The VTT isn't even D&D dependent, never mind a specific subset of the rules. They've literally said you can use it as a tabletop for any game
The VTT is going to have monsters in it. Those monsters have stat blocks, and combat features. You think the DM is supposed to code every action/reaction/legendary action (oops, those were removed because it was too hard) for every monster? Not a chance. And if those actions/features are hard coded, then ranges and PC features, spells, etc are going to be hard coded.
They’re almost certainly not going to be hardcoded. They *could* be, for sure, but it’d be to no gain and only serve to make homebrew more difficult.
They'll probably integrate the encounter manager, but they're just going to have measurements and effect templates. Hard-coding specific effects is a lot of work for no real reward, when you still need to have measurements and effect templates, because DMs go off-book all the time.
Anyone else amused by the way the topic title and text is phrased?
"Errata already?" - when, pray tell, did you expect to find errors in a book if not at the time of printing? Did you think books typically print without errors in the text when they are fresh, and then errors crept in over time?
War Caster does not allow you to cast a healing spell upon yourself or an ally in reaction to an enemy leaving your reach. The very name is Opportunity ATTACK. You can cast a spell to attack the enemy leaving your reach in lieu of a weapon or unarmed strike. The target of that spell must be the enemy attempting to leave your reach.
Read the totality of the Opportunity Attacks description, and this should be clear. If you need a microscope, mirror, and a source of smoke to interpret a rule in a bizarre fashion - that's probably your first clue that the interpretation is mistaken.
The clear intent of war caster is to allow you to use a spell to attack that enemy, instead of just a weapon or unarmed strike - allowing spellcasters to take advantage of Opportunity Attacks and not just martial types.
The idea is that an enemy exposes themselves to counter-attack when they attempt to flee.
They removed the word "hostile" from the Opportunity Attack definition. Ergo, you can make an Opportunity Attack against any creature that leaves your reach, including your allies. If you happen to have the War Caster feat, this means you can cast spells like cure wounds on your allies when they leave your reach.
I am 99% certain this is deliberate. If not, it's likely we will see the word "hostile" added back to the Opportunity Attack definition.
Yes. I am fairly certain they did that on purpose.
You have far more faith in the D&D team's competence at writing rules than I do. My assumption is that they didn't even think of the possibility.
It's not a matter of faith. They have talked about these sorts of things in previews. It's by design. They've made all sorts of little teamwork-oriented changes (like how a 10th level monk can move an ally with them when they use Step of the Wind).
But that is explicit. This is extremely not explicit.
Being able to cast a spell on an ally via War Caster means the cleric can cast cure wounds on the fighter as a reaction on the fighter's turn as the fighter goes past them rather than having to wait and use an action on their own turn. This stuff isn't a mistake.
If this is deliberate, it's the sort of fiddly rules-lawyer interpretation that most people won't notice. (I say this as a fiddly rules lawyer.)
If they meant it, and chose to convey it this way, they are bad, and should feel bad.
But, given the precedent of two-weapon fighting, I can't completely say "this is an error". (Though this is worse.)
I don't think they meant it, and whether the text actually allows it depends on whether you consider the descriptive text at the start as flavor or rules.
Anyone else amused by the way the topic title and text is phrased?
"Errata already?" - when, pray tell, did you expect to find errors in a book if not at the time of printing? Did you think books typically print without errors in the text when they are fresh, and then errors crept in over time?
LOL. Love the snark! For the record, I was simply expressing surprise that they were already making corrections to the errors on DDB from day one. I had expected it to take longer. I admit I could have worded it better. EDIT: Alas, I am afraid I cannot change the thread title now.
They removed the word "hostile" from the Opportunity Attack definition. Ergo, you can make an Opportunity Attack against any creature that leaves your reach, including your allies. If you happen to have the War Caster feat, this means you can cast spells like cure wounds on your allies when they leave your reach.
I am 99% certain this is deliberate. If not, it's likely we will see the word "hostile" added back to the Opportunity Attack definition.
I'm sure that removing hostile was deliberate. I think the application to war caster was an accident, and if they decide to do anything about it, they'll limit war caster to spells that have an attack roll or require a save.
They removed the word "hostile" from the Opportunity Attack definition. Ergo, you can make an Opportunity Attack against any creature that leaves your reach, including your allies. If you happen to have the War Caster feat, this means you can cast spells like cure wounds on your allies when they leave your reach.
I am 99% certain this is deliberate. If not, it's likely we will see the word "hostile" added back to the Opportunity Attack definition.
I'm sure that removing hostile was deliberate. I think the application to war caster was an accident, and if they decide to do anything about it, they'll limit war caster to spells that have an attack roll or require a save.
We'll just have to wait and see who's right and who's wrong once we get some official errata and/or sage advice documentation.
The devs have a tendency to declare obvious bugs as intentional (e.g. being able to see invisible didn't actually eliminate advantage/disadvantage in 2014) rather than issuing errata.
We'll just have to wait and see who's right and who's wrong once we get some official errata and/or sage advice documentation.
