Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Darkly)
  • No Skin
Collapse

Chebucto Regional Softball Club

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. This definetly seem very intentional…
A forum for discussing and organizing recreational softball and baseball games and leagues in the greater Halifax area.

This definetly seem very intentional…

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
rpgmemes
58 Posts 29 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • ? Guest
    And this is why my group is ok saying "that rule is profoundly dumb" and ignoring it while suspecting Crawford of being involved.
    ? Offline
    ? Offline
    Guest
    wrote last edited by
    #40
    Ironically here, Crawford actually thinks that the text of _disintegrate_ does in fact permit you to target a _wall of force_ that you can't see. I don't quite understand how he thinks it says that, but it does at least confirm the intention
    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • ? Guest
      And this is why my group is ok saying "that rule is profoundly dumb" and ignoring it while suspecting Crawford of being involved.
      J This user is from outside of this forum
      J This user is from outside of this forum
      jounniy@ttrpg.network
      wrote last edited by
      #41
      That one has nothing to do with Crawford far as I'm aware. It’s just plain stupid interaction of several rules. You are definetly intended to be able to just cast disintegrate on the wall. Some rules are intended in a certain way and just handled poorly. The above case is (I personally think) one of them. Others are actually intended to work a certain way because of designing aspects (like verbal components having to be said at a normal volume) but simply people decide to ditch them anyway, because they like something else better. Both are valid, but they are different.
      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • J jounniy@ttrpg.network
        Funnily enough, Shatter actually has a very easy solution: Objects just take the damage and that’s it.
        ? Offline
        ? Offline
        Guest
        wrote last edited by
        #42
        The ever-reliable bardic frag grenade
        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • ? Guest
          I'd argue you can 'see' the wall if you place something on it, like: - your hand - your frontline's hand (or some other body part) - a ghost's hand - flour, dust, tar, enemies' blood, coughing syrup, and other things that could stick to the surface - gecko, spider, and other creatures that wouldn't fall off; probably also your familiar
          ? Offline
          ? Offline
          Guest
          wrote last edited by
          #43
          Or just interpret it as line of sight.
          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • ? Guest
            ![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/e0a346c3-1ae0-4ceb-8e40-35195403a135.png)
            ? Offline
            ? Offline
            Guest
            wrote last edited by
            #44
            I don't get it. Can you explain?
            S 1 Reply Last reply
            1
            0
            • J jounniy@ttrpg.network
              This post did not contain any content.
              ? Offline
              ? Offline
              Guest
              wrote last edited by
              #45
              This is a supremely silly thread and I am enjoying it greatly. Thanks for catalysing these cool discussions OP.
              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • ? Guest
                I don't get it. Can you explain?
                S This user is from outside of this forum
                S This user is from outside of this forum
                shinkantrain@lemmy.ml
                wrote last edited by
                #46
                The problem is that the RAW implies only things considered creatures caught in the area take damage
                ? 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • ? Offline
                  ? Offline
                  Guest
                  wrote last edited by
                  #47
                  Rulings like this annoy me. Like, if he had said "the spell is poorly written, because our intention is that a wall of force can be targeted by disintegrate, but you're right that that's not what the spell descriptions say", then I'd be able to respect that a lot more than what you describe him saying. Words are a slippery beast, and there will always be a gap between Rules as Intended and Rules as Written. Good game design can reduce that gap, but not if the designers aren't willing to acknowledge the chasm they have created
                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • Aielman15A Aielman15
                    Crawford also rules that See Invisibility doesn't remove the advantage/disadvantage on attack rolls because it doesn't say so in the spell's effect, so... Yeah, I always ignore what he says.
                    ? Offline
                    ? Offline
                    Guest
                    wrote last edited by
                    #48
                    What? That's so silly.
                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • ? Guest
                      By that logic you can see air because there's clouds in the sky.
                      ? Offline
                      ? Offline
                      Guest
                      wrote last edited by
                      #49
                      There's also blue in the sky. That's literally you seeing the air
                      ? 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • ? Guest
                        There's also blue in the sky. That's literally you seeing the air
                        ? Offline
                        ? Offline
                        Guest
                        wrote last edited by
                        #50
                        Actually that's us seeing light.
                        ? 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • ? Guest
                          Actually that's us seeing light.
                          ? Offline
                          ? Offline
                          Guest
                          wrote last edited by
                          #51
                          Light bouncing off of air molecules, yes. That's how seeing things works
                          ? 1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • S shinkantrain@lemmy.ml
                            The problem is that the RAW implies only things considered creatures caught in the area take damage
                            ? Offline
                            ? Offline
                            Guest
                            wrote last edited by
                            #52
                            I'm going to preface this by saying I am 100% in favor of using common sense, and I have always allowed players to damage objects with spells as long as it makes sense. For example, I probably wouldn't let a player "inflict wounds" on a locked door, but I would happily let them "thunderous smite" it. But in the spirit of this thread, if we're applying a rigidly narrow interpretation of the rules as written, a spell only does what its description says it does. Cone of Cold does not say it damages objects. It says it damages creatures that fail a saving throw. Yes, Chapter 8 says "Characters can also damage objects with their weapons and spells" - and indeed they can, if they use a suitable spell such as Fire Bolt or Shatter which can damage objects according to its spell description. Again, that's Rules Lawyer Jesse Pinkman talking, and does not represent my own beliefs or opinions.
