|
Conspiratiorist posted:Some of the mobs you run into (mindless undead) are immune and a handful of things have magic resistance, but for the most part it shouldn't be an issue. Important to note that most of level 7-9 will be spent in two areas crawling with undead.
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 00:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:20 |
|
|
Man I really wanna play Conquest but keep missing chances for it. I spitballed a magic initiate spore druid with Booming Blade and it seems not bad? Not busted or anything, but viable and fun. I think he's cleared Rav stuff but I'll check. Like, damage doesn't compare to cleric but you get things to do while holding on to your big concentration spells, rather than plinking with garbage cantrips. Nehru the Damaja fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Jan 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 00:30
|
|
|
I just found the ruling that Wall of Force (and by extension, a mundane window) are considered Total Cover because Cover is not Concealment and I just want to say I really hate Jeremy loving Crawford deep in my heart.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 02:55
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:I just found the ruling that Wall of Force (and by extension, a mundane window) are considered Total Cover because Cover is not Concealment and I just want to say I really hate Jeremy loving Crawford deep in my heart. link? all i could find was where he said wall of force is total cover, and total cover doesnt necessarily mean sight obstruction, which makes sense with spells like wall of force. I dont get really what point you are trying to make.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 04:36
|
|
|
Proud Rat Mom posted:link? all i could find was where he said wall of force is total cover, and total cover doesnt necessarily mean sight obstruction, which makes sense with spells like wall of force. I dont get really what point you are trying to make. https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/725193970196701184 So, the problem is this:
Mearls, of course, routinely rules the other way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 04:44
|
|
|
reading the wall of force spell, I now see what you are saying. I think a lot of poo poo could have been made clearer if they just used the rules they had actually written down, say people beyond the wall have total cover rather then something nebulous like 'nothing physical can pass the wall'. Instead of using chains of sometimes unclear language that you need to infer to arrive at the correct intention.
Proud Rat Mom fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Jan 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 04:46
|
|
|
Proud Rat Mom posted:reading the wall of force spell, I now see what you are saying. I think a lot of poo poo could have been made clearer if they just refer to the rules they had actually written down (say people beyond the wall have total cover rather then something nebulous like 'nothing physical can pass the wall'. Instead of using chains of sometimes unclear language that you need to infer to arrive at the correct intention. Hey now, their language is all natural.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 04:47
|
|
|
Proud Rat Mom posted:reading the wall of force spell, I now see what you are saying. I think a lot of poo poo could have been made clearer if they just used the rules they had actually written down, say people beyond the wall have total cover rather then something nebulous like 'nothing physical can pass the wall'. Instead of using chains of sometimes unclear language that you need to infer to arrive at the correct intention. Yeah you're right, natural language is loving trash.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 04:50
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/725193970196701184 I am still not sure why this matters? Nothing can pass through the wall other than sight, so you can't target things on the other side anyway. Also why would a mundane window provide the same protection, stuff can go through a window? Added on you can ignore anything Crawford says, he has said so himself. The intent matters more than the words.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 07:05
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Added on you can ignore anything Crawford says, he has said so himself. The intent matters more than the words. Ah yes, the famously clear-to-figure-out intent present in many of 5e's design decisions and later clarifications by the designers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 07:43
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I am still not sure why this matters? Nothing can pass through the wall other than sight, so you can't target things on the other side anyway. That’s the thing, if you can see something, you can target it. Nothing can physically pass through the wall, but would the same be true of, say, Toll the Dead? The spell describes a bell resonating above the head of the target forcing a save. If an invisible wall makes what’s behind it invisible, then you can’t target people behind a wall of force with spells or effects that only require the ability to see the target to affect them. It’s a dumb ruling, ignore it if you’re not DMing at WotC sponsored event.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 08:48
|
|
|
koreban posted:If an invisible wall makes what’s behind it invisible But it does not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 09:43
|
|
|
... guys this is a really, really stupid thing to get wound up about and Toshimo basically got riled up over nothing. Something could be thick and strong enough to provide you total protection from attack rolls, yeah. Makes sense. Doesn't matter if its stone or crystal or super thick glass. Generally most saving throw based spells however only require a target you can see. These work because you aren't going through anything. I've had to deal with this exact same situation with a bunch of mind flayers my party was kicking the poo poo out of and then one of the last three used wall of force around themselves. Didn't help much against the DC Save from a Talisman of Pure Good, however. But yeah. For once what Crawford is saying is actually making complete sense. Cover doesn't have to be opaque to provide full protection. But they can still know you're there for other types of spells/abilities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 12:45
