I dislike non-stacking Dis/Advantage

[RSP]

Characters in-world would be oblivious to the mechanics by which we play the game, that’s true.

But characters in-world would not necessarily be oblivious to the in-world ramifications of those mechanics.

A character knowing that spell gives you similar mental fortitude as an elf - which doesn’t help you at all if you are already an elf - seems like a reasonable thing for a person to know, if that person lives in the world that has such spells and elves in it.

Where in IF is it described “this spell gives you similar mental fortitude as an elf”? That’s not at all how IF is described. “Charm” nor “Elf” is in its spell description.

Nothing in the rules even prevents a Charm condition coming about from a non-Wis saving throw. Just because I’m unaware of any currently in the rules (and there may not be any) doesn’t mean Charm is intrinsically tied to Wis saving throws.

[JNAProductions]

Why are those “mages throughout history” sharing how they charmed people? If Elves were flat out immune, than I’d imagine it comes up more often, but it’s very possible that out of the 50 creatures a certain Wizard Charmed over the course of their lives, only 5 are elves, and all of them were successfully charmed (particularly if they were powerful enough to cast DP). Therefore, they’d not even comment on Elven resistance as it was a non-factor for them. Much less, I’m sure, have those Wizards tried to Charm characters they knew were under the effects of IF, and did so enough to note the probabilities of how often IF actually had an affect on whether their Charm took hold (they would, after all, still be succeeding on Charms more often than not); then they’d still have to compare total numbers of elves Chatmed bs non-Elves (knowing to remove gnomes, Yuanti, Halflings, or anyone under the effect of a spell that grants advantage to charm saves, in order to conclude “oh IF doesn’t work with Elves.

This all also assumes that every creature categorized as an Elf in a given world has Fey Ancestry, which I don’t think the rules actually state is the case.

But no, I don’t think it would be common knowledge that IF doesn’t help Elves against Charm.

Common knowledge? Maybe not-a Commoner has decent odds of not knowing it. Better odds if they're an elf or live with/near them, though.
But you aren't-again, correct me if I'm wrong-playing as Commoners. You're playing as adventurers. People who are a lot more broadly competent, especially in areas relating to combat, than your common folk. And Dominate Person is very much a combat thing.

You did tell us that the party researched this enemy, who likes to use Charm effects-so even if your PC, who is an elf, didn't know about their own natural advantages BEFORE then, it'd hardly be unreasonable to find out through your studies that you do, in fact, have a greater chance of resisting Charms than an equivalent dwarf.

Nothing in the rules even prevents a Charm condition coming about from a non-Wis saving throw. Just because I’m unaware of any currently in the rules (and there may not be any) doesn’t mean Charm is intrinsically tied to Wis saving throws.

Nothing about Fey Ancestry requires a Wisdom save. It affects ANY save made against a Charm effect-it'd even work on a Dexterity save against being Charmed, if something existed like that.

[RSP]

We can safely assume the PCs that cast spells know how magic works, as well. That includes understanding that certain spell effects do not stack. If the mechanics for casting spells or gaining dis/advantage works differently in your world, then that becomes the knowledge that the PCs know.

No, we can’t assume this, in so far as mechanics are concerned. PCs don’t know a saving throw is made by rolling a d20, for instance, yet that’s what you’re assuming they know, if assuming they know if the Advantage mechanic.

[Theodoxus]

But mages throughout history would've observed that elves are more resistant to Charm effects than dwarves.

I suspect that information would be a Elven state secret. Any mage trying to divulge that to the greater world would end up eating some version of polonium soup.

It's hard to come up with an adequate real world example that's sufficiently analogous. Mostly because we don't know the underpinning mechanics of our reality - though we're getting closer.

However, the question comes down to, are you playing D&D as a game, or a simulation. RSP appears to be on the far side of simulation. He wants the gameworld to be persistent and self-contained. In such a manner, the very gamist idea of advantage doesn't make much sense and doesn't work well. "Why don't things get better the more magic I pour into them?" At the physics engine level of the universe, that's the problem. 1+1 = 1? Wait, wut?

Those of us having this conversation from the other end are playing D&D as a game. It has dice and markers and sometimes a board you move said markers around. There's money, there's items... it's a glorified version of monopoly where sometimes when you land on someone else's Boardwalk, you don't exchange money, but just words, and there's a special rule where you can virtually attack the owner of Boardwalk instead of talking or giving money, and if you live, you now own Boardwalk.

To the gamist, the simulation is mostly about generating a fun experience while playing the otherwise pretty boring game of Monopoly. But more importantly, the gamist, and their avatar, both need to grok the rules, the physics engine, of the game to get the most out of the Monopoly side. If you don't, you're going to "lose" and "not have fun" because the PC's lack of understanding these things pulls them out of the game, even if the simulation is untouched.

5E is WAY more game than simulation; it's closer to the original roots of D&D than 3rd Ed was - it's arguably less than 4E, but I personally think that's a perception filter - Blue Tinted Glasses or whatever. If an individual table is more interested in playing 5E as a simulation, I'd recommend throwing Dis/AD out and instead convert each to +/-3 and let them add up and cancel out on a 1:1 basis. That would far more accurately portray the simulation for you. Now you'd just need to figure out how Rogue's Sneak Attack works in that environment.

