« first day (3764 days earlier)      last day (41 days later) » 

12:07 AM
@Thom That's awesome, man. I really want to play those but I'm in a group that is very War Gamer focused and I get the sense that combat is a little less emphasized in that book. You'll have to tell me how it is!
 
...also it's really hard to do quick and dirty concept playtests these days.
 
 
1 hour later…
1:17 AM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword with email in answer, email in answer (162): What are some good chance/luck-themed spells for Sorcerers? by marcl on rpg.SE (@Rubiksmoose)
 
Well, glad(?) to see we're back to our normal spam
 
2:00 AM
@Rykara looking forward to using it as a Sofia the First campaign setting.
 
@KorvinStarmast all I want is to know whether it is possible for a Good or Neutral creature to practice necromancy. For the purposes of writing an adventure.
In FR and Eberron specifically.
"it's magic, not their soul" is a good first step - it means that, for example, a creature on his deathbed can sign away the rights to use his corpse, and the necromancer can raise it as a zombie without scruples.
However, the questions that remain are these: 1) Is it possible to learn necromancy without committing objectively evil acts? (and don't give me "everything is subjective"; the alignment system exists for a reason!) 2) Is necromancy itself an objectively evil act?
 
@chaos in the broad sense of the spell school, or the narrow sense of animating the dead?
because it's certainly possible to learn the spell school without touching how to animate dead
 
@Shalvenay In the broad sense.
 
@chaos the broad sense is a definite no, although how much of a no it is depends on edition
(healing was Necro in AD&D/2e but moved to Conj in 3e and moved again around 5e or so?)
 
@Shalvenay do you think that animating the corpse of your friend, who agreed prior to his natural death that you could reanimate him, is an Evil act?
 
2:14 AM
@chaos based on my experience in FR-based stuff, yes.
 
@Shalvenay Cool! Now we are getting somewhere. Do you know why, in-universe, that is so? Is it because the necromantic magic "flows from" Evil deities, or because those deities are patron/esses of the undead?
 
@chaos that's something I'm not 100% clear on for low-level, non-sentient undead (zombies, skeletons, and stuff) -- the Evil descriptor on Animate Dead's pretty clear-cut though
 
Now I'm enjoying the idea of what is basically an organ donor card but for necromancy
 
>Evil descriptor

As someone without the DMG in front of me, I thank you for this detail.
 
"In the event of my death I consent to my body being reanimated and being used for: construction labor ( ), military ( ), personal ( ),... "
 
2:19 AM
@Someone_Evil Now imagine that instead of organ donor, it's "centuries of indentured servitude", and you've got my campaign idea.
 
@Someone_Evil that is quite Thayan sounding, even
 
I'm maybe particularly enjoying the NPC trying to get the PCs to fill ones out
 
However, I need to figure out how this Bright Idea would affect the morality of a nation that implemented it, and how slippery the slope would canonically be.
 
@chaos it sounds like something Thay would do -- then again, they're already the canonical Evil magocracy
 
For example, if you needed to kill one puppy for each zombie you created, it wouldn't take very long for 3-5 upstarts to dismantle the whole operation. If the enterprise could be feasibly run at arm's length by Boards and Committees who swear up and down they are following Ethical Guidelines, though...
 
2:21 AM
If I were making such a setting, one of my touchstones would be the collapse of Sartan society in Abarrach.
 
@chaos Szass Tam laughs at your "ethical guidelines"
 
On the other hand, if you don't actually need to commit any evil acts other than the necromancy itself, the business model is a lot easier to justify.
 
@chaos I'm pretty sure that's the case -- all you'd need is a supply of natural-causes deaths from the morgue and you're golden there
 
@BESW Thank you for the tip!
@Shalvenay I am imagining that anyone could sign-off their graveright in exchange for both higher pay and, e.g., Line Cutting privileges, priority for cab rides, that sort of thing.
Little conveniences that slowly, no one can resist.
 
@chaos yes! you are sounding more and more like a good little Thayan mageocrat ;)
 
2:27 AM
If you're specifically looking at a Forgotten Realmsian setting... I'd check if your version of Forgotten Realms has one of the gods that thinks necromancy is Not Cool and will take direct action against it.
(Point of interest: Points of Light's Raven Queen is a goddess of death, not undeath, and she takes that seriously.)
 
That is an excellent point. Come to think of it, I had a friend who played a Death Domain cleric who had a vendetta against necromancy.
 
yeah, Kelemvor in straight FR is extremely Not Cool with undead
 
Yes, it was Kelemvor!
 
Personally I'd feel that necromancy disconnected from the spiritual aspect isn't necromancy at all, it's just desecrating a corpse with animate object.
But then, I'm also on the record for having Opinions about how D&D treats faith and spirituality as engineering problems, anyway.
 
2:43 AM
(Note, btw: D&D 5e doesn't have "evil" tags for spells, though some previous editions like 3.5 did. 5e simply states that "Creating the undead through the use of necromancy spells such as animate dead is not a good act, and only evil casters use such spells frequently.")
 
