Inspired by the recent questions about overly strict implications of “spells do only what they say they do”: How can food created by a spell be destroyed? How can magical vines conjured by a spell be destroyed?

To my understanding it’s okay and even encouraged if a querent wants to limit the scope of their question. But when this limitation precludes every possible answer, how should we proceed?

Example: “how does this spell work in [edge case outside RAW]? I know the DM can just rule one way or the other, I’m not interested in that, I want a RAW answer I can take to any table.”

  • \$\begingroup\$ Do you have a link so the question you are talking about? I don't think this is something we can have a general policy for. Instead we need to handle them case by case. It also feels somewhat like a hypothetical question. \$\endgroup\$
    – linksassin Mod
    Jul 5 '19 at 0:28
  • \$\begingroup\$ @linksassin added to the question \$\endgroup\$ Jul 5 '19 at 0:31
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I'm confused how those questions are "limiting the scope of answers". Can you expand on what you mean? \$\endgroup\$
    – linksassin Mod
    Jul 5 '19 at 0:35
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I found this while going through the linked questions and it answers this pretty well, since the limits in question were strict RAW requests: How to answer a RAW question when the RAW are silent? \$\endgroup\$ Jul 5 '19 at 1:08
  • \$\begingroup\$ @linksassin Both questions come at the problem from an extremely RAW-centric perspective. Also the vines question specifically asks “I want RAW answers”, and the food question says in comments, “I know this situation is absurd but I’m asking about the rule interaction”. \$\endgroup\$ Jul 5 '19 at 1:16
  • \$\begingroup\$ @sevenbrokenbricks Does that RAW meta answer it well enough for this to be a duplicate? \$\endgroup\$
    – linksassin Mod
    Jul 5 '19 at 2:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ @linksassin it does, thank you! \$\endgroup\$ Jul 5 '19 at 3:05

Browse other questions tagged .