[JNAProductions]

However, the question comes down to, are you playing D&D as a game, or a simulation. RSP appears to be on the far side of simulation. He wants the gameworld to be persistent and self-contained. In such a manner, the very gamist idea of advantage doesn't make much sense and doesn't work well. "Why don't things get better the more magic I pour into them?" At the physics engine level of the universe, that's the problem. 1+1 = 1? Wait, wut?

Vitamins are good for my health.
Surely if I eat more and more vitamins, I'll get healthier and healthier, right?

Just pouring more of the same thing into something doesn't always work.

[GooeyChewie]

Why are those “mages throughout history” sharing how they charmed people?
…
But no, I don’t think it would be common knowledge that IF doesn’t help Elves against Charm.

Both of these really depend on the setting. In settings with large metropolitan areas (or indeed specific schools like Strixhaven), it’s easy to imagine this sort of thing has been explicitly studied, and papers published on the subject. In other settings it might be mere rumor, almost myth, that elves are naturally resistant to charm effects. And in yet other settings you might be right that the inhabitants don’t know anything at all on the subject.

Where in IF is it described “this spell gives you similar mental fortitude as an elf”? That’s not at all how IF is described. “Charm” nor “Elf” is in its spell description.

That’s the whole point, isn’t it? Characters in-universe aren’t going to describe spell effects in the mechanical terms found in the books. They’re going to compare the effects to things they understand. In this case, it’s reasonable for a character to understand that Elves have greater mental fortitude than other species when it comes to resisting certain effects, and that the spell brings other species up to that level, and that bringing an Elf’s mental fortitude up to the level of an Elf doesn’t do any good because it’s already there.

To be clear, I’m not saying every character ever 100% knows the interaction (or lack thereof), but it’s not unreasonable that some characters would, especially if they are characters who can cast the spell in the first place.

[RSP]

Nothing about Fey Ancestry requires a Wisdom save. It affects ANY save made against a Charm effect-it'd even work on a Dexterity save against being Charmed, if something existed like that.

Exactly: spells that deal with non-charm mind effects effect Elves just as anyone else, and elves would have advantage on rolls from any save that deal with Charm, even if not Wis-related.

So it’s a false assumption that even people studying get ancestry would automatically conclude what the mechanics do.

If they included Psychic damage in their study, for instance, they’d conclude IF helps elves and that Elves don’t have any natural resistance mind affects even though they have Fey Ancestry.

The argument that PCs know the mechanics is just a bad argument.

[Theodoxus]

Vitamins are good for my health.
Surely if I eat more and more vitamins, I'll get healthier and healthier, right?

Just pouring more of the same thing into something doesn't always work.

Presumably, magic works a tad differently than vitamins (or anything else that's "good for you", as one can die from drinking too much water as their salinity drops below homeostasis). But yes, that's a decent counterexample that could be used to defend RSPs position.

The argument that PCs know the mechanics is just a bad argument.

From a certain point of view.

[NichG]

IF provides protection to an elf, though, in plenty of ways. The only way to know that it doesn’t provide protection to an elf, is if you had those hundreds of characters to specifically test IF on.

Furthermore, what PCs are aware of such tests/results? Does IF come with a stipulation of it not overlapping with Beacon of Home, Gnomish heritage, Elven Ancestry, etc, while stipulating it works in conjunction with Bless, Resistance, Rings of Protection, Cloaks of Protection, etc?

The beauty of it is that you get to decide these things, in the way that will make the world make the most sense to you.

Intellect Fortress is a thing in the world. Someone invented or discovered it at some point. They had some understanding of the mind or the world or magic or whatever to let them create that thing. You can decide 'oh they probably actually had some mechanism of action in mind, and *thats* why it provides something like a backup defense rather than intensifying existing defenses'. Or you can decide 'oh, they just accidentally happened onto the effect or discovered a scroll in an ancient failed civilization'. Neither of those is correct or incorrect to say, but if you choose the second then you've made a choice that makes the rest of the world make less sense to you (the player).

So why not choose the first, and save yourself the trouble? Furthermore, if you do choose the second over the first to translate into the in-character layer and then that choice causes you problems, its no one's fault but your own.

Beacon of Hope, Bless, etc are powers granted by divine entities - you could say 'oh, sure, the gods know how their blessings work, of course they're going to inform their followers; maybe even at the moment of casting, a cleric would feel - oh, this target is already protected'. Or you could say 'the gods work in mysterious ways and refuse to explain anything'. Again, if you choose the second, you're making it harder on yourself. You're allowed to make choices to make things harder on yourself, but if you do then *that's what you chose*.

If you want to play up that the world at large (or just your character) is ignorant about the finer details of magical reinforcement of the self, you can absolutely do that. But if you choose to do that, then making an in-character mistake in thinking that stacking defenses should protect you more is not only the correct outcome, its the outcome you *intentionally chose for yourself*. You made an RP choice, and there were consequences that should naturally follow from the premise of being ignorant about the interaction, so if you're really all about the RP then *you should be satisfied that your RP choice mattered*.

Instead this is like, I want to pretend ignorance but not have any of the consequences of ignorance.

Maybe what this comes down to is that an extremely strict avoidance of even the scent of metagaming is not actually as constructive towards you having fun as you belief it to be?

Does it change your perspective that I’m playing a Sorcerer and therefore there is no formal training on the spells he knows, or do you assume he obtains innate knowledge of what does or doesn’t stack with his Elven nature simply by being?

If you were playing in my game and told me 'my character understands this because they intuitively feel their magic as they direct their spells' I'd say 'great! You can understand it!'. If you said 'my character doesn't understand this because they have no formal training and therefore no access to systematic studies' I'd say 'great, as long as you're okay with the consequences of that choice!'.

