« first day (2849 days earlier)      last day (964 days later) » 
00:00 - 15:0015:00 - 00:00

3:08 PM
Based on the previous meta is this sequester question a dupe? given that the core question is whether or not you are incapacitated which is the same question?
@NautArch I agree with @DavidCoffron that it is not a dupe.
I dont thiiiiink its a dupe
@NautArch Again, place yourself in the shoes of someone who just learned the game. Would they see the questions as functionally the same? If not, in general, then both questions are worth being answered separately (perhaps if only to show that they have the same answer).
@DavidCoffron But really even from an experienced standpoint, concentration is not even the focus of the other question: duration is.
@Rubiksmoose Oh, that's the dupe he's talking about? I thought he meant the Sequester one.
That one isn't about Sequester at all
3:23 PM
And I don't even think that concentration is addressed or even of much concern in either the question or the answer
@Rubiksmoose Indeed, at the time it did not even cross my mind that concentration might somehow be disrupted by Time Stop
@DavidCoffron oh yeah, I wonder if he got his wires crossed there a bit?
when you're asking if something's a dupe, include of what :P
it helps the conversation flow ;)
@Sdjz I'm not sure if the answer to the Duration question (the bless one) is right...
Have to think on it
@Rubiksmoose Okay. Just seems like they're asking about whether you are incapacitated when under Timestop
3:25 PM
@NautArch Are you sure you aren't thinking of the sequester questions? this and this?
@NautArch Not quite. There are other factors to concentration than incapacitation. And sequester uses different words.
> suspended animation
@NautArch Because this, which you are pointing to as a dupe, doesn't talk about incapacitation or concentration at all... (you also said sequester in your original message which leads me to think you may have intended those)
I'm honestly not sure, those questions all are closely related. I think that this question and this may be dupes because they're both about concentration ending?
@NautArch the first question you linked does not even mention concentration though
@NautArch Are they? The first one linked is only about taking actions.
3:39 PM
guideline: if they are asking the same thing and have the same answer, they're a dupe; if they do not have the same answer, they are not a dupe. if A is answered in B, it is a dupe of B only if the answer is dead obvious AND it is dead obvious that B answers A. and by "dead obvious" i mean "to someone who first picked up the books five minutes ago". the answer should be clearly present at a glance.
@Sdjz Isn't taking actions the same thing as whether or not you are incapacitated?
@NautArch There are other effects that prevent you from taking actions than incapacitation
@NautArch Maybe but I don't think they are necessarily equivalent. Look at being surprised or something like the Confusion spell that may prevent someone from taking actions and reactions without making them actually incapaticated
Okoay, i'll stop debating it. I just don't get it after my last meta question and when/how to determine the core of a question rather than looking at the question at face value.
@NautArch The face value of each of these questions are related and may be necessary to answering another, but we can't assume the questioners know that in advance
3:46 PM
or i'm just reading more into the Action question (in that htey're really asking if you can maintain concentration)
Here's what dupes were invented for:
1. "How do I flange the sprocket?"
2. "If I have a sprocket, how do I flange it?"
All the other stuff is us using it a bit more liberally than it was meant for.
but we did for the meta question I linked to, no?
as i said, i'm going to end my debate because I clearly don't understand where to draw that line, so I won't draw it nor will I debate it when others do :) I"ll just dupe/undupe the obvious stuff.
That sunlight thing was an edge case, and it's permissable because it's obvious to anyone trying to figure out sunlight-ness. If it were anything else that dupe closure probably wouldn't have happened. I was inclined to leave it open myself.
And it seems to be overwhelmingly apparent that some of these questions are about "does concentration end during time stop", but let's stop :) Not worth it, I'm clearly not getting it an dnot sure I will :P
@NautArch Because the descriptions use the same terms. The only connecting question betweem the two (two separate them from each other) is "Is sunlight actually sunlight?"