@BESW that is true
 
And that just raises more questions which D&D is stubbornly uninterested in asking, much less answering, almost to the point of self-parody.
 
2
Q: Are there any good-aligned tempest gods with a portfolio focused on lightning?

Yuval AmirAre there any tempest gods that are both good-aligned and focused on lightning/thunder? It's fine if it's not exact but almost all of the good-aligned tempest gods are more focused on sailing and the sea so it's been really hard to find a god for this archetype.

 
3:11 AM
@BESW hands you soapbox I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on this.
 
cue several years' worth of chat logs
 
Short version? D&D is a grab-bag of random pop culture concepts its creators thought seemed cool over several decades. Which is fine. It doesn't all fit together, it often clashes catastrophically and collapses if you poke it with a stick, but that could be a feature rather than a bug... except D&D is a franchise also invested in its own authority, which means it keeps trying to pretend that all these disparate elements are somehow part of a coherent plan.
And attempts to weld the pieces together so they don't fall apart... just reveals more problems.
So, necromancy in D&D is a collection of very Christian European concepts, drawing on folk/Indigenous traditions, Protestant doctrine, Catholic syncretism, and anti-Jewish propaganda... but also they're all filtered to the game through American creators consuming British and American pop culture representations of the concepts--like Hammer Horror films and Kolchak: The Night Stalker.
And then it's mashed up against a pop culture understanding of pantheism (gods that act as competing Christian-style monotheisms rather than elements of a coherent faith), and a pop culture mishmash of various cultures' and traditions' ideas about the nature of the spirit and death.
Which, again, I love to see settings that contain many truths simultaneously, they're real and vibrant and dramatic.
But as a franchise, D&D isn't comfortable with that kind of ambiguity, so it makes Declarations Of Truth about How Things Are, even though those statements are literally impossible to sustain in the face of its own origin as a syncretic mashup of cool pop culture references.
And that winds up meaning that it's not just a franchise that is uncomfortable with self-examination, that discomfort extends outward into discomfort with audience and creators who don't fit its mold--even setting aside the awful business practices of its parent company.
So, animating the dead is Not Good because... everybody knows necromancy is evil, right? But we aren't going to talk about WHY it's evil because we can't: the blanket declaration that only evil people are comfortable to animate the dead implies a universal truth about the nature of the soul and the body, but the franchise can't sustain that line of thought without ripping apart other parts of its world.
Alignment itself is, of course, a prime example of this. It derived from a novel where law and chaos were sides one took in a universal war where one's everyday actions aided or hindered the battle.
But it glomped onto other notions like the idea of a Christian priest using a holy symbol to rebuff evil beings, which they got from Hammer Horror films. And over time the alignments stopped being meta-political allegiances and started being elemental forces in their own right, manifesting literal planes of Good and Evil alongside planes of Fire and Water and Metal and so forth.
 
3:33 AM
If you've read through some of Gygax's forum posts about alignment and the morality of dealing with evil creatures, it mostly makes sense in a war story with clearly defined good and evil, and makes much less sense if you try to, say, expand the system into an open fantasy world with people and societies in it
 
Aye. A great deal of setting design choices were made with a particular use of the setting in mind.
(cf an economy based on what's probably most useful to dungeoneers.)
 
@MikeQ yeah, PW work in D&D-based settings tends to get very thorny partially for that reason. the idea of a D&D-based setting used for a sandbox MMO in the style of UO would completely fail >.>
 
Another annoying bit about alignment is that there is little room for debate or discussion, unless faced with a choice between two cosmic evils. No space to think about what path is best when Team Evil is clearly labeled. And it gets in the way of interesting stories.
 
And now it's just a mess. A mess with glorious potential if we're allowed to wobble the pudding how we like, but the franchise's need to insist that it's an authority on itself hobbles the endeavour.
It's a giant wobbly pudding of cool stuff that screams it's a solid cake built on firm foundations.
 
@BESW D&D is a gelatinous cube? :D
 
3:36 AM
Get too close and you might be burned. Yes.
@MikeQ Aye, it actively removes the potential for nuance. And so many other parts of the game do similar things by insisting on codifying truths universally.
(As usual, 4e did a better job of refraining from making declarations and instead leaving room for ambiguity.)
So... "Creating the undead through the use of necromancy spells such as animate dead is not a good act, and only evil casters use such spells frequently." Hah. It's not evil, but only evil people do it a lot. So what, it's just really icky and good people don't like to get guts on their robes? It's bad but sometimes The Ends Justify The Means? It's a totally neutral act but there's a universal taboo?
Maybe there's a god that just really thinks zombies are hilarious, and his punishment for Terrible Crimes is that nobody makes zombies anymore.
We know that Faerun has good liches sometimes.
Not just "okay" liches but paragons of Good who chose undeath so that they could continue to serve the living forever.
Again: a giant wibble wobbly pudding of cool stuff that's not mixed together, just held in proximity by the jello matrix.
 
3:52 AM
And you know what they say about the jello matrix. There is no spoon. So it's difficult to eat.
 
In some ways, that's great to hear, because it means that you can just ignore the authoritative statements it makes about itself.
@MikeQ fumes
 
 
Don't let a week go by.
 
