I’d agree in general, but they copied the other rule about falling into liquid off the same page from Tasha’s without modifications and not the rules for falling onto other creatures.

They specifically chose not to have those rules when it would have been no effort to add them.

And they did update falling, by adding the section about falling into liquid, and describing it as a hazard.

That signals to me they very clearly did not want those rules as the new baseline for the game.

Your using a bad rule most people don’t know about, which leads to a lot of bad outcomes, from a source a lot of tables won’t have.

I think it’s truly best for the game to just not use this rule. As in, it’s dumb. The designers clearly agreed, given they didn’t bring this rule forward, but did bring the diving into liquid rule off the same page. TCoE 170.

This rule breaks peoples intuition of how they expect falling objects to behave. It’s harder to dodge a larger falling thing, and that it would do more damage. And of course easier to dodge a smaller falling thing, that would do less damage. Object still follow that rule, per the improvized damage rules, but for some reason creatures don’t? If you take that farther, at some point you’d have to put a stop to it, or else you’d end up ruling it’s a DC15 to dogde a city sized creature creature landing on you. So, where is that line?

If I had known ahead of time that we were using that rule, I wouldn’t have done the above combo. If I wanted to something similar in this scenario, I’d use conjure animals to drop 8 giant owls on top of the BBEG, because size doesn’t matter with this rule. You rolled one 16, but you still have to roll 7 more times to dodge the other creatures falling on you. That’s a potential 80d6 (8*20d6 split between the creature and the BBEG).

In the brontosaurus scenario as above, I would argue the falling player has advantage as a sort of unseen attacker, which means your rolling that saving throw at disadvantage. And most high(er) CR creatures have low dex mods. Doing the math here, this will work 84% of the time. Even if there dex mod is +5, it will still work 70% of the time. Even without advantage, 60%. It won’t be enough damage on to kill everything, but on average you can still kill some creatures up to CR12.

RAW, with only 1 player making 1 attempt with, it’s going to work out most of the time. You can say “you fools, I rolled a 16” all you like, but that only potentially saves your BBEG from the worst version of this combo. That’s without players debuffing dex saves through something like hex, using multi conjure spells, or trying multiple times.

Imagine how you would feel if your players did this to every one of your boss encounters, or even just your BBEG. I don’t think you would feel very respected at that point. I know I wouldn’t.

I’ve never met a player at a table who knows about this rule, the community clearly doesn’t know about this rule, hence the above meme, and the insect plague meme recently, and the old fairy/polymorph memes. Odds are this is going to be a surprise for one party or another, usually both. And it won’t be a fun surprise for either. I’m sure you’ve gone over this niche rule with your tables, but I find it much more likely that players expect to work like described in all these memes and posts, and yeah, they are gonna be mad when it doesn’t work like they would expect it to.

That’s why I’m telling you to not use these rules at all, to just avoid the whole concept that has been problematic for the entire history of the edition. Otherwise the optimal build for every charecter is to get as many 3rd level spells slots as they can.

• That’s what all the new content for the next 10 years will be based on. The old core rules are still there, but everything new will be based on the new books. That’s a lot like saying not everyone will be playing a sequel, which is true, but the community will shift over to it in time. The new PHB is there fasting selling book ever, so that gonna be pretty fast. Especially once more new content comes out and is incompatible with the old rules

• I don’t care about your moral argument here, even if I agree with your stance, that’s not what I’m here for. If your stance is that strong, I would recommend leaving DnD behind and moving to Pathfinder or another alternative, otherwise every new discussion will be covering materials you refuse to consume (for completely understandable reasons). Your players are going to want to something from the new rules at some point, and you will have to be the bad guy there. Even by being here and discussing the game, you are consuming the new rules and driving engagement with them.

• Ok? The new DMG is out. This rule is not in there.

• I find that unlikely. Everyone has the free rules, and a lot of the DMG content is in the free rules. You’d have to find some way of doing encounter math, which the free rules has, but I’m sure a lot of paper players have the DMG, even if just for that.

• They updated falling in the new PHB, including adding a DC15 (Athletics) or (Acrobatics) to change a fall into a dive when falling into a liquid to take half damage. Your telling me they couldn’t have added a very similar rule, or even added onto that section to include falling onto other creatures if they wanted to?

Your right, all of this doesn’t matter. This rule takes the fun out of dropping something big onto someone as size doesn’t matter for fall damage. Players might as well drop themselves onto the BBEG, same effect. You killed my fun, so I’m not participating with you.

