View Profile: epithet - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • epithet's Avatar
    Sunday, 17th March, 2019, 03:17 AM
    Fantasy Grounds can do what I think you are looking for, and does not require an internet connection unless you want remote connection (which you don't.) The software runs on your PC and all the maps and data are stored locally. Even better for what you're trying to do, as I understand it, is that all you really need is the free "Demo" version of the program (the licensed versions only add the...
    11 replies | 445 view(s)
    2 XP
  • epithet's Avatar
    Saturday, 9th March, 2019, 01:54 AM
    In the context of several years of taking stories and characters from Greyhawk and transplanting them to the Forgotten Realms, Kate's comment that "The Forgotten Realms is just the most popular setting, and that's all there is to it" was a bit grating. I mean, if the FR is so freakin' wonderful, why not dig up its "vintage" story lines to be revisited, hmm? Clearly, there is more to it, since...
    68 replies | 3325 view(s)
    0 XP
  • epithet's Avatar
    Saturday, 9th March, 2019, 01:40 AM
    I think (a) is the reason he's remaining quiet, and (b) is not what I saw when I glanced at his twitter page. It appears he believed M when she made her recent statement against Z, but also believed her when she made a statement in his defense before. No victims of Z are clamoring for Mike's head on a platter, at least not that I saw. The people who are clamoring seem for the most part to just be...
    68 replies | 3325 view(s)
    1 XP
  • epithet's Avatar
    Saturday, 9th March, 2019, 01:06 AM
    It will take more than a frenzied mob of cyberbullies to shut down Mike. He's just stepped away from social media until they find some other target for their vitriol.
    68 replies | 3325 view(s)
    0 XP
  • epithet's Avatar
    Saturday, 9th March, 2019, 12:09 AM
    If there were a Greyhawk product by Gygax & Mearls I would pre-order the collector’s edition.
    68 replies | 3325 view(s)
    2 XP
  • epithet's Avatar
    Friday, 8th March, 2019, 06:06 PM
    Mearls' recent LYSK on Greyhawk included him saying that he would like to publish a Greyhawk product, but that he doesn't know how to approach it. He said that he might approach the Gygax kids at Garycon to see if they had any ideas. My guess is that he would like to work with Luke to put together something like the Eberron pdf that Keith Baker wrote for them, to be put up on the DMs Guild. If...
    68 replies | 3325 view(s)
    0 XP
  • epithet's Avatar
    Friday, 8th March, 2019, 06:01 PM
    Respectfully, I think it is fair. She dismissed Greyhawk as a "vintage" setting, in contrast to the Forgotten Realms which Ed began publishing in Dragon in 1979, and which had it's big "Gray Box" release in 1987. Greyhawk was originally published in 1980, and updated as part of the "Living Greyhawk" campaign through 2008. They're both "vintage" settings dating back to TSR. She went on to imply,...
    68 replies | 3325 view(s)
    1 XP
  • epithet's Avatar
    Friday, 8th March, 2019, 07:30 AM
    Those comments can be summed up as "I don't know much at all about Greyhawk, but I don't really care because the Forgotten Realms is just much more popular." Well, no , Kate. Maybe if your team gave other D&D settings as much support as you've given to a setting from Magic the Card Game, more people would be playing somewhere other than the kitchen sink.
    68 replies | 3325 view(s)
    4 XP
  • epithet's Avatar
    Thursday, 7th March, 2019, 09:22 PM
    I see no reason to think that a cantrip is any faster than any other 1 action spell. I wouldn't let a bonus action spell be interrupted, but I have no qualms about a 1 action cantrip.
    197 replies | 5540 view(s)
    1 XP
  • epithet's Avatar
    Thursday, 7th March, 2019, 09:13 PM
    I have no real experience with it, as none of my players have taken that style. One thing you might consider if you find that multiattack is rendering the style obsolete is to combine it with the Mark option from the Combat Options section of Chapter 9 of the DMG. You could let the Fighter impose disadvantage on the attack of a marked target without expending his reaction, so that he could...
    7 replies | 377 view(s)
    0 XP
  • epithet's Avatar
    Thursday, 7th March, 2019, 07:02 AM
    I hope to see Mike and the Happy Fun Hour back soon. That and the LYSK videos are about the only thing I find useful on the D&D channel.
    13 replies | 1355 view(s)
    0 XP
  • epithet's Avatar
    Tuesday, 5th March, 2019, 10:23 PM
    Why would anyone disarm as a readied action when he could just do that on his turn and pick up the disarmed implement? Perhaps once, when a special occasion calls for it, but as a general practice way of dealing with spellcasters it makes no sense at all. I'm still in favor of the concentration check.
    197 replies | 5540 view(s)
    0 XP
  • epithet's Avatar
    Monday, 4th March, 2019, 08:27 AM
    Hanging laundry out to dry in the sun, or putting baked goods on the windowsill to cool in the sunlight, might have devotional connotations for a sun worshiping society. A society that venerates the sky might collect rainwater for ritual cleansing. Perhaps it is sacrilege to wear shoes on soil or stone hallowed to the earth goddess. When an animal is slaughtered, its blood is collected in...
    17 replies | 441 view(s)
    2 XP
  • epithet's Avatar
    Monday, 4th March, 2019, 08:06 AM
    Well, Disarm has been a published rule since the DMG came out, and there is no shortage of ways a caster can lock down a fighter. I'm still not seeing this as any kind of unbalanced caster nerf. To lose the spell, the fighter in my analysis would have to recognise that a spell was being cast and hit with his attack, and the caster would have to fail its concentration check. That's a whole lot...
    197 replies | 5540 view(s)
    1 XP
  • epithet's Avatar
    Sunday, 3rd March, 2019, 11:14 PM
    Yeah, that wouldn't happen to me. I wouldn't let a fighter make an arcana check to interrupt a spell, only to recognise that a spell was being cast. I'd let anyone, any time, make that check.
    197 replies | 5540 view(s)
    0 XP
  • epithet's Avatar
    Sunday, 3rd March, 2019, 10:46 PM
    Mage Slayer can't interrupt a spell being cast, although if it is a concentration spell like Spirit Guardians you can wreck it before it has a chance to damage anyone.
    197 replies | 5540 view(s)
    0 XP
  • epithet's Avatar
    Sunday, 3rd March, 2019, 08:58 PM
    If your DM really likes magical traps...
    197 replies | 5540 view(s)
    0 XP
  • epithet's Avatar
    Sunday, 3rd March, 2019, 08:51 PM
    I agree with Taran here. Even if you have a character built to maximise this strategy, there are still risks, counters, and uncertainty. Plus, quite frankly, it is no different than having a character built to maximise any particular strategy in an RPG--if you build a character for one particular scenario, that character really should own that scenario. You're giving up other stuff to focus on...
    197 replies | 5540 view(s)
    0 XP
  • epithet's Avatar
    Sunday, 3rd March, 2019, 08:00 PM
    Thanks!
    197 replies | 5540 view(s)
    2 XP
  • epithet's Avatar
    Sunday, 3rd March, 2019, 07:43 PM
    Reading through this thread, it seems I disagree with most of you. No surprise there, I suppose. So, supposing you want to play according to the rules, how should you handle the question posed in the OP? First, your player has told you that he wants to wait for some sign of casting, then interrupt that spellcast with his readied action. Now, if you clearly understand what he intends to do...
    197 replies | 5540 view(s)
    5 XP
  • epithet's Avatar
    Wednesday, 27th February, 2019, 02:12 AM
    I have no interest in a modernized Greyhawk, but I would definitely buy a treatment with updated mechanics. Still, the main reason I voted "yes" in the poll is that I want Greyhawk to be opened up on the DMs Guild. I know there are folk like Greyhawk Grognard out there just waiting to drop content for sale that takes classic Greyhawk adventures and areas and polishes those gems using research...
    142 replies | 4776 view(s)
    1 XP
No More Results
About epithet

