The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed
The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed - Coming in December and available for pre-order now
Page 3 of 39 FirstFirst 1234567891011121328 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 1162
  1. - Top - End - #61
    Banned
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Mar 2018

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by Koury View Post
    A26

    It's example 1. When you make a bet the process is as follows:

    Start with 100.
    Bet 100. You now have 0.
    Win and gain specified amount for 1, 2 or 3 successes. (Bet*0.5, Bet*1.5, Bet*2)
    OR
    Lose and gain nothing for 0 successes. Furthermore, fall into debt. (Bet*-2, half of which is counted as payed already.)

    The main thing is once you make the bet, that money is no longer yours. Works this way in real life also.
    A26
    This is not what the Rules say, however. You cannot lose money you do not have. Otherwise you could indefinitely bid until you won money, by RAW. There logucally mght be someone acccruing debts onbthe other side - HOWEVER - that relies on things outside of the game. Example 1 is the intentional, Example 2 is as it is written.
    Last edited by Kadesh; 2018-07-24 at 12:16 PM.

  2. - Top - End - #62
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Jun 2015

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    If you win, you get your bet back plus the winnings. So you gain 1.5x bet and bet 100 you will have 250. You get your 100 back as you didn't lose it and increase by 150.
    I am the flush of excitement. The blush on the cheek. I am the Rouge!

  3. - Top - End - #63
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    ElfPirate

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    My Imagination
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Q27

    Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade both state that they require a weapon as a material component. If the only weapon I have on my person is the sword I am using for the attack of either cantrip, is my sword consumed/destroyed by casting either of these cantrips?
    Last edited by Psykenthrope; 2018-07-25 at 12:23 PM.

  4. - Top - End - #64
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    E’Tallitnics's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Prime Material Plane

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by Psykenthrope View Post
    Q27

    Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade both state that they require a weapon as a material component. If the only weapon I have on my person is the sword I am using for the attack of either cantrip, is my sword consumed/destroyed by casting either of these cantrips?
    A027: No. The spell description would state that the material component was consumed. This is usually right after where it tells you what component is required by the spell.
    Last edited by E’Tallitnics; 2018-07-25 at 12:22 PM.

  5. - Top - End - #65
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    ElfPirate

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    My Imagination
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by E’Tallitnics View Post
    A027: No. The spell description would state that the material component was consumed. This is usually right after where it tells you what component is required by the spell.
    I thought so, but I wasn't sure. Thanks much. :)

  6. - Top - End - #66
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Erys's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2016

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigreid View Post
    If you win, you get your bet back plus the winnings. So you gain 1.5x bet and bet 100 you will have 250. You get your 100 back as you didn't lose it and increase by 150.
    Negative. Though at this point a new thread on the matter should be made, 1.5x 100 is 150.
    You don't get your original bet back, you are turning that gold into a new amount based on your successes.

    When you drop 100 gold on the table and make your roll...
    0 successes Lose all the money you bet, and accrue a debt equal to that amount. = You reach back in your pouch and grab another 100 gold, maybe you're cursed, regardless you owe the house.
    1 success Lose half the money you bet. = You pick 50 gold back off the table, it was a bad night but you cut your losses
    2 successes Gain the amount you bet plus half again more. = You pick up 150 gold off that table, can't complain.
    3 successes Gain double the amount you bet. = Winner winner! You slide 200 gold back to your side of the table, next round of drinks is on you. 8p
    Last edited by Erys; 2018-07-25 at 08:30 PM.

  7. - Top - End - #67
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Red Bear's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2013

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Q28 can you cast two 3rd level spell on the same turn if one of them is a reaction (counterspell) and the other one is an action?

  8. - Top - End - #68
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Erys's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2016

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Bear View Post
    Q28 can you cast two 3rd level spell on the same turn if one of them is a reaction (counterspell) and the other one is an action?
    A28 Yes you can.

    Since they occur during other peoples turns, spells Cast as Reactions do not have the same stipulations/restrictions as Spells Cast through Bonus Actions.

  9. - Top - End - #69
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGirl

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Why am I here?

