insulted you.

The point stands though: most players and DMs expect the in-game world to behave like they expect the real world to.



D&D 5e characters see at 360 degree. Someone who is 45 feet away from a burning torch is just as visible as someone in complete darkness.

First sentence here is false: characters do not see at 360 degrees, but rather are assumed to be aware of their surroundings in combat. I think you’ve incorrectly assumed your stance off of this statement: “In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen.” Though, let me know if I missed a rule.

The second sentence isn’t necessarily true either as creatures can have Darkvision, or other ways of seeing the person 45’ away from the torch. Also, there could be a different source of light that makes the 45’ away person easily seen.



D&D 5e characters can speak to each other underwater. Someone can stand next to a blast of sound intense enough to be lethal and be unaffected.

Not sure these are true statements either. Do you have anything to cite?



Indeed. They do not require any understanding of physics.


Disagree: knowing what has occurred in relation to physics, even if you don’t know the why, is the initial understanding of physics. That is, even knowing “things generally fall down” is understanding something of physics.



The rules expect nothing. They inform, and you are free to rule differently.

They are written in a way that the expectation is the DM will have an environment the characters are playing in, and that those environments generally mimic our real world ones.

For instance: when Grease was written it was probably assumed the surface of the in-game world wasn’t already covered in slick surfaces that are difficult terrain and cause people to slip and fall.



Indeed. See how at no point it is mentioned "the DM uses X or Y assumption to determine what the narration will be".

And yet, one cannot determine the effects of the PC’s actions, without having assumptions about the environment those characters are in.




Untrue. As you've said many times now, the game does not expect the DM to re-create any laws of nature to make their decision.

It expects the in-game world to roughly equal ours, except as noted. Players of 5e expect this as well (also usually excepting where noted).




As I said above, a DM arbitrarily decides "that makes sense", based on several factors.

If the decision is based on several factors, it’s not arbitrary.



They assume that the in-game world works. That's it. It demonstrably does not work like ours in term of physics, science, or anything in that register.

The *effects* may look similar enough to our world to make some assumptions , but the *causes* are not and oftentime the effects are not either. Explaining why people can stand next to lava and not die from the heat.

Can you cite the RAW that non-magical lava doesn’t affect people with its heat? Just curious, as I’ve had DMs state it’s too hot to approach (unless aided by magic or a “fantastic” ability).



To use a different example: 5e's acid, both as a damage type and as substance, is pure nonsense from the point of view of real life chemical laws.

Except acid is exempt from the in-game world having similar laws of nature to ours, as it’s specifically stated how it acts.



And furthermore, to echo what PhoenixPhyre has been saying: you CANNOT claim that something is RAW unless it is written in the rules. Since "use real life assumptions to determine what happens when the rules are silent on the matter" is written nowhere in the rules, is is by definition not Rules as Written.

I’m not stating it’s written in the rules, I’m stating the RAW assume you’re playing in an in-game world that has similar laws of nature to what we expect in ours, except we’re noted.

This is why gravity pulls characters and objects down in-game. Nothing in the RAW explains what gravity is: the assumption is, though, that it acts like ours.

[Unoriginal]

You sound like you’re insulted others don’t know as much about physics as you. I don’t believe anyone knows all about physics, so errors are bound to happen. Apologies if those errors about physics have insulted you.

I don't care about errors in physics. I do not care about physics in a D&D 5e context.

What I am peeved at is the assertion that I should/must care about physics.

[RSP]

I don't care about errors in physics. I do not care about physics in a D&D 5e context.

What I am peeved at is the assertion that I should/must care about physics.

I don’t have a stake in whether you care about physics or not (I take away from this thread that you very much care about physics, based off what you know).

I’ve never said people have to care about physics: I’ve said the vast majority of players (including DMs) base their in-game world beliefs on what will happen with interactions in that environment, on what they believe would happen in the real world. Additionally, I’ve stated the rules of 5e are written assuming this position as well.

This just makes sense, for the most part, as this world’s behavior is the only physics (or what people believe to be happening with physics) the players are familiar with.

This is also true throughout the fantasy genre 5e reflects: whether there’s sci-fi elements or not added in, the fantasy worlds (GoT, the Dragonlance books, WoT, Stormlight, Shannara, LotR, etc.) generally respond the same way as our real world (with obvious noted exceptions; exceptions that probably require the rest of the “science” of those worlds to be like ours in order to standout and hold the exceptional value within those storylines the writer(s) are looking for).

I’m still not sure why PP and you have such a hard take against this: it’s what every table I’ve ever played at does; and every thread on this site I’ve read (so far as I recall) assumes, other than this one.

[Unoriginal]

I’m still not sure why PP and you have such a hard take against this: it’s what every table I’ve ever played at does; and every thread on this site I’ve read (so far as I recall) assumes, other than this one.

I've been outspoken against the "let's use real life to extrapolate X thing about the game in order to allow/disallow Y" reasoning for years.

The "Peasant Railgun" doesn't work. The "Guy at the Gym" fallacy is just that, a fallacy. You can't use exact-word-lawyering for abilities then real life logic to extrapolate more power or forbid something.


(I take away from this thread that you very much care about physics, based off what you know).

And now you are calling me a liar.

I take that as my cue to stop answering in this thread.

[Osuniev]

And now you are calling me a liar.

I take that as my cue to stop answering in this thread.

Re-read his post, he'sbasically saying you know more about physics (IN THE REAL WORLD) so you "care" about physics "in the real world" enough to have some science education. He's definitely not trying to insult you, nor did he say you cared about physics inside your game.



I agree with Segev and the OP : at most tables, people assume things work "like they would in our world" unless noted otherwise.

The fact that humans in general, and DnD players in particular, are bad physics-simulator doesn't change that.

Every DM rules that a weapon you drop falls to the ground, and although their model of gravity might be based on Aristote or Newton rather than Relativity (because they are usually not experts), it's still a close-enough approximation of real world physics in most situations, one that everyone at the table doesn't even need to agree on because it's based on our world.

In some cases (like a dragon hiding in fog), the expectations at the table would match action movies more than real world physics, but they are still an attempt of modelling "the real world" (except in situations where the DM explicitely chooses the Rule of Cool over realism), even if movies have distorted people understanding of real world physics.

The fact that this heuristic (things basically work like they do in our world) breaks in some cases and is not perfectly consistent doesn't mean the wings of a Draconic Sorcerer shouldn't make noise. It means, if players and DM agree they should make noise, find it more believable that they would make noise (based, again, on their imperfect assumptions about DnD physics, themselves based on their imperfect assumptions about the real world), they will.

[RSP]

I've been outspoken against the "let's use real life to extrapolate X thing about the game in order to allow/disallow Y" reasoning for years.

The "Peasant Railgun" doesn't work. The "Guy at the Gym" fallacy is just that, a fallacy. You can't use exact-word-lawyering for abilities then real life logic to extrapolate more power or forbid something.



And now you are calling me a liar.

I take that as my cue to stop answering in this thread.

In no way calling you a liar: I was trying to point out your evident knowledge. I didn’t think you were saying “I am uninterested in physics” but rather, “I’m uninterested in physics used in 5e.”

Obviously, this is a touchy subject for you, and I respect your decision to step away; but there was no intent on my part to call you a liar.

[RSP]

I love that point. I did a little checking and it turns out that an gargantuan ancient gold dragon is exactly as stealthy as the Assassin from the Monster Manual whose whole career is about being sneaky. Seems they fly very quietly on those giant wings.

I’d suggest it’s an incorrect assumption that having proficiency in Stealth means a character is always “stealthy”.

To some degree, the dragon is not “exactly as stealthy as the Assassin”, as the medium-sized assassin can much more easily avoid being “clearly seen” than the huge-sized dragon.

Those are definitely aspects of the rules that will, generally, lead to easier hiding for the Assassin.