Basic Information

Age
48
About epithet
Location:
Houston, Texas
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No
Sex:
Male
Age Group:
Over 40
My Game Details

Details of games currently playing and games being sought.

Town:
Houston
State:
Texas
Country:
USA

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
1,008
Posts Per Day
0.73
Last Post
Deborah Ann Woll's Relics & Rarities Ep #1 Is Now Free Sunday, 17th March, 2019 02:56 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
5
General Information
Last Activity
Today 04:21 AM
Join Date
Wednesday, 10th June, 2015
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
My Game Details
Town:
Houston
State:
Texas
Country:
USA
Page 1 of 8 12345678 LastLast

Monday, 18th March, 2019


Sunday, 17th March, 2019


Friday, 15th March, 2019


Thursday, 14th March, 2019


Wednesday, 13th March, 2019



Page 1 of 8 12345678 LastLast
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Friday, 15th March, 2019

  • 03:35 PM - Hriston mentioned epithet in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/557816721810403329 "As with most bonus actions, you choose the timing, so the Shield Master shove can come before or after the Attack action" So you're claiming that this is a statement of the original intent, and not a mistaken ruling made without referencing the actual text of the PHB? I've already talked about this up-thread, and @epithet has beat me to it this time around, but I'll give it another go and see if you can understand my position this time. This tweet makes no mention of intent. My claim with respect to this tweet is that it's an interpretation of the RAW that is in accordance with the RAI for the timing of bonus actions with conditions as expressed in the original ruling on the Eldritch Knight's War Magic feature that was made in July, 2015. As far as Jeremy's story about not referencing the text, what part of the PHB that wasn't already paraphrased in the question to which he was responding do you think would have caused him to make a different ruling? And that it's impossible for JEC to have forgotten about aspects of the rules and saw someone asking about bonus actions and so answered with the general rule for bonus actions which is "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn" without really thinking about the finer details? What aspect of the rules do you think Jeremy Crawford forgot? B...

