Hide Past Events from Displaying – AIT Themes Events & Events Pro Plugin

I am using AIT Themes City Guide and trying to configure the Events list to make sense. The theme plugin does not age out old events. I assumed this would be the bare minimum a plugin claiming to be an Event manager would offer. However, it seems I have to make this happen myself. Before you suggest it, the theme developer is not likely to be helpful. Despite having a full license, they have no plans to add this simple feature.

So, I would like to code this myself and the code would have universal benefits. Essentially, events in this theme are "formatted posts". So, writing code to hide past events could be as simple as the code I found on this page:

How can I hide posts that are over 2 years old

Here is the code suggested:

add_action( 'pre_get_posts', 'filter_old_posts' ); function filter_old_posts($  query){     if( !is_admin() && $  query->is_main_query()){          add_filter('posts_where', $  callback = function( $  where = ''){              $  where .= " AND post_date > '" . date('Y-m-d', strtotime('-2 years')) . "'";               return $  where;          });          add_filter('getarchives_where', $  callback );     } } 

How can I modify the above to filter out posts older than the current date? How can I filter out just a single category?

Thank you!!

Shouldn’t we move past repeating “rules do what they say and nothing more?” [closed]

More the start of a conversation than a real question. It’s a wall of text, so I thank you in advance if you reach the end.

So hear me out: I’ve lurked on this site for months, learning hidden rules, exploring audacious interpretations and studying new mechanics: the honeymoon is not over yet and I’m very grateful to the community. But I also have a bone to pick with ya all: under most questions I often find this mantra, repeated mindlessly as premise for any reasoning:

Rules do what they say and nothing more.

I get the intent: don’t interpret the text beyond its scope, or you’ll end up unbalancing the game. Absolutely. But most of the times it’s used to stop the conversation instead of providing a fruitful contribution.

Case in point: in my first answer regarding the uses and limits of Mage hand, I said:

[The spell’s text] mentions manipulate an object, open an unlocked door or container, stow or retrieve an item from an open container, or pour the contents out of a vial; is this all it can do? I don’t think so, because it adds later that the hand can’t attack, activate magic items, or carry more than 10 pounds. The description remains generic on the things you can do, but is very strict on what you cannot. Could the Mage hand hold a light living creature, like a mouse? It’s certainly not an object, but it wouldn’t make sense to forbid it. As I interpret it, it’s a phantasmal hand with very little strength (therefore no attacks or any effort beyond 10 pounds) and which can’t complete complex tasks (therefore no activating magic objects): beyond that, the player’s fantasy’s the limit, and it should be rewarded […].

I later realized that my example concerning a mouse was not as blatant as I thought, and in fact made for a different can of worms altogether. I can hear the rebuttals in the back: "The text says you can manipulate an object, so you can’t manipulate a mouse, your example is dumb and all that follows is voided". I’m sure some agree with my non-existent, pesky alter ego, but let me add something. If you can’t hold the mouse, what happens a player tries anyway? The manuals don’t offer an easy solution, so perhaps you could simply 1)Have the cantrip stop and the hand disappear; or 2)Have the living creature fall through the ghostly limb; or maybe 3)Have the hand become unresponsive for as long as it’s interacting with incompatible things (in this case, creatures). I’m sure you can come up with any number of different solutions, and at the moment your ruling may seem to harmonize the rule with the situation.

Then again your mischievous mage player could exploit your ruling in any number of ways. Case by case: 1)If any living creature interrupts the cantrip, couldn’t another player simply highfive it and interrupt it at every turn? "AntiMage hand maneuver is a go, let’s go clap the lil’ bugger". 2)If living things fall through the hand (and in a world with constructs and undead, have fun deciding what is living), could you also use it to scout for mimics? Actually, can the ghostly hand normally go through walls? How is the feeling of having the mage hand cross your body? Could the mage use the Mage hand to convince the king he is the ghost of his great grandfather, who eternally cursed his lineage by not adequately paying a party of adventurers for their services, and the spell can only be broken by emptying the royal treasuries onto the hand of the first random party of adventurers that show up at his presence? (I know there are easier ways, but we are squeezing all possible uses out of a measly cantrip just to make a point, come on). 3)Could you use your otherwise useless adventuring gerbil Jeremiah as a reliable counter to stop very specifically worded spells and magic items which can’t possible operate with living creatures, displaying "Error 403, forbidden" when interacting with any?

You see what I mean, any number of possible interpretations both in line with and beyond the text has an infinite number of unforeseen ramifications, and even though every DM can come up with a different answer, I think the only wrong answer would be "You can’t do that at my table because rules don’t give a definite answer, so change your action or lose the turn". That’s how everyone’s morale wilts and how one disincetivizes any experimentation, to the detriment of the game as a whole.

Beside, shouldn’t we stop pretending the manuals were some kind of holy text providing every answer to every situation, a perfectly calibrated machine which was as frail as to crumble at the flimsiest of pokes? Let’s be honest here. Many spells are situational at best, same as several subclasses (and I don’t want to touch upon the OG ranger) and races (there’s a special place in hell for human variants); many (if not most) feats are borderline useless, and several of the conjurable creatures from find familiar are best left at the end of the PHB where they belong. The list could go on and on. And I’m not proclaiming that playing optimally is the only sensed way to (that discussion would need an other post twice as long), but for a player there’s no worse feeling than being locked up in a useless choice and drag behind the rest of a more traditional party for the unforgivable sin of experimenting with existing mechanics. Shouldn’t a DM touch up the weakest parts of the books to improve everyone’s experience at the table? After all, the first page of the contents of the DMG says:

The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren’t in charge. You’re the DM, and you are in charge of the game.

Getting back on track, what I meant is: no amount of text could cover every possible mechanic and interaction in the game. As a real life law student (please be lenient in the comments), I can assure you, however you spell a rule, it will be always be open to abuses both in favor and against its subjects, which is why one of the often underestimated roles of a DM outside homewbrewing is to do metaruling, that is to rule on rulings: when to strictly enforce a rule, when to extend its bounds and when to forgo it entirely precisely for the sake of balance. That is why we need human judges to interpret and apply laws in real life (for as long as machines will become smart enough to take that role): whenever the text falls short, understanding why a rule exists and interpreting its intent in a fair way is the way to apply both Rules As Written and Rules as Intended. They are two sides of the same coin after all. Blind faith on the manuals simply can’t solve every problem arising on the table, and even the most conservative interpretation must withstand possible future complications or be overruled when its blindsides have been exposed. No amount of tweets from the almighty JC (which I think are both a blessing and a bane since, again, the game is not perfect at all) can solve any situation in one optimal, definitive way. So let’s stop pretending there is this authentic way to play D&D vanilla.

Sometimes one has to think outside the box to understand what the box was all about.

Do you agree?

As a Werewolf who is immune to non-magic physical damage, can Swarm of Rot Grubs get past my skin

I’m a part of a homebrew setting 5e game where the real homebrew, outside of lore, is only custom monsters that are rarely made by the DM as he prefers to use normal dnd monsters when he can. In this latest game, he used Swarms of Rot Grubs and one managed to hit me and a turn later dig in.

However, I questioned how the Grubs got through my skin in the first place as normal swords and spears failed to pierce my hide in the past.

DM ruled it as they do, so I will accept it as such….also helps we’re fairly mid-game, so we have someone with lesser restoration.

But I want to know how the internet thinks about this, since the Grubs have no way of hurting me, can they still somehow bypass that Immunity to feast on my heart?

DM allows content up to Tasha’s. From what I understand it’s the basic version of DnD 5e. Apologies if that doesn’t clarify things better.

Firing Ranged Attacks past Other Creatures

I have recently come up against the problem that players want to fire ranged attackes through multiple enemies, or place AoE spells behind multiple enemies. The idea that one could fire an arrow past three or more other creatures (and yes, I understand that the creature does not occupy the whole 5ft square) seemed completely unrealistic to me. I consulted the rules, and found that (as I understand it), no matter how many creatures are between you and the target, they only get +2AC, and there is no restriction on AoE placement.

To solve this problem, I have come up with the following houserules (also includes some ruling clarifications for players, and rules from back section of DMG):

You can make a ranged attack against an enemy on the other side of an ally or enemy creature. However the following rules apply (based on how many creatures are between you and it):

  • One creature: Half-cover (+2 AC)

  • Two creatures: 3/4-cover (+5 AC)

  • Three creatures or more: Full cover (can’t target)

If you do not hit the AC of the creature you were trying to hit, but do hit the AC of one or more of the intervening creatures, then you hit the nearest one you hit the AC for instead. This includes allies.

For spells that specify targeting a location or creature ‘that you can see’, you can cast past one or two creatures, but not past three or more.

The above house-rules have not been playtested yet.

Does anyone have a better solution? Do the rules-as-written actually deal with the problem? Will these house-rules work?

I’m primarily looking for other people who have had a similar problem, and have play-tested house-rules (similar or different to these) to solve it.

If a creature is squeezing in a space does that affect other characters’ ability to move past it?

So if a large creature is halfway down a 20ft long 5ft wide hallway and a friendly, medium creature wants to move past him, does the large creature impede the medium creature’s movement? Also, can two large creatures squeeze past each other in that same hallway?

I know normally you can move through a friendly creature’s square without being impeded, you just can’t stop in it. Also, the squeezing rule says, "A creature can squeeze past a creature while moving but it can’t end its movement in an occupied square." This could be interpreted to say that "while squeezing, a creature may move past another creature, but some at my table say that is intended to be a rule about, for instance, a large creature moving past an unfriendly medium creature in a 10ft wide hall, meaning that sometimes to move past an unfriendly creature you need to squeeze and you can do that as long as you don’t stop that way.

I guess it just seems logical to me that if a creature is already having to squeeze to fit it should be a greater than normal effort to move past it, but I see no rule to this effect. Am I missing it or would this just be a houserule if we wanted to play that way?

Does Command Undead last past an undead’s death and raising?

If an undead creature fails its save against the Necromancy wizard feature Command Undead, and then dies and is raised or rejuvenated (eg a lich coming back from their phylactery) are they still affected by Command Undead? If so, do they have to still be undead (eg could Command Undead followed by killing them and casting a high-level resurrection spell give you control of a living creature)?

