@nitsua60 100 tarps? sounds like you want to make a Larp... uhm... how large you want to cover? you could call the army, they often have containers full of material wasting away. or a plastic sheet manufacturer, if you order enough, they send you bulk.

a quick google search threw me "Gosport" as a tarp manufacturer in the US... and the picture implies they could make you a circus tarp, if you wanted one.

another source for large tarp might be a trucking company.

@Trish 100' = 100 feet. The number of tarps is unspecified.

@nitsua60 Around here it'd be a party supply.

100 feet of tarp is like 30 meters... a truck tarp.

Getting a used truck tarp might be expensive... maybe... check if anywhere nearby is a shipyard? they sometimes have tarps from large transports that just get thrown away (at least in the 1980s they did....)

@nitsua60 Find a rogue who can detect tarps

@Trish That's an interesting thought....

@MikeQ At some point I need to build out my NPC wizard who keeps making mistakes in preparing spells, leading to casting things like "Shocking Gasp", "Animate Bread", "Bold Monster", and "Feather Flail"

@PeterCooperJr. how about the spells Rainbow Spay, Magic Miss Ile, Ireball and Pissmatic Wall?

@Trish Ireball's a keeper.

I like bold monster

It makes me think you teleported them to some kinda monster fashion show

XD

(I think that gets cast on me about once a week: the material component is "a pile of shoes and boots dropped right in front of the door by the kids so you can stumble over them with your first step(s) in the door.")

how about Animate Dad for those PCs whose backstories involve avenging their father

Lol

Deject magic. -1 to all casters in range.

-1 what?

Yes.

(Unless, of course, they have nondejection up.)

Lol

Nondejection sounds like a great everyday spell

I think Glaxo-Smith-Kline's already working on it.

There's even a commercial for it somewhere in here:

(warning for those not familiar: some crude humor in there)

Now there's a blast from the past

(The very first "commercial" in there was meant as a parody of 90s prescription-drug ads for antidepressants.)

Lol

@MikeQ I may have quoted that--specifically at 5:47--sotto voce 30 min into my grad school QM II exam. No joking: some classmates literally fell out of their desks.

(Be very careful about scrolling forward to that timestamp, people!)

@nitsua60 Are all of these misspells the result of Defect Magic ?

@nitsua60 Yeah I figure I shouldn't watch this till I get home

XD

Could someone help me? I have answered this question and I got 3 downvotes. They left a comment in my answer but I hadn't understood the why of the downvote.

@nitsua60 -- do we have an update on the 12/1 and 12/8 situation?

Afternoon all

@Ben ah.

A level 20 barb with 10 STR will be a challenge. Lol

@nitsua60 In our game we are after "boons for our Emperor/Empress". This was translated to "Spoons".

"Mah spoon is too big!"

@Shalvenay Fortunately though, all the gear that I got for my initial build can stay. All the extra stuff however will probably have to go haha

So, it's 40°C. At least it's dry heat.

Ok, so I feel like this should be a meta question, but this question has two answers. Fundamentally, they're both saying the same thing, but one focuses on the Etymology of the word, and the other (mine) uses the assumption that we know that already, and focuses on explaining the RAW.

Now, my answer was provided a few minutes later than the other answer, but it has received more votes... Why is that exactly?

And should I post this on the meta? As a sort of "content" question?

Well, votes are anonymous and don't need explanation or justification, so we can't really answer that conclusively

That's fair.

It would be a "discussion"... but how far do we want to stretch that definition?

If I ever upvote an answer primarily comprised of a dictionary definition, it'll be because someone hijacked my account.

Lol

Out of curiosity, why would that be? You see no value in it, etc?

Well, unless the querent specifically asked "what does this word mean", it's extremely condescending to assume that the reason for their confusion is that they don't understand English.

Additionally, there's no value to an answer that says "this is what alternatively means". Even if someone reading it genuinely doesn't know what the word means, 5 seconds on Google would tell them.

There's also...well, not to put too fine a point on it, dictionary quotes are what people use when they don't have any actual evidence to support their argument, but don't want it to look like their answer is purely their opinion.

I feel like it's bad that last point made me chuckle.

It's the same way people use "specific vs general" as if it's a magic ingredient that will make any recipe taste better.

@Miniman The last time someone tried to use a dictionary definition to support their point with me, I left without another word.

("Racism can't be institutional because the dictionary doesn't describe it that way.")

