itmeJP Community

[Court of Swords E22 Q&A] Hail to the King, Baby


(Monstercloud1) #84

Your words and position are clear. You're just wrong. It's that simple. And forgive me for wanting to edit out my frustration... which I didn't name call. I just wanted to stick to trying to get something constructive out of you instead of the same argument which doesn't fly on multiple levels.

(Unfortunatename) #85

You said the wording was the same, i said it was different, you said i was wrong, i showed they were different you said i was arguing the same point.

But hey i guess saying and showing are the same thing right? (get it? because they aren't the same and it mirrors the argument itself?)

I didn't want to argue anything else because you never acknowledged there was a difference but insisted they were the same and should function the same. You confuse attacking on reaction with taking an opportunity attack using your reaction, an opportunity attack is specifically a single melee attack triggered by something. It minor but this stuff is all very specific.

Why does one explicitly refer to the attack action and one not?

(Darkvlagor) #86

Sir @AdamKoebel :itmejptip:
Well done. The twins paranoïa was the best, I almost called out the right monster :itmejplol:
(Watch the Patreon vid :itmejploot:)

So in this Patreon vid, you mentioned some world/faction mechanism ? Are you back at your endless SWN spreadsheets :itmejpgmlol: ?
More seriously, are you using Blades's tier system ? A simplify SWN Faction rules ? Or a simple mindmap with points ? It is the first time you clearly mentioned background mechanism so maybe it isn't setup yet but I'm curious :persevere: (pls 1h spreadsheet madness gm vids pls :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:)

(Gert_julius) #87

Not trying to beat a dead horse here, but the rules state (PHP 194): Regarding the Ready action To do (get the jump on an enemy, or set a trigger) so, you can take the Ready action on your turn so that you can act later in the round using your reaction.
If you argue that a reaction is uslually constrained to e singel melee
And refering to @Monstercloud1's previous statement, according to the MMP 11 _A creature that can make multiple attacks on its turn has the Multiattack ability.
A creature can’t use Multiattack when making an opportunity attack, which must be a single melee attack._ In my interpretation is that it should be treated as a reaction with allowance for spells and ranged, but not multiple attacks.Considering the a Ready action uses your reaction, which is narratively speaking happening in a split second, I'd argue that shouldn't work with multiattack.

(Typoko) #88

It might be a good idea to start another thread about the fine text of ready action. While the context of manticore is relevant to the episode, the meat of the conversation has shifted away from that. It's also better way to get other people involved with the conversation.

(Karamor) #89

The problem here is that the phrasing "can make on its turn" does carry the limitation of only on the turn.
It CAN ON THE TURN does mean it can not when it's not the turn.
( I can buy the book on the day I get my paycheck.)

Unlimited use of multiattack would be "can make multiple attacks" without the added qualifier.

I misread that at first, too, but I'd say we have another rogue bonus action situation going on here where two features that work exactly the same (multi attack to extra) have slightly differing wording.

It's sadly a very common occurrence in D5, where you wonder why they rephrased something, if there's an actual mechanical difference and the answer is: No, they just suck at consistent wording.

I'd say, because extra attack modifies the basic attack action in a new way when you level up, so they wanted to stress the changes and limitations to the normal attack action, while multiattack is presented as a monster feature you just use.

Also, see above.

(Fimbulwolf) #90

Am I mistaken, or was Max's max hp on lvl 3 31 hp? He kept calculating it with being at 21 I think?

(destraudo) #91

QQ for azure. As Npc's go shes been one of the most likeable you have ever made.

(Hangfish) #92

True dat. I hope they go on a quest to revive her. Bergzure 4 ever.

(Unfortunatename) #93

If i CAN where trousers when it is between 10:00 and 11:00 does that mean i cannot wear trousers when it is not between 10:00 and 11:00?

You are talking about a CAN ONLY statement.

If you argue that a reaction is usually constrained to single melee then you are implying the rules not necessarily following them.


(Karamor) #94

As you can not do this without the rules specifically allowing it through extra attack or multi attack this is a can only statement.

Edit: The rule is one attack per action. This monster can make more attacks. Under what condition? If they happen on its turn.

(Twitch: cyan_83) #95

Great episode, laughed a lot and finally a story arc with a satisfying end (rip Azure though). I don't know if Sean or Max are reading this, but it'd be great if Berg got the ring from Snidge, he did pick it up after all.

@ the guys discussing the manticore's multiattack: I agree some rules lawyering is fine, but Adam already made his call in this thread. When the GM makes a call after having had the chance to review the rules, it should be over. So please just stop or move it to a separate thread or so.

(Monstercloud1) #96

Repeating myself is a popular theme in this thread, but it's already been said that Adam can run the game he wants to. The argument that's going on is why he can do that. I'm saying, "He's doing this because this is his game because he's disagreeing with the design". UN's argument is, "Well the wording is vague enough so that it's still within RAW/RAI."

I'm personally done with it.

(banned) #97

I mean going along your route it was already a win on your side when adam did his own Alignment system, it obviously wasn't going to be a RAW game on any facet of it before it even started. Which as you've said is fine.

(Stormbred) #98

@AdamKoebel So you think that Religous Elephant Artifact could prove the claim the Court of Swords holds on the valley? If so, could Berg @GassyMexican exchange it for his freedom?

(Olf_Himself) #99

I wonder what direction the story is going to take now. I'd love to see a city arc again where they can interact with a lot of NPCs.

(banned) #101

I was thinking the same thing with the Warhammer depending how old it is.

(AdamKoebel) #102

It's a valuable artifact, to be sure, but who knows where the Rock Gnome King got it from. Finding out the back story of that item could be a side quest in and of itself!

(AdamKoebel) #103

Yeah, now that the party is Berg and Azriel, we'll have to see what they want to do - what keeps them working together and who their new companion is. The story of the Xulin Valley is far from over, I think...

(Olf_Himself) #104

I, personally, would like to see them return to the monastery town to inform Azure Vortex's brother of her fate. That could perhaps lead into a city based quest line.
I'm sure whatever happens will be fun though.