There's a little something I noticed while looking over spell choices for a Paladin
Compelled Duel
You attempt to compel a creature into a duel. One creature that you can see within range must make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, the creature is drawn to you, compelled by your divine demand. For the duration, it has disadvantage on attack rolls against creatures other than you, and must make a Wisdom saving throw each time it attempts to move to a space that is more than 30 feet away from you; if it succeeds on this saving throw, this spell doesn’t restrict the target’s movement for that turn.
The spell ends if you attack any other creature, if you cast a spell that targets a hostile creature other than the target, if a creature friendly to you damages the target or casts a harmful spell on it, or if you end your turn more than 30 feet away from the target.
Note the bolded text. It says that if you succeed on a Wisdom saving throw when you try to move more than 30 feet from the caster, then the spell does not restrict your movement for that turn. What it does not say, however, is that failing the saving throw does restrict your movement. My current understanding of this is that it means you can easily move 30 feet away from the caster, whether or not you succeed on the Wisdom save. Am I overlooking something here, or is this just an oversight in the RAW?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Making their saving throw is what allows them to do it, per your bolded text. Restriction is the default state under the compelled duel, and in order to overcome the restriction, they have to make the saving throw.
Except there's nothing in the spell that actually says restriction is the default state. It's heavily implied, and everybody reads it that way, but there's nothing in the text of the spell that says a target is unable to move more than 30 feet away.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I wouldn’t even call it an oversight. The language used makes the intent clear. We all know how the spell works. That it isn’t as perfectly explicit as it could be doesn’t matter. If a player tries to say “my movement isn’t restricted” or a DM tries to say “my monster’s movement isn’t restricted” then they are literally playing the game incorrectly, insofar as a DM can be said to play the game incorrectly.
It’s always important to remember that 5e is not written to be absolutely explicit about everything. It’s not meant to played by a computer. This kind of legalistic close reading is invalid because it treats the text as something that it’s not. We have to approach the text on its own terms, and that means if the writing makes the intent clear, then the RAI is RAW, even if the writing could theoretically be more explicit.
This certainly does mean that occasionally we run into situations where multiple readings could be sensible and sound, but this really isn’t one of those situations.
I wouldn’t even call it an oversight. The language used makes the intent clear. We all know how the spell works. That it isn’t as perfectly explicit as it could be doesn’t matter. If a player tries to say “my movement isn’t restricted” or a DM tries to say “my monster’s movement isn’t restricted” then they are literally playing the game incorrectly, insofar as a DM can be said to play the game incorrectly.
It’s always important to remember that 5e is not written to be absolutely explicit about everything. It’s not meant to played by a computer. This kind of legalistic close reading is invalid because it treats the text as something that it’s not. We have to approach the text on its own terms, and that means if the writing makes the intent clear, then the RAI is RAW, even if the writing could theoretically be more explicit.
This certainly does mean that occasionally we run into situations where multiple readings could be sensible and sound, but this really isn’t one of those situations.
Just because the RAI is clear on a subject does not mean that the RAW cannot be discussed. I know that no DM in their right mind would ever rule the way, but that wasn't the point of the thread. The point of the thread was me asking whether or not I had overlooked something. The point was also kinda to point out how seemingly nobody had noticed this, despite it being right there in clear daylight with barely any way to dispute it RAW.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
The obvious corollary to "if they pass a save, their movement is not restricted" is that failing a save restricts their movement. You can attempt to argue that in the absence of a clear statement such inference is not hard proof, but as this is not civil court that would be a blatantly bad faith argument, imo.
The obvious corollary to "if they pass a save, their movement is not restricted" is that failing a save restricts their movement. You can attempt to argue that in the absence of a clear statement such inference is not hard proof, but as this is not civil court that would be a blatantly bad faith argument, imo.
Thank you for your input. I would like to say again that I am not asking for RAI, as the RAI is pretty damn obvious. I'm not stupid.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I would also like to point out it says it in the description
On a failed save, the creature is drawn to you, compelled by your divine demand.
So if they failed the save they have to fight that person and in fact are compelled to do so. So why would that person think they should run away? It doesn't restrict there movment it just makes that person really want to fight that person that used that ability. Now would they run cause they are close to dying maybe, or another spell is trying to force them to run away then you would have the saving throw.
What it does not say, however, is that failing the saving throw does restrict your movement. My current understanding of this is that it means you can easily move 30 feet away from the caster, whether or not you succeed on the Wisdom save. Am I overlooking something here, or is this just an oversight in the RAW?
This spell tells less than it should. As written a target makes a Wisdom saving throweach time it attempts to move to a space that is more than 30 feet away from you;
Success: this spell doesn’t restrict the target’s movement for that turn.
