« first day (2497 days earlier)      last day (935 days later) » 

4:00 PM
@nwp -- I thought that questions like "should I buy..." were not appropriate for SE?
@BanjoFox I don't know. But that seems reasonable.
I don't know about the shopping question, you should ask someone who knows better
Oh, you're asking about the answer?
@doppelgreener, I summon you!
4:01 PM
Regarding the question from a pure game balance perspective, I don't think I'd be okay with kitsune getting prehensile tails on all of their tails.
It could be a prehensile set of tails, like you need to use all of them to prehense anything
I don't know that I would want Kitsune to have prehensile tails based on lore alone
@BanjoFox agreed, it's not answering the question. It would be a good addendum to an answer, but it is not a good standalone answer.
@NautArch - Thanks :) I am trying to be a more active participant ;)
@BanjoFox and would it give the Kitsune TWO tails?
4:04 PM
Are PF kitsune multi-tailed?
4:17 PM
@KorvinStarmast magical immunity question is interesting. Makes me want to make a monster around that :)
Wondering if this would be on-topic: "What makes magic missile so popular?"
Almost 60 questions on magic missile specifically, and I feel like I'm missing why this is
Would this be a valid question?
@B.S.Morganstein magic missile as a question or as a spell?
@B.S.Morganstein -- that seems better asked on a forum :)
@B.S.Morganstein That's purely opinion based, so no.
4:23 PM
@NautArch I don't understand why magic missile is so popular. What am I missing?
@B.S.Morganstein because it always hits (unless they have Shield)
happy to get answers here if the community doesnt think it would be on topic
But my opinion is that it's a classic and that people like the idea of "it automatically hits, dice can't screw you over".
It does also have some notability "I cast magic missile!" --Deadale Wives
@NautArch Agreed. Guaranteed damage is guaranteed. Even if it isn't very much.
4:24 PM
Is there no save?
@B.S.Morganstein Nope. Magic missile always hits unless another spell or effect blocks it. Like the Shield spell, or an anti-magic field.
That would make it unique :P
So I guess tradeoff is high hit chance, but low damage?
@B.S.Morganstein I think the only thing that comes close is Otto's Irresistable Dance. But that's only at first cast. When it's their turn, they get a save.
4:25 PM
@NautArch Interesting, thanks!
I also had the same question about eldritch blast
@B.S.Morganstein Unlike other cantrips, eldritch blast shoots out multiple beams (and thus multiple attacks) as it levels up rather than just raw damage boosts. So if you get any spellcasting mod to damage on it, or any other effect on hit, you can apply that multiple times.
@B.S.Morganstein It's also iconic.
@Adam like what?
@NautArch I think it's a case of a DM going out of the way to either hose or challenge players, thanks to video games that had immunities ... like Diablo II.
@nitsua60 ICONIC... that is a much better word :)
4:27 PM
@AnneAunyme I RISE
@B.S.Morganstein and EB, with the invocation, let's you add your spellcasting modifier to the damage. No other cantrip does that? (i'm checking on that)
@B.S.Morganstein A Warlock's agonizing blast invocation lets them add cha to damage with EB. If you make 3 eldritch blast attacks with the one spell cast, I believe you can apply that extra damage from Cha to every hit
kow tow's to @doppelgreener
@B.S.Morganstein More like guaranteed hit. Great in situations when you feel the dice have forsaken you or you just need to finish off the bad guy before he teleports away.
4:28 PM
@KorvinStarmast But it's an interesting tactic. The race to get magic weapons so that you can bypass resistance on some monsters creates an opportunity to require mundane damage.
@Adam It also stacks nicely with Hex.
@nwp Also stacks nicely with hex. And it's worth mentioning that multiple chances to hit means multiple chances to crit.
@NautArch There's a cleric domain that gets WIS to cantrip damage at some point.
@nitsua60 Light Domain, I believe.
:39156719 aww man... I missed it D':
4:29 PM
@Adam @NautArch so how many cantrips can a warlock cast per action? I assume only 1, without using up a spell slot (apologize if this is completely wrong, I usually play melee fighters)
@nwp So a warlock with 20 Charisma and Hex can get (if they hit 3 times) 3x d10+5+d6
@B.S.Morganstein EB essentially is equivalent to extra attacks. Like with Extra attack, a fighter can swing his sword 2+ times with one attack action. EB lets you shoot 2+ beams with one "cast a spell" action. And is the only cantrip in the entire game that does that
@NautArch at lvl 11, yes
@Adam Gotcha. Do cantrips generally use spell slots? I would assume not, since they're treated as level 0 spells
4:31 PM
@B.S.Morganstein Nope. By definition, you can cast as many cantrips per day as you like
@B.S.Morganstein If you had a bonus action cantrip you could cast two.
