As DnD Beyond is a WotC subsidiary and an officially endorsed tool, I'm happy to treat its metatext as WoG on this issue, unless we get actual WoG stating otherwise.
There are plenty of places where the implementation in D&DBeyond just simply isn't capable of presenting the rules the way the books describe them (and those have often been documented in this subforum), even though WotC has never come out and said it is incorrect. You're prepared to take those cases as actual rules as well?
I'd have to know what specific examples, but providing metatextual classifications for things that are ambiguous in the rules seems like a very different thing from not implementing functionality that's clearly spelled out in the rules, if you mean things like Agonizing Blast currently only being supported for Eldritch Blast in the current character builder?
I mean your example says enough. You trust DDB to add rules when you think they're adding it intentionally? Even when that additional info isn't provided by the rules and has no rule or even DDB site feature supporting or surrounding it? So DDB users get something that owners of the book do not, but whose functionality is entirely up to interpretation? On the other hand, if you think the difference between the book and the site is a mistake, you're willing to disregard it? Interesting take.
The shillelagh cantrip clearly doesn't do damage -- it changes the damage of a weapon for future attacks -- but is nonetheless marked with the damage tag. Shillelagh does not combine with agonizing blast, but the meta text would indicate that it does.
I mean your example says enough. You trust DDB to add rules when you think they're adding it intentionally? Even when that additional info isn't provided by the rules and has no rule or even DDB site feature supporting or surrounding it? So DDB users get something that owners of the book do not, but whose functionality is entirely up to interpretation? On the other hand, if you think the difference between the book and the site is a mistake, you're willing to disregard it? Interesting take.
The shillelagh cantrip clearly doesn't do damage -- it changes the damage of a weapon for future attacks -- but is nonetheless marked with the damage tag. Shillelagh does not combine with agonizing blast, but the meta text would indicate that it does.
I think the difference in the examples is pretty stark, not seeing that is as you put it a interesting take.
The difference is one without a distinction. Sure one is *assumed* intentional, and the other is not, but neither has any rules text supporting it.
I mean, my point was clear. Even the tags are frequently invalid sources for determining any rules interactions, even with them being intentional. almost obviously because they are not rules.
I've argued my stance on on what works and what does based on the details of the precise wording of the spells prior to the metatext approach was presented ad nauseam, in either case Magic Stone works, which was the original question. I don't really have a horse in the race with regards to shillelagh, but the metatext approach seemed like one that was generally agreeable as an outside source which adjudicated each spell individually in an unambiguous way. But since some people are disagreeing with that as well I think I'll just step back from the debate at this point, as a universally acceptable reading seems unobtainable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As DnD Beyond is a WotC subsidiary and an officially endorsed tool, I'm happy to treat its metatext as WoG on this issue, unless we get actual WoG stating otherwise.
There are plenty of places where the implementation in D&DBeyond just simply isn't capable of presenting the rules the way the books describe them (and those have often been documented in this subforum), even though WotC has never come out and said it is incorrect. You're prepared to take those cases as actual rules as well?
I'd have to know what specific examples, but providing metatextual classifications for things that are ambiguous in the rules seems like a very different thing from not implementing functionality that's clearly spelled out in the rules, if you mean things like Agonizing Blast currently only being supported for Eldritch Blast in the current character builder?
I mean your example says enough. You trust DDB to add rules when you think they're adding it intentionally? Even when that additional info isn't provided by the rules and has no rule or even DDB site feature supporting or surrounding it? So DDB users get something that owners of the book do not, but whose functionality is entirely up to interpretation? On the other hand, if you think the difference between the book and the site is a mistake, you're willing to disregard it? Interesting take.
The shillelagh cantrip clearly doesn't do damage -- it changes the damage of a weapon for future attacks -- but is nonetheless marked with the damage tag. Shillelagh does not combine with agonizing blast, but the meta text would indicate that it does.
I think the difference in the examples is pretty stark, not seeing that is as you put it a interesting take.
The difference is one without a distinction. Sure one is *assumed* intentional, and the other is not, but neither has any rules text supporting it.
I mean, my point was clear. Even the tags are frequently invalid sources for determining any rules interactions, even with them being intentional. almost obviously because they are not rules.
I've argued my stance on on what works and what does based on the details of the precise wording of the spells prior to the metatext approach was presented ad nauseam, in either case Magic Stone works, which was the original question. I don't really have a horse in the race with regards to shillelagh, but the metatext approach seemed like one that was generally agreeable as an outside source which adjudicated each spell individually in an unambiguous way. But since some people are disagreeing with that as well I think I'll just step back from the debate at this point, as a universally acceptable reading seems unobtainable.