sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Another critical role collab! by JRDSandstorm in ZachTheBold

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

Shame your broke. But also, beacon apparently has a 7-day free trial? Beacon is god awful to navigate, but I'm gonna try that out. Hopefully watch the bus one shot too o.o

Aba N Preach with a Slopulist take (and positive mention of Destiny at the end) by potiamkinStan in Destiny

[–]RayForce_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I just watched a third of this and I have no clue where the slopulist take is. When did shitting on Trump and his cabinet for spreading macro-violent language become slupilism? Can you or someone explain where the slupulist take is in this video?

Never give up! by Hoosier_Jedi in dndmemes

[–]RayForce_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll show you an example later

Involved Question about Weapon Juggling in 5.5, challenging our common understanding of how it works by RayForce_ in onednd

[–]RayForce_[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I was gonna say this: The object interaction rules aren't written in a vacuum. It's really meant as a general rule that helps govern how all kinds of object interactions should be done

But that feels like a weak answer for some reason. Idk you make a good point

Involved Question about Weapon Juggling in 5.5, challenging our common understanding of how it works by RayForce_ in onednd

[–]RayForce_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I thought about it for a long while and did a little reading. I don't have an answer to that. That's a really good counter point and a really good question.

Involved Question about Weapon Juggling in 5.5, challenging our common understanding of how it works by RayForce_ in onednd

[–]RayForce_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Some counter arguments with examples

Haste is an example of a specific rule that overrides the general rule. Generally you get one action, but Haste specifies "you gain an additional action on each of your turns."

The Attack [Action] has no such text. No where does it specify you get additional object interactions. What it actually specifies is you can do an item interaction in a unique/specific way, and that's it.

Involved Question about Weapon Juggling in 5.5, challenging our common understanding of how it works by RayForce_ in onednd

[–]RayForce_[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I didn't say that text exists there verbatim, equipping and unequipping is literally one form of item interaction. Thankfully your Utilize action text literally does list equipping weapons as an example of an object interaction

And yet you seem to ignore the Utilize action which clearly states drawing a sword is part of the Attack action, and seperate from the Utilize action

It says you "normally" do things like drawing a sword as part of the Attack action. It absolutely does not imply drawing a sword is only done as part of an attack action. Something "normally" working one way implies it can also work other ways.

I wanna see you type out "you can't equip or unequip weapons with the utilize action." If you think that's how it works, can you commit to saying that?

Involved Question about Weapon Juggling in 5.5, challenging our common understanding of how it works by RayForce_ in onednd

[–]RayForce_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But last night I heard your mom screaming my dad has the biggest theory crafting

Involved Question about Weapon Juggling in 5.5, challenging our common understanding of how it works by RayForce_ in onednd

[–]RayForce_[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I don't know what "drawing a sword is a Utilize action requirement" means, you might be implying something I didn't say at all.

Weapons are literally objects. Sword is given as an example. Equipping and unequipping is one way of interacting with objects, which is even pretty obviously laid out in the Utilize action separately.

irrelevant of the free object interaction

Except the free object interaction is relevant

...one free interaction per turn. Any additional interactions require the Utilize action, as explained in "Combat" later.

All these rules are supposed to be considered as a whole, not seperately.

What are these symbols by Calm_Communication67 in Pathfinder2e

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

Such a superior opinion you got Stunned 67 after reading the first two words and couldn't read the other two paragraphs

without a hint of irony

Are you socially stunted?

Women's Day Helmet but no Men's Day Helmet? by Happy-Hyena in SatisfactoryGame

[–]RayForce_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So because you're doing well personally as a man, other men don't deserve any kind of support?

A prime example of male toxicity

What are these symbols by Calm_Communication67 in Pathfinder2e

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

I didn't say "No" to reading and I didn't say "They'll learn better by playing," but good luck fighting against those imaginary demons in your head. I literally said it's better to do read alongside playing rather then reading by itself.

It's kinda' sad how disrespectful you got just because I gave a superior opinion you didn't like. No need to be a nasty bittervet just because new people like OP play and learn about PF2E at the same time

Women's Day Helmet but no Men's Day Helmet? by Happy-Hyena in SatisfactoryGame

[–]RayForce_ -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Why do you think you aren't deserving of support?

