• maniclucky@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    22 hours ago

    And this is why my group is ok saying “that rule is profoundly dumb” and ignoring it while suspecting Crawford of being involved.

    • Aielman15@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Crawford also rules that See Invisibility doesn’t remove the advantage/disadvantage on attack rolls because it doesn’t say so in the spell’s effect, so… Yeah, I always ignore what he says.

    • jounniy@ttrpg.networkOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      That one has nothing to do with Crawford far as I’m aware. It’s just plain stupid interaction of several rules. You are definitely intended to be able to just cast disintegrate on the wall.

      Some rules are intended in a certain way and just handled poorly. The above case is (I personally think) one of them. Others are actually intended to work a certain way because of designing aspects (like verbal components having to be said at a normal volume) but people simply decide to ditch them anyway, because they like something else better. Both are valid, but they are different.

      • maniclucky@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        I didn’t actually know it was or wasn’t Crawford, just that such a terrible ruling is very much his brand.

        • jounniy@ttrpg.networkOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 hours ago

          He actually has some totally based rulings too. Those just don’t stand out amongst the profoundly dumb ones.

    • Skua@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Ironically here, Crawford actually thinks that the text of disintegrate does in fact permit you to target a wall of force that you can’t see. I don’t quite understand how he thinks it says that, but it does at least confirm the intention

      • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Rulings like this annoy me. Like, if he had said “the spell is poorly written, because our intention is that a wall of force can be targeted by disintegrate, but you’re right that that’s not what the spell descriptions say”, then I’d be able to respect that a lot more than what you describe him saying.

        Words are a slippery beast, and there will always be a gap between Rules as Intended and Rules as Written. Good game design can reduce that gap, but not if the designers aren’t willing to acknowledge the chasm they have created

        • jounniy@ttrpg.networkOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 hours ago

          I know that this may be a bit of a gap, but it’s a general problem of our society nowadays: Admitting a mistake is unpopular and can be used by others to say “See: even you acknowledged that you were wrong there.”, so people only rarely do it. (Especially politicians, stars and corporations/corporate representatives.)