Saturday, 9th March, 2019

  • 02:11 AM - FrogReaver mentioned epithet in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    Thanks for the homework assignments, but I’m done. I’ve tried showing you the words in the PHB, and the words that are not in the PHB. epithet answered that sufficiently. The rule you cited is so ambiguous in relation to whether the attack action happens at the same time as the attacks or before them that it didn't prove anything. The correct conclusion is that the rules are silent on both sides of that issue. There are ways Shield Master could’ve been written to allow any of the incorrect interpretations, and the simple fact that it doesn’t use those wordings strongly implies that those interpretations are indeed incorrect. I don't know how to respond to this. It's apparent that you don't even understand what an interpretation is. Nor does it appear that you are capable of even reading or understanding a statement using an interpretation other than your own. Nor can even make a coherent argument. That shield master wasn't written another way is not evidence that your interpretation is correct or that mine is incorrect.

Sunday, 3rd March, 2019

  • 11:27 PM - Ristamar mentioned epithet in post [5E] Interrupting a Spellcaster via Ready Action
    Well, I think you misunderstand me. I'm not sure that straight up doing damage with a ranged weapon is going to be able to be able to disrupt a spellcaster. It's just as unlikely as shooting the fighter with an arrow is going to disarm his weapon. If a player says, "I want to ready to prevent that guy from casting a spell" I will respond with, "sure, what do you do?" Shooting them won't cut it. (no pun intended) Casting Silence might, if the triggering spell has a verbal component. Using a skill to disarm their material component might, if it has a material component. Readying to shoot will simply do damage right before the spell triggers. I redacted my comment earlier that you could force a concentration check on a spell. I didn't redact my statement that you could interrupt actions or prevent actions given the appropriate counter-action. Understood, no worries. My response was more in tune with epithet's original suggestion. I'm also not a fan of disarming components for similar reasons, but I won't argue the point as I've said my peace.

Thursday, 21st February, 2019

  • 04:13 AM - Jay Verkuilen mentioned epithet in post Pages From The Upcoming Nautical D&D Book!
    Did someone's T1-4 spontaneously combust because PotA came out? Is there some reason you couldn't run that original module anymore? No, of course not. Nothing actually changed for that person. Not a single thing. They are just as able to run the original T1-4 today as they were years ago. Absolutely, although many of those modules are rather difficult to get except perhaps in PDF form. But, now, people have a choice. They can run the original T1-4 set in Greyhawk, or they can run PotA set in Forgotten Realms. Choice is good. It's a new take on an idea. <snip> If they rewrite the Slave Lords modules and place them in Forgotten Realms, as an example, who cares? Why should that bother anyone. If you insist that the Slave Lord modules MUST be in Greyhawk, run the original modules. Why does it hurt you so much that I get what I want? Partly it's because the other settings are getting nothing and as @epithet noted, can't even publish on DMs Guild. Fans of that work, correctly, perceive that releases are limited resources. So "choice" to you means "no choice" to other fans. Yes, it's certainly possible to run the older modules. It's a good bit of work to do so and many people don't have decades of experience to be able to understand what's up with 1E---I can do it and I hardly ever run anything "as written" anyway. Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but many of those modules had cool ideas but were often somewhat poorly executed, or are at least somewhat antiquated, and could certainly use a refresh. Finally, the work to convince people to play really old modules can be substantial. But forget about that. The reaction is one not too difficult to understand pretty well: In general, people don't like feeling neglected or having their preferences ignored or invalidated. In the early days of 5E, WotC seemed desperate to capture "lightning in a bottle" again by rehashing the game's great...

Monday, 18th February, 2019

  • 12:11 AM - Hussar mentioned epithet in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    Note, epithet, the question isn't really how we would resolve it at our tables, but, a discussion over what the rules say. I'd likely resolve things the way you do and wouldn't really care. But, when discussing what the rules actually say, we have to be more precise than, "Well, this makes my game better, so that's what I'm doing".

Friday, 7th December, 2018

  • 11:26 PM - Caliburn101 mentioned epithet in post Ridding Elves and Half-Elves of Darkvision
    Love this... @doctorbadwolf and epithet No. Darkvision isn’t simpler than low light vision. Low light vision is simpler both in terms of mechanics and intuitive cognisance. I didn’t talk about infravision etc. and wouldn’t want to see those return to the game. No. Ambushes in the dark CAN be accomplished without dark vision, and saying otherwise is patently absurd. If you really need to know how absurd, refer to any book on war.... any... at all. Everything else you went on about didn’t tackle the core difference of opinion we have here so I won’t get drawn into pointless counterpoint over the debate you’d rather be having with me than the one I am actually involved in. By all means add it to the discussion with your additional points with others, but please try to stick to the point when quoting me. I don’t want what I am talking about confused in the minds of third parties by your responses. Thank you.

