Search results

I understand the counter argument. It feels, though, like we are venturing into Oberoni Fallacy territory here is the point I am trying to make.

You're playing with words a bit here. It is banning: it's disallowing options provided by the core rules. Might want to come up with a different counter-argument?

I get its structure. It's still a nightmare to read through. How about you distill your arguments against AI into your own words?

That is a sort of stream of consciousness nightmare. I can't take any of that seriously. If someone has a cogent argument, they can, you know, present it cogently?

What do you mean by that?

I understand and I see you.

It's not all that matters, but in the long run, for this specific goal, it's futile. In the short run, and the long run, broadcasting to others that caring is important, is important. It affects the way humans view and treat each other. There's almost nothing more vital. But for this...

What I mean is the rest of the post after the bit you are talking about. Caring human beings will know that this is a good thing. The problem is, in the real world, most human beings are not caring (or more accurately, the degree to which they are caring is at an acuteness that cuts off everyone...

One's a bard and the other is collateral damage.

Addendum, errata... whatever. You're proposing some sort of official announcement clarifying your corner case, which I don't mind. Whether your position is in 'obvious need of an errata' is most definitely up for debate though.

That's definitely an option. I don't mind it, although I can imagine some pushback... that tactic could be perceived as a somewhat cartoony/unrealistic approach to combat. @tetrasodium proposed adding an addendum to cover this scenario. I don't mind that, but I still think this is a super...

That first pic is of someone dragging something behind them. As in, the dragger moves in one direction and the dragged item follows in that direction. Just because buddy is turned partially sideways doesn't change the direction he's moving in or the direction the dragged item is moving in. I...

Glad things are over all okay with you. That flooding sounds like hell on earth.

By the way @tetrasodium , how are things for you post-hurricane(s)?

I really did have to ask myself if you were trying to yank my chain or were being serious with this post. I'll assume you were being serious. So you were dragging a tree branch beside you, outside of your 5' space? I don't think so. You were trailing it behind you. Come on. Basic physics at...

Sure, if it stops 2.5 ENWorld posters from dragging someone beside them, I'm all for it! I understand the general principle of what you're saying, but there has to be a line of reasonableness drawn somewhere, where a general common sense has to take over. In this particular instance, I feel...

Quoting software fubar... sorry!

Actually, that's both true and not true. @tetrasodium , keep stating your case.

RAW doesn't care about this unwritten, unrealistic approach to dragging either. If someone brings this approach to the table, frankly they are looking to cause problems. Who has time for that? Someone, go find another game to bother.

Well, no. The patching here is the declaration that dragging someone in that manner is RAW. Everyone else is going by the rules, common sense and playing nice with others.