Stone Shape: can the stone extend past the original affected area?

The spell Stone Shape allows the caster to reshape a stone object or section of stone:

You touch a stone object of Medium size or smaller or a section of stone no more than 5 feet in any dimension and form it into any shape that suits your purpose.

Can the reshaped stone extends past the original affected area?

For example, would it be possible to raise a stone pillar from the ground using this spell, or extend a stone wall into a ramp?

Do crossbows and other noted exceptions miss past their long range underwater?

The rules is written as

A ranged weapon attack automatically misses a target beyond the weapon’s normal range. Even against a target within normal range, the attack roll has disadvantage unless the weapon is a crossbow, a net, or a weapon that is thrown like a javelin (including a spear, trident, or dart).

My question is if this part:

A ranged weapon attack automatically misses a target beyond the weapon’s normal range.

Is a complete clause on its own independent of the next sentences, or is a part of the later sentences. Do all ranged weapon attacks miss past their normal range, or only weapons that aren’t listed as exceptions?

Can conflicting descriptions of the recent past be handled better than GM fiat?

I’ve been having a problem in RPGs lately where participants, myself included, have radically different ideas about what just happened on a basic factual level. For example, in a recent Pokémon RPG where I am a player, a significant conversation was had amongst the players and an NPC about whether or not to tell Will’s Alakazam we can talk to Pokémon. In the course of the conversation, from my perspective, one of the PCs asked a question of the group and the NPC responded first. However, another player was convinced that the question was asked and then my PC and another PC responded, and only then the NPC responded. I will use this example throughout this question as an illustration, but please keep in mind that it is only one example of this sort of problem and that specific case has already been resolved; you can feel free to use it similarly to illustrate the advice you give in an answer, but the actual specifics of that advice as applied to this situation are not important to me.

These sorts of disagreements about basic facts can be a serious problem when players end up making plans that rely on fundamentally incompatible versions of the world, and lead to lengthy arguments and discussions. Although this hadn’t come up much before until about a year or two ago, it’s been coming up a lot since that time, particularly since the first steps I outline below consistently do not ever work with several of our newer players.

The current system that we use for this has developed in an ad hoc manner and is not particularly thought out. It goes like this:

  1. There is a disagreement. In this case it’s about whether or not the PC in question insulted the NPC by shutting them down for interrupting when no one else was talking.
  2. We clarify whether the disagreement is about material or immaterial facts (i.e. whether we are disagreeing about what happened or what that means. This isn’t always obvious– "John murdered Sue" is probably immaterial if the issue at hand is whether the killing was justified rather than whether the knife propelled by his hand entered her heart. The important part is to isolate what we disagree about and determine whether or not it is something that we think should be obviously true or false to both characters regardless of their value differences). In this case what order people spoke in is a material fact, and no immaterial facts are disputed– we agree that if the PC in question had shut the NPC down in that manner it would be insulting, but we disagree as to whether or not that, in fact, happened (i.e. whether or not other people were currently talking at the time).
  3. If the disagreement is about immaterial facts, it’s not relevant to this question, but it enters a separate process
  4. If it’s about material facts we survey the group. Generally, in the past, people change their minds or at least acquiesce to our carrying on with things being the other way if everyone but them remembers something differently. For two people we now play with in several games this is never the case. In this case, everyone but the player of the PC who shut down the NPC (myself, another player, and the GM) agrees that no other players had indicated their PCs were talking at that point. The player dissenting continues to insist that we had, in fact, done so, though.
  5. If the group cannot reach consensus in a timely fashion (<2 hours), the GM issues a fiat or declares that discussion between the invested parties will happen elsewhere as the rest of us keep playing. Those side conversations usually take 2-4 hours when I am a party and 4-6 hours otherwise. In this case, the GM declares by fiat that there was a miscommunication in the in-character conversation, the NPC is not insulted because they thought what was happening was the same as what the PC in question thought was happening, but generally everybody is momentarily off-put or confused and then things are worked out off-screen and the PCs are getting along again and the main thrust of the conversation can resume. It takes only 30 minutes before that fiat is given (this is unusually short) and then another half-hour or so to discuss/explain what the fiat means.
  6. If GM fiat was issued, although the disagreement is officially resolved, there are still always inevitably problems of late, unless the GM fiat is in line with the position espoused by the new players, if either player is in the game (they are never both in the same game, so far). These problems take the form of more disagreements about what’s happening, material or immaterial, in all areas related to the fiated thing, which inevitably morph into rehashing the same disagreements that were had before just with putatively a new issue at hand. Frequently the content of the last GM fiat is also a matter of material disagreement in these cases. This starts the process over, usually resulting in another GM fiat after a couple of hours. In this case the fiat was sufficiently concillatory and no further problems around that particular issue arose. The fact that we quickly ended up is a 4 hour conversation about a different conflict between the GM and the player in question related to a different past fiat from a previous session may have had something to do with that, however.

This process is exhausting and frustrating for everyone involved. Is there a better way to resolve these disagreements about basic facts?