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). :)
I'm very aware of Colville's series, myself and others find it incredibly useful.
But I'm not sure how that's particularly relevant to this thread. This discussion is about Crawford's """worst""" rules calls. It's not about attacking people for how they talk about D&D.
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.
It also effects unarmed use with GFB and Booming Blade and some Battlemaster Maneuvers.
I'm very aware of Colville's series, myself and others find it incredibly useful.
But I'm not sure how that's particularly relevant to this thread. This discussion is about Crawford's """worst""" rules calls. It's not about attacking people for how they talk about D&D.
Going to step away from the forums for a while (again). I feel like my thoughts are being attacked, as they were the last time I spent any time here.
But before I go, for the record, you are correct, in that the Coleville rant is not related to the main topic in which people are passively-aggressively attacking Crawford and his calls. I get it. I've tried to make a comparative point which I think IS relevant between the two, but seemingly failed. One IS a professional expert on D&D, and one is NOT. Both have an audience. Both can influence. I would like (and hope) to see places like this lean on the side of the actual experts. Peace...
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
I'm very aware of Colville's series, myself and others find it incredibly useful.
But I'm not sure how that's particularly relevant to this thread. This discussion is about Crawford's """worst""" rules calls. It's not about attacking people for how they talk about D&D.
Going to step away from the forums for a while (again). I feel like my thoughts are being attacked, as they were the last time I spent any time here.
But before I go, for the record, you are correct, in that the Coleville rant is not related to the main topic in which people are passively-aggressively attacking Crawford and his calls. I get it. I've tried to make a comparative point which I think IS relevant between the two, but seemingly failed. One IS a professional expert on D&D, and one is NOT. Both have an audience. Both can influence. I would like (and hope) to see places like this lean on the side of the actual experts. Peace...
He's a moderator, he is here to enforce off topic. I understand your intent, I honestly agree with it, but the person wasn't attacking you individually. Honestly, the correct answer would be to just make a new thread for "How do you feel D&D Influencers(including designers) positively/negatively impact the game" and go from there.
Not being able to twin Dragon's Breath for sorcerers since after you twin it on your fighters they can use it to hit more than one target.
To be fair, Crawford also says that the final call on the rules is up to the DM. He explains the intent but DMs are free to ignore and home-brew their own solutions. Sage Advise goes back to Gygax answering questions in Dragon magazine and DMs have always either used it or ignored it.
I never really understood why Crawford was given so much weight in the first place. 5e was supposedly written in a natural language with a focus on DM calls over official rulings. That was their whole mantra during the playtest.
Then, suddenly, we had to wade through thousands of text that often relied on Exact Wording (TM) of abilities when the game was written in a non-technical manner?
I never really understood why Crawford was given so much weight in the first place. 5e was supposedly written in a natural language with a focus on DM calls over official rulings. That was their whole mantra during the playtest.
Then, suddenly, we had to wade through thousands of text that often relied on Exact Wording (TM) of abilities when the game was written in a non-technical manner?
I'd guess that League play has something to do with it. Leaving everything up to the GM's interpretation tends to go poorly in such situations, due to the need for consistency between games.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
No being able to twin Dragon's Breath for sorcerers since after you twin it on your fighters they can use it to hit more than one target.
To be fair, Crawford also says that the final call on the rules is up to the DM. He explains the intent but DMs are free to ignore and home-brew their own solutions. Sage Advise goes back to Gygax answering questions in Dragon magazine and DMs have always either used it or ignored it.
Yea, it makes sense to have Sage Advice and I enjoy it. That said, he does in my opinion make some actually just WRONG rulings based on the actual English of the rules as written.
The Twinned Spell + Dragon's Breath is one example and just seems like a "Oh crap, we really don't want Twinned Spell AoEs and didn't account for this in the spell's wording."
That said, I often lean on Sage Advice as it's an easy fair way to approach things for the table so that no one feels like they've been cheated by me just wanting them to not be allowed to do something (which is never the case anyway). There are only a very few times we've read a SAC entry and I've said "Uh, we'll use it this time since it benefits you but just know I'm writing my own ruling on this because that's just silly."
