@Miniman Not sure what you mean there

@Ben It's not applicable anymore anyway.

In all honesty it went the way I thought it would... and I did lose the point of the post by the end too (which I edited to be more appropriate late) but speedkat's answer is more direct

In all honesty, I shouldn't talk about that question - sooner or later I'll violate Be Nice in a big way.

I got the same impression. So we're on the same page

That bad huh?

@trogdor Did you have a look at it?

I just did

Yeah

I am confused highly

That question comes from a previous question, where the same user posted an answer about the constraints of "wish"

The weird tying is that they seemed to demonstrate a desire for a very specific answer but gave extremely general information

Their answer was downvoted, due a difference in the interpretation of what the "requirements" of a spell were. So they posted their own Q&A about it

Huh

That just makes me more confused

He had the wrong attitude when he asked the question.

That is apparent

@Ben eh. I mean I see where they are coming from honestly. And it would be an interesting question to have answered technically. I feel like they are not good at expressing themselves.

However, it is a great example of how SE just does not work as well if you are not working from an actual problem.

@trogdor It seems like the question he is trying to ask is "wish lets you ignore the requirements for a spell. What exactly counts as a requirement, that wish could ignore?" Everything else seems like fluff or not-necessarily-appropriate examples.

@JoelHarmon but if that's the case they really really should make that clear

@trogdor I agree that I'm reading into this a bit.

@JoelHarmon The thing is that technically they are not actually wanting to ask that. That is the final issue they want to adress, but for this question they wanted to keep it very broad. The problem is that the broadness and lack of context make it very hard to answer. And it was extra confusing because the wish context was one that everyone assumed that was being asked.

Not broad, general.

@Rubiksmoose That seems fair.

I can't think of any examples outside of wish where this would be apparent though?

Getting at the wish thing by asking more indirectly what counts as a requirement for a spell.

It sort if looks to me like that might be the case right? But IF it is it looks like they also either really really, for some reason, think it is way clearer than it is, or are deliberately hiding the point of the question for some unknowable reason

@Ben Yeah that is the thing. So by removing the context of wish, you get a question where you are asking about a very generic, non-defined non-game term in relation to spellcasting. And really, defining it would really have no use outside of the application of wish.

as far as I can tell.

@trogdor It seems from comments and discussion that they thought that the spell was muddling the issue instead of focusing it. The precise reasoning behind this is very unclear however. They purposefully and explicitly did not want wish to be the context for the question.

But regardless,... This is why the site has certain guidelines

Even though it really could only be helpful/useful in that context.

Completely unrelated, I was trying to think of Jeremy Crawford, but I his name wasn't coming to mind, so I tried googling Joel Harmon instead.

@Ben That seems likely to be unfruitful.

It was. Haha

@Ben so close lol

@Rubiksmoose but if that is the context we need it, if it isn't the context we still need whatever that is

XD

@trogdor Right yeah. Hence the mess.

It's way easier to give them an answer if we know what they need it for

Yeah a mess it is indeed

Indeed.

Phooooone!

It's not message! Mess is a word!

XD

OMG

That's the best right there

I needs that

I takes it

lol

It is mine

Afternoon @ash

I saw you arrive, then immediately leave, and the image of the cartoon "slipping on a banana peel" popped into my head haha

Lol

Good time of local day

What does that do?

Oh it was a silly idea I came up with. Cos everyone is in different time zones, I came up with the idea for a script.

So when you type in the tag, it would replace it with the appropriate phrase (morning/afternoon/evening) based on the recipients system time

And the tag is <Guten[tag]>

Ohh I think I remember now

I think you mentioned it at least onxe before that I saw

Yeah

I think it's fine if I can just make this time zone thing into an eternal silly chat meme

I'm happy with that

"Eternal Silly Chat Meme" is the name of my autoscripted subtitle translation service.

Where are my royalties?

:P

Calling me king princess trogdor will do

No takers? I am shocked, oh well

No respect for royalty these days

@BESW exactly what I am royalty of, utter nonsense

@Ben royalties as in the money you get from the use of a patent, or music for example

But switched to just being a Royal person

That's literally all it is

Yeah I know what royalties are haha just don't make the connection between that and anything else.

Doesn't matter. Moment's gone lol

It's a dead horse now

XD

Hey guys, I've not participated in the SE in a long time, I just commented on a question on hold, is this advice good?

Seems fine :)

oki!

@Helwar Yep, pretty good advice (assuming that's what they want to know). Might be worth adding something about the X-Y problem and asking about the problem they actually want to solve rather than a topic tangential to that. (Or I could add that if you'd like.)