If a simple nope ticks you off that much, I’m not sure who you could play with. Do you remember every rule interaction off the top of your head? Never get anything wrong? I play with players and DMs of vastly varying skill and experience levels and everyone gets something wrong every session. If someone corrects them and they snap about respect, whether DM or player, that’s a bridge too far and we would all be having words afterwards, if it didn’t derail the session right then and there.

Respect is something which is earned and goes both ways. Saying your rule is law like your Aku doesn’t seem very respectful.

But then it’s gonna be flat, I need at least a few bubbles in my ranch.

First of all, lol, we are probably not very compatible.

Secondly, they are literally outdated in an official capacity. I find they are improved for the most part, but have fun being so self-righteous about them.

Thirdly, no, they have improvised damage rules, which they specifically list large objects falling on players as examples. Improvised damage under Combat in chapter 8.

That rule was optional in an add-on book most tables won’t have, and didn’t get brought forward into the new core rules, unlike the other optional rules. There’s probably a good reason for that.

They carried forward all the other optional rules from Tasha’s, and not the that one. Clearly they didn’t like something about it.

Nope. Those rules are optional, and dumb, and now outdated.

I’ve seen that rule before. They didn’t carry it forward into the new rules, and for good reasons.

Brontosaurus is gargantuan, so you’d have to do a lot more than side step to get out of the way.

Wait, where are the murdertwinks???

They could, but probably won’t before the holidays, or even soon after.

No reason it wouldn’t block it, not sure what OP is on about

The problem here is you think other stores actually let you buy and launch games reliably.

Rip, gotta find new players

NES and SNES processers? Those should be simple enough, although I’m not sure it would be 1 to 1 swap. Anything later? No.

You’d have to make the same processor on the same process node. That’s not even just to do transistor size, as that’s just one aspect of a particular companies process. No one has made 350nm MIPS dies since, well, the late 90s or early 2000s. So the equipment likely doesn’t exist anymore. I think they licensing is open now, but otherwise they would also need to relicense the design, which would be something that would be very hypocritical for Nintendo to do.

Sure a hobbyist could swap a dead passive component out, and probably fix a damaged trace on the PCB, that’s where it would stop. I’ve never seen a hobbyist or even small company make a PCB that complex. I know from personal experience that getting a batch of those made would run in the tens or hundreds of thousands. It actually may also need leaded solder, which would violate Japans version of RoHS. I’m not familiar enough with that standard to know if that would be permissable.

If hobbyist do have the capability to recreate the processor, why would a company like Analogue make an FPGA instead for there N64 clone? Think about all the development they put into that instead of trying to do what you’re suggesting is commonplace.

They don’t need to make an IC, the need to make the same IC. There are more powerful chips running smart toasters, and they cost a couple of dollars a piece, but that’s not the original hardware

Your also assuming that expertise and resources lies with the company, and not the staff themselves. I also know from personal experience how big of mistake that can be.

Anything later than an N64 is going to be progressively harder and harder to fix. By the end of the decade they will probably be emulating N64s. And so on and so forth.

The whole point is to not damage original articles, not to damage and then fix them. That’s what’s required of US Museum at least. It will matter more and more as the hardware ages and becomes scarcer.

On the next point, I think your giving the public too much credit. The BSoD is probably the most common failure screen in the world, but how many people would know to equate that with a windows PC and just with any computer?

What percent of the population knows what an emulator or emulation is? 1%? Maybe among people who are visiting the Nintendo museum, probably in the double digits, but not by much. The only embarrassment would be a reddit post, which would get turned into garbage news articles and shorts which everyone but us will forget about 3 seconds later. Basically every person that sees it would just be mad it’s not working when they happened to be there.

It’s is quite literally only there decision what hardware there IP can run on. In every legal way, they are the arbiters of that. Why are we supposed to care what emulator they use? If it’s open source, it’s as much there’s to use as everyone else’s. I wouldn’t run it on Windows certianly, but that is objectively there decision.

They probably have there own way on running NES/SNES games for development for Switch online or the NES classic, so your silly comment about them no longer developing those not only pointless but also probably wrong.

I’ve used mGBA on both my Switch and a PC, I’m not sure why you think that would be so hard. That’s literally made by a hobbyist, for a more modern system, and runs on several other platforms as well.

All emulation is probably (but not 100 certainly) piracy. It depends on how you read the law, but it seems clear to me that you can’t legally transfer software copies without transferring the original. Meaning for it to be legal, you would have to make the copy yourself, and continue owning the original. I say this as someone who fully supports pirating from AAA publishers, including Nintendo.

Can you provide a source for the ripped ROMs? I’ve been well actually’d on that before, now in both directions, but I can’t find an actual source.

These are in the most certain terms possible “rules for thee and not for me” but it’s there IP, and they get to set those rules. I wouldn’t describe there rights they fight tooth and nail for as hypocritical.

Funnily enough, I’m guessing the whole reason they are emulating NES/SNES is because they were having reliability issues.They probably picked the simplest thing they could get working on short notice.

Or they could just, I don’t know, not burn out console after console running them constantly so they don’t have to spend exuberantly. That’s if the they can even produce that process node somehow. If not, making a new fab would cost 10s of millions, to produce old and completely antiquated hardware that they can already emulate on there current hardware.

What do think Nintendo does there development on? You think they run the unity editor on the Switch? They have probably used windows emulators for development since the Gamecube, and they absolutely have there own versions. Which open source emulators are they trying shut down? Something from this decade? If you mean Switch emulators, that’s just piracy, which I’m all for, but it’s not a exactly a moral high ground.

I thought they had included ripped ROMs, someone mentioned in another thread that were packaging the ROMs the same way. I’m not sure if that means the used the same tools or got to same result another way, buts it’s only a way of packaging ROMs.

It’s there IP, they can choose what’s allowed to be done with it. If they want to emulate it, they can. If they want it to only ever play on a N64DD, then thats also up to them. If they benefit from open source emulators, which I mostly doubt, then they as the fault on the emulator developer for being open source. Close it down, make Nintendo license it if you think it’s benefiting them unfairly.

I assure you they are currently runnng there in-development Switch2 games on in an emulated environment as we speak.

That would just be wasteful, and wouldn’t really be the same thing? Analogue already makes N64 FPGAs make things that are almost N64s, and Nintendo doesn’t seem to care.

Your forgetting that Nintendo emulates there own games all the time, literally since the GameCube.

There argument has never been about what they can do, it’s about what you can do. Now they are wrong under US law, but it’s not like it’s hard to go find ROMs of these games, they aren’t even on torrents or shady websites, you can download them directly.

That’s not the point of it though. Not about whether you could fix or maintain it when operating it, it’s about not operating it if presents a notable risk of failure. The Smithsonian doesn’t start grinding cornmeal in a bowl from the Mississippians. The Connecticut Museum doesn’t take it’s colt rifles out the range for target practice. These organizations would use a replica to demonstrate what it was like, as opposed to risking damaging an original article.

Thats also not even necessary true either. While they may have invented there various consoles, at some point it will be nearly impossible to acquire replacement parts. They don’t manufacture the ICs or mainboards or the various discreet components. So if there’s no old stock, how would they “fix” a broken N64 (or later) console? It might be theoretically possible to fab a NEC VR4300 to replace a dead one, but probably cost hundreds of thousands, and it wouldn’t be broken anyway if you hadn’t left if running 16 hours a day so some sweaty tourists could play on real hardware.

And why would they? It would cost more, be more work, and have less reliable results than using a completely replacable computer running an emulator. The entire consumer facing side of the equation is worse if they run the games on the actual hardware, as long as the consumer doesn’t see it, which is really down to how they design the exhibit.

Do you think the public is understanding enough to accept that “The NES is really old and it broke so you can’t play super mario bros today”, when it’s the only day you are gonna be there? Temper tantrum, bad reviews, loss of face. From what I understand, Japan actually cares about all that, so Nintendo probably does as well.

That’s the case… For now.

No one would have cared to preserve a Mosin Nagant from 1892 when they were making 500,000 of them, why would they? You can just go and buy more, the factory is right over there. Fast forward 132 years later, they are scarce antiques. And in another 100 years, there may only be a dozen left.

The entire field of computers as we know it, integrated circuits, is about half as old as that particular rifle, and the technology has changed so fast, it’s really crazy.

So while it might seem like that’s reasonable now, I mean the people who designed those systems are often still alive, even still working. Of course we can still fix and use them.

Now give it 60 or so years, your sitting around in you retirement community, sad you lost the auction for a 2003 eMachines tower PC with all the stickers still attached, kicking yourself about how you tossed one out back in the day.

At least you kept your Atari Jaguar, kept in a hermetically sealed container, that managed to save when you had to evacuate from the 2nd Finnish-Korean Hyperwar.

Edit: Abominable spelling

You really think an old parchment document would survive being in a high vacuum and near absolute zero?

Yeah sure, nothing lasts forever, but the really not the point. Your goal is to attempt to preserve your articles forever.

Are you going to fall short? Absolutely, but your still required to attempt to do so. So you avoid doing anything directly harmful, such as operating an old computer, firing an old cannon, or diving an old car.