Failure: ... (nothing written)
How i interpret this is that whenever the target attempt to move to a 5 feet square/space that is more than 30 feet away from you, it must make a Wisdom save to enter it.
I’m not understanding what you are trying to say. If the initial save is made. Nothing happens, a spell slot is wasted, and we move on. If the save is failed, the only way to move beyond 30 feet is to make a successful save. It doesn’t need to say you are restricted if you fail because the only way to move beyond 30 feet it is to make it. Note that making the save does not get rid of the disadvantage to attack anyone other than the caster.
It’s like saying “If you don’t close your door at night you cannot open it in the morning”. The second part, although kind of funny, isn’t required to be said.
As written the initial Wisdom saving throw upon being targeted by Compelled Duel has the following result;
Success: Nothing
Failure: the creature is drawn to you, compelled by your divine demand. For the duration, it has disadvantage on attack rolls against creatures other than you, and must make a Wisdom saving throw each time it attempts to move to a space that is more than 30 feet away from you
Just because the RAI is clear on a subject does not mean that the RAW cannot be discussed. I know that no DM in their right mind would ever rule the way, but that wasn't the point of the thread. The point of the thread was me asking whether or not I had overlooked something. The point was also kinda to point out how seemingly nobody had noticed this, despite it being right there in clear daylight with barely any way to dispute it RAW.
You've missed my point. My point is that, the way 5e is written, if RAI is clear then that is RAW. The goal of writing a rule is to effectively communicate its intent. If the intent has been communicated, the job's done. "But it doesn't technically say" is imposing upon the text a framework it was never intended to handle. The reason "nobody had noticed this" is that the text did its job effectively.
You've missed my point. My point is that, the way 5e is written, if RAI is clear then that is RAW.
I agree with this. I also would like to offer my take on interpreting RAW, which is more or less what you just said. RAI and RAW are inherently in agreement, unless there is some other information like a tweet or a conflicting rule elsewhere that informs us that RAI is different from RAW. Just because it is possible to pick apart the way a rule is written does not mean the rule is no longer valid or even that it is poorly written. Rules are meant to be parsed, and that requires interpretation. If the only rules we accept are the ones with irrefutable checklists of properties, we aren't left with much of a game to play. Compelled duel is good enough. We know what it does and what it says it does is adequate to use it.
RAW is specifically without regard to designer's intent.
RAW: ”Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own. Whenever I consider a rule, I start with this perspective; it’s important for me to see what you see, not what I wished we’d published or thought we’d published
RAW is specifically without regard to designer's intent.
RAW: ”Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own. Whenever I consider a rule, I start with this perspective; it’s important for me to see what you see, not what I wished we’d published or thought we’d published
That doesn't seem relevant to the current discussion. What TexasDevin and I are saying is that, when forced to stand on its own, the text makes its intent clear. We do not need a designer to come in and tell us what they meant. The text does that on its own.
This SAC evidently backs up the way the spell is intended to be ruled. Without it, the spell itself remains poorly written and what the OP brought up is that the spell doesn't write what happen on a saving throw failure that's all.
This SAC evidently backs up the way the spell is intended to be ruled. Without it, the spell itself remains poorly written and what the OP brought up is that the spell doesn't write what happen on a saving throw failure that's all.
But it isn't poorly written, because we all know how it works, even without the SAC. What the OP brought up is that if we impose a flawed analytical framework upon the text, we can tease out unintended behavior.
This SAC evidently backs up the way the spell is intended to be ruled. Without it, the spell itself remains poorly written and what the OP brought up is that the spell doesn't write what happen on a saving throw failure that's all.
I don't know if I would call it poorly written, but I do think it could use clarification in the 1D&D update. Just like I think many things could use clarification in the 1D&D updates including spells like Antilife Shell which I argue about in this thread too. I think Compelled Duel works as intended but clearer wording is always welcome whether some, like me, think so or not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There's a little something I noticed while looking over spell choices for a Paladin
Note the bolded text. It says that if you succeed on a Wisdom saving throw when you try to move more than 30 feet from the caster, then the spell does not restrict your movement for that turn. What it does not say, however, is that failing the saving throw does restrict your movement. My current understanding of this is that it means you can easily move 30 feet away from the caster, whether or not you succeed on the Wisdom save. Am I overlooking something here, or is this just an oversight in the RAW?
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Making their saving throw is what allows them to do it, per your bolded text. Restriction is the default state under the compelled duel, and in order to overcome the restriction, they have to make the saving throw.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Except there's nothing in the spell that actually says restriction is the default state. It's heavily implied, and everybody reads it that way, but there's nothing in the text of the spell that says a target is unable to move more than 30 feet away.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I wouldn’t even call it an oversight. The language used makes the intent clear. We all know how the spell works. That it isn’t as perfectly explicit as it could be doesn’t matter. If a player tries to say “my movement isn’t restricted” or a DM tries to say “my monster’s movement isn’t restricted” then they are literally playing the game incorrectly, insofar as a DM can be said to play the game incorrectly.