3:48 PM
@NautArch Hey debating is always useful and I don't think anyone is claiming they know exactly where to draw the line. That what debating is for. Reaching understanding and consensus
@Sdjz DO you agree or disagree that the core of these time stop questions is whether or not concentration continues indefinitely?
Personally I disagree.
@NautArch Not all of the questions care about Concentration. Some are about Duration as a whole (not just Concentration), sequester uses different language than time stop, and one is about actions.
What y'all are probably seeing is that they retread common ground and deal with the same concepts, but that is OK and does not make them dupes.
@doppelgreener What about "How do I deal with a problem player who always flanges their sprocket?"
3:52 PM
@MikeQ different question, also closed as unclear, flanging a sprocket is an OK activity, not sure what the problem is
OKay, that's fair. The time stop question is 100% not a dupe because it's a different mechanic. The two Sequester questions are not dupes because one is asking purely about Action ability and the other is more general regarding ability to maintain concentration (which taking actions is part of, but not everything).
And the fact that ultimately, the questions seem to be about wanting to see if Sequester means long-term concentration doesn't really matter.
I'm on board with all that.
His answer has a lot of upvotes so am I completely off base here? What am I missing? (See this discussion)
@NautArch on that two sequester questions comparison, that sounds sane: would someone brand new to the game understand how to navigate the general concepts and understand that an Action is implicated in them?
@NautArch Hm I disagree. The ones that care about concentration are this and this but they are about different spells
@Sdjz But the possible intent of the querent is about maintaining a spell for longer than normally allowed.
3:55 PM
@NautArch We can't close a question because of possible intent though. Not by a longshot.
@NautArch Sure I can agree with that
If another question was "Can I extend spell duration with spells like time stop and sequester (which would probably be Too Broad since the spells are so different), then both of those would be dupes of it, I agree, but as is they are not.
@DavidCoffron I think you have a valid point. If you make an answer claiming duration is based on the flow of time not relative to any one character's perception of it, then you might have a good competing answer there.
With the SUnlight, they are dupes because one question is Does Item A provide Mechanic B and the second question is Does Mechanic X trigger because I'm not sure if Item A provides Mechanic B.
@Rubiksmoose Yeah, but time is so wishy washy in 5e that I'm worried it'll just be a testament to futility (not to mention as.beaulieu already did, just not as fully as may be necessary)
3:59 PM
@DavidCoffron A competing answer is legitimate there - but I think I agree with Korvin's answer.
@NautArch What about time stop stops spell Duration though? I'm not understanding any of the upvoter's (or Korvin's) position
@DavidCoffron Are we talking about Time Stop for the person who cast bless or for the person under Bless?
@NautArch The former.
All of the above. Time still flows so 1d4+1 round are subtracted from the minute
I don't think it should matter
@DavidCoffron But for Korvin's POV it does matter.
4:02 PM
@Rubiksmoose Right, but why?
I'm struggling to understand
I've read the answer like 6 times
Because the idea is that the duration is keyed to the spellcaster's ability to maintain and hold the spell.
@DavidCoffron I think the logic is that concentration duration is how many turns the caster can keep the spell up
you measure the time on the character who is maintaining concentration.
Nothing else matters
@NautArch But you don't. Nowhere in the rules does it say that. Duration is just time before the spell ends
I guess I was just hoping there was a premise I was missing, but that premise is just false
4:03 PM
@DavidCoffron Generally, yes you do. Except for something like Invisibility where there is a specific rule about breaking it.
@NautArch Where does it say spell duration is tied to a caster
@DavidCoffron Trying to find a specific point, but everything about spellcasting is keyed on the caster. Concentration doesn't break on a spell unless something happens to the caster. I'm drawing an assumption line (possibly erroneous) between that and that the duration is also tied to the caster.
If I cast a spell that doesn't require Concentration and then am removed from reality (I know time stop doesn't do that per se, but work with me), the spell persists for the Duration. Why would Concentration change that?
