Yeah, that all sounds perfectly healthy, exactly the sort of sensible streamlined play that is the core design philosophy of 5E. It’s certainly not RAW to throw out that tangle, point to the “or some similar item” language in Arcane Focus, and call it a day?
And here’s the real kicker... a wand? I’m sure you’ll all agree, a wand doesn’t work as an arcane focus, only a “wand-like piece of wood,” which is called a “Wand”, but which by definition is NOT a wand, only wand-like, and only wood. But! Don’t mix it up with a Yew Wand, which IS a wand (or sometimes a scepter?), but isn’t necessarily made of yew, it can be any other “special” wood, but is nevertheless called a Yew Wand even when it’s more of an Oaken Scepter :)
This is preposterous. A Quarterstaff is a Staff, or at the very least, is “some similar item” enough to be an Arcane Focus.
A lot of this stems from the improvised weapon rule that states you can treat any improvised weapon as a proxy for an existing weapon of similar enough nature at DM discretion. The exception to that last caveat (the DM discretion bit) are staff foci.
There are two types of staff foci, as you've point out; the staff for wizards and the wooden staff for druids. Both of which are fundamentally identical enough to the quarterstaff to always be treated as that weapon type.
Thus all staffs are also quarterstaffs, and all woodens staffs (staves?) are also quarterstaffs, but not all quarterstaffs are staffs or wooden staffs and no staffs are wooden staffs even if they're made out of wood.
All wand magic items such as the Wand of Magic Missiles work as foci because they're wands, the same with rods and magic staffs. The weirdness only comes from the (quarter)staff intersection
Don't all actual Wands say they can be used as an Arcane Focus, though? So it all follows the Rectangle is a Square but a Square is not a Rectangle metaphor.
They do not, and I’m not sure where one would draw that assumption from. The Wand described in Arcane Focus is explicitly NOT a wand (only wand-like), and is explicitly wood, so something like the Wand of Winter is explicitly not a Wand even though it is a wand
If that feels stupid, it is no more stupid than the staff stuff.
Don't all actual Wands say they can be used as an Arcane Focus, though? So it all follows the Rectangle is a Square but a Square is not a Rectangle metaphor.
They do not, and I’m not sure where one would draw that assumption from. The Wand described in Arcane Focus is explicitly NOT a wand (only wand-like), and is explicitly wood, so something like the Wand of Winter is explicitly not a Wand even though it is a wand
If that feels stupid, it is no more stupid than the staff stuff.
The Wand of Winter is a wand type magic item, just like there are rod type and and staff type magic items. From the Dungeon Master's Guide:
Types of magic items include armor, potions, scrolls, rings, rods, staffs, wands, weapons, and wondrous items.
A magic item of a given type gets all the properties of its type of item, so a wand type item is a wand as that's its base. It therefore inherits all the properties of being a wand, such as being able to be used as a spellcasting foci.
Wand of Winter is explicitly a wand
Wand of Winter Wand, rare (requires attunement)
All wand type items can be used as a foci for all classes that can use wands, the same for staff and rod type magic items too. Just how weapon type magic items can be used as the weapons they're the type of.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Establish boundaries. And if anyone crosses them, speak up. If they don’t listen, there’s always cloudkill …
Can you quote rule text which provides that magic item types imply unwritten functionality? “Magic Items. Types of magic items include armor, potions, scrolls, rings, rods, staffs, wands, weapons, and wondrous items” doesn’t do that heavy lifting. And a Wand of Winter (or any other Wand I see) doesn’t say it can be used as an Arcane Focus.
A Ring of Protection is a “ring,” but that isn’t to say that a “ring” is something with rule significance... why would magic-item-type-Wand be assumed any differently? Given that arcane focus Wands have EXPLICIT rule text providing that they are ONLY “Wand-like lengths of wood,” and not actual wands (especially not actual wands made of materials other than wood), what apart from plain English can we point to to justify treating a Wand of Winter as an Arcane Focus Wand merely because it is a wand?
