DND canon and resistances

[The_Smashor]

Should we separate characters from Dungeons and Dragons into how they are in each edition? I'm not entirely sure that our current DND profiles are allowed due to our rules for composite characters. For example, 1st edition and 5th edition Strahd von Zarovich are completely different. This espesially applies to spellcasters (Such as the aforementioned vampire). For example, 3.5e Cloudkill automatically kills weaker creatures, while 5e Cloudkill merely deals poison damage.

Also, the resistances of DND characters are shaky at best (At least in 5th edition, the one I play). It seems incredibly unlikely that even commoners and regular animals can resist spells from high level casters with a high d20 roll. It seems far more likely that these are limitations of the spells themselves, rather than a strength of DND's creatures. Now, if there's a direct statement that says creatures resist the spells, it would be acceptable, but otherwise we should assume that saving throws are the spells failing, rather than creatures resisting. And if we separated the editions into keys, each key would need a separate statement.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

We should, in fact, absolutely not do any of that at all, no. They aren't composite characters, to suggest them as such is to show a fairly fundamental misunderstanding of D&D as a verse. It is a composite in that it includes all of their showings. Nothing more, nothing less. This would effectively be like suggesting Spiderman get a new page for each comic book appearance he has.

Each edition is, put into the most basic of terms, a game placed around its core stories and the concept of personal story creation, yes? The story isn't really changing to some new incarnations or anything with new editions. The story continues. Events that transpired in 2nd edition still have their repercussions in 5th (see: Bhaalspawn and Baldur's Gate). So frankly, you could not do any worse action to the pages than say "right, the game changed its mechanics a bit, yer gonna get six different pages now, goodie for you".

Regarding resistances: I don't know how you can even really speak on this, tbh. The resistances are all cited, but none from 5e. Thus none of your expertise, however expansive it may be, can really even touch on the contents of the ability page. With that said, I admit I have been lax in adding more- there's only really a single book and some sparse spatterings from other content included at the moment.

"It seems far more likely that these are limitations of the spells themselves, rather than a strength of DND's creatures. Now, if there's a direct statement that says creatures resist the spells, it would be acceptable, but otherwise we should assume that saving throws are the spells failing, rather than creatures resisting"

Yeah I dunno what to tell you about this, you have Constitution, you resist, seems like resistances to me.

Basically, from the point of view I currently have, which I'd like to think is fairly comprehensive and knowledgeable, I disagree with every single idea presented here. Thank you.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

And to cover your Strahd comment: No. They are not. They are the same character. You're looking at it purely in the scope of a VSBW user and not someone looking at the verse. Their powers? Sure. Fairly different and varying. The character itself? Nosir, that is the same damn man represented differently under different mechanics.

 

[Antoniofer]

Character resists based in their characteristics and innate resistances, so I wouldn't consider spells having a failing rate as you suggests; now, that a common human have, lets say, 30% chance of not being affected by an spell it then would be considered "weak" going by our standards, as hax is simply impossible to be resisted without feats.

As for to what edition stick to, I would suggest 3.5e, as its seems more expanded and cover more possibilities, a difference from 5e that is quite simplified (I haven't read 4r tho, so don't known about this one); this is however, a personal recommendation. As edition changes, different powers may be made to represent some quality of a creature, in one edition one may use magic, but in other is changed to supernatural power, spell-like ability or a psionic power; powers that are the same may be represented different in different editions, only for game purposes.

 

[The_Smashor]

Same character represented under different mechanics, huh? Well those different mechanics also drastically change how powerful the character is. Going back to Strahd, there's no such thing as level draining in 5e. Limited Wish outright doesn't exist. Distance Distortion, Mind Fog, Waves of Fatigue, Fell draining Lighting Bolt, Death Spell, Rain of Terror, none of these even exist. Strahd from earlier editions is one of the strongest (non-smurf) Low 7-B characters on the website. 5e Strahd, while still powerful, isn't so to nearly the same extent.

While Strahd's story isn't different in editions, his power is, meaning each edition fundamentally has a different Strahd. Also, while Strahd in particular has minimal if any story differences between editions, other characters (Such as Asmodeus) have a different backstory in every edition. Asmodeus is probably a bad example since he has a Joker-esque choose your own adventure backstory, but you get it. The editions are different enough in terms of hax and power to warrant their own profile, and would fall under our first rule for alternate canons (None of the editions are more canon than other editions). I personally think having separate profiles for the most notable characters in 3.5e and 5e wouldn't be a bad idea, since a lot of people were introduced to DND through 5e. 3.5e is the most popular edition aside from 5e and I don't think any other editions are different enough from those two to warrant their own profile (4e might be but apparently we don't like that here).

Some resistances are gotten from simple Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma. These are things that any character can have, and isn't limited to the likes of Dungeons and Dragons, and also are the saving throws that mainly matter in terms of hax (IDK what to call Constitution outside of DND so I'm going to ignore it for now). Not including proficiency in saving throws, which probably could be considered inherit resistance; Intelligent, Wise or Charismatic characters should be able to resist the effects of spells that require those saving throws. This obviously would need to be decided in the thread if a character is notable enough in these stats to have a mentionable resistance, but still.