You could say 'As an elf, the hint of fey nature within me twists my thoughts on alternate routes and, in talking to others over my life, I have realized this. My way of protecting my mind is not via a solid shield, but by the twisting meaning and intentional misinterpretation of words and thoughts and intents that comes as natural to me as breathing. I know that my nature does not protect me from outright mental trauma nor does it help me muster any particular determination or discipline, but the best way for me to protect my mind is to let someone else in and then twist their attempts, rather than just try to lock them out. A spell like Intellect Fortress is a rigid barrier, whereas my natural inclination is to be like a willow and bend so as not to be affected'. There, now you can justify knowing.

Or maybe you don't like that and you would rather play up not knowing, which again is fine, but then you should accept that the choice will have consequences like maybe you waste a spell.

Just like if you're choosing to RP not knowing that red dragons are immune to fire, you should accept that it might mean wasting an action trying a fire spell. And if in the end that sucks the fun out of RP-ing that ignorance, it's not the fault of the system there, its that you made a choice about what you'd find fun that turned out to be incorrect.

[RSP]

Vitamins are good for my health.
Surely if I eat more and more vitamins, I'll get healthier and healthier, right?

Just pouring more of the same thing into something doesn't always work.

Yet Beacon of Hope cast by the same Cleric that Bless is much more “the same thing” than Arcane Magic is the same to Divine Magic is the same to “genetics”.

The same diety can Bless and Beacon of Hope to “pour more of the same thing into something” and have it help.

But pouring the different things of divine/arcane/genetics, doesn’t help.

All you’ve done is created a very poor analogy which doesn’t actually fit the fact patterns being discussed.

[NichG]

However, the question comes down to, are you playing D&D as a game, or a simulation. RSP appears to be on the far side of simulation. He wants the gameworld to be persistent and self-contained. In such a manner, the very gamist idea of advantage doesn't make much sense and doesn't work well. "Why don't things get better the more magic I pour into them?" At the physics engine level of the universe, that's the problem. 1+1 = 1? Wait, wut?

Lots of stuff in real physics is more like 1+1=1 or even 1+1=3 than 1+1+2. Only extensive things really work like the second. Energy, mass, charge.

But there are lots of intensive things, like temperature. Mixing two cups of water at 300K does not give you a 600K mixture, it gives you a 300K mixture. Or, say, adding more rocket engines to a spaceship - you double the force (that's extensive), but you don't double the acceleration because you're also increasing the mass.

Even things that feel like they should be extensive are sometimes intensive when the *consequence* that matters is an intensive one. Mass of fuel is an extensive quantity. Double the fuel of a rocket now instead of doubling the engines. You should go twice as far, right? No. Instead you only logarithmically gain range by adding fuel, because you have to carry your fuel around with you.

Stuff to do with senses, cognition, etc? Highly likely to be intensive in consequence, even if driven by extensive variables. How loud is a sound? Well, our perception of volume is a logarithmic scale - doubling the energy in the sound doesn't double the volume, nor would it double the degree to which the sound distracts us. How bright is a light? Same story. How much injury do we suffer from an impact? Definitely not linear. How much protection would we get wearing two suits of armor rather than one, or armor twice as thick? Not twice as much. Diminishing returns are everywhere in the real world.

If treating magic as an extensive quantity isn't lining up with how things are actually happening in the game, maybe say 'ah, magic is not an extensive thing' rather than 'this cannot possibly make any sense!'.

I mean heck, the mechanic of rolling a d20 against a DC is inherently an intensive mechanic rather than an extensive one. It would make *less* sense for things to just add to each-other when that's the function that is evaluating the consequences of those things. d20 vs DC has the structure of a sigmoid curve, not a line.

[RSP]

Both of these really depend on the setting. In settings with large metropolitan areas (or indeed specific schools like Strixhaven), it’s easy to imagine this sort of thing has been explicitly studied, and papers published on the subject. In other settings it might be mere rumor, almost myth, that elves are naturally resistant to charm effects. And in yet other settings you might be right that the inhabitants don’t know anything at all on the subject.

Depend on the setting, sure, but even in a setting with lots of magic research the research would need to strictly apply to what we (the Players) know if the rules, which is very unlikely.

For instance, if Detect Thoughts is used as the test: a spell that very much invades the mind, Elves will prove no better at resisting than anyone else. Or if higher Wisdom creatures are used in the control group, the tests will be off, likewise if for some reason the control group has Wis Save proficiency. Or if the control group has Gnomes or Yuan Ti, etc.

The idea that the in game world has specifically tested accurately for this one thing, because we the players know it, is a big assumption.

Furthermore, I’m unaware of any premade that has this level of knowledge set in its lore (though admittedly know little of Strickhagen, though if the argument again hinges on “it might be that way in an obscure little used MtG world”, I’m not sure it holds much weight in the general conversation, but may be more of a prove via exception type thing).

[JNAProductions]

The beauty of it is that you get to decide these things, in the way that will make the world make the most sense to you.

Intellect Fortress is a thing in the world. Someone invented or discovered it at some point. They had some understanding of the mind or the world or magic or whatever to let them create that thing. You can decide 'oh they probably actually had some mechanism of action in mind, and *thats* why it provides something like a backup defense rather than intensifying existing defenses'. Or you can decide 'oh, they just accidentally happened onto the effect or discovered a scroll in an ancient failed civilization'. Neither of those is correct or incorrect to say, but if you choose the second then you've made a choice that makes the rest of the world make less sense to you (the player).