We can’t have it both ways. Either:
A) The Arcane Focus entry require strict reading without regard to plain English usage, such that a staff is not a Staff unless specially designed, and a wand is never a Wand; or
B) The Arcane Focus entry contains unfortunate language but does not require ridiculous conclusions be drawn, because of the “or other similar items” clause, allowing all types of wands to be Wands and all types of staffs to be Staffs.
I see no support for choosing A for staffs and B for wands, consistency is key.
This is preposterous. A Quarterstaff is a Staff, or at the very least, is “some similar item” enough to be an Arcane Focus.
I’ve cut your complaints about nomenclature, because while I maybe disagree with some of it a little bit, they’re overall perfectly reasonable complaints to have, and they’re not really relevant to the mechanical discussion.
I did want to address this part though, because again you’re ignoring key text. It’s not enough to be a similar item. A quarterstaff is a similar item to a staff, but even a similar item must still be “designed to channel the power of arcane spells,” which a quarterstaff is not.
Even if you want to try to argue that a wand isn’t a wand-like length of wood (an argument that I disagree with; referring to a wand as a wand-like length of wood is misleading, and no one would ever do it, but it’s technically accurate), a wand is a similar item to a wand-like length of wood and is, crucially, designed to channel the power of arcane spells.
My point wasn't to stir up that discussion. I would recommend that since there is a price difference (due to the staff's ability to channel magical power), I would say that you still need to buy the more expensive focus in order to use it as both a quarterstaff and a focus as a ruling.
But my original point is that it is specifically a magic item rule that describes magical staffs as being able to act as a quarterstaff. Most people still let a mundane focus staff work as a quarterstaff -- which is fine due to improvised weapon rules. The problem I wanted to point out is that just applying the magic item rule to the mundane item isn't strictly RAW since there is no evidence that the descriptions of magic items apply to non-magic items. I didn't mean to stir the hornet's nest over this.
Well, a Staff is a Quarterstaff with special tunes and junk carved into it and a crystal or something on top. It can still be used as a boppity stick. But a regular boppity stick without the decorations cannot focus a spell.
boppity stick...I love it
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Don't all actual Wands say they can be used as an Arcane Focus, though? So it all follows the Rectangle is a Square but a Square is not a Rectangle metaphor.
You got that backwards. All squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares.
You could absolutely use a pipe wrench as an improvised hammer in a pinch. You can absolutely not use a hammer as an improvised pipe wrench.
A staff or a wooden staff can be used as an improvised weapon. The rules for improvised weapons say that if the improvised weapon is close to an existing weapon, use that existing weapon’s stats. The weapon the stages and wooden staves most closely resemble is a quarterstaff.
There are absolutely 0.00 rules anywhere for an “improvised Spellcasting focus” so that means that a Quarterstaff cannot be used as a Spellcasting focus.
I fail to see where the confusions is coming from.
A Staff of the Woodlands, if Davedamon is correct, is a Staff by virtue of having the “staff” magic item type. When it loses its magic powers, it turns into a Quarterstaff... can it continue to be used as a focus, or did losing its abilities cause it to lose whatever fiddly design elements make a non magical Quarterstaff a Non magical Staff in the first place?
Furthermore... it is a Staff that can only be attuned by a Druid, not necessarily a Wooden Staff, and thus useless to most Druids. It being made of wood is not sufficient to assume it to be a Wooden Staff, for that requires it to have been “drawn whole from a living tree” specifically, which the item does not tell us it was, nor does it make an attempt to ever call itself a Wooden Staff, and if it were one, it would turn into one when losing powers instead of becoming a Quarterstaff, surely?
To me, “other similar object” was very, very, VERY clearly telling the reader that they were being provided a list of examples of suitably themed objects for an Arcane/ Druidic focus, not a precise and limiting list. To hold otherwise reads to the ludicrous wand stuff I mentioned earlier, and useless Staff of the Woodlands. Staff, Wooden Staff, and Quarterstaff are all very “similar” objects, that for simplicity and fun’s sake ought all be construed to be suitable focuses, and/or those items should be defined generously to include one another as synonyms.
