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

Quote from IamSposta >>

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.”

 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?

Quote from Shiverquill >>

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.

Quote from Gnomarchy >>

A propos of nothing:

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.

Quote from Xalthu >>

 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!

Quote from Thorrison >>

Quote from IamSposta >>

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.”

 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…. 🤷‍♂️

Quote from Gnomarchy >>

Quote from IamSposta >>

Quote from Thorrison >>

Quote from IamSposta >>

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.”

 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?

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)

Quote from The_Summoning_Dark >>

Quote from Gnomarchy >>

Quote from IamSposta >>

Quote from Thorrison >>

Quote from IamSposta >>

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.”

 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.

Quote from Gnomarchy >>

Quote from IamSposta >>

Quote from Thorrison >>

Quote from IamSposta >>

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.”

 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. 😉)

Quote from The_Summoning_Dark >>

Quote from Quar1on >>

Quote from The_Summoning_Dark >>

Quote from Quar1on >>

Quote from The_Summoning_Dark >>

Quote from IamSposta >>

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. 

Congratulations 

Quote from The_Summoning_Dark >>

Quote from The_Summoning_Dark >>

Quote from Quar1on >>

Quote from The_Summoning_Dark >>

Quote from Quar1on >>

Quote from The_Summoning_Dark >>

Quote from IamSposta >>

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 awesome!!

Quote from IamSposta >>

Quote from Thorrison >>

Quote from IamSposta >>

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.”

 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…. 🤷‍♂️

 
As someone who majored in English in College, with the idea of becoming a teacher (sadly, never finished College... long story...) - I actually side with Sposta.

Because I know that they (D&D) mean ghost. But I can also read it that if the ghost stops inside of an object - the object takes the damage since it is literally saying the ghost has Incorporeal movement. 

Incorporeal literally means "not composed of matter; having no material existence."

Because if a ghost can pass through a wall, effortlessly, why would the ghost stopping in the middle of a table take damage?

It reminds me very much (when I read it that way) - similar to Kitty (Shadowcat from X-Men) - where she can phase (for example) her hand into something - and it disrupts what she's put her hand into (especially if it's mechanical).

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.

 
See and this feels way more "ghost-like" to me. Like a ghost trying to possess someone by entering their body, damages the person (not the ghost). Similar to a ghost passing through items - the 'death state' of the ghost causes the damage to those items.

Makes way the fork more sense.

Which do you prefer hot cereal or cold cereal?

Quote from Wysperra >>

Which do you prefer hot cereal or cold cereal?

Neither. Not a cereal person.

Quote from Wysperra >>

Which do you prefer hot cereal or cold cereal?

 I... uh... do not know

Quote from Wysperra >>

Which do you prefer hot cereal or cold cereal?

 I like both.

Hot in winter, cold in summer