Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)J
Posts
19
Comments
148
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • I mean… since the spell does not say that undead are excluded from revivification, you could very well just do that if you get your hands on the ghost in time.

  • I think limiting spells to mostly do what they say they do (while ignoring obviously stupid interactions like the one above) is actually somewhat balancing, because it otherwise increases the power and utility of casters over martials even further.

  • I know it’s a joke, but I'd say "mostly dead" is just when you roll death saves.

  • That one does not work RAW either way, because lungs are not an open container.

    But I never said I wanted to actually exploit this in a game. You can’t really exploit this one even if you want to, because it’s bound to be extremely specific. I just wanted to point out the weirdness.

  • Okay. But do you actually allow any use of the spell that's not as originally intended? Because some things are technical applications of the rules which rely on rules working as intended but still in very specific way without breaking the game at all.

  • I never said I wanted to exploit it. I just pointed it out because it was very funny to me.

  • As hilarious as that is, are you sure that being immune to the form of imprisonment doesn’t just make the spell fail?

  • I actually think it’s funny too.

  • No I don’t want to play RAW. I just don’t want in game solutions to out of game problems. Just (and I know that this will seem extremely absurd, but hear me out!) talk to your players about it like a normal person and make it clear before you start to play.

  • You are not bound to engage with the topic. For most here I assume it’s just goofing around.

  • Oh gosh that’s wild. Whoops.

  • Fair.

  • No it doesn’t need to. As there are methods to see invisible creatures or objects, you could very well rule that you need to make use of one of those effects to use this part of the spells capabilities.

  • Exactly. Same line of stupidity imo.

  • That’s a weird way of saying that she does not like Wizards. Because if you study something enough, you are bound to find loopholes.

  • To be very pendantic, it’s the other way around: The wording as very precise at describing both spells, but quite vague at describing their interaction. That’s what leads to the problem.

  • I know that this may be a bit of a gap, but it’s a general problem of our society nowadays: Admitting a mistake is unpopular and can be used by others to say "See: even you acknowledged that you were wrong there.", so people only rarely do it. (Especially politicians, stars and corporations/corporate representatives.)

  • He actually has some totally based rulings too. Those just don’t stand out amongst the profoundly dumb ones.

  • That depends on interpretation of the sentence structure. It could mean "any visible [creatures and objects]" or "any [visible creatures] and objects".