|
Staltran posted:I think what Kurieg means is that you can't cast a spell that has a somatic component but doesn't have a material component if you have a weapon in one hand and a focus in another. I'm pretty sure that's the more common interpretation of the RAW online, though IIRC most/a sizeable amount of the 5e thread here disagrees. I suppose that's a defensible reading, but I can't say I agree with it. The final paragraph doesn't say anything about the same hand for a focus and somatic components only applying if the focus is being actively used.
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 13:16 |
|
|
It's the intended reading, if that matters, it's in the Sage Advice Compendium. And if that line applies to all spells, even the ones that have no material components, then to cast Healing Word (which only has a verbal component), you still need a hand empty/holding a focus for the material components (the empty set), no? And it's under the Material (M) heading, so it seems more natural to me to read it as only applying to spells that have material components anyway. Another dumb literal reading with that interpretation: if the focus doesn't need to be used, a wizard can't cast Shield if you have a weapon in one hand and a shield in the other, unless there's a holy symbol on the shield, in which case it's a spellcasting focus and he can (assuming they have shield proficiency, anyway). A wizard can't use the holy symbol as a spellcasting focus, of course, but they can still hold it, which is good enough for "A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell’s material components — or to hold a spellcasting focus — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 21:29
|
|
Staltran posted:It's the intended reading, if that matters, it's in the Sage Advice Compendium. The most infamous examples I can think of are the pike being excluded from polearm master (instead of going "whelp we forgot about that") and the explanation on Phantasmal Force being so wishy washy that it ended up causing even more discussion about its intended usage than before.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 08:05
|
|
|
Staltran posted:It's the intended reading, if that matters, it's in the Sage Advice Compendium. Wouldn't be the first time Crawford made a nonsense ruling in there. Remember when he said you couldn't twin spell Dragon's Breath because even though it is explicitly single target, the ability it grants could hit more than one creature?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 19:27
|
|
|
Taciturn Tactician posted:Wouldn't be the first time Crawford made a nonsense ruling in there. Remember when he said you couldn't twin spell Dragon's Breath because even though it is explicitly single target, the ability it grants could hit more than one creature? I think "you can't twin spell fire bolt because it can affect objects, not just creatures" was even dumber. That Italian Guy posted:Not getting into the merit of this, but I've always had the impression that 5e Sage Advice was deeply influenced by people complaining about the massive amount of errata in 4e, so most of the time the advice is some weird mental gymnastics about how the RAW and RAI are one and the same, actually The twin fire bolt thing is also a bizarre exception to this! SAC explicitly says "If [you and your DM] are curious about our design intent, here is the list of things that disqualify a spell for us: ... -The spell can target an object". It's not even saying that's the RAW—it isn't, the actual rules are "When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn’t have a range of self" and "To be eligible, a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell’s current level", which don't say anything about being able to target objects—they just wanted to make sure you know they intended for Twinned Spell to have a really dumb restriction. To be fair, RAW you can only Twin fire bolt if you're targeting two creatures, not if you want to set two objects on fire (or one creature and one object). Which is kinda weird too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 19:46
|
|
|
That's the dumbest, most fiddly use case I've ever heard of. Has to target creatures specifically hrmph.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 20:29
|
|
|
Taciturn Tactician posted:Wouldn't be the first time Crawford made a nonsense ruling in there. Remember when he said you couldn't twin spell Dragon's Breath because even though it is explicitly single target, the ability it grants could hit more than one creature? The worst part is that he changes his mind about things that are critical to players' builds. Shield Master is a feat that, among other things, lets you use your shield to shove your enemy as part of an attack. The wording here, "if you take the Attack action on your turn, you can [shove]", is perhaps a little bit vague on the timing of the shove. If you look at it just right, this could be read as "you can use your shield to shove an enemy if you also take the Attack action on your turn", which would mean that you could use the shove before or after. One of the things you can do with a shove is knock your target prone. Prone is very debilitating for a variety of reasons, but the most relevant one here is that melee attacks against a prone target have advantage, which means that you roll your to-hit die twice and take the higher result. If you read Shield Master as allowing you to shove before your attack, it becomes very powerful, as it is an easy source of advantage. Regardless of how you read it, though, there is a drawback to knocking your enemy prone: any ranged attacks against the target have disadvantage. So, there's a big tradeoff there: do you give yourself (and your melee allies) advantage, knowing that you're weakening your ranged attackers? In response to this confusion, Crawford tweeted that the more permissive reading was correct. At the time, I was a DM for the Adventurer's League, which is the organized play system where volunteer DMs run games that anyone can bring their characters to and play. In order to make sure that players' experiences are consistent across all tables, AL DMs must strictly follow rules-as-written, which included Crawford's definitely-not-errata tweets. This was great for martial players, as it meant that they had a powerful tactical option that they were sure to be able to use at any table they went to. Shield Master builds were very popular, although they weren't really any stronger than other melee builds. Then, out of the blue, Crawford changed his mind. He spontaneously tweeted out that a conditional bonus action can only happen after the condition is met, which he also said applied to Shield Master's shove. (Infuriatingly, he labeled it a "clarification" instead of a "correction".) Overnight, every Adventurer's League fighter with a shield effectively lost access to a core thing they built their character around. The shield shove no longer allows them to benefit from their own shove action, which makes it pointless at best if your melee allies can't capitalize on the enemy's prone state before the enemy's turn comes around, or downright detrimental with no tradeoffs if your ranged allies were hoping to be able to hit. This utterly ruined the Shield Master build, and since the meta-rules of Adventurer's League at the time made it basically impossible to meaningfully rebuild your character past a certain point, a bunch of players had to choose between sticking with a suboptimal build and starting from scratch with a new character. To bring this back to the thread's topic, the existence of constantly updated errata in scenarios where they must be followed is a little bit of a Murphy itself. Every character must live in constant fear that the universe might spontaneously change around them and that they might wake up one day to realize that they no longer remember how to do something they've done for their entire life.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 20:54
