« first day (2993 days earlier)      last day (2012 days later) » 

4:00 PM
It's better to understand and argue about rules oneself than blindly go with JC
@kviiri Where do they say there is a difference?
So I'm trying to write up a question about RAW and JC
@kviiri Or just use JC for RAI. But that's just like his opinion, man.
Because I think it is about time we have one (and yes I am aware of the official rules Q&A)
@Rubiksmoose DUPLICATE
4:01 PM
@NautArch lol
It'll definitely help feed the answer to the official rules Q&A, but hsould be it's own.
gonna be a high voted question, earn yo rep.
@kviiri ..and they removed that language the next year
@NautArch Rats. They should have an always up-to-date version somewhere
@kviiri doesn't mean they aren't saying it still, but sheesh.
4:04 PM
@NautArch But actually, that says pretty much what the first one says. SA is official, JC's Twitter can be official but is not said to always be.
In fact, "these are the official rulings of Jeremy Crawford" (emphasis mine) suggests some exclusivity to the SA.
(I'll be offline for a while)
@kviiri So that leaves it to speculation about which tweets are official and which aren't?
@kviiri Except for the last bit of " One exception: the game’s lead rules developer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter), can make official rulings and does so in this document and on Twitter"
All his tweets are considered official rulings per that phrase, no?
there's no "sometimes on twitter"
@NautArch No --- it says he can make official rulings on Twitter, just like the Pope can speak Ex Cathedra.
@kviiri ugh, so it's even less clear if we read it like that.
although doe the pope differentiate when he's speaking Ex Cathedra or not?
@NautArch Ultimately that's for the better --- maybe the general incomprehensibility of the system might drive more people towards the "open discussion" model of rules resolution :)
@NautArch I think he does, although a Catholic stacker might be more qualified to answer than myself
4:08 PM
Thoughts on the question:
Jeremy Crawford is the Lead Rules Designer for D&D5e and is empowered to make "official" rulings which he does via Twitter and the Sage Advice Compendium (and to a lesser degree via the Dragon Talk podcast). However, there seems to be some confusion over how his rulings fit into rules analysis. Specifically, there seems to be confusion on if and/or to what extent his rulings qualify as rules as written.

Are Jeremy Crawford's rulings via Twitter and Sage Advice Compendium considered to be rules as written (RAW)? Or do they fit in some other way (Rules as Intended perhaps)?
Although now I must be going tor a while. Don't hesitate to ping me :)
@kviiri although whether the ruling is official or not doens't change the fact that it's just ruling and not the rules.
arg nvm I think I did find the place where it has been asked before.
@Rubiksmoose linky?
Q: Why do Crawford's tweets seem to be treated on par with the actual rules?

the dark wandererI keep running into quoted tweets from this 'Jeremy Crawford' guy in 5e answers. My understanding is he's sort of in charge of the edition, like James Jacobs with Pathfinder. It makes sense that his opinion has a lot of weight, but people seem to take his tweets as sacrosanct-- using them to de...

4:15 PM
@Rubiksmoose @nitsua60 It looks like Nits' answer is answering the question of what's "official", but that's different than RAW.
But the question is about what's official, and JC's statement are official. But that's not what we're really discussing now.
@NautArch ARe we reading the same Q&A? Nits does not answer this one.
I believe you are talking about his official rules Q&A
@Rubiksmoose works for me. thanks for the layup/
@Rubiksmoose Yes, this one:
Q: Where do I find the "official" rules for D&D 5e?

nitsua60I play D&D 5e and sometimes come here with questions. But sometimes I see things referenced here as sources that I don't have or aren't aware of.... Which are the "official rules" for D&D 5e, and where do I find them?