(assuming the character can still Concentrate outside of reality)
You know what, Ill ask that as a question.
@DavidCoffron Is there some mechanic that can remove someone in that way? If so, I would recommend including that since the removal process may be important here.
@Rubiksmoose Yes. Being trapped in a Lich's Phylactery
4:12 PM
@DavidCoffron DO you really want to ask is Time Relative to a player or is time a constant keyed to the plane or to a general concept of time?
I mean, time doesn't pass on Astral plane, so do duration spells last forever?
That's not quite my question. My question is related to whether a spell ends when you die/cease to exist
And if having something else Concentrate for you would mean Concentration spells persist (even though you don't exist anymore)
Dieing certainly ends a spell though right? It breaks concentration.
@Rubiksmoose I often struggle to concentrate when I'm dead
@SirCinnamon Heck, I have a hard enough time of it when I'm alive.
@Rubiksmoose See Modern Magic: Technomancy level 14: Chained Device
4:14 PM
Q: Do your spells end when you die?

trekkieykI linked to this answer in a 5e question, attempting to bring support for the idea that, if you cast an open-ended spell, like Magic Mouth, it could remain after you die. Someone pointed out that, as a Pathfinder question, it wasn't relevant. Is there evidence for this idea in 5e?

> When you cast a concentration spell,you can use a device whose computing power is equal to or greater than a tablet computer to maintain concentration of the spell on your behalf.
@DavidCoffron This is UA right?
@Rubiksmoose Yeah, and I'm worried about the line "The device must be held or worn by you to maintain this effect." Can a dead person wear something?
@DavidCoffron Hmmm I would say not but really no rules basis for it.
@DavidCoffron RAI, no, RAW....maybe
4:19 PM
> wear: ... have on one's body or a part of one's body as clothing, decoration, protection, or for some other purpose.
Wear is also a verb. A verb needs a doer. One can not do if you are dead.
@Rubiksmoose A dead thing can do verbs (and not all verbs need a doer). "He lie on the stone slab, cold as ice"
Or just "He is dead" ("is" is a verb)
I mean linking verbs are weird and fairly different from normal verbs, but I'm not an English major or anything here.
Just saying, I would rule no question that you cannot be said to be wearing something if you are dead.
For this purpose.
Well under that ruling, my question has no mechanical grounding. sigh
Are we allowed conditional questions?
like.... "My GM says that my Action Surge also gives me a second bonus action. Does this mean I can cast two Bonus Action spells in one turn?"
But that is my ruling. I can see someone allowing it though. There is no RAW and no RAI even for this situation as far as I can think of.
4:28 PM
Or should I ask the wearing as a dead person question first and use it as reference
And yeah I've seen conditional questions so nothing wrong with doing that. Sometimes they end up with frame challenges as answers but usually we can answer with reasonable conditions.
@DavidCoffron The wearing as a dead person looks like a good question already
Homebrew often causes this.
@DavidCoffron I"d say probably not because the intricacies of house rules are dependent on those who created them.
@Sdjz Now how do I ask that without using UA...
Oh, let's bring back burning things with firebolt
4:30 PM
@DavidCoffron It really depends on what you actually want the answer to.
@Rubiksmoose Whether it counts as worn while on a corpse. That is all
@DavidCoffron can an object wear something? Or is it just a collection of objects?
@DavidCoffron If you are interested in the answer to that specific question then that is good. OTherwise it is usually not a terribly successful idea to break a larger question into smaller parts.
@NautArch A dead creature is not just an object, it is also a dead creature
@Rubiksmoose Except my Modern Magic question is only a mechanical example of a theoretical question anyway
I need to remove all unnecessary variables
@DavidCoffron Pretty sure a corpse is an object.
Q: Is a dead creature's body considered an "object"?

Purple MonkeyI never really gave this much thought until this question brought it up: Is a dead creature's body considered to be an object? And is it still a creature? My initial reaction was that it would not be an object, just a dead creature, since objects and creatures are defined differently. However t...