@BanjoFox this is fine; "I need to achieve this thing, how do I achieve this thing" is a primary reason for our site's existence. Them going further and saying they'd really like to hold stuff lets us give more informed advice for their purposes.
@NautArch But I assume EB requires a full action to cast?
@nwp yes, sorry :) was thinking about my bard who can do this...at level 13 currently :)
It's cast time is one action, yes
4:32 PM
@BanjoFox I'm deleting this comment in a second, it's an answer in comments
All of a sudden EB seems really good at lower levels (perhaps meaning warlocks would "peak" pretty early..?)
@B.S.Morganstein correct, but if you've dipped sorcerer, I think you could quicken it to cast as a bonus action
@B.S.Morganstein and full circle. Yes.
@NautArch Very cool.
@B.S.Morganstein By that definition then, they basically peak at level 2
@Adam Cool
4:32 PM
@doppelgreener -- Yeah I thought about that too honestly, but I felt that it wasn't... "answery" enough.
Considering the number of builds that take a 2 level warlock dip, that isn't actually too far off it would seem
@B.S.Morganstein Well, they only have 1 beam at lvl 1. 2 beams at lvl 5 doubles the damage, so that would be a another peak.
@Adam Moon druids, too, by that reasoning. (I assume "peak" is colloquial for "moment of greatest comparative advantage"?)
@doppelgreener -- if you think I should/can safely re-add it I will :)
@BanjoFox If it's not suggesting improvement and not requesting clarification, it's probably discussiony or an answer. "Here's what I'd do" is an answer.
4:34 PM
Understood :)
OFFTOPIC: free legal software to delete pages from a PDF?
@nitsua60 Yeah. @B.S.Morganstein asked a question earlier about "When do classes peak/get their most iconic abilities"
@NautArch PDFSam (Split and merge)
@BanjoFox grazie
@nwp Indeed, and at level 11 with 3, etc
4:34 PM
@BanjoFox Thanks for hearing me out on that.
If you want the text I can paste it here.
@NautArch -- You want "Basic" the other one is paywalled
@doppelgreener Yes please :) I am always open to polite discussions :)
@BanjoFox figgered
3 hours ago, by B. S. Morganstein
I had a general question on how to form this question to be SE appropriate: I'm curious which classes peak early (that is to say, get their "best" class-specific abilities earlier), and which classes peak later. My problem is that I don't know how to get this out of the realm of opinion
@NautArch -- Yeah... its SUPER annoying because there are really cool feautures that I want but you have to buy them as add-ons (if i recall)... GRANTED... I should probably suck up and buy it because the free version has been so dang useful :)
@doppelgreener -- belay that request please. Apparently I did have the forethought to copy the text myself :D... haha...
@BanjoFox Nice.
Please don't answer in comments. Whether you think one book is more important, or neither is, or both are, or that it depends, that's basis for a full answer. Take the opportunity to explain the greater context, why your stance is useful, and if there's a "depends" component in your response, take a bit of time to explain so readers can judge for themselves which one they should get based on their needs. — doppelgreener ♦ 3 mins ago
I left some advice here in this comment.
I recommend expanding on your comment beyond "here's what I personally do", by adding a "why".
4:39 PM
I thought I did that by saying that the books compliment one another?
@NautArch if it's a super ordinary PDF: Print To PDF. :D Just pick the pages you need to keep and print those to a new PDF file.
@BanjoFox Oh right, yeah you do that.
@doppelgreener -- I upped the verbosity just in case u.u
Qestion: I had commented on an answer:

-1 for expecting to know that the GM expected the party to be eaten and basing all on malicious GM. It might very well have been expected of the GM that they throw their provisions at the bear and run away, or to make them hide and miss the closing of the gate so he could use it as a plot point later.

I got back:
@Trish You just validated my answer.

Then I quoted:

let me quote you: "You and your fellow PCs were supposed be eaten. Since that didn't happen, the GM probably got a little pissy and decided to not award you XP." - Not OK unless you ARE
Was I not saying the same thing all the time?
@Trish - yes I believe that the conversation ended up being circular
@BanjoFox I find generally that a comment always needs some revision before being posted as an answer. There's always opportunity to explain further what's going on in your thought process that we just skip over when writing comments. If possible it's safer to just take the ideas from the comment but start over writing fresh.
4:47 PM
@doppelgreener A fair point :)
@Trish This is kind of an example of why we don't encourage people to explain downvotes.