@chaos Please do. The game is much improved by taking its content as light suggestions for your table to do with as they will.
(Or find another game system that's not trying to be everything at once while also being only one thing forever. Systems that are trying to do the same thing our group wants to do, tend to be much less stressful to use.)
 
You know it's funny, every time I get to thinking about running D&D I end up wanting to run something else. Lesson there.
It's fun to play D&D but a DM's role is very bookkeepy.
In Call of Cthulhu, by contrast I am almost literally just improvising for 3 hours while occasionally reading box text.
 
3:57 AM
cj linton wrote a twitter thread about removing a lot of the pressure from GMing by re-imagining the role as a kind of player.
 
@BESW wholeheartedly seconded -- D&D makes a much better game construction kit than it does a coherent game of any sort
@BESW yeah, there's definite merit to that as well -- I simply haven't quite found another system yet that does what I'm after
 
Some of my friends occasionally float the idea of playing a high-crunch version of Fate Core, using D&D 4e class building options as inspiration for our characters.
4e really knew how to throw down some compelling setpiece tools.
But I'm also super interested in settings that are very much unlike D&D's Western pop culture kitchen sink of violence.
And they require their own systems to realize them fully, like Balikbayan.
 
4:15 AM
Nov 13 '20 at 2:34, by BESW
@TheDragonOfFlame I've been playing TRPGs for about fifteen years and in the first seven of them I played exactly three sessions that weren't D&D or a very close variant. Then I went "PLAY ALL THE GAMES!" and haven't looked back.
 
 
2 hours later…
5:51 AM
@BESW lol yeah
I haven't been playing TRPG's for quite that long but it otherwise the sentiment is the same
 
6:48 AM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Blacklisted username, pattern-matching website in body, potentially bad ip for hostname in body, potentially bad ns for domain in body, potentially bad keyword in body, +2 more (261): Will Cash app customer service make my SSN? by Ella Mark on rpg.SE (@Rubiksmoose)
 
 
1 hour later…
7:58 AM
5
Q: Can an Eldritch Knight use a Ruby of the War Mage?

PixelMasterAs explained in How does an arcane focus work with an Eldritch Knight?, Eldritch Knights can't use an arcane focus as a spellcasting focus. Ruby of the War Mage (XGtE p. 138), however, states: Etched with eldritch runes, this 1-inch-diameter ruby allows you to use a simple or martial weapon as a...

 
@Someone_Evil lmao at the necromancy donor card idea. I'm going to use that next time I run Curse of Strahd.
 
 
5 hours later…
1:09 PM
Sangjun Needs Medical Fees Anti-Sale A bundle hosted by Sangjun. Buy everything for $20.00!
Kickstarter: Our Shores: An RPGSEA Compilation by Sandy Pug Games. A celebration of some of the best work in the RPGSEA scene.
4
 
1:39 PM
@BESW The Mecha game sounds pretty interesting
I'm empted to go in for the $300 design a mecha
 
1:55 PM
@chaos "Possible" Good, I'd say no, Neutral I'd say very much yes ... except that as a DM / author you are free to do whatever you please. If you have a good aligned character rasing the dead, and alignment matters to the story arc (in 5e, it ain't necessarily so) you need to develop a rational narrative reason why they'd do that. That's on you to fit it into your overall story.
@chaos You seem to be using D&D 3.5 terms and assumptions. I'd recommend against that if you are writing for 5e.
 
@KorvinStarmast Agreed, the alignment system of 5e is far from rigid. As for "objective evil", we can only measure actions objectively against a particular standard. So we can say "necromancy is objectively evil according to this standard", but our selection of standard is likely entirely subjective.
 
5e feels like "it's evil if the DM says it's evil"
but even that's not quite right.
 
It's evil if your DM/table cares about it being evil
 
@ThomasMarkov I think it suffers from edition momentum like many other things in d&d
 
@Someone_Evil says someone!
 
2:06 PM
@Shalvenay That's a good way to put it; the DM who I've been playing with on Saturday Nights has very much used that approach - it's a semi West Marches style where what the party does has ripple effects in the game world. Our last
our last session had (as he advised us after the session wrapped up) three possible serial events. 1) no civil war and no riots 2) riots in the capital and no civil war 3) riots in the capital and a civil war. There was an attempted assassination of a member of the royal family and an attempt to frame a particular political faction for it.
 
I almost just posted a comment as an answer.
 
@Shalvenay As it turns out, we foiled the assassination (by accident) thatnks to my bard casting Vicious Mockery and doing 2 pts of damage, which allowed for a saver versus domination on the part of the assassin - and I had no idea that was a dominated person, I cast that spell for a different purpose.
Another bad party, a spell casting doppelganger, was unmasked by other members of the party ... and neutralized. This made the general/noble trying to incite riots expose himself rather awkwardly as he burst onto the scene with an armed cohort to put down a riot that ... wasn't in progress.
What the DM informed us about, afterwards, was that we ended up in sit 1. He had already outlined what would happen if situation 2 or 3 resulted (i.e. if we'd not been successful and foiling the plot)
@NautArch I think chaos is thinking about some kind of defined canon or lore from Forgotten Realms. The terms "objectively evil act" smell of the 3.x version of alignment, though concepts like that go as far back as AD&D 1e and how paladins fall ...
 