4:32 PM
Minimum number of assumptions and all
@NautArch Yes, but it is also a dead creature
@DavidCoffron Where does it say a dead creature is still classified as a creature?
(and thus targetable by ressurection for example)
@NautArch Where does it say only a creature can wear something?
@NautArch This is not an argument that ends well unfortuantely due to the unclarity of language in various spells. JC does answer it, but it actually doesn't help too much.
4:33 PM
@DavidCoffron where does it say an object can wear something?
I think a dead creature is a type of Object. It's a subset.
@NautArch That is my question. Can an dead creature wear something? I don't see why not
@DavidCoffron I mean asking about UA is not terrible though. In fact it is the kind of shake down they should get from playtesters. Obviously it would be ideal if there were more/other examples. Any magic items that are required to be held and have an affect that would last that a dead body would care about?
Ioun stones I think are conisdered to be worn. I don't know if any of them would work as basis for a question though.
@Rubiksmoose Armor of Invulnerability if someone tries to destroy your corpse so it can't be resurrected (Object HP)
@DavidCoffron And if a corpse is an object, the question is can an object wear something. Or are you saying that other than the specific call-out for spells like resurrection, dead creatures are generally different and follow different rules than objects?
@Rubiksmoose and best to submit those in the questionnaires (if they're still up) about that UA.
@NautArch Certainly, but I was just saying that asking questions here about UA is perfectly fine.
4:39 PM
@NautArch I hesitate to apply any rules to "objects" since it is not well defined. In this case, yes. But Armor of Invulnerability is an interesting point.
> Additionally, you can use an action to make yourself immune to nonmagical damage for 10 minutes or until you are no longer wearing the armor.
When you die are you "no longer wearing the armor"
@DavidCoffron But ultimately, that's what you want to know, no? Does a dead creature follow the rules of Objects or does it not? Resurrection is a specific beats general that lets you target a specific type of object (dead creature.)
@NautArch No. I want to know if a dead creature can wear things.
I don't care about other objects
@DavidCoffron because you are no longer you? You are an object.
Ultimately, that may be part of the answer, but that is not "ultimately ... what [I] want to know"
@DavidCoffron So you're looking for a specific rule about dead creatures that overrides the general rules about objects?
4:41 PM
@NautArch Do you have a general rule that says objects can't wear things
@DavidCoffron Do you have a general rule that says they can?
Do you have a rule that says any of us exist?
@NautArch I don't need one. The plain English reading of worn suggests they can.
Normally, creatures can wear things. If you want an object to 'wear' something, I think you ahve to establish that they can.
@DavidCoffron Plain English? WOuld you say the hat standing is wearing the hat? Or would you say the hat is on the hat stand?
(and does that even matter?)
@NautArch People talk about manikins wearing clothes. Hat stand is a bad example
4:44 PM
"She was buried wearing her wedding dress."
I mean there is certainly language-based precedent for personifying objects in certain ways.
Using plain english to talk about how we discuss the dead is not relevant to a system's rules on how to treat living creatures vs dead creatures.
@Rubiksmoose I was going to use that example but it ascribes identity to a corpse ("she") which in 5e has no specific grounding
@NautArch But it is relevant to our understanding of "wear" (since it is not defined in the rules)
I would argue that neither rules (or lack thereof) nor plain english is enough to settle this.
@Rubiksmoose So DM fiat then? I'll ask the "wear" question and see where it goes
@DavidCoffron Yeah I'd say go for it. If not only to watch people tear each other apart talking about verbs and objects lol
4:48 PM
SO we wnt to be able to say that objects can wear other objects?
Personally I want to say no such thing. But it will be interesting to see if someone can come up with a convincing argument for/against it.
'tis a silly question, but totally askable
A good portion of the questions we get here are enormously silly questions that only the asker will ever care about.