@doppelgreener Well, I found only TZHAT one piece offensive, otherwise the answer is decent...
that's why I tried to explain to him "This part is not ok, the rest is"
@Trish If something is offensive, flag it for our attention (preferably use a custom flag to direct our attention to what you consider offensive in it that needs addressing, if it's not obvious) or leave a comment pointing out what's offensive and make an actionable suggestion to change it. ("I think this violates Be Nice and should be rephrased" does the trick.)
It is not that the answer in itself is offensive, it is... I find it offensive to me as a GM that someone implies that a fellow GM dis domething out of malicious intent without having any proof of this given by the OP. which is,... not really an offense but... hard to explain... It just doesn't feel right.
It might sound weird and counterintuitive, but don't downvote because you find something offensive. That's what flagging is for.
Then comment that you think he's making assumptions.
"-1 for <reason>" is a template for disaster.
@Trish Downvote and move on. Starting arguments with people because of disagreeing with people's viewpoints is exactly the kind of behaviour we explicitly do not tolerate here, and will land you in trouble if you do it enough.
Rephrased it all... flagged the unnecessary comments...
and yea, moing on... to game night actually. See you later/'morrow! Thanks for the ear @doppelgreener - and the advice... and @Yuuki: THANKS for the word assumption!
@Trish have fun!
@doppelgreener -- I did have a flag-related question. More specifically: There is a "raise x helpful flags" and i was wondering what constituted a Helpful Flag.
4:57 PM
IIRC, that's something the mods do.
Basically if the mods find that the flag is valid, it's usually Helpful.
@Yuuki -- that would make more sense :)
Somehow in my caffiene-lacking brain i read it as "Flag this thing as Helpful" XD
5:16 PM
@Yuuki Yeah, this. For comments mods only get two choices: dismiss the flag (it'll be marked as unhelpful) or delete the comment, so uh, we can't mark comment flags helpful unless we delete that comment. But for posts we get to do whatever and then mark the flag helpful or dismiss it.
NAA/VLQ flags put the post in the review queue for other people to check, so they'll either confirm that flag or they'll disagree and the flag gets marked as disputed.
@doppelgreener - No worries ;) The Gamer in me wants to go "badge (achievement) hunting" but the logical side remembers that this is not a video game and that badges are meaningful.
I think we could summarise it like this:
- a flag on a question or answer is marked helpful if that post gets deleted whilst the flag is active.
- a flag on a comment gets marked helpful *only if* the comment gets deleted.
- a close flag is marked helpful if the question gets closed.
- a moderator can manually mark any non-comment flag as helpful for any reason.
Good to know :D
There are several times a flag's come up saying "I think something funny is going on, please check it out", and I've decided no action is necessary, but I've marked the flag as helpful because I appreciate the flag being brought up. "Helpful" is a way for moderators to say "good work, thanks for that, do more stuff like this".
@BanjoFox I know that feeling. I have a 100% helpful flag rate, and despite the fact that it really doesn't affect anything, I find myself hesitating to flag stuff so that number doesn't change :p
5:26 PM
@BanjoFox I mean, as long as you're not overtly gaming the system (endless very minor 15-character edits), going after badges is perfectly fine.
@BanjoFox Well all the badges also reward positive behaviour on the assumption there are people who will try to game them. Suddenly achievement hunters are doing... helpful constructive things for the site!!! Gasp!
Heck, that's why they're there.
Yeah :)
hahah LOL
Protip, if you want the sherrif badge, find noisy comment chains and flag each comment individually.
A noisy 10-comment back and forth = 10 marks on your journey to the sheriff badge.
5:28 PM
Cue {internal vs external motivation}-speech.
.... I am probably just bored enough at work to spend an extraordinary amount of time doing that...
@nwp The internal motivation speech is a man standing at microphone breathing quietly for about ten minutes before we hear a slightly-off-mic "oh, out loud?".
:D i see that correction
The external motivation speech is everyone in the auditorium murmuring confusedly at an empty podium while sounds of muffled yelling can be heard from outside.
@Yuuki brilliant :D
Banjo's Internal motivation is still yelling at him for not being able to answer the unanswered questions yet.
5:42 PM
@nwp Actually that can be fixed by handing out tomes. Or cursed tomes of permanent stat reduction. But If I change the stats until I like them may as well just go with the desired stats from the start.
@doppelgreener canceled due to rainstorm :/
@Trish is your gamenight outside?
Bummer :(
@NautArch Rainstorm might mean flooding.
Or if you're in a major Southwest city, I'd rather not have everyone drive anywhere in heavy rain.
