Search results

For all the things that can grind play to a halt, i don't think action economy is one of them - at least not in 5e. 5e is a long ways from that. If a table is suffering from this, it's due to indecisive players needing to just make up their minds quicker. A much bigger offender is spell lookup...

Having done this road personally, I don't really see any issue. It's just that in the earlier levels you don't have everything that you have at higher level - exactly the same situation as if you were going single class. But it was still fun at the early levels. I mean, the game as a whole feels...

Definitely smell a RAW/RAI split here.

Can't say that it does. FYI I wouldn't be surprised if JC did split that out for the dragon breath issue. I would be surprised if he did that for the help action issue. But that's simply me being surprised... I have been wrong before. And both times, I said I was sorry. :)

Ok yeah, if those don't provide anything for you, ... well I guess that's all I got then.

Ok, but I then is where we really disagree then. I feel like the existing sage advice DO make pretty clear what RAI here is regarding invis, attacks, and the help action - not 100% guaranteed because it's not the EXACT scenario, sure, I'll grant that. But saying what is there doesn't make for a...

Yes - I did think that through and was going edit, but you beat me to it.

So, are you claiming that your way of interpreting the rules is the way the designers intended to interpret the rules? I need to know this answer with certainty in order to correctly understand where you are coming from.

Well, that would be something to consider. Do you have any references from devs that pertains to what's being discussed? EDIT: And there is this from from the D&D website on sage advice. They directly advocate sage advice for figuring out RAI, so however you view sage advice, that is what it...

Well, you take one method of interpretation, apply it to a rule-in-question, and get a potential rule interpretation. Then do this for more such rules questions. Then, take those and compare to what's on sage advice. If they align well, the you have a pretty good indication that your method of...

Well I'll try to say it again - I have no problem whatsoever with the way you interpret the rules, and I'm glad that it gels well with your table. But if you claim the way you interpret the rules is the way the designers interpret the rules, then we have a disagreement, for reasons already stated.

So I did mention this earlier, but keep in mind a lot of people speak this way, they will say "if..." and not say "only if...", but they do mean equivalence. The other thing is that, if you read it only as a one-directional implication, the sentence fails to accomplish what it sets out to do...

Well, maybe I'm wrong (and I'd have to re-read it more carefully), but I remember him employing, in essence, reducto ad absurdum. When one does that, it's not that they are claiming that they hold the "twisted" or "absurd" conclusion, it's that they are trying to point out the methodology that...

Well I would encourage you to talk to others about how they read it, and maybe tweet JC, and see how many people have a "twisted" reading. Point being, you're trying to disparage the your opposing side and then walking away. What kind of impression do you think that leaves people?

So I guess in your case I think the correct term that's being claimed is that yours is a "house interpretation". A houserule is probably not the correct term here. It's a difference in the way you on how you read the rules, not on what any particular rules says. You way of doing it is perfectly...

Regardless of what he believes or whether he's right or not, he's inviting an explanation to an apparent double-standard. Answering it would settle the issue. A smug dismissal doesn't simply demonstrates that you've got nothing else to validate your side of the argument.

Well there has been a couple of sage advice columns offered in this thread dealing with invisibility, and what constitutes an attack, that suggests that using the help action would not break invis according to RAI. It's not the exact scenario of an invis rogue helping in battle but it's pretty...

Ok, well sorry then - it truly wasn't :).

That wasn't directed at you. I was just trying to expound on that point and cut to the chase. The fewer threads that have endless pages of people going back and forth with each other, the better.

Personally, I think as far as "how you rule on X", it's worthwhile on an internet forum to simply state what you do and any reasons why you like it (e.g. it makes players stay on their toes, it makes X less boring, etc..). Beyond that, I really it's just a waste of time. If you want to get into...