Search results

I use a website called tumblr, and I promise you, there are people actively looking to be offended. And working hard at it. Now, I don't think that's commonplace, but they are definitely out there. The way I view it, there is a definite and useful distinction to make between "giving offense"...

In which case, great, your work is done. People who are shopping for someone else, and want advice, can always ask for it if they want. Assuming they're looking for someone else risks offending them, but doesn't improve your chances of helping them.

Except that if it were a spell, you'd actually cast the spell, and then just "hold" it for the turn. So the action actually happened. So if you had a thing that happens when you "cast a spell", I might conclude that it triggers at that time. (Say, if you're an abjurer, the autoshield proc might...

I think this is the point at which things are diverging, because while the decision may not have been a consciously-considered political decision, it was absolutely a decision which had its roots in societal-scale things; people didn't include things because their culture didn't suggest those as...

I don't comprehend why this would need to be a "rule". Can the giant pick up a thing of that size? Sure. Can the giant wander off? Well, it can try. The other characters could try to stop it.

Make it a plot hook, maybe. Include a spellbook in with some of the colonization supplies, only no one remembers it and it's not on any manifests, and there's something a bit off about it...

I think the distinction is that the DM is probably running the wish spell as innately-adversarial, because a lot of DMs do that, whereas the lawyer has different motives. Compare with "if this orc, run by the DM, is trying to kill me, why would I trust mercenaries I hire?" Well, because the...

Then that isn't "the" answer to "what would my character do". But that's not what you said. What you said was, if your answer to "will this serve these two goals" is "no" or "I'm not sure", pick something else. I'm not reading into. I'm taking it flatly literally and at face value. You said...

Okay, that sounds like a really interesting game, but it doesn't sound like D&D. It mostly sounds like you're trying for excuses to be smug and say things like "if you can't handle this", when all you're really doing is disregarding any rules you don't happen to remember off the top of your...

I've been playing these games for 30+ years now, and I have never met anyone who could learn all the rules that apply to any character more complicated than, maybe, a 1E fighter. Heck, I don't think I've ever actually seen anyone learn all of those, if you include speed factors and the special...

This seems really strange to me. The "answer is always the same" seems to me to be a complete non-answer. If the answer to "what would my character do" doesn't vary between a lawful good paladin and a chaotic neutral thief, then it's not really answering the question at all. And the former, as...

Especially because, if the answer isn't pretty much always "I'm not sure", the chances are you have massively overestimated your understanding of how people work.

I can't even imagine how you could play without access to books during combat.

Yes, I am assuming that the term of art the game rules use exclusively to refer to a specific thing you can do to spells is being used to refer to a specific thing you can do to spells, and no, I don't think it is "more naturally" read as having its ordinary meaning. It says it dispels certain...

It does not dispel darkness not created by a spell, so far as I can tell. Creating light doesn't dispel non-magical darkness, even though it causes the space to no longer be dark. Dispelling is what you do to spells to end their effects.

I think there's been a general statement that you don't need to concentrate for item-based effects.

Then your reading is wrong. The spell says: "It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried." There is no reason for which someone would write this if they actually meant "It ignites flammable objects in the area." The word "that" is what we call a "restrictive...

Okay. Well, no more than they preclude the DM from making a ruling that, in a particular case, the spell tie's someone's shoes. Well, sure. And there's nothing preventing a particular casting of fireball from causing water to freeze. Or providing healing instead of damage to its targets. I...

Do you think that making a ruling that fireball ties your shoes is "making a change to an existing rule"? I would say it is: It's adding a function to the spell it did not previously have. And I would say the same thing for causing it to set fire to worn or carried items. We have a description...

Well, the rule is also silent on whether or not the spell ties your shoes. It's also silent on whether or not it changes your genetics to introduce a peanut allergy. Why do you think it would do one of these things, because it's silent on them, but not the others?