|
If you absolutely must have dozens of things on the board at once and track everything's health, you should look into streamlining combat between less-important NPCs, e.g. by simply having them deal a set amount of damage to one another rather than rolling to hit and rolling for damage each time. If skeleton guys 1-12 always have a 50% chance of dealing an average of 8 damage to villagers 1-12, just let them automatically deal 4 damage each turn to a villager and move on. Definitely consider whether your aims can be accomplished with fewer mobs overall, though
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2019 02:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 09:48 |
|
|
The Taxman posted:E: what are everybody's opinions on a Divination wizard using augury to bet all of their money on red at roulette? Another player in one of my sessions tried to use this and it caused a big argument. you say "okay, solid effort, I'll let you do this for some amount of gain once because it's cool and creative but obviously we can't let the game be entirely about this so it's only working once." and then you do not use it to introduce a bunch of casino-related concepts and worldbuilding unless you really, really want to make the entire campaign about those things. if the money is somehow a serious issue for the campaign then I think "when you wait to bet until augury returns 'weal', a good thing happens but it's not necessarily making money" is also a perfectly reasonable dm response because augury is explicitly very imperfect as a predictive tool. gold has no specific meaningful gameplay function that isn't already gated by "dm may I" (e.g. it cannot add to your rolls or increase spell slots without a player first asking hey so can I buy a thing that--") so as long as you take the party's now doubled gold into account when setting prices, it doesn't really matter going forward. If they use it to obtain something that previously seemed out of reach, that's a neat and memorable thing for a player to do and now we've all learned a valuable lesson about using GP pricing as a narrative gate. trying to game out the casino divination countermeasures is the easiest way to ensure the argument continues forever. Valentin fucked around with this message at 13:47 on May 14, 2023 |
|
#
¿
May 14, 2023 13:40
|
|
|
as a rules fight it's nothing, because augury just straight up doesn't work like that (imagining a divination gambler giving up very quickly because every single question returns "weal and woe" because victory at the table only pulls her deeper into her addiction, while losses take the shine off of gambling but lose her money). as a table fight it should be nothing because you either go "alright nice one" and reward it or "hey come on Jim you know that shortcuts the whole campaign" and handle it that way. the whole thing is a great learning exercise and litmus test. Valentin fucked around with this message at 14:08 on May 14, 2023 |
|
#
¿
May 14, 2023 14:06
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I'm wondering if maybe there's a design "issue"* with 5e, whenever I google "How to Multiclass classes X and Y?" I for the most part, with most combinations I could think of that for narrative reasons sound fun, get the results of "These two classes conflict in fundamental ways." with most solutions/workarounds being unsatisfying. the design issue you are trying to identify is called "ability scores", more or less. you can poke around at other issues but so long as most classes have central power mechanics (and that includes "hit stuff with basic attack") that scale directly with specific ability scores, ability score dependency will govern what multiclassing decisions work well within the math. this is why all the CHA casters multiclass well in basically any combination (esp. with hexblade patron available) and only need to pay attention to spell level/ASI power spikes, while wizards can go gently caress themselves re multiclassing and barbarians would have huge issues even without the "can't cast while raging" problem. this is also why a lot of multiclass optimization guides boil down to "can you get access to shillelagh/hexblade" there are certainly particular design decisions that intensify the problem and give 5e its particular multiclass flavor (warlock and paladin are extremely frontloaded and don't need class levels to scale effectively; monk and ranger have multiple ability multiclass requirements and aren't similarly frontloaded, so the WIS classes don't get the same benefits despite there being so many; the aforementioned barbarian issue; there is only one INT caster; most capstones suck), but ability scores are the primary issue and most of the secondary issues as well. even 4e's hybrid system, which superficially looks like a ground-up "combine any class with any class", has combination effectiveness fundamentally limited by primary ability score selection Valentin fucked around with this message at 16:01 on Aug 10, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2023 15:30
|
|
|
yeah the character i play in a friend's campaign who intentionally exists as a gap-filler who doesn't steal the show is just warlock 2/bard X because warlock 2 gives you access to five million benefits (best and most reliable cantrip in the game that scales only with character level and offers CC as well; free war caster if you don't want repelling blast; medium armor, shield and martial proficiency; uses for bonus actions; a striker "+damage" mechanic in hexblade's curse) and all you really lose is a little bit of spell progression. you can spam eldritch blast in all situations and keep every spell slot for utility if you want.