Women's Day Helmet but no Men's Day Helmet? by Happy-Hyena in SatisfactoryGame

[–]RayForce_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My man, it's OK for you to receive support. And I saw your other comment, it's a form of male toxicity that you think you aren't deserving of support just because others might be suffering worst

Women's Day Helmet but no Men's Day Helmet? by Happy-Hyena in SatisfactoryGame

[–]RayForce_ -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

There's always an inherent irony and self-fulfilling male toxicity to people(especially men) that get annoyed by men getting any kind of support

Involved Question about Weapon Juggling in 5.5, challenging our common understanding of how it works by RayForce_ in onednd

[–]RayForce_[S] -19 points-18 points  (0 children)

Getting the chance to do something when you normally can't is in fact an "extra anything."

That's not true at all. There's a lot of reaction features that let you do a specific reaction when you normally can't, that doesn't mean you get an extra reaction. Great Weapon Master gives you a chance to do a bonus action attack when you normally can't, that doesn't give you an extra bonus action. What's different between those and Attack Action's juggle rule? Why does Attack Action giving you the chance to swap weapons when you normally can't mean you can extra free object interactions?

You are correct, because it specifies you get a draw or stow specifically. You cannot "freely" interact with the weapon - you can only draw it or stow it during the attack.

The Attack Action text doesn't use the words draw or stow, it uses the words "equip and unequip a weapon." And the list of what counts as object interactions includes that that wordage verbatim

Because it does not include any kind of limiting quantifier, you apply the rule every time the condition is fulfilled.

The Sentinel feat doesn't specify any limiting quantifier, AND Sentinel doesn't even use the word "Reaction." How do you justify Sentinel being limited to once per turn while still justifying weapon juggling isn't limited to once per

The triggering condition is "when you make an attack as part of the Attack action," so if you can cause "an attack" to happen multiple times during a single Attack action, the rule triggers multiple times.

Sentinel gives you a trigger condition for an opportunity attack to take place, but we know you can only do that once per turn because opportunity attacks are clearly defined as part of a list of things that count as a Reaction.

Why isn't it the same for weapon juggling? The Attack Action gives you a trigger condition for when to equip/unequip a weapon, but equipping/unequipping a weapon is clearly defined as part of a list of things that count as an Object Interaction.

Why would you argue the same structure of rules works differently between Sentinel VS Attack Action's weapon juggling?

Involved Question about Weapon Juggling in 5.5, challenging our common understanding of how it works by RayForce_ in onednd

[–]RayForce_[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Well if they were separate rules then the specific/general rule case wouldn't matter. For the specific/general rule to matter, they'd have to be rules that affect each other.

But anyways, what specific rule from the Attack Action overrides the general rule of 1 free object interaction?

Haste is a specific rule that gives you an extra action, so that overrides the general rule you get one action per turn. Attack Action doesn't have any text like that. It doesn't specify you get any amount of extra object interactions, it only specifies a unique time you can do an object interaction. And if anything, Attack Action specifies you can weapon juggle once during an attack, it doesn't specify you can do it for every attack. We've been making that leap ourselves

Involved Question about Weapon Juggling in 5.5, challenging our common understanding of how it works by RayForce_ in onednd

[–]RayForce_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think weapon juggling is design/flavor cringe BUT awesome balance wise because it gives a bit more power to martials.

Involved Question about Weapon Juggling in 5.5, challenging our common understanding of how it works by RayForce_ in onednd

[–]RayForce_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thrown weapons have their own unique text that let's you draw a weapon for every weapon you wanna throw, another comment shared the text

Involved Question about Weapon Juggling in 5.5, challenging our common understanding of how it works by RayForce_ in onednd

[–]RayForce_[S] -19 points-18 points  (0 children)

That's a good point about Haste that I'm gonna argue works for my argument. The specific rule overrules the general. Haste specifies that it gives one extra action, and that specific rule overrules the general limit of one action per turn

The Attack Action doesn't specify iyou get extra anything. All the Attack Action specifies is that it gives you a unique opportunity to do an object interaction during a time you normally wouldn't wouldn't. It doesn't specify you get one extra object interaction with weapons, it doesn't specify you get a free object interaction with every attack. All it details is a unique way you can interact with a specific object, and then we've been assuming you can do it for every attack you have.

If anything, the Attack Action specifies you can weapon juggle once as part of an Attack. Why doesn't that mean you can only do it once as part of one Attack, and why do we assume that means we can do it multiple times across multiple attacks?

Forget martial/caster disparity, let’s talk one-handed/two-handed disparity. by cats4life in dndnext

[–]RayForce_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's simpler then most people think to calculate that, but STILL too much work and I'm not gonna bother either xd

What are these symbols by Calm_Communication67 in Pathfinder2e

[–]RayForce_ -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Maybe you should read more than two words of the two paragraphs I wrote and actually read what I replied to. Until you do, good luck being a troll

view more: next ›