It’s always important to remember that 5e is not written to be absolutely explicit about everything. It’s not meant to played by a computer. This kind of legalistic close reading is invalid because it treats the text as something that it’s not. We have to approach the text on its own terms, and that means if the writing makes the intent clear, then the RAI is RAW, even if the writing could theoretically be more explicit.
This certainly does mean that occasionally we run into situations where multiple readings could be sensible and sound, but this really isn’t one of those situations.
Just because the RAI is clear on a subject does not mean that the RAW cannot be discussed. I know that no DM in their right mind would ever rule the way, but that wasn't the point of the thread. The point of the thread was me asking whether or not I had overlooked something. The point was also kinda to point out how seemingly nobody had noticed this, despite it being right there in clear daylight with barely any way to dispute it RAW.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
The obvious corollary to "if they pass a save, their movement is not restricted" is that failing a save restricts their movement. You can attempt to argue that in the absence of a clear statement such inference is not hard proof, but as this is not civil court that would be a blatantly bad faith argument, imo.
Thank you for your input. I would like to say again that I am not asking for RAI, as the RAI is pretty damn obvious. I'm not stupid.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I would also like to point out it says it in the description
On a failed save, the creature is drawn to you, compelled by your divine demand.
So if they failed the save they have to fight that person and in fact are compelled to do so. So why would that person think they should run away? It doesn't restrict there movment it just makes that person really want to fight that person that used that ability. Now would they run cause they are close to dying maybe, or another spell is trying to force them to run away then you would have the saving throw.
This spell tells less than it should. As written a target makes a Wisdom saving throw each time it attempts to move to a space that is more than 30 feet away from you;
Success: this spell doesn’t restrict the target’s movement for that turn.
Failure: ... (nothing written)
How i interpret this is that whenever the target attempt to move to a 5 feet square/space that is more than 30 feet away from you, it must make a Wisdom save to enter it.
I’m not understanding what you are trying to say. If the initial save is made. Nothing happens, a spell slot is wasted, and we move on. If the save is failed, the only way to move beyond 30 feet is to make a successful save. It doesn’t need to say you are restricted if you fail because the only way to move beyond 30 feet it is to make it. Note that making the save does not get rid of the disadvantage to attack anyone other than the caster.
It’s like saying “If you don’t close your door at night you cannot open it in the morning”. The second part, although kind of funny, isn’t required to be said.
As written the initial Wisdom saving throw upon being targeted by Compelled Duel has the following result;
Success: Nothing
Failure: the creature is drawn to you, compelled by your divine demand. For the duration, it has disadvantage on attack rolls against creatures other than you, and must make a Wisdom saving throw each time it attempts to move to a space that is more than 30 feet away from you
You've missed my point. My point is that, the way 5e is written, if RAI is clear then that is RAW. The goal of writing a rule is to effectively communicate its intent. If the intent has been communicated, the job's done. "But it doesn't technically say" is imposing upon the text a framework it was never intended to handle. The reason "nobody had noticed this" is that the text did its job effectively.
I agree with this. I also would like to offer my take on interpreting RAW, which is more or less what you just said. RAI and RAW are inherently in agreement, unless there is some other information like a tweet or a conflicting rule elsewhere that informs us that RAI is different from RAW. Just because it is possible to pick apart the way a rule is written does not mean the rule is no longer valid or even that it is poorly written. Rules are meant to be parsed, and that requires interpretation. If the only rules we accept are the ones with irrefutable checklists of properties, we aren't left with much of a game to play. Compelled duel is good enough. We know what it does and what it says it does is adequate to use it.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
RAW is specifically without regard to designer's intent.
That doesn't seem relevant to the current discussion. What TexasDevin and I are saying is that, when forced to stand on its own, the text makes its intent clear. We do not need a designer to come in and tell us what they meant. The text does that on its own.
Since you brought up SAC...
There you have it. If you don't make the save, you cannot move far away from the caster.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
This SAC evidently backs up the way the spell is intended to be ruled. Without it, the spell itself remains poorly written and what the OP brought up is that the spell doesn't write what happen on a saving throw failure that's all.
But it isn't poorly written, because we all know how it works, even without the SAC. What the OP brought up is that if we impose a flawed analytical framework upon the text, we can tease out unintended behavior.
I don't know if I would call it poorly written, but I do think it could use clarification in the 1D&D update. Just like I think many things could use clarification in the 1D&D updates including spells like Antilife Shell which I argue about in this thread too. I think Compelled Duel works as intended but clearer wording is always welcome whether some, like me, think so or not.