I'm curious. Do we really think or know that Crawford goes to some sort of Vader meditation chamber and emerges from it with rulings based on solitary brooding over questions, or do you think his output is more of a product of discussion of the questions with the in house game design team and maybe a stable of "insiders"? I know Crawford puts his name on these rulings, but to go with the rules lawyering analogy, actual judges confronting the nuances of more consequential law rely a hecka lot upon their clerks and colleagues to shape their opinions. It just seems in a world where "authorship" is more recognized really as construct that's obscuring a lot of dialogue and influence with a range of voices including community, TTRPG at least in the case of 5e presumes the game's authority is seated strictly within the workings of one person's mind.
I think it's fine to focus this thread as asked in the title. However I can easily see how some folks seeing "Crawford's Worst Calls" shift their thinking from the actual rules to cults of personality in the game community or desire to create cults around what they think are personality or authority, and so the invocation of Colville isn't all that surprising (and I'll limit my opinion on Colville to that).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
The Twinned Spell + Dragon's Breath is one example and just seems like a "Oh crap, we really don't want Twinned Spell AoEs and didn't account for this in the spell's wording."
No, that's players trying to bend the rules to do what twinned spell says you can't (RAI).
It should really be a more clear definition of twinned spell rather than every spell in the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"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?"
The Twinned Spell + Dragon's Breath is one example and just seems like a "Oh crap, we really don't want Twinned Spell AoEs and didn't account for this in the spell's wording."
No, that's players trying to bend the rules to do what twinned spell says you can't (RAI).
It should really be a more clear definition of twinned spell rather than every spell in the game.
So Twinned Polymorph is out too? Or is that allowed only if the creature polymorphed into doesn't have a breath weapon or other multitarget attack option?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The Twinned Spell + Dragon's Breath is one example and just seems like a "Oh crap, we really don't want Twinned Spell AoEs and didn't account for this in the spell's wording."
No, that's players trying to bend the rules to do what twinned spell says you can't (RAI).
It should really be a more clear definition of twinned spell rather than every spell in the game.
Hard disagree. If they didn't intend for this then they should have really worded either Dragon's Breath or Twinned Spell better. The spell itself doesn't target multiple creatures, it only allows the target of the spell to create an effect which does. I get that it was an unintended effect likely due to it being from a later-released sourcebook, but they then could have included an exception directly into Dragon's Breath.
Also, if Twinned Spell said you couldn't then it would be RAW, as written. But you're right, this isn't RAW, it's only as intended, but that isn't clear because they clearly didn't consider the Twinned Spell angle when writing Dragon's Breath.
The Twinned Spell + Dragon's Breath is one example and just seems like a "Oh crap, we really don't want Twinned Spell AoEs and didn't account for this in the spell's wording."
No, that's players trying to bend the rules to do what twinned spell says you can't (RAI).
It should really be a more clear definition of twinned spell rather than every spell in the game.
Hard disagree. If they didn't intend for this then they should have really worded either Dragon's Breath or Twinned Spell better. The spell itself doesn't target multiple creatures, it only allows the target of the spell to create an effect which does. I get that it was an unintended effect likely due to it being from a later-released sourcebook, but they then could have included an exception directly into Dragon's Breath.
Also, if Twinned Spell said you couldn't then it would be RAW, as written. But you're right, this isn't RAW, it's only as intended, but that isn't clear because they clearly didn't consider the Twinned Spell angle when writing Dragon's Breath.
So Twinned is fine if you look at it from a PHB only standpoint, but you can't. Dragon's Breath is a Xanathar Spell, and I agree the wording is weird. The way I read the actual words of Twinned:
When you Cast a Spell that Targets only one creature and doesn’t have a range of self, you can spend a number of sorcery points equal to the spell’s level to target a second creature in range with the same spell (1 sorcery point if the spell is a cantrip).
It doesn't say jack squat about what the spell does after that. Only that the casting of the spell targets one creature and doesn't have a range of self. In the realm of "Spells do exactly as they are written, no more or less", the WORDS here say I can twin Dragon's Breath.
The intent with the balance, I get it, because if you look at how it works for scorching ray, since the CASTING of the spell has the ability to affect more than one creature, it's a no. That isn't how Dragon's Breath works though. Dragon's Breath is a buff spell. Polymorph works the same way, I turn a thing into another thing, and now that thing has the ability to affect more than one creature. Polymorph is allowed but Dragon's Breath isn't? I can't reconcile it in my head, and therefore Dragon's Breath is twinnable at my table.