@KorvinStarmast Yeah, definitely seems like edition baggage. My memory of AD&D is really really thin.
which worked nicely when I started 5e. It was like starting fresh.
 
@KorvinStarmast As we say in presuppositional apologetics, "According to what standard?"
 
@ThomasMarkov read that as pre-suppository and got a very different understanding
 
2:18 PM
An action being "Objectively Evil" was based on the "Cosmic Morality" from 3.x and older editions. Animating the dead was evil because reality (the game rules) said it was, the same way the devils were always Evil, and angels were always Good.
There was no actual reason built into the game for it being evil, it just was. Some DM's would handwave it and not bother with an explanation, some would decide on an explanation for why it was evil, like maybe it harmed/trapped the actual soul of the animated creature, and some DM's would go "yeah, that doesn't make any sense" and make it not be automatically evil.
Fortunately, 5e turned away from that in that now, no spell is inherently Good or Evil or any other alignment. The only thing that matters is what the outcome of that spell is. Use fireball to murder a bunch of innocent orphans? Probably evil. Use an army of the dead to fight off an orc horde trying to take the city? Probably good.
 
Moral/ethical realism vs. moral/ethical nihilism isn't exactly a new opposition. People argue about those since ancient times. Game settings just sometimes have to answer the question definitively if they have deeply enough established cosmologies.
 
The important thing is if you have a necromancer player, don't nerf them.
 
@RevenantBacon Turns out those kids you fireballed were actually fey spirits conspiring to kill the Ealdorman.
 
@ThomasMarkov Yeah, but only because he was killing Dryads out in the forest.
 
@RevenantBacon I 5e, that thing with fiends and angels is still there; they are made of the stuff of their alignment (per the Basic Rules on that)
@RevenantBacon Baron Hatfield never did like the McCoys...
 
2:34 PM
credit where it's due: 4e was the one that dropped morality as an obstacle rather than a benefit
it's one of many D&D 4e innovations that D&D 5e picked up without acknowledgement. during the preview blogs and playtest blogs, it was pretty egregious: they'd describe new developments that were from D&D 4e as original, giving acknowledgement to anything they took from any other edition but not anything they took from D&D 4e
 
@doppelgreener #4EDidItFirst
 
2:49 PM
@doppelgreener Like advantage? (wasn't that a 4e Avenger feature?)
 
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword with email in answer, email in answer, pattern-matching email in answer (261): How can the Zone of Truth spell be defeated without the caster knowing? by Marian Wongi on rpg.SE (@Rubiksmoose)
 
Uptick in spam last couple days
 
3:15 PM
Yeah, there was an uptick a couple weeks ago as well. It seems to come in cycles
 
Hey folks, how is your RPGing going?
 
@RyanKinal pretty sure i've got a gamenight tonight
 
Same as it has since the start of the pandemic: nowhere -_-
 
Sweeeeeet
 
OOF, timing
XD
 
3:21 PM
Ummmm. Yeah :-(
@NautArch What are you playing?
 
@RyanKinal 5e - dungeon of the mad mage
 
Ooh, cool
 
I've got some friends who like a pure dungeon crawl, so this their night.
 
Sure
 
I've got another group that is doing Icewind Dale that's more of a RP and combat group. Some overlap between both nights, though.
 
3:27 PM
Oh, that's fun. My group tends toward RP, which might not be what my DM was expecting for this campaign.
I'd like to try some pure crawling, though. Sounds like a fun and different way to play
 
@NautArch Dragon's breath is a pretty dope spell tbh. I can up cast it now for 4d6 damage.
Also fireball.
 
@ThomasMarkov You've got a pretty good team.
 
I dont have any utility spells. All my leveled spells are there for burning things down or not dying.
 
@ThomasMarkov I'm not sure what the other caster has.
 
might ditch burning hands since firebolt is 2d10 now.
Definitely want to keep scorching ray as a concentration breaker.
 
3:37 PM
@ThomasMarkov The only spell you ever need begins with F and rhymes with waterfall
 
Feather fall?
 
bingo
 
Close!
It's like Feather Fall, but there may be a slight burning sensation when you use it.
 
3:59 PM
@KorvinStarmast D&D 4e had some "roll d20 twice, choose one" mechanics, yeah; though other games have also been experimenting with that for a while. I think I would classify advantage/disadvantage as being a 5e introduction, it's a significant step beyond 4e's stuff.
 
@doppelgreener Yeah, I think advantage's chief innovation isn't really the concrete "roll 2, keep 1", but the fact that it simplifies DnD's previous mess of distinct modifiers.
...which 4e, to my limited understanding of previous editions, also did though not to the extent of 5e.
 
@kviiri right!
 
Also, how's life?
 
