Great, this spell combo is an example created by someone outside of the setting without the ability to test. Locate Object give you a 1000ft range. If that’s also inaccurate to ±0.25ft, we now have an even more accurate measure. Would you say a 0.00025 error rate acceptable.
you moved a decimal, 0.0025, and 1/400 error per 1000ft is still pretty bad, considering you also need to factor in elevation, blocked line of sight etc.
It would also means less than a handful of measurements per day for even an adept mage.
But that’s not the point. The game mechanics are an abstraction to make the system playable. There is no reason to believe the distances in spell descriptions are set in stone, and don’t depend on caster, or ambient conditions, or a myriad of other factors. You could certainly research a purpose-built spell for mapping purposes, but we’re not aware of one at the moment.
This, exactly. We can get a sense of this from the old novels too; magic is not nearly as restrictive as it is in-game; those rules exist to simplify gameplay, not to turn combat, magic, travel and healing into math problems.
Heck, Long Resting is an excellent example of how things 100% do NOT work in “real” Faerun. We think someone who survives being tagged with dragon claws, burned in a breath weapon, and sent flying with a tail attack is healed and ready to go with a nice 8 hour nap? Nah…
Oh good catch, my math was wrong, and after I wrote this I realized that elevation would definitely increase the error rate too. However, my point was that mapmakers in the setting have way more resources than a medieval mapmakers had. While I don’t have perfect answers, I think it’s acceptable to assume those limitations in the setting aren’t correct. How would a 98% accurate map compare with a map from 1300?
The game mechanics are an abstraction to make the system playable
Agreed, but I’d also like to believe that the mechanics are reflective of the setting within an unknown degree. Locate Object could’ve easily used mechanics that added uncertainty, like 1000ft±2d10 or 1000ft+100ft/lvl, but didn’t, so I think it’d be appropriate to assume that that number is more consistent than something with a scaling factor.
There is no reason to believe the distances in spell descriptions are set in stone, and don’t depend on caster, or ambient conditions, or a myriad of other factors.
Why wouldn’t there be any flavor text somewhere that would say that? I know may other systems that promote that flexibility, but 5e doesn’t really, not beyond “DM ruling is final,” which applies to all games everywhere with a DM, regardless of what the rules say anywhere.
We don’t need flavor text. We know that the Realms have existed through multiple editions of the game; if spells were this consistent then they would operate consistently across the different rulesets. They do not, though.
Using Locate Object as an example:
2E Distance: 60 feet per level of spellcaster (so variable between 120 and 1200 feet for levels 2-20)
3E Distance: 400 feet plus 40 feet per level.
4E Distance: ???
5E Distance: Up to 1000 feet.
The spell itself is the same, but the gameplay limitations vary for the purposes of game balance. I sincerely doubt that a spell in-world changed; rather, we set limits to ensure balance in gameplay. We should be distinguishing between rules meant to balance play and in-world realities, here.
Oh, I see where you’re coming from! I had not considered you were assuming that all systems were reflecting a single setting; I had been coming from the opposite perspective: each system has its own version of the Realms, which all are distinct to their system, which is why all of their lore is varying. However if you’re assuming the world is the same, you’re absolutely correct.
I do. There are, of course, as many Realms as there are campaigns in the multiverse, but I do assume that most of the geography and core lore is consistent across most of them.
Yeah, I do believe that the mechanics of their world are reflected in the game mechanics.
It could be 120ft±2.5ft without changing anything about game mechanics, but introduces at least 2% error already.
Great, this spell combo is an example created by someone outside of the setting without the ability to test. Locate Object give you a 1000ft range. If that’s also inaccurate to ±0.25ft, we now have an even more accurate measure. Would you say a 0.00025 error rate acceptable.
you moved a decimal, 0.0025, and 1/400 error per 1000ft is still pretty bad, considering you also need to factor in elevation, blocked line of sight etc.
It would also means less than a handful of measurements per day for even an adept mage.
But that’s not the point. The game mechanics are an abstraction to make the system playable. There is no reason to believe the distances in spell descriptions are set in stone, and don’t depend on caster, or ambient conditions, or a myriad of other factors. You could certainly research a purpose-built spell for mapping purposes, but we’re not aware of one at the moment.
This, exactly. We can get a sense of this from the old novels too; magic is not nearly as restrictive as it is in-game; those rules exist to simplify gameplay, not to turn combat, magic, travel and healing into math problems.
Heck, Long Resting is an excellent example of how things 100% do NOT work in “real” Faerun. We think someone who survives being tagged with dragon claws, burned in a breath weapon, and sent flying with a tail attack is healed and ready to go with a nice 8 hour nap? Nah…
Oh good catch, my math was wrong, and after I wrote this I realized that elevation would definitely increase the error rate too. However, my point was that mapmakers in the setting have way more resources than a medieval mapmakers had. While I don’t have perfect answers, I think it’s acceptable to assume those limitations in the setting aren’t correct. How would a 98% accurate map compare with a map from 1300?
Agreed, but I’d also like to believe that the mechanics are reflective of the setting within an unknown degree. Locate Object could’ve easily used mechanics that added uncertainty, like 1000ft±2d10 or 1000ft+100ft/lvl, but didn’t, so I think it’d be appropriate to assume that that number is more consistent than something with a scaling factor.
Why wouldn’t there be any flavor text somewhere that would say that? I know may other systems that promote that flexibility, but 5e doesn’t really, not beyond “DM ruling is final,” which applies to all games everywhere with a DM, regardless of what the rules say anywhere.
We don’t need flavor text. We know that the Realms have existed through multiple editions of the game; if spells were this consistent then they would operate consistently across the different rulesets. They do not, though.
Using Locate Object as an example:
2E Distance: 60 feet per level of spellcaster (so variable between 120 and 1200 feet for levels 2-20)
3E Distance: 400 feet plus 40 feet per level.
4E Distance: ???
5E Distance: Up to 1000 feet.
The spell itself is the same, but the gameplay limitations vary for the purposes of game balance. I sincerely doubt that a spell in-world changed; rather, we set limits to ensure balance in gameplay. We should be distinguishing between rules meant to balance play and in-world realities, here.
Oh, I see where you’re coming from! I had not considered you were assuming that all systems were reflecting a single setting; I had been coming from the opposite perspective: each system has its own version of the Realms, which all are distinct to their system, which is why all of their lore is varying. However if you’re assuming the world is the same, you’re absolutely correct.
I do. There are, of course, as many Realms as there are campaigns in the multiverse, but I do assume that most of the geography and core lore is consistent across most of them.