|
Empowered evocation with a +5 int modifier raises level 1 magic missile's dpr to 25.5, which is monsterous.
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 06:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
Amethyst posted:Empowered evocation with a +5 int modifier raises level 1 magic missile's dpr to 25.5, which is monsterous. Yes it does and its currently the only spell we only 100% according to their lead designer that it gets the full bonus to each missile. So lol.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 06:29
|
|
|
Christ the designers of this game are bad at clarifying things https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/487995399899074560 How does this help at all
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 06:30
|
|
|
Jeez, every time I think my expectations can't get lower, I get proven wrong. I can't for the life of me even understand why the literal highest authority on the game has to be so goddamn coy about his answers. Like, you "could" effect more than one ray, as if there's ever a time when you would choose not to? Well, I guess it serves me right for expecting logic and reason in my codified game rules.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 06:30
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:Christ the designers of this game are bad at clarifying things Yep, my theory is they intentionally do it so they don't need to ever give a concrete answer and can backpedal later. Either that or they believe its very clear and its why there are so many situations in 5e with super confusing wording and language. They've actively done this before with their ruling on Shield Bash being something you can do before your attacks to knock people down then get then wail on them. Then they went off and flipped on that rule a year or so later saying you cant and justified their confusing answers to say everyone read it wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 06:41
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:Christ the designers of this game are bad at clarifying things How the hell do I see what the threaded conversation is on this tweet? Why does Twitter allow you to view a reply without making the original tweet available? Did Mike Mearls design Twitter?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 06:45
|
|
|
Allowing the bonus only once per target seems like the only sane ruling, though it isn't clear from the rulebook or the designer tweets at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 06:45
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:Allowing the bonus only once per target seems like the only sane ruling, though it isn't clear from the rulebook or the designer tweets at all. "Its up to your GM"
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 06:50
|
|
|
I kind of want to have a go at rewriting these rulebooks to be unambiguous while consistently picking the least sane plausible interpretation of each ambiguous bit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 12:17
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:Allowing the bonus only once per target seems like the only sane ruling, though it isn't clear from the rulebook or the designer tweets at all. So wait, if I drop a fireball on a group, I only get to apply empowered evocation to one of those targets even though it's all the same spell? Like, is a wizard just saying 'and gently caress you in particular?' Also, that goes directly against something that JC has said. Magic Missile, for example, has 3 rolls and you add your int mod to all of them, because everything strikes simultaneously. https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/610955844918886400
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 13:10
|
|
|
What the gently caress? If you want magic missile to be special and get bonuses several times, say "magic missile is special and gets bonuses several times" Don't try and cludge some logic about time sensitivity (which applies in this and only this case)
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 15:01
|
|
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:What the gently caress? If you want magic missile to be special and get bonuses several times, say "magic missile is special and gets bonuses several times" Don't try and cludge some logic about time sensitivity (which applies in this and only this case) I have that tweet saved for every time a GM goes 'bullshit there's no way you add +6 to each missile.'
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 18:16
|
|
|
What I'm learning from this is that Jeremy Crawford should be ignored and I should just do whatever I want in my game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 18:29
|
|
|
Basically. But people who run Adventure League/have some other kind of structured local events have to deal with the fact that his idiocy negatively affects their gaming. AL more than the latter, of course. His ridiculous suggestions for making Beast Master work better only work if you get to homebrew/change almost everything, whereas there's no clear way to do any of it in AL that an individual DM is allowed to do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 18:45
|
|
|
Never forget that, per their own infinite wisdom, Lucky + Disadvantage = 3 rolls, and you either get to choose from all three OR you get to choose the Lucky die or the lower of the two regular dice. Both pieces of advice from the same person. Presented as how it just works, every time. The explanation for WHY this is the case has gone from "this is just how it functions RAW, obviously" to "fortune smiling on the unlucky" The exact same person gave both of those 'clarifications' about a year apart, so I guess if you dislike your Sage Advice just wait a minute and the idiots won't even remember their own musings on how system elements work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
Enola Gay-For-Pay posted:What I'm learning from this is that Jeremy Crawford should be ignored and I should just do whatever I want in my game. Adventurer's League FAQ, page 3 posted:Sage Advice is a great barometer for ‘rules-as-intended’, in any case. Whether or not any given Dungeon Master chooses to utilize Sage Advice as a resource for rules adjudication in D&D Adventurers League play is at the discretion of each individual DM. As always, the DM remains the final arbiter of how a rule is to be implemented in their game. So yeah, absolutely feel free to ignore twitter  clarifications .