Valentin fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Aug 10, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2023 16:08
|
|
|
I mean 4e very much has a sword and spell class in the swordmage, which iirc showed up well before eldritch strike (i.e. the formal melee support for warlock gishes)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2023 23:28
|
|
|
sure? I'm just saying warlock isn't the gish in 4e, it's the class literally called swordmage (which was like, the first or second additional class released and got a ton of support over the editions lifetime)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2023 23:31
|
|
|
ah yeah absolutely. 3.5 and 4e also both include the bladesinger which was sort of an attempt to make the gish a specifically elven archetype as (I assume) a throwback to the old school dnd elf, but iirc no one played them because they weren't really good at gishing or anything else
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2023 23:37
|
|
|
multiclassing is a problem because class design is a problem because 5e has bone-deep issues as a system. The fact that the first level of warlock is massively more interesting than basically anything else is an indictment of how boring most other levels are, and the fact that it's much more powerful speaks to how empty 5e's design is. it's always better to do more damage consistently (multiple attack rolls!) than less damage inconsistently, so it's always better to pick up eldritch blast than pretty much any other cantrip (hey here's a good question: why is eldritch blast, which is clearly supposed to be a defining warlock feature, tied inherently to the cross-class friendly spell system? What the gently caress kind of choice was that?). It's always better to minimize ability score multidependencies (DTAS) so consolidating to CHA for all save targets and damage is always the right move. It's always better to have a wider array of options than fifteen gradations of strength for one option, so except for certain spell level breakpoints you'd almost always rather expand your spell list laterally than get e.g. more spell smites. There's five million charisma casters, also, for no reason, making the problem worse. If there were more interesting things to do than damage or save-or-suck, multiclassing wouldn't be a problem the way it is. If the game wasn't shackled to ability scores, multiclassing wouldn't be a problem the way it is. If it wasn't so incredibly easy to make a subpar character (with the range of effectiveness that entails), multiclassing wouldn't be a problem the way it is. but they like all those old canards, so multiclassing will continue to be a problem. e: now I'm thinking about non-spell ways to have a warlock that maintains its striker caster energy, like not by having The Good Cantrip And Its Upgrades but by bonus action shooting eldritch lasers every round. WARLOCK UNSHACKLING USHABTI OMNIGUN double e: like barbarian gets +2 rage damage and a couple subclass features after level 5. there's no reason not to run basically any other class on top of that chassis once you hit that point unless you really, really want to, like, cast augury once a day as a spell-like ability. of course multiclassing is rampant when most classes in this game are only designed through level 6 or level 11 (while the spell system runs all the way to 17). Valentin fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Jan 4, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2024 04:43
|
|
|
just learned about catnap and i don't think i've ever been more irritated at something in a game before. the world's dumbest little bandaid that shows they understand short rests are a problem in their design but absolutely won't do anything to fix it lmao
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2024 19:20
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:(snip) you have successfully identified the issue that hexblade is very good, yeah. but that's not what I'm talking about. the problem is that paladin levels 7-11 (maybe 8-11 if you have a decent subclass feature) are just a wasteland. man yeah I'd love to cast aura of vitality and spirit shroud. that owns so hard. I'd love to get a minor math tweak worth ~2.5 damage per round. gently caress that poo poo owns. I'd way rather have that than the ability to shoot people from 120 feet away forever, a piece of added versatility I can't acquire from basically anywhere else in the game with way, way bigger implications for how I can play on a round to round basis e: and the only reason I'm not extending to 12 is because it has an ASI, the only cudgel they could find to encourage singleclassing Valentin fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Jan 5, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2024 17:14
|
|
|
ASIs are easily the worst part of character progression, yeah. 4e's feat tax problem, built into the game from day 1, in a way designed to make you take dead levels in the hopes of one day acquiring a +1 to your core combat stat, after they already theoretically fixed the feat tax problem with bounded accuracy and scaling proficiency bonus.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2024 18:19
|
|
|
Verisimilidude posted:I think a lot of people have to also consider that many players, perhaps even most players, don't view building their character as a series of strategic steps to increase numerical efficiency, but rather building their character is a series of moment-to-moment choices that make thematic sense, or are done purely for fun. yes, all this is true. It's another reason multiclassing is a problem, because the moment to moment thematic sense and fun choices are way stronger and more interesting at level 1 of a new class than they are at a dead level. A level 9 paladin has literally no character building choices to make at level up. also, nothing you're saying requires a system that is poorly balanced or designed. Valentin fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Jan 5, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2024 21:06