Monday, 29th October, 2018

  • 09:56 PM - jasper mentioned epithet in post Burning Questions: Why Do DMs Limit Official WOTC Material?
    epithet "We're talking about why DMs do things in this thread, and part of that conversation involves whether they ought to, in certain circumstances" No We are just talking about Why DMs do things in this thread. Anything after your comma, is stuff you and others added. The "my way or the highway" is blunt but gets the point across in 5 words. It is nice if the DM explains his reasoning but he can just say "I hate x". You now have 3 choices. Don't Play with the DM. Play with the DM. Become the DM. You could also whine and scream/write about DM entitlement being bad. But the thread is about DM entitlement.

Tuesday, 23rd October, 2018

  • 03:14 AM - Hussar mentioned epithet in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    Doesn't cost them an action but it does otherwise hinder them during that time; no reactions, no AoO's, etc. in the specific case of stun. And don't forget: for each time (more or less, there might be a minor mathematical discrepancy) it does nothing this will, by law of averages, another time cost the target two actions. Stun it on a 6, it loses its initiative this round that would have been 3, then rolls 14 for next round and loses that one too. Conversely, as you say, it could just as easily go this round 14: target action, 6: target stunned, next round 6: stun wears off, 3: target action. Dice are fun that way. :) I don't know the odds of losing 0 vs 1 vs 2 actions - my gut tells me it's about 25-50-25% but I've no math to back that up. Also noting epithet's post above too. I could see this as being probably the biggest effect. It would make combat very swingy. It might be very possible for a critter to get two attacks in a row on a PC, which, potentially, can be devastating. Particularly when you factor in abilities and whatnot that mitigate attacks - Shield fighters granting disadvantage, Light Clerics using Flare, various reroll mechanics that are tied to reactions. Not that that's necessarily bad. Just that it will likely result in more deadly combats. A monster getting to double up on effects can, potentially, be very dangerous to the party and, since it's all based on luck, it's automatically going to advantage the monsters rather than the PC's, over time.

Monday, 22nd October, 2018

  • 04:22 PM - Hawk Diesel mentioned epithet in post Shield Attacks and AC Bonus
    FrogReaver, it seems you have gotten hung up on the mace thing. I think what all epithet was getting at was that since the edge of a shield can focus energy into a smaller space, much like the flanges of a mace, that it was not unreasonable to have a shield deal more damage than a 1d4 club. He made the comparison between a 1d6 damage club and a 1d8 damage mace, and stated that because the primary difference between the two is that the mace has those flanges that concentrate force, it was the reason that it deals more damage. Thus a shield, with a similar force concentrator, would deal more more damage (1d6) than a typical improvised weapon of similar size might deal (1d4).
  • 03:48 PM - Hawk Diesel mentioned epithet in post Shield Attacks and AC Bonus
    When your interpretation is so outlandish that you are claiming that a shield resembles a mace then it’s a house rule. You may find it outlandish. But having seen demonstrations on how historically accurate shields may have been used as weapons, I find this to be quite credible. As epithet said, while its appearance may not resemble a club, its function when used as a weapon is quite similar.

Thursday, 18th October, 2018

  • 12:36 AM - pemerton mentioned epithet in post I was right about Shield Master
    What would have worked best is if they eliminated the use of a bonus action for the shove entirely. Just have it say, "Once per turn on your turn if you hit a creature that is no more than one size larger than you with a melee attack, you do damage as normal, and as part of that same successful attack you can make a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target's Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the ability to use). If you win the contest, you can either knock the target prone or push it 5 feet away from you." That way you still have your bonus action, and there are no timing questions.That's what I take it to mean (subject to the suggestion from epithet and TwoSix that's come out upthread): taking the attack action means taking an attack, but doesn't require finishing taking all those attacks.

Saturday, 8th September, 2018

  • 09:28 PM - Hawk Diesel mentioned epithet in post Curse of Strahd help (lots o’ spoilers)
    One question I might have that could help answer things is this: do your players want to continue playing their characters beyond Curse of Strahd, or do they intend to retire them? Barovia is almost a living entity of its own, along with the Dark Powers that initially chose Strahd to rule Barovia. As epithet said, Strahd cannot truly die so long as he remains in the favor of the Dark Powers. Thus, taking over from Strahd may be more about pleasing the Dark Powers and making them see that you are a better instrument to further their plans than Strahd. Alternatively, the successor of Strahd may slowly lose themselves, eventually becoming Strahd in time. Their body and mind slowly changing. Either way, Strahd's successor is likely to be just as stuck in Barovia as he was, relying on the Vistani to draw key people in and furthering the influence of the Dark Powers until they can reach beyond the borders of Barovia. This means any character to take Strahd's place will have to retire from adventuring. So hopefully that gives you a better idea of how to handle things. Let your brother know that taking over from Strahd will force them to retire their character. If both still want it after that, then could become not just about killing Strahd, but which can most please the Dark Powers.