@kviiri D&D 4e introduced a more structured system of managing abilities and bonuses generally, going at it with a systematic approach that was probably inspired by Magic: the Gathering. It enables a whole lot of clear interactivity between components, instead of everything being its own brand new subsystem nothing was designed to account for.
@kviiri Life's good! I moved house a couple of weeks ago and things are finally beginning to calm down a bit. I'm almost finished unpacking.
 
4:34 PM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in answer, potentially bad keyword in answer (87): Whats the damage of a colossal non-magical longbow under the effects of shrink item and a medium arrow? by comment022 on rpg.SE (@Rubiksmoose)
 
@doppelgreener OK, thanks.
 
@KorvinStarmast Combat advantage (no matter how many generic conditions your target was under that gave you a benefit to hit because they couldn't anticipate your attack, you just got a single benefit) was something 4e piloted, too, generally. When you have combat advantage from someone for any number of reasons, you get a flat bonus to hit them. (The roll twice was never new.)
 
@ThomasMarkov that and magic missile both have some nice conc breaker features, as does EB if you are a higher level 'Lock.
 
@KorvinStarmast I don't think Magic Missile has that same feature, as "all darts strike simultaneously"
I think it counts as only one instance of damage
 
@RevenantBacon I think each Missile is a different instance of damage since you can shoot them at multiple targets. I'll check the SAC, I think that was in there ...
... and that's how two of my DMs have handled it ...
 
4:50 PM
Well, I know that's how it worked in older editions (Toppling metamagic Magic Missile was absurd), so they may have been going off of that.
But I think it's different in this edition because you also use the same result for each missiles damage
 
@RevenantBacon quite possible; EB is only different in that it calls for an attack roll. MM auto hits.
Really? We tend to roll for each missile separately.
 
Right, but the attack roll is a significant difference, because you make each attack iteratively
 
@RevenantBacon Well, here's what MM has to say: You create three glowing darts of magical force. Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range. A dart deals 1d4 + 1 force damage to its target. The darts all strike simultaneously, and you can direct them to hit one creature or several. At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the spell creates one more dart for each slot level above 1st
Looks to me like each one is a separate attack since they can go to separate targets, or the same one, just like EB.
If I see three stirges, I can shoot at three separate targets; how is that not "three attacks" like EB? All that's missing is the die roll.
 
Right, but they hit simultaneously, rather than iteratively, which is significant
 
That makes no difference.
 
4:56 PM
Yes, it does
 
because if they hit at the same time, then it's effectively only a single hit. If you get stabbed with a trident, do you have to make three saves? Each point on the trident damages you, but the end result damage is totaled together, rather than split among the three prongs of the trident
Same here
Multiple impact points, but all impact at the exact same time
So it's only one instance of damage
 
I suppose it'd make a difference in whether the caster can choose targets in between each missile, or if they must declare all the missile targeting in advance
 
Well, for Magic Missile, everyone has to be chosen before the missile impact. With spells like Scorching Ray or EB, you can choose your next target after the results of the previous ray have been determined.
 
So if all the missiles hit simultaneously, does that mean if the caster had something like a +bonus to spell damage rolls, then it would only be added once per the entire spell, rather than once per missile?
 
5:05 PM
32
Q: How many times do you roll damage for Magic Missile?

user37158The "Damage Rolls" section of the rules (PHB p. 196, also in the online Basic Rules) says this: If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them. For example, when a wizard casts fireball or a cleric casts flame strike, the...

 
@MikeQ I think the answer to that is yes, which becomes weird if you shoot at separate targets ... 😛 Given Crawford's tweet, pick a ruling and run with it.
 
Yeah, I think MM would be one concentration check.
 
@MikeQ FFIW, I think I'll review this with Laskow and Ignaz next time. I think one of them has MM (Las's player is a pretty good DM in my experience, so his take on this will be worth folding in). MM in my brother's world we roll 3 dice.
 
MM meaning magic missile the spell, not Monkey Madness the runescape quest which requires several frustrating concentration checks thoughout.
Should be able to summon 8 flying monkeys with conjure animals
 
@ThomasMarkov Yeah, if Rev B's read on that is how to go, yes, one roll.
@ThomasMarkov Yep, we'll see if Velthiss does that in the Hool Marshes. Not sure why I though your post was from him. Braining badly today.
 
5:15 PM
@ThomasMarkov FYI, it's multiple rolls (attack and damage) for me.
 
@NautArch I didnt take it.
 
kk, just letting you know.
 
@NautArch The party that just finished Forge of Fury (heh, ended up fighting two dragons, the boyfriend showed up as they were digging through the loot, and he rolled crap initiative as he popped up out of the lake to rejoin with his sweetie - hey, who are you people!!!!!)
They have a wand of MM, so I need to confirm with my bro on how that will work.
 
@KorvinStarmast As usual, I'm a proponent of rolling more dice.
 
@NautArch So can I roll 12d6 instead of 8d6 for fireball?
 
5:24 PM
@ThomasMarkov yes. 12d6-4d6.
 
How about 12d4 instead of 8d6
 
@ThomasMarkov if you have empowered spell, I can see where this is going.
 
Hi @ThomasMarkov. You had a thought on my Sunlight Sensitivity question?
 
