« first day (2990 days earlier)      last day (1957 days later) » 
00:00 - 20:0020:00 - 00:00

12:03 AM
Is there a Stack for asking about the history of architectural elements?
Somebody just asked me why lion's-head door knockers are so popular and my Googles are just running me around a citogenesis loop.
 
user15026
12:15 AM
Hm, I'm not sure where that would fit!
 
user15026
(But now I am curious about that.)
 
lol
there isn't an Architecture Stack?
 
Nope, but there's a History.SE that's a hodgepodge of histories of anything
 
that seems,... not great
for the purpose
although I suppose it might also work?
 
1:15 AM
Though I'd never heard of it before, it may fit there?
 
Hmmm
 
1:28 AM
@BESW how far back are you trying to go with this research?
 
@Shalvenay However far you have to go to understand the current trend.
 
@PeterCooperJr. that is so cool. thank you for linking
 
1:50 AM
@BESW hrm.
 
Like, is it a McMansion appropriation of 18th-century revivals of Renaissance naturalism?
Is it people directly mimicking the door knocker on 10 Downing Street, and if so what's the story behind that one?
 
I was kinda wondering if Kate Wagner (the lady behind McMansion Hell) might be worth poking via email, she does quite a bit of mundane-architecture historiography to go with her McMansion lampoons, but generally her interest there is limited to North American stuff, so only oh, about 100-150 years back at most
 
(10 Downing Street is one of the most famous doors in the world and it's had a lion's-head knocker since the late 1700s, so chances are good it's one of the reasons lion's-head knockers are ubiquitous today--but why was it given that knocker? Is it a trend-setter or a trend-codifier?)
(BTW, this is the sort of thing that can make worldbuilding really pop: everybody's got a certain kind of door knocker because it's the doorknocker used by the leader.)
 
@BESW "why was it given that knocker?" Because the Lannisters always pay their debts, man.
 
2:07 AM
@nitsua60 The House of Lancaster died out almost exactly 300 years before the lion's head door knocker was installed at 10 Downing Street.
 
Lol
 
(I don't know anything about Game of Thrones, but I know Stark/Lannister is a York/Lancaster expy.)
 
I understand he based at least some of the houses off of historical nobles
Though there is definitely a huge departure from anything that could be real history
Especially as zoomed in as the story is
 
@trogdor Baeric Dondarrion, though... definitely a real dude. Repeated resurrections and all.
 
Pretty sure a nope on that
 
2:16 AM
(Uhh... ten year old spoiler alert, btw.)
 
Lol
Oh no one guy exits
He's not even like,... Incredibly important
XD
 
Disappearing down a research rabbit hole, it appears the door-knocker was chosen by Lord North, Prime Minister at the time, who was famous for elaborate ostentation. This suggests to me that the lion's-head was a fashionable motif at the time.
 
Sorry everyone who like him
@BESW I understand there have been at least a couple Kings with lions on thier banners, I would hazard a guess lions were a bit popular
XP
 
That would've been George III, who did have a lot of lions.
If 10 Downing Street is really the trend-setter for door-knockers, I'd be curious to know when and why it jumped the pond.
Since it was probably a reference to America's favorite political punching bag of the time, George III.
 
 
2 hours later…
4:01 AM
lol
I think our country isn't/wasn't,.... particularly discerning when it comes to taking artistic choices
 
 
1 hour later…
5:11 AM
@doppelgreener thanks for the timely "this is getting chatty" reminder today. was needed. We all got about knee deep in that question ...
@BESW there is no accounting for taste.
Lions have been on the royal heraldry for quite some time.
The royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom, or the Royal Arms for short, is the official coat of arms of the British monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II. These arms are used by the Queen in her official capacity as monarch of the United Kingdom. Variants of the Royal Arms are used by other members of the British royal family; and by the British government in connection with the administration and government of the country. In Scotland, there exists a separate version of the Royal Arms, a variant of which is used by the Scotland Office. The arms in banner form serve as basis for the monarch...
Circa 1189
They really do like their lions
 
 
1 hour later…
6:18 AM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, blacklisted website in body, pattern-matching product name in body, pattern-matching website in body, +1 more (492): How Sera Labs CBD Oil Works? This oil has synthetic by rgsdrfbdrf on rpg.SE
 
 
6 hours later…
12:40 PM
ugh still sick.
 
 
1 hour later…
2:08 PM
@KorvinStarmast Is this about the sneak attack thing with gwf? The tweet was about GWF and Divine Smite. That has to be a comment about multiclass application.
 
@ColinGross out of curiosity, did my answer do anything to help you?
 
