Join my Discord! discord.gg/khwnjP7BMs I also forgot to shoutout Brain LeBorx in the Warrior Tier! Sorry about that and thank you for your support!

@brainleblanc9521

2 ай бұрын

how dare you

@Mr_Kyle_

2 ай бұрын

Re: Circle/Square - one answer for One D&D: make every AoE fit a square grid in the text. Another answer is shift to using a HEX grid! I don't know why I don't see more people using hex grids - I find them way more interesting and realistic for movement. Of course this changes a lot for tactics, but I think it's all more fun and for the better

I'd love to hear a more realistic description of a verbal component like "Spells with a verbal component are easily heard by anyone within 120 on a quiet day, 60 feet within town or 30 feet within a crowded tavern".

@robinthrush9672

2 ай бұрын

That really should be there. As well as social spells needing to be cast as a spell _then_ have the social bit happen. Suggestion is not, "I think you should open this door," for the verbal component.

@crimfan

2 ай бұрын

Just set Perception DCs and that’s do the job. Of course the 5E designers didn’t bother to do that….

@StupidButCunning

2 ай бұрын

Yea, some official specifics would be nice. I always rule that if you are casting a spell with a verbal component, anyone who is not deafened and is within the range of the spell can hear and it is obvious that you are casting a spell. There will be no "I whisper the verbal component" at my table 99% of the time. If you want that, be a Sorcerer and choose Subtle Spell. The only exception I make is if they're a reasonable distance away, have some sort of wall or other barrier to muffle sounds, or there is some other sort of distraction going on to distract the attention of anyone who might hear it. Also if the NPCs passive perception is less than 10, that can also play a factor. I also rule that any spell that causes Thunder damage can be heard 100 feet away per damage dealt. I rule the same for trying to subtly perform somatic components. Exceptions to that might include a stealth check to perform the somatic component under a table you're sitting at.

"The guards approach the inn. They have a sorcerer of the court with them" "I close the windows" "Wait what why" "Do they have keys? Willingness and ability to destroy the inn to get inside? I'm now behind *total cover*"

@cheemsburbger5326

2 ай бұрын

“I close the windows” “As you go to close the second window their held actions are triggered as they make their own move. You take 12 force damage from a set of magic missiles fired by the court sorcerer as a pair of crossbow bolts follow behind. What’s your armor class?”

@kylaproject

2 ай бұрын

The problem with the Wall of Force or even the windows thing is that many spells say you can target anything you can "see". Since Wall of Force and, of course, windows, are clear, you can still see targets on the other side. The current incarnation of Magic Missile doesn't say where the darts form, simply that they appear and they can hit any combination of targets you choose within range. Why can't you create the missiles INSIDE the Wall Of Force? They aren't "passing through it", they are being created INSIDE of it. Same thing with things like Fireball or even Misty Step. They require line of sight, nothing is said about there being a clear path of travel. Cover should only apply to things that have to physically travel to their target and Line of Sight should only apply to things that must be seen to interact with them.

@codebracker

17 күн бұрын

@@cheemsburbger5326 I cast shield

Having to have the “circles are squares” conversation at every table I play at is exhausting. It works fine in theory, but just feels strange in practice.

@InsightCheck

2 ай бұрын

It is a really weird one. I actually don't bother with it in my home game, I just use the normal shapes. But yeah, I do wish they would just include a blurb about it in the new PHB.

@MatthewDragonHammer

2 ай бұрын

I’ve never played at a table that uses circles as squares; we all use the template method instead.

@InsightCheck

2 ай бұрын

Yeah, I don't think most people in actual play use "circles are squares". It comes up a lot online though. Like I said, I don't even use it haha!

@nyanbrox5418

2 ай бұрын

Circles being squares is the base rule, circles being circles are still a valid optional rule that literally everyone uses imo

@InsightCheck

2 ай бұрын

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Technically "playing on a grid" is an optional rule, which is how it's described in the PHB which I guess would then make circles are circles the standard rule haha. Given how most people play though, technically speaking, "circles are squares" is the default rule haha. It's all a bit all over the place! But yeah, "circles are circles" is completely valid. There should be some more explanations for this whole thing in the new books!

I think my favorite rule to ignore of Crawford is that a weapon attack isn't the same as an Attack with a Weapon. He has stated that Divine Smite requires a Weapon and doesn't work with Unarmed Strike, which is a weapon attack. Using the same word for different concepts distinguished by proper or lower case is a VERY poor way to communicate. His reasoning for not allowing paladins to do this had to deal with his mental perception of a paladin using a weapon and heavy armor. This is in a game that did away with requiring a paladin to be Lawful while naming the sub-classes for it as "Oaths"; which are rules the paladin must adhere to or lose its powers.

@AnaseSkyrider

2 ай бұрын

The reason why it works that way is because the unarmed strike rules specifically say that 'when you make a melee weapon attack', you can use an unarmed strike instead of using a weapon, thereby making it into a melee weapon attack. This is why in 1D&D, they are using "Unarmed Strike" and "Attack with a _ Weapon" explicitly.

The ruling that you can cast a spell with S + M components with one hand but not spells with only S is so unintuitive and arbitrary that I refuse to believe it's anything other than just JC doubling down on a badly worded rule that they made a mistake on EDIT: case in point, it's so arbitrary that I mixed up which one you can't do while holding a focus

@LibertyMonk

2 ай бұрын

Focuses don't do anything except provide Material components. Most half-casters (or less) can't even use focuses, and only Arcane focuses need to be held, but even then, you can just wear a Component Pouch, or just not hold something in two hands for some reason. Holy Symbols can just be visibly worn, a sprig of mistletoe can easily be worn as a crown or tied to your belt. Even a spellbook, orb, wand, or relic can be worn on the hip then "interact" with the focus as your free action. Sure, it's a bit unintuitive, but apparently nobody knows how components work *at all* so why are we even bothering to complain about one small fraction of it? Half the spells with S but no M component explicitly involve the caster making a clear gesture or actually moving around.

@all_thescience

2 ай бұрын

@@LibertyMonk We bother because it’s stupid that in one instance a caster is dexterous enough to perform somatic components while using their focus to provide the material ones, but in another they are incapable of performing said somatic components BECAUSE they aren’t using that same focus for material components. It’s just a goofy ruling that does nothing but take away from the immersion of the game because of how nonsensical it is And if anything, you are helping to prove my point here. Because you’re right, it’s insanely easy to circumvent this dumb ruling by wearing a component pouch, so why is the line being arbitrarily drawn at foci? At the point, the rule is just arbitrarily punishing players for trying to fulfill their class fantasy

@rybiryj

2 ай бұрын

"JC doubling down on a badly worded rule that they made a mistake on" It wouldn't be the first. Another time he confirmed that you have disadvantage on attacking an invisible creature even if you are affected by See Invisibility.

This video made me remember that the variant rule where every other square moved diagonally costs two squares of movement isnt standard; I have played that way since my very first session back in 2014. I noticed the issue while my players were clearing Cragmaw Hideout and we made the ruling then and there to just do what we later found out was an optional rule.

@InsightCheck

2 ай бұрын

Haha that’s wild It honestly makes sense and does actually solve number of problems.

@nyanbrox5418

2 ай бұрын

Pythagoras turning in his grave at diagonal movement costing 5ft every time at most tables xD

@InsightCheck

2 ай бұрын

Hahahaha big time!

@cheemsburbger5326

2 ай бұрын

@@nyanbrox5418honestly, making all movement directions cost the same is how I run most games anyway. I know the alternating move cost solves some problems with how much distance a character can cover at once and that without it it can go crazy, but I also kinda just don’t care lol. It makes counting distances easier and I trust my players to just not be shitasses about things (I.e. I haven’t had a player with a 30 ft. move speed try to go 40+ out of combat or off a battlemat by using battlemap logic and the Pythagorean theorem).

@LibertyMonk

2 ай бұрын

@@cheemsburbger5326 this, it just doesn't matter most of the time, and since the entire world is using the same distances, that's just how the world works, nothing is broken. I'm not sure what "issue" people ran into, but "spheres are cubes" and calculating range (which is just spheres are cubes again) is the only place it comes up in my games. If someone is one tile out of range, just say "they're just out of range" if you're on a grid, you have to know ranges and set them there, why introduce 1/2 tiles to your range calculations? When you have fights in 3 dimensions, spheres being spheres is a lot more impactful, because now you have to figure out how moving two diagonals in a single square works, and you have to know if your "circles" are at ground level, or higher than that, and how much the "circle" shrinks because of that, and how tall everything is.

