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.”
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.
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.
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.”
That's not a rule of English grammar at all. What matters is pronoun and antecedent agreement as well as context. "It" could not be referring to "creatures and objects," as they are plural and "it" is singular. "Difficult terrain" is a predicate nominative. "Ghost" is the singular subject of the first sentence, and it's very clear that "It" in the second sentence refers back to "Ghost" both times.
This is literally 'The mother yelled at her daughter because she was drunk.' Who is the drunk one in the previous statement?
That sentence is ambiguous because the pronoun "she" could agree with either "mother" or "daughter" and there's no additional context to help (and certainly no rule saying it has to be "daughter" because it's closer). The ghost description has much more clarity. Obviously repeating "the ghost" every time it's referred to would be the most clear, but I don't think it's necessary.
I'm bored with longswords. We need more hammers and spears.
That's the post.
What I hope for, but what probably won't happen, is they take the specific weapon name out of the magic weapons. So instead of just flame togue swords, we have a flame togue weapon. You want a flaming axe or hammer or spear or crossbow or hand wraps for a monk? Go crazy and add the property to any magic weapon you want. There's some exceptions, for example I don't know if vorpal would work really with a piercing weapon but most of the magic weapons have no real balance or mechanical reasons to be restricted to their traditional weapon type. There's already vicious weapons that work with anything. I'd love to see that opened to every kind of weapon.
What I hope for, but what probably won't happen, is they take the specific weapon name out of the magic weapons. So instead of just flame togue swords, we have a flame togue weapon. You want a flaming axe or hammer or spear or crossbow or hand wraps for a monk? Go crazy and add the property to any magic weapon you want. There's some exceptions, for example I don't know if vorpal would work really with a piercing weapon but most of the magic weapons have no real balance or mechanical reasons to be restricted to their traditional weapon type. There's already vicious weapons that work with anything. I'd love to see that opened to every kind of weapon.
Yeah that makes sense!
But also there should be more unique non-sword weapons, eg. artifacts!
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.”
That's not a rule of English grammar at all. What matters is pronoun and antecedent agreement as well as context. "It" could not be referring to "creatures and objects," as they are plural and "it" is singular. "Difficult terrain" is a predicate nominative. "Ghost" is the singular subject of the first sentence, and it's very clear that "It" in the second sentence refers back to "Ghost" both times.
If you say so, but that’s not what I remember learning way back in primary school. But then again, that was, like, 35ish years ago, so…. 🤷♂️
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.”
That's not a rule of English grammar at all. What matters is pronoun and antecedent agreement as well as context. "It" could not be referring to "creatures and objects," as they are plural and "it" is singular. "Difficult terrain" is a predicate nominative. "Ghost" is the singular subject of the first sentence, and it's very clear that "It" in the second sentence refers back to "Ghost" both times.
If you say so, but that’s not what I remember learning way back in primary school. But then again, that was, like, 35ish years ago, so…. 🤷♂️
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.”
That's not a rule of English grammar at all. What matters is pronoun and antecedent agreement as well as context. "It" could not be referring to "creatures and objects," as they are plural and "it" is singular. "Difficult terrain" is a predicate nominative. "Ghost" is the singular subject of the first sentence, and it's very clear that "It" in the second sentence refers back to "Ghost" both times.
If you say so, but that’s not what I remember learning way back in primary school. But then again, that was, like, 35ish years ago, so…. 🤷♂️
NERDS.
This is a simply beautiful case of overthinking. Language is meant to communicate. The block pretty clearly communicates that the ghost takes the damage. Ain't grammar fun?
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.”
That's not a rule of English grammar at all. What matters is pronoun and antecedent agreement as well as context. "It" could not be referring to "creatures and objects," as they are plural and "it" is singular. "Difficult terrain" is a predicate nominative. "Ghost" is the singular subject of the first sentence, and it's very clear that "It" in the second sentence refers back to "Ghost" both times.
If you say so, but that’s not what I remember learning way back in primary school. But then again, that was, like, 35ish years ago, so…. 🤷♂️
NERDS.
This is a simply beautiful case of overthinking. Language is meant to communicate. The block pretty clearly communicates that the ghost takes the damage. Ain't grammar fun?
Clearly it doesn’t communicate that clearly or else someone wouldn’t have asked. I mean, I understand what they mean, but I still say that it’s grammatically subpar and could be clearer.
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.”
That's not a rule of English grammar at all. What matters is pronoun and antecedent agreement as well as context. "It" could not be referring to "creatures and objects," as they are plural and "it" is singular. "Difficult terrain" is a predicate nominative. "Ghost" is the singular subject of the first sentence, and it's very clear that "It" in the second sentence refers back to "Ghost" both times.
If you say so, but that’s not what I remember learning way back in primary school. But then again, that was, like, 35ish years ago, so…. 🤷♂️
NERDS.
