I'm arguing that, RAW, meteor swarmdoes deal 40d6 damage to worn and carried items because it doesn't say that it doesn't and every other spell that could does say that it doesn't.
It could also be interpreted as "The spell damages objects in the area (and ignites flammable objects) that aren't being worn or carried."
For examples of spells that don't say they don't deal damage to worn and carried items, but that could, I present these: acid arrow, aganazzar's scorcher.
Aganazzar's Scorcher can only damage creatures. Melf's Acid Arrow works, if you target the object instead of the creature that's holding/carrying it.
I'm arguing that, RAW, meteor swarmdoes deal 40d6 damage to worn and carried items because it doesn't say that it doesn't and every other spell that could does say that it doesn't.
It could also be interpreted as "The spell damages objects in the area (and ignites flammable objects) that aren't being worn or carried."
For examples of spells that don't say they don't deal damage to worn and carried items, but that could, I present these: acid arrow, aganazzar's scorcher.
Aganazzar's Scorcher can only damage creatures. Melf's Acid Arrow works, if you target the object instead of the creature that's holding/carrying it.
If we implement these ideas, then people had better start making sure they know about the local bye-laws regarding public nudity!
If we implement these ideas, then people had better start making sure they know about the local bye-laws regarding public nudity!
I wish the DMG actually had rules for attacking worn/carried objects instead of assuming you'd only ever attack unattended objects. As soon as players decide they want to break an enemy spellcaster's staff you find yourself in house rule territory.
I wish the DMG actually had rules for attacking worn/carried objects instead of assuming you'd only ever attack unattended objects. As soon as players decide they want to break an enemy spellcaster's staff you find yourself in house rule territory.
The problem I see with this, is that once somebody has 30+ hit points, it's a no brainer to attempt disarming them. Even more so if they have a magic weapon. In the real world, you are probably better off killing your opponent outright; it's probably easier than disarming a skilled opponent. So we have streamlined combat, where swords never break, leather can survive acid attacks, and that toad on your shoulder is immune to fireballs. Most of the time I appreciate the simplicity.
I expect we'll see those rules you want when WoTC release Combat Options V or whatever they call it. Hopefully they will be fairly simple, and a real gamble to attempt. Expect many more whip wielders when that day arrives (dramatic shudder.) Disarms and weapon breaking manoeuvres should be a relatively rare occurence, but maybe common enough to encourage people to carry a secondary weapon beyond a dagger.
Don't knock house rules - the likes of Mike Mearles only uses house rules! :)
The problem I see with this, is that once somebody has 30+ hit points, it's a no brainer to attempt disarming them. Even more so if they have a magic weapon. In the real world, you are probably better off killing your opponent outright; it's probably easier than disarming a skilled opponent.
I don't think it's as much of a no-brainer as you make it out to be. Fighters, rogues and the likes are going to carry multiple weapons. Combat cantrips very rarely require material components and there's a good number of useful noncantrip spells that don't either: Smite spells, Cure Wounds, Healing Word, Fog Cloud, Magic Missile, Shield, Thunderwave, Misty Step, Silence, Blink, Blur, Counterspell and Dispel Magic just to name a few.
Disarming a magic weapon is a great idea, but still has to be weighed against losing a turn that you could've spent trying to incapacitate them directly. D&D combat usually lasts a very low number of turns. You're unlikely to be able to benefit from the weapon yourself since all the good ones require attunement.
Don't knock house rules - the likes of Mike Mearles only uses house rules! :)
I don't think there's anything wrong with house rules per se, I just think it's an obvious gap in the core rules. They explicitly tell you you can attack objects, but then don't give you a good way of resolving that when the object is in someone's possession.
Combat definitely seems to be "faster" in 5th edition, and with the relative scarcity of magic items, you might find the difference between a fighter's main weapon and his back-up is not as much as it was in say 3.5 or 4th edition. Back then, the weapon was often more important than the wielder (a situation I find personally offensive!).
"Did I not instruct the guards to confiscate their weapons?" someone in Lord of the Rings, looking at Gandalf's staff. I'm not sure how powerful his staff was, but disarming him in round 1 would surely hamper his combat strategy....
Fighter versus wizard. Two enter. One leaves.... by teleporting back to their tower and resuming their studies on how to ascend to godhood. What self-respecting archmage wants to waste their time in a brawl for common entertainment? There's worlds to explore and things to learn!
