"rulings not rules"
D&D 5E Spells, Targetting, and Glass Windows
- Thread starter Voadam
- Start date
Except that 5e does not ignore similar details. It simply moves them from general rules to individual exceptions. Case in point: Sacred Flame. The spell description says the target does not benefit to cover bonuses to their saving throw, so Crawford said it can affect targets behind a closed window.
Like you, I prefer systems with clear and encompassing general rules, but I get it that as long as exceptions are few, a 5e approach makes learning the game a more gradual experience.
While I agree with the bolded part, I feel that in the context of that section it is clear that they are actually talking about cover, not concealment. The previous two paragraphs describe half-cover and three-quarter cover clearly in terms of the portion of the target body that is blocked by an intervening obstacle.
That section would have been probably clearer if they just said something like "A target benefits from half-cover, three-quarter cover, or total cover if an obstacle blocks at least 50%, 75% or 100% of their body, respectively", but maybe they felt that read as too dry and they wanted a different style for 5e?
GrimCo
Adventurer
As always in 5e, rulings over rules.
In my games, i differentiate between cover and concealment (blame it on few years spent in mechanized infantry), with cover divided into soft cover (bonus to AC) and hard cover (cant get trough it). Regular, clear glass is at best soft cover. Depending on what magic you try to use, I would rule it from - works without problems (Misty step), target gets +1 AC ( spells that target AC), glass is point of impact (for spells like fireball that have radius around impact point), for Magic missile, first one brakes glass, others hit as normal. That's more or less rule of thumb, but it mostly goes case by case basis.
In my games, i differentiate between cover and concealment (blame it on few years spent in mechanized infantry), with cover divided into soft cover (bonus to AC) and hard cover (cant get trough it). Regular, clear glass is at best soft cover. Depending on what magic you try to use, I would rule it from - works without problems (Misty step), target gets +1 AC ( spells that target AC), glass is point of impact (for spells like fireball that have radius around impact point), for Magic missile, first one brakes glass, others hit as normal. That's more or less rule of thumb, but it mostly goes case by case basis.
Hriston
Dungeon Master of Middle-earth (He/him)
Or maybe the use of the word concealed was intentional which would explain why no erratum has been issued to change the text according to your preference, which could have easily been accomplished by substituting a word with a different meaning.
It's not my preference, it's Crawford's:
He goes into more details in this podcast:
Jeremy Crawford has never stated that his Sage Advise articles, podcasts or tweets were errata or rules. They are his interpretation and I argue that it retrospect, he probably shouldn’t have been attempting those kinds of rules clarifications in an unofficial manner.It's not my preference, it's Crawford's:
View attachment 372837
He goes into more details in this podcast:
Hriston
Dungeon Master of Middle-earth (He/him)
With all due respect to Jeremy Crawford, his rulings aren't the greatest. A pane of glass won't stop an arrow or a sword blow, so it is neither an "obstacle" on the order of the examples given (i.e. walls, trees, creatures) in the rules for cover, nor does it offer concealment.It's not my preference, it's Crawford's:
View attachment 372837
He goes into more details in this podcast:
Hriston
Dungeon Master of Middle-earth (He/him)
I appreciated the tweets he made early on to clarify RAI when the published rules fell short of that, but once the errata were published, he switched to giving RAW interpretations only which I have found lacking to say the least.
Man I wish people would stop repeating "rulings not rules" as if it were an excuse for the 1000 page ruleset to have failed to account for some basic stuff.
"Rulings not rules" is totally acceptable for your slim, concise game meant to empower the GM to tell a story at the players.
"Rulings not rules" is totally acceptable for your slim, concise game meant to empower the GM to tell a story at the players.
Agreed, but at the same time I think that the opinion of the person who is in charge of the rules and was specifically the lead on the PHB where these rules are found, should inform the discussion on unclear parts of the rules.
In my original reply to @Hriston I mentioned that while I agree with them that RAW total cover requires concealment, in my opinion that was not RAI, which lead to referring back to Crawford. Regardless of whether I agree or not with his rulings etc., I usually find the explanation for such rulings interesting.
It's not an excuse. But it is the reason why the rules don't provide the level of clarity you were looking for.
I understand it was a rhetorical question, mine was a rhetorical answer, sorry if it wasn't clear
We are stuck with the self-help version of D&D: "The TTRPG rules you were looking for were inside you all along!".
I don't like it. I know I can make up all the rules, but the reason I buy a rule book is exactly because I don't want to. I want a robust core that mostly stands on its own, with end-user input required mostly for corner cases.
To me 5e falls short of that, but I've made my peace with it. At least on a good day.