Also, just a side note, Legendary Resistances are considered probability manipulation. Why? If resistances aren't just rolling high on a metaphysical D20 then why are Legendary Resistances probability manipulation?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Except they don't. Not in terms of actual in-universe strength. Strahd has always been Low 7-B. The only things that really have changed are what spells he has going for him. Which is exactly what you're arguing here. Which can be changed. In-universe. Your Strahd point simply doesn't work, and I suspect that's a problem given he is one of the greatest sufferers from edition to edition changes. Beholders, for example, have consistently remained roughly the same forever. Most things do, and I don't understand why you're trying to present it like every edition every character is essentially entirely new when this isn't the case.

No. See above. Regarding Asmodeus, this is actually intentional, something each edition tends to take note of. Asmodeus is a liar. His old stories are generally treated as further rumors made by Asmo himself. So, again, hard disagree.

Dude, they aren't different canons lol. It's all one story. Stop trying to say that it isn't, they're all equally as canon because they're all the same thing that runs differently as a game. I have to fundamentally disagree with your idea that each edition needs to have a different page because Strahd prepared different spells and his capacity to use them rose and fell with the passage of time.

First of all, we don't use Int or Cha saves. Second of all, Cha saves would absolutely be valid, given that some of them are multiversal BFR. Third of all, you clearly, clearly have only knowledge on 5th Edition since Int and Cha saves solely exist there. Fourth of all, tell me what, exactly, prevents something to be resistance if it comes from mental capabilities? Where in the resistance page is the clause that says, "if you do this through willpower, you aren't resisting, clearly, clearly it is a weakness of the ability to be resisted even though it relies on your innate abilities to resist". I'm curious. Because this reeks, homie. Every character having them means absolutely nothing in terms of what we classify them as. I'd like to also point out proficiency is also exclusively a 5e concept that you are hamfistedly applying to all of the verse. 40-45 years of stuff.

Solely because their entire existence is reliant on chance. I suppose you could classify it as something else but really and truly this feels like a side-tracking nitpick compared to the entire thread of things the D&D community on here has heard repeatedly.

Now, I'd like to say, outright, I appreciate effort being put into D&D. However this path is a destructive one at best that leads to blindly changing pages for no good in-canon reason, and solely saying "well 5e had him different than 1e sooooo". It doesn't really matter. The story evolves, the characters remain the same characters. There is not, in my genuine opinion, any valid reason to separate them based on anything other than arbitrarily creating rules to do so on VSBW (our current rules for decompositing do not apply to the characters, as they are not composites any more than Kratos is a composite).

 

[Tllmbrg]

Same character represented under different mechanics, huh? Well those different mechanics also drastically change how powerful the character is. Going back to Strahd, there's no such thing as level draining in 5e. Limited Wish outright doesn't exist. Distance Distortion, Mind Fog, Waves of Fatigue, Fell draining Lighting Bolt, Death Spell, Rain of Terror, none of these even exist. Strahd from earlier editions is one of the strongest (non-smurf) Low 7-B characters on the website. 5e Strahd, while still powerful, isn't so to nearly the same extent.

While Strahd's story isn't different in editions, his power is, meaning each edition fundamentally has a different Strahd.

No, if the story is the same for him but the only difference is what spells he has that doesn't make him a fundamentally different character.
All this means that the game changed over the years, plus the editions are suppose to be one timeline from what I understand and there're in canon events that can explain spell changes like the Spell Plague and so on iirc (I do remember at the very least it's a cited reason for cosmology change)

Also, while Strahd in particular has minimal if any story differences between editions, other characters (Such as Asmodeus) have a different backstory in every edition. Asmodeus is probably a bad example since he has a Joker-esque choose your own adventure backstory, but you get it.

No, why you're using an example you admit is faulty?
Please get a better one

The editions are different enough in terms of hax and power to warrant their own profile, and would fall under our first rule for alternate canons (None of the editions are more canon than other editions).

No because they're canon to each other, plus what are even those differences you speak about?
What because some spells aren't a thing and others have a different name we need new Keys?

Some resistances are gotten from simple Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma. These are things that any character can have, and isn't limited to the likes of Dungeons and Dragons, and also are the saving throws that mainly matter in terms of hax (IDK what to call Constitution outside of DND so I'm going to ignore it for now). Not including proficiency in saving throws, which probably could be considered inherit resistance; Intelligent, Wise or Charismatic characters should be able to resist the effects of spells that require those saving throws. This obviously would need to be decided in the thread if a character is notable enough in these stats to have a mentionable resistance, but still.

Or bare with me, those are abilities that effect you mind or are related to your mind so you can resist them with enough mental powers
And what Bambu said above about that

Also, just a side note, Legendary Resistances are considered probability manipulation. Why? If resistances aren't just rolling high on a metaphysical D20 then why are Legendary Resistances probability manipulation?

Because they change outcomes of your attempts to resist it

I personally think having separate profiles for the most notable characters in 3.5e and 5e wouldn't be a bad idea, since a lot of people were introduced to DND through 5e. 3.5e is the most popular edition aside from 5e and I don't think any other editions are different enough from those two to warrant their own profile (4e might be but apparently we don't like that here).