I know DnD will "never" do this... but moving from square battlemaps to hexes is just a superior choice. Fixes so many things: circles vs. squares, diagonal movement, realistic facing (if built into the game) etc.

@justink4051

2 ай бұрын

A optional rule would be nice

@JJV7243

2 ай бұрын

@@justink4051I'd like it to be default and squares option because it helps a ton... but that just won't happen (non linear shapes = scary!)

@kennethroberts8568

2 ай бұрын

​@@justink4051 You're in luck there is an optional rule with support in the DMG. Pg 250-252 explains how creature sizes, cover, flanking all work in hexes. They also discuss using facing or even going minis with no grid, like warhammer.

@codebracker

17 күн бұрын

@@justink4051 moving on squares IS an optional rule itself, the core rule is to just use a ruller for everything But yes hexes are a good compromise

The fact greese doesn't ingite is just unituitive.

@LibertyMonk

2 ай бұрын

There are a lot of greases that aren't flammable, and a lot of slippery things like ice or mud or polished floors. There are plenty of AoEs at 1st level, but if you want one that sticks around then can be ignited, you need Web and 2nd level. Even fat drippings and gasoline/petroleum aren't going to light on fire without sustained flames or sustained high temps in an open environment when vapor can accumulate or with a wick to act as a candle.

@captianbacon

2 ай бұрын

@@LibertyMonk if you shoot a fire bolt or a burning hands at it it should ignite like webs.

@kylaproject

2 ай бұрын

When most people think of "grease", they think of kitchen grease...pork, beef, etc... As stated by @LibertyMonk, there are a LOT of other slippery substances in the world. Silicon oil, for instance, is an extremely slippery substance that is both non-flammable and water repellant. Coating the floor with it would make it very difficult to walk on without carefully steadying yourself. I agree, though, in D&D context, it should be flammable. You should also be able to do more with it than just wax the floor. The AD&D 2nd Edition description would absolutely be flammable! "A grease spell covers a material surface with a slippery layer of a fatty, greasy nature." It also allows you to grease objects "The spell can also be used to create a greasy coating on an item-a rope, ladder rungs, weapon handle, etc. Material objects not in use are always affected by this spell, while creatures wielding or employing items receive a saving throw vs. spell to avoid the effect. If the initial saving throw is failed, the creature immediately drops the item. A saving throw must be made each round the creature attempts to use the greased item."

@captianbacon

2 ай бұрын

@kylaproject I've worked in a kitchen greese fires are a thing irl

@kylaproject

2 ай бұрын

@@captianbacon LOL, of course they are... I was just saying that the term "grease" doesn't inherently mean something flammable. Most things in the kitchen would be flammable. But grease created by magical means may not be.

simple Pythagoras you can just do 3-4-5 as a quick reference if you had to. This mean if move say 3 squares right then 4 forward the total distance traveled would be 5 squares worth.

Omg just today we discussed with my wife how dumb and unclear rules for material components, arcane focus and somatic components. Im play dnd about 6 years and it's still so painful trying to explain this rules to new players

@LibertyMonk

2 ай бұрын

It's less complicated than it seems. Focuses are not required for spellcasting, and many spellcasters can't even use one (like Rangers, Arcane Tricksters, random people with spell granted by Feats or Ancestry). All they do is provide the Material component when held or worn visibly for spells that don't list a gold cost and also don't consume the component. You need a free hand to use Somatic components (even those that ostensibly don't use your hand), but if the spell *also* requires a Material component, the hand reaching into the pouch or touching the amulet or burning the gem or, and this is the part that confuses people, holding a focus, counts as "free" for the casting of that spell. If the spell doesn't use a Material component, the Somatic component isn't satisfied by your hand holding something for no reason. It honestly feels like a hack that holding a focus doesn't occupy a hand if you're using it as a Material component, but the hack only matters if the spellcaster wants to be holding their focus instead of wearing it for some reason, and also want to use their other hand for something else. Honestly, it makes sense that you can't touch someone with Cure Wounds or Heroism or pray for Divine Favor with a shield & mace in your hands. It'd be neat flavor for some characters to "touch" someone with their shield or weapon to heal or cure them, but the intended fantasy is a blessing where you touch them with bare (possibly gloved) hands, not beating them up backwards.

The best way to put the circles are squares thing is that it isnt a square and it doesnt have corners. The fact we call it a square or "has corners" is the source of the "weird feeling". Also hexagonal grids fix all the weirdness anyways.

@InsightCheck

2 ай бұрын

Hex grids actually do solve a large amount of the perceived weirdness in the game. It's something I've thought about experimenting more with at my table.

@Mastikator

2 ай бұрын

@@InsightCheck I switch between hexes and squares. In my experience squares are only better when you have many small square rooms that you need to deal with. Otherwise hexes are flat out better.

@Funkin_Disher

2 ай бұрын

I absolutely default to a hex grid when im not in the theatre of the mind

Jeremy crawford tweets are not official rulings. especially because as we've seen with his ruling on invisibility still granting advantage when a creature can see you, that ruling was errata'd by one dnd (at least it looks like it's going to be). They're just advice. Unless they make it into the sage advice compendium they should not be considered rulings.

I've generally have eschewed the whole bonus action spell thing at games I run. If you have the action economy for it, then you can cast it, but you can't cast the same spell twice in a turn, so no double fireball. Mainly because if a spellcaster wants to use more than one spell in a turn, that just means they're burning more of their resources in the moment, and since the game is built around an adventuring day that means that I can capitalize on their lack of slots later in the day. Now the problem is, if they haven't had a challenge in the day and they still have their slots, then this does make them more powerful. But, this approach just puts more onus on the spellcaster to manage their resources more because they can burn out easier.

Regarding the BA rule, I prefer the Treantmonk take for OneD&D where they are probably taking out the rule but having the specific abilities that interact with BA spells say if the player can cast as an action, like quickened metamagic and action surge not allowing you to cast spells

@pedrogarcia8706

2 ай бұрын

I believe they did do that for action surge in one dnd (with an exception for eldritch knights)

@alexllenas4607

2 ай бұрын

@@pedrogarcia8706 yes, both examples are from OneD&D, and there isn't and exception for EK

Everytime I need a rules clarification, I just reference my 3.5e books. It's staggering how much clearer they are.

A rule I would like to implement in material components would be something like "you need to HOLD a spellcasting focus, which you can use to perform "S" components if the spell requires it". So, among the spellcasting Focus available, you have the "component pouch" among then, which although you have to reload (something similar to ammunition, like 30 uses), you have a benefit like "your hand is free when casting spell with "M" component". It would end up being an excellent option for Gishs

Just on the concept of total cover, surely someone in a glass dome is under total cover, you're not going to be able to hit them until you break the dome. If you've two attacks then maybe one would break the dome allowing you to attack the creature underneath, but then you get into magic missile all hitting at the same time, and wall of force being impervious to damage

@InsightCheck

2 ай бұрын

Yeah, and I mentioned in the video that it made sense. It's more about the abstraction of that rule into things that aren't a Wall of Force. It also doesn't even need to be in the dome formation to accomplish the same thing. And like I put in the note, it's not just about individuals. Spells like Grease can't originate behind a Wall of Force even though it says "a point within range" and it just appears in that area, it doesn't go from the caster to the area. It just creates some strange interactions!

They were big on “Rulings not rules” at 5e’s release. They were also trying to tone down the rules “jargon” with “natural language.” I think this approach to rules design fell flat with 5e spells and spells.

only allow the spell to actually target the center of a square, and then use a circle template. it it covers half or more the fireball hit it.

The Spirts Bard also revealed another strange quirk of spell focuses-- if they cast a spell without a material component, or that has a component with monetary value, they cannot use their special spell focus and so don't get the added d6 to damage or healing from it. It's an odd interaction that doesn't usually come up, but is very wonky. WotC seems to have been aware of an issue like this in designing the Artificer by A) requiring them use a focus to cast spells, and B) adding a material component as a result. But it seems as though they completely forgot about that issue when they made the College of Spirits Bard.

Total cover - a thin curtain can block an arrow AND a fireball so long as you can't see through it.

