Search results

As a suggestion, "what works for me..." statements rather than potentially universal recommendations could possibly help keep the peace. Having allies that can agree to differ, as I've repeatedly mentioned, may also help. I'm not telling you how to speak here. I'm just saying what I think...

at this later stage you mention:

If I've got the reference right, I think we'd need to clarify if further situations could be categorized as "free pass" or "earned".

edit

that relates to the question: If you don't know that the sphere has been stopped then you won't know its current position when you start its next move. In regard to control it says: "As a bonus action, you can move the sphere up to 30 feet. .... When you move the sphere, you can direct it...

I've seen that phrase used one, single time in this entire sprawling thread. Is he saying your "playing style" is "persuading the DM"? Where? refs?

OK. So it can be ok for people at your table to not have their "action declarations include both a goal and an approach"?

Yep, it strikes me that it's the incessant, arrogant persistence that gets people's backs up.

I don't doubt that history could have produced far, far worse. It's a shame because your: ... is so close to my preference that action declarations include both a goal and an approach. Is having this as a preference better than having it as an expectation? That's what I believe. But I won't...

Was that here?: I guess that may indeed have been one of the things that could have got people's backs up. 🤷‍♂️ Could a presentation of a play style as better than others that are played elsewhere have contributed to annoyance?

But you agree that a player approach where a 'player is playing "Persuade the DM"' is less than ideal? That was the, I'd think, honest interpretation that was made.

I'm sure you have your view but, on the basis of the description: "As a bonus action, you can move the sphere up to 30 feet" there doesn't seem to be a dependence on sight. It adds that, "If you ram the sphere into a creature, that creature must make the saving throw against the sphere's...

Now there's the nub. I've got my thoughts, but on the topic of "that", you had said: I value your views that "people run perfectly successful games" in different ways but questioned any significant correlation of people caring about issues metagaming and people opposed to the technique that...

An honest interpretation of what has been said might conceivably be a misrepresentation of a not specified reality but you'd still need to make your case. I would have hoped that someone that advocated something more than a " less than charitable assessment" could appreciate this. Honestly...

I suspect that RAI would likely to allow the spell work in a Minecraft-like way with two of its instantaneous effects, though I don't see that this is directly supported by RAW. I similarly suspect it may be badly written in any number of other ways.

Me neither. I'm just looking at what they say per my statements. (y)

I guess that you could argue that you "cause the water to form simple shapes" from a 5 ft cube below to a 5ft cube above. All the same, even this describes shapes and not flying/levitating shapes. Good luck with any DM.

Cool, I was asking the question: