"natural language processing" is a very big pitfall of 5e. Lightning bolt creates a 100 feet long energy beam. To me, that reads, that its range is 100 feet, which in turn can be doubled to 200 feet with Distant Spell. But that is not the case, because the range is actually "self" (I dont know how many times did I misrule this) Natural language processing means that pre-tasha BB and GFB can attack at 10 feet with reach weapons. The weapons base range is 10 feet, and the spell makes a weapon attack, therefore it is completely natural to expect to GFB someone 10 feet from me with a glaive. Screw natural language, be precise in wordings.

@onyxgrnr666

2 жыл бұрын

The ruling against reach weapons being able to use BB and GFB at reach is honestly just a bad ruling on the part of WOTC tho its assumed its to stop thrown weapons from using BB and GFB not that that would break anything.

@crapstirrer

2 жыл бұрын

Even 4e was clearer, even if they tagged everything.

@shane9287

2 жыл бұрын

@@onyxgrnr666 it's not because of thrown weapons. Those wouldn't be melee weapon attacks so wouldn't apply to BB or GFB. Still a dumb ruling though.

@petrus9067

Жыл бұрын

The lightning bolt thing is because area of effect is different from range, and i think people have different attentiom to detail to different things. The spell lightning bolt creates a line *originating* from you. That is its effect. Distant spell makes a spell have a longer range so its effect can happen further away unless it is has a range of self. Which is why it makes you fireball from farther away but not a bigger fireball (essentially a distant spell LB Is doubling its aoe) I think it could be a bit more clear but yea

I like the idea of levels of difficult terrain, each level increase movement cost by one foot.

Yep, I sometimes wonder if Jeremy Crawford knows what his left hand is doing vs. the right... more than a few thing he's written make me scratch my head... including his proper way to cast magic missile... Lots of rules and spell effects I wish were written in plain English, with bullet pointed facts, possibly with examples.

@herrkrabbe148

2 жыл бұрын

just checking i read the rules right, you roll 1d4+1 +modifiers once, and apply that for each missile even on different targets, yes?

@pinecone01

2 жыл бұрын

@@herrkrabbe148 Crawford has stated his way is one single d4 should be rolled, and that result multiplied by how many missiles, plus 1 per missile. I've always rolled per missile, +1 per missile. which means If I'm hitting one target, I'm rolling 3 physical d4's +1 per missile.

@jomohunter4649

2 жыл бұрын

XD The rules should be in german! There everthing is clear and you wont missunderstand anything^^

@davidpeters6743

2 жыл бұрын

Rules text is very challenging to write.

@cory849

2 жыл бұрын

What I think happens is the DnD team writes the rules as best they can. They don't account for everything and they miss things. Small team, only human etc. Then people ask JC for a ruling on what the rules say and he explains it like a lawyer would: this is RAW. He seldom opines on RAI and that's what people would probably really like "well the shield master feat says you need to attack before shoving but really, we didn't intend it to be so restrictive. Don't see a lot of balance problems with this so recommend not following the rigid wording here".

Not sure if you saw my comment about the plant growth language of speak with plants from your 3rd level druid spells video, but glad to see you caught the error in your initial reading and could address it for your audience. I find it both frustrating and rewarding when I realize I’ve been reading something wrong for a long time in 5e.

As someone who played a lot of competitive Yugioh, I became very used to Problem Solving Card Text, and I found myself enjoying how specific the literal effects of the cards became. While it makes learning a boatload of specific definitions and interactions more difficult to a casual player, the more literal and specific a set of rules in a game is, the better that long term clarity will be. I think having a specific defined term "Difficult Terrain" and giving a specific effect, and then using this capitalized specific term in any spell description when utilizing it is ultimately the right move. Then, for spells like Plant Growth that do not mention "Difficult Terrain" by specific name, it can be clear that it is not "Difficult Terrain", rather it is its own unique movement-hindering effect, and could therefore stack with Difficult Terrain. Every time I wondered about a card ruling in Yugioh, all I had to do was simply read the card as literally as possible, get the "Problem Solving Card Text" phraseology correct, and I never once in 3 years of play after that had any confusion on exactly how cards interacted with others. While DND does not need to have every single mechanic defined this way, I think that the more of these specific, by-name defined terms you have, the easier it is for players over the long term to understand what does and doesn't work with each other. It's up to the designers to create and effectively utilize this kind of Problem Solving Phraseology (PSP we'll call it), but I think that for a lot of the general rules in DND, this approach will lead to less confusion, so that more time can be spent interpreting the rules that ought to be. It just gives the DM more time to spend on the genuinely obscure rulings and questions, and to just run the game, if most of these PSP terms are defined concretely.