I once saw an argument where the "defense" used the dictionary definition, which was completely against their own point. Either they were that oblivious, or they were just that stubborn. Either way, the conversation from that point went from mildly annoying to hilarious

@BESW Separation of definition and etymology

@BESW Wow. That is...wow.

@Ben I mean, where do you even start. The difference between prescriptive and descriptive dictionaries? The fact that lay dictionaries aggressively cull jargonistic definitions? The ongoing cultural discussion about the nature of racism and the role of media portrayals of racism as an individual quality in erasing popular awareness of systemic racism?

The fact that the Oxford Dictionary has an entry for "LOL" is, I feel, the start of a downhill slope.

But yeah, for the RPG question, it's generally safe to assume that folks asking RPG experts for an answer expect an answer that draws on RPG expertise.

Greetings amigos

Today's lesson: Some narratives are better suited for certain types of narrative media. A certain story structure may work well in book or movie form, but not so well in game form, and vice versa.

@MikeQ Yuuuuup.

See also: media length has a strong impact on the kinds of stories and styles of stories suited to it.

Were you lucky enough to learn it as a player rather than as a GM?

"Lucky" is not the word I would use

A game ended where our low-level party encountered the ultimate evil (TM) who had not been introduced, who started casting 9th level spells everywhere, then suddenly like 20 DMNPCs showed up and had a battle with them

Apparently the PCs accidentally saved the universe by some technicality which also had not been introduced

We didn't even know the universe was at stake

Ooof. Although, in fairness, it sounds like a bad narrative in any format.

The entire NPC-vs-NPC battle took less than 1 turn

And then these unintroduced good NPC archmages proceeded to dump a steaming pile of exposition that I swear had been ripped from like 2 or 3 well-known fantasy novels

@Miniman Apparently the DM is trying to write a story, and the PCs just sorta walked in to an important (?) scene

I'd compare it to a group of muggles stumbling into the Battle of Hogwarts, accidentally assisting the good guys via some obscure magical technicality, and then having Harry Potter hastily explain the entire series

That's the sort of thing where it'd work in a story format where the audience is privilege to a MUCH wider view than the main characters are.

There are plenty of TV shows and movies, for example, where the whole point is watching somebody bumble around clueless while we know what's really going on--it's a staple horror convention and a popular mystery structure.

Whereas when the participants/protagonists are the audience, that doesn't work

But it only works in RPGs when the group is willing and able to put a vast gulf between characters and players, and bring players in as co-conspirators. Otherwise it's just the Hitchcockian bomb problem.

My position is that it works best in interactive RPGs where the interaction is meaningful, which generally means the participants require some information, and their choices have some effect on the outcome

Take away the interactivity, and add in the rules and complexity of a TTRPG, and the end result is just single-narrator storytelling told slowly and ineffeciently

Or as I call it, a huge waste of time

@BESW This bit of golden writing was more like the (unmentioned) bomb went off, but then it didn't really, because of a bunch of off-screen stuff. So there's no tension and no consequence.

@MikeQ This may potentially be why my Diablo Campaign is taking so long to build. At every step I have to come up with "alternative solutions" to each defined and set encounter.

@MikeQ ...so it was like a series of TV scripted by Moffat.

@BESW I don't necessarily completely agree with him there, but yes you can't just not tell the audience there is a bomb AND also blow it up

Is it just me or do dungeon crawl have a "rail-road-esque" setting?

esque? they are typically the example of rail roaded

XD

they get pre stocked with traps and monsters to fight

@BESW A Hitchcockian bomb hoax, if you will

@Ben Yes, that's part of their appeal, traditionally: the layout of the dungeon provides the GM with a predictable structure and narrow set of possible things to plan for, while also giving a diegetic justification for that narrow predictability.

I do have slightly more respect for them since trying my hand a little at GMing

@Ben It tends to railroad exploration, but doesn't necessarily railroad gameplay

(And for players, it either gives them a narrow set of conditions they know they have to plan for, and/or opportunities to "win" by defying the assumed conditions of play.)