In terms of how to incorporate the former with the latter.
@NautArch but the former seems to be a dupe of the question I was formulating.
@Rubiksmoose I think JC's less valued as a source of good 5e information now than he was a year ago
4:20 PM
@kviiri I would certainly agree with that.
Might be just the chat but I dare say he's a bit out of fashion
@Rubiksmoose yeah, i'd agree with that. Just agreeing that it is a dupe, but then how to itnegrate it into the next question to help direct folks on how to answer could be looked at again.
Then there is this amazing answer about RAW:
Q: What RPG concepts does "rules as written" encompass?

fectinThe term "rules as written" (or RAW) gets thrown about fairly often in RPG circles, especially around D&D. But what does it actually mean? Is RAW an analysis technique? A playstyle? An entire parallel game system? What key aspects or attributes would allow one to recognize something as RAW or ...

oh boy! another feat balance question!
argh, that simulacrum question's moving goalposts. The original question and subsequent answers utilized Wish as the mechanic.
4:24 PM
@NautArch But all the answers are aon board already? And at least one of the answers didn't include wish at all.
fwiw that last edit was just a tag edit.
@Rubiksmoose Right, which just makes it weirder. I'm not sure it ultimately matters, it's just weird to see it go in and out after answers are provided because it could have made a difference.
And we typically don't change Q assumptions after answers are in.
or even change them at all and if something is wrong or doesn't need to be there, then it's addressed in the answers.
@NautArch It would have made a difference! The problem was that I would have closed it as too broad or dupe it if it was left in original state.
The original question was intended to ask about either MC or wish.
@Rubiksmoose Where do you see that? I only see that in the original that they thought wish was the only way to do it.
@NautArch They listed wish as an example of a way to do it.
I don't think they ever said it was the only way did they?
@Rubiksmoose which could mean that it was one of many options or that it was the one they thought about, or the one they thoughtw as the only. It's unknown, but changing it after answers are in seems like somethingw e don't do. I think it's meta-worthy.
4:28 PM
ugh. I have a meeting so I can't answer that homebrew question at this second. no one steal my thoughts!
@NautArch Go for it. I think it was either close or edit and edit was the correct choice.
@goodguy5 As if! Actually.. as ithillid.
4:41 PM
Q: Should we have edited a question to clarify the case to be considered after answers have been submitted?

NautArchIn this question on whether a Sorcerer can twin cast Simulacrum, the querent had originally included the following line: Usually a Sorcerer does not have access to the Simulacrum spell, but he could use Wish to cast it. Before any further edits, answers were submitted but none considered th...

4:59 PM
@KorvinStarmast what do you mean that the simulacrum question is now two questions? The question always contained the two questions at the end.
@Rubiksmoose Did someone post the question using twinned metamagic?
Q: Can a Wizard/Sorcerer cast Twinned Simulacrum?

Alex MilletteConsider a Wizard 13/Sorcerer 7 multiclass, who happens to have the Twinned Spell metamagic option: Twinned Spell When you Cast a Spell that Targets only one creature and doesn’t have a range of self, you can spend a number of sorcery points equal to the spell’s level to target a second ...

5:14 PM
I'm always intrigued by the Homebrew questions that at first seem really overpowered, but then on closer examination, turn out to be pretty lame. Mainly because they tend to illuminate often-overlooked design decisions that you don't always think about.
Namely: throwing your greataxe at the enemy is a lot less powerful in the situation where you don't have an endless supply of greataxes to just keep chucking.
@Xirema although a strong character could conceivably carry a huge amount of them because volume isn't really a limiting factor RAW.
@Xirema Seems like a very niche trick.
and answer posted. now time for lunch
I love home brew feats
@NautArch 6 lbs seems pretty heavy for a single piece of ammo at that point.
5:17 PM
@NautArch Even so, you end up making 1.5 attacks per round, since you're giving up an attack every-other-round to gain +3 on the attacks that hit.
@NautArch you're a doll
The math is pretty unfavorable.
I guess you could design a quiver to auto-feed the axes into your hands....
@Xirema ah, good point on the drawing weapon issue.
Is that subject to the rule on recovering 50% of ammo?
@SirCinnamon Are thrown weapons ammo?
5:20 PM
@ColinGross I don't think so
@SirCinnamon i think you can recover your axex/spears/javelins at will as long as their around to recover.
@NautArch I sure hope so. I bought a pack of +1 Javelins specifically on the premise that they would stick around to be rethrown after I went around picking them up after the battle.
Q: Can I move to retrieve thrown weapons (Spears/Javelins) in combat?

user27949I have a simple questions about throwing weapons specifically Javelins/Spears in DnD 5e. If I throw my Javelin at a enemy (regardless if it hits or miss and barring it falls off a cliff or something), can I still move in to retrieve it in combat? If I do, what action does that take up? Also if I ...