|
|
|
Wait, that "clarification" came out over 3 years after the initial tweet? What the gently caress? Yeah, I would be pissed if I had a character for that long that was suddenly neutered like that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 20:59
|
|
|
I was in the middle of a campaign where I had specifically built my character around that mechanic when that """"clarification"""" was made. Luckily it wasn't AL so the DM just told me to ignore the ruling, but that was the last time I listened to Jeremy Crawford about anything. It's impressive how weird his takes are sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 21:01
|
|
|
Was there any measurable drop in AL participation or D&D revenue generally due to that about-face?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 21:09
|
|
|
Kwyndig posted:That's the dumbest, most fiddly use case I've ever heard of. Has to target creatures specifically hrmph. This reminds me of the arguments during 4E that, say, a power that does fire damage couldn't be used to set a haystack on fire if its stat block said "Target: 1 creature." Even though the rules specifically said that creature-targeting powers could also be used on objects if the DM thought it was reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 21:33
|
|
|
when you think about it, a haystack is a (dead) swarm of plant creatures
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 22:29
|
|
|
I'm sure there's an ant you can target somewhere in there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 22:34
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Was there any measurable drop in AL participation or D&D revenue generally due to that about-face?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 22:44
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Martial PC money isn’t worth having apparently The amount of people who are in AL, are charop enthusiasts, chose this particular niche to specialize in, and who would swear off the game if their niche was revoked could be marginal compared to their general userbase.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 22:48
|
|
|
Could be but may not be, you know they didn't do the research to check. Do they even count players in AL or just tables?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 23:09
|
|
|
This is what the Sage Advice Compendium says on the matter now quote:Shield Master This... doesn't even actually state you can't do the bonus action shove before the attacks? Crawford has said on Twitter that you can't just "declare" you're taking an action, you have to actually "take" it. No, he doesn't bother to define what that actually means. Given the context it's clear (in the tweets anyway, the SAC text is less clear unless you know the history here) he means you need to attack first... but what if you have Extra Attack? Can you attack once, bonus action shove, then attack again? The "clarification" doesn't really make this clear. Does making the first attack count as "taking" the attack action, or do you need to complete it? Probably the former, but this is hardly an an obscure interaction, so an actual answer would be nice. Also this is just kinda weird: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995064841214676994#m I really don't think the original ruling did that. Or was illogical, either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 23:15
|
|
|
Keep in mind the below is in response to the isolated thing posted above. I mean reading that it seems pretty clear. Your first point is pretty much answered explicitly. "Can you take that bonus action before the Attack action? No. The bonus action provided by the Shield Master feat has a precondition: that you take the Attack action on your turn." Extra attack just gives you another attack during your attack action, it does not give you two attack actions. Based on the wording above you can only use the bonus action shove after your attack action ends. For the record I 100% agree that a minor word change or two (took instead of take) would make this way more clear, but I see what they are getting at. Telsa Cola fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Sep 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 23:25
|
|
|
This is just dumb because they decided you have to take actions in a specific order that is sub optimal in play in many instances.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 23:32
|
|
|
With the old ruling, could I run into a situation where I decide I'm going to attack so I shove the target down first, but then some effect triggers that incapacitates my character so I can't attack, thus creating some sort of...action paradox?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 23:34
|
|
|
Triarii posted:With the old ruling, could I run into a situation where I decide I'm going to attack so I shove the target down first, but then some effect triggers that incapacitates my character so I can't attack, thus creating some sort of...action paradox? Yes. But, more simply, you could just shove them away from you, making them be out of range of your attack.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 23:36
|
|
|
Triarii posted:With the old ruling, could I run into a situation where I decide I'm going to attack so I shove the target down first, but then some effect triggers that incapacitates my character so I can't attack, thus creating some sort of...action paradox? Yeah, or they could reaction move away out of your reach or something also putting you in the same boat. I guess you could attack the ground if you were really a purist though. Kwyndig posted:This is just dumb because they decided you have to take actions in a specific order that is sub optimal in play in many instances. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, I don't disagree, and it does make the build suck I imagine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 23:41
|
|
|
How accurate is the wiki wording to the rulebook wording? Assuming its accurate, strictly RAW, the wiki does make it sound fairly to the point where you HAVE to attack before getting the bonus shove. Which sucks, but the rules lawyer is right. So I hope GMs across the world invoked Rule 0/"Rule of lame" and said you can do a shove and an attack in either order on your turn (I'm guessing you can normally shove someone as an action ANYWAYS, so it's not like it's giving you access to a special move, just gives you a freebie action).