@pedrodarosamello64

2 жыл бұрын

I loce how specific yugioh cards are, once you learn how to read them it is simply impossible to not understand how a card works and why

@RockyTorres43

2 жыл бұрын

Problem Solving Card Text is incredible and I have nothing but respect and admiration for it (despite my feelings on other yugioh elements). Whenever I write homebrew, I try to keep similar rules in mind to make it as clear as posible.

@jesse1018

2 жыл бұрын

I think simplicity is key. Complex rule sets invite rule-lawyering. I, however, always defer to the DM's right to rule however they want. To highlight simplicity, look at the rules for advantage. The rules state it doesn't stack and disadvantage cancels out advantage. Even if multiple sources stack, you never get super-advantage. Simple. How can this concept apply to difficult terrain. Does it impede movement? Yes -> Difficult terrain. Does it stack? No. If two overlapping sources of difficult terrain impede movement by different amounts (like plant growth), use the higher of the two. No super-difficult terrain. Simple.

Love the “rules deep dive” concept! I know you touched on this in your fog cloud video, but I would love to see another deep dive video on invisibility & obscurement & hide attempts. I’ve never really been able to get my head around how all that works in 5e. Thanks!

I honestly think it should stack. Fun combos are fun to pull off as players

@travisterry2200

2 жыл бұрын

+4 & ×2 = ×8 in my book. Maybe I need to read closer.

@deltavictor8369

2 жыл бұрын

I think WotC was trying to avoid "no save, you just don't get to move" combos. Because yes, +4 & x2 = x8 is the immediate, mathematically satisfying interpretation of how things would stack... but that puts most humanoids at less than one square of movement in a standard move, again likely without a save. That's... somewhat awkward. Personally I think "the players found a way to trivialize an encounter through the expenditure of some resources" to be generally fine, but I'm not so sure WotC wanted that to happen quite like that.

@boumxyz

2 жыл бұрын

@@deltavictor8369 Well my 2 cents is whatever is an insane combo for player is also an insane combo for NPC/monsters. So I usually just mention it to my players : Would you enjoy being on the receiving end of it ? 99.99% of the time they say no... So I say then I will pick the worst condition ( 4 ft / 1 ft ) . Just like Counterspell... I specifically say to my player that I don't use it for my npc because I find the mechanic and denial of someone`s turn insanely boring ( As a gm I play every turn of combat. I find it unfair for a player to wait for 15-30 minutes to get their turn back and just deny their turn by doing ok monster counterspell you). They have a tendency not to use it as well to even it out.

@Praetarius

2 жыл бұрын

@@travisterry2200 I'd say it is x2 +4 = 6 because multiplication takes precedence

Under the principle of Specific Beats General, I'd rule the description of the specific spell Plant Growth overrules the general rule of difficult terrain. And in combat situations the specific ruling of difficult terrain adding 1 foot cost to each foot of combat movement overrules the general ruling of difficult terrain outside of combat. So I'd probably interpret the plant growth/ice storm combo as it costs 5 ft of movement to move 1 ft, but at the table I'd probably just rule the most disadvantageous condition overrides all others, so it would cost 4 ft of movement to move 1 ft. Interesting thought exercise, thanks!

@lordmars2387

2 жыл бұрын

I was wondering why he didn't bring up specific vs general.

@craigconklin6702

2 жыл бұрын

My specific understanding would be that for plant growth + difficult terrain would be that for 1ft move you must add 1 extra, so 2. Then for those 2ft of move you must move 4 for each so 8 total. The +1ft of difficult terrain isnt just an after addition.

@Dennis-vh8tz

2 жыл бұрын

I'm torn between 5 feet and 8 feet.

Natural language is a nice idea, and from the broad strokes picture of how 5e is supposed to work it makes sense: the DM interprets the rules and their interpretation *becomes* the rule. For the sort of table that reads the rule book once and then dives in it works very well. For tables with an expectation of being more exacting it's a wildfire in a landfill exclusively for soiled diapers. Why? Because the very concept is fundamentally corrupted; precision communication must account for variation in interpretation. I mean, multiple native American English speakers can read the exact same paragraph carefully and come to different conclusions about what is intended by the author. Spare some pity for someone with dyslexia, or for whom English is a secondary language. Again, and I really do mean this, 5e's approach is very supportive of casual play built on DM fiat and player buy-in. This works fine for that, and has clearly been a very successful design for Wizards. As an autistic person in my 40's who memorized the ThAC0 table in 7th grade, for me personally it's a bit of a nightmare.