@KorvinStarmast I'm not interested in the events or circumstances that side step the apparent contradiction. I'm interested in the apparent contradiction. Avoiding it does not mean it doesn't exist.
@Rubiksmoose I like both answers for the question.
 
I thought I knew what you wanted, but as I wrote my answer it became less clear to me.
 
I was going to point out that sneak attack is entirely dependent on the weapon according to the quote you posted.
But it's not weapon damage?
 
@goodguy5 oh no!
 
2:11 PM
yea. went to work yesterday. felt... oohh...kayy....
 
@goodguy5 Do you have a remedy? Failing that, if you have a pheonix down, just die and use that to come back straight away.
 
woke up today thoroughly "meh"
I have antibiotics
 
@ColinGross think of it this way: it can't be weapon damage dice by definition. Weapon damage dice are only thre dice listed in the weapons description.
 
@Rubiksmoose are critical dice weapon dice?
 
@Rubiksmoose That seems peculiar to me.
 
2:13 PM
@goodguy5 errr no. Per that definition they aren't.
I don't think
 
Sneak attack is damage entirely dependent on the weapon itself, but it's not damage dealt by the weapon.
 
@Rubiksmoose but I thought that critical hits were established to be affected by thwfs
 
@ColinGross I mean it's just a matter of definition. The devs have said what is and isn't weapon damage dice and SA just isn't. But SA does inheret the damage type because they also say it does.
 
@Rubiksmoose They actually haven't commented on SA directly. They've commented on divine smite.
@Rubiksmoose They also say it's entirely dependent on the weapon for dealing damage.
 
@ColinGross Well, the JC tweets are pretty clear when they say what is considered damage dice. Only the stuff listed in the weapon description.
 
2:17 PM
@Rubiksmoose Except critical dice.
 
I think crits might count but only because you are rolling the weapon damage dice again. Not adding extra.
 
@Rubiksmoose Weren't you suggesting last evening that JC tweets aren't RAW? "@Grosscol JC's tweets can sometimes clarify RAW and sometimes they give RAI, but his tweets are never RAW in and of themself."
 
I would also point out that this is only an issue because of RAI. RAW none of this matters at all because GWF does apply to SA.
 
@Rubiksmoose So the divine smite errata doesn't implicate SA?
 
@ColinGross There was no errata.
 
2:18 PM
or is that just sage advice, and not official errata?
 
@ColinGross The latter
 
@Rubiksmoose okay, what about brutal critical dice?
 
This is a case where they really really should have erratad it. Seriously. RAW reads the exact opposite of what they intended. If they really wanted RAW to say that GWF applies only to weapon damage dice they should have tweaked the wording officially to make that clear. As it is, I can't read RAW any other way but to allow SA damage to be rerolled.
 
" One excep
-
tion: the game’s lead rules developer, Jeremy Crawford
(@JeremyECrawford on Twitter), can make official rulings
and does so in this document and on Twitter."
 
@ColinGross mhm rulings, not rules.
 
2:21 PM
@Rubiksmoose That seems like a very fine pedantic splitting.
So an official ruling is not a rule. What's a rule?
 
@ColinGross I mean it is and it isn't. It is all a matter of how you define things.
RAW means the rule is written in the book.
Sometimes RAW is unclear and JC clarifies a confusion about what it meant.
 
@Rubiksmoose and I still really dislike the original reason the gave in that it 'takes too much table time to reroll 1s and 2s on divine smite dice"
 
Sometimes RAW can be read in ways that go contrary to what the designers intended. In that case JC often tells us what the RAI is.
 
@Rubiksmoose So RAW is only books + errata. RAI is books + errata + sage advice published by wizards + JC tweets?
 
JC does not have the power to change or add to the RAW of the game though because RAW is what is written in the books themselves.
@ColinGross Yes to the former. But the latter gets a bit hairy. Sometimes SA (either in the SAC or twitter) is clarifying a confusing aspect of RAW. So not adding to it just explaining it in a different way such that it makes the actual written rule clearer.
 
2:25 PM
@Rubiksmoose I've been misinterpreting RAW on the stack for a while then. I've frequently gone to dig up JC interviews and tweets to answer RAW questions. I should have probably then asserted the tag should be RAI instead of RAW.
 
Parsing the difference between RAW and that they'e stated his tweets are official is mind numbingly difficult.
 
@NautArch yeah it's dumb. Then ERRATA the rule.
@ColinGross To be fair: tags have nothing to do with this. The RAW tag does not dictate anything about the answers themselves. Only what the question is asking for.
 
