Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 6323598" data-attributes="member: 18">Yes, with largely with you and Mistwell. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Takes two to tango. You both like to dissect my posts, and then say I'm saying things that I'm explicitly not (to be fair, I'm sometimes unclear, but I do then clarify!), hence I get into this kind of conversation with you. It's pretty obvious cause-and-effect! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I'm summarizing, not repeating the entire argument. If you can't forgive imprecision there, you're asking too much for my money/time, and probably should put me on ignore.You only need one Hobgoblin and other "allies" to make the ability go. Your suspicions are wrong, by the way, and I have no idea how you come by them. They defy very basic logic. If you insist on assuming other people are illogical on such a basic level, your ability to understand their arguments is going to be pretty weak (one might question how much of a "theory of mind" you have regarding others, at least via the internet, too).Non-sentient means not self-aware, not "an object", Kobold. A cat is non-sentient. A human is sentient. Things that are fighting on the same side are usually considered "allies" in D&D.<a href="http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_ally&alpha=" target="_blank">http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_ally&alpha=</a>So you will please reconsider this in the light of the definition above (which I believe is likely to apply) and the fact that you seem to have misunderstood "non-sentient" to mean "objects" rather than "non-sentients who could be allies".Again, I'm not making a detailed argument, I'm summarizing reasons. If you want a detailed argument, it's already been made. Repeating it is redundant (though feel free to do so yourself!).Sure it's evidence of bad design. Good design includes good naming of abilities (many designers have said as much). That's not rocket science, is it?It is. It's just not something you agree with. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Yes, it is. Virtually every possible reason to consider something badly designed is potentially subjective, whether you like that or not*. You're welcome to disagree with the point, but it is no more or less subjective than the ranged one, which you agree with.If you're looking for "purely objective proof" of bad design, you're being pretty silly, I would suggest. I'm offering an opinion as to why it might be considered bad design. You can take that or leave it, but you can't whinge about "subjective" or the like.* = Unless there is a very strict framework behind abilities, like in 4E. But in 5E, there isn't, as far as we know.</blockquote>

Verification