TRPG General Chat

7:00 PM

@NautArch this is actually not possible. Only wizards and pact of the tome warlocks can inscribe spells and the pott warlock can only use the book of secrets.

Consider also that the book literally allows you to use a bag of rocks as a spellbook. Hardly could be considered a book could it?

NautArch

@MikeQ but then you've got a Wizard's spellbook (which requires you can only put Wizard spells in) that now has Warlock spells.

So you've created a workaround that isn't in the rules.

@Rubiksmoose not understanding...what's not possible?

Mike Q

@NautArch I was considering that, but can't a multiclass warlock/wizard use either class's spell slots anyway?

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch a warlock transcribing spell but not into the book of shadows

goodguy5

Alright, I've got the solution for this spellbook nonsense

take the two books, and tie (or glue) the back cover of one to the front cover of the other.

boom

"one" book

Mike Q

@goodguy5 Or, if the books are different sizes, then you can cut a hole in the pages of the larger book, and put the smaller book inside

Rubiksmoose

7:06 PM

@NautArch here's the thing. I know where you are coming from and I understand it completely. But this is one of those things that just really has super minimal mechanical implications and allowing it just makes so much sense and has so much theme to it. There's literally no downside to allowing it except for "the rules don't explicitly say it can work"

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose that and completely removing a major obstacles to wizards: losing their spellbook.

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch only if the DM allows the spells to stay in it. I wouldn't

SPavel

One of the things we lost in 5e that 3.5 had in spades were fluffy options that were nevertheless official because they were written in a book and thus were more likely to be accepted by a DM

Rubiksmoose

there is a problem with your logic though:

"When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a level for which you have spell slots and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it."

where does it say that you cannot add other spells to it?

SPavel

Alternative spellbooks were one of those things

NautArch

7:12 PM

@Rubiksmoose But then it's not really in the book. If you're describing loose sheets of paper that are stuffed into the Book of Shadows, then I'd say yes, that works.

SPavel

Such as tattoos, bone carvings, or even architectural spellbooks

goodguy5

@NautArch You can lose your book of shadows, just as easily.

SPavel

Whenever I play wizards, they always get discrete ink of key spells

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch There is no rule saying what stays and goes outside of the inscribed spells. Thus, DM can easily say the spells don't stay without violating anything. Thus combining the books.

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose put my own answer in

goodguy5

7:15 PM

@SPavel note to self: make a place with marble pillars. Where a wizard lives. On each pillar is etched a spell.

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose Right, you're having to make up rules on the fly, which could potentially create an issue. If all are on board with the mechanics, then it's fine - but that's homebrew territory. RAW mechanically you cannot.

SPavel

@goodguy5 The rules for spellbook architecture actually had the floor plan define the spells!

Mike Q

@Rubiksmoose No, I'm pretty sure that the "Not explicitly no = Yes" reasoning doesn't hold. Just take it to its logical conclusion - what's to say that wizards can't add cleric, druid, bard, paladin spells?

SPavel

Imagine a magic academy constructed in such a way that its students could prepare spells out of it

And not just writing on a different surface

NautArch

@MikeQ Exactly, the argument of "it doesn't say I can't, so I can" is a very bad one.

@MikeQ the line that you can only inscribe WIzard spells? :D

SPavel

7:18 PM

Possession is nine tenths of the law

KorvinStarmast

@Nautarch the argument of "it doesn't say I can't, so I can" is a very bad one No, it's not. It's a pov, not a bad answer, and not a bad arguiment . It is a way to engage with the rules

NautArch

@KorvinStarmast I didn't say it's a bad answer, i said it's a bad argument.

SPavel

Honestly, spell lists are one of the sacred cows I'd like to see D&D kill, so the designers can focus on different methods of casting (such as warlock vs wizard)

NautArch

although typing that, i'm not sure there's a difference :) But I'm just not a fan of it, so maybe I was using too much hyperbole.

goodguy5

@NautArch one more time before I post it as a comment:
My only issue with your answer is that I don't see anywhere detailing that the new book granted by the Warlock's Patron is "summoned back in its entirety", but rather a "new book". Why would the Patron take the time to put the Wizards spells into the new book?

Mike Q

7:18 PM

@NautArch Does it say wizard spells, or does it limit to "only" wizard spells?

