OOTS #1298 - The Discussion Thread

[gbaji]

IAgain, I agree. For clarity, I never said or implied sentience mattered at all. That was a joke post made by someone else! if that is the totality of your issue, I suggest that you have been tilting with the wrong windmill. You and I appear to agree with how AMF works.

Right. But the "joke" (about Roy' sword being sentient making a difference) was commenting on what you actually said (differentiating a ring of protection on the dragons tail to a kobold riding on the dragons tail).

Your actual statement did, in fact, suggest strongly that the difference between something attached to Caulder's tail working or not working was based on whether that thing was sentient or not. You may not have intended that meaning, but that's what the actual words you said meant (or at least storngly suggested).

Bunsen was pointing this out (by taking you literally at what you said). I've been trying to point it out to you as well. I get that you do understand how an AMF works. But your description of how it works was incredibly inaccurate and misleading. That's literally it. Someone asked why Bunson resopnded the way he did. I simply pointed out that he was responding to what you literally wrote in your post.

And then silliness ensued, and we got here.

[brian 333]

Calder is in the AMF, so if he has an active buff spell or magic item on his person it is currently turned off. Suppose he has a magic item which grants a +5 Enhancement Bonus to Natural Weapons Attacks. It will not grant its bonus if Calder attacks with his tail, which is outside the AMF, even if the item is worn on his tail. If he had a kobold riding on his tail wielding magic repeating crossbows, the kobold and his magic items would be fine.

This is what I said. "It will not grant its bonus if Calder attacks with his tail, which is outside the AMF, even if the item is worn on his tail."

Good so far, but then I said, "If he had a kobold riding on his tail wielding magic repeating crossbows, the kobold and his magic items would be fine."

That implies that magical items in contact with Calder, which are outside of the AMF, and which do not target, affect, or are triggered by Calder function normally.

Sentience had nothing to do with my post. That was an obvious joke made by someone else, attributed to me by you, explained for what it was, and that explanation was subsequently rejected by you because...

Well, I don't know why. I wish I had said he was holding a magic torch of continual flame, but I guess I'm not smart enough to avoid illustrations that someone can make a joke about.

(P.S. Please do continue to make jokes about my posts, they are often quite funny.)

Right. But the "joke" (about Roy' sword being sentient making a difference) was commenting on what you actually said (differentiating a ring of protection on the dragons tail to a kobold riding on the dragons tail).

Your actual statement did, in fact, suggest strongly that the difference between something attached to Caulder's tail working or not working was based on whether that thing was sentient or not. You may not have intended that meaning, but that's what the actual words you said meant (or at least storngly suggested).

Bunsen was pointing this out (by taking you literally at what you said). I've been trying to point it out to you as well. I get that you do understand how an AMF works. But your description of how it works was incredibly inaccurate and misleading. That's literally it. Someone asked why Bunson resopnded the way he did. I simply pointed out that he was responding to what you literally wrote in your post.

And then silliness ensued, and we got here.

The differentiation was between items that affected Calder and items that were independent of him. Natural Attack Enhancement affects Calder. Magic crossbows do not. The kobold, and its relative sapience, has exactly nothing to do with my point.

[gbaji]

The differentiation was between items that affected Calder and items that were independent of him. Natural Attack Enhancement affects Calder. Magic crossbows do not. The kobold, and its relative sapience, has exactly nothing to do with my point.

Correct. So why mention the Kobold at all, or include it in your example?

There's a concept in science and engineering, and especially in testing/debugging, where, if you want to define a difference between two conditions, you change one and only one thing, and then you measure/test the difference. Addiing additional factors only confluses the results, by making it impossible to know for certain which factor actually created which change in the outcome.

That's what bunsen was talking about. Based on what you actually said, and your inclusion of the kobold into the example you used, "because it's a sentient creature" now becomes as viable an explanation for the difference in AMF effect as anything else. Which is why you should not include extraneous variables in such things.

[brian 333]

Correct. So why mention the Kobold at all, or include it in your example?

There's a concept in science and engineering, and especially in testing/debugging, where, if you want to define a difference between two conditions, you change one and only one thing, and then you measure/test the difference. Addiing additional factors only confluses the results, by making it impossible to know for certain which factor actually created which change in the outcome.

That's what bunsen was talking about. Based on what you actually said, and your inclusion of the kobold into the example you used, "because it's a sentient creature" now becomes as viable an explanation for the difference in AMF effect as anything else. Which is why you should not include extraneous variables in such things.