The devs have a tendency to declare obvious bugs as intentional (e.g. being able to see invisible didn't actually eliminate advantage/disadvantage in 2014) rather than issuing errata.
So if you look up Opportunity attacks in the Glossary it states when a creature that you can see leaves your reach using its action, its Bonus Action, its Reaction, or one of its speeds.
There is a sentence that says Look in the Combat Chapter.
OK.
" Combatants watch for enemies to drop their guard. If you move heedlessly past your foes, you put yourself in danger by provoking an Opportunity Attack." OK this is YOU triggering an Opportunity attack.
Making an Opportunity Attack. You can make an Opportunity Attack when a creature that you can see leaves your reach. To make the attack, take a Reaction to make one melee attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike against that creature. The attack occurs right before it leaves your reach.
WAR CASTER....
Reactive Spell. When a creature provokes an Opportunity Attack from you by leaving your reach, you can take a Reaction to cast a spell at the creature rather than making an Opportunity Attack. The spell must have a casting time of one action and must target only that creature.
In relation to YOU the CHARACTER the rules for both state it is a Creature not an Enemy that is triggering the Spell.
I guess you also think Find Traps will let you know exactly where a trap is located because the name of the spell states it finds traps. you can cast FIND TRAPS. You determine that there is a Glyph of Warding in the room but have no idea what tile it is written on.
I guess you also think Find Traps will let you know exactly where a trap is located because the name of the spell states it finds traps. you can cast FIND TRAPS. You determine that there is a Glyph of Warding in the room but have no idea what tile it is written on.
Yeah, at the very least that one should have been changed to Detect Traps or something. Detect the Presence but not the Location of Traps would be even better.
I guess you also think Find Traps will let you know exactly where a trap is located because the name of the spell states it finds traps. you can cast FIND TRAPS. You determine that there is a Glyph of Warding in the room but have no idea what tile it is written on.
Yeah, at the very least that one should have been changed to Detect Traps or something. Detect the Presence but not the Location of Traps would be even better.
I think they should have named the spell "You sense any trap within range that is within line of sight. A trap, for the purpose of this spell, includes any object or mechanism that was created to cause damage or other danger. Thus, the spell would sense the Alarm or Glyph of Warding spell or a mechanical pit trap, but it wouldn’t reveal a natural weakness in the floor, an unstable ceiling, or a hidden sinkhole.This spell reveals that a trap is present but not its location. You do learn the general nature of the danger posed by a trap you sense."
I guess you also think Find Traps will let you know exactly where a trap is located because the name of the spell states it finds traps. you can cast FIND TRAPS. You determine that there is a Glyph of Warding in the room but have no idea what tile it is written on.
Yeah, at the very least that one should have been changed to Detect Traps or something. Detect the Presence but not the Location of Traps would be even better.
I think they should have named the spell "You sense any trap within range that is within line of sight. A trap, for the purpose of this spell, includes any object or mechanism that was created to cause damage or other danger. Thus, the spell would sense the Alarm or Glyph of Warding spell or a mechanical pit trap, but it wouldn’t reveal a natural weakness in the floor, an unstable ceiling, or a hidden sinkhole.This spell reveals that a trap is present but not its location. You do learn the general nature of the danger posed by a trap you sense."
Trips off the tongue, WotC should dfinitely hire you as official spell namer
You're dreaming if you think WoTC meant for this 'Attack' to work on your allies/non-enemies. It makes no sense. The glossary definition obviously will get an errata even though Opportunity 'ATTACK' is self explanatory. You don't 'Attack' your allies.
You're dreaming if you think WoTC meant for this 'Attack' to work on your allies/non-enemies. It makes no sense. The glossary definition obviously will get an errata even though Opportunity 'ATTACK' is self explanatory. You don't 'Attack' your allies.
Quit gaming the system.
LOL. If it was just a typo (or, rather, a missing word), it would have been fixed already along with the other things that have already been fixed (see my OP). The fact that it still hasn't been changed suggests to me that it's a deliberate change - a hidden rules exploit for experienced gamers, say. Perhaps someone at WotC is a fan of Monte Cook's hidden system mastery design from the 3e era.
I, for one, am happy to wait and see if Jeremy addresses this in sage advice.
"Sniper. If you make an attack roll while hidden and the roll misses, making the attack roll doesn't reveal your location."
The (2014) version of this feat required it be a RANGED attack. And since this was labeled "Sniper" I suspect that was probably their intention for this updated feat?
i don't know what the definition of the word "errata" is.
It's updates to the published books, either rewording or clarifying stuff that has caused confusion in order to make it clearer or changing something because it was found to be unbalanced
"Sniper. If you make an attack roll while hidden and the roll misses, making the attack roll doesn't reveal your location."
The (2014) version of this feat required it be a RANGED attack. And since this was labeled "Sniper" I suspect that was probably their intention for this updated feat?
Probably not, actually. They've said before that they like feats like that to have an element that applies more generally. The change is probably intentional.