Railroaded gameplay, by comparison, is where there is only 1 possible solution, to the point where player choice is virtually absent

it's real hard to keep up with the roller coaster that is the PC's if you let them do things in a non railroaded or reduced rail road adventure

I've struggled with it a lot, the dilemma between giving actual choices to them and being able to keep up with what they do

I don't know why that escaped me, for so long.

part of it is that I like surprises so I assume they also want to be surprised

The players can still have choices and meaningful interaction in a linear dungeon. Dungeons are useful because they put enough constraints on what the player characters can break, without entirely taking away player choice.

not all surprises but in terms of a story, even a collaborative one, I do

@MikeQ yes but there are definite limits

not to say I think they should just never be used

they definitely have a place

@MikeQ "I try to seduce the lock"

A linear dungeon is just another quest that requires everyone to be on board with the premise of "Go from entrance A to goal point B"

Kudos for whatever situation that was where that is a legitimate option.

@Ben "Sorry, it's an Ace lock."

Railroading is where the PCs must fight the kobolds in room 1, then must guess the correct password in room 2, then fight the orcs in room 3, then roll high to pick the lock in room 4, etc. Each room has exactly one correct solution.

@BESW I see what you did there...

@MikeQ yeah, and if everyone is aware and on board, I see absolutely no issue

@Ben As for stories, yes, if your planned campaign story relies on the PCs making a specific sequence of decisions... prepare for that to fall apart

My first dungeon was very much like that - but I had nothing to "accommodate" player interaction. So there was a lot of "pants-GMing" (as my friend puts it) to allow for particular situations that the Players came up with to overcome the dungeon interactions

@MikeQ Thinking about it - not really. For the most part the dungeon is just a series of puzzles, traps and conflicts, with the occasional choice being made - though very much just "yes or no" choices. Which both are accounted for.

A few mic-drop moments - "You pant heavily, finally relaxing as the skeletal beast crumbles to the floor, and you realise for the first time, the brooch on it's cloak - your father's brooch..."

But nothing saying "When the players choose to do x*y/z - continue to next equation"

This is the diablo-esque megadungeon campaign? What does that have to do with pants?

But, all that said puts me at much ease. I've been constantly battling to come up with "alternate rules" to the game in order to make it less "point a-b-c-end"

@MikeQ My first dungeon was not that, but it is the one I'm referring to about working on. I kinda jumped a bit there haha.

Generally megadungeons have frequent "turning back" points, either to a previous level or the starting level

Going back, I once ran a 2-session dungeon for my family over Christmas. "Clear out the Orc dungeon". It was very straight forward - Go to room A. Fight Orcs. 2 doors. Behind door A (locked) skeletons, door b leads deeper into dungeon.

So it may be a-b-c, but it could also be a-b-a, or a-b-c-a-b-a, depending on how the players choose when to return and resupply

@MikeQ Yeah. I have allowed for that. shortcuts can be found leading out - old ventilation shafts for excavation, etc. Or a way-point back to town. (I remember seeing an item that allowed travel back to an origin point in the DMG)

The idea is that each time they go back to town, new information or events can be uncovered. They return to town to find the water had been poisoned, or Wirt has gone missing... (gasp!)

Sounds good so far. What do the players want? What do they do?

And does it involve pants?

So far I have 3 PCs - pre-generated at this time.

Technically 4.

The general gist is that they've each heard word of evil events/powers rising in town... go investigate

But the primary character (1 guess who) has a personal investment in the events - after returning from war, his family is dead or missing... he needs to find his younger brother.

Not asking what the characters want. What do the players want?

When I have a go or two at the dungeon, I'll find a way to incorporate unrelated characters into it

@MikeQ Oh right.

Ask them? Lol

Adventure? Riches? To defeat evil/replace it?

I mean, are they saying that the game is too railroady, or they want other choices besides descending into the dungeon? Do they ask a lot of questions about non-dungeon stuff in town, or try to have their characters spend time doing tasks in town?

I haven't played it yet. The discussions I've had are with my current D&D group about the development of it and all of their opinions are of the "rail-road" direction, even though they haven't really understood the whole concept.

The core of it is very much that - go to floor a... kill all monsters. go to floor b... kill all monsters.

Ah. Ok. So it may seem railroady because at each floor, the options are limited.

But I do have plans to mix it up. Fetch quests, puzzles, and most importantly, a developing story.

Hm. And to what degree can the PCs' choices affect that story?

Is each floor linear in design?

Even in Diablo-esque video games, each floor allowed for exploration and had multiple possible paths from entrance to exit

Well, this is where I was concerned - as a megadungeon, the core concept is to "clear the dungeon". Each flor has a "Point A" and a "Point B", and the idea I that each floor should have a "boss" monster as well. But yes, each floor has alternate routes, and other NPCs to interact with.

