Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Any D&D/D20

Shadowrun

World of Darkness

Palladium

Other (feel free to post about it)

[delphonso]

With Baby's Day Out style reckless endangerment of infants?

[scriver]

Only if I can play Hagrid with Agragogigaogogog

[MrRoboto75]

Agragogigaogogog

Gesundheit

[Kagus]

Dominate and Haste could still be Twinned under that criteria since the issue is not with multiple rolls but a singular roll affecting multiple creatures. Fire bolt has always been unable to be twinned by a strict reading of the spell, and Hex, Hunter's Mark and Heat Metal were always not eligible (doubly so for Heat Metal since it doesn't target a creature)

Also being Hasted to be able to Dodge, Disengage or do other stuff so you can spend your normal action to cast a spell is extremely helpful.

Well, "singular roll affecting multiple creatures" is technically one of the things the errata doesn't like, but that's besides the point I was trying to make... Dominating an enemy can make you force that dominated creature to perform some sort of action on another creature that would require a saving throw (say, grappling), thus causing that spell to force multiple creatures to make saving throws. Same goes for Haste, the haste action can be used to force saving throws on multiple things, or even used in an attack by someone with the Sweeping Attack battle maneuver to "make a roll of any kind that affects more than one creature".

Now, this is up to interpretation of the intention of what qualifies as within the scope of the spell or not... A dominated creature isn't using any supernatural skills or abilities, it's just using what it could always use on targets of your discretion. Dragon's Breath, the spell this errata was aimed at resolving, grants affected creatures a special action that's described as part of the spell itself, and is therefore "spell-ier" than something a dominated creature would do... But then again, so does Haste.

One could argue that Haste is still allowed because everything included within the limits of the hasted action are things the creature would be able to do normally, whereas characters normally cannot use a breath weapon as in the case of Dragon's Breath. ...but, then, is it allowable to use it on Dragonborn, who can use breath weapons normally?


That's an awfully strict interpretation of Fire Bolt though, and one I doubt is shared by much of the community considering the general consensus seems to be that twinned Fire Bolt is legit... Or at least was. It's now definitely in the bin though; along with Levitate, Enlarge/Reduce, Otiluke's etc.

That interpretation is however supported (in as much as it isn't unambiguously rejected) by an earlier SA of Crawford's, the "Twin Spell test":

Twinned Spell test: can the spell affect only one creature at the spell's current level, and is its range not self? If yes, TS works.

...which, by similar interpretation, excludes things like Gaseous Form and Invisibility, since those also affect the equipment worn by the targeted creature. So I guess those are out, too.


Anyways, fun times with stupidity: Say you're an Illusionist at 14th level or higher, and you've got at least one concentration-free Major Image following you around... You then shape the image into, say, a rock or statue filling up the full 20' cube, and use your 14th level ability to make it "real" for 1 minute.

You then cast True Polymorph on the object, turning it into any creature smaller than the object (considering it's a 20' cube, that means pretty much anything).

So... First off, that probably shouldn't happen at all, even if it is a "real" object... It's still a "real" illusion. But if it did happen, would the creature be able to attack or cause damage? Is the polymorphed creature still the "object" created by the Illusory Reality, and therefore bound to Illusory Reality's limitations... Or is it now under the magical rules and laws of True Polymorph?

Only if I can play Hagrid with Agragogigaogogog

Q: Are the spiders in the Forbidden Forest uninterested in Harry Potter?

A: No. They are agog.

[Persus13]

Dominate and Haste could still be Twinned under that criteria since the issue is not with multiple rolls but a singular roll affecting multiple creatures. Fire bolt has always been unable to be twinned by a strict reading of the spell, and Hex, Hunter's Mark and Heat Metal were always not eligible (doubly so for Heat Metal since it doesn't target a creature)

Also being Hasted to be able to Dodge, Disengage or do other stuff so you can spend your normal action to cast a spell is extremely helpful.

Well, "singular roll affecting multiple creatures" is technically one of the things the errata doesn't like, but that's besides the point I was trying to make... Dominating an enemy can make you force that dominated creature to perform some sort of action on another creature that would require a saving throw (say, grappling), thus causing that spell to force multiple creatures to make saving throws. Same goes for Haste, the haste action can be used to force saving throws on multiple things, or even used in an attack by someone with the Sweeping Attack battle maneuver to "make a roll of any kind that affects more than one creature".