I don't think this is a Crawford specific hot take, this is a Wizards design decision and he got labeled as the face of it and is taking shit for it.
Run your tables how you want, but I think this is the most popular hot take that Crawford is attributed with. That and Shield Master.
To be eligible, a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell’s current level.
And Dragon's Breath is certainly capable of targeting more than one creature, unless you want to make the case that you're totally not killing creatures with the spell when you use an action that's only available while the spell's active, that produces an area effect defined by the spell, which then forces a saving throw and inflicts damage that are also defined by the spell. In which case, you should also rule that a Rakshasa isn't immune to the spell.
If a spell like Spiritual Weapon could be cast on other creatures you also wouldn't be able to twin it because it has the potential to smack multiple creatures over its duration.
I apologise if my comments came across as hostile or attacking, that was far from my intent. I was just perplexed as to how Colville factorted into this discussion. While he does have a lot of options on the game, some I agree with and some I don't, he hasn't worked on it in an official capacity. So while both Colville and Crawford may opine on the game, only the latter has a direct influence on its future. I think that's the crux of this thread and was just enquiring as to how Colville factorted into that
I apologize if my comments came across as hostile or attacking, that was far from my intent. I was just perplexed as to how Colville factored into this discussion. While he does have a lot of options on the game, some I agree with and some I don't, he hasn't worked on it in an official capacity. So while both Colville and Crawford may opine on the game, only the latter has a direct influence on its future. I think that's the crux of this thread and was just enquiring as to how Colville factored into that
See PM.
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
I'm very aware of Colville's series, myself and others find it incredibly useful.
But I'm not sure how that's particularly relevant to this thread. This discussion is about Crawford's """worst""" rules calls. It's not about attacking people for how they talk about D&D.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
It also effects unarmed use with GFB and Booming Blade and some Battlemaster Maneuvers.
Going to step away from the forums for a while (again). I feel like my thoughts are being attacked, as they were the last time I spent any time here.
But before I go, for the record, you are correct, in that the Coleville rant is not related to the main topic in which people are passively-aggressively attacking Crawford and his calls. I get it. I've tried to make a comparative point which I think IS relevant between the two, but seemingly failed. One IS a professional expert on D&D, and one is NOT. Both have an audience. Both can influence. I would like (and hope) to see places like this lean on the side of the actual experts. Peace...
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
He's a moderator, he is here to enforce off topic. I understand your intent, I honestly agree with it, but the person wasn't attacking you individually. Honestly, the correct answer would be to just make a new thread for "How do you feel D&D Influencers(including designers) positively/negatively impact the game" and go from there.
Not being able to twin Dragon's Breath for sorcerers since after you twin it on your fighters they can use it to hit more than one target.
To be fair, Crawford also says that the final call on the rules is up to the DM. He explains the intent but DMs are free to ignore and home-brew their own solutions. Sage Advise goes back to Gygax answering questions in Dragon magazine and DMs have always either used it or ignored it.
I've heard jokes in D&D circles, specifically Forgotten Realms circles, about "lol, Crawford lore".
I never really understood why Crawford was given so much weight in the first place. 5e was supposedly written in a natural language with a focus on DM calls over official rulings. That was their whole mantra during the playtest.
Then, suddenly, we had to wade through thousands of text that often relied on Exact Wording (TM) of abilities when the game was written in a non-technical manner?
I'd guess that League play has something to do with it. Leaving everything up to the GM's interpretation tends to go poorly in such situations, due to the need for consistency between games.
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.
Yea, it makes sense to have Sage Advice and I enjoy it. That said, he does in my opinion make some actually just WRONG rulings based on the actual English of the rules as written.
The Twinned Spell + Dragon's Breath is one example and just seems like a "Oh crap, we really don't want Twinned Spell AoEs and didn't account for this in the spell's wording."
That said, I often lean on Sage Advice as it's an easy fair way to approach things for the table so that no one feels like they've been cheated by me just wanting them to not be allowed to do something (which is never the case anyway). There are only a very few times we've read a SAC entry and I've said "Uh, we'll use it this time since it benefits you but just know I'm writing my own ruling on this because that's just silly."