SPavel

>Why would the Patron take the time to put the Wizards spells into the new book?
This is why you should tip your spellbook valet

Rubiksmoose

@goodguy5 they wouldn't. it is a bit of a strawman.

KorvinStarmast

The issue at hand for me is that the warlock's book is only for ritual spells.

NautArch

It says "When you find a wizard spell
of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is
of a level for which you have spell slots and if you can spare
the time to decipher and copy it."

nowhere does it say you can inscribe anything else.

@KorvinStarmast That's the Book of Secrets - the Book of Shadows only had 3 cantrips, and you can't add anymore.

Mike Q

@NautArch Technically, it doesn't explicitly say you can't, but you are correct that it's implied

KorvinStarmast

7:20 PM

That's a specific thing, whereas a Wizard's spell book can have any spell in it, without restriction. That implies to me two different tools .

NautArch

@MikeQ Otherwise they'd say "Any spell of 1st level or higher"

they limited it to Wizard spells. YOu don't need to say only when you list only one.

@KorvinStarmast Wizard spellbooks can only contain wizard spells.

KorvinStarmast

OK, any wizard spell, got it.

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch here's the thing you are coming from the wrong direction. Say the character starts as warlock and gets book of shadows. Cool. Then later MCs into wizard. What is to prevent a wizard from grapsing the BOS and saying "this is my spellbook"?

goodguy5

the thing here is that merging the spellbooks doesn't allow a warlock to cast the wizard spells as a warlock.

(kinda)

We all agree that you can insert sheets of paper to act as a wizard spellbook into the book of shadows, right?

Do we all agree that your book of shadows is still functional as a book of shadows if you spill glue into the space between the back cover and the last page? @NautArch?

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose Because that book can only contain wizard spells.

I mean, if you want to homebrew the book to allow new spells to be inscribed and have it's replacement only contain the original 3 cantrips, then there really isn't a difference. But it opens the door for arguments that doesn't need to be opened.

goodguy5

7:24 PM

And then a follow up to my point, if you spill glue in the back cover, that fuses your wizard pages "book" to the book of shadows, then what?

NautArch

@goodguy5 See what I said above.

SPavel

@goodguy5 I think that violates the book's EULA and the warlock lawyers come to have a chat with you

goodguy5

I don't see how that answers my question

NautArch

@goodguy5 Because you're homebrewing to allow the books to do things they can't (you can't inscribe new spells into the Book of SHadows without the Book of Secrets Invocation AND you can only put Wizard spells into a Wizard SPellbook).

Mike Q

@goodguy5 What you're suggesting is logical, although it becomes problematic if/when the player tries to apply wizard spellbook mechanics to their written warlock spells, or vice versa

Rubiksmoose

7:25 PM

@NautArch I think this is a false extrapolation from the rules. If they were only a wizard it would be true. A pure wizard can only write wizard spells in their book of course. But Warlock grants another spell writing feature.

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose But ONLY if they took the invocation Book of Secrets. And then it's ONLY ritual spells.

goodguy5

So, as long as I manually glue all of my spellpages into my book of shadows, I can use them as the same book in Nautarch's game; got it

NautArch

Functionally, a pasted in loose page of a wizard spell is nearly identical to just writing that spell in the sidebar or a blank sheet of the actual Book of Shadows (once you bypass the existing limitations on the Book of Shadows and Secrets).

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch "When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook" "You can now inscribe magical rituals in your Book of Shadows." These are both enabling abilities, not restrictive ones.

NautArch

@goodguy5 Yes. It sound silly and pedantic, but I'm not handwaiving past the limitations of both books.

@Rubiksmoose Where does it say you can inscribe nonritual spells?

Rubiksmoose

7:28 PM

@NautArch in the wizard class description

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose In the book of shadows?

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch if that is what you consider you spellbook then yes.

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose And bypassing all the requirements and rules for Book of SHadows. Would you allow it to a Warlock who didn't take Book of Secrets?

Or is your argument basically "it's just paper, so ill write on it. And if it gets destroyed, I"ve lost all my wizard spells"

Rubiksmoose

Lets remove the names of these things for a moment and maybe I will make my point a bit clearer. Wizard is allowed to write wizard spells in a book of their choice (BookA). Warlock is allowed to write ritual spells in one specific book (BookB). If a wizard defines BookA=BookB then they are allowed to write spells in it.