@muddlewait8844

2 жыл бұрын

I totally get this and sympathize. Watching gaming streams where people have clearly not read their own character sheets, much less their class descriptions, and are constantly asking to redefine what they can do from moment to moment drive me batty. It can make the game become this weird sort of social exercise in which whoever can bully/beg/persuade the GM most effectively becomes the most important person at the table, and that sucks. At the same time, it’s also awful to have someone insisting that they *can* make their familiar appear on the other side of the elaborately-designed locked door puzzle because RAW says they can, only to roll their eyes at the GM’s “crazy homebrew weirdness” that isn’t *real* Man’s Man True Gamer D&D when the GM doesn’t allow them to. I don’t have any answers. I just feel ya. it’s a problem.

I would say in this specific combo it would be 5' of movement for every 1'. The rational being that the spell ice storm states that the storm's area of effect is difficult terrain until the end of your next turn. The area of effect is specifically stated as being a cylinder 40' tall, which means that even the skies become difficult terrain. To me that says the movement penalty isn't from stepping on giant hailstones, but rather from being pelted continuously by giant hailstones. Therefore, it becomes even more of a hindrance than just the tangle of underbrush beneath you. They stack because they are not the same.

Really grateful for technical deep dives like this one. Thanks Chris!

I think the intention of the two Difficult Terrain definitions is that they are supposed to mean exactly the same thing. They were probably two iterations of the definition that were accidentally both put in. An editing error. The problem arises in the context of spells that assign specific movement penalties. Terms of Art, such as Difficult Terrain or the spell Plant Growth, should be capitalized or italicized or put in quotations. I always read Plant Growth as a form of Difficult Terrain that just uses 4 ft instead of 2 and Ice Storm and Plant Growth would not stack.

@1033515

2 жыл бұрын

I personally like the idea that for in-combat purposes, any difficult terrain from different sources* would stack in the old 3.x version - X2 movement cost and X4 movement cost become X5 (doubling is +100%, quadrupling is +300%, so stacking those is +400%) and that you can use any actions and/or bonus actions that increase your total movement of the round (dashing, etc.) combined to see how far you can make it in one turn. *Entangle and Plant growth, for instance I would say are the same "source" - plants. But Ice Storm and Entagle are different, as would be Transmute Rock to Mud and Plant Growth. Edit: I think the idea of the difference between the combat reading and travel reading might be intentional though - in combat you have a defined speed and are taking turns. In travel you aren't necessarily taking those kind of turns so there won't be a case where it costs more movement to travel a square than you have in a round, because you aren't traveling in rounds. You can just add time to the travel commensurate with the terrain.

Keep it up Man! Hope you are enjoying making these cause I'm enjoying watching them haha

Eyy good time to refresh my subscription page. Thanks for the video!

As a side note, the Crawford’s quote that the circle of the land Druid’s land stride would let you walk normally on terrain created by the plant growth spell implies that plants created by spells aren’t magical plants. Meaning as a land Druid you could create massive patches of non magical “difficult terrain” and walk freely with in it, greatly increasing your relative mobility against enemy’s, and possibly meaning you would not take damage running through your own spike growths, Maybe letting you kite melee opponents. You could also cast the spell “freedom of movement” on your ally’s in the area too and it’s not a concentration spell , Maybe with this in mind, circle of the land druids are better than I gave them credit for.

The rules for Crawl clarify this, the movement penalty stacks additively. Crawling in difficult terrain costs 3 feet per foot, not 4. Crawling in Plant Growth under a Hailstorm would cost 7 feet per foot, meaning a character with a movement speed lower than 35ft would not be able to move without Dashing.

My head hurts. Great video.

You're videos are ALWAYS interesting, and usually very helpful, even if they don't apply to MY character. Thanks!!!❤😘

Yep....that broke my brain....gonna go build a druid now and make my DM hate me.

I'd rule that they don't stock because of the description of difficult terrain making it somewhat clear that any terrain that isn't plain is considered difficult terrain. Like the Wall of Stone spell wouldn't need to specify that the wall blocks wind, it is assumed to be a property of stone walls in general

Then, there's this: Mobility: "When you use the Dash action, difficult terrain doesn't cost you extra movement on that turn."