Well... more generally, "clear" doesn't strictly mean the players need to fight everything. The multi-level megadungeon just means a linear sequence of "levels", typically consisting of multiple rooms and challenges, and each "level" has 1+ entrance (from a previous level) and 1+ exit (to a lower level). Challenges (even "boss" challenges) don't need to be combats.

I was especially proud of my "Lach Dannen" interaction - A suit of armour lay propped up against the wall - you recognise the royal insignia.. But how did the soldier's body decay so quickly? As you peer closer, the skull snaps around to look at you.. [Players freak out potentially attack it] "Please, help me", it says, jaw unmoving

As for advice - Focus on designing 1 floor. Make it really, really good. Then, if the players seem to approach the end, start working on the next area. Loop. That way, each level is great, and the campaign experience does not rely on revelations in future sessions. Plus, if the players don't buy in for the long haul, you haven't lost anything.

@MikeQ Ok, that is solid advice :D One clarification though - define "really good" lol

Putting 100% good ideas into 1 dungeon vs. putting 25% good ideas into 4 dungeons

I suppose my counterweight to all of this is that the characters level up floor by floor.

Or more simply: Don't save the good stuff for later.

While TTRPGs are like videogames by being an interactive medium, they are unlike videogames in that the player experience can go forever unfinished. So rather than scheduling 4 meh sessions for a huge payoff in session 5, and then being disappointed when the game stops after session 3, it's better to schedule 1 really good session from the start.

True :)

Ok, I had a couple of thoughts - I need to write these all down so I can filter through them all.

One was "initiative vs a trap". Sort of like a reaction time. Everyone rolls an initiative roll, potentially including the trap, or vs a set DC.

@MikeQ That's not really unlike videogames. It's perfectly common to have the starting section of a game be the best or most fun content the game has to offer, for exactly the same reasons.

@Miniman Yes, true... I was thinking more of games where the focus is on late-game or endgame content, or have a lengthy mid-game section that was badly designed or otherwise unfun

Everyone that beats the trap, can get one reaction. Aid a player in the firing line on an agility to get out of the way, for example

@MikeQ Ah, yeah. The "get the story out of the way before you can play the real game" model.

@Miniman Spiderman spoilers

@Ben Haven't played it - did they do that thing where you start the game as a fully-levelled character with access to all abilities and then once you finish the first section they strip you back to a starting character?

@Miniman No, thank god. But the first event is a full-fledged high-rise takedown adventure.

@Miniman My point is - video games are generally self-paced. You can take a midgame hiatus and come back months later without effort. Can't do that with a TTRPG that requires real-person schedule juggling. Once interest is gone, it's gone.

@MikeQ Yeah, for sure.

You fight your way up through the building to fight Fisk (with only your standard abilities), and take him down. Then you get into the actual story, and level up your new abilities

So the tutorial is somewhat action-paced, but you only have your starter abilities.

@Miniman Similarly, if the DM plans the campaign to have a unique dungeon puzzle or EPIC PLOT TWIST... but not for a certain number of sessions, then what's the point of the other sessions? Filler? Intentionally worse content?

@Ben So what makes it the best part of the game?

@Miniman I suppose I was going for the opposite tack. The whole game is really good, except for the last part. It just takes a nose dive

@MikeQ I suppose it's not really a huge reveal when the whole plot from the beginning is that there is some great evil to be taken care of, then reveal its actual identity, right?

@Ben Well, from a player perspective, if the past few sessions have been lame and the DM keeps insisting that it's all building up to a really cool payoff... I won't believe them. I would suspect that future sessions would be equally lame.

Well, yeah. The reaction is going to be either "DIABLO??? WHAAAAT???" or "Oh ok. Cool." depending on the player investment in the story.

And, of course, player knowledge

In this particular instance lol

Another way to view my point: If the DM wants to put a really cool encounter/experience in session 10, then they should also put as much effort into making sessions 1-9 just as fun

Because sitting through 9 sessions of bad content is not worth a potential payoff in the 10th

Yeah. The whole adventure needs to be part of the adventure. Lol

If the best part of the campaign is reserved for the end, then there's a design problem.

If the DM thinks it's ok to eat up my time with filler content, or ask me to spend multiple hours learning something that could be conveyed via text exposition dump, then I stop investing my time. I leave.

@MikeQ Rogue, Fighter, or Sorcerer?

Or, if you want to convince me; Necromancer?

I usually vote Necromancer but I don't know what the question is :P

@MikeQ Haha. Allocating Characters to players :P

All the player characters should be necromancers!

