Ending turns mid-air has always been tricky in D&D. Like... if you have the Jump spell cast on you, odds are it will increase your Jump Distance even further than your max speed. As long as you're not in combat, it's generally accepted that you can leap across chasms that exceed your walk speed, but once initiative is rolled you either drop to the ground somewhere in the middle of your arc, or you get to travel just extra far that round, and in rare instances... you're just kind of "floating" mid-air until your next turn comes around and your movement gets resolved. I believe that just dropping mid-jump is the RAW interpretation.
Taking turns is an abstraction that (IIRC) the rules explicitly mention. You are assumed to be acting through the entire round, so all the "weirdnesses" like that are just a function of the abstraction. Similarly, you're not moving through the arc of your jump at walking speed; instead, the preparation for the jump and the recovery from the landing prevent you from moving full-speed for the rest of the time.
When you fall at least 10 feet above the ground, you can use your reaction to extend your skin membranes to glide horizontally a number of feet equal to your walking speed, and you take 0 damage from the fall. You determine the direction of the glide.
What does "When you fall at least 10 feet above the ground," mean? Was it supposed to say, "When you fall from a height at least 10 feet above the ground,"? You are aware that "...glide horizontally a number of feet equal to your walking speed..." can imply that you will immediately plumet/fall because you cannot keep gliding? If it instead said "... you can glide horizontally up to a number of feet equal to your walking speed and can slow your descent down to 10 feet per round..." then it would be less confusing and understandable.
A monk's slow fall is badly named as a monk can still fall 500 in a round and if they are high enough level are likely to take no damage whatever the fall height.
A hadozee is similar but instead of landing immediately below where they fell from they can choose anywhere within 30ft of that (if their walking speed is 30)
I do not understand how lore about overcoming oppression can be offensive. It is like calling a black person's cultural heritage offensive.
Removing the previous story text is equivalent to saying you support oppression, which is offensive.
I am not trolling, I am honestly concerned about the direction WOTC's sensitivity department is taking D&D.
If you don't understand, seek to understand. Commenting about how it's dumb on a forum isn't that. There were resources linked in the original Twitter thread.
I do not understand how lore about overcoming oppression can be offensive. It is like calling a black person's cultural heritage offensive.
Removing the previous story text is equivalent to saying you support oppression, which is offensive.
I am not trolling, I am honestly concerned about the direction WOTC's sensitivity department is taking D&D.
If you don't understand, seek to understand. Commenting about how it's dumb on a forum isn't that. There were resources linked in the original Twitter thread.
The "original Twitter thread" I think you mean (there are at least two "original Twitter threads") was primarily about content absent from the Spelljammer blurb on Hadozee and instead present on a fan wiki employing content across multiple editions. I've just scrolled through several pages of posts in that thread and can't find any resources there that are contextually relevant.
I do not understand how lore about overcoming oppression can be offensive. It is like calling a black person's cultural heritage offensive.
Removing the previous story text is equivalent to saying you support oppression, which is offensive.
I am not trolling, I am honestly concerned about the direction WOTC's sensitivity department is taking D&D.
If you don't understand, seek to understand. Commenting about how it's dumb on a forum isn't that. There were resources linked in the original Twitter thread.
The "original Twitter thread" I think you mean (there are at least two "original Twitter threads") was primarily about content absent from the Spelljammer blurb on Hadozee and instead present on a fan wiki employing content across multiple editions. I've just scrolled through several pages of posts in that thread and can't find any resources there that are contextually relevant.
Okay. Well, it makes sense that most people wouldn't understand the problem -- the people who wrote it didn't, apparently. That's kind of how it goes with things that primarily affect minorities, you know? The majority isn't affected.
I do not understand how lore about overcoming oppression can be offensive. It is like calling a black person's cultural heritage offensive.
Removing the previous story text is equivalent to saying you support oppression, which is offensive.
I am not trolling, I am honestly concerned about the direction WOTC's sensitivity department is taking D&D.
If you don't understand, seek to understand. Commenting about how it's dumb on a forum isn't that. There were resources linked in the original Twitter thread.
The "original Twitter thread" I think you mean (there are at least two "original Twitter threads") was primarily about content absent from the Spelljammer blurb on Hadozee and instead present on a fan wiki employing content across multiple editions. I've just scrolled through several pages of posts in that thread and can't find any resources there that are contextually relevant.
Okay. Well, it makes sense that most people wouldn't understand the problem -- the people who wrote it didn't, apparently. That's kind of how it goes with things that primarily affect minorities, you know? The majority isn't affected.
Thing is, they have minorities on their editing, screening, and play testing sides. It's been my experience that is is usually a white person who sees something that could be subtly racist and rallies people to notice. There is too much real racism in America to waste on white people calling out white people over clueless incidents. Weakens the struggle.
