LOL. You think this stuff is bad, you should check out some of the drivel coming out of Coleville. It even comes with holier-than-thou attitude on top. /killmenow!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Husband, Father, Veteran, Gamer, DM, Player, and Friend | Author of the "World of Eirador" | http://world-guild.com "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." ~Gary Gygax
LOL. You think this stuff is bad, you should check out some of the drivel coming out of Coleville. It even comes with holier-than-thou attitude on top. /killmenow!
Oh man I thought Coleville had some decent stuff.... But then again it's been a while since I checked most of it out.
#3 is annoying linguistically, but the result makes sense most of the time as most features that specify "attack with a melee weapon" affect the weapon itself in some way, which isn't appropriate for unarmed strike.
#1 and 2 are annoying, but are a reasonable reading of the text.
#4 is a statement of RAI, but not the RAW, the actual requirement is that the spell target one creature and be unable to target more than one creature. The fact that this one made it into sage advice is just ridiculous.
LOL. You think this stuff is bad, you should check out some of the drivel coming out of Coleville. It even comes with holier-than-thou attitude on top. /killmenow!
What do you mean? Matt Colville isn't a designer for D&D, unlike Crawford. Therefore his advice or opinions doesn't have any bearing on the design of the game. Also I've never got a 'holier-than-thou' vibe from him
#3 is annoying linguistically, but the result makes sense most of the time as most features that specify "attack with a melee weapon" affect the weapon itself in some way, which isn't appropriate for unarmed strike.
#1 and 2 are annoying, but are a reasonable reading of the text.
#4 is a statement of RAI, but not the RAW, the actual requirement is that the spell target one creature and be unable to target more than one creature. The fact that this one made it into sage advice is just ridiculous.
Oh yeah I see they are RAW but it's just... Bad writing I guess. You are 💯 correct tho as they are apparently RAW and RAI for most.
The weapon one makes the least sense as natural weapons work with smite but a regular unarmed attack doesn't. Then they come out with a Dhamphir that gets to smite with it's bite.
They have an annoying trend of fixing stuff by adding a new subclass/race/magic item instead of trying to fix the base issue.
LOL. You think this stuff is bad, you should check out some of the drivel coming out of Coleville. It even comes with holier-than-thou attitude on top. /killmenow!
What do you mean? Matt Colville isn't a designer for D&D, unlike Crawford. Therefore his advice or opinions doesn't have any bearing on the design of the game. Also I've never got a 'holier-than-thou' vibe from him
He publishes a D&D series "Running the game" on Youtube. His know-it-all way of speaking makes me gag. Probably just me, but dang I can't stand him. You know how you once in a while meet someone and instantly think "This person is a xxxx!" That's that guy! (to me). Just my personal opinion. Crawford though, he seems quite humble in how he speaks and presents himself. Much prefer those kinds of folks, even if they mix things up occasionally (Re: this topic). :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Husband, Father, Veteran, Gamer, DM, Player, and Friend | Author of the "World of Eirador" | http://world-guild.com "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." ~Gary Gygax
LOL. You think this stuff is bad, you should check out some of the drivel coming out of Coleville. It even comes with holier-than-thou attitude on top. /killmenow!
What do you mean? Matt Colville isn't a designer for D&D, unlike Crawford. Therefore his advice or opinions doesn't have any bearing on the design of the game. Also I've never got a 'holier-than-thou' vibe from him
He publishes a D&D series "Running the game" on Youtube. His know-it-all way of speaking makes me gag. Probably just me, but dang I can't stand him. You know how you once in a while meet someone and instantly think "This person is a xxxx!" That's that guy! (to me). Just my personal opinion. Crawford though, he seems quite humble in how he speaks and presents himself. Much prefer those kinds of folks, even if they mix things up occasionally (Re: this topic). :)
It's funny you say that because I've heard that about JC a lot especially with his calls.
I think he puts on better airs for video content but I do think he's been a bit of a dick on Twitter.
He usually just repeats what the book says and offers little insight. He also will never admit they made mistakes in design which is a pretty big negative personality trait to me.
