948 reputation
610
bio website
location
age
visits member for 3 years, 11 months
seen 3 hours ago

Mar
25
revised Specific charming rules?
added 899 characters in body
Mar
25
comment Does Ray of Enfeeblement affect a Hunter's Mark too?
This is also consistent with how Resistance and Vulnerability work (PHB 197). First all addition and subtraction modifiers are applied, and then you divide and multiply. If it ever matters, it appears to go ((damage + extra damage) / divisor) * multiple, meaning you halve (and thus round down) before you double.
Mar
23
answered Specific charming rules?
Mar
22
comment Can Detect Magic reveal illusions?
@Miniman The point is that a pure, RAW reading has consequences, and ignoring that is not answering the question fully. The RAW reading requires knowledge of what is and isn't an object. The game doesn't provide that. Reality doesn't provide that, obviously, because magic is imaginary. So if we follow the RAW, we need extra DM adjudication on every spell effect. That's less consistent which isn't what RAW is supposed to do. Saying, "This is the rule as it is written... but that is nonsense," is perfectly valid.
Mar
22
comment Can Detect Magic reveal illusions?
@Miniman I agree that's the RAW reading; that's why I added that as a comment and not another answer. The issue is that a pure RAW reading -- that magical effects not linked to objects aren't discernible at all -- seems to contradict with what I think most people expect. It also means the game would have to define what magical effects create objects and which don't, and, well, the descriptions don't. What criteria do I use to determine if something is an object? Tiny hut? Wall of force? Wall of fire? Silence (Is a point in space on object)? Phantom steed?
Mar
22
comment Can Detect Magic reveal illusions?
I think you're turning too heavily on the phrasing of the spell. Is tangibility a requirement? Is magical fire detectable? How about a wall of force? How about a leomund's tiny hut, or is that only detectable to barred creatures? It feels to me like we're altering too much of what I expect the average player is going to perceive as obvious functionality: detecting magic should detect spell effects. I would rather a spell effect be considered an object -- an undefined term as it is -- than have obscure functionality for detect magic. After all, Nystul's magic aura exists for a reason.
Mar
21
awarded  Enlightened
Mar
21
awarded  Nice Answer
Mar
21
revised Geas spell effect
added 38 characters in body
Mar
19
answered Geas spell effect
Mar
19
comment Is there any way for a 3rd level Human Eldritch Knight to have a sustainable source of dark vision?
Yes, but it solves the second problem of the lantern. Forget the lantern.
Mar
19
answered Is there any way for a 3rd level Human Eldritch Knight to have a sustainable source of dark vision?
Mar
19
awarded  Critic
Mar
19
comment How can you perceive burrowing?
-1 These are methods to gain tremorsense or detect through solid materials, which I do not buy as the baseline criteria required to detect active burrowing or mining.
Mar
18
comment Is there any way for a 3rd level Human Eldritch Knight to have a sustainable source of dark vision?
No light cantrip?
Mar
11
comment What do I do about a power gamer?
@thedarkwanderer And don't you think that suggests an even deeper problem then? I've been on SE for years. This never occurred to me because nothing on the locked question explains what historical locking is for.
Mar
10
comment What do I do about a power gamer?
@thedarkwanderer No, this is the question that's pointed to, which has been locked as a bad question, and closed because it was too broad. That's literally what it says on that question. Why should we expect someone to find a question that's been deprecated and consider it an answer?
Mar
9
comment What do I do about a power gamer?
Meta: "This is a duplicate of a question that was closed as a bad question"? Really? I have no problem with it being marked a dupe, but can we at least direct them to a good question if we must mark it a dupe?
Jan
24
comment Where will errata be posted/published?
I recall their idea being that they would do something like take a periodic survey (perhaps annually) of house rules and change suggestions. From the responses to that they would aggregate rules suggestions and clarifications, and that they would basically be published along side the Basic rules. If WotC hadn't broken their website so completely by making it "optimized for mobile," I'm sure I'd be able to find the article about it.
Jan
24
comment Wizard minor conjuration ability interpretation
I agree, and that's my point. If you conjure a bucket of oil, you should be able to dump it out. In plain English, that damages nothing and creates a slick surface. If you conjure a bucket of water, can you put out a real fire? Drinking or cooking in water doesn't damage it in plain English, so what happens? How about conjuring a bag of salt and dropping it into water? A bucket of lime, mixing it with ash and stones, and then adding water? A bag of baking soda into some acid? A vial of acid poured onto metal? A plate of copper used in a pile? Do you argue you just can't conjure liquids? Why?