People seem to forget about terrain. . line of sight line of effect. Yes the wizard had tools.... so does the fighter especially if there is sufficient terrain. What about a woodland terrain against a wood elf fighter. On an open field the wizard probably is the hands up favorite... no fighter worth his salt and who knows what a wizard is would take that chance. However I would tend to agree. . concentration spells pretty much limit what a wizard can focus on. If your damaging your not defending and vice versa. Throwing out the wish spell altogether though. And spells have range. Fighters have con they can run for days. And with shield mastery shield style and defensive duelist they can easily achieve a 23-26 acc ac.a. point is if it's played right it's really a 50 50 scenario depending on how combat starts terrain and patience. And whoever said what if they had no magic. Fighter wouldn't take that fight... nor would it happen. Right items and it's a breeze. . Spell resistances and cube of force indomitable and shield mastery and watch the spell slots dwindle
I have an EK that is built around killing magic users (can't disarm an EK). Taking mage slayer, having counterspell, and a buttload of attacks with action surge and he's got a good shot. At lvl 20, if he would win initiative, take 4 attacks, action surge for another 4 might take one out before it can cast. If not, he can counterspell (hopefully) whatever he casts and have the next round to finish him off. But without counterspell and winning initiative, I don't see winning unless you get some really lucky rolls.
Action Surge: I do no theenk it mean what you theenk it mean.
Care to explain?
No, because re-reading the actual description of action surge : WOW!
I keep telling people at our table the fighter can kick butt, and they keep ignoring me and choosing to play sorcerers and barbarians etc. That action surge is pretty funky!
Sorry, "My name is Inigo" _ I have lost the challenge of brains. As you were.
Action Surge: I do no theenk it mean what you theenk it mean.
Care to explain?
Sorry, "My name is Inigo" _ I have lost the challenge of brains. As you were.
LOL
No worries! I thought the exact same thing until it was explained to me as well. I'm learning new things all the time on rules and character creation/optimization. I like to spend a good amount of time crafting a character before I get into a game so I can just enjoy playing and not worrying about skills, spells, or feats to take during that time. I'm not a power gamer by any stretch of the imagination, I just try to make it so my guy doesn't suck haha.
Honestly, the wizard has soooo many options, that even with little preparation I think the wizard has the upper hand. A wizard can polymorph into a dragon. A wizard can cast wish, and meteor storm. A wizard can become completely invulnerable to all damage. With foresight up, all their attacks are at advantage and all attacks against them are at disadvantage. They can summon allies, they can manipulate the terrain, they can even control the fighter's mind. If things get dicey, they can teleport away, giving them enough time to prepare for the next encounter, if they didn't have enough time in the original scenario. Maybe a fighter would have the upper hand in a 10 x 10 foot cube, but in a more typical setting, that wouldn't be the case. Wizards are also supremely intelligent. They're sure to always have enough tricks up their sleeves to keep them alive, especially if they've survived long enough to make it to level 20, even if they didn't know that this battle was coming and have time to prepare exactly the spells they'd prefer.
A wizard can polymorph into a dragon but one bad constitution saving throw and you lose concentration. The feats Resilient and/or War Caster with a high Constitution would make it very hard to break your concentration but that is several ASI that a wizard might want to use differently. Are most wizards built with a one on one battle against a 20th level fighter in mind?
I agree that this scenario will be almost impossible for the fighter to win without magic and against a well played and well prepared wizard.
The worst case scenario for the wizard would be the fighter surprising him and winning initiative. The wizard couldn’t use a reaction to cast Shield until after his first turn is over. That leaves him with only long duration spells like Mage Armor and Contingency to protect him for that first round. So my question is, what is the best Contingent spell for a wizard to have cast?
My Bladesinger would use False Life for 1d4+24 hit points as contingency standard. However mirror image might also be nice if you new beforehand it was a fighter (less useful if you are hit by another magic user or someone with truesight).
Foresight would be up if mage armor is up though....so no surprise. I have to lean heavy on the wizard assuming he knows he is going into a dangerous situation.
Well then, the Fighter would too. Samurai and all the stuff 'My Name is Inigo' said allows for a lot of attacks, and with a bow or something, you can outrange the Wizard and snipe them till they drop. Sharpshooter feat too so 600 ft with that +3 longbow.....
edit: ok, no spells, but high dexterity with variant Human for Sharpshooter (or whatever de-enables long range disadvantage. I forget) and an oathbow would surely kill that wizard quickly.
Would a 20th level wizard use Foresight as his 9th level spell for the day? I can see using it sometimes, but the versatility of having Wish up your sleave seems a better choice to me.
