Search results

Hiding in the sentence is being used as both the act of hiding and being hidden. That's how the rules describe rolling stealth to hide and being hidden, hiding. What you're attempting to do is differentiate between the act and the state. The errata and the rules themselves make no such...

incorrect. Errata has been published which has changed the rules for hiding to only requiring that you be unclearly seen. Being observed while unclearly seen is irrelevant for the question of if you can hide or not. If you're unclearly seen, you can hide. To be clear this is the errata...

Well perhaps we need to let go of the kind of default assumption in an exception based system if it would cause us to arch our backs every time an exception showed up :p

Pretty much this and besides if I really wanted to make rulings and houserules, having a clear and consistent rules base never prevented anyone from doing so. The excuse that clear rules limits roleplaying is akin to the stormwind fallacy imo. I can't RP because the rules are clear and well...

That's because it is and you're correct that it was an intentional design choice. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot before the gate even opens. They have now spent unknown amounts of hours dealing with tweeted questions, have nominated a lead dev to deal with those questions, have a...

You might want to discuss with your DM what Skulker would actually grant you in terms of benefits post stealth errata. Now that you only need to be "unclearly seen" instead of unseen to hide, it's possible that the chief benefit of Skulker is now redundant since being lightly obscured / having...

Exactly. Spells that use a single damage roll but can affect multiple targets (Fireball, Magic Missile, etc..) are able to really benefit from this feature.

Oh nice, thank you for posting the info :) I thought it was a castle, not a mill!

Moderator Note: By The Rules - do not discuss moderation in-thread. Please take it to e-mail or PM if you have a question or comment. Thanks. ~Umbran

When Jeremy Crawford decides to address a question on twitter in 140 characters, it's not an argument (as Arial Black would like to make people believe): it's the answer to your question. There is no debate to be had, he's the lead designer who has been designated to answer rules questions by...

the wole "or seems to" is where your disconnect is happening. You're inferring meaning into his tweet response because if you don't your main claim falls apart. In other words, it's circular reasoning. And I'm glad I'm not the only one who is catching you doing it now.

Google fu gave me another angle of the same place but not the name of the location or even if it's a real place yet. ill keep looking though.

You're correct Caliban, they are at best RAI answers. However, RAI explains that the spell doesn't have multiple damage rolls, instead you roll once and apply the same result for every missile you attack with. So you would roll 1d4+1+INT and then apply that value for to each of the 3 missiles...

To be completely honest I'm not 100% sure. It's a beautiful scenery though and since it gave the right idea for what Cragmaw is described I used it when I ran the module. I'm sure someone could do some kind of back search and find out with some google fu

No I'm talking about his posts, arguments, position he's forwarding and so on. I'm sorry you don't understand this but there's a difference between making personal attacks and making statements in regards to the arguments someone is presenting. Saying someone is an idiot is different than...

And I'm talking about his previous posts and his arguments which twist the dev tweets we present in our arguments as evidence. I'm not talking about him personally or making personal attacks against him. I even point to his previous posts in the thread. I don't say that he's an idiot or other...

In this case it is, you're attacking me personally instead of focusing on the arguments I've posted.

I don't think you making personal attacks against me will help either Ovinomancer. Personal attacks are the resort of people who have nothing to add to the discussion and they know it. You don't take part in the discussion. You attack the people participating in it directly. If you think...

I don't think making personal attacks against me will make this discussion better seebs.