So why not choose the first, and save yourself the trouble? Furthermore, if you do choose the second over the first to translate into the in-character layer and then that choice causes you problems, its no one's fault but your own.

Beacon of Hope, Bless, etc are powers granted by divine entities - you could say 'oh, sure, the gods know how their blessings work, of course they're going to inform their followers; maybe even at the moment of casting, a cleric would feel - oh, this target is already protected'. Or you could say 'the gods work in mysterious ways and refuse to explain anything'. Again, if you choose the second, you're making it harder on yourself. You're allowed to make choices to make things harder on yourself, but if you do then *that's what you chose*.

If you want to play up that the world at large (or just your character) is ignorant about the finer details of magical reinforcement of the self, you can absolutely do that. But if you choose to do that, then making an in-character mistake in thinking that stacking defenses should protect you more is not only the correct outcome, its the outcome you *intentionally chose for yourself*. You made an RP choice, and there were consequences that should naturally follow from the premise of being ignorant about the interaction, so if you're really all about the RP then *you should be satisfied that your RP choice mattered*.

Instead this is like, I want to pretend ignorance but not have any of the consequences of ignorance.

Maybe what this comes down to is that an extremely strict avoidance of even the scent of metagaming is not actually as constructive towards you having fun as you belief it to be?



If you were playing in my game and told me 'my character understands this because they intuitively feel their magic as they direct their spells' I'd say 'great! You can understand it!'. If you said 'my character doesn't understand this because they have no formal training and therefore no access to systematic studies' I'd say 'great, as long as you're okay with the consequences of that choice!'.

You could say 'As an elf, the hint of fey nature within me twists my thoughts on alternate routes and, in talking to others over my life, I have realized this. My way of protecting my mind is not via a solid shield, but by the twisting meaning and intentional misinterpretation of words and thoughts and intents that comes as natural to me as breathing. I know that my nature does not protect me from outright mental trauma nor does it help me muster any particular determination or discipline, but the best way for me to protect my mind is to let someone else in and then twist their attempts, rather than just try to lock them out. A spell like Intellect Fortress is a rigid barrier, whereas my natural inclination is to be like a willow and bend so as not to be affected'. There, now you can justify knowing.

Or maybe you don't like that and you would rather play up not knowing, which again is fine, but then you should accept that the choice will have consequences like maybe you waste a spell.

Just like if you're choosing to RP not knowing that red dragons are immune to fire, you should accept that it might mean wasting an action trying a fire spell. And if in the end that sucks the fun out of RP-ing that ignorance, it's not the fault of the system there, its that you made a choice about what you'd find fun that turned out to be incorrect.

This is incredibly well-put, and I'm wholeheartedly in agreement with it, NichG.

[RSP]

Lots of stuff in real physics is more like 1+1=1 or even 1+1=3 than 1+1+2. Only extensive things really work like the second. Energy, mass, charge.

But there are lots of intensive things, like temperature. Mixing two cups of water at 300K does not give you a 600K mixture, it gives you a 300K mixture. Or, say, adding more rocket engines to a spaceship - you double the force (that's extensive), but you don't double the acceleration because you're also increasing the mass.

Even things that feel like they should be extensive are sometimes intensive when the *consequence* that matters is an intensive one. Mass of fuel is an extensive quantity. Double the fuel of a rocket now instead of doubling the engines. You should go twice as far, right? No. Instead you only logarithmically gain range by adding fuel, because you have to carry your fuel around with you.

Stuff to do with senses, cognition, etc? Highly likely to be intensive in consequence, even if driven by extensive variables. How loud is a sound? Well, our perception of volume is a logarithmic scale - doubling the energy in the sound doesn't double the volume, nor would it double the degree to which the sound distracts us. How bright is a light? Same story. How much injury do we suffer from an impact? Definitely not linear. How much protection would we get wearing two suits of armor rather than one, or armor twice as thick? Not twice as much. Diminishing returns are everywhere in the real world.

If treating magic as an extensive quantity isn't lining up with how things are actually happening in the game, maybe say 'ah, magic is not an extensive thing' rather than 'this cannot possibly make any sense!'.

This is all the more reason to assume “studies” in the game world would be less than accurate in their findings…

Just like if you're choosing to RP not knowing that red dragons are immune to fire, you should accept that it might mean wasting an action trying a fire spell. And if in the end that sucks the fun out of RP-ing that ignorance, it's not the fault of the system there, its that you made a choice about what you'd find fun that turned out to be incorrect.

But all of this comes down to “feel free to meta game” which is not something generally accepted at my table, and which I don’t enjoy.

It also completely ignores that there is seemingly no rhyme or reason as to what WotC decided to encapsulate in the Dis/Advantage mechanic and what they didn’t: it’s an arbitrarily decided phenomenon that prevents something from stacking but not others.

So again, this comes down to “it’s okay to metagame because we’re okay with lazy design”, which is fine, but the game, I believe, doesn’t presuppose metagaming.

If you enjoy pausing the game to read the Monster Manuel whenever you encounter a creature you’re not familiar with so you can decide the best way to attack the current encounter, go for it if it’s fun for you and your table; but I heavily disagree with that approach, both as a DM and a player and would not enjoy such a game.