I have never think about it like that just using some internal logic and consistency. Combat speed is short burst of energy, to quickly get, where you need and act. A sprint if you will. Travel speed is marching speed. Therefore Plant Growth would severly blocksprinting people, but only inconvienience people marching overland. That's why the sdame difficult terrain on travel map would cost 2ft for every ft traveled. But If something attacked PC's there, during battle it would be 4ft per 1ft moved.

To simplify rules, they should get back 4e rules (keyword). If a spell is doing "radiant" damage, under its name it would have the radiant keyword tag. They should do it for difficult terrain etc.. Pathfinder 2e has this as well. This clarifies rules : ex : is this action mental ? .. yes it has the mental keyword, regardless of the natural text. This would make application of relevant rules easier ( and more obvious ).

Ty for uploading :D

Well since WoTC is also in charge of MTG I see this similarly to the issue that a permanent card with "Indestructible" and one with "This (card type) cannot be destroyed" are treated differently by cards that target "Permanents with indestructible" at least if the card with "This (card type) cannot be destroyed" hasn't been errata'd.

Wizards should just hire Chris since he’s a wizard 🧙‍♂️ lol

@SaraphDarklaw

2 жыл бұрын

Agreed. He even makes rule reading kind of fun.

Interesting subject. I hadn't really thought about it before. Although stacking difficult terrains on top of each other seems like it should make it harder and harder to move, I also appreciate the simplicity of D&D5E when it comes to stacking, namely you pick whatever is highest OR the opposite effects cancel each other out, no matter how many each side has. You didn't even bring up the fact that some effects actually reduce movement by X ft, which complicates matters even more. Frankly, in the interests of 5E simplicity, things should just all reduce movement by some multiple of 5 ft. It's less complicated, and you don't end up with 2.5 ft and wonder what to do with it. WOTC can decide if these can stack until someone hits 0 movement, or you just pick the highest decrease and use that. I suggest the latter. It's not as fun, but it is simple. And I really like simple.

Man I need to use difficult terrain more often...

Standing up from prone costs movment equal to half your speed. Every foot of movment in difficult terrain costs 1 extra foot of movment. If it takes 15 feet of movment to stand up normally, it should take 30 feet to stand up in difficult terrain. Jeremy crawford states that this isn't true and that difficult terrain dosen't effect standing up

Ideally i would like a scale of sorts here. As not all terrain is equally dificult. So there could be a gradient from +1-5ft of extra movement depending on the difficulty or ×2 and ×3 perhaps to make it easier.

I agree with you 100%, but to be fair, the rule about natural language processing is that it applies if and only if the term is not a "game defined term." So they do have an internally consistent ruling here, even if it a) did not make the sage advice compendium, and b) is not consistent with all the other stacking rules in 5e.

These are the Daves I know, I know These are the Daves I know

I think it should be stacked. Why? Real life logic. If you were walking over rocky terrain as I have in the Colorado Rockies, it’s difficult. If you add snow and ice? It is exponentially harder and more dangerous (such spells add 1d4 damage etc) They should stack because in life they literally do. Also adding plant growth not only can you not see the rocks you’ll slip on, the brush is going to slow you down more causing more unsure footing. All these are additional factors.

The best way is the DM way, as long as it is clear and consistent

Another factor is that of realism. If a floor is both icy and covered in spikes, surely that's worse than if it was just one or the other, right? Then again, surely someone who is prone and blind should be easier to hit than someone who is merely blind. And surely blind archers firing longbows at each other from 100 feet should be less likely to hit each other than a pair of crossbowmen who are lying down and firing at each other from 10 feet away. What makes the most sense to me is for effects to be additive or, in specific cases, to have priority. Not being able to see your target should, realistically, be quite bad when making a ranged attack. Perhaps disadvantage from being unable to see your target should be Priority Disadvantage and should overrule most sources of advantage. Perhaps it should cause two "stacks" of disadvantage, or disadvantage (2), and there should be some kind of additive system for advantage and disadvantage. Similarly, if two effects stack on top of each other and the hazards created by said effects should realistically be additive, perhaps there should be "Additive Effect" guidelines for handling that. I think your idea to just add plant growth to difficult terrain for 1/5 movement makes the most sense. The designers ought to just stick with that. And yes, this really matters. A ranger and druid are a natural pairing who, at level 5, might want to cast entangle on top of an area of plant growth. This situation absolutely does come up, and it might influence the way a pair of friends decide to build their characters. I think a lot of this could be handled simply by using technical language for spells and effects, and defining that language one time in a centralized location. In other words, just do what previous editions did. What was so wrong about that?