@Rubiksmoose My tag does not match up with what I'm asking for, because without the SA ruling, the contradiction has to be assumed instead of stated.
 
@NautArch And honestly it isn't wowrth the effort. If you don't like what JC says: ignore him. He doesn't dictate the RAW and he can't tell you the most fun way to play.
 
I think I'll just delete the question and formulate a more precise one later.
 
2:28 PM
@ColinGross You can't actually delete the question since it has answers already.
 
@Rubiksmoose That's not what the question is about. I expect everyone to do that anyway.
 
@ColinGross oh I know that is not what your question is about. That was just purely a tangent in resposne to what Naut said.
It is still completely fair to ask about a perceived contradiction in JC's rulings and try to make sense out of it. Sometimes a sense of greater understanding of the rules could come of it.
 
Yeah, couldn't delete, but I could close it.
 
@goodguy5 now that I don't know.
 
come on, moose. you're expected to know these things
 
2:32 PM
@goodguy5 I'm apologize for letting this chatroom down. lol
 
@Rubiksmoose It's not, but they are effectively saying his responses to rules adjudication are official. What's the difference between RAW and official?
 
brutal critical is explicitly an "additional weapon damage die" so anything which applies to weapon damage dice applies to them
 
@NautArch The difference is only in how much you care about it. Honestly, it is you the DM, player, table, group, whatever, that decides what rulings matter to your table. The rules are in the book and everything else is up to you.
WotC can call them official all they want but it really doesn't mean anything unless it means something to you.
 
@Rubiksmoose Fully agree. But theoretically, I don't understand how something is official (and written), but not RAW.
 
RaW(in books and errata)
RaWBE doesn't have the same ring
 
2:38 PM
RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for.
When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m
studying what the text says in context, without regard to the
designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.
The SAC says it best: "Official rulings on how to interpret unclear rules are made in Sage Advice."
 
I think it's useful to keep in mind that RAW is not intended to be a playstyle guide.
 
@BESW Just a way to read the text right?
A lense through which you ground your interpretation?
 
It's quite simply that part of the game experience which can be assumed to be shared by everyone who plays that game: the text itself, devoid of context. It emerged from online communities as a way to have something to talk about without needing to check everyone's house rules, playstyles, etc., before beginning the conversation.
It's not to do with playing the game at all--it's to do with talking about the game with people who don't play it with you.
 
Which, I assume, is part of the reason it gets so much emphasis here. It gets really hard to help people out if you don't have a common baseline of rules to go off of.
 
Right. But folx who try to play a game strictly by RAW tend to go a bit mad.
 
2:43 PM
was there errata before wide spread internet availability?
like, could you call and get mailed the current errata?;
 
It's a perfectly fine tool for helping someone figure out their character build.
 
@BESW oh goodness yeah. And I honestly don't think playing RAW is at all the most fun way to play. Make rulings, play it a little loose (or a lot!)
 
@goodguy5 Almost; changes were shared in the associated magazines, and in later books.
 
I actually just had a thought this morning when I was reading a question: I wonder if a lot of these questions asking if the ruling they made was RAW/RAI stems from a lack of DM confidence or a want to seek affirmation that what they did was good.
 
Quite likely.
 
2:47 PM
@BESW So, if I bought a copy of dragon magazine, would that have all the current errata?
(dragon magazine as an example)
 
@goodguy5 Back in the day? You'd be better off asking someone like @nitsua60 who has studied the old magazines.
 
haha thanks
 
I'd guess it's more of a "this issue mentions that such-and-such typo should be this other thing," and "that issue mentions a math fix" and "the other issue offers a variant rule one developer likes better now."
 
ugh, gross.
 
Which btw is not a judgement on those people/questions. It is fine to want to be told by someone that what you did was good and/or correct. It is also perfectly fine and natural to want to assess your DM performance (and to feel insecure about it is unfortunately pretty common for me and others). It just makes me think that next time I answer a question about it I might add a whole section asking them: "did you and your players think the decision was fun? If so, then go for it RAW be darned."
 
2:50 PM
A lot of players didn't even have all the core books. There was no expectation that most groups would have the same shared knowledge base.
I know people who started playing with a Monster Manual and nothing else, because that's what the shop had.
So the idea of an official, updated errata sheet would have been kinda weird. Players made errata sheets sometimes and shared them with each other.
But the nature of the RPG community was very different, and their relationship to the text and developers was different too.
 
@BESW That is really interesting to think about.
 
I have my dad's 1e PHB - which is a ringbinder folder - into which has been inserted extra pages with handwritten notes for grappling rules and stuff like that
 
that's super cool
 
Trailer for Avengers 4 dropped this morning!
 