(I added a comment myself)

Great thanks

Last week I applied to play on a roll20 game, and today I got a message from the DM saying I sadly didn't make the cut

I checked who entered, 7 people, that's 4 more than she said she was able to manage, and checking some backstories, we have a LN soldier with the investigator background hellbent on serving the law, with 2 CG thieves and a CE GOO warlock...

I'm kinda glad I'm not in O_o

it smells of disaster

@Helwar Sounds like someone's recycling a rejected Joss Whedon pitch.

Sounds like a Dark Heresy game I heard of. 4 psykers, and the first thning they knew, the emperor was dead.

@BESW I know there's a pun there, I'm too asleep to get it

@V2Blast I have answered in the "dragons detecting wizards" question, I've seen you commented there, maybe the answer helps you too :P

@Helwar It doesn't really help me, because I'm not too familiar with the Dragonlance setting :P

Hence my confusion about the question given the lack of context provided by the asker

and just in case anyone's confused about what question we're talking about:

The only thing I can think why he would believe that, is because A) Wizards are like clerics in Dragonlance, there are 3 magic deities, and each wizard, after they reach enough level, has to pass a magic test and is assigned to one of the three

I read that question and the word "wizard" lost all meaning to me

B) 2 of the main wizards in the series came out of the test with special thingamagigs

one was half possesed by a ghost, the other a fragment of divinity or something like that

interesting

@V2Blast I didn't notice it, but he does repeat the word a lot :P

Idea: replace one of the alignment axes with Fighter/Wizard.

@Helwar I've tried to edit it to reduce repetition (and put the question in the title)

@V2Blast In the Dragonlance setting, can a dragon recognize that a player character is a 2nd-level wizard or higher trying to hide that fact?

shot another wizard down :P

that wording sounds more confusing to me

that's why I didn't really changed it and only showed it to you here

I wasn't sure it was best :)

Yeah... I thought about changing it to something like that, but I think it'd make it less clear what the OP was asking (OP's wondering whether the dragon could tell they were a wizard, not whether it could tell their wizard level or whether it could tell that they're trying to hide it)

agreed

@BESW lol

@trogdor Oh yeah, I'm Wizard Good.

XD

I would say I am Fighter Good but,.... that just sounds wrong

Lawful Fighter?

possibly because I don't categorize Fighters in D&D as any good

except in 4e

@BESW that's fine but then

"Except in 4e" can usually be taken as read when making generalizations about D&D mechanics.

....

but then what does Fighter mean in that instance?

@BESW yes fair

I just,.... I needed to make that clarification

XD

@BESW +1 :)

lol

it's definitely a very divergent edition

I love it but I can understand why some people do not

(I just wish some of the people who don't weren't,.... a little toxic about it XD)

@trogdor I think it would have fared better if it wasn't called D&D, or at least if it were not "4e", people expected more of the same and got a very different product

(like going into a Pathfinder thread to badmouth it :/)

I think they would have been more open to the idea if it were a "side" thing instead of the "next"

I mean... 3.0 got the same treatment.

@Helwar yeah,... you know,.. I was actually hesitant to try 4e at first because of how strangely different it was

3.0 invented a whole new underchassis for the franchise! 4e just modified that successful underchassis.

@BESW I didn't play ttrpgs back then, I started when 3.5 was about to be published

Same, but I've done some backlooking.

I just know I don't get TACO and I don't wanna get it :P

I personally know groups that still feel 2e is the apotheosis of the franchise and everything after that was a mistake.

@BESW i know groups like that

My own group is very hesitant to change... I had to force them to try 5e, all they wanted was 3.5 or Pathfinder (wich I dislike a lot, but that's another debate)

it happens with everything in my group, whenever a new rule/mechanic is introduced in MtG they want to ban it in our table .

Recently we played mario kart on switch, and they complained it wasn't like mario kart on wii

@BESW well yeah, I understand that 3.5 got similar treatment

err 3.0

wtv

... I think we are getting old. Aversion to change is a symptom of old age, ain't it?

but that doesn't make it ok that Wiz did that

@Helwar I think that's a symptom of breathing

But I remember being excited whenever something new happened!

I think our standards for what a "good new thing" is changes as we age for sure

but I remember liking some changes and hating others as a kid

I do think it's more pronounced as we age but

I don't feel or think like it's a new development

of course, excited doesn't mean it will be good, but I was eager to see what was new

for me that only applied to books

for a little while

Part of my disillusionment with D&D came from realizing that it wouldn't ever change in any fundamental way; the mechanics can change but even implementations as divergent as 2e and 4e are gonna all be variations on a constant theme.

yeah,...

The more I see what else RPGs can be, and what else speculative fiction can be, the less I'm interested in more deep dives into D&D's version of them.