@tarrickmerdev2324

2 жыл бұрын

It sounds like you're skipping some rules for ranged combat. If you can't see your target then you have to target a location. The rules in earlier editions are more specific on this point but this is still heavily implied in 5E. PHB, "Unseen Attackers and Targets": When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly. There would be no reason to "guess the target's location" if you could directly target a creature that you cannot see and simply get disadvantage. However, instead you have to choose the correct square, which may not be too difficult for the very next round after losing visibility if the target hasn't yet moved, but is not conducive to a prolonged engagement. Then you have disadvantage only if you have chosen the correct position. As to a player being able to detect a creature's position based on sound, there are no specific rules in the PHB or DMG for audible ranges but sound does still have a finite distance. The D&D 5E DM screen has, as is mentioned in multiple forums, a table of audible distances based on whether someone is attempting to be loud, quiet, or neither, or you're welcome to make your own. A distance of 100 feet is likely beyond what characters can easily hear, especially in a combat scenario with other noises creating drowning it out, so a player would have to resort to choosing a location instead. So yes, it would be more difficult for blind archers at 100 feet to hit each other than it would for crossbowmen laying down at 10 feet away, provided the archers move even a bit, otherwise they're just trying to hit the same spot over and over which is just simply target practice. However, you can follow your rabbit-hole of a scenario forever, why is it no harder to hit a target laying down at 10 feet than it is one at 300 feet? The simple answer is just that, simplicity. The rules for 5E were designed to be simpler than earlier editions, not to dumb things down for less-inclined players or anything like that, but to keep the game flowing smoothly and keep the amount it takes to resolve situations like this to a minimum. The more rules that have to be considered and the more mechanics that have to be added increases the amount of time it takes to resolve combats exponentially and really causes the game to drag. If your example still bothers you, however, you might want to instead consider something like giving crossbows advantage on attacks when the creature using the crossbow is laying prone which, in my opinion, is an advantage over bows that they desperately need. I had a homebrew subclass for Rogues that I called Sniper that implemented this sort of thing though Tasha's more or less trashed that idea when it gave Rogues Steady Aim.

@stranger6822

2 жыл бұрын

@@tarrickmerdev2324 The rebuttal to your post is in the first paragraph of your own post: "this point...is still heavily implied in 5E." Implied, not stated, nor is any of the material one would need to make some kind of informed _guess_ as to dev intentions available in the PHB. Put another way: if you're going to state that my point is wrong, you'd better be able to point to the exact line in the book that clearly, unambiguously says so. The problem is that the line you need doesn't exist. Audible distances might be relevant to intent, but they're irrelevant in this case given that targets _are_ stated to give away their position when they attack, and it's also stated directly that creatures generally keep track of each other in combat except when hiding. None of what I stated is likely the intent. Rather, it's the only set of clear rules we have written on the subject of firing at targets you can't see. Guessing at squares and so on are not laid out in 5e's rules. In fact, squares themselves aren't even laid out in 5e's rules very clearly since they insisted so heavily on theater of the mind - which is probably why they didn't bother giving specifics in the first place. They figured DMs would just adjudicate and things would kind of work themselves out. This makes 5e one of the worst editions possible for tactical play because you never truly know which tactics will and will not work until you talk to your DM.

I think it’d be good to clarify that there’s a place for natural language; it’s the space you’ve talked about before that exists without RAW definitions and is intentionally left to the GM to define to suit their needs (like the term “ally”). What gets frustrating is when they use defined and undefined terms ambiguously, as in your Plant Growth example, or when they use “natural language” in a book and then deliver a clear ruling when asked. One last thing about this: I think people need to get used to the idea (which, again, you’ve pointed out) that some things in the rules really are intentionally ambiguous and have no strict RAW definition. RAW does not cover every situation, and some things in the game really are left solely to the GM.

i hate you…. 😂 Going to have to watch this 3-4 times before my mind is untwisted Ty-Chris

How does this mix with movemnet on a grid? Say you're in a plant growth, and have to use 20' of you're 30' movement to move one space. How far does that last 10' get you? Do you round down and say its wasted? Round up? Or calculate it between rounds and say you lose a space this turn, but move an extra space next round?

@MagicScientist

2 жыл бұрын

That will be ultimately up to you DM, but the general rule in 5e is that you always round down. That's how I rule it at my table.

I am starting to think difficult terrain should stack and each one should just add 1 extra foot per foot of movement unless otherwise specified (like in plant growth.) As long as the thing that is stacking is a different "Type" of difficult terrain. Like icy isn't going to stack on icy, but icy and spikey seems like they should definitely stack for 3 feet of movement for every 1 foot.

