Recent content by LadyElect

Purely been a spectator to these, but I'm curious. Do y'all typically rule flanking as any two adjacent opponents?

I can't believe "Using Owlbear Rodeo: Tokens (Updated)" would do this.

Nothing grand really, aside from it existing as the explanation for what people may mean when they say they want more of it present—greater definition, crunch, etc. Does it need greater benefit? I don’t believe saying such suggests that is all they are, which is why I described as a dial. It’s...

I’d imagine those taking the opposite stance are considering the stat blocks/attributes “its properties,” invented though they may be. And, similarly, seeing the relevant rulebooks as that meaningful process. Sure, it was all designed at some point and is, of course, fantastical rather than...

I gave an example written like Dread Counterspell, where sight is a clause following the secondary subject rather than the noun-verb that is modified by the clauses following. But yes, “that is” as a freestanding pronoun has no impact on the read if you were to change that.

Of course, while “he can see” and “that is casting a spell” are separate clauses within Dread Counterspell, removing the latter just makes him conversationally rude.

Nothing. Because in these two examples “I see” are the core noun and verb of the sentence and “going to the market” is a clause relying on “man” as a noun. It can be simplified to “I see a man.” to exclude any descriptive language, but sight is integral to the core sentence structure and any...

Ah, you got me beat. After all, if I can attack a pillar to initiate my action then he can surely do the same to initiate combat!

But if it's a reaction and he is scrying on the party when they aren't in initiative order then how would he do it? ;) (note: absolutely not serious)

I'll contrast @Parmandur in my response to this and say, yes, as far as breakdown of the conditionals here they are equivalent and the "that is" isn't relevant to the ruling of this were you to change it. The reason Dreadful Counterspell is being treated separately is that "sight" is written...

I think your end read here is correct, but not quite explained accurately. A creature is the direct object there, but it is being modified by both a dependent clause and the action verb of casting. So really the original Counterspell is dual conditional "when you see": A creature within 60 feet...

You know, fair. I hadn't even considered the 'telepathic' speak and its ilk. Although this began largely in reference to PCs where that is much rarer, it's certainly worth writing around when you can.

Surely you can see someone speaking in addition to hearing them. Unless every spellcaster is taking power words for their ventriloquism act, I'd have trouble with that reading of it. Though maybe the time to react is the difference in your power word being "kill" vs "snuffleupagus".

And that’s fair. I’ve just seen the educational aquarium question of “do fish sleep?” enough throughout my life to find Sea Elves getting Trance due to their latter namesake rather than the former ecology silly. There’s certainly little else separating Triton and them in the latest MotM printings.

I’m surprised by the anti-Triton sentiment I have seen in this thread, but only because a few people have seemed to suggest that Sea Elves are somehow preferable. I understand being anti-humanoid-but-water, but adding elf abilities on top of that comes across as even more banal to me. It’s...