If they're not necromancers, then reflavor them as necromancers

Fireball -> Exploding Skeleton Ball

Shocking Grasp -> Spooking Grasp

Cone of Cold -> Bone of Cold

Stoneskin -> Boneskin

ok I'll see myself out now

@MikeQ Just like all the characters in 40 K should be psykers? haha

I did make "Mage Armour" into "Bone Armour"

hehe

@MikeQ I like it hahaha

Oh! and "Turn Undead", too. It works like "Charm Creature" (I think that's the name of it) - You can control one undead creature (that makes an appropriate save) and it will become an ally for a period of time

^ Fails* an appropriate save

@Ben I got into NetHack way before I had heard of DnD and I always thought "turn undead" means that you turn into an undead.

@MikeQ Plot twists are kinda overrated in RPGs, IMO

@kviiri Well "turn Undead" isn't an actual spell in D&D, so that's understandable

@Ben Sure it is! in 4e.

@Ben Not in NetHack either, it's a special action available to Clerics and Knights

@BESW I stand corrected. Haha

It's not a spell in 5e then lol. At least not in the situation I've allowed for it. It's only a level 1 spell, and you can only control 1 per spell level. I.e. at higher spell slots you can control more at once

It's also not a spell in D&D 3.5.

I feel like there's a Hasbro joke in there somewhere

alright. I'm back. what'd I miss

@goodguy5 A Hasbro joke somewhere in there.

And welcome back!

Weird, I didn't get a "bwing" for that mention.

And I'm still deciding between halforc or... something else

@goodguy5 How's your "audio notification level"?

I got that one, though

Hmm... maybe the sound tubes are slow today.

maybe I just wasn't paying attention

@nitsua60 Hasbro? No, I'm an only child.

solid joke

Hasbro, the famous royal house of <insert most European countries here>

Much better than "hasbro? I hardly even knew bro!"

@kviiri So that resolves to "Hasbro, the famous royal house of France, Italy, Hungary, Slovenia, Poland, Finland, Denmark, Greece, Spain, Belgium, Ireland, Croatia, Austria, Albania, Norway, and Latvia"?

I guess with intermarriage that's probably right.

That question about the Pearl reminds you me again how little I enjoy the spell components mechanics of 5e.

@nitsua60 I think they actually did rule Hungary!

@Rubiksmoose Why?

@goodguy5 because it seems pointless beyond giving something else you have to track very carefully for no other reason than the game says it is important.

@goodguy5 there have been similar questions before FYI and iirc the answer is not very well defined.

As for costly components, it could just as easily be "___GP in one hand, which the spell does or does not consume"

@goodguy5 Sure, but if you have the intricate system that is designed to be completely superceded by a simple and common item/class feature why have it at all?

@Rubiksmoose I already said. Some people like it.

@Rubiksmoose Because optional minigames are fun for some but not for all?

^

@nitsua60 sure, I'm not saying to take it out. I'm explaining why I don't enjoy the mechanic specifically.

And the reason is that it seems like complexity for complexity's sake.

I enjoy the wizard minigame of components (V, S, and M) to the extent that I actually create a physical spellbook for every wizard I play with notes on the exact gestures, components, and words used to cast each spell. But nobody else has to.

@Rubiksmoose oh, I'm sorry. I read it as "I don't see the point of this. Why is it even in the book?"

@Rubiksmoose Sorry--I read "why have it at all?" as implying it should be out of the game, rather than out of your game. Mondays....

@goodguy5 There's also the issue of campaign settings where the market price for normal commodities is above normal PHB prices (eg. CoS)

@goodguy5 ah no. I understand why it's in there well enough. There are certainly those who might enjoy it (obviously). I'm just not among them. Usually anything that involves really precise tracking is not fun for be in my games.

@Rubiksmoose oh yea. 100% agree

e.g. ^ the idea seeming to be that more complexity = good, so let's add more until there's serious problems, then work back until it's playable

@Rubiksmoose For me, when I'm playing-not-gming there's plenty of "downtime" so tracking's generally not a problem.

@goodguy5 worth is unfortunately defined by the person buying and details of their location in their world and is inherently opinion-based.

@nitsua60 I definitely see why you read it that way fwiw: because I phrased it poorly lol.

but for me simplicity is where it's at, and the question isn't "how much can we manage to add while still being playable?" but instead "how little do we need to make it playable, and is there anything here we can/should remove because it's unnecessary?"

