Results 61 to 90 of 1521
-
2018-07-24, 12:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2018
Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW
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.
-
2018-07-25, 08:26 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2015
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!
-
2018-07-25, 12:18 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2014
- Location
- My Imagination
- Gender
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.
-
2018-07-25, 12:21 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2015
- Location
- Prime Material Plane
Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW
Last edited by E’Tallitnics; 2018-07-25 at 12:22 PM.
-
2018-07-25, 12:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2014
- Location
- My Imagination
- Gender
-
2018-07-25, 01:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2016
Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW
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. 8pLast edited by Erys; 2018-07-25 at 08:30 PM.
-
2018-07-25, 01:55 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2013
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?
-
2018-07-25, 08:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2016
-
2018-07-25, 08:40 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2011
- Location
- Why am I here?
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.
-
2018-07-26, 07:23 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2018
-
2018-07-26, 09:19 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2016
Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW
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).
-
2018-07-26, 12:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2018
Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW
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.
-
2018-07-26, 02:14 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2017
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?
-
2018-07-26, 02:17 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2018
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.
-
2018-07-26, 02:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2016
Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW
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!?
-
2018-07-26, 03:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2018
Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW
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.'
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.
-
2018-07-26, 04:25 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2016
Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW
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.
-
2018-07-26, 06:50 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2014
- Location
- US Pacific Northwest
- Gender
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."
-
2018-07-26, 08:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- Corvallis, OR
- Gender
Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW
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).
Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.
-
2018-07-26, 09:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2014
- Location
- US Pacific Northwest
- Gender
Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW
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."
-
2018-07-27, 12:25 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2016
-
2018-07-28, 10:15 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2018
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?
-
2018-07-28, 10:38 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2011
- Location
- Why am I here?
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.
-
2018-07-28, 04:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2018
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.
-
2018-07-29, 12:39 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2017
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.
-
2018-07-29, 05:18 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2016
- Gender
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?
-
2018-07-29, 06:47 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2011
- Location
- Why am I here?
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.
-
2018-07-29, 06:55 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2018
Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW
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.
-
2018-07-29, 11:07 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2018
Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW
-
2018-07-29, 11:38 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2011
- Location
- Why am I here?