NautArch

Warlock can ONLY write those if they take a specific invocation.

otherwise, they can not add more.

Mike Q

7:31 PM

I'm a bit confused about the argument against. Let's say the books are the same, and the character adds a new spell. Is it a warlock spell, or a wizard spell, or both? And why does it matter?

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch ok... then pretend I said "Warlock has a BookB with some cantrips in it" makes no difference.

NautArch

@MikeQ Because warlocks and wizards have different spellcasting stats.

they don't share teh same system.

goodguy5

And just as a reminder for everyone, the game very clearly points out that theme, flavor, and fun are the premier driving forces in the game. imo, "no, you can't use just the one book because the game doesn't say you can and it doesn't benefit you at all" is not fun, not thematic, and not flavorful. All at the cost of zero balancing issues

Mike Q

@NautArch For managing the books, yes, but not really for spellcasting. A spellcaster who multiclasses into warlock is allowed to use their warlock slots for non-warlock spells.

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch for the record, I am not arguing that the spells which are inscribed in the book would function any differently than if they were not. Wizard spells stay wizard spells and same for warlock. It is basically just a theme thing.

NautArch

7:33 PM

@goodguy5 As long as you are saying that the wizard spells do not reappear, then I don't think there is an issue - but I stand by my point that it is a homebrew solution,.

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch It is a "rules gap thus DM call" solution really. You aren't overruling anything stated, just making a judgement on what works best for your game.

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose And for the record,you're having to call out a lot of specifics in order for a player not to gain an advantage with this. It's a lot of homework to CYA when you really don't need to.

goodguy5

@NautArch I am 100% saying that.
Additionally, I don't see how there is any other interpretation.

If I buy a copy of Twilight (just in case I turn into an angsty housewife), and transcribe 1000 poems in it. All of those poems are lose when I buy (or am given) a new one.

NautArch

@goodguy5 There is, because the Warlock replacement says it replaces the book. If it' replacing the book along with the additional rituals you'v added through that invocation, then why wouldn't include everything in the book? It's given you a copy of what you lost. In order to not do that, you have to tell people that.

goodguy5

/shrug

Mike Q

7:37 PM

@NautArch Does it necessarily give you a copy of everything? Or just a new fresh copy of the book, without the "modifications", i.e. wizard spells?

goodguy5

Fine, I think we agree on the outcome, but disagree on whether its homebrew or not.

so, I'll take it

NautArch

@MikeQ What about the rituals added with the BOok of Secrets? If thsoe come back, then it seems like yes, everything in the book comes back. If you allow Wizard spells to be in the Book itself, then those technically should return on recall. It doesn't say they don't - it says the book is replaced. Not the original book, but the book.

If irt's a fresh, pure copy, then it's only the original 3 cantrips.

And that would stink for someone who took that Invocation.

Mike Q

@NautArch Okay, so that's the exploit. Kind of a fringe case, and at best, it saves the PC the time and money to re-add spells. But if it's really so bad, then it's easy to solve: The DM rules that the wizard spells don't come back.

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch The rules are not written with multiclassing in mind in theme or mechanics. As a DM I would allow this and absolutely consider it allowed RAW. Being a DM call does not make it homebrew. There are plenty of spells who explicitly require the DM to make it function.

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose Yes, but you are also explicitly ignoring the requirements of a wizard spellbook (only inscribing wizard spells of 1st level or higher) and ignoring that you can't inscribe anything in the Shadows without investing in an Invocation.

Yes, it's making things simpler for a wizard/warlock, but you're having to put a lot of rules in place to keep it from being OP.

Rubiksmoose

7:41 PM

@NautArch this is the core of our disagreement. The rules explicitly allow you to add wizard spells to your spellbook. They are silent on everything else.

NautArch

Right, and being silent is not the same as allowing. I can present a multitude of absurd arguments based on that logic.

IN this case, the risk is minimal as long as all parties understand that those spells disappear on replacement.

Mike Q

I don't see how it could be OP. There's really just the perk of not having to rewrite the spellbook. And that's a relatively rare event anyway.