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Re28 The limitation on casting additional spells only relates to spells cast as a bonus action. An Eldritch Knight can cast three spells on their turn if they use shield to stop an Opportunity Attack, and then Action Surge to cast two more non-cantrips with actions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Petrocorus View Post
    This thread, Questions that can't be answered... Answered by RAW by No brains, is Epic.
    Quote Originally Posted by illyahr View Post
    That is so stupid it's hilarious.
    Quote Originally Posted by georgie_leech View Post
    ...I've clearly been playing D&D for too long, because that made a demented kind of sense.
    Quote Originally Posted by that_one_kobold View Post
    And this is why I love D&D

  10. - Top - End - #70
    Banned
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Mar 2018

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by Erys View Post
    Negative. Though at this point a new thread on the matter should be made, 1.5x 100 is 150.
    You don't get your original bet back, you are turning that gold into a new amount based on your successes.

    When you drop 100 gold on the table and make your roll...
    0 successes Lose all the money you bet, and accrue a debt equal to that amount. = You reach back in your pouch and grab another 100 gold, maybe you're cursed, regardless you owe the house.
    1 success Lose half the money you bet. = You pick 50 gold back off the table, it was a bad night but you cut your losses
    2 successes Gain the amount you bet plus half again more. = You pick up 150 gold off that table, can't complain.
    3 successes Gain double the amount you bet. = Winner winner! You slide 200 gold back to your side of the table, next round of drinks is on you. 8p
    You cannot lose something you do not have, and nothing is put on the table

    If you have 500 gold and lose 100 or gain 100, the end result is 400 or 600.

  11. - Top - End - #71
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Erys's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2016

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by Kadesh View Post
    You cannot lose something you do not have, and nothing is put on the table

    If you have 500 gold and lose 100 or gain 100, the end result is 400 or 600.
    You are correct about (generally) not being able to lose what you don't already have. (Unless you have 0 successes, then you go into debt....!)

    Hence why I said 'you put your bet on the table' -> because that is the amount of money (in your possession) that you are risking when you gamble.

    If you gamble 100 gold, you are looking at either:
    0 successes: lose another 100, or being in debt for another hundred if you don't have that money on you.
    1 success: effectively losing half your bet (half comes back, you had 100- now you have 50).
    2 successes: effectively winning 50% over your original amount (you had 100, now you have 150). Or,
    3 successes: doubling your bet (you had 100, now you have 200).

  12. - Top - End - #72
    Banned
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Mar 2018

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by Erys View Post
    You are correct about (generally) not being able to lose what you don't already have. (Unless you have 0 successes, then you go into debt....!)

    Hence why I said 'you put your bet on the table' -> because that is the amount of money (in your possession) that you are risking when you gamble.

    If you gamble 100 gold, you are looking at either:
    0 successes: lose another 100, or being in debt for another hundred if you don't have that money on you.
    1 success: effectively losing half your bet (half comes back, you had 100- now you have 50).
    2 successes: effectively winning 50% over your original amount (you had 100, now you have 150). Or,
    3 successes: doubling your bet (you had 100, now you have 200).
    All well and good, but that is jot what the rules say. Theybsimply say that your 10gp+ stake is:

    0 W: lost, and you accrue [Stake] debt
    1 W: lose 0.5[Stake]
    2W: gain [Stake] + 0.5[Stake].
    3W: gain 2[Stake]

    The stake never left your possession until the dice are rolled.

    Unfortuantley, it's completely illogical, but unless the stake is required to be paid up front, and the rules said that (in which case it would be easier to have it work like a transaction where you lose your staje at the start, and at the end get a returns based on that and the stake.

    You also have to remember as well that the 5e rules, and downtime gambling rules in particular are lengthy processes, that do not need to be micromanaged.

  13. - Top - End - #73
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    GnomeWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2017

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Q29
    Would casting dispel magic on a treant created with the awaken spell turn it back into a tree?

  14. - Top - End - #74
    Banned
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Mar 2018

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    A29
    No. Awaken in instantaneous and cannot be dispelled any more than Fireball's damage can be dispelled.