|
|
|
no, it's ridiculous. like when galahad defeats his father lancelot at only 15 despite being raised by nuns, then gets immediately knighted, gets the seat at the round table only for the guy who's gonna find the holy grail, then gets given a magic sword. how'd that guy get good at swordfighting. it's childish and I'm tired of it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2024 06:48
|
|
|
defining neutral evil against law and chaos is easy. finding any daylight between it and chaotic neutral, on the other hand,
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2024 21:34
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:I've always felt the problem with this is that it requires an outside context definition of "god". Like, Mystra's definitely one of a kind of thing, the same way Human is a kind of thing, and Elminster is one, the same way your pet Snowshoes is a cat, your friend Elara is an elf. The word for the kind of thing Mystra is, is "god". "I don't want to worship the gods" makes sense to me, "mystra isn't a god" strikes me as a little silly, it's like declaring that your friend Elara isn't an elf because she doesn't spend her time making toys at the north pole. I think to come to that conclusion you need to a) have a definition of "god" that Mystra doesn't fit, and b) have an explanation of why you've decided to adopt that definition, even though it disagrees with literally everyone else's definition. nah. all you need is a pre-existing concept for "super powerful magic user" and it immediately becomes clear they all slot cleanly into it. must just be super powerful magic users. like where is the difference between elminster and mystra for jonicus dirtfarm.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2024 18:53
|
|
|
the problem is "faith" makes no sense in such a setting to begin with and is glaringly obviously a holdover from the writers' own cultural milieu, along with e.g. every religious org being styled like a Christian church despite the world being openly and obviously and metaphysically literally polytheistic. which is also why the forgotten realms pantheon has "actually just the Christian god and he doesn't grant powers and you do have to just kind of believe on faith" at the top of its hierarchy too.
Valentin fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Feb 2, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2024 19:03
|
|
|
in some respects more like catholic saints if they were tetchy and you didn't believe there was an actual god empowering them (even though, again, there is lol) than gods, really. Oh yeah I say a prayer to st. christopher when I travel and I light a candle for st. raphael when the kids are sick. The local lathanderan brothers make great ale. etc.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2024 19:30
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:You're right that "faith" is nonsensical in a setting with direct evidence of divine intervention around nearly every corner, but FR's temples and churches aren't all like that. There are religions who proselytize, like Lathander's, and religions that don't, like Malar's. It really depends on what the god's portfolio is. "styled like" is not the same as "they are christian proselytizers"? like many of them are organized along obviously christian monastic lines also you're misreading the implied part of my statement, which is not "you must worship ao" but "if you do worship ao you would have to" PeterWeller posted:Well, that's because Catholic saints are mostly a way to syncretize local and pagan gods into Christian theology. i think there's a lot of ways to say this general thing that are true but you picked like the one specific phrasing that isn't lmao
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2024 19:53
|
|
|
well because there's lots of super powerful magic users and some call themselves gods and some call themselves demons and some say elementals and some say wizards but there's no particular reason to privilege the title any one of them uses. the cleanest answer is probably "peasants know who the gods are in the forgotten realms and that they are in a special category because every extraplanar entity and magic user is like 'oh that's a god, I'm a demon, he's a yugoloth' and they all agree on those categories" but at that point it all feels a bit tautological
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2024 22:24
|
|
|
Yusin posted:Devils also come to the waiting souls and offer infernal bargains if a soul is not confident in their final fate and tire of waiting. giving every devil in games I dm attention disorders to explain why they took the world's dumbest deal out of literal sheer boredom
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2024 22:37
|
|
|
