@Medix2 The rest (from the audio samples in D&D Beyond): Yuan-ti: Yoowahntee; Svirfneblin: Ssvurfnebblin. I can't find an audio sample for Chult

but i'm pretty sure it's cult with CH as in change.

@Upper_Case That svirfneblin example brought less clarity, not more.

@ThomasMarkov Sorry, I don't know the IPA symbols. In order, the sounds are S (typical sibilant "s" sound) | vur (rhymes with her) | f (typical fricative "f" sound) | neb (rhymes with web) | lin (rhymes with win)

Im having an easier time starting with an sh- sound. That sv- is totally foreign to my tongue.

Sven says otherwise

@ThomasMarkov Me too (native language English, Midwestern neutral dialect/accent), but that is nevertheless the canonical pronunciation WotC has provided

@Medix2 we have a Q&A on svirfneb here on RPGSE

Wait, never mind! I've used the word svelt

*svelte

@NautArch My daughter says Sven better than I do. I still get a little bit of sh- into it, but she learned to talk by watching Frozen.

@ThomasMarkov Enter the restaurant Sbarro

@KorvinStarmast We have a Q&A on all of those

we also pronounce sahuagin 'leather suitcase' since years ago one of my party mates had a hand bag and shoes made from a slain sahuagin (AD&D days) (She was a hoot to play with)

@Medix2 I have a very distinct 3rd syllable at the beginning, sa-barro

@Upper_Case Although, it is quite likely you actually say svelte with either a "sf" or "zv" and not "sv"

@ThomasMarkov As do most, it violates the consonant clusters that English typically allows for

@ThomasMarkov I have a bad feeling that wand question is actually a designer intent question

@NautArch It might be more of a "Did they really change this?" to which the answer is "Yes"

@NautArch That one was weird to me. I read the question, answered, then read it again, and felt like I had no idea what the question was, even though I confidently answered it.

@Medix2 Possible, though I don't think so. There is a strong heritage of Nordic language-speaking immigrant communities here, and has been for generations

@Upper_Case Oh yup, that'll do it XD

@ThomasMarkov hehe, that was why i was asking questions. Probably should have VTC'd, but it seemed like it might have been obvious.

but it wasn't

@Medix2 you nailed it

@Medix2 Yeah, that's whats written in the question body, but the comments are now fishing for designer reasons.

@NautArch for those of us who played older editions a lot, some of the WoTC changes are rather jarring ... and I think that's where the querent is coming from

yeah, I've heard addition baggage is a real problem. My memory is of the older stuff is just way too old and no longer a problem!

@RevenantBacon assigning poison mechanics to things that aren't poison drastically changes the game. It makes things that were very hard to remove very easy to remove.

@NautArch Poison doesn't have a specific mechanic in 5e, so it' not assigning anything to it or changing how it functions in any manner. And if it looks like a poison, smells like a poison, and behaves like a poison, I'm perfectly fine with it being treated as a poison at my table. And considering that it's a once-a-day ability of the wizard to use his panacea effect, while the dragon can do its breath weapon again after only a few seconds, it doesn't seem unreasonable to allow them to interact

@RevenantBacon But it doesn't say you are poisoned. That mechanic is specific to things that poison.

So you're saying a Yuan-Ti should be immune to it?

and dwarves should get advantage ont he save?

@NautArch Sure. Not that it would likely come up much unless your entire campaign revolves around killing gold dragons

@RevenantBacon yeah, gonna agree to disagree on this one. You mind removing those comments, I'm not going to add or change my answer about it.

And just like you can say "it's clearly poison", and can more clearly say "it's magic"

why does it have to be a physical effect?

@NautArch No thanks. I made a comment that I think is perfectly reasonable, and I see no reason to remove it. You are free to agree or disagree at your pleasure

@NautArch No reason it can't be both

okay, don't feel like a disagreement/discussion/debate so i'm going to bow out. feel free to continue with others.

dragons are full of magical nonsense, after all

As you say.

The comments should be removed for answers in comments. @RevenantBacon You should post an answer as an answer rather than posing a contrary answer in comments.

@ThomasMarkov Not an answer

just an opinion

You posit a contrary conclusion to every answer thats been posted already. That's an answer.

> You should not answer in comments. Not partial answers, not full answers. Not "leads on" an answer. Not "I would answer but I'm tired/just woke up/am drunk so I'll just say this..." Not answers that you think aren’t good enough to post as answers. Not little helpful tips, not helpful suggestions, not useful anecdotes. These will be deleted. Answer in answers.

See this meta.

@ThomasMarkov I have got to fix my habit and holding the caps down long enough to catch the second letter.

I caught you for a missing space as well :P

The double caps thing is more an ongoing issue for me.

@ThomasMarkov I think there has been some sort of misunderstanding. You see to think that I think that @NautArch 's answer is incorrect in some manner. This is not the case. I believe he is 100% correct RAW. I have merely offered the opinion that it would be acceptable to rule that it counts as a poison. Again, still not an answer

@Medix2 You can pronounce Svirfneblin as Deep Gnome, too :P

If he does not feel that my opinion improves his answer, then it's certainly his right to ignore it. After all, I seem to recall a rule that goes along the lines of something, something opinion-based answers

And If Naut believes it does not improve his answer you should have no problem with removing the comments unless you think the comments should be seen by others. If you think they should be seen by others, it’s because you think they are a valuable addition to an answer, which makes it a partial answer.

@ThomasMarkov you may want to add that on the wand question the asker is incorrect that they're reasoning is why the ones don't have activation words. It is simply just that that is way the ones work in 5e.

@NautArch I don’t think I follow.

It very much seems like the querent is trying to explain why 5E1's don't have an activation word.

Oh, just read the recent comment.

*wands, not 1s

It seems @KorvinStarmast and I were both right o that question

It's edition baggage and an attempt to reason the rule

I’ve VTC’d until the question is clarified in the question.

@ThomasMarkov I'm kinda tired of "comments are for improving answers not debating then or partial answers" when basically everyone I know posts comments that debate answers and are thus partial answers :(

@Medix2 i think that's moreso related to comments to questions, not answers.

@NautArch Agreed, but both are mentioned about both

> If you would like to posit a contrary answer, do so in an answer. See here for more details: "Should users refrain from answers (or partial answers) in comments?"

To me "avoid partial answers" is about comments under questions and "avoid debating answers" is, well, about comments under answers. Regardless both show up under both questions and answers (See: the number of "this conversation has been moved to chats" in the SWS question and elsewhere)

I'm definitely guilty of debating in comments.

Unfortunately, I also feel little can be done about it as the lines between partial answers, constructive criticism, improving an answer, and debating an answer are all... very hard to see, if they even exist

Yep. For me, if I find myself debating a point too hard, I realize I should post my own answer. And if I have an answer, I really try not to debate in comments but to change my answer to challenge those ideas that concern me.

@NautArch Excellent goals!

Yeah I've started thinking about "Answers should just stand on their own, and the community can vote" but then I guess the extreme is when answers spend time refuting the other answers, which I've also seen... Certainly interesting stuff that's hard to pin down and define