I'm curious. Do we really think or know that Crawford goes to some sort of Vader meditation chamber and emerges from it with rulings based on solitary brooding over questions, or do you think his output is more of a product of discussion of the questions with the in house game design team and maybe a stable of "insiders"? I know Crawford puts his name on these rulings, but to go with the rules lawyering analogy, actual judges confronting the nuances of more consequential law rely a hecka lot upon their clerks and colleagues to shape their opinions. It just seems in a world where "authorship" is more recognized really as construct that's obscuring a lot of dialogue and influence with a range of voices including community, TTRPG at least in the case of 5e presumes the game's authority is seated strictly within the workings of one person's mind.
I think it's fine to focus this thread as asked in the title. However I can easily see how some folks seeing "Crawford's Worst Calls" shift their thinking from the actual rules to cults of personality in the game community or desire to create cults around what they think are personality or authority, and so the invocation of Colville isn't all that surprising (and I'll limit my opinion on Colville to that).
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
No, that's players trying to bend the rules to do what twinned spell says you can't (RAI).
It should really be a more clear definition of twinned spell rather than every spell in the game.
"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
So Twinned Polymorph is out too? Or is that allowed only if the creature polymorphed into doesn't have a breath weapon or other multitarget attack option?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Hard disagree. If they didn't intend for this then they should have really worded either Dragon's Breath or Twinned Spell better. The spell itself doesn't target multiple creatures, it only allows the target of the spell to create an effect which does. I get that it was an unintended effect likely due to it being from a later-released sourcebook, but they then could have included an exception directly into Dragon's Breath.
Also, if Twinned Spell said you couldn't then it would be RAW, as written. But you're right, this isn't RAW, it's only as intended, but that isn't clear because they clearly didn't consider the Twinned Spell angle when writing Dragon's Breath.
So Twinned is fine if you look at it from a PHB only standpoint, but you can't. Dragon's Breath is a Xanathar Spell, and I agree the wording is weird. The way I read the actual words of Twinned:
It doesn't say jack squat about what the spell does after that. Only that the casting of the spell targets one creature and doesn't have a range of self. In the realm of "Spells do exactly as they are written, no more or less", the WORDS here say I can twin Dragon's Breath.
The intent with the balance, I get it, because if you look at how it works for scorching ray, since the CASTING of the spell has the ability to affect more than one creature, it's a no. That isn't how Dragon's Breath works though. Dragon's Breath is a buff spell. Polymorph works the same way, I turn a thing into another thing, and now that thing has the ability to affect more than one creature. Polymorph is allowed but Dragon's Breath isn't? I can't reconcile it in my head, and therefore Dragon's Breath is twinnable at my table.
I don't think this is a Crawford specific hot take, this is a Wizards design decision and he got labeled as the face of it and is taking shit for it.
Run your tables how you want, but I think this is the most popular hot take that Crawford is attributed with. That and Shield Master.
Twinned Spell also says
And Dragon's Breath is certainly capable of targeting more than one creature, unless you want to make the case that you're totally not killing creatures with the spell when you use an action that's only available while the spell's active, that produces an area effect defined by the spell, which then forces a saving throw and inflicts damage that are also defined by the spell. In which case, you should also rule that a Rakshasa isn't immune to the spell.
If a spell like Spiritual Weapon could be cast on other creatures you also wouldn't be able to twin it because it has the potential to smack multiple creatures over its duration.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Right, so then we go back to Polymorph. Polymorph can be twinned, and each person can attack multiple creatures in the same round.
I apologise if my comments came across as hostile or attacking, that was far from my intent. I was just perplexed as to how Colville factorted into this discussion. While he does have a lot of options on the game, some I agree with and some I don't, he hasn't worked on it in an official capacity. So while both Colville and Crawford may opine on the game, only the latter has a direct influence on its future. I think that's the crux of this thread and was just enquiring as to how Colville factorted into that
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Yeah, no.4 from the OP was one of the first that went to trash at my table :)
Haven't seen his tweet regarding the 1st one but if that's true then yeah, needs to go away as well.
See PM.
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
Plus I've seen DMs not give the Perception proficiency from characters as well as "you use their senses so you don't get your proficiency bonus"
JC calls are bad but a lot of dms are not much better.