  15. - Top - End - #75
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Erys's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2016

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by Kadesh View Post
    All well and good, but that is jot what the rules say. Theybsimply say that your 10gp+ stake is:

    0 W: lost, and you accrue [Stake] debt
    1 W: lose 0.5[Stake]
    2W: gain [Stake] + 0.5[Stake].
    3W: gain 2[Stake]

    The stake never left your possession until the dice are rolled.

    Unfortuantley, it's completely illogical, but unless the stake is required to be paid up front, and the rules said that (in which case it would be easier to have it work like a transaction where you lose your staje at the start, and at the end get a returns based on that and the stake.

    You also have to remember as well that the 5e rules, and downtime gambling rules in particular are lengthy processes, that do not need to be micromanaged.
    I agree the verbiage could have been made clearer... BUT:

    The rules (RAW) are there to give consequences to gambling; two results give you less money, two give you more.

    Your interpretation, where you always keep your stake, means you only have one result were you lose money, and three where you gain. This is correct as it also creates a situation where adventuring is unneeded; because, really, why should I risk my life for loot when I have a gambling system that has a 1 in 4 chance to take my bet (with no additional consequence) and 3 in 4 chance to win, win, WIN!?

  16. - Top - End - #76
    Banned
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Mar 2018

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by Erys View Post
    I agree the verbiage could have been made clearer... BUT:

    The rules (RAW) are there to give consequences to gambling; two results give you less money, two give you more.

    Your interpretation, where you always keep your stake, means you only have one result were you lose money, and three where you gain. This is correct as it also creates a situation where adventuring is unneeded; because, really, why should I risk my life for loot when I have a gambling system that has a 1 in 4 chance to take my bet (with no additional consequence) and 3 in 4 chance to win, win, WIN!?
    Last post on this.

    Regardless of it being interpretation or otherwise, there is nothing to state that you already lose your stake, which is entirely on what your argument is based on, and the assumption that some will give you credit.

    Rules as Written and common sense are not on speaking terms, despite the best efforts. They are not meant to stand up in a law of court, and quite frankly that is has developed this much discussion over your insistence on putting in the interpreation that you have already lost the stake is implied nowhere, indeed the opposite by the times it tells you you lose the stake or part thereof after the rolls take place.

    Its a case of okkams razor here when resolving the written argument: which is relies on thebleast number of asumptions: ie that yours predcates someone will give you credit, and that you have to give the stake elsewhere, as opposed to the words telling you what to do (ie lose or gain, not retain, or gain values equal to a proportion of the stake, gain the stake and additonal values).

    An alternative occams razor could be 'play it how you know it should be played, without having to resort to asking the minutiae of how a weeklong downtime spend gambling is maintained.'

    Quote Originally Posted by Erys View Post
    While there is nothing directly stating you retain your stake or not, two points need to be considered. First, stakes by their traditional definition are what's being gambled- if you lose the bet, you lose what you had at stake. Second, occam's razor suggest a gambling system will have at least as many opportunities to lose as you do to win. Not a system that has 1 losing roll and 3 winners.

    I feel (oddly) RAW and common sense are hand in hand here. But feel free to rule how you want at your table.
    An occams razor for gambling has no recompense to an occams razor on the wording of said gambling games, which is where I think you're coming unstuck with the concept of RAW rulings.
    Last edited by Kadesh; 2018-07-26 at 04:30 PM.

  17. - Top - End - #77
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Erys's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2016

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by Kadesh View Post
    Last post on this.

    Regardless of it being interpretation or otherwise, there is nothing to state that you already lose your stake, which is entirely on what your argument is based on, and the assumption that some will give you credit.

    Rules as Written and common sense are not on speaking terms, despite the best efforts. They are not meant to stand up in a law of court, and quite frankly that is has developed this much discussion over your insistence on putting in the interpreation that you have already lost the stake is implied nowhere, indeed the opposite by the times it tells you you lose the stake or part thereof after the rolls take place.

    Its a case of okkams razor here when resolving the written argument: which is relies on thebleast number of asumptions: ie that yours predcates someone will give you credit, and that you have to give the stake elsewhere, as opposed to the words telling you what to do (ie lose or gain, not retain, or gain values equal to a proportion of the stake, gain the stake and additonal values).