NautArch

Not having to spend days and gold is a pretty big perk.

Rubiksmoose

@MikeQ I've actually never been in a campaign where the wizard was ever separated from his book

NautArch

And for a wizard, if they don't have the spell prepap=red, they can't recreate

it's lost until they find new written versions of the unprepared spells

Rubiksmoose

7:46 PM

@NautArch one last try: A wizard chooses their spellbook. Why can't they choose the Warlock. Can a wizard not choose to define their spellbook as one they find? What if it has spells that are higher level than they can cast? Is it not a spellbook then?

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose I get it. You're jsut having to explain that those spells are not part of the actual book of shadows. THey're written in it, but they aren't actually part it. is that right?

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch Yup that is the thrust of the matter.

NautArch

so it's not really that the book of shadows i their spellbook. more that they are temporarily borrowing the material of it.

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch I just think the book can have both identities simultaneously without issue. But that is the way to justify it mechanically if oyu had to.

goodguy5

fun fact on that last point from naut.... if the warlock gets a new book, the old one disintegrates

Zachiel

7:51 PM

Bah, just roll a sorcerer XD

goodguy5

imagine finding a spellbook that looks super rad. Then a few weeks into your campaign, it crumbles to dust

Zachiel

(I'm in the "book can be both books" camp, ut I have no rule expertise, by the way)

SPavel

You should be able to roll up a doobie with a wizard's spellbook pages, and gain powers

goodguy5

maybe that's how you cast scrolls!

lol

Rubiksmoose

@goodguy5 that is heartbreaking!

SPavel

7:56 PM

@Rubiksmoose the Apple Music model

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch fwiw you get an upvote because your answers are well-reasoned and because I definitely want your answer to get the attention it deserves, but you may want to modify it to not just assume that if a DM allows it they have to allow the wizard spells to regenerate. I think it is disingenuous and a bit of a strawman argument.

goodguy5

How does everyone feel about the Eldritch Knight's weapon being the same physical weapon as Pact of the Blade?

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose I don't think I will, only because I see quite easily a player arguing that if they're in the book of shadows, they'll be replaced. I think that's a more powerful argument than the opposite. You're having to make a special rule for content inside the book.

Rubiksmoose

@goodguy5 hmmm Pact of the Blade lets you make a melee weapon so I'm not sure that would apply

Mike Q

I don't see why the tome necessarily regenerates with any non-warlock-mechanic modifications that were made before its destruction. Especially if one of those modifications is what destroyed the tome in the first place.

Rubiksmoose

8:03 PM

@NautArch There is no rule to begin with so you have to make one either way. But that is fine it is your call.

goodguy5

@Rubiksmoose It says you "create a weapon". For all intents and purposes, it's a real weapon.... until it poofs out of existence. And furthermore, you can bond with magical items.

Rubiksmoose

@goodguy5 I guess I'm not familiar with EK off hand.

GreySage

@goodguy5 Both Weapon Bond and Pact of the Blade say you can take an existing weapon and create a bond with it/make it your pact weapon (it has to be magical for the Pact), so I wouldn't see any issue with it.

Rubiksmoose

@goodguy5 XD fantastic.

goodguy5

huh?

Rubiksmoose

8:12 PM

18 mins ago, by goodguy5

maybe that's how you cast scrolls!

I was responding to that^

If you hover over a reply you can see what comment it was replying to.

You can reply by using the arrow icon when you hover over a post.

goodguy5

o.O

I did not know that

neat

Rubiksmoose

@goodguy5 yup it is super handy!

goodguy5

the more you know!
/GIJoe_Gif_Here

Rubiksmoose

@goodguy5 \o/

goodguy5

giphy.com/explore/the-more-you-know

eh, wasn't sure what would happen

Rubiksmoose

8:19 PM

@goodguy5 I think I've seen gifs embedded here?

goodguy5

ah ha

wrong format

Rubiksmoose

it's alive!

Zachiel

@JuneShores Is it a RPG, then, if we play to record a podcast or a video of the game? Is it a RPG if we play as a creativity exercise to get ideas for writing books? I've seen both happen.

BESW

@Rubiksmoose Self-answered questions are a good way to bring people familiar with a game to the site.