When it loses its magic powers, it turns into a Quarterstaff...
Nope, when it loses its magic it'd become a Staff, which can also be used as a Quarterstaffs. Staffs, nor any foci, are not magic items nor intrinsically magic.
can it continue to be used as a focus, or did losing its abilities cause it to lose whatever fiddly design elements make a non magical Quarterstaff a Non magical Staff in the first place?
It can continue to be used as a staff because it's now just a mundane staff. And by virtue of being a staff, it also can server as a quarterstaff.
Think of it this way; a butterknife in a pinch can work as a perfectly serviceable flat head screwdriver (who hasn't made that substitution in a pinch). However, I can't think of anyone that'd want to, let alone be able to, use a flathead screwdriver in place of a butterknife. In this scenario, the staff is the butterknife, and the quarterstaff is the flathead screwdriver.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Establish boundaries. And if anyone crosses them, speak up. If they don’t listen, there’s always cloudkill …
When it loses its magic powers, it turns into a Quarterstaff...
Nope, when it loses its magic it'd become a Staff, which can also be used as a Quarterstaffs. Staffs, nor any foci, are not magic items nor intrinsically magic.
can it continue to be used as a focus, or did losing its abilities cause it to lose whatever fiddly design elements make a non magical Quarterstaff a Non magical Staff in the first place?
It can continue to be used as a staff because it's now just a mundane staff. And by virtue of being a staff, it also can server as a quarterstaff.
Think of it this way; a butterknife in a pinch can work as a perfectly serviceable flat head screwdriver (who hasn't made that substitution in a pinch). However, I can't think of anyone that'd want to, let alone be able to, use a flathead screwdriver in place of a butterknife. In this scenario, the staff is the butterknife, and the quarterstaff is the flathead screwdriver.
I appreciate the “rectangles are squares” and “You can use a plorb as a bingle but not a bingle as a plorb!” responses... but I get it, the analogy has been made. That’s not the hang up. It isn’t that I don’t understand improvised weapons, or that a more sophisticated tool has functions that overlap but exceed a more simple one... it is that it is linguistically incoherent to call a staff a more sophisticated implement than a Quarterstaff, insistence on that reading leads to other perverse conclusions (e.g. wands aren’t Wands, the Staff of the Woodlands isn’t a Wooden Staff, etc.), and is supremely over complicated and unfun.
And Staff of the Woodlands does NOT become a Staff, please read its description. “On a 1, the staff loses its properties and becomes a nonmagical quarterstaff.”
Davedamon and Chicken_Champ, the description of the staff of the woodlands says it changes to a quarterstaff, which makes it so. What is the problem with having the item do what it says?
I don't see, though, anywhere in the actual text of the rules (rather than just DDB) a discrete definition of wooden staff, just what might be used as a druidic focus. Again, the description of what might be a druidic focus even lists items such as a Yew Scepter, which seems to be unavailable as a mundane focus.
Also, if "While touching the tree and using another action to speak its command word, you return the staff to its normal form" isn't "a staff drawn whole out of a living tree," I don't understand what would be.
Don't all actual Wands say they can be used as an Arcane Focus, though? So it all follows the Rectangle is a Square but a Square is not a Rectangle metaphor.
You got that backwards. All squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares.
More like all squares & rectangles have four sides; not all rectangles are squares, and not all four-sided objects are squares or rectangles.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Don't all actual Wands say they can be used as an Arcane Focus, though? So it all follows the Rectangle is a Square but a Square is not a Rectangle metaphor.
You got that backwards. All squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares.
More like all squares & rectangles have four sides; not all rectangles are squares, and not all four-sided objects are squares or rectangles.
When it loses its magic powers, it turns into a Quarterstaff...