@Yuuki bah! We've done gamedays in snowstorms :) THat's what AWD/4WD is for :)
5:52 PM
@NautArch But the weather outside seems frightful.
Incidentally, that song has not aged well.
@Yuuki And Tabletop gaming is SOOO delightful!
@NautArch yea... at a club building... or rather, I was visiting from my regular game club at one wher I am for 3 weeks.
Kinda like "Every Move You Make".
Why does "copyrighted" tend to imply "cannot (legally) be used"? We even have huge pseudo-government organizations that only exist to make copyrighted material available, yet it never seems to work out.
hahah :D
5:55 PM
@nwp Do you mean "why can't we link splatbook PDFs in answers"?
@Yuuki I mean why is this video muted at the beginning, but the PDF goes in the same direction.
@nwp Oh, that's a Twitch thing. It's actually more for streamers playing copyrighted music while gaming.
When a copyright claim goes down on one of these saved broadcasts, Twitch just mutes portions of the stream.
Since most copyright claims on Twitch are for audio rather video, that usually is sufficient enough for the claim.
@Yuuki I know that. But why? The purpose of those hated fee collection organisations is to make content available. They are required to by law. There should immediately be an offer "pay X amount and you can play it on your stream". Especially for a stream that sold tickets and organized a hall for people to sit in.
@nwp "why isn't the world automated better" is both a completely fair and completely unfair question at the same time.
I don't know about Twitch, but I think that you don't need to be an involved party to bring up a claim on YouTube.
6:02 PM
@NautArch pdftk is the one I use. Also, software recs.SE is a thing =)
So it might not be any of those orgs but just some random Internet troll. Which isn't really better, per se.
It's more about the reaction to claims. Content should be paid for, not blocked.
I understand that content gets blocked if the responsible party refuses to pay, but generally there isn't even an option to pay.
@doppelgreener I'm still never quite sure that I'm handling flags right. I mean, I get to the desired state on the post or comment, but whether I've validated it or not, or if it's showing as helpful or not to the flagger... I find the flag-handling UI very unintuitive and poorly explained =\
@nitsua60 ha! did not know that (software recs.SE)
@nwp, there's a few problems to be answered. First, the very point of not releasing a pdf rulebook is so that people will buy individual copies. What you ~seem~ to be wanting is the ability ot make that rulebook publically available for a fee priced for an individual. THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
6:06 PM
@godskook -- Pay-what-you want books exist, as well as free with optional donation IIRC
@godskook Books are a bit of a different story. Authors can reserve the right to not have PDFs published. For music that is different.
@nitsua60 Diamond moderators can investigate the flags people have raised on their profiles via the same mechanism we can see our own individual flags. If you're concerned about how it would look to them, check it out directly. :)
In general if you think we ought to see more flags like that one, mark it helpful, if not, decline it. If you've got a comment flagged you don't have that much choice though.
And yeah it's not just you who finds the UI confusing D':
@nwp Second, specifically about music, is that most streamers who are violating copyright aren't going to want to pay fees on back-content anyway since their principle following are all watching live.
@doppelgreener True, but many times it's not even clear to me who raised the flag. There's that strange overlay at screen-bottom that comes up from a comment-flag? That one bugs me because if I knew it were a post author or a speaker in the comment-chain flagging as obsolete, I'd delete in a sec. But if it's a drive-by flagger I'd want to give a closer look....
@godskook So you are saying that not enough people would pay, so it is not worth giving the option?
6:10 PM
@nitsua60 Oh, one sec.
Q: Free software for selecting and combining pages from multiple PDFs into a single PDF

Andrew CheongA few months ago I had several PDFs (lease documents, renter's insurance forms, etc.) from which I needed to combine select pages into a single document before sending to a property management company. Surprisingly, I couldn't find a (free) program to do this! I ended up copying pages into Micros...

@nitsua60 grazie!
I've sent you a ping.
Joining Software Rec.SE and getting instant 100+ rep feels dirty :D
6:12 PM
@nitsua60 I get the exact same thing. Luckily there is that thing I pinged you about.
@nwp -- what in the heck is going on there o.O
@nwp So that one setting with the God of Humans that I remember being mentioned here in somewhere?
Or was he Evil?
@Yuuki No clue what that is about.
@nwp My answer would've been to suggest Bahamut if the question was open.
@godskook Not sure Bahamut would be in support of genociding dragons.
6:17 PM
My answer would have been that racism and genocide are neither good nor neutral. But that wouldn't be nice.
@nwp Is it really racist to hate evil creatures when good and evil are established cosmic forces?