Also of note: DP, which we weren’t aware of as the source of the “mind control” grants Advantage on the Save, which meant IF didn’t work for any PCs (neither would Beacon of Hope, which the Cleric had ready on standby). So it’s not a “RPing up the not knowing” issue, it’s an issue of these spells, which should be powerful tools are actually completely worthless, unless you completely metagame your encounter.

So if the answer is “why don’t you just completely metagame your encounters?” then my response is no thank you, but feel free to do what you enjoy.

[schm0]

No, we can’t assume this, in so far as mechanics are concerned. PCs don’t know a saving throw is made by rolling a d20, for instance, yet that’s what you’re assuming they know, if assuming they know if the Advantage mechanic.

I would be helpful if you included the relevant part of my post, which addresses the very point you bring up:

What the PCs don't know is meta information. For example, that advantage means you roll two dice and take the highest. Or +5 to your passive score. The numbers on your character sheet. What they do know narrative effects of their actions, such that the advantage mechanic equates to a small boon, allowing them to increase the likelihood that they succeed at something.

So no, they don't know about the metagame. They do know that advantage represents a boon that increases the likelihood of success, and that certain spells and effects do not provide cumulative benefits, because they understand how that magic and those effects work from an in-character perspective.

All D&D mechanics, including spell effects, racial traits and advantage/disadvantage, are ultimately just an abstract way to simulate something that happens narratively in-character.

[Darth Credence]

I suspect that information would be a Elven state secret. Any mage trying to divulge that to the greater world would end up eating some version of polonium soup.

It's hard to come up with an adequate real world example that's sufficiently analogous. Mostly because we don't know the underpinning mechanics of our reality - though we're getting closer.

However, the question comes down to, are you playing D&D as a game, or a simulation. RSP appears to be on the far side of simulation. He wants the gameworld to be persistent and self-contained. In such a manner, the very gamist idea of advantage doesn't make much sense and doesn't work well. "Why don't things get better the more magic I pour into them?" At the physics engine level of the universe, that's the problem. 1+1 = 1? Wait, wut?

Those of us having this conversation from the other end are playing D&D as a game. It has dice and markers and sometimes a board you move said markers around. There's money, there's items... it's a glorified version of monopoly where sometimes when you land on someone else's Boardwalk, you don't exchange money, but just words, and there's a special rule where you can virtually attack the owner of Boardwalk instead of talking or giving money, and if you live, you now own Boardwalk.

To the gamist, the simulation is mostly about generating a fun experience while playing the otherwise pretty boring game of Monopoly. But more importantly, the gamist, and their avatar, both need to grok the rules, the physics engine, of the game to get the most out of the Monopoly side. If you don't, you're going to "lose" and "not have fun" because the PC's lack of understanding these things pulls them out of the game, even if the simulation is untouched.

5E is WAY more game than simulation; it's closer to the original roots of D&D than 3rd Ed was - it's arguably less than 4E, but I personally think that's a perception filter - Blue Tinted Glasses or whatever. If an individual table is more interested in playing 5E as a simulation, I'd recommend throwing Dis/AD out and instead convert each to +/-3 and let them add up and cancel out on a 1:1 basis. That would far more accurately portray the simulation for you. Now you'd just need to figure out how Rogue's Sneak Attack works in that environment.

Vitamins are good for my health.
Surely if I eat more and more vitamins, I'll get healthier and healthier, right?

Just pouring more of the same thing into something doesn't always work.

I disagree with the idea that in any world - ours, a game world, whatever - that there is never a case where 1+1 = 1. JNA gives a good example (although I'm not sure why you said it would defend RSP's position). But there are so many more.

There are things that will dissolve in a dilute acid, but not a concentrated one.

A statistical model will be better with a minimum number of important terms, and adding more terms does nothing to help and can often hurt.

As you said, water. Too little, you die. Too much, you die. You've got to have the right amount.

We can look at the terms additive, synergic, and antagonistic from medical studies. Some things add together - bless and natural bonuses. Some things are synergistic, and are more than the sum of their parts - bless and intellect fortress, because the advantage magnified the effect of bless (I'm trying to keep this in terms of the examples at hand or I'd give a better one.) And some are antagonistic and are less than the sum of their parts - intellect fortress and fey ancestry do not interact to become the two added together, its just the same thing. There is nothing that prevents this from being the case in a simulationist view.

[NichG]

This is all the more reason to assume “studies” in the game world would be less than accurate in their findings…

People figured out all of this stuff in the real world just fine.

People figured out things *much more complex* than any of these examples, long before we had a formal scientific method. Fermentation and all of its humidity, temperature, and ecological dependencies - thousands of years old, to do stuff we use thermocouples and hygrometers for today and still mess up. The nutritional effects of cooking corn in alkaline vs acidic solutions - nixtamalization, thousands of years old. The effects of different plants on the fertility of the soil - see the Three Sisters farming method, thousands of years old. The effects of different military doctrines and forms of training on downstream survival and victory rates. The quantities of carbon and other metal impurities to make a good steel - extremely nonlinear, and we're talking about things that are like 1% quantities already.

It's completely justifiable to say 'we know about this interaction'. You're *choosing* not to know. So accept the consequences of that choice.

[JNAProductions]

But all of this comes down to “feel free to meta game” which is not something generally accepted at my table, and which I don’t enjoy.

It also completely ignores that there is seemingly no rhyme or reason as to what WotC decided to encapsulate in the Dis/Advantage mechanic and what they didn’t: it’s an arbitrarily decided phenomenon that prevents something from stacking but not others.