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 19:07
|
|
|
Lucky being able to choose from 3 dice when normally at disadvantage is amazing fun. You character becomes super clutch and in all those super poo poo moments you can pull a win out of your rear end. I picked up Lucky and have had about a dozen sessions with it. I use it once or twice a 4 hour game. I think once I used it three times, mostly to re-roll critical failures because in our game we have a critical fail deck that is over the top terrible (you cut off your own arm or something stupid). Lucky is great so long as it is not abused.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
This why rulings about 'what makes sense' are stupid as hell and you should make rulings based on what you think will result in the best experience at your table. The RAW is fairly clear without twisting your brain into knots about it. It's pretty potent but at my table I'd probably just let you add your INT mod to each damage roll to stop the endless arguing that would result from trying to factor in corner cases. Really, 'letting someone get an unlimited damage bonus on a class of spells that primarily deals AOE damage' was the first mistake because you have no idea, from the designers chair, how many targets that's going to be affecting. Being able to add a flat or even scaling bonus to damage X times per day would have been much less stupid. EDIT: I'm not even entirely convinced it's that broken, at least compared to the other poo poo you're already letting a level 10 Wizard get away with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
doctor 7 posted:
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:EDIT: I'm not even entirely convinced it's that broken, at least compared to the other poo poo you're already letting a level 10 Wizard get away with. From my experience in organized play, people don't usually remember the controller-y wizard that shuts encounters down as poorly as they do the blaster type that nukes away, even if the blaster's not as overall powerful
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
I skimmed through the last couple pages, and I have to say I don't understand why you're all arguing about the DPR merits of Magic Missile at high levels, when a Sorcerer can take 2 Warlock levels and by 11 have equivalent DPR to the most optimized Fighter/Paladin/Ranger while retaining full casting. Or a Wizard at that level can cast Animate Objects 4 times per day and do much the same. Are you doing more than 4 fights per day? It's like they're summoning a fighter for any combat worth the effort, on top of their Earth Elemental buddy that's already just hanging out, while still having their own actions free to do whatever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:This why rulings about 'what makes sense' are stupid as hell and you should make rulings based on what you think will result in the best experience at your table. I still loving fall for it regularly despite my cynical jaded gamer heart, by way of trying to play ball and then reaching the "Oh... Uh, we just don't want it to work that way" answer they meant. "These disposable drones are buggy garbage. Give us tractor beams to scoop up ore!  ""Tractor beams are not realistic, OR lore friendly! We're oldschool devs so that's important to us." "Okay, cool. Give us the realistic and lore friendly set and forget mining machines from the oldschool Elite games. Then everyone is happy  ""Oh, uh... That wouldn't fit the gameplay we want." Sadly, just as common are people believing their own cherry picked logic. Like a GM willing to let your party have goblin butlers to fire catapults at dragons, even as they balk at the idea of robin hood style nonlethal takedowns because "Arrows are shap! That's not realistic! But what if, I let you make some BLUNT arrows!... Which would have reduced range because of aerodynamics-" As a bright spot, has lead to some "Wait, isn't this good?" scenario comedy with a friend, like when they are upset at the idea of a 1d4 shuriken launcher due to "How does it even reload!?", but will happily suggest breaking the laws of thermodynamics for an infinite ammo shoulder laser. Section Z fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Nov 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
Section Z posted:Over the years I have lumped "Well it makes sense-" in with "But realistic/lore/-" as people just wanting their personal preference to SOUND more legitimate. Yeah exactly. Mechanics are just a way of expressing fiction, but they are also the game's primary 'game' component. To use your example a game designer could use just some of the following ways to express blunt arrows: a.) They are not aerodynamic! Deals 1d4 (b) damage and rolls with Disadvantage. b.) No change. They deal nonlethal damage. Also they deal (b) damage. c.) They deal (b) damage and also push the target 5ft. Or knock them prone. d.) TOO UNREALISTIC NONFUN ZONE Those are just off the top of my head. The idea that any mechanical expression is the 'most realistic' when reality doesn't work in 5ft squares or rely in random distribution of 5% probabilities should probably be everybody's first clue that it's an impossible goal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