    An alternative occams razor could be 'play it how you know it should be played, without having to resort to asking the minutiae of how a weeklong downtime spend gambling is maintained.'
    While there is nothing directly stating you retain your stake or not, two points need to be considered. First, stakes by their traditional definition are what's being gambled- if you lose the bet, you lose what you had at stake. Second, occam's razor suggest a gambling system will have at least as many opportunities to lose as you do to win. Not a system that has 1 losing roll and 3 winners.

    I feel (oddly) RAW and common sense are hand in hand here. But feel free to rule how you want at your table.

  18. - Top - End - #78
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    Sir Pippin Boyd's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    US Pacific Northwest
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Q30
    Can the magical creation of the spell Scrying, which can be seen with see invisibility, also be seen by blindsense (in this instance a bat familiar) as it "sees" invisibility?
    "I don't even really see the point of trying to phone up an archfiend if there isn't at least a *little* chance it'll make my mind explode."

  19. - Top - End - #79
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Pippin Boyd View Post
    Q30
    Can the magical creation of the spell Scrying, which can be seen with see invisibility, also be seen by blindsense (in this instance a bat familiar) as it "sees" invisibility?
    A30 Spells do what they say (and are countered by what they say). If it specifically calls out see invisibility (in italics, referring to the spell), then absolutely not. If it doesn't, then still likely no, since the sensor is not a physical object and so blindsense has nothing to "see" (since in this case that requires echolocation).
    Dream of Hope: a 5e setting. http://www.admiralbenbo.org
    PhoenixPhyre's Extended Homebrew Signature
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!

  20. - Top - End - #80
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    Sir Pippin Boyd's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    US Pacific Northwest
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    A30 Spells do what they say (and are countered by what they say). If it specifically calls out see invisibility (in italics, referring to the spell), then absolutely not. If it doesn't, then still likely no, since the sensor is not a physical object and so blindsense has nothing to "see" (since in this case that requires echolocation).
    The text of scrying regarding the sensor is thus:
    "On a failed save, the spell creates an Invisible sensor within 10 feet of the target. You can see and hear through the sensor as if you were there. The sensor moves with the target, remaining within 10 feet of it for the Duration. A creature that can see Invisible Objects sees the sensor as a luminous orb about the size of your fist."

    Physical properties are never stated, which is one of the big reasons I am still somewhat unsure of exactly how players can interact with the sensor. It isn't described as an orb made up of light, rather an orb which is luminous, which seems to suggest to me that it is physical. Can you provide an further insight on this?
    "I don't even really see the point of trying to phone up an archfiend if there isn't at least a *little* chance it'll make my mind explode."

  21. - Top - End - #81
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Erys's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2016

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Pippin Boyd View Post
    The text of scrying regarding the sensor is thus:
    "On a failed save, the spell creates an Invisible sensor within 10 feet of the target. You can see and hear through the sensor as if you were there. The sensor moves with the target, remaining within 10 feet of it for the Duration. A creature that can see Invisible Objects sees the sensor as a luminous orb about the size of your fist."

    Physical properties are never stated, which is one of the big reasons I am still somewhat unsure of exactly how players can interact with the sensor. It isn't described as an orb made up of light, rather an orb which is luminous, which seems to suggest to me that it is physical. Can you provide an further insight on this?
    R30 Since the spell Scrying spies through use of an Invisible Object, it can be detected with Blindsight.

  22. - Top - End - #82
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2018

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Q31. The Feat Warcaster allows me to use a 1 action spell instead of an attack when a foe triggers an attack of opportunity. Can I combine this the Tunnel Fighter's ability to make more than one AoO per turn?

  23. - Top - End - #83
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGirl

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Why am I here?

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    A31 Good question. I am not completely sure, but there is the implication that Warcaster's 'opportunity spell' would still use one's reaction even if an opportunity attack would not. I say this because the opportunity spell is not an opportunity attack and the feat specifies that this new option still uses a reaction.