I think it makes sense for difficult terrain to stack in most circumstances, but you have to consider that you almost never multiply in 5th edition. It would be better if they referred to the movement cost per ft as its own unit, much like speed increases.

@antongrigoryev6381

2 жыл бұрын

The thing is, RAW Difficult terrain *doesn't* stack, it's said directly. It's one of 5e simplifications, same as advantages/disadvantages not stacking. Plant Growth isn't difficult terrain, however, so people think it can stack since its a separate thing. I personally believe that no, it shouldn't stack just as difficult terrain doesn't stack.

@gavinerickson9392

2 жыл бұрын

@@antongrigoryev6381 It's just like I said, but unlike advantage which is determined by a yes or a no question, difficulty terrain is purely numerical.

I'd say the intention is that Plant Growth was suppose to be twice as bad as the normal difficult terrain and not stack being essentially *Extra* difficult terrain. As a game designer, that's how i read it.

That's a lot of Davids o.O

The plant growth spell causes plants in the area to become thick and bramble like ... what if there are patches of no plants within the area if the spell ... would those areas of bare earth be effected by the plant growth spell.

How do you calculate DPR for a spell that requires a save and deals half damage on a failed save? (I've been trying to calculate DPR for Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition, and I ran into a snag with a new warlock ability, Eldritch Disturbance.)

@xInsane333x

2 жыл бұрын

First, it's important to understand what average damage is. It's the sum of all the potential outcomes of the action times the probabilities of those outcomes. We can use this same formula to get us the average damage of a save spell. First, you need the average damage roll. For 2d6, that's 7. I'll also mark this as AR. Second, you need the probability of passing vs failing a save. You could take the average of all potential enemy save modifiers and your expected save DC for the level, or make a general assumption about these. In this example Ill say roughly 60% odds of failing the save. Since in 5e it's generally half damage for success, the average damage for those outcomes is halved (Success Multiplier is 0.5) For our 2d6 example, we now have: 0.6(7)+0.4(3.5)=5.6 average damage. Now for damage per round, we can either multiply by how many times we can cast per round (often 1), or make assumptions about how many times we can cast it in a certain number of rounds we expect in a combat (in which case get the total number of casts and divide by number of rounds, to get average casts per round- ACR for this example). Other modifiers may affect these numbers. For example, rerolling 1s on your damage roll would increase your average damage per roll and thus your DPR. So DPR of a save spell could be defined as ACR(SuccessOdds(SuccessMultiplier*AD)+FailureOdds(AD))

This is irrelevant to the video but, I always wanted to ask you if you feel that the monk from pathfinder 1e is better. Specifically, do you think the Unchained Monk which allows a monk to pick and choose their powers and also do you think the abilities available to them is more in line with what it should be like to be a monk as in, should 5e monk be updated to be similar.

It will cost 5, 10, or 15 speed to move through this area. Just to make simple for new DMs

Im wondering about spirit guardians and difficult terrain cause you have half movement from the spell cause it hinders you but the if the ground is difficult you get double hindered imo. Same with ice storm and difficult terrain cause its hard to walk because of both things i think

@antongrigoryev6381

2 жыл бұрын

Speed-reducing effects do stack with difficult terrain. Former affect creatures directly, while later affect the environment.

@brianstuart6416

2 жыл бұрын

I was hoping for a spirit guardians explanation in here. I’ve always played it as difficult terrain because I don’t know how to rule it as is. The combination with difficult terrain can be difficult but it’s not the problem I’ve been having. The biggest issue I have is what if a creature wants to move into the spirit guardians range but has already spent more than half of their movement. Can they? because up until they cross the threshold, they have movement but once they cross their speed gets halved and they need to stop. So do they cross the threshold take damage and stop? Or can they not cross the threshold because they wouldn’t have the space to move into that square?

This one never confused me. In general spells do *exactly* what they say and *only* that - plant growth doesn't say it creates difficult terrain, so it doesn't, and thus the difficult terrain rules don't apply. Since plant growth and difficult terrain are different things, they stack. I always figured _Plant Growth_ + difficult terrain would mean 8x the movement cost, though I think I like your 5x ruling better. The AoE of these spells generally wouldn't be big enough to effect overland travel - you'd just go around it, if that wasn't possible the delay wouldn't really be significant compared to a full day of travel. It would only be significant outside combat in some rare condition where a character was moving for minutes, not hours, and being a few feet behind mattered (maybe a cross country race?). When WoTC talk about natural language in 5e it's just an excuse for sloppy writing and editing.