Friday, 2nd February, 2018


Thursday, 25th January, 2018

  • 03:21 AM - LordEntrails mentioned epithet in post Mearls' "Firing" tweet
    ...imination. 2) Yes, in fact discrimination against white males has been proven to be true. Not as often as discrimination against minorities, but it is part of the reason that racial quotas in college admissions are illegal. Do your homework actually question the "facts" you are given that support your firmly held beliefs. 3) I acknowledged that I had benefited from the circumstances of my birth. What you call "White Male Privilege". 4) I never stated or implied that I was complaining or felt repressed because I have been discriminated against. 5) I actually strongly implied that the discrimination I have faced is minimal and near trivial compared to that which the majority of the population has faced. 6) I stated personal facts, you are the one implying some social agenda behind them. ... So you trying to silence me based on your own inaccurate assumptions of my motivations and what WMP actually is, is not only not your place to do so, but is actively harmful. ... Actually, I felt epithet was trying to help you by pointing out your venomous attitude (he was much more considerate in his terms) is not productive to furthering your argument or views. That by being so aggressive in your statement and accusatory of others that don't immediately line up with your viewpoints, means that your arguments are not going to sway those who hold views different than you towards your viewpoint. All they will do is get those that already share your views to stand behind you and cheer, while those not already with you will withdraw, and either become more adamant in their views, or simple withdraw from conversation with you. Neither of which helps your cause.

Thursday, 18th January, 2018

  • 07:14 PM - Luz mentioned epithet in post 5E Retriever (from Pathfinder) conversion
    epithet: just out of curiosity, why the swallow whole ability? Everything else about your retriever is a bang-on conversion from the original (with the exception of the plane shift.) Was it just to make it a little more dangerous? Swallow whole just seems like an odd choice for a giant spider creature. Regardless, of all the 5e retrievers I've seen I prefer yours. There is another in the Planar Bestiary by Chris "Goober" Ramsley that is almost identicle; his is a CR15 creature with 230 hp, two claw attacks and one eye ray per round (all damage is the same as yours). I do prefer his description of the 'retrieve' feature, it's a little more concise: Find Target. When ordered to find an item or a creature, the retriever does so unerringly, as though guided by a locate creature or locate object spell, with no limit on the range. The being giving the order must have seen (or have an item belonging to) the creature to be found, or have touched the object to be located. On a side note, I lov...

Friday, 22nd December, 2017


Thursday, 21st December, 2017


Thursday, 2nd November, 2017

  • 03:47 AM - LordEntrails mentioned epithet in post OrcPub is Closing Down
    epithet, You lay out your opinion pretty well. And I appreciate the civility of your discourse. I think the core difference shaping your opinion differently from mine is that; - You believe the majority of OrcPub users had already purchased the PHB in one or more formats. I don't, I suspect a majority of them have not bought an official copy of the PHB in any format. Neither of us have evidence either way. *shrugs* We both agree that theft is illegal. And that WotC has made business decisions neither of us would make, and that we would do things differently based upon we know. But shouldn't we also accept that we do not know what the executives of WotC know, and we do not know their priorities or constraints on the decisions they make. We are not fully informed, but then again, neither is anyone (even the WotC execs). You are. And you are neither morally nor legally obligated to police these forums for them. I'd leave that to them and focus on fun gaming and DM prep using an...

Friday, 7th April, 2017


Monday, 22nd February, 2016



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 39 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Sunday, 17th March, 2019

  • 01:53 PM - Stalker0 quoted epithet in post Deborah Ann Woll's Relics & Rarities Ep #1 Is Now Free
    According to the Oxford English Dictionary middle age is between 45 and 65. I'd like to see a show with some of those folks. I might be the only one, but it's what I'd like to see. According to the Oxford dictionary, middle age are those that use the Oxford dictionary :)

Saturday, 16th March, 2019

  • 04:16 PM - Kor quoted epithet in post Deborah Ann Woll's Relics & Rarities Ep #1 Is Now Free
    I wish there was a game featuring middle-aged folks, though. That's one of the things I like about Acquisitions Inc., actually. Deborah Ann Woll is a good DM, but it's kind of like watching my friends' kids play D&D. That's great that you would like to watch a bunch of "older-gamers" play, but most people would not so it seems like an odd criticism of the show. Many productions such as this do take into account general audience demographics. The general median measure of relate-ability is 10 years +/-. This means that people between 25 to 45 will be able to relate to a 35-year old actor. Because of this, I think the players chosen do appeal do the most optimal age range of audience. As someone who is about to hit the half-century mark this year, I can say I have no interest in watching a group of teenagers play, nor a bunch of "older-gamers" like myself. The average age range of the players in this show is quite optimal. Notwithstanding the "optimal age range" discussion above...
  • 12:22 AM - 5ekyu quoted epithet in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    No, you are misunderstanding. Your group can decide to change the rules of the game. For example, you can adopt a house rule that only Tiefling characters can be Bladesingers. You have then changed the rules of the game you are playing. Your group can ignore Jeremy's Sage Advice. You can, for example, say that while an elf character only needs 4 hours of trance instead of sleeping it still needs 8 hours to complete the long rest, because that's what you think the rules say and your group is following the published rules as you understand them. That's fine, but you haven't changed the Sage Advice--Jeremy is still suggesting that a meditating elf only needs 4 hours to complete a long rest, even if your group follows a different ruling. You can change a rule, you can make your own ruling, but you can't change Jeremy's ruling. Get it?"You can change a rule, you can make your own ruling, but you can't change Jeremy's ruling. Get it?" Rule in PHB I can do the following and more Use it as us. Ign...