Nope, when it loses its magic it'd become a Staff, which can also be used as a Quarterstaffs. Staffs, nor any foci, are not magic items nor intrinsically magic.
can it continue to be used as a focus, or did losing its abilities cause it to lose whatever fiddly design elements make a non magical Quarterstaff a Non magical Staff in the first place?
It can continue to be used as a staff because it's now just a mundane staff. And by virtue of being a staff, it also can server as a quarterstaff.
Think of it this way; a butterknife in a pinch can work as a perfectly serviceable flat head screwdriver (who hasn't made that substitution in a pinch). However, I can't think of anyone that'd want to, let alone be able to, use a flathead screwdriver in place of a butterknife. In this scenario, the staff is the butterknife, and the quarterstaff is the flathead screwdriver.
I appreciate the “rectangles are squares” and “You can use a plorb as a bingle but not a bingle as a plorb!” responses... but I get it, the analogy has been made. That’s not the hang up. It isn’t that I don’t understand improvised weapons, or that a more sophisticated tool has functions that overlap but exceed a more simple one... it is that it is linguistically incoherent to call a staff a more sophisticated implement than a Quarterstaff, insistence on that reading leads to other perverse conclusions (e.g. wands aren’t Wands, the Staff of the Woodlands isn’t a Wooden Staff, etc.), and is supremely over complicated and unfun.
And Staff of the Woodlands does NOT become a Staff, please read its description. “On a 1, the staff loses its properties and becomes a nonmagical quarterstaff.”
It’s not complicated at all. Is the implement designed to channel magical power? If yes, it can be a spellcasting focus. If no, it can’t. That’s the text you keep overlooking.
Whether or not it’s “unfun” is obviously a personal take, but I personally find it very unfun that I should be able to to just grab a random stick and use it as a spellcasting focus. I want there to be a point and purpose to having something that was actually designed to be a focus.
All squares are rectangles is implicit, and irrelevant to the proof. The key distinction to be made is that not all four-sided objects are either rectangles or squares. It could be any member of the quadrilateral family: a square, rectangle, rhombus, trapezoid, parallelogram, etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
All squares are rectangles is implicit, and irrelevant to the proof. The key distinction to be made is that not all four-sided objects are either rectangles or squares. It could be any member of the quadrilateral family: a square, rectangle, rhombus, trapezoid, parallelogram, etc.
True, but I was specifically limiting the scope of my example to quadrilaterals with both straight sides and 90 degree angles.
Right, and I'm just saying that opening up the scope more only makes your point stronger.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Right, and I'm just saying that opening up the scope more only makes your point stronger.
Fair point, and I do not disagree with you.
But I can almost guarantee that someone will read this thread at some point that has to look up the word “quadrilateral,” whereas a second-grader should be able to understand the squares/rectangles reference. KISS theory and all that.
A lot of this stems from the improvised weapon rule that states you can treat any improvised weapon as a proxy for an existing weapon of similar enough nature at DM discretion. The exception to that last caveat (the DM discretion bit) are staff foci.
There are two types of staff foci, as you've point out; the staff for wizards and the wooden staff for druids. Both of which are fundamentally identical enough to the quarterstaff to always be treated as that weapon type.
Thus all staffs are also quarterstaffs, and all woodens staffs (staves?) are also quarterstaffs, but not all quarterstaffs are staffs or wooden staffs and no staffs are wooden staffs even if they're made out of wood.
All wand magic items such as the Wand of Magic Missiles work as foci because they're wands, the same with rods and magic staffs. The weirdness only comes from the (quarter)staff intersection
They do not, and I’m not sure where one would draw that assumption from. The Wand described in Arcane Focus is explicitly NOT a wand (only wand-like), and is explicitly wood, so something like the Wand of Winter is explicitly not a Wand even though it is a wand
If that feels stupid, it is no more stupid than the staff stuff.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The Wand of Winter is a wand type magic item, just like there are rod type and and staff type magic items. From the Dungeon Master's Guide:
A magic item of a given type gets all the properties of its type of item, so a wand type item is a wand as that's its base. It therefore inherits all the properties of being a wand, such as being able to be used as a spellcasting foci.