I do not understand how lore about overcoming oppression can be offensive. It is like calling a black person's cultural heritage offensive.
Removing the previous story text is equivalent to saying you support oppression, which is offensive.
I am not trolling, I am honestly concerned about the direction WOTC's sensitivity department is taking D&D.
If you don't understand, seek to understand. Commenting about how it's dumb on a forum isn't that. There were resources linked in the original Twitter thread.
The "original Twitter thread" I think you mean (there are at least two "original Twitter threads") was primarily about content absent from the Spelljammer blurb on Hadozee and instead present on a fan wiki employing content across multiple editions. I've just scrolled through several pages of posts in that thread and can't find any resources there that are contextually relevant.
Okay. Well, it makes sense that most people wouldn't understand the problem -- the people who wrote it didn't, apparently. That's kind of how it goes with things that primarily affect minorities, you know? The majority isn't affected.
Thing is, they have minorities on their editing, screening, and play testing sides. It's been my experience that is is usually a white person who sees something that could be subtly racist and rallies people to notice. There is too much real racism in America to waste on white people calling out white people over clueless incidents. Weakens the struggle.
I did a quick scan of the credits section in a few books. Van Richten's and Radiant Citadel had cultural consultants, Spelljammer and Monsters of the Multiverse did not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Okay. Well, it makes sense that most people wouldn't understand the problem -- the people who wrote it didn't, apparently. That's kind of how it goes with things that primarily affect minorities, you know? The majority isn't affected.
That's doubly unhelpful because a) I'm a minority and can confirm being one doesn't grant me powers of perception others lack and b) I was trying to understand and your answer provided me with no additional understanding.
Here are some example sources of confusion I have:
The original blurb did not contain the text "Deck Ape" despite claims that it did.
I should also point out that the original blurb never called them monkeys, either. They were originally mammals per the blurb, and post-modification their artwork was undeniably simian, and that could certainly be construed as claim that they're monkeys, but I haven't seen anyone pairing their criticisms of the art with the text, which would be required here for that argument. Based solely on the text, they were most likely marsupials.
The original blurb did not contain the text "Astral Elf" or "Astral Elves" despite claims that it did.
The original blurb did not have a wizard finding and enslaving sophonts despite claims that it did (the wizard created and enslaved sophonts).
The original blurb did not contain any claims that the enslaved sophonts enjoyed their captivity in any way despite claims that it did.
Unfortunately, it's become more and more difficult to get our hands on the original blurb so we can discuss it rationally, but I suspect I can find it if needed. All I'm looking for is for someone to point me at the problematic text (every example I can find of people complaining references things not in the text so I don't know where to look), although I will award bonus internet points if the pointing is accompanied by an explanation of what about the text is problematic.
Okay. Well, it makes sense that most people wouldn't understand the problem -- the people who wrote it didn't, apparently. That's kind of how it goes with things that primarily affect minorities, you know? The majority isn't affected.
That's doubly unhelpful because a) I'm a minority and can confirm being one doesn't grant me powers of perception others lack and b) I was trying to understand and your answer provided me with no additional understanding.
I didn't say minorities are especially perceptive, I said the majority is especially un-perceptive. Anyway, educating people on this kind of thing is work, and I'm not getting paid.
You don't need to do the unpaid labor either. But if you don't, please don't act like your lack of understanding of the situation says anything about the situation. You know?
Okay. Well, it makes sense that most people wouldn't understand the problem -- the people who wrote it didn't, apparently. That's kind of how it goes with things that primarily affect minorities, you know? The majority isn't affected.
That's doubly unhelpful because a) I'm a minority and can confirm being one doesn't grant me powers of perception others lack and b) I was trying to understand and your answer provided me with no additional understanding.
I didn't say minorities are especially perceptive, I said the majority is especially un-perceptive. Anyway, educating people on this kind of thing is work, and I'm not getting paid.
You don't need to do the unpaid labor either. But if you don't, please don't act like your lack of understanding of the situation says anything about the situation. You know?
Just to weigh in, its a little counterproductive to ignore the rest of their response that objectively denounces the baseless backlash to lore that wasn't even what people claimed it was. (there was content from 3e that could be interpreted the way the twitter mob did).
Fair enough to not want to put in hard yards, but you've been quite vocal with insulting his "perception" of the situation, so seems a little sus to bow out now when the legitimate criticisms of the situation are brought up.
I didn't say minorities are especially perceptive, I said the majority is especially un-perceptive.
These are the same statement. If the majority is less perceptive than the minority then the minority is more perceptive than the majority.
Anyway, educating people on this kind of thing is work, and I'm not getting paid.
You weren't paid to make any of your posts in this thread at all. You're absolutely entitled to simply bow out of the conversation at any point, but ordinarily you'd do that by simply not posting anything. Making a post in which you explicitly refuse to include the content the current thread is about is deeply weird. No-one paid you to make that post.
