AgentPaper

I don't think this is how it works. If it is, then two druids using Produce Flame to attack a monster at the same time would only deal the damage of one attack. I think the distinction to be made is that damage is not an effect with a duration. It is instantaneous, and thus can never overlap with another amount of damage. (Note that this is distinct from damage-over-time effects, such as Acid Splash, which explicitly have a duration).

@ScottDunnington Damage can be an effect, but it doesn't have a duration (unlike a damage over time effect or slow effect).

@ScottDunnington I disagree. It shows that damage over time effects are an effect, but doesn't address the initial proximity-based damage of the fire elemental. Moonbeam isn't a damage-over-time effect.

@V2Blast I don't think that errata actually changes anything. Being ignited by a fire elemental is a condition with a duration. Taking damage from Moonbeam isn't a condition inflicted on someone, but a result of being in (or entering) said space. For example, that same Fire Elemental ability should still deal the initial damage due to proximity.

I think the important distinction is duration. The +2 bonus from Bless has a duration, and the benefit can overlap. Damage on the other hand doesn't have a duration, and so the benefit from it can't stack. Think about the situation where two druids cast moonbeam on the same creature, but the first one cancels their spell before the other's lands, versus the situation where they don't cancel it. Why would the former result in more damage than the latter?

@RyanC.Thompson Ok then, what if two casters each use Melf's Minute Meteors, and attack the same creature on the same turn? Or if you want it to be even more simultaneous, both casters could hold an action for the monster to move forward, and then hit it at the same time. By the logic you state, the monster would only be affected by the more potent of the two meteors.

@RyanC.Thompson That is correct. If that wasn't the case, then you would not be able to use Melf's Minute Meteors on the same target more than once.

Well I guess that gets into details such as whether an incomplete answer is wrong or not. Anyways it seems things are clear now which is good.

I still think my answer is better for being brief, but obviously I'm biased. :)

It still has your other answer, but only as backup to further reinforce, so that isn't incorrect, just unnecessary (in my opinion).

I disagreed that "you must have both weapons in hand" was the correct answer to the question. You added my answer ("you must attack with a weapon in one hand"), so the answer is now correct overall.

Well, given your edit you apparently do agree with me, the answer is correct now. I don't know why you feel like you can't admit that you were wrong, but I've removed my downvote regardless.

A wrong answer to another question isn't proof. The rules don't say what you claim they do, as you said yourself. Designer intent may be on your side, but there's no reason to resort to that when there is a RAW answer already available.

You're correct, but for the wrong reasons. The two-weapon fighting rules you quote don't actually say you need to have both weapons in the appropriate hands when you attack with them. In fact, it contradicts this when it talks about thrown weapons, saying you can throw either weapon instead of making a melee attack. Going by your interpretation, that would mean that after throwing your first weapon, you wouldn't be able to throw the other, as you no longer have both in hand.

Oh no it's Taisho! Quick, hide my campaign spoilers!

Nope

@Grubermensch I don't get it.

Looks like Reddit is starting up a living campaign world for DnD 5e.

I feel so...powerful! MUAHAHAHA

Yay! Approved my first edit!

Goddamnit, I didn't even realize it, but yes, yes it is.

Watching the original Futurama episodes again. Forgot how great the series used to be.

Or would it be too opinion-based?

Hm, this might make a good question actually, now that I think of it.

@BESW Frequent turnover, most likely.

So, related to my campaign: Any ideas on how to work the story for a game where character death and even TPKs are the norm?

I mean, I can't even say, "Well it's the majority so you should assume it!", since if anything something like Fate is probably in the majority in this chat.

dangit, I really need to get used to mentioning that.

Recruitment thread is here: giantitp.com/forums/…

I'm hoping to get a better feel for how to push players to their limits without killing them, by killing them. A lot.

The idea is that the world is out to get you, and character deaths are very often.

Just to let everyone know: I'm recruiting for a new campaign, tentatively called There Will Be TPK.

Though, funnily enough, I agree.

@BESW "The death star was never about destroying planets" - Said about a device whose sole purpose was to destroy planets.

Unlike my other campaign, it will be a once-per week online meetup, every Monday somewhere between 2pm and 8pm pacific time.

I'm tentatively calling it There Will Be TPK

So, thinking of starting a new campaign (to run alongside my current one, which is PbP and thus painfully slow)

Yeah, been aware of all of those. So it's gone from "utterly terrible" to "just terrible".

I've heard that the tutorial has been made better, but that was never the real problem.

@Shalvenay How so?

The best I've seen is Planetside 2, where you can get into the sandbox part of the game really well, forming or joining a more dedicated group of players, being a general and influencing the game, but you can also just jump in and start shooting things if that's what you want to do.

Unfortunately, this is also something that I very rarely see sandbox games trying to address seriously. I think there's a massive amount of potential out there for a sandbox game that spends a lot of time and effort on making the game easy to access, without going full theme-park.

It's certainly not impossible, and many people do get there, but that combined with the fact that you need a certain "critical mass" of players for the sandbox to turn from a bunch of people running around on an empty map into a real game, is I think the main factor that's kept the sandbox game from growing.

Helps, but not a ton, and that's assuming you can find a good 0.0 corp in the first place.

People say that playing WoW is like having a second job, well playing EvE is like going through college, getting a masters degree, and having a second job as a neurosurgeon.

Once you get established, I'm sure the game can be tons of fun, often much more exciting and engaging than even the best theme-part MMOs. The problem is that it just takes so much time and effort to get there, that most never do, and it's arguable whether it's even worth it when you can just jump into WoW and start having fun right away.

...do some research to learn how to accomplish your role, get on teamspeak so people take you even half seriously, convince the corp to trust that you are not a spy, figure out how this specific corp's hierarchy works so that you can actually do stuff with them, actually get to where the action is happening...you get the idea.

For example, say you want to fight in those epic fleet battles they show off all the time; first you need to spend some time getting the right skills, then saving up for the right ship, figuring out what the best fitting is, find a corp that is active in null space, be online at the specific time that their fleet ops are going on...

Not so much because the games are difficult to learn, but because the actual gameplay is simply difficult to access.

What's really holding EvE back, and sandbox games in general, is that it takes a lot of work and effort to get into the game.