Are there any examples you all can think of besides fire bolt or Armor of Invulnerability where it matters?
@DavidCoffron What is considered 'worn' then? Is a floor wearing a rug? Is a desk wearing books? How do you define wear if an object can do it?
4:58 PM
@NautArch As plain english
No, and no
(that's how I would at least)
Could a mannequin wear a paper dress?
And thus protect that dress from fire bolt damage?
@NautArch For me, yes and yes
(at least RAW)\
(I'd probably overrule it RACS style in my games)
(unless RAF trumps it)
(I always advise my rulings with RAW and then go down the line with RAF, RACS, RAI)
@DavidCoffron I"m not sure you can assume the attunement mechanic maintains.
You sohuld confirm that before using it as an example for this.
@NautArch Then I could just ask the question about a homebrew magic item that doesn't require attunement
I wanted to use concrete examples
@DavidCoffron then that in turn goes back to how you want to rule it.
5:03 PM
@NautArch But what is RAW (or is there a RAW). That is the whole point of my question
introducing a non-raw mechanic has effects that will extend to other mechanics, and it's up to the homebrewer to determine how it works.
I can;t advise my rulings with RAW if I don't know what RAW is
ANd you can't use a non-raw mechanic to advise raw, either (i don't think)
@NautArch There are RAW items that don't require attunement. I jsut can't find an example
@DavidCoffron There are a lot, but they don't have the qualities you're necessarily wantting to check against? I guess you could just use +1 armor, no?
5:04 PM
@NautArch Yeah, I'll edit
unless you're wanting to know about extending effects.
I"m just syaing if you're going to ask a RAW question, you've got to use RAW relevant examples.
Just use the UA example and be done with it. I think it is an interesting case that gets to the heart of what you want to knwo.
@DavidCoffron Why not just ask about the UA?
@Rubiksmoose The only concern with asking about UA is that it's UA and they may not have it through yet.
@Rubiksmoose Because as another RPG.SE user once said,...
@DavidCoffron think I'd rather keep it focused on a reflavor, since explicitly inviting UA... well, explicitly invites UA — vonBoomslang 2 days ago
@NautArch Yeah but at the moment he is asking about homebrew items with handwaved attunement rules. Which seems even less thought through.
5:12 PM
@Rubiksmoose Not anymore, new edit
All RAW now
@Rubiksmoose Yup, but I thought he was editing to fix that.
Fair enough. Though I still think it is a good example. Shrug.
And it is not like they are magically going to define "wear" or stipulate "if alive" if the UA material is released (not likely anyways).
Hmm, so if an object is wearing an object, what do you target a hit an attack at?
Am I targeting the worn object or the object that's wearing it?
@NautArch Your choice
Nothing says you can't target a worn object
> **Making an Atttack**

> [...]

> ... Pick a target within your attackā€™s range: a creature, an object, or a location.
@DavidCoffron true, and that's an improvised action and up to DM discretion.
Q: How does one target a piece of jewelry being worn by a character?

StophelesI (the GM) currently have a wizard in my campaign that was able to nab an amulet that controls a shield guardian. If an enemy were to make an attempt to break the amulet's chain so that it was no longer being worn (thereby causing the wizard to lose control of the shield guardian), what would the...

5:19 PM
@NautArch Yeah, it depends on what you are using to target it. And the objects stats are entirely GM purview
@DavidCoffron and as SSD said, once you open the door to doing this, it can be done to PCs as well.
And if you're in a game where you start targeting focus' and component pouches, any PC casters might end up in not-fun land.
@NautArch To be fair though, that's what I would do if up against a powerful mage as a fighter. I'd cut his wand in half (if possible)
@DavidCoffron But PC spellcasters are far too dependent on items for their class to function for this to be fun to be used against PCs IMO.
@Rubiksmoose Which is why I don't. Fun is more important than realism
@DavidCoffron Cool cool, just making sure. Agree on all accounts.
