Anything BUT whatever dumb ass 💩 WotC has recently done or is currently doing, literally ANYTHING

I would leave it the same too. If anything, I might allow for two-weapon fighting with them though.

QotD: If you were in control of the Olympics, what sport would you add?

I hashed this out with my family a few days ago. I'd have four teams of four in a gladiatorial arena in a sort of free-form fencing-judo-HEMA sort of situation where you choose your own weapon. Presumably the armor and the weapons could be made safe for the combatants so there'd be no actual injury.

Then, paintball or laser tag, or something similar with Nerf guns.

I'd also watch something like ulama or its ancestor.

Edit: How could I forget the ultimate sport--chessboxing!

Quote from Gnomarchy >>

QotD: If you were in control of the Olympics, what sport would you add?

I hashed this out with my family a few days ago. I'd have four teams of four in a gladiatorial arena in a sort of free-form fencing-judo-HEMA sort of situation where you choose your own weapon. Presumably the armor and the weapons could be made safe for the combatants so there'd be no actual injury.

Then, paintball or laser tag, or something similar with Nerf guns.

I'd also watch something like ulama or its ancestor.

 Laser tag would be interesting. I'd honestly like to see olympic fencing because of my lightsaber obsession

Quote from EJODM18604 >>

 Laser tag would be interesting. I'd honestly like to see olympic fencing because of my lightsaber obsession

 
Olympic lightsabering would be great. But you're immediately disqualified if you don't make the noises. Thems the rules.

Quote from Gnomarchy >>

Quote from EJODM18604 >>

 Laser tag would be interesting. I'd honestly like to see olympic fencing because of my lightsaber obsession

 
Olympic lightsabering would be great. But you're immediately disqualified if you don't make the noises. Thems the rules.

 yeah. using those heavy dueling lightsabers that you can buy that cost like £400 and wearing jedi and sith robes. It'd be AWESOME

Quote from Gnomarchy >>

QotD: If you were in control of the Olympics, what sport would you add?

I hashed this out with my family a few days ago. I'd have four teams of four in a gladiatorial arena in a sort of free-form fencing-judo-HEMA sort of situation where you choose your own weapon. Presumably the armor and the weapons could be made safe for the combatants so there'd be no actual injury.

Then, paintball or laser tag, or something similar with Nerf guns.

I'd also watch something like ulama or its ancestor.

Edit: How could I forget the ultimate sport--chessboxing!

 Juggling. Laugh all you want but I really, really want to see juggling in the Olympics. 

Olympic fencing already exists - they just don’t televise it sadly. Light saber might be an interesting addition to that.

Quote from The_Summoning_Dark >>

Quote from Gnomarchy >>

QotD: If you were in control of the Olympics, what sport would you add?

I hashed this out with my family a few days ago. I'd have four teams of four in a gladiatorial arena in a sort of free-form fencing-judo-HEMA sort of situation where you choose your own weapon. Presumably the armor and the weapons could be made safe for the combatants so there'd be no actual injury.

Then, paintball or laser tag, or something similar with Nerf guns.

I'd also watch something like ulama or its ancestor.

Edit: How could I forget the ultimate sport--chessboxing!

 Juggling. Laugh all you want but I really, really want to see juggling in the Olympics. 

 
Really they should just add all forms of clowning. I want a competition among mimes to see who can lift the heaviest invisible object.

Quote from Gnomarchy >>

Quote from The_Summoning_Dark >>

Quote from Gnomarchy >>

QotD: If you were in control of the Olympics, what sport would you add?

I hashed this out with my family a few days ago. I'd have four teams of four in a gladiatorial arena in a sort of free-form fencing-judo-HEMA sort of situation where you choose your own weapon. Presumably the armor and the weapons could be made safe for the combatants so there'd be no actual injury.

Then, paintball or laser tag, or something similar with Nerf guns.

I'd also watch something like ulama or its ancestor.

Edit: How could I forget the ultimate sport--chessboxing!

 Juggling. Laugh all you want but I really, really want to see juggling in the Olympics. 

 
Really they should just add all forms of clowning. I want a competition among mimes to see who can lift the heaviest invisible object.

 Miming is an underrated skill. A Circus Olympics would be so awesome. 

Quote from Wi1dBi11 >>

Olympic fencing already exists - they just don’t televise it sadly.

Really? That’s not what I heard.

Ghost question.

Ghosts' in 5e have: 
Incorporeal Movement: The ghost can move through other creatures and objects as if they were difficult terrain. It takes 5 (1d10) force damage if it ends its turn inside an object.

Now the question is - it talks about if it ends its turn inside of an object it takes 1d10 damage.

It's unclear, to me, with how this is written:

Incorporeal Movement: The ghost can move through other creatures and objects as if they were difficult terrain. It takes 5 (1d10) force damage if it ends its turn inside an object.

Does the ghost take 1d10 damage or does the object (or person) they stop inside of take 1d10 damage?

I am pretty sure it's the ghost - but that really should be made more clear such as "The ghost takes 5 (1d10) force damage if it ends its turn inside an object."

Because it can certainly be read the other way.

It's got to be the ghost taking damage. Parsing the sentences a bit, the "It" at the beginning of the sentence doesn't make sense in referring to the same "object" given at the end of the sentence. I'm not sure if a sentence can have the same thing be in both subject and predicate. Also, most objects don't have turns to end.

If the "It" in the second sentence meant "the object", it would be very awkward. You'd be able to read it in that case as:

"The object takes 5 (1d10) force damage if it ends its turn inside an object."