@NautArch That seems to implicitly assume there is no breakage.
@ColinGross yup
5:31 PM
Javelins are simple melee weapons. Darts are simple ranged weapons. So they don't follow the ammunition recover rules like crossbow bolts.
Are there optional rules for breaking weapons? Is that targeting objects?
@ColinGross yeah, and that's likely a path you don't want to go down.
but if you and your table are up for it, then by all means :)
@NautArch Just what's printed on the pages of SAC. Also, Adventure League does not find his rulings to be binding. Something to think about.
The one time you break the enemies weapon=cool. If enemies target your equipment and break it constantly...definitely risk of Not Fun.
@KorvinStarmast ooooh
that's interesting that AL doesn't treat them as a trusted ruling.
@NautArch I think I've seen some posts about doing that here. There was stuff in 3.5 for it, but like everything, it was overly computational.
@NautArch Maybe it's not a trust issue, but an access and information aggregation issue.
@Rubiksmoose no, it did not, in the version that I answered. I was in rather quickly before it got revised and revised again.
5:41 PM
There isn't a single easy to read source of them.
And it is two questions, both of them good.
@KorvinStarmast There's nothing in the revision history about it though.
@Rubiksmoose That bold was not in the text when I answered it. He may have added it while I was answering.
1- Can a Sorcerer use Twinned Spell to create 2 duplicates of himself (or someone else)? One good question and 2- Can a Sorcerer use Twinned Spell to create 1 duplicate for 2 different targets at the same time? second good question.
if you edit right away sometimes it is not tracked. Not sure what the time lag is.
@KorvinStarmast Interesting. I believe you. I know that edits are invisible within a certain amount of time and barring any activity on the question.
@Rubiksmoose I have tripped over it a few times utterly by accident.
5:45 PM
@KorvinStarmast I think it is a moot point, but I do think those are the same question honestly. at the cery least all the questions have answered them both with little effort.
But I can see where you would think that as well.
@Rubiksmoose Friends can agree to disagree. :) I disagree.
Indeed indeed.
According to your answer the answers would be the same though correct?
You're both wrong. There is no question. There is no spoon.
Because you cannot Twin it?
@Rubiksmoose I am hoping for some good answers on the Mirror Image / Invoke Duplicity thing, as we were scratching our heads the other day.
@NautArch Well, yeah, there is that.
@Rubiksmoose I am still trying to decide how I'd rule it, as I am not sure what is being touched; so I really don't want to dwell on it.
5:48 PM
@KorvinStarmast Fair enough! :)
@KorvinStarmast Yeah, the touch target is where I"m stuck. But the argument of 'within range' is compelling that they are touching a creature to be simulacrumed and not the form.
@KorvinStarmast that is a tough one
@NautArch I find this compelling as well.
I can't see how you would touch something you hadn't created yet.
@Rubiksmoose well, you have created the form. That's part of the material component...
is there a spell where the material component is the target?
and nto just a component?
@NautArch by components do you mean a component pouch and powdered ruby? :P
I'm assuming that would work here.
@KorvinStarmast Well, we can narrow some things out. Does the spell have a material component of one white or sequined glove? Does it have a high pitched vocal component of "teeee heeeee!" ? If not, we can at least rule out one touching target.
6:00 PM
@NautArch anyways it isn't a creature you that can't be waht you touch right?
Regardless, confusingly written.
@ColinGross Now that was naughty. sickly grin
@Rubiksmoose argh. The "snow or ice in quantities sufficient to made a life-size copy of the duplicated creature; some hair, fingernail clippings, or other piece of that creature's body placed inside the snow or ice;" seems pretty integral, but RAW not needed if you have a focus. Well done, wizards.
@NautArch create object? or fabricate or whatever it is in 5e?
@NautArch Hmm, I figured that the snow and ice is required or there isn't any material for the simulacrum. Are you saying that "only the ruby is consumed?" And thus, no snow or iced is needed?
@KorvinStarmast per the phrasing, it's only the ruby.
6:02 PM
@KorvinStarmast Consumed or not, the pouch or focus counts for anything without a price tag right?
yuk, I don't like that. I want people to build a snowman and then make a simulacrum. Frosty the SImulacrum casts Fireball at you! (It's also a way to cut down on wish/simulacrum cheese unless you live at the north pole)
Yeah it is really silly.
Santa's elves are all simulacrums, you know.
Casting a never ending stream of cantrips ..
@KorvinStarmast If you're in a campaign where simulacrum cheese is a viable plan, then I think the campaign might be run and played by mice in the first place.
@NautArch @Rubiksmoose Gawd, I've just figured out next year's Christmas Adventure! Thank you Naut! Thank you Rubik!
6:04 PM
Too bad he can't just use his ho-ho-holy symbol.
Uh, Santa is not religious (uh, clerical) Christmas, he's secular Christmas ... :p
@KorvinStarmast woohoo! I helped lol
Misfit toys, constructs, fun I will have ...
@KorvinStarmast "Do you want to build a snowman?"
@NautArch "hehehe" and now we know why the elves never unionized. They are all simulacra ...
6:06 PM
@KorvinStarmast Santa is a sorcerer?
Yes, yes he is
Pure Charisma based Caster.
The only present you can't get from Santa Claus is anything with a ruby in it. He needs that for making more of the hired help ...
An reindeer are either summoned or ilusions
@Rubiksmoose Hmm, I am thinking constructs ... or a mutation of pegasi based on a favor called in from a Transmutation Wizard named Refluf ...
Rudolph the Red Nosed reindeer: beast or golem?
@KorvinStarmast much better idea