So again, this comes down to “it’s okay to metagame because we’re okay with lazy design”, which is fine, but the game, I believe, doesn’t presuppose metagaming.

If you enjoy pausing the game to read the Monster Manuel whenever you encounter a creature you’re not familiar with so you can decide the best way to attack the current encounter, go for it if it’s fun for you and your table; but I heavily disagree with that approach, both as a DM and a player and would not enjoy such a game.

It's stuff like this, especially the bolded bit, that is why you're seeing such strong pushback. At least from me.
Your posts are coming across with a very heavy attitude of "I'm doing it the right way, anyone who does it otherwise is wrong."

Because, part of your original post? Whether or not multiple sources of (dis)advantage should stack, how they should cancel out, what bonuses or penalties to apply if you do let them stack in a way other than just adding more d20s? That's a reasonable discussion to have. But only if everyone is discussing reasonably.

[RSP]

People figured out all of this stuff in the real world just fine.

People figured out things *much more complex* than any of these examples, long before we had a formal scientific method. Fermentation and all of its humidity, temperature, and ecological dependencies - thousands of years old, to do stuff we use thermocouples and hygrometers for today and still mess up. The nutritional effects of cooking corn in alkaline vs acidic solutions - nixtamalization, thousands of years old. The effects of different plants on the fertility of the soil - see the Three Sisters farming method, thousands of years old. The effects of different military doctrines and forms of training on downstream survival and victory rates. The quantities of carbon and other metal impurities to make a good steel - extremely nonlinear, and we're talking about things that are like 1% quantities already.

It's completely justifiable to say 'we know about this interaction'. You're *choosing* not to know. So accept the consequences of that choice.

You’re using select example of stuff that was figured out: there is still way more we don’t know. Fermentation was figured out, but not to the degree we currently have - nor had all the science been figured out (nor has it).

Further, you’re saying anything that was ever figured out by anyone is known by [b]everyone[/] in the 5e worlds as a rule. This is just not the case.

It's stuff like this, especially the bolded bit, that is why you're seeing such strong pushback. At least from me.
Your posts are coming across with a very heavy attitude of "I'm doing it the right way, anyone who does it otherwise is wrong."

I don’t care how you play, if you metagame or whatever: I hope you play a way that is fun.

If the answer to the question is “metagame the info” that is not enjoyable to me and is generally not done at the tables I e played at.

The game, I believe, doesn’t presuppose meta gaming. The solution was put forth “if you choose to RP, that’s on you”; it’s a fine solution if you metagame or otherwise dislike RPing in your games.

But it doesn’t work for those who enjoy RPing.

[NichG]

You’re using select example of stuff that was figured out: there is still way more we don’t know. Fermentation was figured out, but not to the degree we currently have - nor had all the science been figured out (nor has it).

Further, you’re saying anything that was ever figured out by anyone is known by [b]everyone[/] in the 5e worlds as a rule. This is just not the case.

I'm saying that choosing what people do or do not know is *justified*, because people are in fact capable of figuring things out. The argument 'well it seems hard to figure out' is a bad argument for 'therefore people shouldn't know things'.

[JNAProductions]

I don’t care how you play, if you metagame or whatever: I hope you play a way that is fun.

If the answer to the question is “metagame the info” that is not enjoyable to me and is generally not done at the tables I e played at.

The game, I believe, doesn’t presuppose meta gaming. The solution was put forth “if you choose to RP, that’s on you”; it’s a fine solution if you metagame or otherwise dislike RPing in your games.

But it doesn’t work for those who enjoy RPing.

I roleplay. I roleplay a LOT.
I also use the game's mechanics, because that represents in-character things.

Your way of RPing-that characters know nothing and cannot know anything-is a choice you've made.

[Segev]

Let's pretend for a moment we are playing pre-Tasha's PHB races.

Do people know half-orcs are typically stronger than tieflings? That half-elves and tieflings have more silver tongues than anybody else? Do they know that halflings are lucky? are more nimble than most anybody else save elves?

For the same reason, people will generally know elves are harder to mind-whammy than others are.

[GooeyChewie]

Depend on the setting, sure, but even in a setting with lots of magic research the research would need to strictly apply to what we (the Players) know if the rules, which is very unlikely.

For instance, if Detect Thoughts is used as the test: a spell that very much invades the mind, Elves will prove no better at resisting than anyone else. Or if higher Wisdom creatures are used in the control group, the tests will be off, likewise if for some reason the control group has Wis Save proficiency. Or if the control group has Gnomes or Yuan Ti, etc.

The idea that the in game world has specifically tested accurately for this one thing, because we the players know it, is a big assumption.

Furthermore, I’m unaware of any premade that has this level of knowledge set in its lore (though admittedly know little of Strickhagen, though if the argument again hinges on “it might be that way in an obscure little used MtG world”, I’m not sure it holds much weight in the general conversation, but may be more of a prove via exception type thing).

The whole point of doing research is to continually get closer and closer to the truth. It would be a big assumption to think the inhabitants of the world jumped straight to knowing the exact interaction between Elves and Intellectual Fortress for one specific type of spell. But it isn’t unreasonable to think some research went into what spells are most effective against Elves, revealing their natural defense against Charm effects, leading to research verifying that not all species have such defense, leading to research on what spells boost such defense, leading to a conclusion that IF doesn’t actually boost Elven defense against Charms but does boost other species to the same level of defense against Charms as Elves, which likely would be understood within the world as boosting your mental fortitude up to the level of Elven mental fortitude (at least, their fortitude against Charms).