Because, as I have repeatedly said, I didn't think anyone would make that particular joke, that anyone would take the joke seriously, and that I would have to re-explain for the fifth time that it was not even my joke.

Expecting anyone to be perfect is bound to result in your personal disappointment and future regret.

[Pampukin]

I know its unlikely to happen, but I hope Belkar learns from this experience, and starts carrying an antimagic grenade, he can dual wield throw it and Bloodfeast for any spellcasters surprise.

[Provengreil]

I know its unlikely to happen, but I hope Belkar learns from this experience, and starts carrying an antimagic grenade, he can dual wield throw it and Bloodfeast for any spellcasters surprise.

On one hand, he's shown the capacity to learn about such problems and prepare for them: this would be an awesome tactic, and flashy to boot.

The difficulty: acquiring one at this juncture. Can't just duck out to magic mart at this point.

[Vikenlugaid]

I know its unlikely to happen, but I hope Belkar learns from this experience, and starts carrying an antimagic grenade, he can dual wield throw it and Bloodfeast for any spellcasters surprise.

It is narratively unlikely that we see it on this story, but not unlikely for Belkar to learn that and buy antimagic grenades. He is a very smart adventurer after all.

[danielxcutter]

Antimagic grenades are unfortunately not really a thing though. At least in official material. Also usually they hurt adventuring parties more than they help.

[brian 333]

On one hand, he's shown the capacity to learn about such problems and prepare for them: this would be an awesome tactic, and flashy to boot.

The difficulty: acquiring one at this juncture. Can't just duck out to magic mart at this point.

No worries, the guy in this last panel will come to him.

Too bad the discount potion shop Vaarsuvius went to doesn't deliver.

[Vikenlugaid]

No worries, the guy in this last panel will come to him.

Too bad the discount potion shop Vaarsuvius went to doesn't deliver.

But he only sells basic potions.

[Mordar]

Correct. So why mention the Kobold at all, or include it in your example?

Because it is really, really hard to balance a crossbow on a flying dragon's tail?

- M

[gbaji]

Because, as I have repeatedly said, I didn't think anyone would make that particular joke, that anyone would take the joke seriously, and that I would have to re-explain for the fifth time that it was not even my joke.

Huh? It wasn't about the joke though. It was this response by me:

I don't think whether it's sentient or not is relevant to the question: "Can Roy PWOK! his sword back to himself?" (and yes, admittedly, the answer involving a kobold riding on the dragon outside of the AMF was equally non-relevant as well).

And your response to that response:

It is indeed relevant. ...

And silliness has ensued ever since. In that statement you are either A) insisting that whether the sword is or isn't sentient is relevant (to whether the AMF affects it) *or* B) the fact that it's a kobold sitting on the dragons tail rather than a ring worn on the dragons tail is relevant (again, to whether the AMF affects it)

Both are wrong.

The question that was asked was whether a living being partially inside an AMF acts as though the AMF extends around its entire body, and thus would potentially make an item held or worn by/on a body part ouside of the AMF also viewed as being "inside the AMF". In your answer, you used an example of a kobold riding on the dragon's tail, firing a magic crossbow, which is an entirely seperate living being and is itself outsdie the AMF. Which does not actually answer the question that was asked. And, amusingly, lead to the joke speculation about Roy's sword being sentient mattering. Do you see how that question about Roy's sword is related to the kobold (a separate sentient being) being wholly outside the AMF, despite being in contact with a body part of another sentient being who is partially inside the AMF?

I'm not trying to achieve perfection here. Just want to make sure that when someone asks a question like this, they get an accurate answer. Your answer did not actually answer the question that was asked (and was arguably very misleading and confusing as well). I suppose, if there's one good thing about this back and forth, it's that hopefully some greater light has been shed on how AMFs work in D&D maybe.

And for the record. If a dragon somehow had a magic crossbow on some kind of magic swivel mount on its tail, with some kind of enchantment on it that made it automatically reload and fire magic bolts at any enemies in range (with no direction or control by the dragon itself), that crossbow would operate just fine, as long as the crossbow itself was outside of the AMF, and regardless of whether other parts of the dragon were inside the AMF. This is why the kobold in the example was irrelevant. It was not any aspect of the kobold that mattered to the answer. It was the fact that the crossbow is outside of the AMF, and the magic it's using takes effect on something (itself in this case, rather than the dragon in the case of a ring that boosts natural weapons) which is also outside the AMF. Nothing else matters.