It’s never quite your time. You refuse to die.

• You gain a +1 bonus to death saving throws.

• As long as you have not failed any death saving throws, you do not suffer the negative conditions of being at 0 hit points and may continue to take actions and move normally.
6:11 PM
This idea would likely fit into Eberron more cleanly, but I'll be fitting it into Next year's December adventures for our shared world (Brother is prime DM)
@goodguy5 That's a battery. :)
Q: What is the appropriate mean to bring community attention to unacted meta consensus?

VylixJust for example, these questions: Do we need a [disadvantage] tag? Non-duplicate questions, with opposite correct answers, merged (Disclaimer: one was my meta question, and the other one is about my question) seems to have community consensus, and requires action, either from the community ...

Quote of the Day: (Leonardo Da Vinci, speaking of steam punk ..) "Friction keeps the World together; Lubrication allows it to spin"
@KorvinStarmast It's funny because if an enemy hits you while you're in "diehard mode" then you immediately fail a save and drop unconscious.
@goodguy5 almost think Everready is better :)
@goodguy5 If this character had this feat, when would they need to make death saves?
6:21 PM
@MikeQ I get your point, but I think "Making death saving throws" does not count as a "negative condition".
@goodguy5 You should make that explicit in the description, I think.
Well, it's from a reddit list

hit Diehard Grog and bring him to 0hp

Grog still makes saves at the start of his turns.
@goodguy5 "you do not suffer the negative conditions of being at 0 hit points... you still make your Death Saving Throws at the start of each of your turns, as normal."
@goodguy5 Sounds more like the Energizer Bunny
6:24 PM
@NautArch Some of those feats are just straight-up broken.
@Xirema yeah, but some aren't. But all are good reading and idea generation.
the grappling ones actually make grappling interesting
@NautArch Isn't there already a grappler feat?
@NautArch Closed as dupe unless otherwise shown not to be.
@ColinGross it's...not very good,.
If I wanted to post homebrew WIP content for public(?) peer review, what are some good places to do that? So far I've looked at homebrewery and dndbeyond, both have their advantages but they're not great for what I'm looking for.
6:31 PM
@NautArch It's a restraining grapple, yes?
@MikeQ in chat here? GiTP? Enworld?
@MikeQ Right here
@ColinGross and restrains you, too.
@Sdjz I didn't want to spam the chat. I have a lot of content.
@MikeQ Go to Not A Bar or The Back Room?
6:33 PM
@NautArch disadvantage on dex rolls means the acrobats wouldn't get a nearly free out
@MikeQ You can also create a room and post a link here so people that are interested can go check it
There's that critical thing ...
@Ben where was that place you posted your Barbarian?
@nitsua60 posted some stuff there too a while back. I'll go and check my browser history @MikeQ
@KorvinStarmast Homebrewery.naturalcrit.com
@NautArch Right, I have the content hosted on homebrewery, but it doesn't get shared or feedback from there
Post us links here, we can go and get it
6:37 PM
@MikeQ If you don't want to clutter main chat, I'd take it to Back Room.
7:19 PM
can we do something about this question?
Q: How do you get temporary hit points?

