« first day (4234 days earlier)      last day (1028 days later) » 

00:15
Voted to reopen this question. It seems like a pretty straightforward lore question, I’ve no idea why it was closed.
 
8 hours later…
07:53
@V2Blast thanks for that edit
 
3 hours later…
10:28
@ThomasMarkov The word "Why" is often used as a heavy hint to designer reasons. It is best replaced with "What are the in-universe reasons for..." in many cases.
Reworded as such
10:57
@Trish Right. I’ve historically been quicker than average to VTC for that (though I’ve basically quit caring with the alleged impending change of policy there), and even I was like “this is obviously a standard lore question”.
11:14
@ThomasMarkov It triggers reflexes, which is why I rewrote it to omit the "magic word"
I’ve written a few edit summaries saying “‘should’ is a naughty opinion word”.
12:00
@NautArch @ThomasMarkov can I get a second opinion on one of my questions?
@AncientSwordRage At your service
So I was asking about shoving with Mage Hand + Telekinetic. The question I linked is about the range of the spell, because the feat extends the range but not the range at which it vanishes (30ft) - Dale M rightly says this is nonsense
@AncientSwordRage We've a question about this somewhere
4
Q: Does the Telekinetic feat also increase the distance you can move the mage hand?

TheDragonOfFlameThe Telekinetic feat from Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything says the following: You learn the mage hand cantrip.... if you already know this spell, it’s range increase by 30 feet when you cast it. Mage Hand has a range of 30 feet, and says the following: The hand vanishes if it is ever more than ...

@ThomasMarkov that's the question I linked in my question
Ah, right
12:09
@ThomasMarkov Dale M's answer doesn't cover this bit:
> As a bonus action, you can try to telekinetically shove one creature you can see within 30 feet of you.
Ah.
You arent using the hand to shove.
The shove from the feat and the changes to mage hand from the feat are entirely separate features.
So when you say:
> It also says you can use it to shove creatures within 30 feet of you
This is just incorrect, that's not what it says.
Which is the first half of Groody's answer
@ThomasMarkov ah you're right
Not sure what my linked answer has to do with anything in Groody's answer, but he called it excellent so that's cool
I think I got too hooked up on the idea that the 'vanishing after 30ft.' is separate from the range, so Dale's logic might apply to the other benefits/changes to mage hand (i.e. the shove) but you're both spot on - there's no mention of the hand at all
In theory I don't even have to have Mage Hand running
12:26
@AncientSwordRage Correct. The shove is totally independent of the mage hand feature.
12:47
@ThomasMarkov wild
 
1 hour later…
14:04
5
Q: Can Hellish Rebuke be trigged by a damaging effect that also causes a condition such as "paralyzed" or "incapacited"?

Buggy BuggmanSimilar to a question posed here: Can you cast Hellish Rebuke as a reaction to damage that reduces you to zero hit points? However, I am wondering what should happen when a condition is applied as a result of a damaging effect that forces a creature to make a saving throw. Specifically when: a s...