Now, this is up to interpretation of the intention of what qualifies as within the scope of the spell or not... A dominated creature isn't using any supernatural skills or abilities, it's just using what it could always use on targets of your discretion. Dragon's Breath, the spell this errata was aimed at resolving, grants affected creatures a special action that's described as part of the spell itself, and is therefore "spell-ier" than something a dominated creature would do... But then again, so does Haste.

One could argue that Haste is still allowed because everything included within the limits of the hasted action are things the creature would be able to do normally, whereas characters normally cannot use a breath weapon as in the case of Dragon's Breath. ...but, then, is it allowable to use it on Dragonborn, who can use breath weapons normally?

If you want to screw yourself out of twin spells by claiming a spell causes a butterfly effect, that's on you. But when none of that stuff is listed in the spell, the spell doesn't cause it, so that's not an issue.

That's an awfully strict interpretation of Fire Bolt though, and one I doubt is shared by much of the community considering the general consensus seems to be that twinned Fire Bolt is legit... Or at least was. It's now definitely in the bin though; along with Levitate, Enlarge/Reduce, Otiluke's etc.

That's fine, but the only community consensus that matters when playing an RPG is what the players and DM agree upon at a single table. And some of those always didn't allow it. Have you actually found a 5e game yet? I highly recommend you actually get in a game of 5e when you can, so you can actually see what its like, because white paper D&D builds and such online are very different from actually playing the game.

[Iduno]

That's fine, but the only community consensus that matters when playing an RPG is what the players and DM agree upon at a single table. And some of those always didn't allow it.

That seems like the sort of thing that rules are for in most game systems.

[Persus13]

That's fine, but the only community consensus that matters when playing an RPG is what the players and DM agree upon at a single table. And some of those always didn't allow it.

That seems like the sort of thing that rules are for in most game systems.

Rules are nice, but most tables I've been at where the players and the DM disagreed on which rules/game system they were using ended poorly.

[Kadzar]

Q: Are the spiders in the Forbidden Forest uninterested in Harry Potter?

A: No. They are agog.

Are you sure they aren't your pal, Gog-Agog?

That's fine, but the only community consensus that matters when playing an RPG is what the players and DM agree upon at a single table. And some of those always didn't allow it.

That seems like the sort of thing that rules are for in most game systems.

Rules are nice, but most tables I've been at where the players and the DM disagreed on which rules/game system they were using ended poorly.

One thing I like about Stars Without Number is how the author frequently emphasizes that rules only need to be balanced for your table, rather than some hypothetical ideal. So while, hypothetically, a certain combo could cause a problem, if it's not a problem for your table then it isn't a problem. If it is, or if something not disbarred by the rules is a problem, then you should talk about it and do something to resolve that problem.

The whole idea of a single set of rules that everyone playing a game is meant to strictly abide by comes from organized play, where people wanted to be able to switch characters between tables and not have to deal with a lot of rules mismatch. For playing with a single table, it's fine if the way you use the rules isn't exactly the same as everyone else.

[scriver]

You clearly have never had any arguments about Uno home ryles

[Kagus]

That's fine, but the only community consensus that matters when playing an RPG is what the players and DM agree upon at a single table. And some of those always didn't allow it.

That seems like the sort of thing that rules are for in most game systems.

Rules are nice, but most tables I've been at where the players and the DM disagreed on which rules/game system they were using ended poorly.

That's kind of the point though; having a base set of rules allows people to go into a game knowing that everyone's more or less on the same page as far as how the game works. Anything above and beyond that, or different from it, can be handled by the DM if they so choose (without having to try and summarize the entire system every time).

However, when your base set of rules is unclear, then people coming to the table thinking they're on the same page as anyone else can get a rude awakening when something pops up down the line and everyone who thought they were using "standard rules" discovers that there were more disagreements than they were expecting.

Yes, final decision is always up to the DM. But it's a nice little luxury to know sort of what those decisions might look like before you're a character and several sessions in.

Some tables use crit fail/success rules for ability checks. That's fine and up to them, but it's specifically non-standard and can be clearly stated as such. "By the way, we use crits for ability checks", and people understand what that means because they're otherwise familiar with the core rules. It's something you'd expect to be notified of before getting into the game, because those familiar with the core rules won't expect ability crits to be part of it.