[brian 333]

Huh? It wasn't about the joke though. It was this response by me:



And your response to that response:



And silliness has ensued ever since. In that statement you are either A) insisting that whether the sword is or isn't sentient is relevant (to whether the AMF affects it) *or* B) the fact that it's a kobold sitting on the dragons tail rather than a ring worn on the dragons tail is relevant (again, to whether the AMF affects it)

Both are wrong.

The question that was asked was whether a living being partially inside an AMF acts as though the AMF extends around its entire body, and thus would potentially make an item held or worn by/on a body part ouside of the AMF also viewed as being "inside the AMF". In your answer, you used an example of a kobold riding on the dragon's tail, firing a magic crossbow, which is an entirely seperate living being and is itself outsdie the AMF. Which does not actually answer the question that was asked. And, amusingly, lead to the joke speculation about Roy's sword being sentient mattering. Do you see how that question about Roy's sword is related to the kobold (a separate sentient being) being wholly outside the AMF, despite being in contact with a body part of another sentient being who is partially inside the AMF?

I'm not trying to achieve perfection here. Just want to make sure that when someone asks a question like this, they get an accurate answer. Your answer did not actually answer the question that was asked (and was arguably very misleading and confusing as well). I suppose, if there's one good thing about this back and forth, it's that hopefully some greater light has been shed on how AMFs work in D&D maybe.

And for the record. If a dragon somehow had a magic crossbow on some kind of magic swivel mount on its tail, with some kind of enchantment on it that made it automatically reload and fire magic bolts at any enemies in range (with no direction or control by the dragon itself), that crossbow would operate just fine, as long as the crossbow itself was outside of the AMF, and regardless of whether other parts of the dragon were inside the AMF. This is why the kobold in the example was irrelevant. It was not any aspect of the kobold that mattered to the answer. It was the fact that the crossbow is outside of the AMF, and the magic it's using takes effect on something (itself in this case, rather than the dragon in the case of a ring that boosts natural weapons) which is also outside the AMF. Nothing else matters.

I'm sorry, but after many repetitions of, "sentience does not matter," you still insist it has something to do with my point.

You are just wrong.

You found a trivial bit of nonsense to obsess over, and having explained my intent, and the clear language I used, you still insist upon dwelling on a point I never made as if that somehow matters. Okay, enjoy.

[RichTF]

I suppose, if there's one good thing about this back and forth, it's that hopefully some greater light has been shed on how AMFs work in D&D maybe.

I can honestly say that, if I were a DM and making a ruling on some weird edge-case AMF scenario like the ones discussed in this thread, I would now make a different ruling compared to the one I would have made before I read all this.

So yes, you get your wish, even if it’s just one person. Thank you.

[KorvinStarmast]

This thread has changed nothing in how I'd handle a beholder's central eye.
It has also strengthened my resolve to not allow "AMF grenades" into any game I DM.

On the other hand, if you toss a grenade into a crowd and call out "AMF!" that's probably a tactical WW II game, not D&D anyway.
(And yes, a panzerfaust will do damage to a troll!)

[gbaji]

I'm sorry, but after many repetitions of, "sentience does not matter," you still insist it has something to do with my point.

Not with "your point", but with what you actually wrote. Can you accept that sometimes, we write things that aren't super great reflections of what we intended to say? Happens all the time.

Most people, when others point out that "Uh... What you wrote actually says <something else>" (perhaps by making a snarky joke comment about it), go back, re-read what they wrote, and go "Huh. Yeah. That was a poor example that didn't actually say what I intended. My bad", and then follow up with a clarification based on what they meant to say. And then we all move on in a positive direction.

[brian 333]

I'm not really sure what we are arguing, here. You say I am confusing the issue, then restate what I just said.


This is my point. You said it much better. I tried to give examples of how that applied, someone made a joke, and you have from that point onward been repeatedly telling me I am wrong while agreeing with me.

...

I do not believe anything I wrote could be construed as disagreement with this.

...

Agree again.

...

Again, I agree. For clarity, I never said or implied sentience mattered at all. That was a joke post made by someone else! if that is the totality of your issue, I suggest that you have been tilting with the wrong windmill. You and I appear to agree with how AMF works.

From two pages ago, the same page as the offending post.

"This is my point. You said it much better."

Sentience had nothing to do with my post. That was an obvious joke made by someone else,
...
I wish I had said he was holding a magic torch of continual flame, but I guess I'm not smart enough to avoid illustrations that someone can make a joke about.