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 23:41
|
|
|
They could rule that that forfeited the attacks you are unable to employ, like with a prepared action whose condition isn't met. Or reword it to do that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 23:41
|
|
|
Well, I mean, they had all already spent several levels playing a 5e martial character in AL. You can't kill someone's spirit twice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 23:48
|
|
|
Splicer posted:You can't kill someone's spirit twice. I mean, you could kill them, then travel to their respective afterlife and kill them again there. Wait, are we talking in the game or in real life? I think that involves the catholic church in real life.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 23:52
|
|
|
It's a fair ruling, about time somebody came after the fighters. Now the casters can finally shine!
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 23:52
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Well, I mean, they had all already spent several levels playing a 5e martial character in AL. You can't kill someone's spirit twice. What is even more fun is when you play campaigns that do not allow players to take feats as a martial character. Telsa Cola fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Sep 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 23:57
|
|
|
honestly, the ability to do it first feels like an insane reading of the rule to begin with, to me
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 00:18
|
|
|
Wait, you can't take feats as a martial character? When is that, what the gently caress, what do martials get then?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 00:21
|
|
|
Kwyndig posted:Wait, you can't take feats as a martial character? When is that, what the gently caress, what do martials get then? There's no rule about this. Some GMs are just bad and make aritrary restrictions. It's not inherent to the system.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 00:34
|
|
|
Kwyndig posted:Wait, you can't take feats as a martial character? When is that, what the gently caress, what do martials get then? Feats are, technically, a variant rule. You can not use them at your table. Almost no one does this, but if you do, it disproportionally hurts martials because stuff like Polearm Master and Sentinel are a lot more build defining than taking War Caster for convience and consistency. Plus the ASI advancement on Fighters meaning they get MORE feat chances.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 00:34
|
|
|
Kwyndig posted:Wait, you can't take feats as a martial character? When is that, what the gently caress, what do martials get then? They had a thing when they were making the game where there was going to be a bunch of major optional variant rules packages. It ended up not being pretty much not anything other than a few minor things and that technically feats and magic items are both optional (which also let them avoid giving rules for buying magic items or determing when players would have them, despite plenty of enemies requiring magic items to hit them if you're a martial character) Piell fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Sep 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 00:42
|
|
|
Piell posted:(which also let them avoid giving rules for buying magic items or determing when players would have them, despite plenty of enemies requiring magic items to hit them if you're a martial character) simply always have a caster waste their concentration slot on Magic Weapon!
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 00:49
|
|
|
It’s completely bizarre as the most natural wording, “After you melee attack someone on your turn you can Shove them as a bonus action” has very little ambiguity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 00:51
|
|
|
Kwyndig posted:Wait, you can't take feats as a martial character? When is that, what the gently caress, what do martials get then? Yeah sorry that was me funnily enough sucking at wording. To clarify, I have played DnD 5e campaigns (and am currently in one) where the DM has ruled that Feats are not allowed. Because Feats in DnD 5e are actually a variant rule and not guaranteed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 00:52
|
|
|
Selachian posted:This reminds me of the arguments during 4E that, say, a power that does fire damage couldn't be used to set a haystack on fire if its stat block said "Target: 1 creature." Even though the rules specifically said that creature-targeting powers could also be used on objects if the DM thought it was reasonable. just bring a supply of trained rodents and direct one into the haystack Bing bong
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 01:40
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:Yeah sorry that was me funnily enough sucking at wording. So... martial classes get something to balance out the loss of feats, right? ...right? Oh God please tell me it doesn't just turn into "Watch the spellcasters solve all the problems with ~maaaaaaaaaagic~
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 03:21
|
|
|
"turn into"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 03:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 13:16 |
|
|
Yeah that happens regardless. Feats are less a balancing mechanism and more like an activity sheet to give martials something to do. They should make special fighter character sheets with a maze and a word search.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 03:50
|
|