It's not a matter of me trying to "screw myself out of" particular spells, it's a matter of trying to understand what the Sage Advice "rule clarification" is intended to mean, since that's supposed to apply to the core rules people should be familiar with as a foundation (or rather, in this case, trying to show why I feel the errata could be seen as unreasonable or be interpreted in such a fashion). And when Crawford gives incomplete or confusing "clarifications" to the core rules, including ones that seem to drastically change what was presumed to be the initial intent, that's when I feel like I'm becoming disillusioned with SA.

If you're looking for a game of 5e DnD and you find a group and get to the table only to discover that they're rolling under d100s for skill checks and using a deck of playing cards as an extra resource then you'd probably feel a bit confused and uncertain about what else you don't know about this game that you thought you knew how to play. So yes, community consensus on what the core rules are supposed to mean is important, even though it's perfectly reasonable (and even common) to play a long and successful game with a table consensus of something completely different.


As for finding a meatspace game to play in; I'm not sure if anyone's noticed, but there's a pandemic on at the moment.

[scriver]

If you're looking for a game of 5e DnD and you find a group and get to the table only to discover that they're rolling under d100s for skill checks and using a deck of playing cards as an extra resource then you'd probably feel a bit confused and uncertain about what else you don't know about this game that you thought you knew how to play. So yes, community consensus on what the core rules are supposed to mean is important, even though it's perfectly reasonable (and even common) to play a long and successful game with a table consensus of something completely different.

We actually did a fun excercise on that as part of a social thing I was in last year. You're divided up into several groups and given a deck of cards and a few short rules for a game (basically what the game of Hearts on ye old Microsoft computers was). Except every group gets slightly different rules, like what colour is trumf, or how to count points, or who goes when and that sort of thing. And then they forbid you from speaking at all, and you get to play for a few rounds, then they start moving people between tables. And you have no fucking clue what the other people are playing or why the fuck you win or lose, and you still have to be silent so you have to try and communicate your confusion and/or the rules (or what you think are the rules) without a single word.

It was hilarous.

[IcyTea31]

There's the Great Chairman's Game too. This is the only rule I'm allowed to tell you.

[Persus13]

It's not a matter of me trying to "screw myself out of" particular spells, it's a matter of trying to understand what the Sage Advice "rule clarification" is intended to mean, since that's supposed to apply to the core rules people should be familiar with as a foundation (or rather, in this case, trying to show why I feel the errata could be seen as unreasonable or be interpreted in such a fashion). And when Crawford gives incomplete or confusing "clarifications" to the core rules, including ones that seem to drastically change what was presumed to be the initial intent, that's when I feel like I'm becoming disillusioned with SA.

If you're looking for a game of 5e DnD and you find a group and get to the table only to discover that they're rolling under d100s for skill checks and using a deck of playing cards as an extra resource then you'd probably feel a bit confused and uncertain about what else you don't know about this game that you thought you knew how to play. So yes, community consensus on what the core rules are supposed to mean is important, even though it's perfectly reasonable (and even common) to play a long and successful game with a table consensus of something completely different.

The thing is, every RPG system I've ever played with different DMs has had a different feel or style, and that includes how they run the rules. Rule variation is going to happen no matter how tightly you build your system (unless your system is one page of rules, but that's a different kettle of fish), and you're going to find it no matter what table you go to. There's also a big difference between rolling d100s instead of d20s and talking to your DM about whether you can twin a spell.

Also, since you seem confused on this point. Sage Advice is guidance for DMs on how they rule things at their table, not errata, that's a separate document, (Stuff in Sage Advice isn't listed in Player's Handbooks), buts its still a handy thing to consider as a DM and I think its sensible for the most part. If you have a problem with Sage Advice, or even if you agree with it overall but don't want to correct a player or DM in the middle of the game, you can ignore it and run your own table, and Crawford will be the first person to tell you that. This Sage Advice is to give DMs advice on what "the spell can only target one creature" by giving the designers listing of criteria, and it makes sense as a list overall. Is it vague at times, sure, but that's because there's a lot of spells that do a lot of different things in the game. And the listing of criteria doesn't disqualify haste or dominate person.

As for finding a meatspace game to play in; I'm not sure if anyone's noticed, but there's a pandemic on at the moment.

Most of the people I know are playing more D&D, not less because of the pandemic, they've just moved online.

[scriver]

Online rpg loses about 50% of the joy of it though

[Iduno]

Online rpg loses about 50% of the joy of it though

Significantly higher than that with Play by Post.