If cover is good enough to "pop out" of, it's probably good enough for hiding. Which is a superior option for sniping, when available (and when your Stealth roll beats the highest passive perception, or whatever).
Steady Aim is much more suitable to situations where you can't hide (either because there's no good cover to hide behind, or you can't get to it, or you're stuck in melee...)
"Creatures that have no form of ground-based locomotion have a walking speed of 0 feet." Even if you cast longstrider on it, the specific rule for that kind of creature would still override it, and longstrider would apply to its swimming speed only.
Where does it says that the specifics of the creature overrides the specifics of the spell? I mean, it's silly as hell and I probably wouldn't allow it (although a rolling whale is probably quite fast once it gains momentum) but in this case it's a DM's fiat.
Creatures and their specific properties are, in general, more specific than the general properties of a spell. I know, this is 5e and these are general guidelines, but that way of reading them seems consistent to me, and to what you could expect in terms of rulings.
So longstrider never works then because a creature having a specific speed is more specific than adding to a creature's speed?
No, the rule that says: "Creatures that have no form of ground-based locomotion have a walking speed of 0 feet."
But then again you said longstrider would work on swimming speed.
Why wouldn't it work ?
So is it only walking speed that can't be added to or a speed of 0 that can't be added to? And where is the rule that supports that claim?
See above. Extremely specific.
It's a completely arbitrary choice to say that the specifics of a creature beats the specific rule of a spell. There is no "extremely specific rules beat specific rules"-rule in D&D. Or at least not one that you have shown us.
It's a completely arbitrary choice to say that the specifics of a creature beats the specific rule of a spell. There is no "extremely specific rules beat specific rules"-rule in D&D. Or at least not one that you have shown us.
It isn't about a specific creature, it is the overall base rule for monster speed.
Of course the main problem here isn't the specific v general discussion but rather the designers decision to set a walking speed for all creatures (and set it at "0ft" for those that they deemed unable to walk at all).
So while you might have a technical argument for "there is a 0ft there so it can be added to" you really shouldn't do it unless you are also going to rule that Longstrider would add to the (non written) 0ft fly/burrow/swim speeds of a creature.
It's a completely arbitrary choice to say that the specifics of a creature beats the specific rule of a spell. There is no "extremely specific rules beat specific rules"-rule in D&D. Or at least not one that you have shown us.
It isn't about a specific creature, it is the overall base rule for monster speed.
Of course the main problem here isn't the specific v general discussion but rather the designers decision to set a walking speed for all creatures (and set it at "0ft" for those that they deemed unable to walk at all).
So while you might have a technical argument for "there is a 0ft there so it can be added to" you really shouldn't do it unless you are also going to rule that Longstrider would add to the (non written) 0ft fly/burrow/swim speeds of a creature.
Well, no, because it is possible to not have a flying/burrowing/swimming/climbing speed and you can't add to something that doesn't exist. The general rule that creatures with no walking speed have a walking speed of 0 explicitly gives those a creatures a number that can be added to.
Much of the book that shall not be named has no logical reason to exist, other than to dumb the game down. I would suggest that the designers thought, "gee, we have given something to most of the classes that make it easier to play that class, we have to do that with Rogues". That is the only reason I can see for this feature. And no, I don't use that feature with my Rogue at another DM's table, and don't allow that book at my table when I DM.
If you are going to look at it that way, D&D in general has little logical reason to exist. It's a game, built for fun and enjoyment by its players.
If TCoE brings more fun and enjoyment to a reasonable number of players, if it can improve enjoyment for some players who had issues with the rules before it, and especially if it can bring the enjoyment of D&D to people who would not have enjoyed it before, it has just as much "logical reason to exist" as D&D itself.
Edit: Also, calling it "the book that shall not be named" sounds like you are scared of the book. If you are, and you are frightened of the changes it represents in both D&D and society at large, I would suggest you take your lead from Harry Potter. To quote Hermione: "Fear of a name only increases fear of the thing itself". You are doing yourself a disservice by refusing to call a book by its name.
It's a completely arbitrary choice to say that the specifics of a creature beats the specific rule of a spell. There is no "extremely specific rules beat specific rules"-rule in D&D. Or at least not one that you have shown us.
It isn't about a specific creature, it is the overall base rule for monster speed.
Neither I nor Lyxen is claiming this. Lyxen made the claim that "specific rules beat general rules" which is correct but in this case we have a case of two specifics (the specifics of a beast and the specifics of a spell). Since there aren't any rules that says which specific rule beats which ("extremely specific" isn't a thing) the decicion to say that one specific beats the other specific is completely arbitrary.
It's a completely arbitrary choice to say that the specifics of a creature beats the specific rule of a spell. There is no "extremely specific rules beat specific rules"-rule in D&D. Or at least not one that you have shown us.
It isn't about a specific creature, it is the overall base rule for monster speed.
Neither I nor Lyxen is claiming this. Lyxen made the claim that "specific rules beat general rules" which is correct but in this case we have a case of two specifics (the specifics of a beast and the specifics of a spell). Since there aren't any rules that says which specific rule beats which ("extremely specific" isn't a thing) the decicion to say that one specific beats the other specific is completely arbitrary.
Well, like a lot of things in 5e, we get mostly guidelines, and I agree that the exact relative specificities are even less precise than a number of game elements.