@NautArch -- you around?
@BanjoFox maybe?
@Adam Aw... was about to comment on unfortunate wording...
Someone flag a comment for removal so @nitsua60 can try something new in the mod tools please :)
6:19 PM
@NautArch -- I am contemplating potential edits to the title for "Can a kitsune's tail be prehensile?"
(and thank you to those who do!)
[flood of valid comment flags]
[mission accomplished!]
something like: "Are there spells/abilities that would add a prehensile trait to a kitsune's tail?"
@Yuuki Sorry Yuuki. I too realized that that was unfortunately worded
but that seems overly wordy and possibly not needed?
6:20 PM
@nitsua60 \o/
@Adam It's not hate of evil creatures for doing evil, it's hate of a specific race. It doesn't get much more racist than that.
@nwp That could just as easily be from someone who is only talking about chromatic dragons. Or is in a world where all dragons are evil - period end of story, or who doesn't know about metallic/gem dragons.
@BanjoFox i think you're right on that, but not being the OP, it's hard to tell.
@Yuuki I'm reasonably sure that Bahamut would support the killing of all Evil Dragons. Which is probably what that guy was really wanting, anyway. (I'm guessing, but posting an answer would've cleared that right up)
@NautArch +1 for validating that I am not crazy ;)
6:22 PM
@BanjoFox Everybody's a little bit crazy, sorry.
@BanjoFox Looks like OP did confirm. I think it's safe to suggest that edit (or clarify in the body)
@Adam Every now and then when I read "chromatic dragons", I think of the chromatic scale instead of colors.
@nitsua60 Keep having flashbacks to V.
I wonder what the A# dragon would be like?
6:23 PM
@Yuuki The B-flat. (But not quite the same.)
@Yuuki only a minor difference.
@nitsua60 & @NautArch -- I just died a little.
@BanjoFox whyzat?
@BanjoFox we're killin' it with the dad jokes.
@nitsua60 -- Yeah... what @NautArch said
6:26 PM
@Adam I don't buy it. Could have asked for a god who helps in killing evil creatures. This seems to specifically be against dragons and the wish to be a dragon slayer just because it's cool. Would not support that sentiment, not even in a game.
@nwp This is the explicit fantasy fullfillment of the Ranger base class of 3.5. A person who is SPECIFICALLY good at killing specific enemies, because its cool.
And 5e
Have you ever played with a Ranger before, @nwp?
I'm here to kill dragons and chew bubblegum. And I'm all out of dragons.
Now that we're in gods... which Forgotten Realms god (or set of gods) would a devil hijacking a church have the best time with, in terms of leveraging the church for evil purposes?
@godskook Being good at killing dragons and favoring fights against them doesn't make you a racist. Killing dragons because they are dragons does.
@godskook No, but I know about the favored enemy mechanic.
This sounds like a solid campaign idea for Scion
6:29 PM
I'm thinkimg Tyr, because Tyr is the god of justice and law. Perverting those to get innocents hounded would be a superb way for a devil to exercise their evil.
@nwp And I don't buy that. There is no reason that a person can't indulge in a fantasy of being a dragon slayer specifically because it is cool. Especially if, in the world that you are playing in, dragons are evil. And not just philosophically evil, but there is an objective cosmic measure of evil and the dragon ticks off all the checkboxes
@nwp That entirely depends upon issues that you're explicitly dismissing as irrelevant to your judgement, like if Dragons are explicitly evil in that setting.
@godskook -- Killing dragons of any alignment (good, evil, otherwise) seems more of a moral choice than a game/technical/setting one.
Sometimes I just want to play a hero who beats a bad guy. And I don't need to worry about hurting anyone's feelings because the bad guy is objectively totally and completely a bad guy. The powers-that-be have established that the bad guy is a bad guy and needs to go.
Assuming that all dragons are evil that still leaves the question why not be a beholder slayer, or undead or any of the other creatures that can always be evil? My point is that the dragons being evil is an excuse, not the reason to slay them.
6:32 PM
Heroic fantasy tends to be a lot easier if you have enemies whose death isn't lamentable, really.
@nwp Is there a problem with it being an excuse?
@nwp Preference in how he wants to be an awesome do-gooder?
WHo are you to judge?
@nitsua60 pdftk with the builder is fantastic.
@nwp Because he wants to fight dragons. Because there are stories of heros fighting dragons. And why does it matter? Dragons aren't real. Neither are beholders or undead or any of it. Any of them are all equally valid targets for smiting.
@NautArch Command-line's not bad, either.