Jeremy rarely "makes calls" when asked rules questions on Twitter. He usually explains what's written in the book, not what he'd personally do, what he recommends most people do, or how he'd write it today with hindsight. Sometimes the rules as written are dumb.
As for me, the original ruling that you could use Shield Master before its pre-requisite attack made no sense. Jeremy also doesn't seem to see a problem with the multiclassing rules causing half-casters to lose caster level, which makes me sad because it'll probably never get errata.
Jeremy rarely "makes calls" when asked rules questions on Twitter. He usually explains what's written in the book, not what he'd personally do, what he recommends most people do, or how he'd write it today with hindsight. Sometimes the rules as written are dumb.
As for me, the original ruling that you could use Shield Master before its pre-requisite attack made no sense. Jeremy also doesn't seem to see a problem with the multiclassing rules causing half-casters to lose caster level, which makes me sad because it'll probably never get errata.
I used Shield Master after the first attack but before the second most of the time. Still do because the rule is jank.
Yeah yet another thing they "fixed" by making artificer get spellcasting at first level so you don't lose progression.
They have hindsight they just put it into a new subclass or whatever.
Ranger know too few spells? Gloomstalker gets spells known.
Sorcerer knows too few spells? Clockwork like doubles spells known.
Pact of Blade not really work? Hexblade let's you use CHA weapons.
Stuff they should do for all the subclasses but instead put into one.
The one I thing I keep seeing causing problems for people is the "Melee weapon attack" vs "attack with a melee weapon"
There's obviously a distinction that needs to be made between a "spell melee attack" and "non-spell melee attack", but calling the non-spell variant "Melee weapon attack" is super strange since basically any physical melee attack is a "melee weapon attack" and doesn't actually have anything to do with a weapon and the similarity to "Attack with a melee weapon" just confuses things further.
If instead we had "Melee Spell attack" and "Melee Physical Attack" It'd be much easier to understand
If instead we had "Melee Spell attack" and "Melee Physical Attack" It'd be much easier to understand.
The problem is there's spell attacks that deal "physical" damage (e.g. Ice Knife deals piercing) and weapon attacks that deal energy damage (e.g. an attack with a Sun Blade. This may be an unpopular opinion but the whole "attack with a weapon" thing rarely comes into play except for paladins, and I think the distinction between weapon(-like) attacks and spell(-like) attacks is more accurate than any alternatives I've seen proposed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Forum Infestation (TM)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Inspired by this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/m927wb/jeremy_crawfords_worst_calls
My top 4:
1. Drow druids lose darkvision while wildshaped.... But keep Sunlight Sensitivity
2. Shield Master requiring Order of Operations.
3. Melee Weapon Attack vs. Attack with a Melee Weapon. This one makes me hate the 5e weapon language
4. Firebolt/Disintegrate can't be Twinned as they can target objects. Also the fact unless it's stated spells can't target objects.
What decision do you hate?
This doesn't bother me too much.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Yeah that one bothers me the least but it's tied to the twin one is the only reason I mention.
Most UA is horribly written, and JC's isn't any better. I said this in another thread first, but Jeremy Crawford needs to look at Sage Advice.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
LOL. You think this stuff is bad, you should check out some of the drivel coming out of Coleville. It even comes with holier-than-thou attitude on top. /killmenow!
Husband, Father, Veteran, Gamer, DM, Player, and Friend | Author of the "World of Eirador" | http://world-guild.com
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." ~Gary Gygax
Oh man I thought Coleville had some decent stuff.... But then again it's been a while since I checked most of it out.
What's the stuff you are talking about?
#3 is annoying linguistically, but the result makes sense most of the time as most features that specify "attack with a melee weapon" affect the weapon itself in some way, which isn't appropriate for unarmed strike.
#1 and 2 are annoying, but are a reasonable reading of the text.
#4 is a statement of RAI, but not the RAW, the actual requirement is that the spell target one creature and be unable to target more than one creature. The fact that this one made it into sage advice is just ridiculous.