@Rubiksmoose And, of course, when we say things like "the RPG community" we mean, both then and now "a vast, fractured, barely-interconnected set of diverse groups and experiences, each of which thinks its paradigm is the dominant one and is completely ignorant of many other ways of being."
 
2:58 PM
@SirCinnamon And its a good one IMO.
@BESW mhm. That's an easy trap to fall into :-/
 
@Rubiksmoose Just enough new information without an entire layout of the movie plot
I hate trailers that give so much info you can reconstruct the whole movie basically
 
@SirCinnamon Don't worry though the next 4 trailers for it will give intimate details about everything though. However, this current one is how every trailer should be.
@SirCinnamon So much this.
 
I want me some Spider-Verse.
 
@BESW Yaasssss!
 
That film looks amazing.
 
3:00 PM
That looks so freaking good.
And in a completely unexpected way.
 
@Rubiksmoose Unfortunately youre probably right - they dont release the biggest trailer 6 months before
 
I haven't been very excited about Big Two stuff for some time now, but Spider-Verse is ooooh.
...I need to catch up on Paper Girls.
 
@BESW I just read a very interesting (but brief) article with the people making it (I don't remember who exactly). But they said they capitalized on the lack of expectations people had for this movie to take their time and make something not just good but something that (according to them) is new and groundbreaking.
@BESW I need to start reading Paper Girls. After your recommendation I have seen it popping up more and more and I really just need to sit down and actually start it.
I think this is that Spider Man article.
 
@Rubiksmoose Without reading the article (it's very late right now), I can say that they're doing things with texture and style, diegesis and medium, that are, if not completely brand-new in film, are new to mainstream theatrical releases.
It's the sort of thing that I'd expect to see in a five-minute student film out of France.
 
@BESW It looks bonkers and beautiful at the same time. It seems like it shouldn't work but it just seems to.
 
3:08 PM
They use common three-color printing imperfections that you'd see in cheap old comic books, instead of blurring to communicate perspective.
 
@BESW oooooo
 
Every time a new Spider-Verse trailer lands, Animation Twitter goes completely nuts dissecting it.
 
@BESW I love learning about Twitter communities by dropped in references like that.
 
I'm hooked into Animation Twitter through following Sydney Padua.
@Rubiksmoose At one minute 6 seconds into the first trailer; watch the spider crawling down the right-hand side of the image.
Then watch that bit again, and look at the Spider-Men in the background.
It's mimicking a real-life camera technique called rack focus, where the focal length of the lens changes mid-shot to change what's blurry and what's sharp.
But in Spider-Verse, they're using red/blue registration instead of blur.
When you're using multiple colors of ink to get a full color image (so you print one color on the page, then the next color, then the next) it's really really important to get all those different printings to line up so the colors are in the right places in relation to each other.
That --getting them to line up and overlap properly-- is called registration.
The faster and cheaper you're printing, the less likely you are to get the registration right.
Traditionally comics have been printed very fast, very cheap, and they're notoriously bad at registration.
So the Spider-Verse animators are using a printing flaw to mimic an in-camera film technique.
 
> (little topic hijack: there were some very minor news about hats recently. Copied them from the original room to the Not a bar one. If anyone wants to have a look they are there)
 
3:21 PM
That's so extra it's glorious. They didn't have to do that, most of the audience probably won't even notice except that it looks weirdly stylized. But the whole film is stuffed with that kind of playing with the medium in ways mainstream films aren't given space to try.
I'm super excited about it in the context of digital art finding its own mainstream space beyond trying to mimic reality.
Digital film has been stuck between "Please don't notice this isn't an in-camera effect" (eg Jungle Book) and "Copying that thing Pixar does."
 
@ColinGross No, GWF is a paladin option also. Not necessarily cross class.
@ColinGross OK, I see an exception. If it were a RAW versus RAW conflict, I think I'd agree with you a lot. But the RAW versus RAI situation makes it less clear to me, which is why I edited the answer a bit .. and I thank you! You got me thinking. That is by itself a good thing.
 
Spider-Verse is one of the only big-budget films I've ever seen to say "You know what? We don't have to pretend we're using a camera to film this scene."
 
@ColinGross It's a class feature that is bound to a limited set of weapon/weapon types. So yes, it is damage done by the weapon. Read the description of sneak attack if that helps. Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe’s distraction Your hit with the weapon is more lethal, hence more dice. It's the weapon. (I honestly think that you are overcomplicating this ... but then, we all do that in our rules examination to one degree or another)
 
On the one hand, this makes me optimistic about Spider-Verse. On the other hand, Sony.
 