byronI'm going to play my first game of D&D soon. How do I get temporary hit points and how many of them do I start with?

it's very bad
Well I cleaned it up at least. It is a pretty typical noob question. I think Erik probably has a good answer.
7:35 PM
I must say, that mending body parts thing would 100% not fly at my table lol
@Rubiksmoose Yeah. My issue is that it's much greater than a single break/tear.
@NautArch Also, that dead body - object thing is very tenuous as it is.
But yeah that would be my logic, theres a lot to fix with a severed limb.
@Rubiksmoose i'm okay with dead body is object
Ugh I was going to say that mending does not work on flesh (houserule) but then leather...
I'm pretty sure the answer to the "not missing but severed" question is that the parts reattach, but I can't afford time to write it up right now
7:38 PM
@NautArch I am for the most part, until things start getting silly. Which, to be fair, this is the only exampel I can think of
@Rubiksmoose yeah, in which case you just say "okay, i'm all for silly. But no."
@GreySage My knee-jerk answer was actually the opposite. But then I thought it was just too vague.
@Rubiksmoose The issue is that the limb is made up of a LOT of different parts that need to be mended.
@NautArch mhm. My group is generally good about that though and I have a relatively high silly tolerance lol
Sure, you could mend them, but you have to understand which ones to mend.
And damnit, Rubiks, we're adventureres, not doctors!
7:40 PM
Darn right!
If we broke a vase into 100 peices could we mend each crack until it is all together again?
@NautArch Think about what would happen if you misconnect the blood vessels...
@Rubiksmoose What if we grind it to dust? I mean... it's just a lot of mending right?
@ColinGross Sure, but you have to spend 1 minute for each dust particle
@GreySage I keep getting monkey's paw/frankenstein images of someone attempting to do this
@GreySage Elves might do it.
8:07 PM
@Rubiksmoose regarding wish, I don't understand rationale for the duration of the spell being 8 hours.
Is it because immunity seems like a magical effect?
@ColinGross For the same reason that a spell becoming permanent also extends the duration.
@Rubiksmoose like true polymorph?
However, isn't the duration of that spell 1 hour?
and that one calls out until dispelled.
or was that in the errata?
I would allow someone to make a Medicine Roll to use Mending to correctly reattach a limb to a corpse. DC25 or 30?
@Xirema In place of a whatever level spell though?
@ColinGross I think TP says until dispelled correct. The permanent terminology is very confusing.
@Xirema creatures aren't objects :( so no.
8:17 PM
The argument would be that the spell lasts longer because the effect says it does.
@Rubiksmoose That says how long the effect is.
@ColinGross dead creature dead limb so technically can.
@Rubiksmoose Yeah, but the other half of the thing your mending isn't an object.
@ColinGross yes. And in the vast majority of cases those are the same.
@ColinGross why?
I'd say you could use mending to seal up the tears in the severed limb. That's mending an object. Not seal up tears in a creature.
8:19 PM
@ColinGross It is a dead body.
So technically an object.
@Rubiksmoose Are they? What's that druid spell with pilars of stone coming out of the ground?
Or the one where they make a mini jungle in an area?
@ColinGross Wall of stone?
oh. Ummm
or that spell that mucks around with 5 cubic feet of soil.
@Rubiksmoose Emphasis on "correctly". ;)
@Xirema Well that does sound fun lol
8:20 PM
@ColinGross I assume that the severed limb of a corpse is also not-alive
@ColinGross idk offhand.
AFAIK, the only spell that normally reattaches limbs is Regenerate, which is nominally expected to automagically work perfectly.
@Xirema It's also a high level spell. Would you allow a DC25 arcana check to turn shocking grasp into lightning bolt?
@ColinGross A more apt comparison might be turning Mage Hand into Bigby's Hand.
@Xirema I like that one even more.
8:23 PM
@ColinGross And definitely not on a DC25.
It would be giving a wizard access to divine magic essentially. So if you routinely make DC25 checks to break class restrictions and imitate 7th level spell then I think it's an interesting and fun solution.
I think that might be a fun sandbox type game to run. Creative solutions rule of cool.
Well, there's a few considerations:

1. It only works on a corpse. So you're reducing the difficulty of raising their body from a level 7 spell to level 5, and still need someone with the *Raise Dead* spell (*Revivify* has a time limit shorter than the cast time of *Mending*).
2. It's not doing *everything* that *Regenerate* can do, especially since the bulk of *Regenerate*'s power comes from its high hitpoint recovery.
3. Failure (which will be common on a high DC) carries its own potential consequences (what if reseparating the limb causes it to fall into multiple pieces?).
@Xirema So mending then raise dead?
@ColinGross Essentially. And a bad roll on the medicine check could result in further difficulty reassembling the corpse successfully.
A 1 foot break isn't much space to work with though... so reattach a forearm?
8:31 PM
Oh, here's what I'd do.
@ColinGross That too.
You're definitely not going to get to attach a leg or shoulder with only able to mend a 12" tear.
Although, depends on how you measure the dimension I guess
> Variant: Mending. You may attempt to use the Mending Spell to reattach a severed body part to a corpse, for the purposes of making it complete and eligible for spells like Revivify or Raise Dead. Upon finishing the casting of this spell, make a DC30 Medicine Check. On a success, the limb is correctly reattached. On failure, the limb is grotesquely misattached, and will require two successful uses of this feature to properly reattach. Each Failure may compound upon a previous failure.
So if you build your Rogue/Cleric multiclass with 20+Wisdom and Expertise in Medicine, you can, 40% of the time, turn a Resurrection situation into a Raise Dead situation.
What about a variant so Mending can repair constructs?
@MikeQ Psshaw.
@Rubiksmoose No need to thank me :) but have an upboat.
8:37 PM
@NautArch You're getting thanked whether you like it or not!
@ColinGross How think are your legs that they are more than 1ft in any direction?
@GreySage I believe the kids would say they are thicc
@GreySage Most legs have at most 1 ft
@GreySage If it's a clean cross-sectional cut, then it would be easy to fix, but not all broken limbs are torn so cleanly...
Think the diagram of generating an ellipse by intersecting a plane with a cylinder.
And then try to go to sleep, ever again, with that image in your head.
@Xirema The plane would crash, so you'd need to cast Mending on it
8:45 PM
@MikeQ "at least"
@MikeQ ..... Plane and Plane are spelled the same, aren't they?
I think that's plain to see.
Dear Diary: Today I encountered a new front in my never-ending war against the crime against humanity that is the English Language.
@Xirema You can't fight the English language. Haven't you heard? Words have type advantage against swords.
@Xirema Yes, I agree. My original life cleric had mending. :)
@MikeQ giggle, snort, chortle
@Rubiksmoose The pen is mightier than the sword (and don't forget the space between pen and is in that sentence ... )
8:55 PM
@KorvinStarmast [insert Trebek joke here]
@KorvinStarmast Thanks Connery.
What a timely question about JC lol just after I had been thinking about it. And having read that article a few days ago.
9:38 PM
@Rubiksmoose it was a great way to bring it back up
@NautArch agreed!
@MatthewPerryman howdy!
Howdy @MatthewPerryman
@GreySage I was thinking circumference is going to be between 40 and 70cm for thighs. If you were measuring your dimension by stitching circumference, that's going to be to much to mend. If you're just making sure it's not spanning more than 30cm in any dimension of any cross section... then it works.
9:41 PM
I can see your confusion and that's where this site shines (not in confusing people, but in allowing multiple viewpoints and having people respond/vote on them.)
I apologise, I tend not to use the chat much. Is this the right room for a rules discussion. @NautArch you will know the one I am talking about.
I think mend followed by raise dead is kind of clever.
I've asked DaleM to move their answer to the other question so we can generate some discussion.
For those interested, this is the question we're discussing:
@NautArch We're also A+ in confusing people though!
Q: Is my ruling of Sanctuary Correct?

Matthew PerrymanAccording to Sanctuary it states: Until the spell ends, any creature who targets a creature you choose with an attack or a harmful spell must first make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, the creature must choose a new target or lose the attack or spell. This spell doesn't protect the w...