|
|
|
Arthil posted:Generally most saving throw based spells however only require a target you can see. These work because you aren't going through anything. This is not true and the core problem we are discussing. Here is the actual rule text: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 14:04
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:This is not true and the core problem we are discussing. Glass and Wall of force are clear. Thus they provide a clear path. Of course, that means you can't target anything that isn't behind something clear
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 16:18
|
|
|
Clear path implies you could travel along it to the target, in that interpretation glass/force would block the path.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 16:28
|
|
|
"clear" as in "is see-through" is not the same as "has a clear path to", as in "you can trace / walk a path to the target"
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 16:35
|
|
|
Maybe they wrote the rules like this because they knew how important endless arguments are to the feel of D&D. Yeah, I know “puppet master”.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 16:40
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:Maybe they wrote the rules like this because they knew how important endless arguments are to the feel of D&D. Way more intentionality to that than I think the D&D team has *but* I do know some video game devs deliberately put like no effort into documenting or explaining their systems because the people who obsess at figuring them out create communities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 16:42
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:"clear" as in "is see-through" is not the same as "has a clear path to", as in "you can trace / walk a path to the target" It was a joke about sloppy wording
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
HidaO-Win posted:Clear path implies you could travel along it to the target, in that interpretation glass/force would block the path. This. Plus a little common sense. If you’re worried about a mundane window pane providing cover then break through the window so it’s no longer an issue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:This is not true and the core problem we are discussing. I'd just rule it if the spell says "Target you can see" and target makes save the spell will work. If the spell requires you see the target and you're making an attack roll then they're considered behind Total Cover so cannot be hit. I view this as Magic that requires "Target you can see" is the magic is conjured up at the target itself. Whereas magic you make an attack roll is conjured up at your person, then sent out towards the target. But honestly DnD is based on "here are basic rules. We will write specific things that counteract these basic rules. When that happens, the exception to the rule is the rule." They're pretty open about that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 18:37
|
|
|
"a clear path is not the same thing as clear sight" "ok but what if I pretend really hard that I don't understand that"
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 19:05
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:"a clear path is not the same thing as clear sight" The problem is that in same cases (ie Scorching Ray) the first one is obviously important, but in others (like the aforementioned toll the dead, or Bless), it seems like it should be the second. I get what you're saying, and when I first read the complaint I thought "well of course Wall of Force should provide cover", but the way all the rules interact here is a little bit silly. Specifically, the idea that total cover means/requires total concealment (per the PHB) already sounds a bit suspect, and the idea that you can't target someone (period) with total cover is as well. Then, Crawford has gone back and said "oh actually it doesn't matter if the target is concealed" (which I think would be a better ruling), but then interprets it as if it still prevents targeting. Defeatist Elitist fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Jan 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 19:50
|
|
|
Somewhat tangentially: you can't even target something that you can't affect. "Target" has a specific game meaning both as a verb and a noun. Target (v) isn't a discrete thing you do, it's part of your spell or attack, and you can't do those without a valid target (n) which is a temporary designation for the thing you're trying to affect. It's not like a CRPG where you actively target something and then abilities you use that affect targets affect that target until you target something else. Right? Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Jan 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 22:17
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x02enMJDeKM
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 23:38
|
|
|
This is just ridiculous to the point where I'd just ask the DM what their ruling was and say gently caress it as long as they are consistent because obviously players at the table cannot agree
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 02:06
|
|
|
Joking aside, this is real fuckin' simple. Spells are this-use-only exceptions to other rules. That's what they're for. You have to assume that the spell does exactly what it says it does, instead of what another spell or effect does which is kind of similar but not the same. If this spell provided total cover, it would say so. It doesn't. It says "nothing physical can pass through". You can conjure a stinking cloud on the far side (or the inside) of a wall of force, because you're not creating a physical effect that goes through the barrier, you just pick a point of origin within range. You can't throw a firebolt through a wall of force because you "create a mote of fire which you hurl...", and physical objects can't move through the barrier. Again, this is intentional. Spells are exceptions, they're little mini-rules of their own. This edition is based on natural language. The whole loving point of every spell being worded differently is to enable that specific kind of oldschool "clever" play where you ping your firebolt off the invisible shield and then realise what's up and conjure an effect behind it instead, all without having to have a system that says Keyword [PHYSICAL]: requires physcial path-to-target cross reference Lines Of Effect rules page XXY cross reference [BLOCK], [SHIELD], [RANGED] keywords, which is "too dry". It doesn't matter whether you like it or not, but it's blindingly obvious that the intent is that spells work like this. It was a big part of the marketing, it's a big part of the text. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Jan 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 03:29