5:24 PM
@Rubiksmoose Now if I ever get that PvP ruleset up and running, I'll have to figure out how to deal with that...
@Rubiksmoose BUt to contrast, your question is based on allowing this type of thing.
@NautArch Not entirely
@NautArch Whether a Shield Guardian protects you is completely separate
Once you start allowing objects to do things that generally only creatures do in the rules "wearing things", then you've opened the door for a lot of potential problems.
You can use it to 'protect' objects that ordinarily wouldn't be protected. You could use it to allow and promote worn object targeting, etc.
And I'd certainly have my NPCs target a fallen party members magic item (say to grab it and run away). I think the rules for fun change a bit when the PC has already died
i'm also a worst case scenario guy, so maybe those things won't happen - but they're what i immediately go to :)
@DavidCoffron Grabbing an object is different than trying to destroy an object. The latter requires a lot of DM ruling to determine AC, HP, etc. The former is just "take object" with the only ruling necessary being "Is it possible to be taken immediately?"
5:29 PM
@NautArch Fair enough. I'd allow the NPCs to attempt to destroy the lich's phylactery that my evil party had been keeping safe for their lich friend
It's a case by case thing
(for me)
Ha, so "cloth" will have a higher AC than some PCs.
easier to hit a creature with 10 DEX than it is to hit cloth.
@NautArch I think the assumption is that objects are smaller, but that is a good point.
"things like cloth and paper on the low end of the spectrum (AC 11)" - that does not seem particularly low
@MikeQ exactly :)
What are the requisite ability scores to multiclass into the "Piece of Cloth" class?
5:42 PM
@Shalvenay There was a helicopter accident in Korea that you might find of interest, per our previous discussions. Model: Surion; lost a blade.
@MikeQ It's actually a prestige class. Druid 9 and an extremely cooperative GM to die and reincarnate as a piece of cloth
@DavidCoffron Mild Shape ?
@MikeQ Circle of the Wool
1 hour later…
7:00 PM
It seems most logical to me that becoming cloth would be a cleric function :)
7:11 PM
If the people of the cloth are clerics, does that imply that cloth itself is divine?
@Anaphory Maybe, just not the Shroud of Turin :)
@aloisdg howdy
@NautArch :)
7:45 PM
@NautArch That class and all the abilities are made out of whole cloth?
@ColinGross Low HP. They're life kinda hangs by a string.
@Anaphory Cloth is typically made from finer fibers than what you can get from vines.
@NautArch Low STR then? They're in real danger of exercise making them shredded.
@ColinGross Similar to Bards? Tellers of excellent yarns?
Who would win: Trance Gemini vs. Dr. Strange
7:54 PM
I dont know Trance Gemini
@FreezePhoenix batman.
@NautArch Could be they're a prestige class for the dyed in the wool alchemists?
@aloisdg Trance Gemini: embodied form of the sentient Vedran sun, rumoured to be the original star. Abilities: Instantaneous teleportation at will, supernova blast capable of global destruction, and calling a star about 6.0 solar masses through a portal.
(Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda character)
@FreezePhoenix seems OP.
Is pretty OP
7:58 PM
Also, MCU Dr. Strange or comics Dr. Strange?
MCU doctor strange
And define "win".
@FreezePhoenix at the end the best is always the hippopotamus.
Oh, and one more ability: Navigation of the quantum stream, meaning going back and forth in time and experiencing all possibilities at once
Because Strange can always stalemate via Mirror Dimension.
7:59 PM
@Yuuki Destroy or incapacitate the other
@Yuuki Not if he gets burned up :P
Can't get burned up if you're not on same plane of existence.
@NautArch Joseph had one in his party, but it was technically a colored coat.
@Yuuki But... Trance Gemini exists in the Mirror Dimension, as it is a form of reality; hence she exists in it
I feel like you're going into this with your mind made up already.
That's the thing with these "who would win" deals. Everyone's already made up their minds so there's no actual discussion.