I'm advocating for Plant Growth not stacking with difficult terrain, just as several instances of difficult terrain don't stack with each other. It may not be difficult terrain RAW, but it's doing the same thing, just a bit better, and I think the same rules should apply.

@andrewohoro

2 жыл бұрын

So do you think that a “Ring of Protection” and a “Cloak of Protection” should not stack?

@antongrigoryev6381

2 жыл бұрын

@@andrewohoro Let's not compare apples to oranges. Magic items have well-defined rules on stacking/not stacking (i.e. only two of the same items do not stack). Difficult terrain, however, is a totally different thing that does totally different thing for the game. And the rule is that even different instances of difficult terrain don't stack. But nothing is said about other effects that work similarly (i.e. Plant Growth), so we're free to decide how it works. And my opinion is that it shouldn't stack.

I have always treated the "specific over general" rule as the guide, and also Difficult Terrain as a proper noun rather than a descriptive phrase. Thus if a spell or effect specifically declares that it creates Difficult Terrain, then it doesn't stack with other Difficult Terrain, but does stack with other specifically defined effects that change movement. My basis for this is thus: In any case of two rules interacting in an ambiguous way, one of two things must be true. Either the person who wrote the more recent of the two rules did mean what he wrote, but was unaware of the ambiguity. Or the person was aware of the ambiguity and intended for his rule to take dominance. I believe that this is a fair baseline assumption, because otherwise we must assume that the writer took the time to think of and write a rule which he was aware would conflict with another rule and be overruled. That's not how people work, and so it is a case not worth considering. The only cases where I find problems is where multiple, different, specific effects are called for. For instance, halving a creatures movement speed and doubling the movement expended are different things with the same end result. But if one effect states that it doubles movement expended and another says that it triples movement expended, then they cannot both be true, and yet are BOTH cases of specific overriding general. If we were supposed to treat difficult terrain (no capitals) as simple language, and interchangeable with all other forms of movement reduction, then the vast majority of what is written on these effects becomes gibberish. The ONLY way I can see it making sense is if Difficult Terrain is a proper noun, and can coexist with any other form of movement modification which uses different terminology. Otherwise, the entire array of terminology is rendered meaningless, and that begins right with the PHB. Either it's all gibberish, and all of the designers were idiots from day one, or it means what it says and we weren't supposed to generalize things that they bothered to specify.

@aprinnyonbreak1290

2 жыл бұрын

I can agree with it acting as a proper noun, though I lean a bit more into imagining the interaction. Difficult Terrain just means that some attribute of the terrain makes it difficult to traverse, independant of what other obstructions, effects, and so on exist on it. It makes sense that difficult terrain doesn't really stack, because either it's terrain you have to pay more attention to or you don't, and even being immune to one kind doesn't mean you can ignore the other. It's not like your character is just suddenly moving half as fast when moving over difficult terrain, in most cases, they are logically slowing down because they need to take more precise steps, maintain balance, etcetera, while many other movement reducing effects read like actually struggling to force through something, so, it makes sense to me that trying to force yourself through, say, dense vegetation, while ALSO trying to avoid stepping your foot into a deep mud pit in a swamp, or maneuvering around jagged rocks should stack, but also be exponentially worse. Something like a Wall of Thorns isn't difficult terrain, there's nothing to carefully move around, you're just forcing yourself through a hedge, which takes time and effort.

@ChristnThms

2 жыл бұрын

@@aprinnyonbreak1290 the problem with addressing it narratively is that you end up being inconsistent. It is a game. A game is defined by its rules. Consistency of rules is key to both player and DM satisfaction. Using specific terminology is key to this consistency, so that each term doesn't need to be redefined every use. If a player or DM cannot trust the meaning of a game related term, then their decisions will not generate the results they're aiming at.

So basicallly you kind of stack the movement effect in combat but not in a non combat environment... then you take the worst effect ?

I assume they didn't mean for there to be two different rules for difficult terrain. My guess is that they just wrote the same rule with two different wordings and didn't think about the implications of terrain combos and math order of operations. Unfortunately, that still doesn't help determine which was their intent. I say as long as the DM stays consistent, any of these is fine.

@MagicScientist

2 жыл бұрын

My bet is they intended to define the rule differently for combat vs overland travel, and didn't think too hard about overloading the term because 'natural language'.

"The space of another creature, whether hostile or not, also counts as difficult terrain." So... I've been playing it wrong this whole time...?!

@bleddynwolf8463

2 жыл бұрын

apparently

@fredflintstone556

2 жыл бұрын

Tis a silly rule.