    A DM that allows tunnel-fighting war-casting is one that should be brought much pizza.
    Last edited by No brains; 2018-07-28 at 10:39 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Petrocorus View Post
    This thread, Questions that can't be answered... Answered by RAW by No brains, is Epic.
    Quote Originally Posted by illyahr View Post
    That is so stupid it's hilarious.
    Quote Originally Posted by georgie_leech View Post
    ...I've clearly been playing D&D for too long, because that made a demented kind of sense.
    Quote Originally Posted by that_one_kobold View Post
    And this is why I love D&D

  24. - Top - End - #84
    Banned
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Mar 2018

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    A31
    The Reaction for War Caster is a seperate reaction instead, and not an opportunity attack. Tunnel Fighter only states that Opportunity Attacks do not use your Reaction.

  25. - Top - End - #85
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    GnomeWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2017

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Q32
    Is the hexblade curse usable while in wild shape or polymorphed?
    Last edited by MrWesson22; 2018-07-29 at 12:39 AM.

  26. - Top - End - #86
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2016

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Q. 33

    Is the new Warforged “Integrated Protection” ability compatibile with any of the “unarmored defence” abilities such as the barb or monk?

  27. - Top - End - #87
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGirl

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Why am I here?

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    A 32 Possibly while wildshaped (you tend to retain class features as long as you can physically use them), but not likely while polymorphed (you lose class features when you swap out game statistics). Though cursing someone and then polymorphing or wildshaping ought to work fine.

    A 33 UA doesn't usually count as RAW yet, but darkwood core would not interfere with either version of unarmored defense. That said, I don't believe the two AC calculations can be combined; you can't add your proficiency bonus to the monk or barbarian's AC formulas.
    Quote Originally Posted by Petrocorus View Post
    This thread, Questions that can't be answered... Answered by RAW by No brains, is Epic.
    Quote Originally Posted by illyahr View Post
    That is so stupid it's hilarious.
    Quote Originally Posted by georgie_leech View Post
    ...I've clearly been playing D&D for too long, because that made a demented kind of sense.
    Quote Originally Posted by that_one_kobold View Post
    And this is why I love D&D

  28. - Top - End - #88
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2018

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by Dualswinger View Post
    Q. 33

    Is the new Warforged “Integrated Protection” ability compatibile with any of the “unarmored defence” abilities such as the barb or monk?
    A 33
    Looking at the Integrated Protection table, you can see that Composite Plating and Heavy Plating are labeled (armor) while Darkwood Core is labeled (unarmored). So yes, warforged can use Unarmored Defense (and benefit from Mage Armor, Bracers of Defense, etc.), but only while in Darkwood Core configuration. Keep in mind how the rules for having multiple AC calculations work; a warforged barbarian could have either 10+Dex+Con or 11+Dex+Proficiency but they have to choose one of those.
    Last edited by leogobsin; 2018-07-29 at 08:19 AM.

  29. - Top - End - #89
    Banned
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Mar 2018

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by No brains View Post
    A 33 UA doesn't usually count as RAW yet, but darkwood core would not interfere with either version of unarmored defense. That said, I don't believe the two AC calculations can be combined; you can't add your proficiency bonus to the monk or barbarian's AC formulas.
    Warforged is a race within the Wayfinders Guide to Eberron, not just UA.

    A33. The integrated protection bonus provides another armour calculation. You cannot have both a 10+Con+Dex and a 13+Dex, or a 10+Con+Wis, and an 18. Warforged are no different in this respect.

  30. - Top - End - #90
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGirl

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Why am I here?

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by Kadesh View Post
    Warforged is a race within the Wayfinders Guide to Eberron, not just UA.
    Oops, I wasn't aware that was out yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Petrocorus View Post
    This thread, Questions that can't be answered... Answered by RAW by No brains, is Epic.
    Quote Originally Posted by illyahr View Post
    That is so stupid it's hilarious.
    Quote Originally Posted by georgie_leech View Post
    ...I've clearly been playing D&D for too long, because that made a demented kind of sense.
    Quote Originally Posted by that_one_kobold View Post
    And this is why I love D&D

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •