I still vote Nay on both versions of 54, but I will admit that this is due to a possibly idiosyncratic belief of mine that "magic is weird" and therefore not subject to RACSD unless there's a genuine ambiguity in RAW. I therefore stipulate that should it occur that mine is the single dissenting vote after, oh, 8 votes beyond me, Malachei, and lesser_minion, it changes to an Abstain. I'll confirm that if I'm still around; that's just in case of my sudden absence.

Quote Originally Posted by Malachei View Post
Why is a specific ruling automatically a houserule and not worthy of a RACSD entry? Would, for instance, Time Stop, not benefit from a RACSD entry regarding its duration and whether it can be persisted? And how does your gnome example differ from other specific rulings we have in this thread, such as 039 on Kobolds?
A specific ruling isn't automatically a houserule. Choosing one spell out of tens of spells that have essentially the same effect because it's more troublesome is.

Time Stop would benefit from a ruling because the RAW is clearly ambiguous. The rules of Illusions are not ambiguous, they just lead to apparent contradictions which can be explained by my "magic is weird" theory. And the gnome example isn't different from 039, which I voted Nay on. Unless I'm misinterpreting you?

As for the claim that RAI supports rule 54, I disagree on two fronts. First, Rules as the Designers Declared Them to Be After the Fact (RATDDTTBATF) is not necssarily RAI. They are also potentially a rules patch or an apologia (cf. Monte Cook's statements to the effect that the PHB's imbalance was intentional). Second, he admits the rules don't say so. And they didn't errata it. He is interpreting the rules, using his sensibilities as a guide, and if those sensibilities do not vastly predominate, it's not common sense. So, again, reasonable houserule. I will use it, if/when I DM with an illusionist. Not RACSD.

Finally, read the SRD again; it's not as clear as you think:
Spoiler
Show
A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw.

It is reasonable to interpret the word "needs" to imply one can make a saving throw if one wants (and thus fail intentionally if he wants), in the same way that I "need no chocolate" but I can eat chocolate if I want.

Also, I thought of an argument against 54 which may or may not be relevant, and is a bit sciency, so it's spoilered.
Spoiler
Show
Consider illusions in real life. For example, this illusion:

(For those who don't get the point, the red lines are perfectly horizontal and the squares are actually squares.)

Once you know the trick, you can treat it as if you don't see it. For example, once I know that the lines are in fact straight and the squares are actually squares, I can estimate the sum of the lengths of the red line segments by measuring a square and counting the number of squares.

On the other hand, I don't stop seeing the illusion. I can, if I desire, treat the illusion as if it were in fact reality; in game terms, fail my Will Save.

It is, again, a reasonable interpretation of Illusions that they work like illusions and thus the Will save can be failed.