                            S 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • ? Guest
                              I'm going to preface this by saying I am 100% in favor of using common sense, and I have always allowed players to damage objects with spells as long as it makes sense. For example, I probably wouldn't let a player "inflict wounds" on a locked door, but I would happily let them "thunderous smite" it. But in the spirit of this thread, if we're applying a rigidly narrow interpretation of the rules as written, a spell only does what its description says it does. Cone of Cold does not say it damages objects. It says it damages creatures that fail a saving throw. Yes, Chapter 8 says "Characters can also damage objects with their weapons and spells" - and indeed they can, if they use a suitable spell such as Fire Bolt or Shatter which can damage objects according to its spell description. Again, that's Rules Lawyer Jesse Pinkman talking, and does not represent my own beliefs or opinions.
                              S This user is from outside of this forum
                              S This user is from outside of this forum
                              shinkantrain@lemmy.ml
                              wrote last edited by
                              #53
                              Who would win, Gravity Fissure vs small porcelain vase
                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • ? Guest
                                Light bouncing off of air molecules, yes. That's how seeing things works
                                ? Offline
                                ? Offline
                                Guest
                                wrote last edited by
                                #54
                                Do you see your own eyes? Like without a mirror
                                ? 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • ? Guest
                                  Do you see your own eyes? Like without a mirror
                                  ? Offline
                                  ? Offline
                                  Guest
                                  wrote last edited by
                                  #55
                                  No. Why is that relevant?
                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • J jounniy@ttrpg.network
                                    As I have said in another comment, that is RAW not what would happen: "You can’t even cast it on something behind the wall, because you cannot target something (or someone) with a spell if they are behind total cover. Total cover is created by being behind completely behind an obstacle (like a wall). This counts even if the obstacle is invisible." Furthermore, because if you chose an invalid target for a spell, you’d still expend the spellslot but there would be no effect. So you actually spend a sixth level spell a lot to achieve nothing." It’s very much not RAI I'd say and I would likely handle exactly like you described, but the RAW was so wonky that I wanted to make the meme when I found out about it.
                                    ? Offline
                                    ? Offline
                                    Guest
                                    wrote last edited by
                                    #56
                                    "Specific overrides general" *is* RAW though, and the spell description of Wall of Force calls out that exact spell interaction as a way to destroy it.
                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • J jounniy@ttrpg.network
                                      As I have said in another comment, that is RAW not what would happen: "You can’t even cast it on something behind the wall, because you cannot target something (or someone) with a spell if they are behind total cover. Total cover is created by being behind completely behind an obstacle (like a wall). This counts even if the obstacle is invisible." Furthermore, because if you chose an invalid target for a spell, you’d still expend the spellslot but there would be no effect. So you actually spend a sixth level spell a lot to achieve nothing." It’s very much not RAI I'd say and I would likely handle exactly like you described, but the RAW was so wonky that I wanted to make the meme when I found out about it.
                                      B This user is from outside of this forum
                                      B This user is from outside of this forum
                                      bouh@lemmy.world
                                      wrote last edited by
                                      #57
                                      I guess you're talking about 2024 rules? Because old 5e rules are different and don't have this flaw.
                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • ? Guest
                                        By that logic you can see air because there's clouds in the sky.
                                        ? Offline
                                        ? Offline
                                        Guest
                                        wrote last edited by
                                        #58
                                        How about blind or very sight-impaired characters? Could they “see” the wall as they “see” everything, by touching it? That’s as well as they can see anything. Is seeing the same as visualizing? Because the cloud’s shapes and height clearly give you an idea where a mass of air with certain common characteristics is, where it starts, and where it ends.
                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0

                                        Reply
                                        • Reply as topic
                                        Log in to reply
                                        • Oldest to Newest
                                        • Newest to Oldest
                                        • Most Votes


                                        • 1
                                        • 2
                                        • 3
                                        • Login

                                        • Don't have an account? Register

                                        • Login or register to search.
                                        Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                                        • First post
                                          Last post
                                        0
                                        • Categories
                                        • Recent
                                        • Tags
                                        • Popular
                                        • World
                                        • Users
                                        • Groups