@screamline I think the close votes are probably from my comments.
But I haven't actually voted, wanted to give you chance to make an edit.
 
@screamline With the two features written as they are, the DM only has to keep track of NPCs being in sunlight. It makes half as much work. The DM doesnt have to track if the PCs are in sunlight, just the NPCs.
That is what I suspect, and it is an advantage to it being written that way, but there's no way to say "this is definitively the reason" without consulting developer's commentary if it exists.
 
5:35 PM
@NautArch I'm not sure there's an edit that'll work. "Is X incorrect" is the best way I can think of to phrase this question, and -- as the downvotes show -- it's not a well-received question.
@ThomasMarkov Yeah, I was specifically looking to avoid asking why the two rules are different -- except to determine whether they are, in fact, still different and haven't been changed/errata'd.
 
To me, if you just ask whether you've interpreted the rules correctly and whether there has been any changes/errata to the rules, that would be an acceptable question. Perhaps not a particularly good question as the rules seem rather clear (at least to me) and the errata are publicly available, but an on-topic question for sure
Do we have a question on dnd-5e with somebody using the shield spell and some other feature that also triggers when being hit by an attack?
 
5:52 PM
almost certainly
 
Maybe found one
Yeah but that one is... bogged down by other things
 
40
Q: Does blocking an attack with the Shield spell still trigger Armor of Agathys?

IcyfireI am contemplating a Oath of Conquest Paladin / Sorcerer multiclass character, with a 1 level dip in hexblade warlock. This character will have access to the Armor of Agathys and Shield spells, which potentially allows for a pretty nice combo. The Shield spell states (PHB 275): Casting Time: 1 r...

 
Yeah but that involves the same person hmmm...
I'll probably not ask a new question, because I'm kinda done with shield
 
Maybe ask your question here, for @NautArch's sake, since I cast shield several times every session.
 
I debate answering the recent fire shield question with "Xanathar's breaks this"
 
5:54 PM
@Medix2 Would your answer introduce clarity, or confusion, to the problem?
 
@ThomasMarkov It would probably just get downvoted for being nonsensical, though accurate
But as to the question I might ask; say a Beast Barbarian uses Infectious Fury on a Wizard, who wants to use shield; what happens when they choose to deal 2d12 damage? What happens when they choose to force the Wizard to use their reaction?
Both Infectious Fury and shield have the same trigger: a hit
 
@Medix2 ask your dm
:P
 
@ThomasMarkov I'll write that an answer... probably still get downvotes but oh well
 
Im honestly surprised dig through three adeventures to figure out how much damage falling down stairs is. Seems like something Id have put in the DMG, XGtE, or TCoE somewhere.
@screamline And im not at all surprised you couldnt find any good info on that question. It took some digging, even with DnDBeyond's terrible search feature.
 
@ThomasMarkov Isn't it the same as falling down anything else? The general PHB rule on falling damage covers it.
 
6:05 PM
It's not the same.
And the general rules never say "stairs" and falling down stairs is not intuitively similar to falling from the sky.
 
@MarkWells That was exactly the thrust of my question -- asking whether they might be the same, or whether there was some other rule out there.
 
The guidance from those adventures is very similar (1d6/10 feet), but each stair case that shows up has features unique to that stair case.
So its similar to the general falling rules, but not identical - the DM decides how and when you stop falling.
 
0
Q: 2020: a year in moderation

JNat As we say goodbye to the old year and welcome the new one, we have a tradition of sharing moderation stats for the past 12 months. As most of you here are aware, sites on the Stack Exchange network are moderated somewhat differently to other sites on the web: We designed the Stack Exchange netw...

 
@ThomasMarkov Infinite staircases mean you never take damage, excellent job Penrose
 
@Medix2 yeah, but you also never get to stop falling, so it's kind of a moot point
 
6:13 PM
@Medix2 Shouldn't that be Escher?
 
@vicky_molokh-unsilenceMonica No If anything it would be Reutersvärd
 
@ThomasMarkov what's the question?
 
@Medix2 Ah. Apparently I was thinking of different stairs.
 
idk ask @Medix2
 
I asked it XD
> Say a Beast Barbarian uses Infectious Fury on a Wizard, who wants to use shield; what happens when they choose to deal 2d12 damage? What happens when they choose to force the Wizard to use their reaction? Both Infectious Fury and shield have the same trigger: a hit
 
6:18 PM
@Medix2 I'd say that shield stops it. It was a hit...until shield.
then it's not a hit.
 
But why does shield happen first?
 
Because shield determines if it's a hit.
 
So you'd say reactions that can change their trigger should be resolved before any other reactions dependent upon that trigger?
 
@Medix2 Shield's trigger is not actually "a hit". It's worded imprecisely. It's rolling an attack that would hit.
 
@MarkWells There are other features besides shield that I could use
 
6:20 PM
@vicky_molokh-unsilenceMonica . . . oh wait, all three are the same concept. I wasn't thinking of a different one at all.
 