I have to admit that I’ve never played a 20th level wizard so I don’t have the experience of figuring out what spells to choose each day but the more I think about it, the more I realize why the stereotypical wizard stays in his well guarded tower or goes around incognito.
One spell I was thinking about for Contingency is Mislead. However, I’m not sure how it would work. The spell makes you invisible and puts an illusion of you in your place. So if you get hit by the fighter’s first attack, Contingency is triggered, you become invisible. Are the fighter’s attacks at disadvantage even though you haven’t moved from the space your illusion occupies?
This sort of argument in second edition came down to 'golems cant be hurt by spellcasters we need a fighter with a magic weapon'
In third edition it came down to 'we need a fighter to kill this golem, or a cleric who is buffing themselves. The casters cant hurt it.
4th, I just couldnt bring myself to play it.
In 5th golems can be hurt by mages. The melee necessity is over?
Can a fighter kill a mage? Yes. Can a mage kill a fighter? Yes. Too much depends on situational factors to give the victory to one or the other so debating what could happen won't provide a solution. What should be considered is what do these classes add to a party. Its an easy choice to fill the last slot in a party with a fighter (or barb or pally) if everyone else is wearing pyjama's, flimsy fur loincloths or are otherwise fragile blood bags waiting to be burst. If you have heavy metal poisoning in the party already is a wizard the better choice? Have they become sub par compared to sorcerers and warlocks at t1 and t2? Both classes have something to offer, but the all wizard group is lot more prone to TPK as you play than a the full fighter group.
Normally I have contingency to cast resilient sphere if a breath attack occurs. The 9th level spell I’ve used most often in combat is invulnerability and out of combat is wish. Foresight is great and was used quite often by our bard, but I felt no damage to anything was more effective. There are some super great uses of glyph of warding in a demiplane that will drive a GM nuts for some great buffs too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Roleplaying since Runequest.
In the real world, you are probably better off killing your opponent outright; it's probably easier than disarming a skilled opponent.
So we have streamlined combat, where swords never break, leather can survive acid attacks, and that toad on your shoulder is immune to fireballs. Most of the time I appreciate the simplicity.
Roleplaying since Runequest.
I don't think there's anything wrong with house rules per se, I just think it's an obvious gap in the core rules. They explicitly tell you you can attack objects, but then don't give you a good way of resolving that when the object is in someone's possession.
Combat definitely seems to be "faster" in 5th edition, and with the relative scarcity of magic items, you might find the difference between a fighter's main weapon and his back-up is not as much as it was in say 3.5 or 4th edition. Back then, the weapon was often more important than the wielder (a situation I find personally offensive!).
"Did I not instruct the guards to confiscate their weapons?" someone in Lord of the Rings, looking at Gandalf's staff. I'm not sure how powerful his staff was, but disarming him in round 1 would surely hamper his combat strategy....
Roleplaying since Runequest.
Fighter versus wizard. Two enter. One leaves.... by teleporting back to their tower and resuming their studies on how to ascend to godhood. What self-respecting archmage wants to waste their time in a brawl for common entertainment? There's worlds to explore and things to learn!
People seem to forget about terrain. . line of sight line of effect. Yes the wizard had tools.... so does the fighter especially if there is sufficient terrain. What about a woodland terrain against a wood elf fighter. On an open field the wizard probably is the hands up favorite... no fighter worth his salt and who knows what a wizard is would take that chance. However I would tend to agree. . concentration spells pretty much limit what a wizard can focus on. If your damaging your not defending and vice versa. Throwing out the wish spell altogether though. And spells have range. Fighters have con they can run for days. And with shield mastery shield style and defensive duelist they can easily achieve a 23-26 acc ac.a. point is if it's played right it's really a 50 50 scenario depending on how combat starts terrain and patience. And whoever said what if they had no magic. Fighter wouldn't take that fight... nor would it happen. Right items and it's a breeze. . Spell resistances and cube of force indomitable and shield mastery and watch the spell slots dwindle
I have an EK that is built around killing magic users (can't disarm an EK). Taking mage slayer, having counterspell, and a buttload of attacks with action surge and he's got a good shot. At lvl 20, if he would win initiative, take 4 attacks, action surge for another 4 might take one out before it can cast. If not, he can counterspell (hopefully) whatever he casts and have the next round to finish him off. But without counterspell and winning initiative, I don't see winning unless you get some really lucky rolls.
Action Surge: I do no theenk it mean what you theenk it mean.
Roleplaying since Runequest.
That action surge is pretty funky!