Zachiel

@Rubiksmoose It's surely not how you cast iron XD

Hey @BESW

BESW

8:33 PM

[wave]

What's new?

Zachiel

I've been to the hospital recently (visiting, I'm OK) and I've seen a pair of paintings there and I want to identify them but I don't think there's an appropriate stack.

BESW

Ooh, that can be hard.

Rubiksmoose

@BESW Good point! I'll have to be very careful if I do self answer that the answer is right so as not to present a wrong answer to passers by on a low traffic question.

BESW

Did you take pictures of them, or do you just have descriptions?

Zachiel

@BESW yeah, there's a lot of paintings out there.

@BESW Descriptions, blame my cellphone

BESW

8:35 PM

Do you know if they're reproductions or originals?

Zachiel

@BESW a printed poster

Rubiksmoose

@Zachiel there might be a spell though... oh real life

Zachiel

They look like classical paintings, from somebody really skilled - I guess they're from someone passably famous.

BESW

@Rubiksmoose I've created new system tags on SAQs a few times, and sometimes it brings the actual game dev to the site; sometimes it gets existing users to pick up the game...

Rubiksmoose

@BESW I would love for both/either it seems like a fun system.

BESW

8:41 PM

I don't know of any place that's really set up to identify paintings by description--probably because it's really hard to describe a painting well enough to do that unless it's super famous.

But I'd be willing to give it a shot. Probably can't help but can try.

Zachiel

The one I'm interested in has three women at a public bath with large pools. The lower part has the women, the men are in the back, but there isn't a proper separation. Indeed, one of the men is belly down on the marble border of the pool, trying to reach down, the lecher. The woman in the middle has sandals and a flowing vest. There's huge cylindical columns in some dark brown stone, with white corinthyan capitals and friezes. Lots of people, but most on the background. Portrait orientation.
Orientalism. Vibrant colours. Probably oil on canvas?

SPavel

Orientalism, but oil on canvas? Huh.

Zachiel

the men pools are on an higher level. Maybe not orientalism, then. Just an impression.

Rubiksmoose

@Zachiel like a Japanese onsen?

Zachiel

No, more like some weird mix of classical greece and and something that reminded me of paintings of arabic merchants that I have seen recently, but yes, that was probably the wrong word. Neoclassicism maybe?

SPavel

8:50 PM

@Zachiel Is it The Baths of Caracalla?

Zachiel

Wow

10 points for... which Harry Potter house are you, @SPavel?

goodguy5

Ivermorny!

SPavel

@Zachiel that's a good question, probably either Ravenclaw or Slytherin

goodguy5

#pukwudgie

SPavel

I guess probably more Ravenclaw, Slytherin is the MBA House

and I'm not good at social

Zachiel

8:55 PM

Had you been Slytherin, "-5 points for your insolence" would have been my choice.

SPavel

I thought insolence was a class feature?

Zachiel

Anyway, the guy reaching down is probably a kid. Sorry, boy, I misjudged you.

doppelgreener

@SPavel right, pureblood upper class feature

SPavel

@Zachiel What was the second painting?

BESW

Nicely done. I stepped out to help my dad get on the bus.

Zachiel

9:01 PM

@SPavel probably same author. Theres's this statue of a panther (maybe on a pier?), on a short column/round base of some sorts, seen from behind. The panther is pretty muscular. I think there's a pair of women near to it. But I focused more on the panther.

Found it, not a pier, a balcony over the sea

Rubiksmoose

@goodguy5 hahaha

goodguy5

@Rubiksmoose Murica!

Rubiksmoose

@Zachiel some people like women. some people like panthers. we get it.

Zachiel

@SPavel "a coign of vantage left"

BESW

My avatar image is from a painting I first saw in a recreation of Emerson's study and took a while to track down.

SPavel

9:05 PM

@Zachiel ah boo found it myself but it was slow to load

woah

@BESW That one is slightly less stupid - much smaller heads & larger wings

But all the "scientific" ones on Wikipedia look insane

BESW

It's also a little outdated.

More recent research suggests they spent most of their time walking.

KorvinStarmast

9:13 PM

@BESW the people or the reptiles with wings?

BESW

@KorvinStarmast Both!

Also they probably didn't only use their wings to take off.