Numerous features trigger when something happens and then alter how or whether that thing happens. I think it's just a part of the rules that aren't too well worded and, in all honesty, don't really need to be well worded since GMs can do whatever they want
 
@Medix2 This seems necessary if you want the result of the whole process to be consistent. You have to apply effects that could prevent the event before applying effects that depend on the event having happened.
 
For the Fire Shield vs Cloud Rune debate, since it's likely a DM controlled character who's making the attack that triggers both of these abilities, generally, the DM will decide on the order they resolve in. It's going to be an NPC's turn, and either the controller or the DM (who's the same person in this case) decides the order of resolution. And if I'm the DM who controls an NPC that triggers these abilities, I'm gonna save myself the extra damage and have the Cloud Rune trigger first.
 
@Medix2 this seems like a pretty good take to me.
 
I'll just stick to my conclusion of the shield spell is a mess
 
6:30 PM
@Medix2 Well, you're not wrong. Empirical data seems to agree with you :p
 
@Medix2 I think it's only a mess if you overcomplicate it. Which we like to do :)
 
@Medix2 I still think the problem goes away if you replace "when you are hit by an attack" with "when an attack has been rolled against you", but yes, as written, it's a uniquely problematic spell.
(which is why you should probably use something else for your example :) )
 
@MarkWells Like I said, there are other similarly poorly worded features; though you could just say they should all be worded differently
 
I like the idea of getting sneak attacked by a crossbow. "Ow, what was that? looks down Oh no, a bolt protruding from my chest. Nahhhhhhh. cast shield"
 
@ThomasMarkov It's a reaction spell, so I'm fine with it being Jedi magic.
 
6:33 PM
@MarkWells Also there is a notable difference depending on how the GM does attack rolls
 
@ThomasMarkov Can't use a reaction during the surprise round
 
Shield is severely nerfed if you dont know the actual roll result before deciding to cast it.
 
@ThomasMarkov Or if it crit, which... we have a question on that somewhere. Found it
 
@ThomasMarkov there's a lot of features like that.
 
@RevenantBacon No such thing as a surprise round.
 
6:35 PM
I have a list somewhere of "features that modify attack rolls and when they modify them" and... whew are they a mess
 
Another good reason not to hide rules
 
You mean rolls?
 
Yes, and rolls :)
 
@ThomasMarkov Sure there is, you just gotta believe! Usually refers to "the first round of combat when one or more participants have surprise" since that's typically the only round where surprise is relevant
:p
 
@RevenantBacon Typically, yes.
 
6:42 PM
@MarkWells Every round is a surprise round if you're invisible enough!
 
7:08 PM
0
Q: Does the spell Feather Fall prevent damage from falling down stairs?

Thomas MarkovInspired by this Q&A: How to handle falling down stairs? Feather fall says: Choose up to five falling creatures within range. A falling creature's rate of descent slows to 60 feet per round until the spell ends. If the creature lands before the spell ends, it takes no falling damage and can land...

Im well aware that the answer to my question may just be "ask the DM"
 
@ThomasMarkov Seems like fundamentally your question is does falling down stairs count as falling.
 
@NautArch Sure. The feather fall context makes the distinction meaningful, if there is one.
 
5
Q: What is the "Ultimate Book of The Master"

SeriousBriDragon magazine #82 features an article from Bruce Heard referencing magical research. One early chapter contains the following line: To begin finding the answer to that question, we must first roll up our sleeves and open the Ultimate Book of The Master to page 115, whereupon begins the section...

 
@doppelgreener Ooh that's nice, moving is suvh a hassle
 
7:35 PM
@NautArch It's because of the "ends when you land" clause. Does hitting the first step count as landing, or do you count landing when you come to a stop? My Answer addresses this concern
In a hopefully satisfactory manner
 
I think what I really want to get out of the stairs/falling question is if it count as falling when a character does this? i.gifer.com/17xE.gif
 
Frame challenge, maybe: Can you fall down stairs with feather fall active? I'd think you'd just launch yourself off the top step and settle gently at the bottom.
 
@Rykara I think that's exactly what happens when you feather fall on stairs.
 
Or if you did contact the next step down, you'd stop there, because you can't build up the momentum to keep sliding.
 
The rules on falling say "The creature lands prone, unless it avoids taking damage from the fall." If you fall on stairs, aren't you already prone? Meaning that the first fall ends before the slide/tumble because the creature has already been rendered prone?
 
7:49 PM
@Rykara totally adding this gif to the bottom of the question.
hopefully the no fun police dont remove it.
 
I will never be as cool as that guy :(
 
8:04 PM
@ThomasMarkov nice answer to that levelling question. My old table would punish. YOu miss game, you miss XP.
Hated it. And honestly, I kinda hate XP.
 
Yeah. XP seems way too rigid to me. It can cause a party to be under- or over-levelled for planned encounters whereas milestone allows the party's advancement to move in lockstep with the scaling difficulty of a campaign. Plus, there is little more anticlimactic than having to do a math problem after emerging victorious from a fight.
 
@Rykara I like that it gives player's a 'goal' and an understanding of when they get more, but it's so wonky.
 
@Rykara when prone on a normal step, your center of mass reaches over the edge, allowing gravity to pull you further and further down, until you reach a place where your center of gravity doesn't extend past an edge, and your momentum doesn't carry you off of it. A "landing" if you will.
 