@LibertyMonk

2 ай бұрын

seeing through it doesn't matter, it's in the way. That said, a Fireball is explosive and will go around corners and ignites (non-worn/held) flammable objects, so most would say you can target a point on the curtain and it'll still spread as though it isn't there. You can't point through the curtain though. An arrow will be caught slightly and its accuracy fouled, even assuming you can accurately aim at the right spot. Paper & cloth have an AC of 11, and if it's large enough to hide behind, has 4-6 hitpoints, so destroy the curtain first, or walk through it.

@JJV7243

2 ай бұрын

@@LibertyMonkYes - but you can't shoot a fireball "through" a curtain... it could detonate on it tho.

A lot of the things you’re highlighting were things that got brought back early in the 5E design process to keep the grognards from getting upset. Material components was an example. Folks were ignoring those back in 1E. Introducing a mechanic that made things more or less obvious would do the job. The designers lived in fear of the online grognards. As to circles, there is a perfectly good metric that works to make the squares be circles, as in obey the definition of a circle. It’s called Chebyshev metric or max norm. It doesn’t make cones look like our intuitive cones or circles look like our intuitive circles, though.

I think D&D needs to adopt the military definitions of "concealment" and "cover". Specifically concealment hides you from observation, but doesn't make you safe from enemy fire. Cover provides a barrier between you and the enemy and makes you harder to hit, but doesn't necessarily hide you from observation. Many objects actually do both, though, like hiding behind a tall stone wall. It both provides a barrier to observation by being opaque *and* a barrier to attack, unlike a window which you can clearly see through. They could also simplify the rules for hiding by replacing "partially" and "fully obscured" with a condition of Concealed 1 and Concealed 2, respectively, and making it so you have to be Concealed 2 in order to take the Hide action.

DnD Rules: Circles are squares! Cthulhu: We have won! Bow before your non-Euclidean overlords...

I have a DM who's new to DMing and when I mentioned that I didn't have the components for the summoning spells I wanted to use, they asked "do people actually follow that?" Lol. Apparently not for a lot of people?

The Wall of Force one is especially weird because: a) 'nothing can physically pass through' - spells are magic, magic doesn't seem like it would be physical and nothing says they are b1) tweets don't count b2) not a material (its a force) c) invisible - doesn't conceal d1) can float - so doesn't block anything small enough to go under, so how 'big' is magic? d2) is actually more powerful if it does block spells because the caster gets to choose if it floats so can use either mode as appropriate, rather than enemy casters being always able to bypass it too

The reason for not being able to target a creature inside the Wall of Force with a Magic Missile is on page 204 of the PHB: "To target something, you must have a clear path to it..." There is no clear path if there is a wall of force in between.

The BA rule is causing a really weird way for how I have to play my grave cleric in my cirrent game. My DM house rules that to heal someone from 0hp you need to stabilise them first so going down has more weight and we can't just ping pong healing from zero. (This came from a game I run with him as a player where the group forgot you COULD do that until I told them and we agreed to house rule it that way anyway). Tangent aside on the house rule, grave clerics have an ability where healing from zero they automatically max out the dice, they can also cast spare the dying as a bonus action. I cannot do spare the dying into cure wounds for my class ability because of the BA rule I have to use healing word and ignore mt ability to BA spare the dying. Thankfully my DM allows me to use the playtest doubled dice for healing spells so healing word when maxed out is basically cure wounds but its still dumb and awkward. TLDR; BA spell rule has weird conflicts with some class abilities and a house rule I otherwise like.

The simplest solution to squares and circles is to play on hexes, rather than squares. I tried it and it worked great, the problem was that almost all the maps I find online have squares printed on them.

The square fireball seems to come from conflating simplified movement with area of effect

@AnaseSkyrider

2 ай бұрын

Also with counting ranges, which nowhere in the spellcasting rules does it say to measure the area using ranges.

We always use circles are squares. There are tradeoffs in any sort of rule, and this one is a place where we felt that extra speed was far more of a bonus than any small (and still wrong) benifit from any other method. Even more so because we routinely use multi level combats, with characters at different z axis heights, and cube is way easier than ... minecraft circle while still not being wrong enough to matter. End of the day, there are realism breaks, but playing on a GRID is the bigger break, if you consent to grid, then square should be a fine correlation.

I don't think I'd go for the full bonus action casting rules of BG3, where a Sorcerer can Fireball, Quicken->Fireball, but limiting it to only 1 Action spell, 1 Bonus Action spell (as in, has an unmodified casting time of 1 Bonus Action) is fine in the current space. Think there should be more bonus action spells (cantrips like Prestidigitation, Thaumaturgy, Gust, etc) and more bonus action spell-like effects such as the Push/Pull on the Telekinetic feat. 5e has been around so long and been optimized to death such that *not* having options for a bonus action just feels bad. Targeting is clear as mud. Spell rules state a spell must have a clear [unobstructed] path to the target, which is why invisible or transparent barriers still block casting just like an opaque wall would. It's probably the most misunderstood rule about spellcasting because it's never mentioned in any spell description, unlike sight and range. But I agree such explicit language should be within spell descriptions themselves to prevent players from have to cross-reference so much. I would imagine the majority of players just read the spells to try and understand how they work and rarely, if ever, read the actual rules on spellcasting. Adjacent to this topic is how confusing the wording in some spells is, like Hunger of Hadar *reads* like it creates an area of darkness, but it doesn't - not explicitly so. It doesn't even create obscurement. It says that light can't get in or out of the spell's area, which would seem to imply that you can't see into the area from the outside, but it only states that creatures *within* the area are blinded and says nothing about it preventing sight from the outside in. It says the area can't be dispelled by sources of light that have that effect, but such spells are usually worded as dispelling an area of magical darkness, which Hunger of Hadar as written isn't, so those spells wouldn't work anyway. As written, the spell only does 4 things: blinds creatures within the radius, creates difficult terrain within the radius, causes cold damage at the start of turn to those in the radius, and causes acid damage to those who end their turn in the radius. I think having costly/consumed components to limit the use of certain, stronger spells makes sense, but I think the requirement of some form of spell focus to be able to cast in the first place still adds something to the game. Disarming a spellcaster of their focus is an oft-overlooked strategy to limit which spells they can cast if they don't have a backup. The minutia between spells with an S component and those with S and M components is just ridiculous and I ignore it.

Some of the ruling are definitely legacy issues from previous iterations of the game. I personally prefer a more tactile, equipment is important game, but I realize that if you just want an action oriented game then some may not like the approaches. However, I will submit that every time someone complains about the martial-caster divide, the chucking away of many of the small rules is part of that perception. Casters have always had a lot of power, but they were glass canons with a limited payload and a lot of rules to get things just so. Forcing them to have at least one hand empty to cast, limits their power (and multi-class cheese). Same thing with armor interfering with casting ability, needing to project your voice to cast a verbal component, and requiring material components.

I would love to see a change to somatic components that you need a free hand. It would stop casters from being able to have a shield and a focus in the other hand. Unfortunately it would make Paladins and Rangers need a rework or a feature to help them cast somatic spells in combat (or maybe a buff to account that they can't cast somatic spells in combat). Warcaster could be changed to say you can preform somatic components with the other hand regardless of if you're carrying something in it

@codebracker

17 күн бұрын

paladins can paint their holy simbol on a shield to use as a focus

@asiniel23216

17 күн бұрын

@@codebracker Yes. But they would't be able to have a weapon + shield because they would need a free hand for somatic components. You could get around it by stowing and equipping your weapon, but then you don't always have a weapon in hand for your reaction (or action if you cast a BA spell)

@codebracker

17 күн бұрын

@@asiniel23216 you can drop your weapon, cast the spell, then pock up the weapon with the interaction

I did not know about the needing a hand free with non material component spells. *edit* (going to ignore it though) On the subject how could you not talk about the "material" components vs material component nonsense. Where Crawford argued that "material" components were VSM, but that material component was a spellcasting focus. I forget the context/relevant page number.

Kinetic Jaunt is a somatic only spell that states "you invoke dance like footsteps" so i always abdicate it shouldn't need a free hand to cast it

When it comes to the bonus action casting rule, i want it completely gone. Instead i would run it as, you can cast 1 leveled spell, 1 cantrip, and 1 reaction spell or two cantrips and one reaction spell. You have to follow the action economy rules but besides that i dont care. As for the multiple leveled spells in a turn, im a little iffy on that because of the amount of solo breaking combos some casters could do. Ex: Im a Chronomancer wizard with a familiar, i could use a meta magic feat to bonus action cast sickening radiance but use my chrono ability to turn it into a pearl, give it to my familiar and tell them to cast it on their turn, and then for my action cast wall of force. With this combo, unless they have a magical means of destroying wall of force or escape, basically in one turn i just killed basically anything the DM throws at me. Maybe for healing spells i could see being allowed as healing is less impactful then dealing damage, but being able to cast two fire balls might be pushing it for me.