Wand of Winter is explicitly a wand
All wand type items can be used as a foci for all classes that can use wands, the same for staff and rod type magic items too. Just how weapon type magic items can be used as the weapons they're the type of.
Can you quote rule text which provides that magic item types imply unwritten functionality? “Magic Items. Types of magic items include armor, potions, scrolls, rings, rods, staffs, wands, weapons, and wondrous items” doesn’t do that heavy lifting. And a Wand of Winter (or any other Wand I see) doesn’t say it can be used as an Arcane Focus.
A Ring of Protection is a “ring,” but that isn’t to say that a “ring” is something with rule significance... why would magic-item-type-Wand be assumed any differently? Given that arcane focus Wands have EXPLICIT rule text providing that they are ONLY “Wand-like lengths of wood,” and not actual wands (especially not actual wands made of materials other than wood), what apart from plain English can we point to to justify treating a Wand of Winter as an Arcane Focus Wand merely because it is a wand?
We can’t have it both ways. Either:
A) The Arcane Focus entry require strict reading without regard to plain English usage, such that a staff is not a Staff unless specially designed, and a wand is never a Wand; or
B) The Arcane Focus entry contains unfortunate language but does not require ridiculous conclusions be drawn, because of the “or other similar items” clause, allowing all types of wands to be Wands and all types of staffs to be Staffs.
I see no support for choosing A for staffs and B for wands, consistency is key.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I’ve cut your complaints about nomenclature, because while I maybe disagree with some of it a little bit, they’re overall perfectly reasonable complaints to have, and they’re not really relevant to the mechanical discussion.
I did want to address this part though, because again you’re ignoring key text. It’s not enough to be a similar item. A quarterstaff is a similar item to a staff, but even a similar item must still be “designed to channel the power of arcane spells,” which a quarterstaff is not.
Even if you want to try to argue that a wand isn’t a wand-like length of wood (an argument that I disagree with; referring to a wand as a wand-like length of wood is misleading, and no one would ever do it, but it’s technically accurate), a wand is a similar item to a wand-like length of wood and is, crucially, designed to channel the power of arcane spells.
My point wasn't to stir up that discussion. I would recommend that since there is a price difference (due to the staff's ability to channel magical power), I would say that you still need to buy the more expensive focus in order to use it as both a quarterstaff and a focus as a ruling.
But my original point is that it is specifically a magic item rule that describes magical staffs as being able to act as a quarterstaff. Most people still let a mundane focus staff work as a quarterstaff -- which is fine due to improvised weapon rules. The problem I wanted to point out is that just applying the magic item rule to the mundane item isn't strictly RAW since there is no evidence that the descriptions of magic items apply to non-magic items. I didn't mean to stir the hornet's nest over this.
boppity stick...I love it
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
You got that backwards. All squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Chicken,
You could absolutely use a pipe wrench as an improvised hammer in a pinch. You can absolutely not use a hammer as an improvised pipe wrench.
A staff or a wooden staff can be used as an improvised weapon. The rules for improvised weapons say that if the improvised weapon is close to an existing weapon, use that existing weapon’s stats. The weapon the stages and wooden staves most closely resemble is a quarterstaff.
There are absolutely 0.00 rules anywhere for an “improvised Spellcasting focus” so that means that a Quarterstaff cannot be used as a Spellcasting focus.
I fail to see where the confusions is coming from.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
*edit: sorry for snark*
A Staff of the Woodlands, if Davedamon is correct, is a Staff by virtue of having the “staff” magic item type. When it loses its magic powers, it turns into a Quarterstaff... can it continue to be used as a focus, or did losing its abilities cause it to lose whatever fiddly design elements make a non magical Quarterstaff a Non magical Staff in the first place?