8:52 PM
@RevenantBacon Any landing you walk away from is a good landing
 
In context, isn't a "landing" the flat area at the bottom of the stairs? So if Feather Fall ends upon landing then you're covered :)
 
@MarkWells Yeah, I was making a pun :p
 
@RevenantBacon Doh. I am slow on the uptake today.
 
LOL, that's ok, it's a pretty subtle pun.
 
9:10 PM
@KorvinStarmast To avoid the appearance of an edit war, I'll ask you - why the gm-techniques tag on the stair question?
 
I would assume because it is asking about how to handle a specific event (as a GM)
 
@ThomasMarkov It was a suggestion. The questions seems to be asking "should, how do I as a DM make this work?" - seems a DM technique class of question. You will note that I did not add the tag since I was suggesting it, and left it up to the OP to pick it or not.
@ThomasMarkov I don't think this is worth getting worked up over.
 
@Someone_Evil Isn't every rules interaction question doing that? At least, every one that is asked as a DM?
 
@ThomasMarkov There is a universe of possible answers that don't start with "by the rules" ... some of which will be experienced based ... which is why I made that suggestion. Asker seemed to like it. I see no need to take this any further. (Agree with you that an edit war adds no value)
 
OP removed the tag.
 
9:19 PM
@Mark You really need to step up your stair humor game, mate.
 
@Rykara Are you trying to escalate the level of puns here?
 
@Rykara he may still rise to the occasion.
 
@MarkWells Sure am. I'm glad to see you rise to the occasion instead of running.
@Nau Goram it! Ugh. Too fast for me.
 
@Rykara They should slow down then, we wouldn't want anyone to trip and fall
 
And thus the puns take flight
 
9:27 PM
This is spiraling out of control
 
Descending into chaos
 
guess we better tread lightly, then.
<-----looking up stair words instead of working.
 
same^
 
this seems to be escalating
oh
damn my faulty skimread
 
Well, I was never really one to climb the corporate ladder
:^D
This reminds me of the time where we did a "You might be an Adventurer" riff off of "You might be a Redneck"
 
10:12 PM
@ThomasMarkov Ooh, this may get a bounty in a few days. I like how you approached this.
 
Hmm, apparently we have the 3rd most HNQs on the network (src)
 
@Someone_Evil like, right now? Or on average?
 
Over the last year, or the calendar year 2020 to be precise
 
StackExchange.Math 3315
StackExchange.Tex 2270
StackExchange.Rpg 1927
 
That’s really cool, but I have no idea what it really means.
 
10:19 PM
Several commenters have pointed out that HNQs are not calculated the same way across all stacks (interesting. I didn't know that) so it seems like it's not quite an apples-to-apples comparison.
 
Hey! Random question!! If someone were to make a warforged druid... would it be farfetched to name it optimus prime!!!
 
Too on the nose, I would say, but that's definitely a (comedic) style thing
 
Is a warforged druid, which can't wear metal, essentially just a blight?
 
11:03 PM
I don't know my Transformers well enough to know why it has to be a Druid specifically
...oh wait, because of Wild Shaping right
 
11:19 PM
But can't a warforged be inserted into a suit of plate and that be his body instead of "armor" techinically?
 
@Thatguy eh. It still counts as armour
 
@Carcer Dang. I was hoping that would work. Lol
@kviiri Absolutely!!
 
11:34 PM
Isn't the druid & metal armour thing optional anyway?
 
0
Q: How do I ask for fan theories?

SeriousBriI have just asked a question relating to Mordenkainen, and this answer refers to a fan theory which I found really interesting. I would be very interested to see if there are any other similar theories, but I am pretty sure that asking for them would be opinion based or too broad. I think this is...

 
I dunno how 5e warforged work, but in some editions (I know in 3.5 for sure) there were feats/effects/features for a warforged to modify its body.
 
I don't think there's too much of that in 5e (yet)
 
@BESW yeah, 3.5 had the feats for some mods, I remember the armour ones
the final design of the warforged in 5e gives then an "integrated protection" feature which restricts them to wearing armour they're proficient in and forces them to spend an hour "integrating" armour into their body in order to don it, but once they're wearing it it can't be involuntarily removed while the warforged is still alive
I'm pretty sure the provisional version had a thematically similar but mechanically differently implemented approach though
yeah, UA warforged couldn't wear armour at all, instead they could change integrated protection modes on long rests (between light, medium and heavy-equivalent options)
 
And of course 4e's take on warforged is dramatically different enough that it's not even useful to add to the conversation.
...I'm not sure most of the systems I've used in the last several years would care about that sort of thing enough to mechanize it in the first place.
 
11:53 PM
@KorvinStarmast re: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/179726/… There's a real tone difference there that makes me avoid those games for the most part. In practice, any time I've tried one anyway, it's been more contentious and unfun, in the same way that rules-lite games are. However, I also don't think this discussion will add anythnig to that answer, so I'm clearing my comments there.
 

« first day (3764 days earlier)      last day (41 days later) »