Friday, 15th March, 2019

  • 06:24 AM - 5ekyu quoted epithet in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    Come on, Max. He updated the Advice to reflect some things (like disintegrate vs wild shape) that had been changed in errata. Reflecting the current rules doesn't make it the current rules. Here's another hint that the Advice isn't rules: you (the DM) can change the rules for your game. You can't change Jeremy's Sage Advice. Regardless of what your rulings are, Jeremy's Advice is his, regardless of what any of us think about it. I can house rule any change to the PHB, but the SAC isn't mine to change.What? I can as GM decide to change how a tuleceorks or if I use it for my game. That doesn't ever change them in the book or anyone else game. I can do the same as that with Sage Advice rulings. It doesn't change that SAC doc or what JEC or anyone else does. So, in both cases, I cannot change the source but I can change what I use and how it works in my gsme. But, if somehow you see house rules actually changing sources, nothing more to say.
  • 05:43 AM - Maxperson quoted epithet in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    Come on, Max. He updated the Advice to reflect some things (like disintegrate vs wild shape) that had been changed in errata. Reflecting the current rules doesn't make it the current rules. Here's another hint that the Advice isn't rules: you (the DM) can change the rules for your game. You can't change Jeremy's Sage Advice. Regardless of what your rulings are, Jeremy's Advice is his, regardless of what any of us think about it. I can house rule any change to the PHB, but the SAC isn't mine to change. It's no more or less advice than any other rule in the book. All the books are entirely advice from cover to cover. And here's the thing. He's the lead designer for the company that owns the game. If he says the Sage Advice Compendium consists of rules, then they are rules whether you like or not, or agree with it or not. He's the one that gets to decide that. Not you. Personally, I'm not going to be giving the Sage Advice Compendium more weight than I would give any other rule i...
  • 03:00 AM - Asgorath quoted epithet in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    I just think that the first advice on a given rule is probably the one closest to what was intended when the rule was written. In the case of Shield Master, the War Magic feature has similar language and a clear statement of intent that agrees with that first advice, so it certainly seems that that was, at the time, the way the thing was meant to work. Okay, fair enough. There is a pretty big difference between the two features though, because I'm not aware of any mechanical advantage from doing a weapon attack before casting a cantrip, while there is absolutely a mechanical advantage (quite literally) to shoving someone prone before all your attacks. The original design intent for War Magic may have been that the order doesn't matter, even if the words in the PHB suggest an ordering to me, and that may have been why JEC specifically called out the intent for that particular feature. It's probably also why the latest SAC answer makes it clear that the ordering for War Magic really just d...
  • 02:52 AM - Maxperson quoted epithet in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    Do you know what "official rulings" means? It means that whatever is in the Sage Advice Compendium supersedes any advice offered on Twitter. That's it. That's the only significance--the SAC should be taken as the definitive recommendation, as opposed to "public statements of the D&D team." It does NOT mean that the Sage Advice is elevated to the level of rules, or that Jeremy's suggested ruling applies to anyone's game. It is still nothing but a suggestion, and if you follow the Sage Advice in your game, it is YOUR ruling, because the only one who can make a ruling in your game is YOU (assuming you are the DM.) Jeremy cannot rule on your game, that's not how it works. If a DM makes a different ruling on a published rule than what Jeremy suggests in his advice, that is not a house rule. A house rule only happens when a DM implements a new rule, or strikes a published rule from his game. As an example, the statement that "if x, you can y does not impose a timing requirement and therefore the ...
  • 02:34 AM - Asgorath quoted epithet in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    It seems remarkable to me that people who argue so vigorously about the meaning of the words "if" and "with" (and get deep into the semantic weeds arguing that a conditional must also be a timing requirement because "if" should be read to include "and only if") would be quite dismissive of the difference between rules and rulings, and would blur the line between changes to the rules via errata and suggested interpretations of the rules. I would have thought that anyone who argues that a character can only do what a rule expressly and specifically says the character can do would also apply that "what it says on the tin" standard to the Sage Advice Compendium, which has the word "advice" in the bloody title of the thing. "Advice" is literally what it says "on the tin." I'm with you on everything here. The SAC has an official ruling on how Shield Master works. It's advice, the DM can ignore it. No argument there, I've said many times that I am playing it as attack-shove-attack in my games. ...
  • 02:28 AM - 5ekyu quoted epithet in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    The distinction is significant: the rules are fact, rulings are opinion. Among games following the "rules as written," the rules are the same, while the rulings are different. The Sage Advice has evolved in format over the life of the 5th Edition. At first, Jeremy, Mike, and sometimes (if I remember correctly) Chris would answer questions about how to interpret the rules when someone asked, most often on Twitter. Then, Jeremy began to write articles for the D&D web site that were compilations of the advice he had given and the questions he had answered on Twitter. These were called "Sage Advice" like the old series of articles from Dragon magazine. Around this time, a website sprang up that indexed the questions and answers, mostly from Twitter, from Mike, Jeremy, and Chris. This website also called these responses "sage advice." The next step was for the WotC staff to decide that no one but Jeremy would answer rules questions, because the webpage showed that conflicting answers were being g...