I guess where we differ is that to my view I'm highlighting a certain kind of conspiratorial thinking (these people/systems serve the same roles and do the same things, they must be connected and also lying about who they are, which easily gets you to "gods aren't real or if they are, those aren't gods") and also don't necessarily consider it inherently silly or irrational. you can easily believe jonicus is a wizard usurper who has falsely taken the throne on the order of thay and also that Kingship is real and there is a True Real King somewhere, even if you've never lived under what you think a Real True King (idealized) is and have only known lovely petty versions of the same and in fact those are the only versions that have ever existed. and depending on the year and the kingdom that could be a perfectly rational and even correct belief. e: if you said "if the gods were real and as powerful as they claim, they would never have allowed us to suffer so under the spellplague, but I know gods must be real. these gods are clearly false weak mortal usurpers who only have power that is a reflection of the true gods" you would be like 60% right about some things and also in my understanding definitely bound for the wall Valentin fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Feb 2, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2024 22:42
|
|
|
do faerun gods walk around talking about being defy-able and vincible? part of the standard greco-roman polytheist package is usually a sense of superiority and inevitability and hatred of defiance. that certainly seems true of e.g. bg3 mystra. I get what you're saying re: theism but the issue is that it's not a "why would a peasant call them not a god" but "why did you call these things gods and bring up the idea of faith in setting if they're not gods in a meaningful or comprehensible religious sense where faith matters, this is abysmally stupid". Valentin fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Feb 2, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2024 22:59
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I think players should be allowed to do stupid things and suffer the consequences. I don't think DMs should go out of their way to protect them from their own foolishness. sure but I would also like to run and play this game, as a DM, and not watch my players walk themselves into an obvious derailment that will upset at least one person and ruin our collective night.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2024 20:27
|
|
|
attunement is nonsense because the problem it solves is "my player wants to wear twelve rings at once" which has like fifteen other solutions which include "do not give them twelve stacking magical rings" and "God, no, Dave. This has to be a game everyone plays" and "idk just let them do it if it'll be a cool moment." it's supposed to be a serious business "do not gently caress with this limit" rule and yet I've played in a number of campaigns where no one even brushed up against it. it's a hard limit to prevent exploits of the magic item economy in a game in which the magic item economy is "uhhh whatever the DM wants." attunement doesn't even prevent specific degenerate combos or anything it's just "three seems like a good manageable number". it was supposed to keep magic items feeling interesting and unique and yet the sourcebooks are nonetheless clogged with them because, surprise, people like magic items. It's also supposed to fix magic item balance by ensuring martials better benefit from them (because their +2 plate doesn't need attunement)....unless you have unarmored defense, in which case gently caress you. gently caress with it all you like, but understand that far far more important than the mechanical limit on what your players can do is what you, the dm, actually let them obtain in the first place. Valentin fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Mar 11, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2024 18:47
|
|
|
Caphi posted:Who actually uses Unarmored Defense, anyway? You're better off wearing even lovely armor if you have less than like 18 con. bracers of defense exist explicitly for unarmored characters as a patch for how bad unarmored defense is, but require attunement and are locked at +2, was my point. 5e's design defeating itself at every turn including by making unarmored defense almost unimaginably bad was not the point I was trying to make but I do agree with it
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2024 19:02
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:Re: Magic Items this is a feature and not a bug imo. more games and more campaigns should strive to let this happen organically
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2024 19:49
|
|
|
man I would love to know how much use "teleport between 10 and 80 feet as a bonus action" gets across all 5e play. kind of a big variance in outcomes there
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2024 14:34
|
|
|
tbh I was not particularly impressed by it (10 feet of teleportation doesn't seem worth it for a resource expenditure) but reading soulknife now I'm seeing it has relatively little to spend that resource on to begin with so the ability becomes comparatively better, especially since the other primary thing you can spend it on (adding to accuracy of psionic knife attacks) is limited by the usefulness of the psionic knives compared to other attack options which is ehhh just okay because of wizards' insane fear that if you let the class that summons knives as a class feature use those knives for anything other than a very specific set of actions, this will somehow break the game
Valentin fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Mar 28, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2024 15:08
|
|
|
honestly i've never played at a table with a rogue at that level, so i would say my rogues are doing zero roguing but it's a useful framing. i wasn't even thinking outside the grid; at 9th level 99% of parties i've been in would simply cast dimension door 1-3 times if a teleportation-solvable problem arose during exploration.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2024 00:18
