Search results

I would say rather focusing on the assassin subclass, try to speed up the time that it takes to scout, hide, and strike.

81. Try to play off your DM rulings based on personal preferences as RAI, and assume any attempt by players to discuss whether that's RAI or not with you is insubordination and get really upset about it. Then go to the internet forums and try the same thing there.

Very true, it is not the end of the world. And I already know about the designer's intent on 5e - both what you stated, "rulings over rules", and the like... though I still think that with those in mind it doesn't imply they meant the help action to be constituted as an attack (that's RAI again...

No, I'll say it again - I don't have a problem with your ruling. I'm claiming that the way in which you are reading the rules isn't the one the designers intended. If you don't care, then that fine, but let's stop with bringing the podcasts and articles, and other such references pointing to...

I don't have any problem with this as it pertains to a DM ruling, and I don't think that anyone that I can tell has a problem with it either if that's all that this is. The issue that you go further to say how "common usage" of words permits yours as the valid interpretation of the rules (RAW or...

Have you thought about posting on sage advice to see what JC would say specifically about this?

That's not a strawman, that's reducto ad absurdum do denote how using "common language", on can redefine something into what they want it to be. Perfectly valid point.

Technically I guess it would be an interact with object, and more than setting up a trap and flipping a switch to trigger it. I don't see why not breaking invis is a big deal in this case, since there's only a certain number of beads. Of course you can say, "an attack is this", but the thing is...

That could be considered a loophole, but that doesn't justify your position. It's just a loophole. And I don't think putting the description of the help action as "attacking" is a very common usage definition... no offense.

Haven't read all the pages, but just to state that pacts don't have to be willing, nor do they need to be made by that individual. They can be made by an ancestor, for example. Makes for an interesting narrative that both the player and DM can delve into.

But you made an appeal to sage advice, which implied to me that you were concerned about that the rules in the handbook say and what the designer says, not just what your opinion of it is as a DM. If this is just about what your ruling is, well then ok. "Correct" meaning in reference to the...

See my edit that includes the quote from the rules. I don't need to see a sage advice on something this cut and dry to feel like I'm correct. EDIT: I guess there is this: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/25/can-a-familiar-use-help-to-grant-advantage-at-range/ where the distinction is applied to...

The help action is defined as a distraction and it is not an attack as defined in the rules. If you make an attack, you roll dice. What you're saying is fundamentally different than what the rules are for combat in 5e. Per the rules, "If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing...

So an invisible player could simply make a loud noise or shout something about the orc's mother without breaking invis. This is clearly allowed in the rules since there many places where the notion of hearing an invisible creature is detailed.

IMO, just look at the descriptions of some of the high level spells. It isn't a problem with the classes. Usually "overpowered" implies something to compare against to make that claim, but I feel like they've somehow succeeded at making something where that comparison isn't needed.

Ok, yeah I get that. I guess I feel like there is a stopping point where they do get all worked out, but maybe it depends where and how you were raised - I can only speak for how I was raised I guess. Any sort of bias, whether institutional or just against a particular individual, was never an...

I guess for me this means that you're not racist. At some point a person's genuine intentions shines though saying something that was thoughtless or worded wrong - most of the time. That's assuming the conversation is held in good faith and not just to pick each other apart for disingenuous...

I think there was the major topic of discussion on the surface level, and then there were several sub-topics that rose up from discussions of the main one. I can't really say my personal position has changed on anything, but I think there were some great observations made.

Wrong on both counts, I suspect.

Yeah it just needs to be called something else, or just say "tolerant of X, not of Y", although that is a bit of a mouthful. And there's nothing wrong with calling a paradox a paradox, mentioning a philosopher doesn't make the issue go away (appeal to authority). Everyone is actually tolerant of...