Furthermore... it is a Staff that can only be attuned by a Druid, not necessarily a Wooden Staff, and thus useless to most Druids. It being made of wood is not sufficient to assume it to be a Wooden Staff, for that requires it to have been “drawn whole from a living tree” specifically, which the item does not tell us it was, nor does it make an attempt to ever call itself a Wooden Staff, and if it were one, it would turn into one when losing powers instead of becoming a Quarterstaff, surely?
The only way to call a Staff of the Woodlands a Wooden Staff is through recourse to plain English and reason, or DM fiat and houserule.
To me, “other similar object” was very, very, VERY clearly telling the reader that they were being provided a list of examples of suitably themed objects for an Arcane/ Druidic focus, not a precise and limiting list. To hold otherwise reads to the ludicrous wand stuff I mentioned earlier, and useless Staff of the Woodlands. Staff, Wooden Staff, and Quarterstaff are all very “similar” objects, that for simplicity and fun’s sake ought all be construed to be suitable focuses, and/or those items should be defined generously to include one another as synonyms.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Nope, when it loses its magic it'd become a Staff, which can also be used as a Quarterstaffs. Staffs, nor any foci, are not magic items nor intrinsically magic.
It can continue to be used as a staff because it's now just a mundane staff. And by virtue of being a staff, it also can server as a quarterstaff.
Think of it this way; a butterknife in a pinch can work as a perfectly serviceable flat head screwdriver (who hasn't made that substitution in a pinch). However, I can't think of anyone that'd want to, let alone be able to, use a flathead screwdriver in place of a butterknife. In this scenario, the staff is the butterknife, and the quarterstaff is the flathead screwdriver.
I appreciate the “rectangles are squares” and “You can use a plorb as a bingle but not a bingle as a plorb!” responses... but I get it, the analogy has been made. That’s not the hang up. It isn’t that I don’t understand improvised weapons, or that a more sophisticated tool has functions that overlap but exceed a more simple one... it is that it is linguistically incoherent to call a staff a more sophisticated implement than a Quarterstaff, insistence on that reading leads to other perverse conclusions (e.g. wands aren’t Wands, the Staff of the Woodlands isn’t a Wooden Staff, etc.), and is supremely over complicated and unfun.
And Staff of the Woodlands does NOT become a Staff, please read its description. “On a 1, the staff loses its properties and becomes a nonmagical quarterstaff.”
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Davedamon and Chicken_Champ, the description of the staff of the woodlands says it changes to a quarterstaff, which makes it so. What is the problem with having the item do what it says?
I don't see, though, anywhere in the actual text of the rules (rather than just DDB) a discrete definition of wooden staff, just what might be used as a druidic focus. Again, the description of what might be a druidic focus even lists items such as a Yew Scepter, which seems to be unavailable as a mundane focus.
Also, if "While touching the tree and using another action to speak its command word, you return the staff to its normal form" isn't "a staff drawn whole out of a living tree," I don't understand what would be.
More like all squares & rectangles have four sides; not all rectangles are squares, and not all four-sided objects are squares or rectangles.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
By definition, all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It’s not complicated at all. Is the implement designed to channel magical power? If yes, it can be a spellcasting focus. If no, it can’t. That’s the text you keep overlooking.
Whether or not it’s “unfun” is obviously a personal take, but I personally find it very unfun that I should be able to to just grab a random stick and use it as a spellcasting focus. I want there to be a point and purpose to having something that was actually designed to be a focus.
All squares are rectangles is implicit, and irrelevant to the proof. The key distinction to be made is that not all four-sided objects are either rectangles or squares. It could be any member of the quadrilateral family: a square, rectangle, rhombus, trapezoid, parallelogram, etc.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
True, but I was specifically limiting the scope of my example to quadrilaterals with both straight sides and 90 degree angles.
Edit: Specifically flat (2 dimensional) quadrilaterals.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Right, and I'm just saying that opening up the scope more only makes your point stronger.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Fair point, and I do not disagree with you.
But I can almost guarantee that someone will read this thread at some point that has to look up the word “quadrilateral,” whereas a second-grader should be able to understand the squares/rectangles reference. KISS theory and all that.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting