mattdm

This is likely because the big bang has no center. Everything is moving away from everything else. Or to put it another way: anywhere you are appears to be the center.

@Dcleve No: it started without size. Dimensions happened later. You can basically look this up anywhere.

@Dcleve I am not a cosmologist, but it my understanding that is not at all settled, but that the possibility of a flat, infinite universe is not just "theoretically possible" but one of several likely options.

@Dcleve "the initial Big Bang would have had to occur at an infinity of locations simultaneously" is easy, because all the locations were in the same place.

It's worth noting somewhere in here that there is a good chance that the universe is not just staggering, incomprehensibly, gigantically large, but actually infinite. All the things you see about the "size of the universe" are actually about what we can possibly observe and interact with given the limits of the speed of light.

^ I'm not going to spam the above, but I'd love to see you all there :)

meta.codidact.com/questions/74831

@MichaelC It only needs three. There's my good deed for the day :)

But, yes, my future effort is going to go to something that's truly community-owned.

:( I don't think there's anything to regret. You've helped make it a better place, and nothing lasts forever.

@MichaelC Oh geez! Sorry to hear that! That must be scary!

@MichaelC Did you see it in the meantime? Interested in trying a New Thing Which I Won't Mention Again?

Which is ironic because a large portion of my complaint is lack of attention from Stack Exchange staff.

Oh neat! We can get Stack Exchange staff attention after all. My post photo.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7019/… got deleted by a "Senior Product Support Specialist".

So, given the inability of the poster to act in a sane manner, can I get some more votes to just delete the post?

Although really "are the details on this photo historically accurate for the early 19th century" is better for History

I'm not heartbroken, but I really would have liked more context and detail

yeeesh.

@MichaelC Thanks for fixing that duplicate link

Ha I appreciate it. However it is not a true story. I am just remarking on the "I dropped my camera and now it doesn't work" questions. They're so sadly hopeful that there's, like, a "reset from broken" option hidden in the menu.

I crashed my car into a telephone pole. Apart from a few dents, it seems fine. But now, the engine won't start. What should I do?

@Hueco Not sure. I thought it was upvotes on answers, but I'm not really clear.

I have run several homebrew games with different totally-invented-by-me gods of hunting. Can your question be answered without including those? (I ask this partly tongue in cheek, but also as a way of illustrating what NautArch is getting at.)

@GcL Presumably the spell energy binding it to your will

Personally, I rule it with "if it quacks like a spell" logic. I know this is not the Sage Advice guidance, but it just makes more sense to me.

@Rubiksmoose Probably the case, yeah.

Clearly that's not what's meant. At least, I hope. I'm just, you know, reading

That's not what the words say though.

Right, that's weird. If you target a magical effect, any spell on that effect ends? What does that even mean?

I'm not saying RAW Dispel Magic does anything to non-spell magical effects, it's just... like half-finished

"Oh, sorry, that blade barrier is a magical effect, but it doesn't have any spells cast on it, so dispel magic does nothing"

For what it's worth, I think it's super weird that Dispel Magic explicitly says it can target magical effects, and then doesn't explain what that means. The "it only works on spells" ruling is unsatisifying

Well good for Canon — only 4× overpriced. The same from Nikon is $17!

@MichaelC If you're buying name-brand lens caps £42.10 will buy you, like, two.

Also... I do think the more wordy part of my answer is useful, because the chapter in the DMG about creating monsters is quite good and I think it's easy for new DMs to overlook as complicated or advanced material. It's really not!

@Yakk I would make that "isn't just for you"

@SevenSidedDie I just reviewed those things, and I have to disagree. There's no indication in any of that that a question like this — a straightforward one about a specific, real problem! — is going to be pounced on.

There's definitely some irony here: the crux of my answer is that as a DM the design of 5E encourages improvisation and invention in order to provide a fun experience. Meanwhile, the rules of this site mean following surprising secret conventions in a very specific way in order to get help.

Well, for what it's worth, this seems like a very fun, creative, scenario and I hope your players enjoy it!

In particular, this site is very concerned with making sure questions are in a straightforward question-and-answer format rather than becoming an open discussion. This seems picky but the result is that this is a good source for authoritative answers for the things that are straightforward like that. I think this really happens to fall under that (and I'm glad you found my answer helpful). But I do also understand why people react to the "any ideas" phrasing.

@Antistrophy Note that this site is somewhat unique, in that users who have been here a while and have gotten enough reputation score by asking and answering questions have moderator-like abilities. Actual moderators have a ♦ by their name — this gives them the ability to take some more decisive actions, but really their goal is to enforce the community norms.

@KorvinStarmast It is, of course, a hypothetical situation, but one which illustrates an actual, practical problem I am having with understanding the rules.

I'll repeat what I said above and in a comment on an answer below: this may seem silly, and I appreciate humoring the pedantry, but I find this very helpful and practical in understanding ideas like "rules do what they say they do" and "there are no secret rules". These come up very often and are apparently deeply essential to running or playing a 5E game — yet also seem to be interpreted quite differently by different people. I hope that asking this with humor can be taken in a positive light — I really think it illustrates the phenomenon better than any very dry rules-parsing could.

We see this disagreement even in the answers here: one is arguing that food is food, so of course it can be eaten, while the other is saying the food can only be eaten because there is specific wording implying that this is food which you can eat.

@NautArch Okay, the rules as they actually are, then?

@András Oh, no, it's on this side of the door right in front of us. The door opens in, you see.

Dear downvoter: It may sound silly, but I'm very serious with this question. Assuming the ruling in the other referenced question is correct, there are huge implications for how D&D is played, and I want to make sure we're doing it as intended!

@enkryptor The DM wants to follow the rules properly, so we're waiting on the outcome of this. Fortunately, we've got plenty to munch on in the meantime. I mean, assuming we can eat the food... that's not actually clear because unlike Goodberry the spell doesn't say we can, and "D&D spells work in the most literal definition of their description. If the rules say you can do something, you can do it. If they don't say you can do it, you can't." So it's possible that all this spell is actually good for is permanently blocking doors. I guess we'll have to live on Goodberries until we find out.

We were also worried about the the 30 gallons of water he also created on the floor, since that doesn't go bad, and the spell doesn't say that the water will drain away. (There's no secret rule that says water does things like that!) But luckily our druid has Create or Destroy Water to take care of that.