Nah, it's far more common that people genuinely fell into the trap of thinking of the rules as a simulation rather than an abstraction, facilitated by how quasi-simulationist 3.PF presented itself as being. ED: Also, ranged attacks being unable to deal non-lethal damage is absolutely fine from a gameplay perspective. Let melee dudes have a thing, okay? If it's that important to you to capture someone alive with an arrow/firebolt, ask the DM to make them roll death saving throws instead of dying instantly. Conspiratiorist fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Nov 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by internalizing 3.5
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Nah, it's far more common that people genuinely fell into the trap of thinking of the rules as a simulation rather than an abstraction, facilitated by how quasi-simulationist 3.PF presented itself as being.  Though there seems to be something about arrows/javelins/etc that breaks the brains of everyone I know. Even in "Literally EVERYTHING is a non-lethal if you want it to" 4th edition, I still had multiple friends going "...But arrows are sharp! They'd die!" even as others are making nonlethal takedowns with with holy lasers. They got better when it came to 4th ed. But 5th ed's partial rollback to "ONLY melee can KO if they feel like it" has been a pain. Even if that was probably a well intended ruling meant to prevent nonlethal fireball spells, while forgetting casters have plenty of ranged nonlethal options. Section Z fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Nov 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:From my experience in organized play, people don't usually remember the controller-y wizard that shuts encounters down as poorly as they do the blaster type that nukes away, even if the blaster's not as overall powerful It's because the OP blaster steps directly on everyone's toes and looks good doing it, while the OP controller isn't even engaging with the same mechanics a lot of the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 22:36
|
|
|
I think if people are roleplaying at any level, they certainly remember when the controller makes everyone fall asleep or tricks a room, or otherwise voids the encounter. I mean, the characters should pick up on this. I'm comparing a newbie trap option with a character focused mainly on shooting people with bows. I think the ability to just say "my arrow hits, here's how much force damage" is severely under rated compared to archery feats and class features in the core game. doctor 7 posted:I picked up Lucky and have had about a dozen sessions with it. I use it once or twice a 4 hour game. I think once I used it three times, mostly to re-roll critical failures because in our game we have a critical fail deck that is over the top terrible (you cut off your own arm or something stupid). Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Nov 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 22:59
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:I skimmed through the last couple pages, and I have to say I don't understand why you're all arguing about the DPR merits of Magic Missile at high levels, when a Sorcerer can take 2 Warlock levels and by 11 have equivalent DPR to the most optimized Fighter/Paladin/Ranger while retaining full casting. Statement: The Fighter is as good as the Wizard because the Fighter can do their thing all day. Rebuttal: The 5e Wizard can cast cantrips all day. Rebuttals to the Rebuttal: Fighter attacks are better than Cantrips, and casting a Cantrip means you're not casting a spell. Rebuttals to the Rebuttals to the Rebuttal: If the quality of what is being done all day is relevant then the Fighter being able to do one thing all day is a bullshit statement to begin with. Also some cantrips in some builds are equal to or better than Fighter attacks. Also that the Wizard can do a thing that's even better than the other thing makes it worse. Also Wizards can learn to cast real spells all day too. Rebuttal to the Rebuttals to the Rebuttals to the Rebuttal: Yeah but, like, only second level spells. Rebuttal to the Rebuttal to the Rebuttals to the Rebuttals to the Rebuttal:  I sure showed THAT homunculus composite of poorly thought out arguments!
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:I think if people are roleplaying at any level, they certainly remember when the controller makes everyone fall asleep or tricks a room, or otherwise voids the encounter. I mean, the characters should pick up on this. I don't think Darwinism meant "people don't remember controllers".