Two things I want to say: 1. I feel Jeremy Crawford's Tweets have caused more problems than they've solved. 2. Circles are squares becomes a problem when spells have "Self" as the point of origin rather than an actual point such as Spirit Guardians because on a grid the spell effect actually takes up a 7x7 area rather than a 6x6 area. Using the rule where diagonal spaces alternate between 5 ft. and 10 ft. fixes this problem.

The problem with squares being circles comes when you start making cubes, ol' Pythagoras has something to say about your cubes vertices. If you were to draw it correctly, your cube would start doing this, ) ( A cube that is 20x20 would have sides 10 from the center, edges 14.14 from the center, and vertices 20 from the center. Now you can, since nothing in the rules say your cube needs to be along the grid lines, rotate your cube in such a way that it "stabs" someone who would otherwise be up to 10 outside your casting range. I think spell shapes should be uniformly described, if you want square circles, use circles and spheres for all of the spell spaces, don't give us a cube.

1) I'm more of a fan of just reducing action economy a little by combining Bonus Actions and Reactions into a single Quick Action that can be used either on your turn or outside your turn. 2) The big problem is that the spell descriptions don't really differentiate between flavor text/narrative text and mechanical effects. They end up confusing players, especially those who are more focused on one side or the other. The BIGGEST problem is that the 5e rules, for some reason, expect you to already know 3e/3.5e rules, such as differentiating between "line of sight" and "line of effect".

Even coconut oil that could be grease is flammable. I've always ruled it as such and nothing Crawford can say will change that😅

counter point to the mistystep counterspell argument. my understanding is that reactions are neither actions or bonus actions, but a special action you can take when a specific requirement is met despite all other rules (such as feather fall: you can take the reaction when you or a creature you can see within 60 feet falls). for counterspell, the special requirement is seeing a creature cast a spell within 60 feet of you. on DndBeyond, these descriptions are found in footnotes and unfortunately not intuitive to finding or reading. so you could counterspell the counterspell on your misty step and still cast a cantrip as an action in one turn.

@C00kiesAplenty

2 ай бұрын

"You can't cast another spell the same turn except a cantrip with a casting time of one action". If you spend your bonus action casting a spell, you cannot cast reaction spells at all, because those are not cantrips with a standard action cast time.

@flynnoldman3542

2 ай бұрын

​@@C00kiesAplentyUsing a reaction, even in the middle of your turn, doesn't count as your turn, so it can be done.

@C00kiesAplenty

2 ай бұрын

@@flynnoldman3542 Tell me where in the reaction rules it mentions that using a reaction during your turn doesn't count as being during your turn.

The real issue with spell targeting is the DnD rules for Perception and Senses are just flat out bad. The problem shouldn't be handled in the spellcasting rules, it should be a coherent system of normal and enhanced senses. Every sense should operate on a scale from Vague (unable to target) to Precise (usable to target), and your Perception score and other abilities dictate how well you can apply that scale. Then spells can just state what kind of target- creature(s), location, none of the above, etc. and whether the spell is direct (requiring a clear or nearly clear path) or indirect (usable around or through obstructions). If I want to look through my familiar's echolocation in a dark room cast Magic Missile around some corners and under the gap in a door, I should probably be able to. Less so for something like Acid Arrow, for example. Basically I think the rules should be prescriptive not restrictive. Create a consistent and logical platform and let people go for it, instead of trying to write hyper specific rules to prevent every possible abuse.

As a veteran player who prefers spellcasters, I absolutely despise the way spells are upcast. In previous editions of the game, your spells got more powerful as you did, without sacrificing higher spell slots. (similar to how Cantrips work in 5e) Many spells started out weaker than their 5th edition counterparts, but had the potential to be very useful. Magic Missile, for example, gave you just 1 missile at level 1. You gained an additional missile for every 2 levels, topping out at 5 missiles at level 9. (Wizards compendium changed this to 9 missiles at level 17). Regardless of what level you are, this would only cost a single 1st level spell. Whereas in 5th edition, to cast a 5 bolt magic missile would cost you a 3rd level spell slot.

@aralornwolf3140

2 ай бұрын

The reason this was changed was for balance reasons; Linear fighters, Quadratic Casters. When the AC and the base attack bonus of a Wizard and Fighter are similar, giving the Casters ever increasing power in such a system leaves the fighter behind very quickly. They are already being left behind as it is.

@kylaproject

2 ай бұрын

@@aralornwolf3140 Nothing is done without reason. I just think it's poorly implemented. I don't hate the idea of powering up spells with higher spell slots. I just don't think you get enough return on investment. If you cast a level 9 Magic Missile, it's 11d4+11, or a MAX damage of 55 points. A Fireball does 14d6 (max of 84 damage). Meteor Swarm creates four fireballs that do 40d6 (240 points) damage each that can be dropped at any point within a MILE range. Firebolt, a cantrip, does 4d10 (max of 40 points) damage at level 17 and costs no spell slots. A wizard or sorcerer firing off Magic Missile with a level 9 spell slot should look like a Gundam opening up its missile bays! This mostly holds true just for damage spells. Things like Invisibility giving you ane extra target per spell slot level makes sense, but the weak damage output of damage spells doesn't. Making a caster's spells weak in lieu of creating interesting ways of increasing the power of the melee classes is a shortcut. I wasn't really looking for someone to tell me that I'm wrong, though, I was merely expressing my opinion.

@aralornwolf3140

2 ай бұрын

@@kylaproject, Martial Characters also had their damage reduced when compared to 3.5e... I wasn't saying you were wrong... I was explaining why the changes happened.

@kylaproject

2 ай бұрын

@@aralornwolf3140 Fair enough

5e has the same problem that a lot of mid-weight games have, which is that they're finicky about some things, hand-wavey about other things, and you're left in a kind of game limbo where you're looking for a rule for everything, because most everything has a specific rule, but then being left hanging on all the things that don't. The thing that differs between 5e and other mid-weight games, though, is that 5e is a lot more arbitrary on what it's finicky about, and the finicky rules that it makes are not well-explained, intuitive, efficient or consistent.

Great video. Especially the homebrew Eyesight (E) spell component, and the somatic/material component interactions (which I was not aware of), made my day. You absolutely earned my respect and my subscription.

The solution to "circles are squares" is to play on a hex grid 🤷 I like it better on nearly every way, though there are sometimes complications with straight walls.

I think visibility of spellcasting is something that should be clarified, if you ever wanted to be a enchanter wizard and do suggestions or charm person you run into the issue of your spell might be so visible you shot yourself in the foot by trying to use it. Or it's more ignored of just labeled as 'subtle' to ensure that it works. Say you just make a slight wave with your hand as somatic and as verbal you utter the suggestion "these are not the droids you're looking for". I don't think the "take a level of sorc for the subtle metamagic" is a valid argument, as it suggests that these spells doesn't work outside of one feature (that isn't a universal mage feature either). (and it's not like subtle metamagic wouldn't continue to have use, say being bound/gag in gaol, in a silence spell or to prevent counterspell.)

You could also just go with rules as intended. So the wall of force example is no point discussion

So holding a 2 x 1 m sheet of cardboard in front of you in battle prevents spellcasters from targeting you with ranged spells because you're in full cover and not visible? And as the wall of force is invisible, the same would be true for glass and you still can gaze at the enemies while they are scratching their heads how to hit you. Does fabric count for cover/blocked view too? If so, clothing is enough to render any battlemage helpless.

I absolutely agree with the bonus action spell point. I would defend that ruling if it was a critical rule to maintain game balance, except 5E has such wonky balance already. At this point, it's better to just let players do what they want and not big down the game rules.

I forgot that the 10 every 2 squares wasn't a base rule

Honestly I hate the material component needed for spells, since it is often super clunky with other abilities anyway. For instance Spirits Bard get a neat focus that they can cast spells through to do more damage or healing. Except by RAW only spells that require material components can use a spell focus. So then to make the ability actually work, you allow spells to have material components that don't require it. It's like Artificer spells all require a material component, which makes sense. So why can't you allow a material component when it's not required anyway?

Treantmonk has a great video talking about bonus action spellcasting, and how the rule only really exists because of Quickened Spell. So if there’s no sorcerers in the party, it doesn’t accomplish anything anyway. I’ve been ignoring it in my games for years and it’s never felt like a big problem.

