I'm especially bemused by the not-uncommon opinion that story ID questions (really the only sort of "real problem" question the site gets) shouldn't be on topic.
@BESW Huh. It always struck me as strange that it was still on topic, because Arqade banned them a while ago for being an impossibly bad question type. But now that you mention it, yeah, it's one of the few real problem questions that show up on SF&F.
@BESW STAR WARS IS FANTASY and I will cut anyone who disagrees *strikes a pose*
And this is why, I think, people get upset at having My Little Pony in the SF&F site: it's not that they're really so upset about MLP being considered fantasy, it's that they're being placed in the same category of consumer as the target audience for MLP.
@BESW I'm trying to come up with a similar topic in RPGs and failing. We have our divisive issues, but there's (rarely) any serious consideration that maybe the subject isn't even properly about RPGs...
The similarity of issue is that whenever we try to define RPGs, we can't come up with a blanket definition that fits everything commonly considered "RPG" that doesn't also include all manner of things commonly considered "not RPG."
Any definition of RPG that includes free-form play-by-post games will have a hard time not including all manner of things that we probably don't want to include.
@BESW It's true. But tribalism doesn't get much traction in defining RPG vs. not-RPG. That tribalism is there, but always within the "right" kind of RPGing. There's a lot of "but we know RPGs when we see them" mostly-agreement.
@Pureferret Yes. Unlike in publishing, where confusing genre-blurring is death for a book (they literally will not let you be confusing on the shelf), in RPGs it's a selling point.
@Pureferret I'm not saying it doesn't happen. Just that it's not a given, and in a group as diverse as the RPG community it's probably next to useless to make that sort of claim about the community's gestalt experience.
@Pureferret We're disinclined to exclude on the monkey-sphere scale (q.v. 5 Geek Fallacies), but on the supra-monkey-sphere scale we're as likely to exclude as any other tribal organisation.
@Pixie Claims about trends in the overall RPG community can often be supported, but never proven. The community is too nebulous for useful data about its entirety to be possible to collect.
@SevenSidedDie it seems to me and a few others that the Answer to the Question you quoted me and the interpretation is a bit flawed. I could be wrong however. I managed to find a Twitter post from someone of authority on the matter that offered clarity to what I'm about to attempt to explain
but for the life of me I can't find it -_-; so here goes
PHB pg 190: You can move a distance up to your speed. You can use as much or as little of your speed as you like on your turn, following the rules below. "Your movement can include jumping, swimming, climbing. These modes of movement can be combined with walking, or they can constitute your entire move.....
however you are moving, you deduct the distance of each part of your move from your speed until it is used up or until you are done moving."
so anytime you move, it is deducted from your current speed
according to the writing
farther is the Dash entry a few pages down
WHen you take the Dash action, you gain extra movement for the current turn. The increase equals your speed after applying any modifiers . any increase or decrease to your speed changes this additional movement by the same amount. If your speed is reduced to 15, you can move up to 30 feet this turn if you dash.
Your speed doesn't change, though. You deduct what you move from your speed to get how much farther you can move, rather than deducting what you move from your speed to get your speed (which wouldn't make sense)
what the Twitter post clarified was, this increase to speed takes effect the moment you use dash, minus any modifiers for movement or effects that half your speed, and adding any modifiers that grant you extra movement, like the spell "haste"
Heh, three party members pursued the raiders as they left after the champion battle and fired long range shots into clumps of egressing raiders. The ones that were hit weren't hit hard, but yelled "Owwww! Damn you! ..." which was followed by "... thunk hey bro, it wasn't me!!!"
Addendum to yesterday's musings on the apocalypse (would make a good name for a post collecting them!). Mechanics of AW don't just provide a rhythm of good and bad things happening to PCs. Rather, they provide a rhythm of narrative input being passed around. Succeed on a move and you say what happens. Get a mixed result, and you'll have to compromise. Fail, and GM will say what happens.
You pull out three, and choose which colour to put back.
Depending on the number left, your pilgrim helps people and/or gets in trouble. You narrate the helping, everyone else collaborates to narrate the trouble.
Hrm. Would really need to play this. Generally, I prefer games where you don't purposefully fail, even though failure is fun.
Fiasco is an exception here, as it's a game about monumental screw-ups, but I find players tend to disassociate from their characters when playing it. They are narrators guiding their hapless puppets towards their doom.
I love the stack! I'd been searching for the solution to a jQuery problem I had, couldn't find a solution. So, I started typing up a question on SO. It pops up with the suggested questions, and bingo, one of them is close enough to mine that I can solve my problem!
As the title suggests, I am wondering if there is a spread sheet, list, text, web site, wiki or whatever, that lists monster compatability?
When I populate a castle, dungeon, landscape etc - I want it all to make sense. The Monster Guide mentions it for some monsters (like the Orc) which says ...