I mention Strixhaven because it is a setting in which it is actually quite unreasonable to think such research has NOT been done. On the other hand, any setting with Wizards in it explicitly has people who have devoted their lives to studying and understanding magic and spells, so I don’t think it’s unreasonable for such interactions to have become at least somewhat common knowledge in most settings.

[Psyren]

Lots of stuff in real physics is more like 1+1=1 or even 1+1=3 than 1+1+2. Only extensive things really work like the second. Energy, mass, charge.

But there are lots of intensive things, like temperature. Mixing two cups of water at 300K does not give you a 600K mixture, it gives you a 300K mixture. Or, say, adding more rocket engines to a spaceship - you double the force (that's extensive), but you don't double the acceleration because you're also increasing the mass.

Even things that feel like they should be extensive are sometimes intensive when the *consequence* that matters is an intensive one. Mass of fuel is an extensive quantity. Double the fuel of a rocket now instead of doubling the engines. You should go twice as far, right? No. Instead you only logarithmically gain range by adding fuel, because you have to carry your fuel around with you.

Stuff to do with senses, cognition, etc? Highly likely to be intensive in consequence, even if driven by extensive variables. How loud is a sound? Well, our perception of volume is a logarithmic scale - doubling the energy in the sound doesn't double the volume, nor would it double the degree to which the sound distracts us. How bright is a light? Same story. How much injury do we suffer from an impact? Definitely not linear. How much protection would we get wearing two suits of armor rather than one, or armor twice as thick? Not twice as much. Diminishing returns are everywhere in the real world.

If treating magic as an extensive quantity isn't lining up with how things are actually happening in the game, maybe say 'ah, magic is not an extensive thing' rather than 'this cannot possibly make any sense!'.

I mean heck, the mechanic of rolling a d20 against a DC is inherently an intensive mechanic rather than an extensive one. It would make *less* sense for things to just add to each-other when that's the function that is evaluating the consequences of those things. d20 vs DC has the structure of a sigmoid curve, not a line.

The beauty of it is that you get to decide these things, in the way that will make the world make the most sense to you.

Intellect Fortress is a thing in the world. Someone invented or discovered it at some point. They had some understanding of the mind or the world or magic or whatever to let them create that thing. You can decide 'oh they probably actually had some mechanism of action in mind, and *thats* why it provides something like a backup defense rather than intensifying existing defenses'. Or you can decide 'oh, they just accidentally happened onto the effect or discovered a scroll in an ancient failed civilization'. Neither of those is correct or incorrect to say, but if you choose the second then you've made a choice that makes the rest of the world make less sense to you (the player).

So why not choose the first, and save yourself the trouble? Furthermore, if you do choose the second over the first to translate into the in-character layer and then that choice causes you problems, its no one's fault but your own.

Brilliant. That is all.

While I agree rule zero is in full force here, I think this is only rule zero you're invoking. The rules explain how to apply the decision of something influencing the roll, and to disregard influences is not really following the rules so much as it is pretending to be unaware so you can bend the rules, akin to refusing to ac knowles a nomination of a candidate you don't want to let people vote on by pretending you didn't hear the nomination.

Rule zero is really what applies to let a DM throw out the neutralization rule if he thinks it is silly in particular case.

Okay, so even if you feel that's the only means, what's the problem then? That's a rule that exists in this game. "Problem" solved.

Let's pretend for a moment we are playing pre-Tasha's PHB races.

Do people know half-orcs are typically stronger than tieflings? That half-elves and tieflings have more silver tongues than anybody else? Do they know that halflings are lucky? are more nimble than most anybody else save elves?

For the same reason, people will generally know elves are harder to mind-whammy than others are.

You can do this post-Tashas too. For example, most NPC Goliaths being stronger than most NPC humans does not need a fixed ASI for player races to demonstrate.

[RSP]

I'm saying that choosing what people do or do not know is *justified*, because people are in fact capable of figuring things out. The argument 'well it seems hard to figure out' is a bad argument for 'therefore people shouldn't know things'.

Who’s arguing “it’s hard to figure out”?

The argument I’m making is there’s no in-game reasoning behind Dis/Adv - it was lazily applied to certain things to represent a benefit but there’s no system to it.

Instead of having in-game rules like “Arcane spells don’t stack with other arcane spells” or “spells from the same diety won’t stack” they just decided certain spells would fall into a bucket of “benefit doesn’t stack” while allowing plenty of other things to stack.

Yes: you could world build where the supreme diety publishes a list of “non-stacking benefits” that all beings with Int 3+ innately know; but seems like a run around to the fact that the system is lazy design.

And the impact is Players have no reliability on whether or not their limited resources will actually make a difference because it’s all whether the unknown effects they’ll encounter will be the short straw of “randomly chosen not to stack” with what they’ve chosen to use to counter.

The game isn’t made more fun by randomly choosing “the spell you cast doesn’t work.”

I roleplay. I roleplay a LOT.
I also use the game's mechanics, because that represents in-character things.

Your way of RPing-that characters know nothing and cannot know anything-is a choice you've made.

Characters know their spells, but don’t know mechanics.

I disagree that “my character understands the mechanics of the game” is true my role playing the character, but you do what you enjoy.