|
|
|
Outrail posted:Versatile trickster just lets you distract enemies in combat. That it improves combat utility of MH suggests to me AT was intended for MH combat use. this is a misread in two key ways. VT is the sole combat use because gaining advantage in combat gives access to sneak attack, and facilitating access to sneak attack is common in rogue subclasses. also, the fact that only one use is enumerated specifically and without any "mage hand can also..." text should suggest that this is the sole exception, not that it's an entree into making the mage hand a part of combat overall. you're granted one specific limited exception to mage hand's inability to affect combat. you are of course free to try to argue otherwise (natural language, rule 0, etc), but 5e is built around a lot of this kind of very specific exception-based design. to compare to another rogue subclass, the soulknife uses psychic knives...that literally only pop into existence for the duration of your attack. you might say "ah, can i manifest a psychic knife to intimidate my cell guard, even though i am unarmed?" and RAW you simply may not. you may only hit him with it. or use it to teleport. 5e masquerades in some small respects as a game that supplies general rules and asks you to use imagination and adjudicate on the fly to cover the rest but the mechanical core it rests on and devotes most of its design to doesn't leave a lot of room for creative interpretation (except where the rules were poorly written and accidentally ambiguous, which happens much more than they intend). Valentin fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Mar 31, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2024 15:33
|
|
|
i'm not arguing anything about the soulknife. i'm telling you the soulknife is intentionally and specifically written that way. quote:Whenever you take the Attack action, you can manifest a psychic blade from your free hand and make the attack with that blade. This magic blade is a simple melee weapon with the finesse and thrown properties. It has a normal range of 60 feet and no long range, and on a hit, it deals psychic damage equal to 1d6 plus the ability modifier you used for the attack roll. The blade vanishes immediately after it hits or misses its target, and it leaves no mark on its target if it deals damage. it is simply a knife that exists only for the purpose of a single attack, and later at level 9 for a teleport action. RAW, it exists and can be used in no other scenario. you actually can't even use it to take an opportunity attack. this kind of design is not uncommon in 5e. similarly, mage hand's uses are very sharply delineated. you went through all of them already. those are the seven specific things it can do. several of them actually arguably are combat actions (i'm thinking half the time one would "pour the contents out of a vial" in d&d it's a healing potion into someone's unconscious mouth, and "manipulate an object" has an incredibly broad remit), but none of them are offensive, and you are explicitly barred from using it to make any attack rolls against someone else (and grapples, shoves, disarms, etc. are all attacks in 5e). you can try to edge case argue to use it against someone else in an offensive way that doesn't rise to the level of an attack, but that's very clearly against the intended design (and also wouldn't be the result of a "key class feature"; if mage hand is manipulating like, the clasp on the lich's phylactery amulet, you can do that from level one wizard, it's just object manipulation and the ability has no "carried by/not carried by" distinction for that clause). picking components from pouches actually does seem within RAW to me (assuming the spell component pouch is unlocked, and i don't see why it would be), but also RAW there's basically zero support for NPC spellcasters having component pouches or foci so in most cases you're constrained by whatever your dm invents on the spot. there are simply very bad rules for thievery and interacting with your opponent during combat so 99% of the problems here are not about mage hand but about whether it's reasonable in combat adjudication to e.g. let someone try to rip away the NPC wizard's spell component pouch, which is functionally the same action. it's a hand, so it's already only doing thing a hand could do. what you are asking for is less "can i use this ability inventively" and more "is it reasonable to allow a whole new class of combat action to be invented that enables anyone to inflict statuses or interfere with someone else's equipment with just their hands and no special rule" and that is a road it is generally best not to go down. Valentin fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Mar 31, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2024 16:13
|
|
|
like fundamentally this is just a retread of "can a thief use their bonus action sleight of hand to steal something off an opponent mid-combat" and the answer is that the rules on that are so non-existent it is simply up to the dm within the confines of your exercise, there's no reason to think it can't open a container carried by someone, as far as i can tell. there's no limitation on "open an unlocked door or container" and no other text to read it against to suggest someone can't be carrying the container (as there is with the "stow/retrieve" part). taking a straightforward read of the ability i think there's no reason to think it can't: manipulate a buckle or clasp, open a spell component pouch, lower a helmet visor, grab a wizard's spellbook (if under 10lbs and not in their hands), remove the arrows from a quiver, etc. it's just that all of those are gonna be naturally extremely dm-dependent and personally i think the correct answer to take on any of them is pretty clearly "not as a general rule" because otherwise combat can very readily become about constant improvisation of DCs and rolls on the dm's end, and 5e's design especially recently imo tends to support the "combat actually has distinct and special rules and cannot be run as a natural extension of the fictional game world" approach. Valentin fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Mar 31, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2024 16:34