KorvinStarmast

grin Further research suggests that the saddle in the foreground is an anachronism, since saddles weren't developed until about 200 BC. :)

Yeah, they had to climb up and jump.

goodguy5

or... an alien artifact!

SPavel

@KorvinStarmast horse saddles weren't - IIRC horses were only bred to be strong enough to carry a rider solo fairly recently, before then chariots were the norm

In a world with huge flying lizards, they'd have been invented sooner

KorvinStarmast

@SPavel Actually, about 2000 BC there were horse riders. See David Anthony. The Horse, the Wheel, and Language.

goodguy5

9:16 PM

*In a world of huge flying lizards that had been tamed

Zachiel

@goodguy5 our D&D barbarian dares to disagree.

SPavel

@KorvinStarmast do we know the PIE word for "chafing"? :P

BESW

> using all four legs, it takes less than a second to get off of flat ground, no wind, no cliffs

KorvinStarmast

I don't, but I found that the fact that host and guest derive form the same root word in PIE instructive ...

Zachiel

@BESW Except for Elephants, I guess.

KorvinStarmast

9:19 PM

@SPavel Thanks to some excellent Russian archaeology, Anthony was able to piece together some neat synthesis in that book. Chariots and horses being ridden happened in parallel, but he makes a good case for horses being ridden (though not fought from) years before Chariots came on the scene in the steppes between Black sea and Caspian sea. They were later copied by those further south, like the Hittites and such.

SPavel

@KorvinStarmast darn Hittites always stealin' the good ideas

KorvinStarmast

@Spavel That isn't why they failed, the rumor is among bronze age historians that their problem started with famine and spread from there. Sorta like the Maya, but not in a jungle.

SPavel

@KorvinStarmast I like that, "rumor." Historians gossiping about Hittites.

KorvinStarmast

The old way to fight from a horse was ride up, dismount, fight/raid, mount up and bolt. That's how the Scythians moved west.

SPavel

@KorvinStarmast And now we're back full circle to this morning :P

Rubiksmoose

9:24 PM

@SPavel good job team!

KorvinStarmast

Having read afew books about the Bronze age, I get the idea that there is still some disagreement between Archaeologists on details ...

SPavel

Dungeons and Dragoons and Scythians

Zachiel

@SPavel Scythians, who crit 4x as a racial.

goodguy5

That's one of the few things I miss about 3.X
Extra crit weapons

GreySage

@Zachiel And they don't even need Psionics!

KorvinStarmast

9:25 PM

Contemporary writings seem to me to be so eager to find a way to throw the phrase "climate change" into every bloody article ...

SPavel

@Zachiel Mostly they are known for burial mounds

goodguy5

Barbarians with a Scythe was my jam.

SPavel

@KorvinStarmast when you have a climate 20 but everything on the menu is 5 bucks, you need some climate change

GreySage

@SPavel Of course they are, where else would they put all the people they cut the heads off of with their 4x crits?

KorvinStarmast

The first time I heard the term Scythian was when dad played a record of Prokoviev's Scythian Suite. I had to go look the word up in the encyclopedia when I asked him what it meant.

Rubiksmoose

9:28 PM

@KorvinStarmast record? encyclopedia? what are these mysterious things

KorvinStarmast

There seems to be a cultural overlap between the early Celts pre bronze age and late stone age, and the Scythians.

SPavel

@Rubiksmoose records are the ancient precursor to Spotify

KorvinStarmast

I still have over 400 records on vinyl ...

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose I miss my family's world book encyclopedia collection. Loved just picking random books and reading.

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch aw man yeah I used to do that too... good times. Browsing wikipedia just isn't the same...

KorvinStarmast

9:29 PM

@NautArch Yeah. That was a good thing.

NautArch

@KorvinStarmast and yeah, i read it for the pictures :)

SPavel

Our distant ancestors would pay musicians to teach slaves to sing their songs, then those slaves would travel around the country singing the songs. Because consumers wanted to hear the music that they paid for quickly, the slaves had to run very fast, breaking many records for sprinting and long-distance. That's why they are called records.

NautArch

Encyclopedia Brittanica was too dense for easy browsing.