But it seems we are all on the same page now :)

@doppelgreener +1,000

I mean, in all honesty, I like a certain amount of complexity for complexity's sake. Not a ton, but some.

Complexity can be really nice!

I can't use Roll for Shoes for everything.

@doppelgreener (Just don't forget that simple games miss out on the "lonely kid spending hours and hours poring over complexity while they're not playing" market!)

XD

@nitsua60 crunch can be good for that.

@nitsua60 When I have DM I have very little tolerance for tracking things like that at all. I tell the players that if they want that I will expect them to track that without having me babysit them because usually my DM time is much better spent elsewhere for time:fun enhancement ratio.

@nitsua60 that's what reading Mathematics Textbooks is for.

@Rubiksmoose oh, absolutely! I track the minimum amount possible with GMing--waaaay too much else going on that's higher priority.

OTOH I need games that don't require significant out-of-game time investment, so if the game kinda requires me to spend hours poring over complexity I'm outtie.

@Rubiksmoose I had every intention of doing more tracking of ammo/ratios/etc but after starting off I realized it's just not necessary for me.

Time is limited and I'd rather focus on other activities

I can create 'hardship' in other areas if I want.

I like the way Fate handles it: you've always got ammo, until it's dramatically appropriate that you're suddenly low on ammo or don't have ammo or are entirely disarmed.

@doppelgreener I used to love crunch. I would spent hours pouring over math trying to optimize Pathfinder builds and tracking all the items and rations and ammo for my party. Now that seems too much like work lol

“You're low on ammo at this point, so you need to conserve it and can't afford to take that shot.” [fate point], or a roll to create "out of ammo" on someone (which they can work to recover from, possibly)

@doppelgreener Yes--at this stage of life that's definitely where I am, too. And if I'm going to spend any hours away from the table it's going to be in wrangling schedules, prepping adventures, or even making snacks =)

@NautArch oh yeah? Very interesting to hear that. I remember us having a similar discussion when you were planning that and was indeed curious how that had turned out for you.

^Is that two separate questions?

@Rubiksmoose Yeah. It's so easy to simply carry enough, so why have the restriction and maintenance.

I may still introduce a mechanic on needing to conserve/watch something when they travel to the alternate plane/world.

@NautArch I don't think so. what would they be?

@goodguy5 Can I make something DIspel Proof vs How Can I make it harder to dispel something?

If you want something waterproof, but instead it's water resistant, you may be very upset when you drop it in water.

@goodguy5 For one thing look at the answers. Each one is answering a different question. That is usually a sign that something is up.

yea. fair

does one of the cube of force faces block magic?

@goodguy5 yeah, but it'd also trap the spell effect inside it.

So you'd have a buff, but couldn't use it?

that's an interesting question :)

@NautArch I don't have easy access to the source text, but I thought it said "keeps out all magic", not "blocks all magic"

hrm.... it probably says "magic cannot pass through the barrier."

@goodguy5 "spell effects can't pass through the barrier"

@goodguy5 hah. you nailed it.

yea. still dispel proof....

I'm going to see if I can find any other similar things and post an answer.

@goodguy5 you aren't wrong!

AMF would also technically do it along those lines lol

technically right is the best kind of right!

@Rubiksmoose that's exactly what I was looking at.

I'm trying to think of how many casters of 8th level spells it would take to surround a spell effect

There's also the matter of silence.

@goodguy5 subtle spell gets around that

Lot of good ideas there.

oh, neat. Silence protects creatures from thunder damage

@NautArch They tweaked the question. Does that satisy your comments?

new spell idea: Dispel Real-World Physics. Does nothing because they're already gone, but is a cantrip any spellcaster can use as a free action whenever a player delves too deep into real-world physics.

^_^

Non-spellcaster classes get the non-cantrip version as a class feature which is executed via intense staring and/or shrugging.

@doppelgreener hahaha.

@Rubiksmoose it does~!

@doppelgreener Is that a lighter version of Banish?

Quick aside: Are we at a point where we can move forward with my answer on this meta?

quick question, does this grammatically right? "How hard can I make a spell to dispel?"

was trying to change the title to that, but it sounds very strange.

There seems to be an ok accord there for a low number meta post and it's been up for a week.

@Vylix Technically yes, but it reads very strangely to me.

Also, I think it does change the answers. In that you are asking for quantifying how hard you can make it not asking for the ways in which you can make it hard.

@NautArch I think so