(P.S. Please do continue to make jokes about my posts, they are often quite funny.)

From earlier on this page.

"but I guess I'm not smart enough to avoid illustrations that someone can make a joke about."

Because, as I have repeatedly said, I didn't think anyone would make that particular joke, that anyone would take the joke seriously, and that I would have to re-explain for the fifth time that it was not even my joke.

Expecting anyone to be perfect is bound to result in your personal disappointment and future regret.

Also from this page.

Not with "your point", but with what you actually wrote. Can you accept that sometimes, we write things that aren't super great reflections of what we intended to say? Happens all the time.

Most people, when others point out that "Uh... What you wrote actually says <something else>" (perhaps by making a snarky joke comment about it), go back, re-read what they wrote, and go "Huh. Yeah. That was a poor example that didn't actually say what I intended. My bad", and then follow up with a clarification based on what they meant to say. And then we all move on in a positive direction.

Is three times not enough? Please let me know how many more times I can admit my mistake so we can get it over with and let the topic go back to something others want to discuss.

And for the record, sentience does not matter.

[Timy]

Is three times not enough? Please let me know how many more times I can admit my mistake so we can get it over with

You will have to walk barely naked from the harbor to the castle (of Gobbotopia of course) saying "SHAME !" at every step.

[Phybender]

Calder's thought: "Well, I've noticed some inflation recently, but this is ridiculous."

[brian 333]

You will have to walk barely naked from the harbor to the castle (of Gobbotopia of course) saying "SHAME !" at every step.

But the peasants will throw things at me and call me dirty names! And Flashy Frank will show me That Which Must Not Be Seen!

On the other hand...

[KorvinStarmast]

Most people, when others point out that "Uh... What you wrote actually says <something else>" (perhaps by making a snarky joke comment about it), go back, re-read what they wrote, and go "Huh. Yeah. That was a poor example that didn't actually say what I intended. My bad", and then follow up with a clarification based on what they meant to say. And then we all move on in a positive direction.

I've not seen that happen very often. Usually, heels get dug in.

You will have to walk barely naked from the harbor to the castle (of Gobbotopia of course) saying "SHAME!" at every step.

Not thanking you for that less than pleasant visual.

[gatorized]

If I use fish to mean finned things that swim in the sea, that I use boats and sailors to hunt, then whales are fish.

[Bacon Elemental]

Most people, when others point out that "Uh... What you wrote actually says <something else>" (perhaps by making a snarky joke comment about it), go back, re-read what they wrote, and go "Huh. Yeah. That was a poor example that didn't actually say what I intended. My bad", and then follow up with a clarification based on what they meant to say. And then we all move on in a positive direction.

Most people, when others say "Sorry, I misunderstood you, we don't actually disagree on any points I just misread a post and made an incorrect answer as a result. My bad." repeatedly, nod and move on in a positive direction.

[gbaji]

I've not seen that happen very often. Usually, heels get dug in.

Ok. Admittedly, that's maybe a bit of wishful thinking on my part.

I guess an alternative to the statement I made above is: "When someone gives you an assist by clarifying something you wrote away from an incorrect interpretation which wasn't what you meant, and towards one you did, maybe just take the assist". Repeatedly arguing that your first shot was perfect and would have been in the net all by itself, isn't helping anything (and maybe just draws attention back to the initial statement, when everyone else was perfectly willing to politely move on).

But... setting that aside. I think the key bit is that what determines if any magical effect works or does not work in proximity to an AMF is very simple: Determine the source and target of the magical effect. If both are outside the area of the AMF, then it works. If either are inside the AMF, then it doesn't.

For Roy's sword, the source of the PWOK! effect is the sword, and the target is Roy (or potentially both ways, if we're thinking in terms of Roy calling the sword as one effect, and the sword teleporting to him as another). So... If Calder ever holds the sword outside of the AMF, Roy can call it back to himself.

So... What size category is Bloodfeast again?

[KorvinStarmast]

So... What size category is Bloodfeast again?

Large enough.

[bunsen_h]

For Roy's sword, the source of the PWOK! effect is the sword, and the target is Roy (or potentially both ways, if we're thinking in terms of Roy calling the sword as one effect, and the sword teleporting to him as another). So... If Calder ever holds the sword outside of the AMF, Roy can call it back to himself.