3:45 PM
@BESW I'm going to have to give this a in-depth look when I get home. Wathcing on my phone doesn't really do it justice.
 
4:14 PM
Can this question be tweaked so it's not opinion-based? Or should be it closed?
 
@NautArch You think it is POB right now?
 
@Rubiksmoose "how should I" seems opinion
and without any specific direciton on exactly what they want the end-effect to be.
 
@NautArch eh, "should" in this case is equivalent to "can" so I don't see an issue there.
 
okay, I can see that.
May try and put together an answer discussing how crouching is all of the benefits of prone without the negative - but I think the idea behind that has been covered
 
@NautArch This is fair, but I'm not quite sure it makes it close-worthy.
 
4:20 PM
@Rubiksmoose Agreed, that wasn't my main concern. And @kviiri covers the main issue with the houserule.
 
I think the answers out there do a good job of answering using good subjective answers, though I do agree that if OP was more specific about the goals they wanted the answers could probably be more helpful
 
@Rubiksmoose But to be fair, OP is just asking about a rule their player came up with and that they tried to implement.
 
@NautArch right that is also true.
 
So not even sure they'd come up with the full explanation because they're a pass-through at this point.
 
mhm
 
4:21 PM
But it does go back to our recommendations on doing some homework first rather than throwing it over the wall and just asking for help.
 
But they did playtest it, which is way more than most homebrew/houserule. I would count that as homework for sure.
They didn't playtest potential solutions sure
 
I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with the question. "I tried this and it's clearly not sensible, what's a good way to balance it" seems fine to me
 
@Rubiksmoose Very true. And he recognized the problem, but he's looking for solutions rather than presenting a solution and asking if it'd work. But i'm not sure that's a big enough issue for anything.
 
Yeah the question seems fine to me. Could it be better? Sure.
 
pfff
a long time ago in a galaxy far far away we called that the X-Y problem and we actively encouraged the opposite
 
4:24 PM
I guess I just have a knee-jerk to questions asking for ideas on how to balance rather than asking if the balancing they came up with works.
One feels like idea generation
Would we allow a question of "I'd like to homebrew something, can you give some options?"
 
I think concern about idea generation has become too broad to be honest
like "what's a good hook for an adventure" is clearly too broad
 
@NautArch Well that seems like an unfair strawman though. For one thing we lack a question body to judge on.
 
but "what's a good mechanic for implementing dehydration" or something of that scope seems fine to me
 
@Carcer I'd agree with that, because people have actually used such a mechanic. But I guess that's the same as this question.
And I get what the player is trying to do, but given the existing ruleset I wouldn't have allowed it because it's asking for the benefits of prone without the penalties. And then all the enemies start do it and it's a situation where no one is necessarily happy.
but that's kviiri's response :)
 
@Carcer Don't let your players have drinks at the table in real-life.
Tell them to make Constitution checks every time they try to get up for a glass of water.
 
4:35 PM
The DnD5e starter set has the basic rules, not the PHB, right?
 
@GreySage yeah, the phb is not the basic rules (though obviously the core books are a superset of the basic rules)
 
Core books are $35 on amazon, I'm getting tempted...
 
@NautArch My response is covered mostly in the second answer. While IMO this was a bad idea in the first place, I like the answer that said "half cover +2 AC is a better idea if you want to add a benefit and provide a cost .." More open minded than me, and I like that approach.
@GreySage If that's for all three, go for it!
@GreySage Uh, not all of them, but it has the basic game engine in it. Free Basic Rules is the Basic rules; the new version has most/all of the errata in it. I downloaded it and I like them as a useful reference. Old friend from HS is joining our D&D group. We use that as a reference and he finds it very helpful)
 
@GreySage they were $20 when I checked like 2 hours ago
with an additional 10%
might be a prime thing?
 
20 dollars each? Nice.
 
4:50 PM
for me, USD
ravinica is $21
MM is $21
dmg is $21
phb is $23
waterdeep dragon heist, Xanathars, mordenkaiden, volos
all $21(ish
 
@goodguy5 $35 CAN each
 
do you have prime?
or are those two numbers comparable?
21usd is 28 cad
 
@goodguy5 Yeah they're inexplicably higher price in canada :(
 
can you order from the US link? lol
https://smile.amazon.com/
also everyone, if you have it available, you should be using Amazon's Smile program.

They donate a portion of your payment to a charity of your choice.
 
@goodguy5 I can, but with an extra $7 in shipping it works out to more than the original price in CAN.
 
4:58 PM
sad
 
@goodguy5 very sad
 
do they have amazon smile in canada?
 