I thought when I got into 4e that it would be really different

but in certain ways it was depressingly similar for sure

not mechanically so much but

,..... length of battles is still bad

cheese builds still exist in spades

stuff like that just for example

thematically it's the same, so even if the gameplay were to be absolutely new, you'd still feel familiar

yes

that too for sure

a lot of little things you might not notice at first are the same

even the alignment system technically

you could ignore it in the mechanics, unlike in 3.5 where you could only mostly ignore it in the mechanics

but it still existed that way

Yeah, it was still baked into the world.

yes

thanks I was struggling to explain what I meant

that is a good way of saying it

Devils were lawful evil and demons were chaotic evil, even if there weren't mechanical phrases for that distinction.

/sigh

@BESW Aren't they still that?

@Helwar in 5e you mean?

yeah

he wouldn't know

(neither would I)

we have LE Devils, LN Yugoloths, CE Demons

@Helwar The point is that they're always that.

I have been playing some 5e but I have not been delving into that stuff

Even in 4e, where there was no such thing as lawful evil.

yes, I know. But for me with planar creatures it kinda makes sense

The mechanics change, but the game doesn't. It's still got all the same hangups and blind spots, the same unexamined themes and unfortunate implications.

yeah,... like as much as I liked playing a tiefling,... the implication that someones whole bloodline is basically cursed with that as soon as they decided to make that pact

I find that all those details is what makes D&D, D&D

it doesn't diminish over time or anything

@Helwar yes but is that good?

and would they, if they tried to, be able to change that?

I guess so. If D&D stopped being D&D, it would be something different entirely

I understand not liking or wanting some changes

or viceversa

but still there is a lot of people that wants the "D&D" experience

I do think they wouldn't be able to change everything I don't like about D&D because of backlash but

i'm more upset that they seem to have dug the hole for themselves through repeating this cycle

also they ruthlessly screw over support for older editions

yeah.... well if you give me some examples of what you really want changed maybe we can be on the same page, because maybe I'm picturing something totally different :P

if they are so worried about changing things from older editions and also wanted to change,.... they could still lean on those older editions existing

This is part of what makes DW kinda fascinating.

It basically just uses pithy phrases to describe "the D&D experience" and show that it's completely independent of mechanics.

@Helwar I mean,... I would love a 4E that didn't have D&D baggage all over it

@trogdor This is understandable, they want to make money and older editions don't keep selling as much as newers

@Helwar true

but,... why do newer editions that keep so much from older stuff sell so well?

@trogdor It's the same dichotomy, always

I like videogames a lot and follow vg news closely.

Whenever a new game in a series, or a remake, is being made

@Helwar true but why? why do people buy 5e when it looks to me like a reshuffled 3.5 with a little bit of polish and some very mutated 4e stuff thrown in for god knows what reason?

I like 4e but I don't think some of it's mechanics belong in what 5e is

the debate starts: Why is this different? We didn't want it different! We wanted it to be the same! But why is this still like this, we wanted it but better!

@Helwar ok, so see, what you are saying is, they make new ones to sell

but the new is the same as the old, not in exactness because of course that would be a problem

but why do people want something new when they also don't want it to change

?

because people are mental

me included

:P

this is an idea I struggle with because people disliked 4e,.. basically,.. because it was too different

and also I guess that the "people" that wanted it to be the same is not the exact same "people" that wants it different

but that's the reason I liked it

@trogdor metooooooooo

Someone postulated once that D&D is a willingly imperfect game, so that they can sell a new edition that is exactly the same, but with fixes (and new errors)

I am so tired of 3.5 (and PF by extension) that it was a breath of fresh air

@Zachiel I think that's a fair assesment

@Zachiel I think that's giving the designers a lot more credit than anyone deserves.

Someone I know also thinks that the reason D&D still exists is that it fuels the sells of the related videogames.

5e feels to me a lot like 3.5 with some fixes made, with a few new bugs,... and with some chopped up bits of mutated 4e in it for no discernible reason

@BESW That's also my opinion, sadly

not too much 4e stuff but,..... some

@Zachiel I want to believe that they do their best to get a "perfect" product

some of it seems like it fits ok, some feels like it was thrown in because,.... I don't even know why

what do you see of 4e in 5e?

@Helwar I'm sure their best effort is in meeting deadlines.

@Helwar just a few small things

like the stuff you get at level 3? kinda 4e ish

but that is kinda ok

what I mean is,... for example,... this one paladin feature

just a sec digging it up

Well, at least in the playtest, level 1 and 2 were newbieland. Less mechanics, they kick in at level 3

@Zachiel agreed. I didnt play during the test but it feels like this now

@Zachiel That's something which doesn't feel like 4e.