@bleddynwolf8463

2 жыл бұрын

@@fredflintstone556 makes sense though, you try barging past someone without getting in their way and not slowing down

Isn't Landstride a Ranger Feature? Not a Druid's? Also isn't it almost useless?

@antongrigoryev6381

2 жыл бұрын

Circle of the Land Druids also get this feature. And yes, it's almost useless.

To be fair it is pretty difficult subject 😏

2nd?

So while traveling it's 5 feet for each foot and while in combat it's 8 feet for each foot. Sounds logical

If it says it creates difficult terrain, it creates difficult terrain. It’s a status you apply to the ground. You can’t double paralyze someone, this is no different. It’s not that complicated.

@Sporrik

2 жыл бұрын

This is not a good way to look at it. Say, for example, two people hit the same target with Ray of Frost. That target will have it's movement speed reduced by 20 feet until the effect wears off. Difficult terrain also slows down a creature, so it works in a similar manner. In other words, sure, hard CC like the Paralyzed status effect don't really stack. Soft CC, like slows, definitely stack in one way or another.

@elliotbryant3459

2 жыл бұрын

​@@Sporrik I agree with your argument overall but had one correction. 2 Rays of Frosts would not reduce a creatures speed twice. But if they were hit by a ray of frost and then lance of lethargy eldritch blast those effects would stack. From the PHB: The effects of the *same spell* cast multiple times don't combine, however. Instead, the most potent effect-such as the highest bonus-from those castings applies while their durations overlap. For example, if two clerics cast bless on the same target, that character gains the spell’s benefit only once; he or she doesn’t get to roll two bonus dice.

@Sporrik

2 жыл бұрын

@@elliotbryant3459 Good point, I misremembered that rule.

@pedrodarosamello64

2 жыл бұрын

This doesn't help at all fixing the quation as plant growth doesn't create difficult terrain

@tazpah8837

2 жыл бұрын

@@pedrodarosamello64 The terrain that plant growth creates most assuredly is difficult. And that's part of the problem with the incoherently semi-specificity of the issue.

Difficult terrain is already super simple in 5e. I really think treantmonk is reaching for issues that have never been an issue at any actuasl table. As for plant growth and ice storm: It's kinda obvious to rule that each foot moved costs 5 feet of movement here. It makes the most sense, as it should be more difficult to move through plant growth under harsh conditions. The alternatives either dont make sense (ice storm having no effect) or their potency would be obviously ludicrous (8 feet of movement per foot). The designers wrote the game rules to be as simple and intuitive as possible. Leaving the DM to rule certain interactions (like this one) means they can keep the rules much more concise and readable.

More and more I think the final print of the PHB was typed by Interns

I got one for you TM - Who’s on first? ;)

Woah! Before this I had no idea that in 5th ed anyone can move through anyones space with half movement rate..

131st

Algorithm comment

Yeah this wording is hilariously bad. At my table id 100% just say they don’t stack. If players really want to slow their opponents down more there are plenty of ways to or they can work with me on it. Luckily I’ve never seen anyone try to argue for this.

but if we fix all these problems we have less nerd stuff to talk and watch to kill time. Death is approaching. 😞

Sadly precise rules (for us very important) doesnt come high on their prio lists compared to marketing stuff, churning out additional rule books and whatever fluff, hey even playing fungus characters had higher priority.

You've done such a deep dive on Druids. Unless you're a "Moon Druid", you really suck in melee. BUT: you also SUCK in ranged attacks, esp at low levels. Do you have any good suggestions for a half elf (no natural "bow knowledge") Shepherd Druid for getting Ranged Attacks? Really, to help all low level Druids in early combat?

@Johnrobertx

2 жыл бұрын

Not an expert but I’d recommend magic stone. D6+wis mod isn’t bad at all.

@pedrodarosamello64

2 жыл бұрын

You probably should not worry about it, every single druid subclass gives you something to do often enough that you'll not miss a spamable reliable attack

@elliotbryant3459

2 жыл бұрын

Xanathar's Guide has rules for downtime activity where you can train to gain a new proficiency. -But I agree with John, you would probably be better off with Magic Stone [1d6+Wis vs a bow's 1d8+Dex]. It would use your wisdom and have a 60' range, or you could still use the full 120' range of the sling [but with disadvantage, unless you had sharpshooter] Or you could take magic initiate cleric or a cleric level, to pick up a wisdom based Toll the Dead. Not an attack roll but it scales better and deals good damage.

Sorry but Crawford needs to be replaced with someone who knows what they are talking about.