I think so
 
USE IT :O
 
@BESW I think "some of which" would be a fairer way to put it than "each of which."
Surely not all RPG groups think their paradigm is "the" paradigm....
("Surely not everybody was kung fu fighting" says one friend's t-shirt.)
@goodguy5 the way BESW described it is similar to my experience and those I'm familiar with: TSR was this company way off in Wisconsin that made books and modules. It never occurred to me or my brothers to expect they would clarify something for us. Then we discovered Dragon and it was like "well, if I mail them a question and an SASE then maybe I'll get an answer in three months...."
 
5:13 PM
@goodguy5 i bought all the compendiums. DIdn't tell my wife and she sent me a pic today saying "happy chanukkah from yourself?"
Now I just need to strategically leave them out for my kids to look through :)
 
@BESW This quote makes me feel like we're looking at the Citizen Kane of digital films.
 
@NautArch diabolical
 
(They're wrong, btw. Not Morning Consult, but most Americans.)
 
@nitsua60 fake newz
 
@nitsua60 I feel like "Die Hard is a Christmas Movie" is more a meme than a thing people actually believe.
Or am I breaking the Keyfabe too much? ;)
 
5:25 PM
I dunno, I was watching Die Hard most Christmases when you had to put a phone in a cradle for dial-up, and when memetic theory was still constrained to university literary theory courses.
(Then again, if you took "nitsua believes Die Hard is a Christmas movie" as your input and tried to guess, based on that chart, my age and gender you'd likely be right.)
 
Welp, I'm going to eat lunch and go buy smash
I preordered it on Amazon. They told me it would arrive today.

Today, they say it'll be wednesday.
So.....
 
@goodguy5 So you got it 2 days ago?
 
I had to call and make a stink about it to cancel my amazon order.
@GreySage ikr
 
6:22 PM
@KorvinStarmast I don't know about overcomplicating. I've gotten responses on both sides of GWF and sneak attack. It seems like the RAW is ambiguous as to support either side of it. I think the RAI implies a contradiction that is interesting to explore.
 
6:33 PM
My answer now has 4 downvotes, and I don't know what's wrong with it, except for one person quibbling over my use of "RAI" as a qualifier, am I missing something really blatant? rpg.stackexchange.com/a/136969/42386
 
I think "RAW: Unclear; Requires DM Fiat" is always a cop out when put at the end of an answer. The only time I like to see it is when it is the answer. E.g. "This is clearly GM fiat as there aren't rules for it."
 
I also don't see the RAW as ambiguous here.
And Enkryptor's answer supports that
 
@Xirema I think your answer could be a bit more succinct at the top. "No. You lose the other..."
I think your answer is correct.
 
@Xirema I have not downhoofed, but it seems that the RAI is at least part of the issue here (check the marks on the comments)
I agree with the critique that you cannot claim that it is RAI with what you have presented there.
 
@Rubiksmoose Then what should I put? It's basically lying if I don't add RAI to my post.
 
6:39 PM
@Xirema Why do you say that?
I think the feeling (certainly my thoughts) is that if you claim RAI you must have a dev comment that supports your interpretation. Or you need to qualify it (probably RAI eg). But really there is no way to support an RAI claim without evidence of intent.
 
@Xirema If you can't support that the intent is the intent you listed, then it's not actually usable.
 
Ugh, just deleting it.
Not worth the effort.
I think the comments on Enkryptor's answer are getting to the root of my issue though: Movement and Speed aren't the same thing.
 
@Xirema You could also just leave it and accept your fate. muahahahaahaha.
 
But hey you get that badge if you don't already have it!
 
6:50 PM
@Rubiksmoose Nah, I've deleted my downvoted answers before. Sometimes they were even wrong answers!
 
hahaha
I think I've been too quick at deleting my answers because I don't think I have it yet.
 
But also, if you firmly believe you're right - I generally keep them up. Downvotes be damned.
Maybe someone will agree with me sometime.
 
@NautArch I have seen pretty drastic turnarounds before.
 
@Xirema I took a different take. Releasing the grapple doesn't immediately and retroactively undo the halved movement effect from dragging.
 
@ColinGross I like your take on that, and will use it as my default ruling.
 
7:00 PM
@KorvinStarmast I'm surprised it hasn't come up with my tabletop game yet. On of the character is a grappler and eschews a shield just to have a hand free to grap foes.
Grabs and stabs all the time. Grab and drag and stab. Hasn't ever done what the querent is asking about
 
@Rubiksmoose I disagree with your ruling, but I'd also rather they had done "moving while grappling costs and extra foot per foot" as they did with rough terrain. Easier to figure out.
 