Doesn't Crawford write most of Sage Advice?
What do you mean? Matt Colville isn't a designer for D&D, unlike Crawford. Therefore his advice or opinions doesn't have any bearing on the design of the game. Also I've never got a 'holier-than-thou' vibe from him
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Oh yeah I see they are RAW but it's just... Bad writing I guess. You are 💯 correct tho as they are apparently RAW and RAI for most.
The weapon one makes the least sense as natural weapons work with smite but a regular unarmed attack doesn't. Then they come out with a Dhamphir that gets to smite with it's bite.
They have an annoying trend of fixing stuff by adding a new subclass/race/magic item instead of trying to fix the base issue.
I REALLY think, especially with hand crossbow actually having the light property, you should be able to two-weapon fight with ranged weapons.
Mystic v3 should be official, nuff said.
Yes. UA in general has worse wording than any decent homebrew(Although, by my standards, decent homebrew is anything better than UA).
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
Well, but that's one of the points of UA, to playtest the material, both from the ingame perpspective and the language perspective.
The call that the Book of Vile Darkness simply obliterates anyone who touches it was one that always stuck out as being particularly bad.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
He publishes a D&D series "Running the game" on Youtube. His know-it-all way of speaking makes me gag. Probably just me, but dang I can't stand him. You know how you once in a while meet someone and instantly think "This person is a xxxx!" That's that guy! (to me). Just my personal opinion. Crawford though, he seems quite humble in how he speaks and presents himself. Much prefer those kinds of folks, even if they mix things up occasionally (Re: this topic). :)
Husband, Father, Veteran, Gamer, DM, Player, and Friend | Author of the "World of Eirador" | http://world-guild.com
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." ~Gary Gygax
It's funny you say that because I've heard that about JC a lot especially with his calls.
I think he puts on better airs for video content but I do think he's been a bit of a dick on Twitter.
He usually just repeats what the book says and offers little insight. He also will never admit they made mistakes in design which is a pretty big negative personality trait to me.
Jeremy rarely "makes calls" when asked rules questions on Twitter. He usually explains what's written in the book, not what he'd personally do, what he recommends most people do, or how he'd write it today with hindsight. Sometimes the rules as written are dumb.
As for me, the original ruling that you could use Shield Master before its pre-requisite attack made no sense. Jeremy also doesn't seem to see a problem with the multiclassing rules causing half-casters to lose caster level, which makes me sad because it'll probably never get errata.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I used Shield Master after the first attack but before the second most of the time. Still do because the rule is jank.
Yeah yet another thing they "fixed" by making artificer get spellcasting at first level so you don't lose progression.
They have hindsight they just put it into a new subclass or whatever.
Ranger know too few spells? Gloomstalker gets spells known.
Sorcerer knows too few spells? Clockwork like doubles spells known.
Pact of Blade not really work? Hexblade let's you use CHA weapons.
Stuff they should do for all the subclasses but instead put into one.
The one I thing I keep seeing causing problems for people is the "Melee weapon attack" vs "attack with a melee weapon"
There's obviously a distinction that needs to be made between a "spell melee attack" and "non-spell melee attack", but calling the non-spell variant "Melee weapon attack" is super strange since basically any physical melee attack is a "melee weapon attack" and doesn't actually have anything to do with a weapon and the similarity to "Attack with a melee weapon" just confuses things further.
If instead we had "Melee Spell attack" and "Melee Physical Attack" It'd be much easier to understand
Of course. My point is that people seem to act like Jeremy gives bad rulings just for explaining how bad rules work as written.
The problem is there's spell attacks that deal "physical" damage (e.g. Ice Knife deals piercing) and weapon attacks that deal energy damage (e.g. an attack with a Sun Blade. This may be an unpopular opinion but the whole "attack with a weapon" thing rarely comes into play except for paladins, and I think the distinction between weapon(-like) attacks and spell(-like) attacks is more accurate than any alternatives I've seen proposed.
The Forum Infestation (TM)