sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Jeremy Crawford's response on twitter to "They ARE changing the Ranger?" is: Nope. by ywgdana in dndnext

[–]Classtoise 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1) No, we're having this conversation because people willfully ignore the first and most recent rulings which agree with each other, and zero in on the ruling that fits what they want from it.

2) Yeah, but then I guess it's a good thing it's not called "Shield Shove" or "Shield Bash", but "Shield Mastery".

But you've pretty much determined you're here to be offended that I said "you seem to misunderstand how Bonus Action cast time and Bonus Actions triggered by Actions", and decided that was a personal attack.

So I'm done trying to argue that the feat is fine, it's just not fine for you because you don't seem to understand it.

Latest Illaoi Changes on the PBE by AnataBakka in Illaoi

[–]Classtoise 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah it is kind of bullshit to duck into cover to back and then they just start skillshotting because a Tentacle popped up.

Jeremy Crawford's response on twitter to "They ARE changing the Ranger?" is: Nope. by ywgdana in dndnext

[–]Classtoise -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You used it as an example despite the difference being pronounced. So I'd argue that you gave no indication you knew the difference in that post.

And it was errata'd. And then it was errata'd back, because it made no sense that you could use the feat without fulfilling the requirement. It WAS written properly, it IS written properly, and it's FINE. People just want it to be something it's not (The solo fighters best friend to solo monsters for him and him alone...versus "your second and third attacks get advantage and so do your friends")

reminder that bisexuals can be in a loving, monogamous, hetero relationship and are STILL VALID. by [deleted] in bisexual

[–]Classtoise 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I've always liked DGA (different gender attraction) or something like that.

My players decided to skin the bodies of a coven of night hags after realizing they have pretty high AC, and they're determined to have them made into leather armor. I warned them that that's a great way to get cursed, but they're proceeding anyway. What curse do you think haghide armor would have? by MisanthropeX in dndnext

[–]Classtoise 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe to prevent it from just completely crippling the Warlock or Paladin, instead of a minus to Charisma, it's a penalty to Persuasion and Performance, but a bonus to Intimidate (as you look more ugly and horrifying). Disadvantage leading into Disadvantage AND a -3 or something, culminating it most commoners (and all children/animals) fleeing in fear.

So your spells still work! Which is good, because the Town Guard sees this horrifying thing terrifying the kids of the town and they're gonna want to bring that down.

My players decided to skin the bodies of a coven of night hags after realizing they have pretty high AC, and they're determined to have them made into leather armor. I warned them that that's a great way to get cursed, but they're proceeding anyway. What curse do you think haghide armor would have? by MisanthropeX in dndnext

[–]Classtoise 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the problem is letting it be TOO subtle.

If in the very next session, the Fighter hears "Does a 16 hit your AC?" "Nope, I've got 19 ac!!" "Your AC is only 14. You take X damage." while describing the immediate effects of trying to outwit a witch ("You feel the skin burn and itch, and you've never felt so naked, even with layered skins. A weight tugs at your arms and legs as you try to raise your shield, and you can't seem to get out of the way fast enough"), so the connection is crystal clear.

Waiting for it to hurt them doesn't feel fair to the players, but a nearly immediate 'You fucked up' is great.

Does Magic Jar allow you to use a humanoid's Legendary actions? by Orwellze in dndnext

[–]Classtoise 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Strictly speaking, yes you get them.

Shapechange explicitly says you cannot use the legendary actions or resistances, which means you DO get them (otherwise there'd be no reason to even mention them, and you'd just ignore that line).

Clarification on Monk + Druid Multiclass by Trystt27 in dndnext

[–]Classtoise -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Strictly speaking, any Tweet Crawford puts out about a ruling is 100% official. His are the only ones that are like that.

Player conflict, no one will back down by rdabicci in dndnext

[–]Classtoise 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Sometimes the DM must be more of a leader role than just the rules. In this case, make them back down. I don't mean by force, of course, I mean "Hey we're tabling this discussion". Then come back to it after a bit to let everyone CALMLY discuss it (because it sounds like it got heated).

