Search results

Sure. The fiction of the spell is that the magic guides the attack, then the weapon does damage in accordance with physical laws*, much like Guidance, Mage Hand, and the Druid spell for throwing rocks at people. But the ability talks about attacking with a spell, not hitting with a spell or...

You said “the weapon does no damage”. You said nothing about hitting or missing.

So I swing my dagger, and it hits the target in the eye, but it does no damage?

Depends which ability score is higher.

Pretty much a Tintin story (Red Rackham's Treasure). The thing about wooden ships is they are quite difficult to sink. But what you don't want to do is get the "treasure" which might be something like tobacco, wet. Or inflict any more damage than necessary on the prize ship. But, as already...

Your ability to consistently miss the point is astonishing,

Sure it is. You apply a force and it moves an object. The source of the force might be magic, but the effect of the force follows physical laws. But this is just applying your level of interpretation to the text. None of it is part of the author's intent. It's supposed to be interpreted in...

The half that matters is the emotional impact. You don't get to tell people if you consider the emotional impact justified - by your definition of justice. You either acknowledge the hurt and try to avoid it in future, or you are the bad guy.

Mage Hand can exert 5 lb of force. Force is a physical law, ergo Mage Hand is not a spell.

Plenty of 17th and 18th century ships weren’t huge. If you can build a big ship you can build a small ship. And once you start adding in magitech anything is possible. Size of ship is largely a combination of available materials and the socio-political situation. If your setting has no oak or...

Good example of why your comprehension is off. This is saying a spell may ignore physical laws, not that it must ignore physical laws.

I meant the exact quote, since lots of things you say are in the rules, are your inferences, not part of the text.

Source?

Which are exactly the games played by forum theorycrafters, not the general public.

Which is completely irrelevant - the ability says nothing about components or “spell attacks” either way. Maybe think about what the rules mean rather than applying an over literal interpretation apply to something it was never intended to be connected to.

No. The rules do not state that. You are doing “the rules state X therefore Y follows…” when that is not at all implied.

Nope. Most of the players wanted the game to stay as it was. Which is what we got. It’s only forum theorycrafters who always want stuff “fixed”.

That seems unlikely to me. In a truly equal and multicultural society it seems to me that kind of relationship would be a quirky anomaly, especially amongst people who have chosen to spend their lives travelling.

There was a lot of wailing during the beta test and when BG3 first came out that being good was not sufficiently “rewarding”. I do think some people don’t understand the difference between good and mercenary. Nevertheless, the statistics show that the majority of BG3 players chose good options...

A “drastic shift” is a bad idea. When people buy a game called D&D they expect to be able to play D&D, not some other game, no matter how good it is.