And that's a bit of a wild sentence.

Quote from Nothic3SeeHere >>

Quote from Wi1dBi11 >>

Olympic fencing already exists - they just don’t televise it sadly.

Really? That’s not what I heard.

 
This is my favorite Onion video of all time. Volume down if you're in public.

Quote from SirTawmis >>

Ghost question.

Ghosts' in 5e have: 
Incorporeal Movement: The ghost can move through other creatures and objects as if they were difficult terrain. It takes 5 (1d10) force damage if it ends its turn inside an object.

Now the question is - it talks about if it ends its turn inside of an object it takes 1d10 damage.

It's unclear, to me, with how this is written:

Incorporeal Movement: The ghost can move through other creatures and objects as if they were difficult terrain. It takes 5 (1d10) force damage if it ends its turn inside an object.

Does the ghost take 1d10 damage or does the object (or person) they stop inside of take 1d10 damage?

I am pretty sure it's the ghost - but that really should be made more clear such as "The ghost takes 5 (1d10) force damage if it ends its turn inside an object."

Because it can certainly be read the other way.

 
That’s only because when they wrote 5e, they decided not to pay very close attention to the rules of the English language. According to the actual rules of English, the pronoun should refer back to whichever noun was the most recent. As that rule you quoted is written, technically the word “it” refers back to “difficult terrain,” and “force damage,” and therefore the terrain would be what takes the listed 1d10 damage, but only if the force damage ends “its” turn in difficult terrain. To be grammatically correct so that RAW could match the RAI, the rule should be written as follows:

“Incorporeal Movement. The ghost can move through other creatures and objects as if they were difficult terrain. If the ghost ends its turn inside an object, the ghost takes 5 (1d10) force damage.”

A propos of nothing:

I'm bored with longswords. We need more hammers and spears.

That's the post.

Quote from Gnomarchy >>

A propos of nothing:

I'm bored with longswords. We need more hammers and spears.

That's the post.

 What we really need are more ranged weapons. Give me magic long bows and crossbows, or slings and nets.

Quote from RoughCoronet0 >>

Quote from Gnomarchy >>

A propos of nothing:

I'm bored with longswords. We need more hammers and spears.

That's the post.

 What we really need are more ranged weapons. Give me magic long bows and crossbows, or slings and nets.

 
We have plenty of bows! But spears can be thrown. MOAR SPEARS!

But yes, slings and nets. Endorsed.

There are so many weapons that we need to see more of. Magic darts, halberds, sickles, war picks?

Quote from SirTawmis >>

Ghost question.

Ghosts' in 5e have: 
Incorporeal Movement: The ghost can move through other creatures and objects as if they were difficult terrain. It takes 5 (1d10) force damage if it ends its turn inside an object.

Now the question is - it talks about if it ends its turn inside of an object it takes 1d10 damage.

It's unclear, to me, with how this is written:

Incorporeal Movement: The ghost can move through other creatures and objects as if they were difficult terrain. It takes 5 (1d10) force damage if it ends its turn inside an object.

Does the ghost take 1d10 damage or does the object (or person) they stop inside of take 1d10 damage?

I am pretty sure it's the ghost - but that really should be made more clear such as "The ghost takes 5 (1d10) force damage if it ends its turn inside an object."

Because it can certainly be read the other way.

 You’ve inspired me. Next ghost I run will deal the damage to an object or person it stays inside. Imagine the walls of an old house creaking and groaning as long dark cracks splinter the wood. Pots shatter as it passes by and it attacks by going inside someone and causing them immense pain.

Quote from The_Summoning_Dark >>

Quote from SirTawmis >>

Ghost question.

Ghosts' in 5e have: 
Incorporeal Movement: The ghost can move through other creatures and objects as if they were difficult terrain. It takes 5 (1d10) force damage if it ends its turn inside an object.

Now the question is - it talks about if it ends its turn inside of an object it takes 1d10 damage.

It's unclear, to me, with how this is written:

Incorporeal Movement: The ghost can move through other creatures and objects as if they were difficult terrain. It takes 5 (1d10) force damage if it ends its turn inside an object.

Does the ghost take 1d10 damage or does the object (or person) they stop inside of take 1d10 damage?

I am pretty sure it's the ghost - but that really should be made more clear such as "The ghost takes 5 (1d10) force damage if it ends its turn inside an object."

Because it can certainly be read the other way.

 You’ve inspired me. Next ghost I run will deal the damage to an object or person it stays inside. Imagine the walls of an old house creaking and groaning as long dark cracks splinter the wood. Pots shatter as it passes by and it attacks by going inside someone and causing them immense pain.

 
Check the star spawn seer. Its out-of-phase movement deals damage to things it moves through. Not exactly the same, but it could help fix ideas. My recent entry in the homebrewing competition in that forum has a similar ability. When in its aberration form, it resonates through creatures and harms them.

Quote from Gnomarchy >>

A propos of nothing:

I'm bored with longswords. We need more hammers and spears.

That's the post.

 We need more of other types of swords too. I want more cutlasses, shamshirs, and sabers. Curved blades are more fun to use in combat. 

Quote from The_Summoning_Dark >>

 We need more of other types of swords too. I want more cutlasses, shamshirs, and sabers. Curved blades are more fun to use in combat. 

 
They've got curved swords. Curved. Swords.

But no. I apologize. I'm placing a full embargo on sword-like weapons until we can figure out what's going on.