KorvinStarmast

@Spavel Don't quit your day job. :)

Zachiel

@Rubiksmoose try browsing TV... no, ok, I'm not that evil and I won't actually suggest it :P

SPavel

9:31 PM

Speaking of encyclopedias

There was a Russian internet encyclopedia project a few years back. They had the bright idea to lift articles wholesale from Wikipedia. However, because Wikipedia articles use the prefix "wiki-" all over the place, certain text would give the theft away to any reader. To avoid this, the owners of the scraping bot made it convert "wiki" to "encyclo" so that "wikipedia" became "encyclopedia." However, there is no W in Russian, so it was Viki -> Encyclo

You can see where this is going

People still cite the article on the savage, fearsome encyclongs that raided the North Sea in the Middle Ages

KorvinStarmast

WHedon leaves Batgirl project, as writer, since "he doesn't have a story" apparently.

msn.com/en-us/movies/news/…

GreySage

@KorvinStarmast When has "There is no plot to this movie" ever stopped a director/writer before?

Rubiksmoose

@GreySage certainly hasn't stopped any of the 38 transformers movies

BESW

I'm not gonna complain too loudly about the plausibility, I'll just be glad he's out of that project.

Balaur lived during the Late Cretaceous period & had two oversized claws on its back feet to slash prey. (Credit: Nobu Tamura)

Tweeted by Extinct_AnimaIs on February 22, 2018 at 7:15 PM

KorvinStarmast

@GreySage I don't think it's ever stopped one before. This might be a signal occurrence.

SPavel

9:40 PM

@Rubiksmoose Are explosions not plot

GreySage

Is there a thing that makes it so answers stop showing up in vote-descending order (with accepted answers on top)?

KorvinStarmast

A new version of the Mendoza Line I prefer the one from baseball. :(

Rubiksmoose

@SPavel I've heard there are some that argue that they are not

SPavel

@Rubiksmoose teach the controversy

GreySage

@Rubiksmoose The explosions have to cry for it to qualify as plot

KorvinStarmast

9:41 PM

@GreySage There's a meta on that.

BESW

Rubiksmoose

@KorvinStarmast yeah I remember just reading it in fact.

GreySage

@BESW There we go, for some reason I was stuck on oldest

@KorvinStarmast There's a meta on crying explosions?

NautArch

I admit I liked the first couple transformer movies. And I like Marky Mark Wahlberg. But Wahlberg in the transformer movies? Those ones have been awful.

KorvinStarmast

I admit that I never liked Transformers at all, ever, except for a few toys that I bought for my son. The stories always made me roll my eyes.

NautArch

9:47 PM

@KorvinStarmast I was obsessed as a kid with them. Loved my transformers toys. Got my son into them, too. He was very sad to hear that all of my originals were given to a cousin who tossed them.

SPavel

"What if cool cars were also robots, and then what if these army planes and stuff were ALSO robots" is just about the most American attitude possible

NautArch

@SPavel or japanese.

we just steal their stuff.

SPavel

@NautArch Not enough high school students

GreySage

The first movie was decent, and I actually really liked the 3rd one, the rest were pretty much unwatchable.

NautArch

@GreySage I didn't think the 2nd was unwatchable. But the 4th and 5th? Yeah. Even I couldn't sit through them.

Rubiksmoose

9:54 PM

@NautArch I was too, and then the first live action movie just broke my heart. Was so excited for it as well.

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose sadly, I loved it. But I did put a LOT aside just for the joy of watching that cgi animation.

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch I was probably expecting too much, but yeah.

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose Yeah, I didn't go in expecting anything more than awesome transformations and battles. Was pretty happy with that.

I have shown my son the 80s movie, though. Loves it. My wife allowed him to watch the first live action when I wasn't around. A week later, he peed on a friend. Thanks bumblebee. Thanks wife.

BESW

Lindsay Ellis's examination of film studies through the lens of the contemporary Transformers films is very revealing.

5

KorvinStarmast

@GreySage Was this the meta you are thinking about?

Rubiksmoose

10:05 PM

@NautArch hahahaha

@KorvinStarmast that's the one I was thinking of at least

KorvinStarmast

@BESW Lindsay puts a nice human face on film criticism and analysis. Not stuffy

BESW

Analysis means nothing if it only begins and ends with words. It's gotta tie back into how people live their lives so it can have an effect on the world.

Art is a people thing.