Pardon me, I prefer that you refer to me by my chosen label as a “geek,” not a “nerd.” (Geeks get laid. 😉)
QOTD: What do you do for a living work, and do you like it?
I am currently unemployed but I am hoping to get a job putting up some dry wall sometime soon.
I do volunteer at a nonprofit food pantry/afterschool program/refugee housing and help program a lot. I am there about as much as some of the interns and employees but I am just a volunteer. I like it a lot.
Wait... why do you want to put up dry wall instead of do the thing that you already do so much?
Because that is just volunteer work and I need to get paid.
But you said that you're there as much as some of the interns and employees. Why not become one?
They aren't able to pay me and I don't have official training. Also the only job openings are full time jobs and I can only do part time right now.
This was a conversation I had quite awhile ago but I thought it would be interesting to update it. I interned at that non-profit this summer and now I'm hired as an assistant to run the afterschool program. Just thought it was funny the way things worked out.
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.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
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.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
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?
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.
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.
That's not a rule of English grammar at all. What matters is pronoun and antecedent agreement as well as context. "It" could not be referring to "creatures and objects," as they are plural and "it" is singular. "Difficult terrain" is a predicate nominative. "Ghost" is the singular subject of the first sentence, and it's very clear that "It" in the second sentence refers back to "Ghost" both times.
This is literally 'The mother yelled at her daughter because she was drunk.' Who is the drunk one in the previous statement?
Xaul Lackluster: Half-Orc Fathomless Warlock: Warlock Dragon Heist
Borvnir Chelvnich: Black Dragonborn Barbarian: Dragons of Stormwreck Isle
Pushover Gerilwitz: Tiefling Wizard: Acquisitions Incorporated
Callow Sunken-Eyes: Goliath Arctic Druid: We Are Modron
DMing The 100 Dungeons of the Blood Archivist , The Hunt for the Balowang and Surviving Tempest City!
Killer Queen has already extended this signature, though not by much!
That sentence is ambiguous because the pronoun "she" could agree with either "mother" or "daughter" and there's no additional context to help (and certainly no rule saying it has to be "daughter" because it's closer). The ghost description has much more clarity. Obviously repeating "the ghost" every time it's referred to would be the most clear, but I don't think it's necessary.
What I hope for, but what probably won't happen, is they take the specific weapon name out of the magic weapons. So instead of just flame togue swords, we have a flame togue weapon. You want a flaming axe or hammer or spear or crossbow or hand wraps for a monk? Go crazy and add the property to any magic weapon you want. There's some exceptions, for example I don't know if vorpal would work really with a piercing weapon but most of the magic weapons have no real balance or mechanical reasons to be restricted to their traditional weapon type. There's already vicious weapons that work with anything. I'd love to see that opened to every kind of weapon.
Yeah that makes sense!
But also there should be more unique non-sword weapons, eg. artifacts!
If you say so, but that’s not what I remember learning way back in primary school. But then again, that was, like, 35ish years ago, so…. 🤷♂️
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
NERDS.
This is a simply beautiful case of overthinking. Language is meant to communicate. The block pretty clearly communicates that the ghost takes the damage. Ain't grammar fun?
For Nothic: see this link for the list of Olympic sports: https://olympics.com/en/sports/
For Gnomarchy: you wanted homebrew weapons that aren't longswords? here are a few
weapon 1: Aboleth Slayer Pike - Magic Items - Homebrew - D&D Beyond (dndbeyond.com)
weapon 2: Dagger, +2, of throwing - Magic Items - Homebrew - D&D Beyond (dndbeyond.com)
Weapon 3: Handaxe, +2, of Throwing - Magic Items - Homebrew - D&D Beyond (dndbeyond.com)
Weapon 4: Llaw’s Halberd, +2 - Magic Items - Homebrew - D&D Beyond (dndbeyond.com)
Weapon 5: Repeating Crossbow, Hand, +1 - Magic Items - Homebrew - D&D Beyond (dndbeyond.com)
Weapon 6: Repeating Crossbow, Light, +1 - Magic Items - Homebrew - D&D Beyond (dndbeyond.com)
Weapon 7: Soul KniFe Psi Crystal - Magic Items - Homebrew - D&D Beyond (dndbeyond.com)
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Clearly it doesn’t communicate that clearly or else someone wouldn’t have asked. I mean, I understand what they mean, but I still say that it’s grammatically subpar and could be clearer.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Pardon me, I prefer that you refer to me by my chosen label as a “geek,” not a “nerd.” (Geeks get laid. 😉)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This was a conversation I had quite awhile ago but I thought it would be interesting to update it. I interned at that non-profit this summer and now I'm hired as an assistant to run the afterschool program. Just thought it was funny the way things worked out.