@KorvinStarmast Which was my (heavily downvoted) point: the rule is badly written.
 
@KorvinStarmast That's how I usually thought of it, but that would mean you could drag 15 feet over rough terrain, because the penalty has already been applied.
 
@ColinGross That might be due to your player not being a member of the lollipop build. We get a lot of "exploit is awesome, amiright" questions.
@Xirema I utterly agree.
 
@KorvinStarmast As written, I think mine is actually pretty solid. Where do you take issue with the logic?
 
7:03 PM
@ColinGross Nope, it would be4 additive. you end up adding both reductions. 1 for grapple drag, and one for rough terrain. Makes sense, too.
 
Also, I don't think @Rubiksmoose's answer is correct either, but there's nothing in the rules that disproves their interpretation. There's literally no justification for me to downvote him or dispute his answer.
 
See my comments above.
 
I agree the rule is poorly written btw, but I have no way of proving that it wasn't intended to be weird like that.
 
@KorvinStarmast That's how it is if it halves your movement, but entangle on rough terrain doesn't make it double rough terrain, does it?
 
@Xirema Which is why I did not downvote his answer.
 
7:04 PM
Other than the fact that I wouldn't rule that way in my games, I mean.
 
@KorvinStarmast I have yet to downvote @Xirema. @Rubiksmoose on the other hand is always in here asking people "hey make some noise by down voting my answer." It's really kinda awkward.
 
@ColinGross IMO, it ought to be additive, though I see your point about perhaps Entangle overwrites terrain, while grapple is in parallel as it does nothing to the terrain. .
 
@ColinGross Well, you can't downvote me, I deleted my answer. 8)
 
@KorvinStarmast That's why I think it wasn't written in the same way as rough terrain.
@Xirema -1
 
@ColinGross I need to find the rule, but there is a specific additive "feet per foot moved" example ... will get back to you when I remember where it is. (It might even be the climbing in rough terrain?)
 
7:06 PM
@ColinGross hahaha yeah that's me I'm just aiming for my Peer Pressure badge but keep accidentally getting upvotes :P
 
@ColinGross Climbing, Swimming, and Crawling Each foot of movement costs 1 extra foot (2 extra feet in difficult terrain .... so make grappling movement like climbing in that respect ... it's an idea.
 
I'm entertained by the OP. They clearly have a preference for being able to move the remaining 15 feet.
 
Oh wow, I actually did just earn the Peer Pressure badge.
 
@KorvinStarmast Good find.
 
@Xirema We are not worthy! (bow)
 
7:07 PM
@Xirema huh. Can you earn it multiple tims?
@ColinGross That is always kind of irritating when that happens.
 
@Rubiksmoose Doesn't bother me at all. I didn't realize the comment on my answer was by the OP.
 
@Rubiksmoose You can earn most 'singular event' type badges multiple times
 
IT's pretty common for a question to have an expected answer someone wants validated.
 
@ColinGross I should say it is annoying when they start arguing with the answers. It is fine to have an opinion.
 
@ColinGross I don't think that's what their comment is saying though. Like, if you've already moved 15 feet and then grapple someone, can you move from there?
 
7:10 PM
@NautArch I wrote a question like that a while back about paladin steeds and paladins and smite spells.
 
@Xirema I agree, Rubik's answer is correct RAW, but it just seems wrong to how even in-game physics work. The other answers state what should (in my opinion) be correct, but the rules contradict them.
 
@Xirema They were essentially re-asking their question. I hadn't explicitly called out that there was 0 movement remaining in their case. I called out that if they moved 5 and released they had 10 remaining.
 
It is always kind of hard when we are really pretty sure how the rules should work, but the rules give us no means to actually support that.
 
@ColinGross Well, that's not quite the same thing. They're flipping the order.
 
@Xirema They're moving then releasing, then trying to move more, no?
 
7:12 PM
Like, two scenarios:

1. You grapple someone, move 15 feet. You have 0 move left.
2. You move 15 feet, grapple someone. How much move do you have left?
 
@Xirema I was assuming they were asking about the first scenario.
 
Urhg, I feel bad voting on any of those answers. They're all part reasonable and part non-sense, and it's not their fault.
 
@ColinGross Their comment says "moving 15 feet and then grappling", sounds like scenario 2.
 
@GreySage It's all non-sense, so don't feel about about that part.
 
We need a meta: "what to do when the correct answer is just dumb"
 
7:15 PM
@Xirema Good point! I totally missed that.
Thanks.
 
