Stop Being Evil

I know questioning a downvote is usually a bad idea, but something about downvoting a question from a new user that got posted to the wrong stack feels off

@Exempt-Medic I... never realized that was something I could do, but now it seems completely obvious

FGITW?

Also I looked at the race writeup, and its subraces were all "who was your other parent?" and included tiefling

Well I feel better now! Thanks

Ah, didn't see that. That's better

No, just feeling like I (or we) accidentally chased them off

Damn

did the half kitsune querent delete their q?

@Ben I'm barely familiar with the artist but I already love the image

@Trish If it's an answer to this question, I think it's a doomed effort, hence my vtc

@Trish Now that I've looked at it... If you feel that it's a serious enough issue to act on, and the other party won't hear you (both of which I think are the case here), that seems like it's time to flag down a mod. It could just be that they're not open to pushing the issue in comments

Wow that was timely... :P

Yeah this is why I VTCd and moved on

Whoa

@ThomasMarkov grats!

They're also new players, but I can keep this in mind for later

@Trish I could sit on the answer until I can test it, but I don't have a high level party to challenge with them

The problem is that the implementation of said solution is something I haven't tested at all, and I'm not fully clear if that makes it unsupported.

So here's my dilemma. I can draw on real-world, personal experience with a particular way a game dealt with Contractual Boss Immunity in the sense that 5E's Legendary Resistances are meant to evoke, in a way that does almost exactly what Red Orca is asking for in this question.

Hmm

The basic idea is to make Legendary Resistances go from auto-success on the saving throw to instead allowing a reroll, but to give more of them - exactly how many is the subject of said math

and it requires math I'm just now starting on! XD

@Akixkisu I have an idea, I just don't think it would be well-suited to an answer as it's completely untested and just something I just came up with

Alright... thanks again

It's starting to sound like the only thing I could have done was not post that meta

@doppelgreener others like?

@doppelgreener so if I'd called it best practice, instead of policy, it wouldn't have been nearly as infuriating?

@Medix2 And I'm not sure what that is a symptom of - is it the best practice which is incorrect and needs updating, is it something that can even be objectively correct or is it a decision about which values we're going to uphold and at what cost, etc...

@KorvinStarmast I have no problem with calling them best practices, that's fair enough, but I don't see how that changes much else

mxyzptlk's comment was something I initially had wanted to reply to by recounting all the disagreement there had been over the past week as evidence that 'just leave it up to the community' was in some sense not working. My understanding is that the whole point of policy is to address those conflicts and get everyone's deeds, if not their thoughts, in the same direction to minimize those conflicts

I might also be thinking differently of what 'policy' even means on RPGSE

You did say in your answer that there's no popular support for the position anymore, but we did have that minor edit war in said linked question, so even if it's not a majority or plurality of people, it's still someone

@doppelgreener thank you for this, I've had a while to cool down and sort my thoughts out, and... maybe it would help if I said the question is primarily for the folks among us who still support the 'wait until system tagged' approach? That the question I linked about PF2e introduced an edge case they hadn't thought of?

I get that this is how strongly you feel about it, but can we please avoid biting each other's heads off over it?

But getting told twice that I shouldn't have posted that meta in the first place - and by the person whose side I was taking by posting it - had me this close to just deleting it and walking away from the site for a long time

I'm sorry if I sound completely off-base by saying this

I wonder if the drive-by that we just had could have been handled better

@GroodytheHobgoblin I would say this is what's mainly holding the question back. If you're asking the question, it should be about your problem with your games, not on behalf of others who might not even be having the problem.

Huh, learn something new every day

@AmethystWizard ... the author can cast repoen votes on their own closed questions? That seems off...

There you go, then. You've just answered your own question.

This isn't a service accounted for by the game, though. This is a complication (market scarcity) that you've brought in from IRL. By RAW the answer is either 'you find a caster, and Raise Dead has this component costing X gp' or 'you don't find a caster', without middle ground.

@gnasher729 As the accepted answer says, what's wrong with both?

"if and when it happens, deal with it" Putting aside the completely unsupported 'act as if they don't mean what they say', how would you even do that? Do you just side with them completely in the moment and bring up their incidental G-ism out of the blue later?

@Eddymage You're probably running into this issue then.

@Eddymage I'd advise you do the opposite, to put them back in. They're not what's generating confusion here, if anything they're insufficient. Instead, expand on what mechanical issue you're running into that hinges on how you interpret the word. From what I was able to see, it looked like a question was something like "How does grouping more monsters into a given group initiative roll affect..."

@Eddymage Alternately, if you're finding that there really isn't an underlying mechanical issue that this question is intended to address, if you're purely asking about the definition of the word without such regard for the system it describes, that'd be a question for English Language Learners SE (I think).

What problem are you having where one interpretation or the other would matter?

Be careful when talking about "[not] needing X". There's always at least an implied "for Y" to follow it, and Y can vary a lot. Trying to lock down the meaning of needing X, independent from Y like this, really doesn't make sense.