@Yuuki and that's why the correct is answer is: Batman.
8:03 PM
@Yuuki Ok, surprise me. Comics Dr. Strange.
(I haven't read the comics)
Well, comics Dr. Strange is even more of a reality warper than MCU Dr. Strange.
@NautArch Always batman.
@NautArch Pursuant to the previous discussion, was his cape the actual hero?
@ColinGross things we'll never know
@NautArch Like how does a thermos know to keep things cold or hot?
Or magnets?
@ColinGross facepalm it doesn't
8:05 PM
@ColinGross I don't think Protection from Elements requires you to choose anymore, does it?
@FreezePhoenix Maybe you've got a dumb thermos. Mine gets it right every time.
@ColinGross facepalm I just retains the difference from room temp
@FreezePhoenix Actually, it retains whatever I put in it. Try putting a lid on yours if it's retaining other stuff too.
Stop all that from getting in after you fill it.
(I can tell I'm not gonna get anywhere with this conversation)
@Yuuki Protection from Energy? I think you get to declare a type at casting time.
8:08 PM
@ColinGross was going to link to ICP Miracles, but not sure it's appropriate for language.
@ColinGross Yeah, you gotta choose when you cast.
@FreezePhoenix Conversations aren't generally well-known for their transportation capabilities.
It's underwhelming.
If you want to get anywhere, you'll probably have to take a cab.
@FreezePhoenix I think you might have thought the conversation was something it wasn't. Ohhh... I forgot to add the sauce. Go append /s to the previous exchanges from my end.
Probably should have a /pun instead.
Maybe /playonwords, but that's tending towards hashtags.
@Yuuki However, if you write them down, a book can take you anywhere. I think the mechanism involves a rainbow and a starship engineer.
Ah... stop it...
8:12 PM
@Yuuki Don't the back of those just go to Narnia?
What ward would you cast on a robe anyway?
@ColinGross You don't need to, they have plenty of AC as it is.
@Yuuki That is a cool feature.
Could use some cupholders though.
@Yuuki You mean like one of those little trays that pop out of your computer when you push the button beneath it?
@ColinGross No no, that's a CD tray. A cupholder is a person who works on a sports team whose job it is to hand out protective gear to the players.
8:17 PM
@Yuuki Oh, those strapping young jocks.
@FreezePhoenix Welcome to the Punderdome!
@ColinGross :D
@ColinGross Anti-moth ward
@Rubiksmoose So silence?
Was that a moth -> mouth pun?
Or continual flame if you don't add vowels
8:27 PM
@Rubiksmoose I think a proper one of those would involve a Hannibal Lecter reference.
Hey if we are going to speak about that we'll need a Hannibal Lectern.
However, that might be too old a reference to conjure the appropriate imagery.
@ColinGross Hahaha don't say that because I'm pretty sure I get it.
@Rubiksmoose Ha! A lecture for a human anatomy and culinary double major.
8:35 PM
I do love having old friends for dinner.
@Rubiksmoose How do you feel about red winds and fava beans?
@ColinGross Hello!
@FreezePhoenix Just it time for me to concede my role. We've left you with a pile of beans.
Wat beans?
8:43 PM
@ColinGross Fava beams do give me wind, but usually not red. So my feeling is: alarmed.
8:54 PM
@Rubiksmoose What makes Fava beams any different from, say, light beams or I-beams?
@Yuuki ever since dining with Xanthar I've been put off eye beams
2 hours later…
10:59 PM
If I had a link in my comment that needed fixing, how could I go about getting it fixed?
I considered flagging it, but I can't flag my own comments...
Just delete the original comment and re-post with the right link?
11:23 PM
hey there @Hend, welcome to the RPG.SE lair :)
11:44 PM
[Something about "it's Friday" not being good enough]
00:00 - 15:0015:00 - 00:00

« first day (2849 days earlier)      last day (964 days later) »