Thursday, 14th March, 2019

  • 06:08 PM - 5ekyu quoted epithet in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    Honestly, you're not wrong for my game or for me as a DM. I have no hesitation to take a rule from a different edition or a different game and adapt it to my 5e campaign, or to house rule something to work better for my group. There are other DMs for whom it seems to be a big deal, though, and I think the distinction needs to be preserved. Some DMs, especially new ones who haven't played other editions or other TTRPGs, really seem to feel as though they should cleave to the rules and not go off the reservation, and others (perhaps those involved in the Adventurer's League) are constrained by the terms of their particular game groups. Another problem I see, and the thing that has kept me active in this "flogging a dead griffin" thread, is the emergence of an attitude that Jeremy's Sage Advice represents the "right way" to interpret the rules and play the game. There is no one right way that works for everyone, and I really think Jeremy's use of the "official" designation will cause more harm t...
  • 05:06 PM - Asgorath quoted epithet in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    It appears you are talking about the way Jeremy Crawford intends for people to interpret the rule today, whereas Hriston seems to be talking about what the rules in question were meant to do when they were written. Those are not the same thing. Perhaps if you were to use more specific terms, such as "original intent" and "current intended use" you wouldn't talk past one another so much. War Magic: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/618267732098715648 "The intent is that the bonus attack can come before or after the cantrip." Shield Master: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/557816721810403329 "As with most bonus actions, you choose the timing, so the Shield Master shove can come before or after the Attack action." The first tweet specifically says intent, I'll grant you that. The SAC has been corrected to state that there is a difference between RAW and RAI for this feature, and that the intent is you can do them in any order. Hopefully we're all in agree...
  • 12:31 PM - dnd4vr quoted epithet in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    Dude, stop doing that. Seriously. Sage Advice is NOT a set of rulings that applies to your game, or a set of modifications and additions to the rules of D&D. It is just advice. If a DM doesn't know how to rule on an issue, he can check Sage Advice to get a recommendation. Even if he takes the recommendation, the ruling is the DM's. Rejecting the advice of Jeremy Crawford, whether in tweets or in the Sage Advice pdf, is not the same as making a house rule. Taking the Advice is fine, rejecting it is fine, making a house rule is fine. There is no element of moral superiority to be found among any of those, but I do think it is important to be clear in your terminology. To "deviate from the official ruling" is absolutely not the same as "making a house rule," and your insistence that it is reveals a danger in having the Sage Advice Compendium in the first place. Did you read the part where I quoted that SA is, in fact, official rulings now? It is new, so maybe you missed it. Here, I'll show you:...
  • 11:21 AM - 5ekyu quoted epithet in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    Dude, stop doing that. Seriously. Sage Advice is NOT a set of rulings that applies to your game, or a set of modifications and additions to the rules of D&D. It is just advice. If a DM doesn't know how to rule on an issue, he can check Sage Advice to get a recommendation. Even if he takes the recommendation, the ruling is the DM's. Rejecting the advice of Jeremy Crawford, whether in tweets or in the Sage Advice pdf, is not the same as making a house rule. Taking the Advice is fine, rejecting it is fine, making a house rule is fine. There is no element of moral superiority to be found among any of those, but I do think it is important to be clear in your terminology. To "deviate from the official ruling" is absolutely not the same as "making a house rule," and your insistence that it is reveals a danger in having the Sage Advice Compendium in the first place.I think you are overstating the case. As of January the defined role of SAC is official rulings on the rules for D&D. So, it is a set...