@kviiri Yes, because that only leaves racism as a real reason, and I learned to see that as a bad thing.
6:34 PM
#DragonLivesMatter ?
@nwp With all due respect, that's absolutely absurd
@nwp Real-life morality and heroic fantasy don't mix well.
"bad guy" is a matter of perspective :)
@BanjoFox Not in a world with objective right and wrong.
@Adam That I would fully support. But that wasn't how the question was asked. The question was explicitly about going after dragons, not about fighting evil.
6:36 PM
@nwp No, the question was about having a neutral or good deity to follow will killing Dragons
That implies something about his character's alignment
That his character, himself, is good-compatible
Probably good
@Adam Hrm. I would reckon that those on the side of "wrong" would argue that they are on the side of "right". But that is a largely philosophical area.
Mar 2 '16 at 21:01, by nitsua60
@AncientSwordRage it seems the difference between LG and CE is a question of "have I had my shower yet today?" Which, all told, is probably as good an alignment guide as you're gonna get.
@nwp Why is racism bad in real life? Because in real world, there are no devils, demons, dragons, necromancers or orcs, except in the racist's imagination. Nothing is truly evil in this world we live in, and killing is always going to be a complex issue.
@nwp If you can be a Hunter that specializes in Giants without a problem, why can't you specialize against Dragons?
@nwp But in fiction, the idea of something being obviously evil and better off dead is common, and often, for the benefit of mankind, that something is a beast. A demon, a vampire, or maybe a dragon. And dragons are a pretty classic choice.
6:39 PM
Maybe their parents were eaten by dragons and they want to get (misplaced) vengeance against all dragons.
@kviiri It is bad because you judge creatures/people based on their appearance instead of the thing you actually care about. You therefore make bad decisions that have bad long term effects.
@BanjoFox I read your comment more as "bad and good aren't objective things, they're based in perspective" But the point I'm making is that if you subscribe to a fantasy world where good and evil are objectively defined cosmic forces, then there is, in fact, and objective definition of a "bad guy". So even if that bad guy thinks they aren't bad, they are indeed objectively bad
@NautArch Dragon or giant doesn't matter. What matters is if you kill the giant because it's a giant or because it did evil things.
@nwp That, too - but in a fictional universe where it actually is the case that there exist dragons and all dragons are evil, that's no longer bad.
@Adam -- Hrm... okay I will agree to that :) The context helped.
6:42 PM
And "dragons are evil" is not exactly weird as fictional universes go.
@nwp But many worlds will simplify that problem down. I don't need to know anything about dragons, demons, beholders, undead, devils, etc because all of them are evil objectively. The cosmos has defined them as being servants of evil. Fighting them is synonymous with fighting evil. If you're world is different and has a moral grey area, that's fine. But my world, which doesn't have as well defined grey area for those creatures, is no less valid.
I am always, somewhat, surprised at the strength and willingness of people to argue over works of fiction.
@BanjoFox only because my fiction is more correct than your fiction.
14 mins ago, by nwp
Assuming that all dragons are evil that still leaves the question why not be a beholder slayer, or undead or any of the other creatures that can always be evil? My point is that the dragons being evil is an excuse, not the reason to slay them.
Actually, let's be clear on something, @nwp, making a LE character who's only and sole goal in the game is to exterminate every elf from the face of the setting is a perfectly legitimate character, for games where that's acceptable. Real racism(i.e., ignoring an alignment concern) is an acceptable character motivation in D&D, but it kinda does make your character Evil.
6:46 PM
@nwp You were answered already - because they wanted to play a dragon slayer. They think it's cool.
Or that's what I think is the reason, and there's nothing wrong with that.
@NautArch Is your fiction officially authorized reading material by The Computer? ;)
I still feel there is something wrong with "I want to kill dragons because it's cool". Even in a fantasy setting where dragons are undoubtedly and always evil.
I can get behind a back story "Dragons ate my family so now I hunt them" as a character flaw. But not as something cool.
@nwp It's not meaningfully different from any other heroic fantasy escapism. Heck, DnD adventurers all are people who have decided to go into dungeons to kill the inhabitants and bring back loot.
It's not a pacifist's game.
@nwp "your fun is badwrongfun because I don't like it"? I'm not finding a moral principle on which you're building your opinion.
It's an action movie of a game. And that reflects in the morality of the creatures portrayed. There's lots of acceptable targets who are simply irredeemable: gnolls, demons, devils, yugoloths, beholders, mind flayers... because we humans are fond of our violence but prefer taking it out on targets who deserve it. And evil dragons do, and not every DnD table has good dragons even in the background.
6:53 PM
@nwp s/dragons/goblins
s/dragons/monstrous creatures from the abyss
@doppelgreener The never ending wild goose chase on "what does that term mean?" seems to defy resolution. I remain unconvinced that will change any time soon.
If my players came to me and said they wanted to play a dragon slayer, I'd be sure to either 1) sweep away the good dragons quietly, or 2) ask them if they want to play a morally conflicted character who has to come to terms with not all dragons being as vile as they thought, or 3) make them restrict their violence to evil dragons.
@kviiri Is playing an Evil Dragon-slayer not an option at your table? (Its not an option at mine, at least)
@kviiri Would you ask that before the game starts or figure that out in the game?
@godskook I sort of assumed a Good party, but if everyone rolled with it, sure, it'd work. Actually we're planning to have a LE campaign at some point.
@nwp I usually discuss the character visions beforehand, in session 0 or between sessions.
I like my author mode, even in DnD :)
6:58 PM
@nwp I run mandatory Paladin-compliant parties, and this is discussed at character-generation. If I was ~willing~ to run an Evil-compatible party, I'd allow racist dragon-slayers, and prohibit LG Paladins, but I'm not willing to run that party.
Basically the only type of parties I'm not willing to run in 5e are the lazy ones who don't do anything interesting, and the treacherous ones constantly trying to kill each other through direct action or neglect.
PvP drama works better in games where people can do it in harmony around-the-table :)
At least for me.
@kviiri Kobolds Ate My Baby?
@BanjoFox I was thinking more about Apocalypse World, but I think KAMB goes that way too.
In AW, hurting someone (as in, dealing damage) gives the target Hx (history) towards the assailant. History translates to experience in the long term and helps with payback in the short term!
Successful manipulation of a fellow PC can grant the target experience for doing what the manipulator wants, too.
I lile mechanics like that, where conflict between two PCs is actually a moment of co-operation between their players.
@BanjoFox Well, maybe you shouldn't have hired those kobolds as babysitters.
Mandatory Daily "5e Paladins != 3.5e Paladins"
5e LG Paladins could totally be okay with dragon genocide depending on their oath.
Our Paladins are Different
7:13 PM
@KorvinStarmast Yep, I agree with you on that.
@Yuuki they might even be the ones doing it.
I've considered posting a meta addressing that, but I'm still trying to consider when I should do that, what I should say or suggest, etc. I've got a few different clear options.
@KorvinStarmast , @doppelgreener -- which definition, if I may?
@BanjoFox Korvin's probably pinging me in connection to giving the RAW tag a warning, where the usage of the tag isn't totally clear & settled. For a great number of reasons.
@doppelgreener Ah. I do a lot of technical writing and thought that I might be able to assist :)
7:20 PM
@BanjoFox Probably not. D':
It's not that kind of unclarity.
@doppelgreener sad face.
@doppelgreener Its that different people have different opinions on the usage, right?
@Yuuki I run 3.5, so....
@godskook That and the fact we've rarely ever been able to make any sensible progress in collaborating about it because it's connected to a greater culture war that has some people very emotionally invested in its existence, so that makes it hard to have a straight conversation about it.
@godskook And the tag on the question reads .
e.g. the last few times diamond moderators tried to broach altering the tag or studying it or considering whether it should be removed, their motives were called into question and their resignations were called for.
7:26 PM
@doppelgreener Can you easily layout the opposing arguments? Or would that be too complicated?
This time I broached it because I actually had hard data.
ugh :(
@Yuuki "the question"???? I was explicitly speaking of personal experience. There's no "question" framing my use of the term Paladin there.
The attempts to study it had problems, but the issue got escalated well beyond them.
@godskook Mainly there's a bunch of historical discussion in the tag on meta, and several discussions in which it is discussed that maybe we don't need the tag because of various reasons and should remove the tag. That got peoples' heckles up. We've attempted to define what it should be used for exactly but got mixed responses (which is a problem). Part of the issue is that this extends to a greater cultural war going on on the internet.
Basically you've got a bunch of people who like RAW, a bunch of people who don't care about it, and a bunch of people who passionately and vocally hate on the guys who like RAW and think they're ruining the hobby and playing the game wrong and so on.
Mxyzplk is on record saying derogatory remarks about RAW players on his personal site from a few years ago. We're not allowed to let that affect how we moderate. That, however, naturally casts doubt on anything that involves Mxy and RAW in the same place.
(However, Mxy was not involved in this latest meta about the tag warning -- that's something I've been driving myself.)
@doppelgreener This sounds like an argument to have the tag, to separate group 2 from groups 1 and 3 on which style is appropriate in which questions.
7:35 PM
That cultural war also manifested in, for example, the Pathfinder beta: Paizo said it would fix the balance issues in D&D 3.5e. They released an open playtest so people could have fun with it. People in the RAW community performed analyses and crunched numbers and came back to the Paizo forums to tell them actually, while some issues got resolved (Polymorph got fixed for instance), loads of them are still there or have been made worse.
Paizo employees responded by verbally abusing those people and banning them from the forum.
@BanjoFox le sigh
yet another example of people getting their panties overly bunched over a form of ENTERTAINMENT -.-
One RAW afficionado has explained to us that part of the RAW community was hoping RPG.SE would be a bastion of RAW users. For the most part I hope it is! But issues around the tag get handled as if they're handling the RAW community itself.
@BanjoFox People are tribal by nature. No matter how you group people, eventually they'll divide over something more specific.
7:37 PM
Yeah one of the things I like about RPG.SE is that it is very RAW-oriented.
@BanjoFox Well yeah, ruining people's fun ruins their fun and that is not fun.
Well, part of that is because every discussion about mechanics has to start with RAW. You have to know, understand, and explain RAW before you can reasonably explain why a particular bit of rules is good or bad.
"The book says A, B, and C. But A and C conflict with B, unless B is changed to D."
@Yuuki @nwp - I know/agree. The best I can do is be nice/polite and offer my opinions, and not react to getting stepped on ;)
@doppelgreener I....was not aware of this. I was aware that Paizo utterly failed in that goal, but not that Paizo berated the community it courted over it.
@doppelgreener do you have any links relevant to that fiasco?
Personally, I'm not a huge adherent to RAW for things that are truly nonsensical. However, I also believe that any answer on RPG.se that cites "DM prerogative" as part of its argument is a bad answer. An answer should provide the material that a DM can use to determine how to exercise that prerogative.
Sure... include your own opinion, too, but you need to back that opinion with a logical argument.
7:42 PM
@godskook I do not, but there's a few places in our chat archives of Lord_Gareth explaining what happened and KRyan having choice words about some Paizo employees.
@T.J.L. It entirely depends on what's being discussed. If the question is "what do the rules say", then yeah, RAW at least needs to be acknowledged, and arguments formed from there.
@doppelgreener Lord_Gareth wanders these parts too?
@godskook He's active from time to time.
@godskook If the question is about rules at all, it has to start from RAW. If it's purely about technique, then the rules aren't relevant to begin with. In either case, "DM prerogative" is not part of the argument.
If this: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/104505/35386 question had been a 3.5 question, "DM prerogative" is, imho, the only appropriate RAW answer.

Questions that are A)Asking for rules, B)"GM perogative" is a legit answer and C)Is stack-compatible are admittedly quite few, though.
Unfortunately questions posted here which are not directly RAW tend to lean towards -> go check out forums. On the other hand, can we really expect RAW to exist for EVERY possibility (therefore eliminating D/GM perogative? )
7:51 PM
@BanjoFox If RAW doesn't exist for something and someone is asking for RAW, the answer is "RAW doesn't exist for this use-case".
@godskook Actually, the highest voted answer there acceptable references RAW in my book: "There is no RAW."
Mainly we point discussion matters to a forum where there's not a best/correct answer possible. That means we can't handle a lot of non-rules-oriented stuff. We can handle a lot of social & game-running best practices issues though!
@T.J.L. The question, and its answers, are for 2e, though.
I was specifically changing that point of context because in 3.5 the answer is somewhat different.
@godskook hrm... I never thought of that actually. I like it :)
@godskook What does the edition have to do with it? In that case, "There is no RAW" is fine. If it were a different edition, which it isn't, then "There is no RAW" could actually be wrong and deserving of downvoting.
What the RAW is doesn't have any bearing on wether or not the RAW needs to be addressed.
7:55 PM
@doppelgreener -- I never thought about the "best practices" cases. Although i should have, those are usually the only ones that i know anything about ;-;
@T.J.L. the "raw" in 3.5 is "DM Perogative".
@godskook Despite what a system says - either for or against exercising GM prerogative - it is something that exists, and can always be used (especially when the system says not to). It's omnipresence makes it an invalid basis for a logical argument. If you can't form an argument with more than "Because I said so", then you can't form an argument at all.
In DnD 5e too, lots of times the answer is not just that "there is no rule", but rather "there is a rule, and that rule says the GM decides".
I tried offering that for a question based on W20 and it ended up not working out so well ;)

« first day (2497 days earlier)      last day (935 days later) »