Results 91 to 94 of 94
-
2023-06-03, 11:18 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
Re: Fluff, context, and how to write clear rules
"Life" has a few meanings, and the obvious one for animate objects is 'animation.' They are construct creatures while animated. I actually don't know that 5e has distinctions that say constructs are or are not 'alive,' but the fact they are explicitly constructs would cover any potential discrepancies, I think.
-
2023-06-03, 02:28 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Location
- 61.2° N, 149.9° W
- Gender
Re: Fluff, context, and how to write clear rules
D&d 5e is weird for being an odd mish-mash of extreme specificity and high ambiguity in a number of spots. There's ----. Just having a Shield Guardian in the party starts weirding out with questions of magic item attunement and raising it from the dead. The thing's written as a monster for GMs with the expectation they'll make up anything they need to happen "off screen". But if the players get their hands on one that stops being an option because the player facing rules get interpreted so much more strictly.
Cant type got go
Edit: ok, more time now. Was going to get beyond d&disms because they're trend to annoying derails from people. Lost train of thought for this though. Just gonna cut off here then.Last edited by Telok; 2023-06-03 at 04:33 PM.
-
2023-06-06, 04:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2022
Re: Fluff, context, and how to write clear rules
Yup. I'd actually modify that statement a bit. Define elementals "mechanically" in the rules. It should fit into a category (living, dead, undead, construct, whatever). And the rules should also apply various effects to said things based on those categories.
I would actually tend to categorize elementals as constructs. The material they are made up of is somewhat irrelevant (as well, as whether some parts of what it's made up of may be "alive"). The actual elemental itself is some kind of magical force/being/whatever that animates a volume of some element and uses it as its body. I'm stuggling to see how that's much different than a construct. At least physically speaking. Unless, of course, you have special rules for constructs that you don't want to apply to elementals. So yeah, then maybe create a category for elementals as well. Every game concept in a game system has to (should?) be defined in some way, and tied into other rules. Otherwise, you will have endless spur of the moment rulings going on during play.
-
2023-06-06, 04:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- Denver.
- Gender
Re: Fluff, context, and how to write clear rules
My system does count corporeal elementals, undead, and automatons (robots and the like) as constructs and has rules for what that means.
What the system does not due is explicitly define alive, as that is the default state for the vast majority of characters.
Of course, there are also things that are neither living nor constructs such as spirits, vampires, tulpas, illusions, etc.
The text of the spell in question which caused the confusion was that it said it "Animated the landscape, bringing it to life in a form resembling that of an elemental." and the reader interpreted that as meaning it resembles an elemental, but is explicitly alive because the word "life" is used.Last edited by Talakeal; 2023-06-06 at 04:48 PM.
Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.