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
98 Posts 40 Posters 1 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
    I didn't actually know it was or wasn't Crawford, just that such a terrible ruling is very much his brand.
    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
    #67
    He actually has some totally based rulings too. Those just don’t stand out amongst the profoundly dumb ones.
    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • ? Guest
      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
      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
      #68
      I know that this may be a bit of a gap, but it’s a general problem of our society nowadays: Admitting a mistake is unpopular and can be used by others to say "See: even you acknowledged that you were wrong there.", so people only rarely do it. (Especially politicians, stars and corporations/corporate representatives.)
      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • C This user is from outside of this forum
        C This user is from outside of this forum
        Cethin
        wrote last edited by
        #69
        In this case, it's a fucking wall. Just ignore the saving throw and roll for damage. It's not going to dodge your attack or anything like that. For blind firing, yeah. You need to do something else. Maybe roll to see if/what they hit, then the target makes the saving throw if it makes sense.
        ? 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • J jounniy@ttrpg.network
          Yeah I thought of that one as well. It’s one of those weird cases of imprecise wording.
          C This user is from outside of this forum
          C This user is from outside of this forum
          Cethin
          wrote last edited by
          #70
          To be pedantic, the issue is actually caused *by* precise wording. The wording is so precise it limits it too much. The wording is too precise, and inaccurate.
          J 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • ? Guest
            Actually that's us seeing light.
            C This user is from outside of this forum
            C This user is from outside of this forum
            Cethin
            wrote last edited by
            #71
            That's what seeing is. Light. You can't actually directly observe the atoms that make something up. You can see the light that is reflected/emitted from that object.
            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • J jarix@lemmy.world
              Line of effect vs line of sight What is the effect of disintegrate? It's it a force/object that travels from the caster to the target? Or does the effect happen at the object. does the spell require an attack roll? That could also be a clue
              mimicjar@lemmy.worldM This user is from outside of this forum
              mimicjar@lemmy.worldM This user is from outside of this forum
              mimicjar@lemmy.world
              wrote last edited by
              #72
              >A thin green ray springs from your pointing finger to a target that you can see within range. And no attack roll. Which is why I would rule the wall at the very least is destroyed, possibly continuing on.
              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • C Cethin
                To be pedantic, the issue is actually caused *by* precise wording. The wording is so precise it limits it too much. The wording is too precise, and inaccurate.
                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
                #73
                To be very pendantic, it’s the other way around: The wording as very precise at describing both spells, but quite vague at describing their interaction. That’s what leads to the problem.
                C 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • C Cethin
                  In this case, it's a fucking wall. Just ignore the saving throw and roll for damage. It's not going to dodge your attack or anything like that. For blind firing, yeah. You need to do something else. Maybe roll to see if/what they hit, then the target makes the saving throw if it makes sense.
                  ? Offline
                  ? Offline
                  Guest
                  wrote last edited by
                  #74
                  If I was doing it that way (which would be fine in my opinion) I'd want to do the same for other attacks like the fighter swinging a flametongue sword at whichever layer it is that needs fire damage. I just suggested the attack roll version because it brings it into line with other approaches
                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • S shinkantrain@lemmy.ml
                    Oh that's just bullshit
                    ? Offline
                    ? Offline
                    Guest
                    wrote last edited by
                    #75
                    consider: wall of force mimic
                    ? 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • J jounniy@ttrpg.network
                      To be very pendantic, it’s the other way around: The wording as very precise at describing both spells, but quite vague at describing their interaction. That’s what leads to the problem.
                      C This user is from outside of this forum
                      C This user is from outside of this forum
                      Cethin
                      wrote last edited by
                      #76
                      I would say that's a lack of accuracy, not precision. If it was less precise than it's work on more things, and be less focused on one particular thing. If it's more accurate than it is better at describing all targets. Precision: Is your grouping tight. Accuracy: Are you aiming at the target. Precision without accuracy is you very narrowly describe what it does, but you miss the desired target (the player being able to use the spell in a reasonable way).
                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • J jounniy@ttrpg.network
                        This post did not contain any content.