|
|
|
Staltran posted:Why on earth would a lich be wearing their phylactery? That's just deliberately creating a single point of failure, and is completely counter to the point of having a phylactery in the first place. well no one said it's their phylactery. liches can be friends! if two liches trade phylacteries and then part ways to go pursue their evil machinations in separate parts of the continent, they get notice of each other's death and a chance to secure the other's phylactery against interference. the dead one regenerates in a safe place with a friend and then the friend has another lich to help them go snag their soul again and re-bind it to a new phylactery. bone buds. you're not gonna make a set of magical guards more fierce or location more obscure than whatever defenses your buddy already has, and then the guardian of your phylactery is another lich, which is basically the only kind of powerful undead you can't make. i'm talking myself into double lich campaign. Valentin fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Mar 31, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2024 16:51
|
|
|
just completely wrecking every encounter until you meet the ultimate enemy: arthur from ghosts n goblins
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2024 17:19
|
|
|
light is a very cool mechanic if you adjudicate it meticulously, have a dungeon or other scenario that is geared towards its use (and ideally tuned around it to at least some extent), and everyone is on board to keep track of it and understands the rules so I would say light is mostly a very bad mechanic, particularly since I do not think a single shred of thought went into who gets darkvision and who doesn't besides "what did old editions do" and it doesn't really help to be like "well actually most dms don't run it correctly" because disadvantage on perception checks is Not Rockin but 90% of the time it doesn't matter and 9.9% of the time it matters because the players are sneaking. Valentin fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Apr 3, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2024 02:20
|
|
|
yeah imo the problem with darkvision is precisely in how it is basically randomly split across characters, which will naturally result in split parties and encourage everyone to centralize towards an approach that favors one side for reasons of efficiency (dm doesn't wanna track torches) or tactics (it makes us the players stealthier). give it to everyone or to no one, though restricting it to dwarves and gnomes does admittedly get you a decent chunk of the way to banning it outright at a lot of tables. you can see this problem throughout 5e elsewhere too. short/long rests is a very obvious pain point with the exact same issue.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2024 02:41
|
|
|
Kaal posted:You draw the needed material component out of your pouch, cast booming blade, don’t have a melee weapon to make the attack, and the spell fails. the material component is the weapon. it's a stupid and obtuse idea but I don't think you can defeat it by being more obtuse. Valentin fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Apr 7, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2024 00:28
|
|
|
so a melee weapon created from the component pouch is not a melee weapon? Is there a basis for that in the RAW?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2024 01:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 09:48 |
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:the component pouch doesnt “create” anything - its the implied stuff you picked up to cast spells with later instead of making you actually pay attention to what spells cost. you can choose to pay attention to spell components instead if youre obsessed with RAW quote:A component pouch is a small, watertight leather belt pouch that has compartments to hold all the material components and other special items you need to cast your spells, except for those components that have a specific cost (as indicated in a spell's description). I struggle to find a way to read this to suggest anything other than that a component pouch contains all components except those that have a specified cost. The fact that melee weapons were listed as a component with no cost implied they were held in a pouch until they were cast. That's why this got errata'd. What am I missing? e: like what seems to be suggested by the replies I'm getting is that a component pouch contains not e.g. bat guano but the vague gameplay essence of bat guano needed to cast a spell. But that is simply not what is said. The pouch is not a material focus replacing the need for components, it literally and explicitly contains all non-costed components. That's stupid, and adding a cost to the weapon in BB/GFB to make the component pouch not a melee weapon container is stupid, but it seems pretty straightforwardly true by what's written. Valentin fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Apr 7, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2024 01:26
|
|