That being said, between:
A spell that increases all the movement speed of all speeds of all creatures, and
A rule that specifically sets the speed of certain creatures to 0,
I know which one I would consider more specific. This, added to the fact that longstrider does not gift you with any speed, it just increase my feeling that the second is more specific.
But I agree that, pure RAW, it is eminently debatable. It's just that I have an interpretation that is according to the RAW and that I think fits more with what I expect of the spell and of creatures, that's all.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. You're interpretation of RAW completely arbitrary since the rules don't make any difference between different levels of specificity.
As a humorous side note, wasn't this thread about Steady Aim? :P
It's a completely arbitrary choice to say that the specifics of a creature beats the specific rule of a spell. There is no "extremely specific rules beat specific rules"-rule in D&D. Or at least not one that you have shown us.
It isn't about a specific creature, it is the overall base rule for monster speed.
Neither I nor Lyxen is claiming this. Lyxen made the claim that "specific rules beat general rules" which is correct but in this case we have a case of two specifics (the specifics of a beast and the specifics of a spell). Since there aren't any rules that says which specific rule beats which ("extremely specific" isn't a thing) the decicion to say that one specific beats the other specific is completely arbitrary.
Well, like a lot of things in 5e, we get mostly guidelines, and I agree that the exact relative specificities are even less precise than a number of game elements.
That being said, between:
A spell that increases all the movement speed of all speeds of all creatures, and
A rule that specifically sets the speed of certain creatures to 0,
I know which one I would consider more specific. This, added to the fact that longstrider does not gift you with any speed, it just increase my feeling that the second is more specific.
But I agree that, pure RAW, it is eminently debatable. It's just that I have an interpretation that is according to the RAW and that I think fits more with what I expect of the spell and of creatures, that's all.
I agree with you here. However, I think it would also be possible to read it as:
A rule which sets all speeds of any creature using the feature to zero
A spell which specifically increases the speed the specific creature it is cast upon
The wording you use to present your interpretation has been specifically (see what I did there) chosen to support your own case, and biases the result in your own direction. However, it can be chosen in such a way that it does the opposite.
To me, I would rule that reducing a speed to zero is, effectively, removing that speed. Just as Longstrider doesn't give you a climbing, swimming or flying speed if you didn't already have one, if your base/walking speed has been reduced to zero Longstrider wouldn't increase it to 10.
If cover is good enough to "pop out" of, it's probably good enough for hiding. Which is a superior option for sniping, when available (and when your Stealth roll beats the highest passive perception, or whatever).
Steady Aim is much more suitable to situations where you can't hide (either because there's no good cover to hide behind, or you can't get to it, or you're stuck in melee...)
It's a completely arbitrary choice to say that the specifics of a creature beats the specific rule of a spell. There is no "extremely specific rules beat specific rules"-rule in D&D. Or at least not one that you have shown us.
It isn't about a specific creature, it is the overall base rule for monster speed.
Of course the main problem here isn't the specific v general discussion but rather the designers decision to set a walking speed for all creatures (and set it at "0ft" for those that they deemed unable to walk at all).
So while you might have a technical argument for "there is a 0ft there so it can be added to" you really shouldn't do it unless you are also going to rule that Longstrider would add to the (non written) 0ft fly/burrow/swim speeds of a creature.
Well, no, because it is possible to not have a flying/burrowing/swimming/climbing speed and you can't add to something that doesn't exist. The general rule that creatures with no walking speed have a walking speed of 0 explicitly gives those a creatures a number that can be added to.
If you are going to look at it that way, D&D in general has little logical reason to exist. It's a game, built for fun and enjoyment by its players.
If TCoE brings more fun and enjoyment to a reasonable number of players, if it can improve enjoyment for some players who had issues with the rules before it, and especially if it can bring the enjoyment of D&D to people who would not have enjoyed it before, it has just as much "logical reason to exist" as D&D itself.
Edit: Also, calling it "the book that shall not be named" sounds like you are scared of the book. If you are, and you are frightened of the changes it represents in both D&D and society at large, I would suggest you take your lead from Harry Potter. To quote Hermione: "Fear of a name only increases fear of the thing itself". You are doing yourself a disservice by refusing to call a book by its name.
Neither I nor Lyxen is claiming this. Lyxen made the claim that "specific rules beat general rules" which is correct but in this case we have a case of two specifics (the specifics of a beast and the specifics of a spell). Since there aren't any rules that says which specific rule beats which ("extremely specific" isn't a thing) the decicion to say that one specific beats the other specific is completely arbitrary.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. You're interpretation of RAW completely arbitrary since the rules don't make any difference between different levels of specificity.
As a humorous side note, wasn't this thread about Steady Aim? :P
I agree with you here. However, I think it would also be possible to read it as:
The wording you use to present your interpretation has been specifically (see what I did there) chosen to support your own case, and biases the result in your own direction. However, it can be chosen in such a way that it does the opposite.
To me, I would rule that reducing a speed to zero is, effectively, removing that speed. Just as Longstrider doesn't give you a climbing, swimming or flying speed if you didn't already have one, if your base/walking speed has been reduced to zero Longstrider wouldn't increase it to 10.
Yes it was, but that got boring so a new discussion was started which has appears many times before in these forums.