Monday, 11th March, 2019

  • 12:29 AM - Asgorath quoted epithet in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    Again, I am not urging SA in support of any ruling on Shield Master. Nor am I making any reference to the “drunk at Trader Joe’s” tweet on Shield Master. I am referring specifically to the published Sage Advice on the War Magic feature of the eldrich knight, which uses a similar conditional. At no point did Crawford withdraw, retract, or change his statement of the intent of the feature, although he did change his Advice to reflect his new position on the existence of a timing requirement for triggered bonus actions. That said, I do think earlier expressions of intent are more credible than years-later “corrections.” Like you, I used a house rule to render the point moot in my game. I suspect I’m debating the issue here for the same reason that you are: I enjoy it. So the problem is that the latest SAC doesn’t use the word “intent” in either the War Magic or Shield Master answers?
  • 12:06 AM - Maxperson quoted epithet in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    You do know that you can shove as an attack granted by the Attack action, right? Just checking. What do apples have to do with oranges? We're discussing the bonus action granted by the Attack action via Shield Master. If you were not talking about using Shield Master at all, and are just using one of your attacks to shove, why are you even here in this discussion?

Sunday, 10th March, 2019

  • 11:24 PM - Ovinomancer quoted epithet in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    With regard to the War Magic feature, the intention was stated in Sage Advice first, then the Advice was changed to reflect the new policy on timing. I’m sorry that it seemed like an appeal to authority, because I expressly and emphatically reject the notion that there is any authority over the rules other than the DM. I raised the issue of the stated intent only to refute the assertion that if the rules were meant to accommodate a triggered bonus action that did not have a timing requirement, they would have been written differently.If you reject any authority, why have your last few posts been so emphatic on knowing what RAI was from the earlier SA tweet? That seems incongruous, at best. Even making RAI claims are an appeal to authority because you're pointing out what was intended by the designers. Now, I'm not a fallacy nazi, expecting to win because I know the name of an informal fallacy. But it does seem very odd that you keep pointing out the earlier tweet as definitive, despite the...
  • 10:45 PM - Ovinomancer quoted epithet in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    I don't think arguments about what language the rules would include support your side of the argument. We have, in the example of the War Magic feat and the history of Crawford's statements thereupon, clear and unequivocal proof that the same language and construction used in the Shield Master bonus action was intended to enable the use of a bonus action before or after the action upon which its use was conditioned. The fact that Crawford later changed his mind does not change the original intention that his published Sage Advice article revealed. At the time that these rules were written and the Player's Handbook was published, the language in question was not intended to impose a timing requirement. I am puzzled and somewhat amused by the rigid mindset some folks seem to have about D&D. This whole issue of timing has never been a problem for me, even after getting into the semantic minutia on this topic. If the Attack Action happens "on your turn" you get to choose when to take the bonus sh...

Saturday, 9th March, 2019

  • 07:19 PM - Maxperson quoted epithet in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    But we have always known that an attack is something different than the Attack Action. You can make an attack as part of casting a spell (including melee or ranged weapon attacks) and as a reaction or bonus action. All kinds of things give you attacks. Every combat related section of the PGB reinforces the fact that a lowercase attack and the uppercase Attack (Action) are not the same thing. I find the argument that the Attack Action is entirely inseparable from the attack it grants you to be unpersuasive. Attacks are not tied to the Attack action, but the Attack action is tied to attacks. Showing examples of attacks that are not tied to the attack action doesn't alter that the rules say that, "With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack." Not after you take the Attack action. Not before you take the Attack action. WITH the Attack action. They are simultaneous, and therefore inseparable. The Attack action does not begin until you are in step 1 of the attack. Before any o...
  • 04:08 AM - Maxperson quoted epithet in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    See what I mean? By the way, you do know that disintegrate was changed in the last round of errata, don't you? It's just that you keep talking about what disintegrate "unequivocally says" and, in your earlier post, "RAW says that..." when you're actually talking about what it used to say. What's the new PHB language? And it's not really relevant if it changed. My point about RAW being clear, but people wanting to twist it still remains. It's crystal clear in my PHB. If it was unambiguous, there wouldn't have been a difference between what was written and what was intended, would there? Sure there would. Just because you get what you wanted to say wrong, doesn't mean that it doesn't clearly say the wrong thing. Instead, ambiguity in the rule lead to some people finding an interpretation that led to a ridiculous result, and (of course) loudly proclaiming that it was the only correct way to read the rule. Jeremy Crawford, who as I mentioned has a serious weakness for a sill...
  • 03:40 AM - Asgorath quoted epithet in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    Mike Mearls said that if he had it to do over again, he would have just made the bonus actions part of your action instead, presumably like the Extra Attack feature. When he thought about it some more, as I recall, conceded that the bonus action structure served as a useful limitation. It's been a while since I saw that Happy Fun Hour, so I might be misremembering certain details. He had mentioned it initially, I think, in a tweet, but I'm not sure. This is correct, he said that after thinking and talking about it more, he really just didn’t like the way they did TWF. Bonus actions as a whole were fine, but he felt that TWF probably should’ve just been part of the Attack action.


Page 1 of 39 1234567891011 ... LastLast

epithet's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites