But you’re not correcting me. I am using a rule correctly and you don’t like it. You’re not being helpful, you’re being entitled.

I was in the middle of a monologue, and you tried to divebomb the BBEG. That’s highly disrespectful, but I’m accommodating and give you a chance to succeed using the existing rules. It doesn’t work out the way you want, so you tell me not to use those rules because they’re dumb. And you call ME disrespectful for calling you out?

There’s a lot of things I can say about this. To summarise:

• Just because WotC wants you to use a new product doesn’t mean the old product is outdated.
• If WotC supports the Pinkertons, I don’t support them. But have fun letting your morals fall apart so you can consume product.
• The Tasha’s rule expands on a rule from the DMG. If the rule were to be updated, it would be in the DMG, not the PHB.
• Most tables don’t have the DMG either.
• The new PHB doesn’t have most subclasses. The only reason stuff was omitted was because there wasn’t enough space or time to add them in.

All of that hardly matters, because you responded to a DM ruling by saying “nope”. No shit we’re incompatible. At the VERY least, I want my players to respect me.

Yes, but the only people with the power to stop them have a conflict of interest too.

In that timeline, Loraine shot Biff, causing old Biff to slowly fade once he got back to 2015. It wasn’t explicit in the final cut, but you can see him in pain when he leaves the Delorean.

So, is Melania going to shoot Trump?

No matter what the real world laws of physics are, the GM is the final arbiter of the rules. That’s not an ego thing. That’s just how it works. Everyone’s roleplaying game works the same, even if they have different rulings.

Now, let’s quickly picture this scene where the GM instead rolls 14. The BBEG is making his speech, then a shadow falls over him, he looks up, and gets crushed by a brontosaurus. He’s resiliant, having taken only half the fall damage, but he’s knocked prone and at a serious disadvantage as everyone rolls initiative.

Would anyone complain about the optional rule being used? Would anyone argue there should be no shadow because “the sun wouldn’t be there” or “I hadn’t transformed yet”? And if they decided to make that check to transform right before impact and succeeded, would they complain about the high DC due to the high speed?

I don’t think they would. I think they’re only complaining because the GM didn’t give them what they wanted. They don’t care about the game, they just care about getting their own way.

I agree. I am not compatible with that playstyle.

I’m not American. I don’t know what those terms mean. I just have a skybox.

To continue the quote, physics are what I allow them to be.

Going by the pure rules, you don’t have enough time to wildshape. You just splatter. I’m being kind by giving you the opportunity at all.

First of all, if I’m the DM, you don’t get to tell me not to use a rule.

Second of all, there will not be a situation where I use the 2024 ruleset. The 2014 ruleset is still around, and still usable, and anyone calling it outdated is an idiot.

Third, this is the only official rule given for this situation. If we don’t use it, there is no rule for falling on someone and we resolve it however I like. And since you just tried to interrupt my monologue, I’m not inclined to be generous.

My TV lets me pause live TV, so I pause, leave the room for a bit, come back and fast forward through the ads.

This isn’t a physics sim. This is a roleplaying game. Physics are what I allow them to be and it’s funnier for falling creatures to have a drop shadow.

Nope. The rules for falling on a creature don’t factor in size, except for if it knocks the target prone. The check is DC15 to dodge.

At terminal velocity? You’re gonna need to make a damn good check to time that right.

“Okay, so he gets to make a dexterity saving throw… That’s a 16, so he manages to sidestep you and you take the full damage. …No, he doesn’t have disadvantage, you made a huge shadow above him, he knew you were coming. Anyway, he continues his monologue, using your actions as an example of the foolishness of humanity.”

What wrong thing am I repeating? Where did you address the lyrics themselves and not the context the lyrics were written in? Why is my interpretation flawed? Why is your interpretation the only one allowed? How does the first portrayal of a song supporting my interpretation of the song make that a problem?

And as I asked before, yet you ignored, why the fuck are you complaining about someone being bothered by the song?

Jesus fuck, this is some bad faith. I was ignoring nothing. I was asleep. You waited 7 hours to reply to me, and you couldn’t let me sleep for 5 without me “ignoring what you don’t want to hear”. Waking up and seeing three extremely long comments that amount to re-explaining the historical context of the song while not actually addressing how the song is about pressuring someone into staying over didn’t really seem worthy of reply.

Plus, the idea that you copied someone else’s comment as spam just makes it worse.

If you’re allowed to use “it’s an old song” as your argument, then I’m allowed to use the first presentation of the song to the public as mine. And since the presentation of the song has ALWAYS been one person pressuring another into staying over despite their protests, it’s always been rapey.

The only real defence in pointing out historical context is to say that a rapey song was not unacceptable for the time period. So what?

The song is a problem for people who don’t want to hear someone pressuring someone into illicit relationships. It’s not “willfully ignorant”, and your idea that someone not liking something is just because they don’t understand it is DEEPLY troubling.

If it’s okay to be bothered by the song, as you directly state, then why the fuck are you complaining about someone being bothered by the song?

You provided historical context while not actually addressing the contents of the song. There’s really nothing to respond to. Plus, I can’t have been ignoring anything since I was asleep. There is no point in spamming this.

I admit, I would have brushed it off as just a bit weird if it weren’t for the memory of the guy who kept posting about gut stabs. But seeing the comment where they describe the stomach as a soft and vulnerable area rang such a specific bell that I couldn’t ignore it.

Plus, they asked this question in two question subs (deleting one of them), and they only seem to want to know the general opinion on justified self-defence. If they aren’t a troll, their motives are bizzare.

I’m not familiar with the reddit argument, but nice attempt to dodge what I said.

Yeah, pretty much. Look at how often the word “belly” comes up, especially combined with being described as soft and vulnerable. Then ask yourself why half the post was a vivid description of the stab, but there wasn’t ANY description of the scene of the incident.

…No she fucking isn’t. She never says she wants to stay.

I simply must go (Baby, it’s cold outside)
The answer is, “No” (But, baby, it’s cold outside)

She says no. He ignores her. I don’t give a fuck what was intended, I only care about what was said. What was said was a violation of consent. If you want the intent to reflect in the song to a modern ear (which are the only ears we have) then change the lyrics.