**Cool RPG/SE stuff:** [Bundle of Holding](http://bundleofholding.com "buy RPGs cheap in bulk, support charities & indie designers!"); [ScaleModeling.SE](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/82797/scale-modeling "in the Definition stage"); [Pathfinder spellcards](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/748035782/spellcards-for-the-pathfinder-role-playing-game-2 "improved design and expanded spell list"); [Shadow of the Demon Lord](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/432417423/shadow-of-the-demon-lord "a dark pre-apocalyptic fantasy RPG").
...and now I'm considering if there's a practical way to make a cool physical spellbook game aid. Because cards sort of worked for 4e (though much better in an electronic form where you could put int correct numbers), but I don't see them as a good fit for 3e and the like.
Sounds good. I guess I'd go for a scrapbook approach, glue in formatted spell descriptions, have icons for stuff like components and whatnot. Add random occult images to taste. Make a small project out of it, an actual personal spellbook.
One of my players is attempting to write journal entries as session summaries, and I was wondering what date (approximate is fine), Hoard of the Dragon Queen begins.
I know from my research that the year is 1489 DR, however the approximate time of year and month are not given in the adventure an...
In a tweet from Jeremy Crawford, he says:
When a spell's description uses "enter" in relation to an AoE, the entering has to be voluntary only if the text says so.
So by RAW/RAI, Moonbeam will do damage when the beam is moved over a target.
In the continuation of that conversation, Jeremy ...
Yeah, I'm not sure this whole 'make the GM do way more work since we intentionally underspecify everything' is going to work out so good in the long run.
I've seen more than one 5e answer on the site that has basically said "There's no rule for that, but that's okay, because there are lots of things that the system doesn't have rules for."
As part of an early quest, my PCs are likely to face off against a wizard.
The problem here is that the stat block for Mage NPCs listed in the Basic Rules has a Challenge Rating of 6, while the PCs are going to be five Level 1s. So, instead of messing with the stat block and risk weakening it to...
> This project will not be published or distributed in any way that violates copyright laws. It's a personal project that will be delivered as a gift to those who help fund its creation. No profit is expected, and no infringement intended. If no other avenue is provided, in a worst-case scenario, it will be printed without system-specific rules and backers will be provided with digital packets of the "crunch" for printing.
Wow, someone is heading face-first into legal trouble.
Pro: they claim to already have the material in-hand, and it's just art and production to be done. Con: no evidence of experience in publishing/production or working with artists, a very short turnaround for all the art, and does not appear to be aware that boxed sets can be a killer both in making them happen and in shipping.
I cant get over the, if theres no profit theres no legal issue, idea that everyone seems to have
Furthermore though I understand wanting settings and adventures for 5e, I loved the availability of materials for 4e as a first time GM, but some of this stuff is either coming out of people with no prior experience as in this case or by publishers launching way to close to the actual release dates of all the books for me to assume any kind of system mastery on my part
The funding goal seems really low for what's to be done, too. My verdict is good intentions on a road to hell, though still with some chance of turning off that road.
@DuckTapeAl Wow, yeah. "We are dangerously clueless about a fundamental aspect of our project" is a bit of a red flag that a team might not have what it takes for the rest of the probject.
**Cool RPG/SE stuff:** [Bundle of Holding](http://bundleofholding.com "buy RPGs cheap in bulk, support charities & indie designers!"); [ScaleModeling.SE](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/82797/scale-modeling "in the Definition stage"); [Pathfinder spellcards](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/748035782/spellcards-for-the-pathfinder-role-playing-game-2 "improved design and expanded spell list"); [Shadow of the Demon Lord](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/432417423/shadow-of-the-demon-lord "a dark pre-apocalyptic fantasy RPG");
Aight. Currently in my age/rank division there is nobody that has participated in creative forms for the year. So, if I compete in our regional in creative forms, that would qualify me for districts. As the lone competitor, I would automatically win districts and that qualifies me for Worlds.
Now (To make it RPG related) as RAW that is perfectly fine. Is it a moral path to Worlds, or am I taking advantage of a quasi loophole?
To be fair, if nobody could enter because it's morally wrong that there are no other competitors, how are there ever going to be any other competitors to begin with?
Eh, the only reason I'm even questioning it at all, is because I can almost guarantee that I will be the only person at Districts, which automatically advances me into the World's group.
I think it's valuable to have thought about the issue carefully rather than dismissively, but I also think that in the end it's probably not going to be a moral impropriety.
[watching scifi episode about hallucinogenic space ticks] [Twitter feed blows up about opossums being super-efficient consumers of Lyme-carrying ticks]
("Hallucinogenic Space Ticks" would be a good name for a band. Or a tumblr account.)
(Except the tumblr account would have to spell "hallucinogenic" wrong.)
As the title suggests, I am wondering if there is a spread sheet, list, text, web site, wiki or whatever, that lists monster compatability?
When I populate a castle, dungeon, landscape etc - I want it all to make sense. The Monster Guide mentions it for some monsters (like the Orc) which says ...
In a tweet from Jeremy Crawford, he says:
When a spell's description uses "enter" in relation to an AoE, the entering has to be voluntary only if the text says so.
So by RAW/RAI, Moonbeam will do damage when the beam is moved over a target.
In the continuation of that conversation, Jeremy ...