The more I think of "D&D is not a physics simulator", the more I think we have it wrong. It is a physics simulator for the mundane things. But saying that magic and monsters work the same way is the stretch. Electricity is electricity. But magical electricity is...magic.
14:19
@NautArch there's nothing in D&D that does that simulation though
not even advice
@AncientSwordRage What do you mean?
some physics is abstracted out to 'environmental damage' other bits for falling are covered by 'falling damage'
@NautArch nothing in the rules says "Treat electricity as close to reality as possible" or "Roll a d6 per amp over 0.1A" or whatever
@AncientSwordRage I've always looked at it is things mundane things generally work the same unless there is a specific rule that says otherwise. Magic, however, works like magic and you can't assume it works with normal physics the same as mundane things.
@NautArch ok but how do you physically simulate mundane electricity in D&D then?
@AncientSwordRage Electricity is a tough example because there is no electricity in D&D. Lightning damage, though - that's a difference between magical and mundane lightning. Why assume magical works the same?
@AncientSwordRage ...you don't without houserules?
14:23
@NautArch well if you need houserules to simulate physics (and D&D doesn't tell you to) then D&D isn't a physics simulator, your houserules are
With no electricity in the D&D setting, that's a really bad example.
@NautArch "Why assume magical works the same?" the same as what?
The same as mundane.
ok... bu there's no rules for mundane lightning damage though?
Dont need any - that's not something that general comes up in the game.
But my point is that assuming magical lighting is the exact same as mundane lighting is the problem.
Same with fire - and that's why fireball works underwater - it's magical fire and not mundane fire.
14:27
@NautArch that seems separate from "D&D is not a physics simulator"
@AncientSwordRage I guess my requested change to that statement is "Magic and monsters in D&D are not a physics simulator"
@NautArch that's not something that comes up when discussing "D&D is not a physics simulator" though, right?
@AncientSwordRage It's not - and I'm saying it should. I'm pretty sure all these questions that invoke that phrase are when someone tries to apply mundane physics to magic.
@NautArch ahh right
I haven't not made that connection
Exactly! And I think that's the core of the issue.
I'm not using problem because I think some tables do allow for it, and have fun, but I don't think the expectation is there for it.
14:32
As in, I don't think that's how the phrase is used....?
From the designers side.
@AncientSwordRage I've seen it used in things for creative use of spells. Biggest being lightning damage in water.
But if we're going to allow that, then we really shouldn't allow fire spells in water.
Because in one case we're saying "yeah, physics", and the other "nah, physics"
@NautArch ok, but I thought it was more natural lightning isn't something D&D can simulate
the rest of it is 'Spells only do what they say they do'
it's why fire spells need to explicitly state if they set things on fire
@AncientSwordRage I haven't seen it used in that way - almost every way i've seen it is in trying for creative use of spells or monster/character abilities.
but for instance, there's no rules on accurately simulating the physics of setting something on fire with a mundane torch
I think in that case, we are a physics simulator. Player says "I want to light X on fire with my torch" and DM then determines if that's possible.
14:37
that's not simulation, it's arbitrarily imitating for narrative purpose
and that's DM fiat, not D&D rules
Based on how fire works? But if you're saying simulation needs hard rules for every interaction, then yeah, it's not a simulation.
Did even 3.5 have rules for that with all their specifics?
@NautArch that is how I remember interpreting the phrase
@NautArch nope
And 5e has already said their design goal was simplification.
I'm also not sure I agree you can't 'simulate' without 'hard and exact rules that are published for everything'.
If I told my DM I wanted to light the curtain on fire with my torch, then a DM should consider how that would work in the real world.
And WoTC has said...i think...that things 'work' the same.
@NautArch I'll be clear, I don't think you need 'hard and exact rules that are published for everything' for a GM to make a ruling, but that's not simulation
How are you defining simulation, then?
And is there a game that fits the definition for you?
15:01
@NautArch I think the distinction I'm drawing is like Kerbal Space Program vs. Asteroids.
I'd say the maxim could be "D&D rules sometimes approximates real-world physics but it doesn't simulate it. That goes doubly so for the magic system."
15:14
But does any RPG simulate?
If not, then "X is not a physics simulator' is always true.
 
2 hours later…
16:53
o/
\\oo/
@NautArch there's one that uses a graph for bullet velocity that I can't remember the name of...
But my point is, that you made well, practically no game is a simulator
@AncientSwordRage Actually, the game Goat Simulator is a true-to-reality goat life cycle simulator.
Sometwo must have really disliked the answers to the polearm master/sentinel question.
Each one has -2.
 
1 hour later…
18:24
@ThomasMarkov good point!
I guess maybe it's like saying "X food plan is not a paleo-diet" when most diets aren't even close to simulating the mythical paleo-diet, but at least some attempt it.
I'm a fan of the GOMAD diet.
GOMAD: Gallon Of Milk A Day. A gallon a day keeps the weakness away.
cries in lactose intolerance
18:45
@AncientSwordRage One of my daughters got it from her mom.
The other daughter does not appear to have it yet.
19:31
@ThomasMarkov I had it as a baby and it came back after a course of antibiotics
It's still better for me to have milk then soya though 😰
 
1 hour later…
20:48
3
Q: Player erinyes ECL (equivalent character level)?

DigiusOne of the players of our campaign (level 30) is planning to play an erinyes. Reading the savage species, a monster character erinyes has 6 HD and 7 Level adjustment (LA) for a total of 13 ECL (equivalent character level). Nonetheless I have noticed that this may be based on the 3.0 monster manua...


« first day (4234 days earlier)      last day (1028 days later) »