@pedrogarcia8706

2 ай бұрын

why not just make the rule part of the quickened spell description instead? like if you quicken a spell, you can't also cast a levelled spell with your action. Wouldn't that completely solve it?

@MatthewDragonHammer

2 ай бұрын

@@pedrogarcia8706 Yup! And that's what they've already done in OneD&D's version of Quickened Spell. Makes you think they plan on just removing the general rule.

Circles are squares is an abomination. Use a template, use hexes, use your brain for god’s sake, and do not let your fireballs be square.

Id personally like to see the hex as normalized more as hex movement fixes alot of the sqrs problems.

Oh, don't forget there are some cantrips that cast with bonus action.

The first time I stumbled over this was when a Grave Cleric wanted to use their ranged Spare the Dying as a BA and then use Cure Wounds on another target. RAW this doesn't work and basically makes this Grave Cleric ability pointless. They instead cast Healing Word as a BA and used a regular Spare the Dying for their action, which DOES work RAW. It's just so pointless.

@Cloud_Seeker

Ай бұрын

It is actually even worse as this video get the BA rule wrong. You can in fact cast a leveled spell with a BA spell. You just have to cast Cure Wounds BEFORE Spare the Dying. The rules in the PHB say "You can’t cast *ANOTHER* spell during the same turn, ....". As you have not cast ANOTHER spell using a bonus action AFTER Spare the Dying, this is legal just fine. The only issue with the rule as it is written, is that it is completely pointless. Its like a fence where you forgot to close the gate, it is not going to hold anyone inside as they will just walk out of the fence. This was fixed in EGtE and TCoE by changing the text to say "you can’t cast any other spells *BEFORE OR AFTER* it on the same turn". However. To this say, this has not been changed in the PHB.

@InsightCheck

Ай бұрын

@Cloud_Seeker I’ll redirect you to your other comment but your interpretation of the PHB rule is incorrect. It wasn’t fixed but rather just made more clear later on. I explained in more detail in your other comment.

Interesting, I've never seen anyone get the bonus action spellcasting rule wrong. But yeah I do agree that it is needlessly restrictive and specific for no reason other than game balance even though it doesn't actually make sense in terms of how much time you'd really have on your turn. It's like how if you have the crossbow expert feat you can have a shortsword and hand crossbow and attack with the hand crossbow as a bonus action after making a shortsword attack but if you attack with the hand crossbow first then you can't make a shortsword attack as a bonus action. And in that example there isn't even a game balance rationale for this restriction.

Great analysis. I grow increasingly worried that WotC will move farther from improving the game and closer to just a pay-to-play online subscription service.

So the only big problem i see in this video is, that there are many people out there not reading the whole spelltext or rules and then complain about it not function the way they want it to. The part about the somatic componant feels a bit off for me too. I rule it consequently and simple, somatic meens you need a free hand and done. If my player state the rule i would tell them, that it is easier this way and it feels more "logic".

Sorcerers are gonna pop off with their quickened spell metamagic option if the 2 spell rule changes

@InsightCheck

2 ай бұрын

I mean, I’m not sure why you would think they would change one without the other? In fact in UA7 for One D&D, Quickened Spell has already been updated to say that you can only use it if you haven’t already cast a spell of 1st level or higher on the same turn. Also, you still only have one Bonus Action even if two things allow you to use one.

The defitions they use in game dont make sense when you look at how the words work irl. "Concealed" and Incapacitated vs Stunned are my go to examples.

Hear me out: Hex Grid maps.

@kennethroberts8568

2 ай бұрын

I tend to go theatre of the mind for fast fights, squares when it's still straightforward but some visual representation will be useful, and then hexes when any tactical stuff needs to be done. Since lots of grids are hex on one side, square on the other, you can just flip it over. Oh also if i'm too lazy to erase whats on the other side

Always felt the ba rule was tough and debated removing it all together. My issue is how exactly do you balance that with non arcane casters like cleric, who would then be able to cast Guiding Bolt & Spiritual Weapon on the same turn

@InsightCheck

2 ай бұрын

I think it would have to be accompanied by some other changes to allow it to still function cohesively but I'm not convinced it totally breaks the game or anything either but certainly does allow for additional caster strength. I'm really curious to see how it plays out in the 2024 PHB.

@asiniel23216

2 ай бұрын

hopefully the changes to spells in OneD&D account for that and we see appropriate nerfs/balancing

Pretty sure the material components says if you prep the spells you have the items

Regarding the "circles are squares" conversation and what to do about counting squares diagonally, an easy workaround is to do like the Warhammer players do: use a tape measure. And also spell AOE templates. "But that's not allowed by the rules!" So what? The rules serve the game; the game does not serve the rules.

Serious question (s): if you have to ask your DM how a rules interaction works, isn't it literally his job to make that determination? I ask because there seem to be a lot of discussions lately about how much guidance the upcoming rules should give on how spells should work and how they should interact with physics, as well as other spells. Would it actually improve D&D for you if it was more vague and gave a blanket "ask your DM" for questions like "Does a firebolt set things on fire that my opponent is wearing? Is there a roll? Can I target his backpack or the twigs at his feet? Does it impart force? Etc Should players scientifically experiment with their spells to see what they do or make an Arcana check to just know? Should magic spells even be totally consistent? How much of this should be game, as opposed to simulation or narrative?

@waifusmith4043

2 ай бұрын

I think I prefer an approach to rules like how it is in Pathfinder 2e. There's rules for a LOT of stuff in Pathfinder, but I look at the rules as more of a reference guide for if you don't have something already in mind. I think that the upside to this is that if you have a question about it, usually there's something you can find that can give you some guidance on it. obviously that means there's more material to sift through, which also calls for a higher need of good organization. The issue that can arise from more vagueness is that it puts more work on the DM, in my opinion unnecessarily so. It does boil down to preference, and yes as a DM you do have the final say on rules interaction but I want to make sure if something comes up I have something to reference. I will say however, some people do care about verisimilitude, and I only do up to an extent. I usually give my players the ability to use their class features/spells in an unconventional way as long as they can come up with a reason as to why they should be able to do something.

Melee martials seething rn.

the secret is, that you have to learn to care less about what the rule says and care more about what your table goes by.

@InsightCheck

2 ай бұрын

lol yes but that also completely misses the point of the discussion. It’s not about what you’re doing or worrying about at your table but rather evaluating and discussing the designs as presented in the book. Every discussion about the game is meaningless if you just say “the DM decides”. And while that’s true, it ignores the value of a design discussion.

10:48 Does this mean a Ranger with a longbow can't cast spells because both their hands are using the longbow (two handed weapon)?

15:00 what’s the solution for all this? Hex grids

1:00 that's the problem, that's how we got to overpowered casters every little inconvience for them was eventually removed.

@pedrogarcia8706

2 ай бұрын

no the problem is that wotc and crawford specifically are terrified of letting martials do cool powerful abilities. Every class can be both a) relatively easy and convenient to play, and b) powerful.

@Cassapphic

2 ай бұрын

No the fundamental problem is that casters get a bazillion unique effects that grow exponentially while all a martial can do is swing their sword a bit harder. That and some dumb desire to uphold the legacy of wizard being stupid busted able to do anything if they live past level 4

@blakenelson4158

2 ай бұрын

@@Cassapphic give fighters cleave for free.

The Bonus action spellcasting rule is not convoluted. It just people trying to boil it down, getting it wrong in that boiled down statement, and then spreading that misinterpretation across the internet. It's a negative social media effect - bad information spreads more quickly than good information. The whole point of the bonus action spellcasting rule was to prevent the Quickened metamagic spell from becoming extremely overpowered when compared with the Wizard. If a Sorcerer can cast 2 spells in a round and the Wizard can cast only one, who's going to play a wizard? The DnD One playtest material seems to be laying the ground work to remove the Bonus Action spellcasting because the wording is now built into Quickened spell. This will allow casters to use Misty Step and still cast another spell on their turn. On a related note, Action Surge cannot be used with a Magic Action so no more two spells on a turn due to action surge. That's probably the end of most Fighter/caster multiclasses. And that's a good thing.