You don't need to do the unpaid labor either.
I have tried repeatedly to do so, to no avail.
But if you don't, please don't act like your lack of understanding of the situation says anything about the situation. You know?
I don't know, because I wasn't doing that. I expressed an earnest plea for someone to explain to me, and you piped up to a) explicitly refuse me an explanation and then b) implicitly accuse me of drawing conclusions from my own ignorance other than my own ignorance, which I haven't done.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Taking turns is an abstraction that (IIRC) the rules explicitly mention. You are assumed to be acting through the entire round, so all the "weirdnesses" like that are just a function of the abstraction. Similarly, you're not moving through the arc of your jump at walking speed; instead, the preparation for the jump and the recovery from the landing prevent you from moving full-speed for the rest of the time.
Good point, but that’s easily removed. What if it was a reaction?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
New version.
Glide
When you fall at least 10 feet above the ground, you can use your reaction to extend your skin membranes to glide horizontally a number of feet equal to your walking speed, and you take 0 damage from the fall. You determine the direction of the glide.
What does "When you fall at least 10 feet above the ground," mean?
Was it supposed to say, "When you fall from a height at least 10 feet above the ground,"?
You are aware that "...glide horizontally a number of feet equal to your walking speed..." can imply that you will immediately plumet/fall because you cannot keep gliding?
If it instead said "... you can glide horizontally up to a number of feet equal to your walking speed and can slow your descent down to 10 feet per round..." then it would be less confusing and understandable.
I do not think it is particularly confusing.
A monk's slow fall is badly named as a monk can still fall 500 in a round and if they are high enough level are likely to take no damage whatever the fall height.
A hadozee is similar but instead of landing immediately below where they fell from they can choose anywhere within 30ft of that (if their walking speed is 30)
If you don't understand, seek to understand. Commenting about how it's dumb on a forum isn't that. There were resources linked in the original Twitter thread.
The "original Twitter thread" I think you mean (there are at least two "original Twitter threads") was primarily about content absent from the Spelljammer blurb on Hadozee and instead present on a fan wiki employing content across multiple editions. I've just scrolled through several pages of posts in that thread and can't find any resources there that are contextually relevant.
Okay. Well, it makes sense that most people wouldn't understand the problem -- the people who wrote it didn't, apparently. That's kind of how it goes with things that primarily affect minorities, you know? The majority isn't affected.
Thing is, they have minorities on their editing, screening, and play testing sides. It's been my experience that is is usually a white person who sees something that could be subtly racist and rallies people to notice. There is too much real racism in America to waste on white people calling out white people over clueless incidents. Weakens the struggle.
And yet.
I did a quick scan of the credits section in a few books. Van Richten's and Radiant Citadel had cultural consultants, Spelljammer and Monsters of the Multiverse did not.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
That's doubly unhelpful because a) I'm a minority and can confirm being one doesn't grant me powers of perception others lack and b) I was trying to understand and your answer provided me with no additional understanding.
Here are some example sources of confusion I have:
Unfortunately, it's become more and more difficult to get our hands on the original blurb so we can discuss it rationally, but I suspect I can find it if needed. All I'm looking for is for someone to point me at the problematic text (every example I can find of people complaining references things not in the text so I don't know where to look), although I will award bonus internet points if the pointing is accompanied by an explanation of what about the text is problematic.
I didn't say minorities are especially perceptive, I said the majority is especially un-perceptive. Anyway, educating people on this kind of thing is work, and I'm not getting paid.
You don't need to do the unpaid labor either. But if you don't, please don't act like your lack of understanding of the situation says anything about the situation. You know?
Just to weigh in, its a little counterproductive to ignore the rest of their response that objectively denounces the baseless backlash to lore that wasn't even what people claimed it was. (there was content from 3e that could be interpreted the way the twitter mob did).
Fair enough to not want to put in hard yards, but you've been quite vocal with insulting his "perception" of the situation, so seems a little sus to bow out now when the legitimate criticisms of the situation are brought up.
[REDACTED]
These are the same statement. If the majority is less perceptive than the minority then the minority is more perceptive than the majority.
You weren't paid to make any of your posts in this thread at all. You're absolutely entitled to simply bow out of the conversation at any point, but ordinarily you'd do that by simply not posting anything. Making a post in which you explicitly refuse to include the content the current thread is about is deeply weird. No-one paid you to make that post.
I have tried repeatedly to do so, to no avail.
I don't know, because I wasn't doing that. I expressed an earnest plea for someone to explain to me, and you piped up to a) explicitly refuse me an explanation and then b) implicitly accuse me of drawing conclusions from my own ignorance other than my own ignorance, which I haven't done.