9:42 PM
@MatthewPerryman It definitely is the right one!
@MatthewPerryman I personally agree with Purple Monkey assessment
So it is your feeling that is a creature attacks a character with Sanctuary, they then cannot move?
Essentially locking them into place?
Think of it like someone is running up to attack Creature B (under sanctuary). THey go to swing their weapon..and just can't. THey have to quickly pick a new target and finish the attack. There isn't time to move because they are in mid attack.
After the attack is complete, they can move as normal.
two things happened today, one of which is boring and one of which is extremely important
The wording of that spell is terrible in my opinion.
9:45 PM
my partner had his citizenship ceremony and is now officially british
@MatthewPerryman It isn't alone and you are not wrong for thinking that.
On the other hand, I think it'd usually be more fun, narratively, to have the "hold, move to new target, attack" interpretation.
Because it seems to be dividing opinion from whoever I ask.
Grats @Carcer
and more importantly on the way home WE FOUND OUR CAT
@Carcer Yayyyyy! To both!
9:46 PM
The problem is @Rubiksmoose is that I am a relatively new DM (about 6 months) and have been a player for 3 years but DM for a group with a DM and playing experience of over 50 years
@BESW not just more fun, but mechanically consistent with being able to move as something separate from the attack action. If the attacker has movement left, moving to attack makes sense.
Therefore I am never quite sure if I am ruling properly
he climbed out of the living room window like a month ago
@MatthewPerryman Yes, you are ruling properly.
@MatthewPerryman As long as you rule consistently and in a way that your players are having fun, that is the correct way to rule for you.
9:47 PM
@MatthewPerryman If it is with an iron fist, you're probably doing it wrong.
@MatthewPerryman FWIW have a look at this
@Rubiksmoos, @KorvinStarmast because the issue is now the player wants to change out Sanctuary, which I am happy for them to do if they so wish but I get the feeling they feel it is not the right way to do it which is somehow impacting on their game.
@BESW Fun for the players who have a less impactful ceremony or fun for the table that it just stopped the single attack? or fun for the enemy that still got to use their attack?
@MatthewPerryman If the character is a cleric, they can switch spells at any long rest. Not understanding the problem.
@MatthewPerryman You mean they want to switch the spell for another one because of your ruling?
9:49 PM
@NautArch You bring up a good point that often a ruling should keep in mind who it's affecting; but I meant fun for the story because stuff happens instead of stuff not happening. It's still an effective effect because it forced a bad decision.
@MatthewPerryman Because it is kinda wonky, talk about it at your table. See how the players want it to work and how they expected it. If it becomes a spell they'd rather not use because of how you think it should be ruled, then let them change it up. No harm, no foul.
@MatthewPerryman Yeah, what Naut said.
@BESW I could easily see it working either way and being fun. It's all about the narrative around the events.
Not sure I see a huge impact either way tbqh.
@KorvinStarmast they are an Artificer, and @Rubiksmoose, Yep. I'll speak to the others. I think the issue was that I could see their point rules wise and I was ruling it as the wording states and I think really we were getting strung up on exact wording
9:50 PM
The failed wisdom save versus sanctuary is "that one over there is more dangerous!" and off goes the attacking opponent.
@MatthewPerryman UA artificer?
@NautArch Obviously it could be fun either way, fun is table-dependent. What I'm saying is that in my experience it's better to rule for "stuff happens" than "stuff doesn't happen" and I give a baleful side-eye to mechanics and features that are designed to make stuff not happen.
@KorvinStarmast affirmative
@MatthewPerryman One thing to remember is that 5e at its core was not concerned about being really precice with rules and spell wording because the idea was that the DM could decide what was best.
@BESW AH, gotcha! ALthough in this case it's stuff vs more stuff. But yeah, I see where you're coming from. Action>inaction.
So there often isn't a RAW answer for everything.
9:52 PM
But it also means that for sanctuary to be really effective, you need to keep that the creature under really far away. and that seems unfun for that character.
@Rubiksmoose aye I get that, its just confusing when you post a question, read one answer with 10 upvotes and then immediately find the exact opposite answer as well!
@BESW I know what kind of car you don't drive.
I just want clarity cries
@MatthewPerryman Indeed it is! Not even we can pull an answer from nothing, though we try very hard to sometimes. lol
And then the inevitable discussion of if there really is nothing and, if so, if the fact that there is nothing actually means something.