@InsightCheck

2 ай бұрын

I mean, I always found it convoluted. I remember having to read it way too many times to understand it and then forgetting it and having to look it up and then needing to read it multiple times to remember it. I’m glad you had an easy time with it but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s that way for everyone. Also, when you fully understand something it’s incredibly easy to look at it and say “oh yeah, that’s super easy” but again, until you get to that point, it might not be that way for everyone. Sometimes you gotta take a step back and look at it while trying to assume zero prior knowledge.

@fortunatus1

2 ай бұрын

@@InsightCheck Ah, I just think you and I have different ideas of what convoluted means. The Bonus Action spellcasting rule is just two sentences with one reaction implication. Piece the sentences apart and you get it. To me, a 5E rule that is convoluted is how Stealth, light, vision, obscurement, cover, cunning action, certain feats, and invisibility interact. That is a convoluted set of moving parts that is spread out all across the Phb.

LOS = Line of Sight

I am fine with removing the bonus action spell casting rule, though I think things like we can spell and other features that allow you to change a casting time should mention if special rules come into play like the old bonus casting rule. For example, quick and spelled would mention that you are now limited in the spells. You can cast if you quicken a spell that is normally an action. That way. Misty step could be used with fireball, the quickened fireball could not be used with a second fireball

@justink4051

2 ай бұрын

They actually did do that in the in the one dnd playtest rules for quicken spell.

12:25 circles ore not squares but squares can be circles

I'm not a fan of loosey-goosey rules, and wish that the rules followed closely to the wording that Magic the Gathering has. (Standardized text layouts, keywords, more emphasis on specific vs general.)

I've never heard the "circles are squares" argument. Tbh I find it super nitpicky; if a square is 50% covered by the AoE, it's included. That's much simpler, you just eyeball it.

@aralornwolf3140

2 ай бұрын

Pack Tactics has an entire video on this topic...

JC is the absolute worst I hate him and I am so sad that WotC laid off a bunch of actually decent employees (many of the people that designed Tasha's) but kept JC around.

When it comes to Bonus Action spells, I think that spells cast on your turn should have to interact with components. Simply put: You can only use each component (Verbal, Somatic, or Material) of a spell once on your turn. For example: If you use your action to cast Summon Beast, that'd be the only spell you could cast that turn, as it has all three components. However, if you used your Action to cast Rime's Binding Ice (S,M), you could then use your Bonus Action to cast Misty Step (V). I think this would also help to balance certain spells out per level, as not all 3rd level spells are made equal.

@LibertyMonk

2 ай бұрын

That sounds cool, but it makes components "more confusing" which he also complains about in this video twice. I might suggest that using a Focus might eliminate the M charge use, and that some V or S components are short enough to be "free" actions while others are long enough that it blocks other "free" actions.

don't count the grid .. use the radius of the spell

@TheSoling27

2 ай бұрын

or use the old description -- specifically for Fireball it's 33000 cubic feet of volume -- so in a dungeon that has 10' celings and 10' wide halls that's 33 squares eminating from the origin of the spell in all directions .. (66 if you're using a 5x5 x10 grid) -- outside it's a 20yd diam (60ft) or 113097 cf = a perfect sphere (if cast above the ground at 30' - then it expands to that sphere .. if cast at ground level the radius doubles but the height is half.

I dont give a fuck who makes the tweet it is not a part of the game. Put out an official errata if it actually matters.

2:25 You are actually incorrect in how that rule works as it is written. This rule is infamous for being poorly worded, and to this day it has not actually been officially changed. There has instead been different versions of it printed in other books, but the original rule from the PHB has not been changed. Let me give you an example: PHB p. 202 "A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bo⁠nus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven’t already taken a bon⁠us action this turn. You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action." XGtE and TCoE p 5 "If you want to cast a spell that has a casting time of 1 bonus action, remember that you can’t cast any other spells before or after it on the same turn, except for cantrips with a casting time of 1 action." As you can easily see. These rules do not say the same thing. The rule you said in the video uses the XGtE and TCoE rule, but do not actually rule from the PHB. This matters because both XGtE and TCoE are optional books in terms of rules. They are not CORE rules. It is especially pointed out in TCoE as this rule is under the section "It’s All Optional" and starts with "Everything in this book is optional.". So what is the difference? In the PHB it say the following: If a spell has a casting time of a bonus action, you can cast the spell as long as you haven't taken a bonus action yet. If you have cast a spell using a bonus action, you can't cast an additional spell unless it is a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action. By the fact it is worded like " You can’t cast ANOTHER spell during the same turn" does imply you can't FOLLOW the bonus action spell with a another spell that isn't a cantrip. There is an obvious loophole here by the fact you don't have to follow up with a an action spell. You can first use an action spell and then follow up with a bonus action. This rule does in fact not restrict you like that. It only cares about "ANOTHER", or in other words, ADDITIONAL spells. Rules as written the PHB allows for the following: - Cast Fireball - Use Action Surge to cast Fireball - Cast Healing Word The reason this work is because you have never after using your bonus action to cast healing word casted another spell which isn't a Cantrip with 1 action casting time. Rules as written, the PHB does NOT allow for the following: - Cast Healing Word - Cast Firebolt - Use Action Surge to cast Fireball. The reason this doesn't work is because after you casted Healing Word you are not allowed to cast ANY spell which isn't a cantrip with 1 action casting time. Even if you action surge and get an additional action, you still can't do it because it is still your turn. How many actions you have on a turn is irrelevant to this rule. The way EGtE and TCoE fixed this loophole is to add "remember that you can’t cast any other spells *BEFORE OR AFTER* it on the same turn". This brings the rules into what it was intended to be like. But that isn't how it is written in the core rules. I think this is the major reason to the confusion and the fact WotC has not changed the rule to be better worded is a shame. This is why it is funny that a video explaining how everyone gets this rule wrong, gets it wrong as well.

@InsightCheck

Ай бұрын

So just to clarify, I quoted directly from the PHB, not Xanathar’s or Tasha’s and Jeremy Crawford had confirmed on numerous instances that things like action surge casting Fireball are possible. My description of the rule is in fact accurate. The timing of which one is cast first is 100% not relevant for the rule as written. You may choose to interpret it that way and that’s fine, but it is not how it is written. I suggest you reread the Sage Advice section entitled “Is there a limit on the number of spells you can cast on your turn?” This section *specifically* mentions how Healing Word is a valid use with a cantrips and as is using Action Surge to cast another action spell.

@Cloud_Seeker

Ай бұрын

@@InsightCheckI want to point out that I gave you the definition from the PHB word by word. It is the same exact text you put into your video. You had a text on the screen, and then said something completely different from what it said. Since we are talking about what is written. It doesn't matter what XGtE, TCoE or even what Jeremy Crawford have said. What we are talking about is what is written in the book called Players Handbook. This is the whole point of your own video. That is how you started this video. Individual DM modifications can not be applied. We are only looking at what is written. " The timing of which one is cast first is 100% not relevant for the rule as written." - But it is. It is basic English. To say the word ANOTHER does in fact imply a timing on how spells are cast. Which is why it was changed to BEFORE OR AFTER in XGtE and TCoE. The word "ANOTHER" is the key word here because by it self cause this to become an issue. "I suggest you reread the Sage Advice section entitled" - That does not matter in any way. We are only talking about what is WRITTEN in the PHB. Not what the Sage Advice clarify or what Jeremy has to say. If I read the rules in the core rulebook I should be able to understand what it has to say from the wording it provide alone. The very fact you do not even address the key issue here is in fact very telling. I know exactly how the rule is meant to be interpreted. What I am pointing out is that the correct interpretation is not what is actually written in the book. So please. Stop being condescending and acting like you are superior for some reason.