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 23:24
|
|
|
I had a friend unironically say that swinging a sword four times was mathematically better than casting meteor because "Meteor doesn't get damage modifiers!" (and you can just keep swinging! Nevermind how many dozens of attacks it would take to cover the surface area of four 40 foot spheres even if you were one hit killing everything) They are slowly getting better (in part at the prospect of ever using fighter themselves for GMPCs), but it's faaaaascinating how dug in the mindset is. Section Z fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Nov 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 23:31
|
|
|
Splicer posted:There's a dumb thing idiots say, which is that the Fighter is as good as the Wizard because while the Wizard can do more and better things than the Fighter, the Fighter can do their one thing all day!!! There's at least two reasons why this has been bullshit since 3.x, but the thread has been working through the shiny new 5E rebuttal to this and its followups. The resource angle is complete nonsense because the only time casters are really hurting for their slots is during the early levels, a point during which martials are themselves limited by their HP pools and recovery options. What can be said in favor of martials is that, properly optimized, they're very good at single target HP damage, which is often a necessary component to the easiest (and sometimes even only) solution to a combat challenge. This is their one job, what they can mechanically contribute to the group that nobody else can do quite as well. The corollary is that if you're playing a martial and you're not good at dealing damage, you're worthless as far as party composition goes - sorcerers and wizards and druids are far better "tanks".
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
I can't believe no one is acknowledging the theoretical archer in this siege situation is gonna have what, 24 shots at most? Gotta account for arrows, baby
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 23:37
|
|
|
20 arrows weigh a pound so basically anyone can carry several hundred if they want to. Just pack 'em in real tight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 23:41
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:The resource angle is complete nonsense because the only time casters are really hurting for their slots is during the early levels, a point during which martials are themselves limited by their HP pools and recovery options. These obviously still apply to 5e, except the wizard doesn't get tapped out anymore so the last one's moot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 23:52
|
|
|
Splicer posted:That's one third of why the argument was bullshit in 3.x, the other arguments being b) the right tool at the right time is always better than the wrong tool all day, and c) who's going to continue adventuring when the Wizard's tapped out anyway? It's just a shame it came alongside trimming out most of the fancy resources from Martials in the process With the added comedy of people who previously poo poo on the idea of at-wills and short rest recharge treating it like the greatest new idea to ever grace DnD now that its' caster centric (See: My longest time internet pal's usual in person GM)
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 23:58
|
|
|
Splicer posted:That's one third of why the argument was bullshit in 3.x, the other arguments being b) the right tool at the right time is always better than the wrong tool all day, and c) who's going to continue adventuring when the Wizard's tapped out anyway? Bad casters do and it's really annoying when on the first combat they unnecessarily blow all their slots, and then the group has to stop for a long rest else carry dead weight around. Just yesterday I had a game where the Divine Soul Sorcerer was upcasting Healing Word and twinning 1dX Toll the Dead. Bless his heart he was still the better player out of the rest of the party, since he was healing to answer the constant cries of the "I am the tank, heal me, this combat is too hard, DM what is the XP for this combat, it's too hard, I started the fight at 38 HP and now I'm at 10, heal me, I'm the tank" 16 AC Barbarian that didn't Rage until the last two rounds of an 9 round extended battle he initiated, and a 12 HP Hexblade who spent 30 seconds every turn smugly describing how magical he was, how his anime sword changed colors, taunting enemies, and just generally finding excuses to use every single ability he had immediately before, during, and after the fight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 00:03
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:I skimmed through the last couple pages, and I have to say I don't understand why you're all arguing about the DPR merits of Magic Missile at high levels, when a Sorcerer can take 2 Warlock levels and by 11 have equivalent DPR to the most optimized Fighter/Paladin/Ranger while retaining full casting. An 11th level wizard can only cast animate objects twice per day, though? Unless there's some OP option I'm not aware of. Still strong, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:An 11th level wizard can only cast animate objects twice per day, though? Unless there's some OP option I'm not aware of. Still strong, obviously. They can cast it twice using their 5th level slots, once more with a 6th level slot if they want to, and once again by regaining a 5th or 6th level slot on a short rest with Arcane Recovery.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
Oh, right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 00:13
|
|