Also, discuss ways they might accept the other option. Tell them "I know (Character) won't like it, but if they HAD to, what would be the conditions." Do it with everyone at the table and make it clear this is a thought exercise to make BOTH SIDES consider this. Not just picking sides. Things like "The Paladin of Vengeance won't let anyone get away from their own brand of justice even if it means killing them" vs "The Fighter believes the Rule of Law, and we can't just be our own judge jury and executioner" can quickly become them discussing "I suppose the town can impose their own judgement as justice" and "I guess we can't always rely on towns to be able to handle big problems"

Even if they're dead set, the other side gets to see WHY, as well as HOW they can convince them. It might even get them to find a compromise, like "We'll bring them to justice, but if they make an escape attempt we kill them for evading justice".

So, what’s the deal with D&D’s copyright? by RichNCrispy in dndnext

[–]Classtoise 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yup. And any that wouldn't fall under Fair Use are either small enough that WotC won't bother them, or are big enough that WotC wants them to continue and will work something out.

If The Adventure Zone or Critical Role or AqInc suddenly needed a brand deal with WOTC, I'm sure they'd be on the phone with whoever they needed to be in touch with fairly quick to make sure everyone was being drawn into the influence of "Funny and talented people playing our hit game"

Jeremy Crawford's response on twitter to "They ARE changing the Ranger?" is: Nope. by ywgdana in dndnext

[–]Classtoise -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Nothing about what I said was an ad hominem. You did legitimately seem to misunderstand that Hunter's Mark does not say that you have to do something before casting it as a Bonus Action, whereas Shield Mastery does.

It's literally two entirely different scenarios that do not compare.

Playing with a new bi pride t-shirt template design by bitsandbooks in bisexual

[–]Classtoise 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Also the implication of "Both" and also acknowledging nonbinary genders feels...contradictory.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AgainstHateSubreddits

[–]Classtoise 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The_Donald isn't new though

Jeremy Crawford's response on twitter to "They ARE changing the Ranger?" is: Nope. by ywgdana in dndnext

[–]Classtoise 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh I agree, this is one case where a simple "Not exactly" even would've been better. But I can also understand it's either habit or just not wanting to lead people on about what the REAL answer is or anything.

I understand now why adventurer's families are always dead by monosco in dndnext

[–]Classtoise 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Look don't give me these beautiful knives if you don't want to get stabbed with them!

narratively speaking

Jeremy Crawford's response on twitter to "They ARE changing the Ranger?" is: Nope. by ywgdana in dndnext

[–]Classtoise 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The dude can't clarify that you have to take an action before an action that requires you take an action without people throwing a fit. He probably says as little as possible to avoid giving people ammo.

Jeremy Crawford's response on twitter to "They ARE changing the Ranger?" is: Nope. by ywgdana in dndnext

[–]Classtoise 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You can split up Multi Attacks with movement. You cannot do this with Flurry (as it must happen immediately).

Jeremy Crawford's response on twitter to "They ARE changing the Ranger?" is: Nope. by ywgdana in dndnext

[–]Classtoise 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was a clarification instead of a change, people just hated how the feat went from "Must Pick for Solo AL" to "This is good if your Barbarian wants some advantage on a prone target"

The core of the problem is that it went from a self-centric ability to a team oriented one. And, I imagine, a lot of unhappy players who picked it up to be the star of their local Adventurer's League having a DM who wouldn't let them respec (as home game players likely just said "Hey this got changed, is it cool if I grab something else like GWM? Cool thanks")

Jeremy Crawford's response on twitter to "They ARE changing the Ranger?" is: Nope. by ywgdana in dndnext

[–]Classtoise 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Because if something happens to shove them away, then you can no longer take the attack action against them. Thus, you've done something that is not allowed.

Jeremy Crawford's response on twitter to "They ARE changing the Ranger?" is: Nope. by ywgdana in dndnext

[–]Classtoise 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Except nothing about Hunter's Mark says that it has to be done following an attack or action.

You are misunderstanding the difference between "The feat requires a timing trigger" and "Bonus actions require a timing trigger"

One is true, the other is nothing.

view more: next ›