@InsightCheck

Ай бұрын

@Cloud_Seeker lol sounds good :)

There's so much about this video I don't like. Sure, twitter rulings is dumb, but they're less official than the books, and what the group agrees to is what actually matters in your group. The author is dead the moment the book is published, some guy who happens to have been the lead of a team of people who designed the game on twitter only has the authority your group gives him. Your DM's authority is always greater. Also, Crawford's twitter isn't the Sage Advice Compendium, it's just some guy's twitter. The compendium is RAW if you're including it, some guy's tweets are at best RAI, but they're not official. Either way, not even the PHB or DMG have higher authority than the DM or the table as a whole. Sure, he's on the team writing things, he's even leading it, but he doesn't speak for the team. You can ignore his "a window of glass is total cover" tweet and still play the game, or you can look it up and decide that yeah, a small glass barrier means you can't hit them with an arrow. You've have to break the glass barrier first, or teleport through it (assuming the teleport targets yourself). It honestly makes sense, how is your Eldritch Blast going to hit a creature behind a wall of glass without passing through it? The spell can't even deal damage to things that aren't creatures. But that's besides the point, if your DM or table OK it, it works fine. But IRL glass will foul the accuracy of any missile, you've got to either break it first, or make the explosion big enough that it turns into shrapnel. The Component rules usually aren't even confusing. Most spells with a S but no M component will require you to have a free hand anyway, because you have to touch something or equip a weapon (or ammunition) or gesture a direction or physically move or attack as part of the spell. There are several debatable cases, but most of those target self, like Disguise Self. Of those that don't obviously include a reason for needed a free hand, most have a longer casting time or have the ritual tag, so much of the time holding your mace or whatever doesn't really matter, you're not doing this in combat, and 1 extra action after 10 rounds to pick it back up is fine. But there are several that have no obvious excuse, like Entangle or Plant Growth or Meteor Storm (and plenty that aren't AoE either), I'm not sure if not requires materials is a balance concern or what. I'd say that instead of relying on "S but no M means you need a free hand, M means you need a free hand but holding a pouch/focus is enough" they should just add a "you actually need a free hand" component. You don't actually need a focus to cast spells, all the focus does is provide the material component for spells without a gold or consumed cost. You can always just wear a component pouch to dig your hand into. Clerics and Paladins can just wear an amulet that they touch with their free hand, Druids can use a sprig of mistletoe, Rangers and such (initiate, fae touched, etc) can't actually have a Focus, and why would a Wizard or Sorcerer not have a free hand? Stop holding a quarterstaff for no reason, just use a Staff as a focus instead. It doesn't "require a ridiculous amount of weapon dropping or storage" unless you're playing in such a way as to make it more relevant than it has to be as written. The rule exists, but does nothing unless you decide to use a focus that you have to hold for flavor reasons.

@InsightCheck

2 ай бұрын

So I’ll be honest, I didn’t read the entirety of this comment but I did read most of it and one point I’ll make since it largely underpins your entire premise is that yes… obviously the DM can make any ruling they so choose, provided it makes sense and gets agreement at the table. I’m not sure why you seem to think I believe otherwise? It’s absolutely a given and shouldn’t need to be stated. The thing is though when having a discussion about the game and its rules, just saying “well you can ignore them and do what you want” isn’t really a meaningful addition to the conversation. The points is to discuss the text and the words presented to the players, discuss accessibility of rules interpretations (which have the appearance of authority) and what that means for players. Many groups can change the game as they see fit. Many groups play precisely as the books say. No one is right, no one is wrong. But again, the rules as they exist are the basis and the context for discussion. Simply dismissing it because “you can change it” is not helpful and completely misses the point.

@LibertyMonk

2 ай бұрын

​@@InsightCheck Alright, I kind of got longwinded there, but JC's twitter isn't the rules, it's just a person's opinion. His opinions aren't even Sage Advice, just some unofficial guy who happens to have a deep knowledge of the rules saying what makes sense to him. That said, the "any barrier is total cover, no matter if visibility or movement is prevented" bit is Sage Advice and real. The line gets kinda blurry with a curtain of lace (or strings of beads) or ivy on a trellis, is that total cover, partial cover, etc? But outside of that case, you have to break the barrier or move past it. You can't just pretend it isn't there, or assume your attacks can break through with no effect. Most glass isn't going to be perfectly clear, and it's usually not going to be as thin as modern stuff either. Even fabrics are likely to catch something like an arrow and really throw off the aim and range. I agree that "within range" should really clarify "with an unobstructed line between you and the targeted point/creature/object within range", but most of the time I can see the logic. It just gets confusing because Teleports are usually fine, since they target yourself or "a spot you specify" which doesn't care about barriers. The thing about focuses only matters because people don't understand that nobody needs a focus for anything, and even if you want to use one (instead of a component pouch, or nothing), you can just wear it on your hip and equip it as a free action, then drop it to be caught by a belt. Paladins/Clerics can wear a holy symbol and be fine, but they're honestly the one that needs a free hand most often. How are you going to Touch someone for Cure Wounds with a shield in one hand and a Mace in the other? Is you Deity going to accept your prayers when you're not even bothering a gesture of supplication, and you're just bumping someone with your elbow?

Fighter: Do you know Fireball? Mage: I did, but I forgot it after I used it this morning. Silly system.

@quarionlaelathel7813

2 ай бұрын

He doesn't forget it, he just can't cast it anymore. That's different.

@scottwalker6947

2 ай бұрын

@@quarionlaelathel7813 Correct me if I am wrong. The rules state that once a spell is cast it must be "re-memorized" the next morning to cast again. Ala Nance. That means it was forgotten.

@nathanwhite6049

2 ай бұрын

​@quarionlaelathel7813 With vancian magic, you study the spell to memorize it, the spell takes up space in your brain, and when you expel the magic energy, you're basically doing a mystical memory dump, so you literally forget the spell until you study it again.

@quarionlaelathel7813

2 ай бұрын

No ... spell preparations are effectively reducing the casting to a time frame like action or bonus action. This is the part that takes "memory capacity". But if for your game it is more reasonable to forget spells, i won't stop you.

@StupidButCunning

2 ай бұрын

In 5e, you can cast Fireball as many times a day as you have 3rd or higher level spell slots ready to use, assuming you have Fireball prepared. You do not need to prepare Fireball twice to cast it twice.@@scottwalker6947

Regarding the thumbnail - yeah, I get it, rulings via Twitter are a pain to reference and keep track of (and moreover rely on us even HAVING a Twitter a few years from now, which isnt certain!) But for me, I'd rather have designer feedback in whatever way is most convenient for them so we get as much of it as possible. Ideally, any rulings Crawford or the other designers give via Twitter should be vetted later by the full design team and either included in Sage Advice Compendium or overruled if a mistake was made. But I can also remember far nastier and more irritating RAW arguments in prior editions than 5e ever had because the devs there were either radio silent or ran a custserv line where nobody on the other end talked to one another, and that was way worse. (Shout out to drown-healing from 3.5!)

@InsightCheck

2 ай бұрын

Yeah I totally get where you’re coming from and I pretty much agree too, I even mentioned I that I do appreciate the rulings and even tend to view them as being “official”. And yeah, I’d rather have them than not have them. I think I would just prefer that they leverage official channels more, like DNDBeyond and Sage Advice and let people know an adjustment or clarification has been made! I’m hoping that with the game moving more and more digital that we can get some of that and that they can just update the books in real time. I think most players appreciate the rules feedback, I just kind of wish it was more formalized. I also fully agree that I would love to have the design team consulted before one goes out!

D&D's magic has always been janky and weird and frequently kinda dumb. I think it stems mostly from the attempt to simulate the real world with the mechanics, but of course magic isn't real. (It isn't. Sorry.) So they never had a system to base it on, because real world magic practices are scattered and diverse and weird, having no basis in reality. (Not sorry.) And they borrowed a fictional system because it had rules. And infused it with lots of real world mysticism and symbolism. And left it up to players to make their own spells. Plus, Gygax didn't think anyone would willingly play anything but a fighter anyway; then he feared magic-users would overpower everyone ultimately. So no one's ever bothered to make a good magic system for D&D. We just accept the quirky madness as is. The quirky, broken, weird, and basically stupid bs of a magic system that doesn't fit at all with the rest of the game, regardless of edition. And we figure it out for ourselves, because the company who prints it is really no help at all.

The solution to "circles are squares" is the almight hex grid. But people are allergic to simple changes that make sense, or theyre just too lazy to adapt their maps. Lol

@InsightCheck

2 ай бұрын

Ha yeah, someone mentioned this in another comment. It's something I've been wanting to experiment with more at my table.

A simple fix would be what I use at my table - a caster can only cast one leveled spell per _round_. As for components, I ignore the nitty-gritty of material components lacking a cost as long as they have a component pouch, but require they have a free hand. I do like the idea of adding a line of sight component. Changes I'd like to see - cantrip potency based on caster level, not character level, and ditch spell slots for spell points (which I already use). The latter may require a few tweaks - for example I limit smites to once per round.

@InsightCheck

2 ай бұрын

I think a spell points system could be really cool but is definitely beyond the scope of the 2024 books. It could have been an interesting idea to play with as a redesign for the Sorcerer class though! One levelled spell per round is interesting. So you can't counterspell if you've used a levelled spell? How does that play out?