KorvinStarmast

@BESW Indeed it is; art is seen through multiple lenses, and so can evoke multiple meanings and understandings.

BESW

(And this ties back into what "experts" means on the Stack Exchange.)

SPavel

@BESW oh it's like that nerd guy that rants about Star Wars prequels, only a woman, and Transformers, and actually qualified

BESW

10:17 PM

And also not ranting.

Rubiksmoose

so its basically the same thing!

SPavel

ooh picked up Notable Question

Rubiksmoose

@SPavel yay! for what?

SPavel

and Good Question - both for the first time apparently

27

Q: Is 5th Edition D&D combat faster than in 3.5 at low levels?

I am trying to get a group together, and we cannot agree on an edition of D&D. An argument being made by the pro-5e side is that 5th edition D&D goes faster than in revised 3rd edition, all other things being equal. I know that 3.5 can get crazy in the high levels, but since the game will be low ...

Rubiksmoose

@SPavel ah yeah I should have guessed. That one was a good one.

(and completely beyond my "expertise" being only experienced in PF and 5e)

Zachiel

10:23 PM

I don't want to double back on "why 4e is even slower" but... boy, am I trying to do things to speed it up now!

SPavel

Sadly the gold versions (100 upvotes, 10,000 views) are probably out of reach on this stack

I'm surprised to see they've been awarded as many times as they have been

Zachiel

1) remove all old character sheets from the room, so that people don't have to look twice at a sheet of paper to understand if it's current, before using it.

SPavel

I like that the only question on the entire site that's won the "100 favourites" badge is "How do I get my PCs to not be a bunch of murderous cretins?"

Zachiel

@SPavel A very felt problem.

BESW

10:40 PM

@Zachiel Felt problems are what muppets go to the doctor to get fixed.

airhorns

waterbanjos

fireharpsichords

earthdrumkits. Ba-dum tchsssss

(Earth is solid and no-nonsense. No fancy italics for earth.)

KorvinStarmast

@SPavel I never liked that question, and once told mxy that I thought he was trolling the RPG community. (He later advised me that I was mistaken about that).

SPavel

10:47 PM

@Zachiel The four nations lived together in harmony. Then everything changed when the fireharpsichord nation attacked.

@KorvinStarmast I share your distaste; nevertheless, it was quite a hit

BESW

(source)

Zachiel

@SPavel Can't they wait some more years to do that? I'm planning to kidnap Toph when she grows up, but no, you need to wage war right now when she's free to help Aang and friends.

SPavel

@Zachiel My name is TOPH because sounds like TOUGH and that's what I am

Just about the only ball Legend of Korra didn't drop was old Toph

KorvinStarmast

@Spavel It was an interesting introduction to this sites norms and biases, given that I had a two paragraph answer that, having read the extended answers, I chose not to post.

Yuuki

@SPavel ~~attacked~~ played an F#.

BESW

10:55 PM

Yuuki

Bearbend-didisaybendididntmeanbendplsdonthurtmemrgrizzly-ers.

SPavel

@Yuuki Forget F#, how about 24 fortes

Shalvenay

hey there @Zachiel and @KorvinStarmast

Zachiel

Hey. Heading to bed now.

GreySage

@SPavel That was a really good read

SPavel

11:13 PM

@GreySage Good reads are what I do. Goodreads Pavel, they call me.

BESW

goodreads.

RedRiderX

@BESW Has she finished that series yet?

BESW

Don't think so.

RedRiderX

Ah well, but yeah her videos are pretty good.

goodguy5

11:31 PM

I need more help on my [action surge damage question](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/115624/whats-the-maximum-damage-that-can-be-dealt-in-one-round-by-a-20th-level-charact)...

How much setup should I allow? My original thought was "zero setup. first round of combat. nuke em". Is that fair? Some of the answers imply that there has been an amount of setup (1 round maybe)

BESW

To make those choices, you need to think about what you're trying to solve. What experience at the table led you to ask the question?

goodguy5

nothing at the table. I was just musing about action surge

BESW

Then there's not much to latch onto in terms of what your guidelines should be.

goodguy5

I think 1 non-combat round is fair. burst in the door, attack the thing

BESW

If your question is just "I'm curious," then there's no way to judge "fair" or "reasonable" except by your own curiosity.

goodguy5

11:42 PM