[Elenian]

Wait, so are most people playing it that all or most 5e rules are diegetic - the diagonal of a unit square in faerun is *actually* length 1, its *actually* easier to hit a dodging opponent if you extinguish all the light sources, etc.?

It's obviously possible that the magical physics of faerun are such that an intellect fortress normally impedes domination magic, except in combat, but personally I would *definitely* have taken that to be non-diegetic game rules!

[NichG]

Who’s arguing “it’s hard to figure out”?

You're arguing that your character shouldn't know about it because there wouldn't be in-world knowledge of which things constructively stack and which things don't. But in the real world, people figured out which things are good when you combine them and which things aren't for many, many things. Its not hard.

There is absolutely no reason elves wouldn't know that Intellect Fortress does not bolster their innate protections against mental manipulation.

The argument I’m making is there’s no in-game reasoning behind Dis/Adv - it was lazily applied to certain things to represent a benefit but there’s no system to it.

Instead of having in-game rules like “Arcane spells don’t stack with other arcane spells” or “spells from the same diety won’t stack” they just decided certain spells would fall into a bucket of “benefit doesn’t stack” while allowing plenty of other things to stack.

There's no explicit in-game reasoning stated for almost anything in D&D, in almost any edition. You have to make that, if you want it. That's part of roleplaying too.

Maybe if what you really want to say is 'I liked being able to stack things', you should just say that, rather than making it about metagaming or some perceived 'laziness'. Stacking things isn't objectively superior or inferior to not being able to stack things - not for roleplayability, not for gameplay, not for general fun.

And the impact is Players have no reliability on whether or not their limited resources will actually make a difference because it’s all whether the unknown effects they’ll encounter will be the short straw of “randomly chosen not to stack” with what they’ve chosen to use to counter.

The game isn’t made more fun by randomly choosing “the spell you cast doesn’t work.”

If you're casting combos that don't work, that's a choice you made. It's not 'randomly'. No one forced you to do it, and you were given information about how that interaction works. You're the one who chose to pretend not to have that information here, and that's what removed the 'reliability'. Clearly you don't like making RP choices that end up harming you. Maybe, y'know, rethink whether this whole crusade against metagaming is actually improving your experience. Heck, maybe discuss it at your table.

No one is forcing you to play the game this way but you.

[Theodoxus]

Ok, RSP. Two questions, if you'd do me the honor of answering.

1) The specific character who learned the hard way that IF is nigh useless to cast on an Elf if the expectation is to resist a Charm effect. Have they learned their lesson, and won't repeat that action in the future? [This question is to determine the persistence of knowledge outside of a metagame dynamic.]

2) If the answer to 1 is "yes", does that knowledge propagate to other characters you might play in the future, or does the FR universe you play in reside in a steady-state such that you, the player, know the spell is nigh useless in that specific circumstance, but your new character has no knowledge whatsoever? [This question is to determine if knowledge is ever passed on from PC to PC or if you're perpetually fighting against yourself within the dichotomy of player vs character knowledge outside of the mechanics.]

[RSP]

For the same reason, people will generally know elves are harder to mind-whammy than others are.

Except they’re not. They take psychic damage just as much as anyone, they can be Detect Thoughted just as much as anyone.

They only are more resistant to a subset of “mind-whammy”, and you’d only notice that over very high numbers as any given character is about as likely to pass or fail any given save.

In our game, we’re level 10 and, so far as I can remember, mind control has occurred 4 times: my Elf Sorc with 14 WIs passed a save (Adv wasn’t even applied because we didn’t think of it but the die roll was an 18, no prof so +3 to the roll, incl Cloak if Prot), he failed a save (the discussed situation), and our 20 Wis + prof Cleric failed a save (+8 mod). A dragon joined us against the aboleth we caught, and even with magic resistance (or whatever gave it advantage on its save) it still failed.

As there’s no perceivable effect, my Sorc doesn’t know there was a threat to him on the passed save (if your table plays different, great, but this is the RAW, which we use).

So, in our characters’ experiences, my Sorc is susceptible to mind control, as is the Cleric, as are dragons. We, as a group, are actually unaware of any instances where we staved off mind control.

There’s very good reason for us to try and use magic to protect ourselves, but no real in-game reason to believe Beacon of Hope is a worse choice than Bless. Or that IF will be useless against DP (this encounter was our first experience with DP as the aboleth uses a non-spell special action).

But the system randomly decided IF, BoH and DP don’t stack, but, as there’s no in game reason for that, we’re stuck.

1) The specific character who learned the hard way that IF is nigh useless to cast on an Elf if the expectation is to resist a Charm effect. Have they learned their lesson, and won't repeat that action in the future? [This question is to determine the persistence of knowledge outside of a metagame dynamic.]

It wasn’t learned and there was nothing to learn. The character failed the save even with the adv applied (whether from Fey Ancestry, IF, or DP).

2) If the answer to 1 is "yes", does that knowledge propagate to other characters you might play in the future…

N/A

————

I’ll add this: does anyone not think the intent of IF is to protect the target from spells affecting them, particularly their mind (hence the name “Intellect Fortress”)?

Wouldn’t that naturally lead one to assume it protects against mind control?

[Segev]

Your elf isn't the only elf in the world, and he isn't the first to have the racial charm resistance. The class of effect that elves are resistant to has notable characteristics and similarities between its members, and psychic damage et al is not amongst those traits.

People will know that elves are harder to charm (by whatever term they know the effect) than most other races. In the same way they know goliaths are stronger than humans.