@flyxan1041

2 ай бұрын

So basically no caster can use their reaction to cast spells (shield, absorb elements, silvery barbs, etc.)? I'm glad I don't play at your table.

@MatthewDragonHammer

2 ай бұрын

@@InsightCheck Fun fact, Spell Points are already a thing. They are a variant rule presented in the DMG (page 288)

@p2jnyoom

2 ай бұрын

​@InsightCheck There's actually a spell point variant rule in the DMG. It's fine. I don't think it's great, as it gives you points based off of the spell slots that you would have, and the spell points needed for a spell reflect this, so it just feels like a point-based spell slot system. I use my own version where Spellcasters get their casting ability modifier plus 2, 3, or 6 points per level they have in their spellcasting class (depending if they're tertiary casters like Eldritch Knight Fighters, secondary casters like Rangers, or primary casters like Clerics). Spells cost 1+SplLv points, with a +2 cost added if cast at 6th or higher (effectively 3+SplLv). Sorcerers add their Sorcery Points to their spell points, treating them both as one resource (intentional buff to make Sorcerer stand out from Wizard), and Warlocks don't interact with this due to having Pact Magic and not Spellcasting. Does it make spellcasters really strong at low levels? Yes; your average Wizard will be able to cast 4-5 spells at Lv. 1. But you can also alter how much it takes to cast, or if they add their Spellcasting Ability Modifier to their Spell Points, or you remove the first levels points and only give them points based off their Spellcasting Ability Modifier at first level Flexibility is the core of the spell point system, which also means the rule should also be flexible. Halve spell points gained per level (round up) for a low-magic game. Non-combat casting is less stressful, so maybe -1 to spell costs when outside of combat, or maybe +1 to spell costs when in combat. Maybe there's so much magic one can have, and primary casters get 5 points per level instead of 6. Whatever the case, I advocate for spell points all the time, and for my version to those willing to allow spell points.

@InsightCheck

2 ай бұрын

@MatthewDragonHammer yeah I’ve seen it, it’s something I wish was maybe a bit better fleshed out though and actually applied to a specific class rather than being generic.

The Eyesight component is a bad idea solely because it will be implemented poorly. I have consistently ruled spells with an attack roll can be fired at anything. This means you can use Eldritch Blast to break things (it’s not efficient or subtle, but it works). I’ve seen push back on this saying it doesn’t work because the spell says it targets creatures. So what happens when you miss, the blast passes harmlessly through other objects? Then why can’t you shoot through walls? I can handwave a lot of “bc magic” but even I have a limit.

@nathanwhite6049

2 ай бұрын

It just dissipates because it didn't hit its target. Simple, logical, and doesn't open up weird physics loopholes like your idea.

im amazed by the amount of idiots who dont know the difference betweenan EDITON and a REVISION,, hint hint, fixing problematic issues is a REVISION, not a NEw eDtion :D

@InsightCheck

2 ай бұрын

I’m a bit confused here. I didn’t really make reference to new editions. Also, new editions can absolutely make its design goal to address pain points of the past.

I think you can't have quickened spell and get rid of the bonus action rule. It also means when designing bonus action spells you need to make sure they're balanced with casting a leveled spell in the same turn.

@Cassapphic

2 ай бұрын

In the one dnd playtests the bonus action rule's main purpose is baked into quickened spell. Quickened spells updated playtest text has the "if you use quickened spell, you cant cast a levelled spell with your action" addendum

Your take on Jeremy Crawford's rulings is... Honestly, pretty terrible. It's uninformed, at the least, or deliberately misleading for the sake of your argument at worst. People disqualify his statements as 'official rulings' because he, Himself, has said as much. His ruling have also; -Been directly contradicted by official statements made by the actual design team -Gone against later design choices made in future officially printed material -Been expressly stated as being 'how he runs his own game, and not official errata or rules.' Also, being the 'lead designer' really does not mean what you seem to think it does. Yes, in theory, he has final say on whether or not a rule gets put into the book. However, actually designing the rules really is not his job. He's a managerial position, whose actual purpose in the company would be to act as a go-between for the people actually designing and playtesting the rules, the other design departments (including art, story, graphic design, and localization) and the rest of the company. Saying that he has some sort of special privilege over the rules because he's the 'lead designer' shows a complete lack of understanding of his job on your part. After all, story design is Also a thing, but you wouldn't take his word for it against the author's if he declared Drizzt Do'Urden is now a middle aged white woman who uses a crossbow because he fell through the fey wild. At least, I certainly Hope you wouldn't.

Julio with a hard "J", huh? Try pronouncing it with a "H" sound. It's Spanish.

@InsightCheck

2 ай бұрын

It’s not. He’s French, and a friend of mine :P. It’s with a hard “J”.

@robinthrush9672

2 ай бұрын

@@InsightCheckOh really? I've never seen that before. My mistake.

@InsightCheck

2 ай бұрын

@robinthrush9672 haha all good, you’re not the first to say it and probably won’t be the last :P

@ianhorne2884

2 ай бұрын

I was gonna say I know a south African fella who absolutely pronounces his name Julio (with a j) but I see it's been covered. In your defense though mate it's throws me off every time I hear it.

@InsightCheck

2 ай бұрын

Looool yeah I’ll probably add a line saying “it’s actually pronounced that way” haha

The rules really aren't unclear. The magic missle vs wall of force is especially bad. In the general rules for spell casting, spalls also need a clear path to the target (unless a specific rule bypasses this). Magic missle vs. the dome doesn't have a clear path, meaning no magic misse. It's pretty clear, no tweet needed

So... ditch the current action model and move to Pathfinder 2e 3 point system? That would work

@gloryrod86

2 ай бұрын

I don't want casting a spell to prevent me from walking.

@waifusmith4043

2 ай бұрын

@@gloryrod86 playing pf2e for the time I have, it does sound ridiculous, but you're not moving every turn in dnd so it quickly becomes irrelevant. Additionally, the fact EVERYONE has 3 actions means if you move out of reach of an enemy, you're making them waste their actions to catch up with you. For instance, if I'm a spellcaster and I'm moving away from someone with one of my actions, they need to use one to catch up with me, which means 1 less action they could use to attack or do something else. since in pf2e you can use each individual action to attack, that means 1 less attack they can make in a turn. also, what's more likely to happen is casting 1 spell and moving, since most spells cost about 2 actions (off the top of my head, usually the summoning? spells are like 3 actions). But PF2e's spell scaling goes from ranks 1 - 10, and your cantrips increase in power along with your spell levels, so it's not a complete 1 to 1 comparison. I can understand if you still don't like it after reading this, it's up to a preference, but in my opinion action systems like PF2e's has only allowed for more varied and interesting play because each action is weighed equally, and you don't have to worry about if something uses your main action vs your bonus action.

@waifusmith4043

2 ай бұрын

@@gloryrod86 most spells in pf2e average around 2ish actions unless you're casting a summon spell (which if I remember correctly, you usually are able to have them do an action upon summoning). Some may take up a whole turn, but in my experience, usually a turn boils down into casting a spell and maybe moving. I actually prefer the 3 action system because each action is weighed equally, there's no "action spells" or "bonus action spells". Yes, you use an action to move but that also means if an enemy wants to get to you they also have to use their action(s) to move towards you, which means they have less resources to use other features. Additionally, you don't have a turn where you really "waste" anything. In 5e you aren't moving each turn (especially since everything has attack of opportunity, unlike in pf2e), so some turns, instead of moving, you have 3 full actions you can use on using class features, spells, or attacking with a weapon. If you still dislike the idea of the 3 action system that's fine, but in my opinion it allows for much more interesting play than our current one where we try to make sure we see what is the best use of the action vs what we can do for a bonus action. I've never liked the action/bonus action system because bonus action feels like a misnomer, because it implies it's equal to the main action, when it isn't. I also don't like the impression it gives to new players because they're not interchangeable. TL;DR: The action system of pf2e may seem more restrictive, but it actually allows for more interesting play because each action is weighed equally, and less of a chance to waste any part of your turn.

Our group has chosen a different alternative to all of this: Use a different system and don't reward WotC's poor decisions with our hard earned money anymore.

5e is such a mess, needing tweets to correct rules interpretations is embarrassing

@InsightCheck

2 ай бұрын

I mean yeah, tweeting out rules corrections and interpretations is certainly far from ideal but I do at least prefer that to no communication at all. I am hopeful that in the future they will move to more "official" channels and run have additional members of the design team vet rulings before they get posted. Someone else mentioned this in another comment and I fully agree.