@MatthewPerryman Yeah, that's frustrating. Pathfinder is in a class of games that look like they have clarity, but... in many cases they not only don't have clarity, they can't.
9:54 PM
@MatthewPerryman Make a ruling and play on. If the player really doesn't want the spell any more, swap it out for another. You are the DM, you can do that.
@KorvinStarmast I know, I just don't want to be that DM who messes with the rules too much :P
@MatthewPerryman I mean I wouldn't advise going crazy, but sticking to the rules as written doesn't actually mean much except that you are going to be frustrated a lot.
@MatthewPerryman The rules do not rule you; make your best ruling and play on. That's how 5e is supposed to be different, in intention. (Not saying that will always be the case, but that's what some of the rhetoric around the new edition was advocating)
I know the rules are a nice fallback though.
I'd rather use the rules where possible, it's easier that way. Problem is when you are being thick as two short planks.
9:57 PM
@MatthewPerryman how would the artificer feel when they cast sanctuary, the monster makes the wisdom save and attacks. did you discuss that?
The important things about changing the rules is to (a) talk with your players about it so they aren't surprised; (b) make sure the changes are designed to maximize fun as your table understands it; (c) don't get caught up on precedent and be willing to change rules AGAIN as necessary.
I did not but to be honest he was out of range. so not really a concern at the time @KorvinStarmast
@BESW That last one is really important and oft-neglected or even rejected.
OK. It's an OK spell, but it can fail.
@KorvinStarmast aye, shame the creature had 8 Wisdom!
9:59 PM
I don't think that's something you can decide prior to playing. But if they don't like dark stories with troubles and possible bad endings, maybe Sorcerer is not the game for them.
Maybe you want to try just a one-shot with throwaway characters just to feel the game - be aware that the convention scenario has really dark and shocking themes but I think it gives the idea of what the game is about - and also be aware that you should get the annotated version of the game and that it is still a mess (misorganized)
Also, it's a game that tries to catetr to people who like Story Now - playing to discover what happens is implicit in the genre.
Which means that predetermining the outcome is bad.
In our last game our cleric did turn undead on a critter that had low wisdom. It still saved. no turn, it kept coming, at me! Arrgh! (Thwack! Ouch!)
Oh yeah it can happen, always fun when it does!
* Each undead that can see or hear you within 30 feet of you must make a Wisdom saving throw. If the creature fails its saving throw, it is turned ... *
Yeah, that smack to the head for 17 damage was good fun! Yoiks! 8^o (We got him in the end, though ... and the cracked ribs will heal ...)
...now I'm thinking about hacking Youth Is Wasted On The Young to be a fallen-redemption game.
Now I'm thinking about why the hell is everyone focusing their roleplay on the fact that my character did not bring anything in exchange for some generic information, or for dinner at friends, or for a birthday party, or for a marriage...
10:06 PM
@NautArch BTW, 4e has precedent for "force bad actions" as a significant element of play; it's the defining feature of all defender classes.
10:17 PM
So just put the Sanctuary question to the table, have 7 players so lets see what their opinions are.
@MatthewPerryman Watch you get an even split with one abstention lol
That means I get to be the decider
Unlimited power!
@BESW It's an excellent feature, too!
I'd love it to be in 5e too
I think there are a few subclasses in UA / expansion books that have features based on 4e classes and roles
@MatthewPerryman Before, discuss with all seven if they understand the basic of action economy: move, action (attack is one sucy), bonus action, reaction, interact with object
@MikeQ I think Cavalier is one such
Attack and move are stove piped;
10:24 PM
@KorvinStarmast I hope they do they have a combined play experience of 50 years :P
Previous edition memories are often false friends in a new edition.
Have they read this editions combat chapter? I had to learn neew stuff for this edition
@KorvinStarmast yeah they are all 5e vets
OK, then they should not have an issue with you using the action economy correctly :)
You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action. For example, if you have a speed of 30 feet, you can move 10 feet, take your action, and then move 20 feet Monsters follow that as well.
Thank you
I hope it works out; maybe the spell change solves the frustration?
10:30 PM
Maybe, but I don't want them to change because of my inability to understand the rule. I'd rather understand it then make a choice based on that

« first day (2993 days earlier)      last day (2012 days later) »