[Naanomi]

I always assume that the game universe has some system of underlying consistent rules that are different but approximately similar (on the scale of players anyways) to real expectations; and that game mechanics are just an ease-of-play model that don’t necessarily accurately reflect either ‘real’ physics or ‘in-universe natural law’. I’ve rarely had need to investigate the specifics at a deeper level than that at the table

[PhoenixPhyre]

I always assume that the game universe has some system of underlying consistent rules that are different but approximately similar (on the scale of players anyways) to real expectations; and that game mechanics are just an ease-of-play model that don’t necessarily accurately reflect either ‘real’ physics or ‘in-universe natural law’. I’ve rarely had need to investigate the specifics at a deeper level than that at the table

Exactly.

Setting!physics, real!physics, and game!physics are three distinct constructs. Setting!physics incorporates magic as part of it (cf the section about "background magic in and through everything). The dials are set so that the surface phenomena are familiar if you don't look too hard (ie don't go beyond the capabilities of surface inspection). Things fall if dropped, bigger things are often stronger, etc. But many of the details are completely different.

Game!physics is entirely game UI--it's no more real!physics or setting!physics than the original Doom's inability to jump or look up and down means that the actual character is incapable of jumping or looking up or down. It's entirely a game-enablement layer. And in doing so, it's a very high-generality abstraction layer. Piercing this abstraction during gameplay or for the purposes of houserules is pretty much always a bad thing because it conflicts with the rest of the game layer.

The rules themselves only make assumptions about the content of game!physics. In fact they define game!physics. Anything not covered by them is considered to be irrelevant or is left entirely up to the DM's judgement. And setting!physics is completely unconstrained by game!physics--it exists outside of those considerations entirely.

And of course real!physics is completely separate. The only influence of real!physics in the game is to be a touchpoint for the surface phenomena of setting!physics.

[RSP]

Exactly.

Setting!physics, real!physics, and game!physics are three distinct constructs. Setting!physics incorporates magic as part of it (cf the section about "background magic in and through everything). The dials are set so that the surface phenomena are familiar if you don't look too hard (ie don't go beyond the capabilities of surface inspection). Things fall if dropped, bigger things are often stronger, etc. But many of the details are completely different.

Game!physics is entirely game UI--it's no more real!physics or setting!physics than the original Doom's inability to jump or look up and down means that the actual character is incapable of jumping or looking up or down. It's entirely a game-enablement layer. And in doing so, it's a very high-generality abstraction layer. Piercing this abstraction during gameplay or for the purposes of houserules is pretty much always a bad thing because it conflicts with the rest of the game layer.

The rules themselves only make assumptions about the content of game!physics. In fact they define game!physics. Anything not covered by them is considered to be irrelevant or is left entirely up to the DM's judgement. And setting!physics is completely unconstrained by game!physics--it exists outside of those considerations entirely.

And of course real!physics is completely separate. The only influence of real!physics in the game is to be a touchpoint for the surface phenomena of setting!physics.

I don’t think they’re as separate as you suggest.

Can something be heard, smelled, or seen, are very common questions in game play. The DM can divorce any answer from any facts, if they want; but I’d imagine any thoughts on the DMs part of “Would the PC be able to smell/hear/see this phenomena” would include the DM thinking of “is that how it would work in our world?” and factor in any factors the are special about the world/situation.

Likewise for any questions about the in-game world that aren’t laid out in the RAW: a RAF or ruling to not slow play, made on the spot with out any thoughts of real world comparisons, happens often, I’m sure. But any attempt by the DM (or Players) as to what will happen with in-world interactions, will lead, most likely, to what those real-world people know: the real world results (or assumed results, if you prefer) of those interactions.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I've got my first 5e winged character at the moment, a winged tiefling, and I've been ruling he needs 10' to properly fly, though I suppose he could tuck up momentarily to get through a window or something. Seems to be working both in terms of immersion and to occasionally limit a powerful ability.

[RSP]

Interesting that the latest UA specifies between wings for show (fairy) and wings that are used for flight (Owlfolk).

“Nimble Flight: Thanks to your wings, you have a flying speed equal to your walking speed”

“Fairy Flight: ...This flight is magical and does not require the use of your wings (if you have them).”

I’d say this wording also supports that the RAW assumes wings flap.