|
|
|
If you can target through a Wall of Force, can you target through a normal wall if you have a Ring of X-Ray Vision?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 03:39
|
|
|
Elysiume posted:If you can target through a Wall of Force, can you target through a normal wall if you have a Ring of X-Ray Vision? You can, in fact, target a target you can see when the spell you're using says "a target you can see". Whether or not you can hit it, you can target it. Try throwing a lightning bolt through stone wall, it doesn't work, it originates from you and ends at the wall, igniting any flammable objects. Try Conjuring a Celestial through a stone wall and yeah, it works, it happens at "an unoccupied space that you can see within range". Unless "an unoccupied space you can see within range" really means "the extinct dodo bird" because time is actually a flat circle and thus words only don't not have dismeanings on opposite day, I guess, in which case it doesn't not work the same opposite way if the ruleset is sufficiently moist, Mars is retrograde in Taurus, and Jeremy Crawford has experienced an unfortunately literal death of the author.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 04:01
|
|
|
Just because you don't like Crawford or Mearls doesn't mean they aren't the ones with the authority to clarify rules. Wall of Force grants total cover, you can't cast spells at a target behind total cover. Your absurd strawman and pointless hostility don't do anything to support your argument.Elector_Nerdlingen posted:Again, this is intentional. Spells are exceptions, they're little mini-rules of their own. This edition is based on natural language. The whole loving point of every spell being worded differently is to enable that specific kind of oldschool "clever" play where you ping your firebolt off the invisible shield and then realise what's up and conjure an effect behind it instead, all without having to have a system that says Keyword [PHYSICAL]: requires physcial path-to-target cross reference Lines Of Effect rules page XXY cross reference [BLOCK], [SHIELD], [RANGED] keywords, which is "too dry". In my case, I didn't even try to cast spells through a Wall of Force because 1) in earlier editions you simply couldn't, 2) if you could then 60 castings of various cantrips kills anything that can't teleport or cast disintegrate and I didn't want my DM to roll his eyes at me. Elysiume fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Jan 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 04:21
|
|
|
Are swashbuckler rogues decent as far as doing damage and being able to do sneaky/charisma stuff outside of combat? Or would a swords bard work better? Starting a ravnica campaign soon and I want to be a sneaky but charming rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 04:30
|
|
|
Mr. Humalong posted:Are swashbuckler rogues decent as far as doing damage and being able to do sneaky/charisma stuff outside of combat? Or would a swords bard work better? Starting a ravnica campaign soon and I want to be a sneaky but charming rear end in a top hat. Depends on what the rest of your group is doing. If you guys are lacking in single target damage then a rogue is good. If you’re lacking in casters then the bard would be better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 04:37
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:Unless "an unoccupied space you can see within range" really means "the extinct dodo bird" because time is actually a flat circle and thus words only don't not have dismeanings on opposite day, I guess, in which case it doesn't not work the same opposite way if the ruleset is sufficiently moist, Mars is retrograde in Taurus, and Jeremy Crawford has experienced an unfortunately literal death of the author. (DMG pg. 156)
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 05:00
|
|
Glory to Italia!
|
For my two cents, I suspect that they didn't think though the Natural Language connotations of invisible concealment and we're only talking about coverage of normal opaque cover in the cover rules. I'm going to recommend my party carry around glass tower shields now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 05:02
|
|
|
Elysiume posted:In my case, I didn't even try to cast spells through a Wall of Force because 1) in earlier editions you simply couldn't Found the source of the "confusion".
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 05:17
|
|
|
e: nah
Elysiume fucked around with this message at 05:54 on Jan 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 05:51
|
|
|
Elysiume posted:In my case, I didn't even try to cast spells through a Wall of Force because 1) in earlier editions you simply couldn't, 2) if you could then 60 castings of various cantrips kills anything that can't teleport or cast disintegrate and I didn't want my DM to roll his eyes at me. It depends on the spell what can go through the wall. You can conjure or create something outside it if the spell says you can.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 05:55
|
|
|
Elysiume posted:It's not confusion when every source agrees with me. This thread is a cesspit. Every Source? Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 06:02 on Jan 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 05:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:20 |
|
|
Guess Mearls and Sage Advice contradict one another. Maybe I was wrong and they should just be ignored--they really should've done actual errata/FAQ instead of the stupid Sage Advice/random twitter post mess. If people want to rule that Wall of Force does/doesn't provide cover or that said cover does/doesn't affect the rule for targeting a spell, that's their prerogative.
Elysiume fucked around with this message at 06:20 on Jan 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 06:04
|
|