                        starman2112@sh.itjust.worksS This user is from outside of this forum
                        starman2112@sh.itjust.worksS This user is from outside of this forum
                        starman2112@sh.itjust.works
                        wrote last edited by
                        #77
                        In my campaigns, Mystra does not take kindly to pedants or loophole researchers. A spell does what Mystra allows it to do, and you cast what Mystra allows you to cast
                        ? J 2 Replies Last reply
                        0
                        • starman2112@sh.itjust.worksS starman2112@sh.itjust.works
                          In my campaigns, Mystra does not take kindly to pedants or loophole researchers. A spell does what Mystra allows it to do, and you cast what Mystra allows you to cast
                          ? Offline
                          ? Offline
                          Guest
                          wrote last edited by
                          #78
                          Magic may be a fickle bitch, but she likes pedants more than wild mages. 🤷🏼‍♂️
                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • ? Guest
                            consider: wall of force mimic
                            ? Offline
                            ? Offline
                            Guest
                            wrote last edited by
                            #79
                            Invisible mimic? Who are you? *Gygax?!*
                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • J jounniy@ttrpg.network
                              Oh definetly. I assume that RAI this is the intention.
                              ? Offline
                              ? Offline
                              Guest
                              wrote last edited by
                              #80
                              In a pedantic thread re: RAW, you misspell "definitely". More than once. 🤌🏼
                              J 1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • J jounniy@ttrpg.network
                                This post did not contain any content.
                                JackbyDevJ This user is from outside of this forum
                                JackbyDevJ This user is from outside of this forum
                                JackbyDev
                                wrote last edited by
                                #81
                                D&D's invisibility rules are goofy. At least in the (2014 edition, groan) you always get advantage of you're invisible and attacking someone. Even if they can see you. The invisibility condition is worded like "you get advantage on attacks"instead of "Since you're hidden, remember you get advantage on attacks".
                                J 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • J jounniy@ttrpg.network
                                  The wording simply says "a disintegrate spell". It does not say what it has to be cast on or wether it continues to travel towards the real target afterwards. But the implication clearly is that you have to hit the wall. Thus, RAW, even with specific overriding general, you cannot target the wall because it is invisible (nothing in its spell description states otherwise) and you can’t target space behind the wall, as it is behind cover.
                                  ? Offline
                                  ? Offline
                                  Guest
                                  wrote last edited by
                                  #82
                                  Perception check
                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • ? Guest
                                    This is a supremely silly thread and I am enjoying it greatly. Thanks for catalysing these cool discussions OP.
                                    ? Offline
                                    ? Offline
                                    Guest
                                    wrote last edited by
                                    #83
                                    Steels my resolve in pushing my group past 5e
                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • J jounniy@ttrpg.network
                                      This post did not contain any content.
                                      ? Offline
                                      ? Offline
                                      Guest
                                      wrote last edited by
                                      #84
                                      Not going to lie. People who argue for rules like Jesse in the meme, makes me not want to play D&D.
                                      J 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • J jounniy@ttrpg.network
                                        The wording simply says "a disintegrate spell". It does not say what it has to be cast on or wether it continues to travel towards the real target afterwards. But the implication clearly is that you have to hit the wall. Thus, RAW, even with specific overriding general, you cannot target the wall because it is invisible (nothing in its spell description states otherwise) and you can’t target space behind the wall, as it is behind cover.
                                        ? Offline
                                        ? Offline
                                        Guest
                                        wrote last edited by
                                        #85
                                        In order for the *specific* circumstance called out by the disintegrate spell description to be possible it *requires* a violation of the general case, yes. That is literally the point of the "specific overrides general" rule. One of two things must be true for disintegrate to be able to destroy a wall of force: 1: The Wall is targetable by disintegrate. 2: Objects on the far side of the wall must be targetable by disintegrate and the wall gets in the way. For "specific overrides general" to hold a DM *must* rule that one of these is the case, otherwise the *extremely specific* interaction called out in the disintegrate spell description is impossible. Of course as DM you can rule that this is not the case and disintegrate does not destroy a wall of force, such is the prerogative of a DM, but I am firmly of the opinion that such a ruling is not RAW.
                                        J 1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • ? Guest
                                          Nope ![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/e83c00b0-7101-48af-af89-927e2d185551.png)
                                          ? Offline
                                          ? Offline
                                          Guest
                                          wrote last edited by
                                          #86
                                          Entirely unrelated, but I love how this makes it seem like magical items emit radiation that gets blocked by objects and gets detected by the geiger counter spell that is detect magic.
                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0

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


                                          • 1
                                          • 2
                                          • 3
                                          • 4
                                          • 5
                                          • 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