ahdok

3

This is very much a non-canon Konsi. Konsi would be a fuzzy/happy/sleepy drunk, rather than a grumpy drunk. Once she gets tipsy she just wants to snuggle.

Also, she's immune to all poisons.

3

Ahdok @ttrpg.network 2y ago

As usual, have a bonus Konsi

Ahdok @ttrpg.network 2y ago

Yeah, it's ambiguous. I interpret the "you can be one foot taller or shorter" to mean you, and something like a hat or ridiculous hair can just be as large as you like so long as it still looks like an item of clothing and not (say) a billboard.

Of course, at very large sizes, something's going to clip into the illusion every now and then, so it'll obviously be an illusion to anyone who is around it for more than a few minutes. I'm imagining small birds trying to land on it and faceplanting into your head.

2

Ahdok @ttrpg.network 2y ago

I suppose y'all can have a bonus Konsi, as a treat.

Ahdok @ttrpg.network 2y ago

Okay, it should be working reasonably now, hopefully what we've done will be robust enough to take us to the server move.

2

Ahdok @ttrpg.network 2y ago

We've been having server issues for a while, I know. The main culprit has been a massive increase in scraper bots that effectively serve as a DDOS on my site. Long term they should be solved by the upcoming server migration that's coming, but that's a long and slow process.

I think I have a stopgap solution this week that should get it up and working well... it's not cheap but I'm willing to put some money into making sure people can read the comics.

8

Ahdok @ttrpg.network 2y ago

That depends how much experience you have, it's mini for some people.

Ahdok @ttrpg.network 2y ago

I am the one who snocks.

Ahdok @ttrpg.network 2y ago

I am the one who snoots.

1

Ahdok @ttrpg.network 2y ago

Well... "ethical" is a thorny subject. The underlying imagenet technology was still built on mturk, and usage still drives up the usage figures for these billion dollar art-thieves to use in their investment rounds. It's still environmentally catastrophic compared to regular image searches, and it's still used by proponents of the technology to normalize its use, so they can promote it to replace jobs.

A good deal of the "ethical" problems with generative-AI are baked into the technology itself... but it's certainly more acceptable than other uses.

Ahdok @ttrpg.network 2y ago

Boot

1

Ahdok @ttrpg.network 2y ago

Unfortunately, there are plenty of people for whom this advice is really needed. I've a couple decades experience running drop-in games and boy do people do this for real. It's a table-wrecker.

Ahdok @ttrpg.network 2y ago

Crawford's statement there makes it clear that he believes "being turned to dust" kills you. He believes it's so obvious that he doesn't need to explain it. That's why his statement just takes "you're killed" as a given.

The rules aren't written in such a fashion as to very slowly and patiently explain every possible interpretation to you and hold-your hand to finding the correct one. They assume you have a basic reading comprehension. It's not really WotC's job to fix that if it's a failed assumption.

WotC don't issue errata for stuff like this, because they think the argument is facially stupid. If they issued errata for every facially stupid argument, then the errata document would become so large that it'd be unusable - there's an infinite well of dumb takes that don't require an errata to clean up.

That's the job of your DM.

5

Ahdok @ttrpg.network 2y ago

Well, regardless of anything, WotC can't prevent this kind of argument by "writing better rules." This isn't the kind of "gotcha" edge case they should need to cover - that's what the DM is for.

Rules lawyers will always appeal to the "the rules don't explicitly state a caveat the one weird edge case I made up that's plainly not intended" as if it's a valid position. You can't build a system this complex and exhaustively cover every take, and the intended mechanism for handling this is that the DM decides if they'll accept such things or not. That depends on your DM and table culture.

As a general piece of advice, this is an extreme level of "the rules don't explicitly say the exact thing I think they should say with the exact wording I demand of them, so therefore my take is RAW". Most DMs would probably not want to keep running a game where this happens regularly. It's exhausting, and they'd rather be getting on with the game, or they'd rather be crafting new NPCs and side-stories. My advice would be to talk things over with your DM away from the table to see what style of game they enjoy before deploying something like this at the table.

You specifically asked for where in RAW it says you can't do this. Cephalotrocity correctly identified the part of RAW that's supposed to do that for you. It's up to you whether you want to accept that or not. It's up to your DM if they want to play with you or not.

Given all this, you asked "where does the RAW say you can't do this" and you've been shown the section that's supposed to do that I don't have much more advice for you - your question has been answered.

I'm going back to drawing silly comics instead.

8

Ahdok @ttrpg.network 2y ago

The RAW makes a lot of assumptions about the reading comprehension of the reader though. If you want the RAW to hold your hand through understanding basic English, then you're always going to have these problems.

Look, in your opening post, you state "Clearly, if they intended for disintegration to kill you, they’d have said so."

They HAVE said so. Crawford has explicitly clarified this.

20

Ahdok @ttrpg.network 2y ago

It's assumed that the player is clever enough to know that dust is an object, as the player's brain is assumed to not be made of dust.