(Which, in turn, is something that drove me absolutely up the wall about the comparisons to WoW, which has a feature creep pacing more akin to 3.5 than 4e.)

this up here is a very 4e type feature but,....... it's chopped up and nerfed

@BESW Yeah, but for some reason the result is something that looked like it belonged to 4e (new features at level 3. In 4e it was because you got a feat at level 2, then new encounter powers at 3, I guess)

@BESW Well the comparisons to wow didn't come for the ease of accesss exactly, but for the videogamey role division (tank, dps, controller, support)

in 4e that might not have a range restriction, it wouldn't cost your out of turn move, and it would be nastier than just a higher chance to miss

@Helwar Which was explicitly baked into 3.5 already, just not given labels.

the basics are there but they seemed to think it would be too broken the way it would have worked in 4e

@BESW It wasn't that obvious AT ALL. There was always the debate of needing a healer or not, but you could totally play with any group

@BESW same

There are 3.5 dev quotes about how every party needs a healer but nobody wants to and that's why they made healing classes so powerful: as a bribe.

4e made sure you couldn't, or it would be harder.

but what people most compare to 4e in 5e is the level 3 stuff you get

they compare to encounter powers

but that's it

it's a different kind of game though, so not that I am complaining

@Helwar I think most playing groups didn't realize that they didn't have a tank before, either because they had a crusader or because their DM attacked the big bulky guy because it fit the story, or because artillery died fast to PC artillery and PC artillery was hard to hot anyway.

thats all there is to say about them being 4e

@Helwar I found that 4e made it EASIER to play without a leader (healer).

@Zachiel yeah that's what happens usually :)

having played 4e and some 5e, up to level 3 on 5e anyway, I can say the feature I showed up there tracks more as a 4e thing added in

Everybody got a once-a-fight self-heal and access to healing utility powers, potions that scaled effectively through the whole game...

@BESW I keep saying the names of the roles in DCUO nomenclature because I don't remember 4e's :P

except it's a joke

even in 5e that feature is weak as heck

@BESW in 5e there are still surges but everyone gets like, 1 or 2 or something, and you just use em during a rest

@Helwar defender, striker, controller, leader

nothing else that really triggers them, and they are just one of many ways to heal

I really don't see why it needs to be a "4e" thing, sure there might have been a similar power in 4e, but that utility is hardly only used in 4e :)

I don't even know why they are in 5e when some spells and features already heal

@Helwar Because "the defender imposes a penalty on nearby enemies who attack anyone except the defender" is the distinctive defender feature across all of 4e.

And it's a mechanic that 3.x barely even glanced at, and that toward the end of its run (in books which, in hindsight, are clearly experimenting with 4e-like thought processes).

5e does have some 4e things in it,... but most of the people who I talk to about them don't see the ones that stick out like a sore thumb to me

yes some things look like they were ideas brought in from 4e,... but my issue is the ones that look like they were brought in from 4e for no real decernable reason, chopped up, nerfed, mutated, and left to rot

@BESW yeah I get that, I know. What I mean is, I don't see as a "tacked on" thing, it was a good functionality, and they kept it. I don't see it as: let's put this 4e thing here to make 4e fans come over

why is this in here? XD

@Helwar According to Troggy, it's not a good functionality--and I can see where he's coming from. They took an always-on class feature with a reliable result and turned it into an action-consuming randomization effect.

@Helwar I don't know if I can be that optimistic about their business model, but the way that the 4e-ish features and such look to me make it hard to think they did it for that reason

Which definitely does feel like a 3.5ification of the concept.

unless they just didn't realize how insulting it looks

But at the end of the day the whole thing feels like arguing over which shade of glossy teal has more green in it. It's all teal and glossy, chances are good your printer will muck it up so you can't tell the difference in the final product anyway. If you want matte teal try 13th Age, and if you want metallic teal you can use DW.

@Helwar it's 4e because 3.5 didn't really have something like that, at least not a viable one

and I am not giving 5e props for inventing it

because not only did 4e do it better,... it did it first

Well, yes it's worse. I'm not a gaming expert, you guys are way better at getting to the gritty parts than I do. I guess it's because they toned down "all" automatic things, and maybe over-nerfed that? I dunno.

@BESW you are right of course,.... but I just have this bee in my bonet about when people say "this looks like a 4e thing" about "encounter abilities" and they miss the obviously much more 4e thing that is busy mutating pathetically in a corner that no one should be using, and obviously doesn't belong in 5e XD

@Helwar And 4e stuff in 5e sticks out especially because the consumer-facing media leading up to 5e was seriously dimissive of 4e and anyone who liked it, doing their best to minimize its impact on their design choices. Wizards were basically pitching 5e to the 3.5 crowd who'd dumped them for Paizo, and that meant they had to act like 4e was an unfortunate blip.