Unless there's also a limitation that the effect can't work if the sword is being grasped by or otherwise under the control of some other being, even mundanely. For example, the Teleport spell description says that "objects held or in use (attended) by another person receive saving throws and spell resistance." We know that the effect works if the sword is merely sticking into a target.

[gbaji]

Unless there's also a limitation that the effect can't work if the sword is being grasped by or otherwise under the control of some other being, even mundanely. For example, the Teleport spell description says that "objects held or in use (attended) by another person receive saving throws and spell resistance." We know that the effect works if the sword is merely sticking into a target.

Sure. That doesn't prohibit other variables being in play, of course. But not related to the AMF itself.

If I were GMing this, I'd probably say that Calder doesn't get to save or resist the sword being teleported out of his grasp though. That rule in the teleport spell description is presumably about if the person teleporting grabs an object being held by someone else (who is not being teleported) for the purpose of taking an item away from them. That assumes that said item is either equally "possessed" by both parties, or perhaps even "owned/possessed" by the other person and you're tryiing to take their item away from them.

In this case, a Weapon of Legacy is uniquely attuned to weilder. I'd argue that bond overrides someone else merely holding it at the moment. I'd make a similar ruling for any other kind of special/attuned object in the other direction. If someone grabbed Roy's sword and tried to teleport away with it, I'd give them zero chance to do that.

But that's just me and my style of GMing. I tend to not like cheap "take people's items away" tactics in general, and find that players tend not to like it either. Especially for "special items".

[bunsen_h]

If I were GMing this, I'd probably say that Calder doesn't get to save or resist the sword being teleported out of his grasp though. That rule in the teleport spell description is presumably about if the person teleporting grabs an object being held by someone else (who is not being teleported) for the purpose of taking an item away from them. That assumes that said item is either equally "possessed" by both parties, or perhaps even "owned/possessed" by the other person and you're tryiing to take their item away from them.

In this case, a Weapon of Legacy is uniquely attuned to weilder. I'd argue that bond overrides someone else merely holding it at the moment. I'd make a similar ruling for any other kind of special/attuned object in the other direction. If someone grabbed Roy's sword and tried to teleport away with it, I'd give them zero chance to do that.

But that's just me and my style of GMing. I tend to not like cheap "take people's items away" tactics in general, and find that players tend not to like it either. Especially for "special items".

Under most circumstances, I'd agree with you. I might make an exception for "I am currently impaled by this thing, and I have my hand on its handle along with its owner's, and I'm teleporting/DimDooring/etc. away." In a situation like that, depending on circumstances, I might allow some small chance.

[gbaji]

Under most circumstances, I'd agree with you. I might make an exception for "I am currently impaled by this thing, and I have my hand on its handle along with its owner's, and I'm teleporting/DimDooring/etc. away." In a situation like that, depending on circumstances, I might allow some small chance.

Eh. I'd still negate that for "special/attuned" stuff anyway. I tend to rule based on "ownership" of things for stuff like this (for the above mentioned reason). And yeah, I get that the teleport rules do technically allow for this, but that's precisely why I'd make it about the kind of items (at the very least).

Which makes me think of something. So... I'm a wizard with my pet gelatenous cube. I have it envelop some poor melee type, and then teleport it away with said character's worn/equipped gear. That meets your "impaled by it" criteria, right? I mean. Cheap enough tactic already, so there's that. I can aleady think of a lot of silly ways to use this, if that was really the objective.

It's an odd rule in the spell description anyway. Honestly? I'd just rule that you can bring "your stuff", always, regardless of who else may be touching it at the moment, but you cannot bring "someone else's stuff" regardless of whether you are touching at the moment. The only items that I would apply that rule to are those that are "in dispute" maybe? We're fighting over the Loc-Nar, and I try to teleport away with it, say (which would probably not go well anyway). I just personally find the idea/tactic of "grab people's stuff and teleport away with it" to be a monumentally annoying and universally hated thing to do.

It's an irrelevant question at this point anyway (due to the latest strip), but "Roy's sword" is "Roy's sword". Period. It belongs to him. He can teleport it. Calder can't prevent him from teleporting it. It does not matter one bit who is holding/touching/impaled by it at the moment. That's how I would rule that.

[brian 333]

What is the range on "pwok"?

Even if the dragon teleports to The Abyss, Roy should be able to pwok his sword back. Ownership is more than grabbing an item and saying, "This is mine." Otherwise, bank robbers are not really stealing, they are simply claiming ownership.