I think part of the issue is that "halving speed" can result in some weird Asymmetry. Like, a character could move 15', grapple, then have 7.5' movement left. But if they grapple someone, move 7.5 feet, then let go of them, they only have 7.5' of movement left. So ordering their actions one way lets them move 22.5', the other way only lets them move 15'.
Do people usually rule that that's how it works?
 
@Xirema In the second case you aren't trying to drag a grappled creature
 
@Xirema I just halve the move speed. Not the remaining movement.
Move 20, grapple. You have 10 left. Start to drag, you have 0 left.
I think @KorvinStarmast is right that it would have been better written in the same language as crawling or swimming.
 
@ColinGross I mean, RAW will let you rule that way. But it doesn't feel right.
 
@Xirema I concur with that. Changing move speeds mid turn is weird. I have a monk player that does that sometimes. I just add or subtract from the move speed instead of dealing with tracking the % movement consumed and applying modifiers to it.
Basically, always do step of the wind BEFORE you move or dash.
 
7:20 PM
@KorvinStarmast I'm still salty about divine smites and JCs ruling for GWF :)
I kinda get the steed one, but it seems like it should work raw
 
@ColinGross Isn't Step of the Wind just its own Dash though?
 
I actually don't get encryptor's answer at all. There doesn't seem to be any rules or logical support to it at all.
@NautArch That ruling is bonkers. RAW clearly allows it.
 
I think I'm leaning towards @Rubiksmoose's answer for a purely RAW ruling. The phrasing "you can move a distance up to your speed" is pretty unambiguous.
Would never rule that way in a game I was DMing, but there you have it.
 
@Xirema how would you rule?
 
@Xirema Yeah I would just make it like difficult terrain right?
 
7:28 PM
"you can move a distance up to your speed" seems--and I'm coming into the conversation cold assuming it's 5e and speed/move modifications are at play--completely superfluous. Why not just "you can move" and trust your movement/speed/distance rules to actually work!?
 
@Rubiksmoose Yeah, I really don't get it. I also don't entirely get how smite spells wouldn't also work for your steed, but I'm more willing to accept that one.
 
@Rubiksmoose Pretty much this, @NautArch.
 
@Xirema Wouldn't that result in the same ruling, though? That you don't have any move left?
 
@NautArch Only in the situation where you move all 15 feet. It's where you stop at 5-10 feet where the ruling gets weird.
 
@T.J.L. edited examples into this comment, hope you don't mind.
 
7:30 PM
@nitsua60 5e is correct :)
 
@NautArch Also, by @Rubiksmoose's answer, you actually would get the 15 feet of movement back once you stopped grappling.
 
@nitsua60 "you can move a distance up to your speed" is pretty much the begining and the end of all the official rules on speed and movement in the game, so...
 
@Xirema Hmm. I'm more inclined to go with @ColinGross'
but that's the beauty of this game :)
 
The issue with both answers though is that they both create a magical, invisible tether that attaches you to the point where the grappled creature first sat, and does not allow you to move more than 15 feet away from that point. The only difference is that @Rubiksmoose's answer releases the tether if you release the grapple. Either way, the implication is that the effort of moving the creature has 0 effect on your ability to move, which doesn't seem right.
Since to me, that's what causes the reduced movement: struggling to move a [unwilling] creature.
 
@Xirema of course it doesnt seem right, it's RAW
7
 
7:36 PM
@SirCinnamon Rules as WRONG
 
@SirCinnamon you gotta cook it to make it right
 
7:50 PM
@ColinGross Any chance we could work on editing this question and get it reopened?
 
^I'd be interested in helping as well (including revising my answer if needed)
I think it is an interesting question and deserves chance
 
@NautArch I'm going to ask a different question that gets to the issue with GWF and sneak attack. I'd have to change the title of that question and the tag. It was unclear, and clearing it up might invalidate both of the answer I liked.
 
@KorvinStarmast am I crazy here?
 
@Xirema Which means you get your full move so long as you use your grappled move first. Basically, it costs you no movement to drag an unwilling creature with you.
@nitsua60 You are crazy, but not there
At least in 2nd edition, AC was backwards from how it is now. Lower was better.
 
@ColinGross Which I think might be the RAW ruling, but I refuse to believe that that was what the developers intended.
 
7:58 PM
@Xirema I don't read the RAW as releasing the grapple undoes the movement effect for the turn.
I agree with your earlier statement that it's a poorly written rule.
 
@nitsua60 Not at all. I posted that from a phone.
 
@ColinGross Right. Because "first-class" armor is way better than "fourth-class." =)
 
00:00 - 20:0020:00 - 00:00

« first day (2990 days earlier)      last day (1957 days later) »