Not important to the debate but a bit arrogant don't you think?
I feel like saying that the version that came only 6 years ago is the one that introduced most people to the game is misleading with a game that exists for over 40 years

 

[The_Smashor]

Perhaps, but it is true. 5e did kinda put DND into the mainstream with things like Critical Roll.

Also if spells have canonically changed over time doesn't that mean there should be keys for before and after spell changes?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Perhaps, but it is true. 5e did kinda put DND into the mainstream with things like Critical Roll.

This, while true to an extent, has literally no bearing on how we interpret characters. I appreciate, again, that you seem to be enjoying 5e. But you having played 5e doesn't make 5e the sole thing for us to consider, on some level you have to understand that.

 

[The_Smashor]

I know it isn't the only thing we should consider, and it isn't what I was considering. It was a response to Tllmbrg. I mainly am suggesting keys or separate profiles due to how different 5e is from other editions in terms of how spells work, and I think it would be worth doing more so than something like 4e due to the fact 5e is what a lot of people are used to.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Well, the only question would be how the mechanics of magic are viewed. I recall some, 3.5 I think?, describing Time Stop like simply accelerating time for the person themselves immensely.

So, which spell descriptions do we stick with?

Also, I realized way too late that in that one thread you (Bambu) claimed that Strahd preparing a reaction would let him use an ability despite the enemy being ten billion times faster, and that is absolutely game mechanics. Not relevant here, but I felt dumb for not realizes what you meant on thread.

 

[Tllmbrg]

I know it isn't the only thing we should consider, and it isn't what I was considering. It was a response to Tllmbrg. I mainly am suggesting keys or separate profiles due to how different 5e is from other editions in terms of how spells work, and I think it would be worth doing more so than something like 4e due to the fact 5e is what a lot of people are used to.

So your reasoning for a 5e Key is because they changed some stuff and because people played that?
Okay pretty sure more people overall played the older editions and it's not like people have stopped, plus why'd we do it?
Just cuz people are familiar with it more doesn't make it deserving of its own Key

 

[The_Smashor]

It also has big differences. Even something as small as a Beholder's disintegration ray doing massive damage rather than being an instant kill greatly changes a versus thread.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Well, the only question would be how the mechanics of magic are viewed. I recall some, 3.5 I think?, describing Time Stop like simply accelerating time for the person themselves immensely.

So, which spell descriptions do we stick with?

Last time this cropped up with Troll regeneration rates we compared every edition and took the most consistent usage or the most modern consistent usage.

 

[Qawsedf234]

I mainly am suggesting keys or separate profiles due to how different 5e is from other editions in terms of how spells work, and I think it would be worth doing more so than something like 4e due to the fact 5e is what a lot of people are used to.

Historically we've on separated profiles if there's massive edition contradictions or retcons. Like with the Raven Queen from 4e to 5e.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Well, the only question would be how the mechanics of magic are viewed. I recall some, 3.5 I think?, describing Time Stop like simply accelerating time for the person themselves immensely.

So, which spell descriptions do we stick with?

Also, I realized way too late that in that one thread you (Bambu) claimed that Strahd preparing a reaction would let him use an ability despite the enemy being ten billion times faster, and that is absolutely game mechanics. Not relevant here, but I felt dumb for not realizes what you meant on thread.

Frankly, the spells change with each edition. If a 3.5 character has it, its Speed Amp. If a 5e character has it, its Time Stop. We label it what it is rather than generalize in that scenario.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Historically we've on separated profiles if there's massive edition contradictions or retcons. Like with the Raven Queen from 4e to 5e.

To compound on this, 4e is laughably outlierish and we have only sparingly used it as a result (recently I've only used it when it isn't just stupidly inconsistent) so most profiles fail to reflect 4e.

 

[Qawsedf234]

4e is mostly weird due to the rather hilarious lore ability blurbs that give everyone resistances more than anything else.

But in this case separating Strahd's spells or something doesn't seem like a giant task to undertake.

 

[Tllmbrg]

Hey never forget how 4e can also completely change lore of creatures like with Phase Spiders who for some reason are now native to the Feywilds and just TP instead of shifting in and out of the Ethereal Plane

 

[Dragonstitch]

Historically we've on separated profiles if there's massive edition contradictions or retcons. Like with the Raven Queen from 4e to 5e.

Even then for example the raven queen 5e did retcon her at first but then retconned her back to what she was in 4e.

But overall I do agree 4e should be used sparingly as a lot of the powers, and changes to lore are written for how things are in Nentir Vale.

 

[Dragonstitch]

Hey never forget how 4e can also completely change lore of creatures like with Phase Spiders who for some reason are now native to the Feywilds and just TP instead of shifting in and out of the Ethereal Plane

Well for that it is likely do to the fact that the Ethereal Plane is not a thing in 4e. as 4e uses the World Axis cosmology, over the Great Wheel cosmology, and even in other settings things like the Spellplague is basically used as the excuse for why that change happened.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Yeah, the Spell Plague caused a wide variety of in-universe retcons. Like with Vecna's breaking of the multiverse and the LoP attempt to fix it.