Roleplaying since Runequest.
Honestly, the wizard has soooo many options, that even with little preparation I think the wizard has the upper hand. A wizard can polymorph into a dragon. A wizard can cast wish, and meteor storm. A wizard can become completely invulnerable to all damage. With foresight up, all their attacks are at advantage and all attacks against them are at disadvantage. They can summon allies, they can manipulate the terrain, they can even control the fighter's mind. If things get dicey, they can teleport away, giving them enough time to prepare for the next encounter, if they didn't have enough time in the original scenario. Maybe a fighter would have the upper hand in a 10 x 10 foot cube, but in a more typical setting, that wouldn't be the case. Wizards are also supremely intelligent. They're sure to always have enough tricks up their sleeves to keep them alive, especially if they've survived long enough to make it to level 20, even if they didn't know that this battle was coming and have time to prepare exactly the spells they'd prefer.
A wizard can polymorph into a dragon but one bad constitution saving throw and you lose concentration. The feats Resilient and/or War Caster with a high Constitution would make it very hard to break your concentration but that is several ASI that a wizard might want to use differently. Are most wizards built with a one on one battle against a 20th level fighter in mind?
I agree that this scenario will be almost impossible for the fighter to win without magic and against a well played and well prepared wizard.
The worst case scenario for the wizard would be the fighter surprising him and winning initiative. The wizard couldn’t use a reaction to cast Shield until after his first turn is over. That leaves him with only long duration spells like Mage Armor and Contingency to protect him for that first round. So my question is, what is the best Contingent spell for a wizard to have cast?
My Bladesinger would use False Life for 1d4+24 hit points as contingency standard. However mirror image might also be nice if you new beforehand it was a fighter (less useful if you are hit by another magic user or someone with truesight).
Foresight would be up if mage armor is up though....so no surprise. I have to lean heavy on the wizard assuming he knows he is going into a dangerous situation.
Well then, the Fighter would too. Samurai and all the stuff 'My Name is Inigo' said allows for a lot of attacks, and with a bow or something, you can outrange the Wizard and snipe them till they drop. Sharpshooter feat too so 600 ft with that +3 longbow.....
edit: ok, no spells, but high dexterity with variant Human for Sharpshooter (or whatever de-enables long range disadvantage. I forget) and an oathbow would surely kill that wizard quickly.
Extended Signature! Yay! https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/off-topic/adohands-kitchen/3153-extended-signature-thread?page=2#c21
Haven’t used this account in forever. Still a big fan of crawling claws.
Would a 20th level wizard use Foresight as his 9th level spell for the day? I can see using it sometimes, but the versatility of having Wish up your sleave seems a better choice to me.
I have to admit that I’ve never played a 20th level wizard so I don’t have the experience of figuring out what spells to choose each day but the more I think about it, the more I realize why the stereotypical wizard stays in his well guarded tower or goes around incognito.
One spell I was thinking about for Contingency is Mislead. However, I’m not sure how it would work. The spell makes you invisible and puts an illusion of you in your place. So if you get hit by the fighter’s first attack, Contingency is triggered, you become invisible. Are the fighter’s attacks at disadvantage even though you haven’t moved from the space your illusion occupies?
This sort of argument in second edition came down to 'golems cant be hurt by spellcasters we need a fighter with a magic weapon'
In third edition it came down to 'we need a fighter to kill this golem, or a cleric who is buffing themselves. The casters cant hurt it.
4th, I just couldnt bring myself to play it.
In 5th golems can be hurt by mages. The melee necessity is over?
Can a fighter kill a mage? Yes. Can a mage kill a fighter? Yes. Too much depends on situational factors to give the victory to one or the other so debating what could happen won't provide a solution. What should be considered is what do these classes add to a party. Its an easy choice to fill the last slot in a party with a fighter (or barb or pally) if everyone else is wearing pyjama's, flimsy fur loincloths or are otherwise fragile blood bags waiting to be burst. If you have heavy metal poisoning in the party already is a wizard the better choice? Have they become sub par compared to sorcerers and warlocks at t1 and t2? Both classes have something to offer, but the all wizard group is lot more prone to TPK as you play than a the full fighter group.
Normally I have contingency to cast resilient sphere if a breath attack occurs. The 9th level spell I’ve used most often in combat is invulnerability and out of combat is wish. Foresight is great and was used quite often by our bard, but I felt no damage to anything was more effective. There are some super great uses of glyph of warding in a demiplane that will drive a GM nuts for some great buffs too.