Does anyone know if the War Domain - War Priest 3 ability is supposed to give a weapon mastery? In my printed version of the book it does not but online I've seen some sites saying it gets weapon mastery for one weapon.
Does anyone know if the War Domain - War Priest 3 ability is supposed to give a weapon mastery? In my printed version of the book it does not but online I've seen some sites saying it gets weapon mastery for one weapon.
No weapon mastery alas.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
They'll probably integrate the encounter manager, but they're just going to have measurements and effect templates. Hard-coding specific effects is a lot of work for no real reward, when you still need to have measurements and effect templates, because DMs go off-book all the time.
Anyone else amused by the way the topic title and text is phrased?
"Errata already?" - when, pray tell, did you expect to find errors in a book if not at the time of printing? Did you think books typically print without errors in the text when they are fresh, and then errors crept in over time?
They removed the word "hostile" from the Opportunity Attack definition. Ergo, you can make an Opportunity Attack against any creature that leaves your reach, including your allies. If you happen to have the War Caster feat, this means you can cast spells like cure wounds on your allies when they leave your reach.
I am 99% certain this is deliberate. If not, it's likely we will see the word "hostile" added back to the Opportunity Attack definition.
See above.
LOL. Love the snark! For the record, I was simply expressing surprise that they were already making corrections to the errors on DDB from day one. I had expected it to take longer. I admit I could have worded it better. EDIT: Alas, I am afraid I cannot change the thread title now.
I'm sure that removing hostile was deliberate. I think the application to war caster was an accident, and if they decide to do anything about it, they'll limit war caster to spells that have an attack roll or require a save.
Because it's redundant. The rules already mentioned enemies in the very first sentence of the OA section.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
We'll just have to wait till we get some official errata and/or sage advice documentation to see who's right and who's wrong here.
The devs have a tendency to declare obvious bugs as intentional (e.g. being able to see invisible didn't actually eliminate advantage/disadvantage in 2014) rather than issuing errata.
Again. We shall see. This ain't my first rodeo.
So if you look up Opportunity attacks in the Glossary it states when a creature that you can see leaves your reach using its action, its Bonus Action, its Reaction, or one of its speeds.
There is a sentence that says Look in the Combat Chapter.
OK.
" Combatants watch for enemies to drop their guard. If you move heedlessly past your foes, you put yourself in danger by provoking an Opportunity Attack." OK this is YOU triggering an Opportunity attack.
Making an Opportunity Attack. You can make an Opportunity Attack when a creature that you can see leaves your reach. To make the attack, take a Reaction to make one melee attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike against that creature. The attack occurs right before it leaves your reach.
WAR CASTER....
Reactive Spell. When a creature provokes an Opportunity Attack from you by leaving your reach, you can take a Reaction to cast a spell at the creature rather than making an Opportunity Attack. The spell must have a casting time of one action and must target only that creature.
In relation to YOU the CHARACTER the rules for both state it is a Creature not an Enemy that is triggering the Spell.
I guess you also think Find Traps will let you know exactly where a trap is located because the name of the spell states it finds traps. you can cast FIND TRAPS. You determine that there is a Glyph of Warding in the room but have no idea what tile it is written on.
Yeah, at the very least that one should have been changed to Detect Traps or something. Detect the Presence but not the Location of Traps would be even better.
I think they should have named the spell "You sense any trap within range that is within line of sight. A trap, for the purpose of this spell, includes any object or mechanism that was created to cause damage or other danger. Thus, the spell would sense the Alarm or Glyph of Warding spell or a mechanical pit trap, but it wouldn’t reveal a natural weakness in the floor, an unstable ceiling, or a hidden sinkhole.This spell reveals that a trap is present but not its location. You do learn the general nature of the danger posed by a trap you sense."
Trips off the tongue, WotC should dfinitely hire you as official spell namer
You're dreaming if you think WoTC meant for this 'Attack' to work on your allies/non-enemies. It makes no sense. The glossary definition obviously will get an errata even though Opportunity 'ATTACK' is self explanatory. You don't 'Attack' your allies.
Quit gaming the system.
LOL. If it was just a typo (or, rather, a missing word), it would have been fixed already along with the other things that have already been fixed (see my OP). The fact that it still hasn't been changed suggests to me that it's a deliberate change - a hidden rules exploit for experienced gamers, say. Perhaps someone at WotC is a fan of Monte Cook's hidden system mastery design from the 3e era.
I, for one, am happy to wait and see if Jeremy addresses this in sage advice.
New (2024) Skulker feat-
The last bit says
"Sniper. If you make an attack roll while hidden and the roll misses, making the attack roll doesn't reveal your location."
The (2014) version of this feat required it be a RANGED attack. And since this was labeled "Sniper" I suspect that was probably their intention for this updated feat?
i don't know what the definition of the word "errata" is.
It's updates to the published books, either rewording or clarifying stuff that has caused confusion in order to make it clearer or changing something because it was found to be unbalanced
Probably not, actually. They've said before that they like feats like that to have an element that applies more generally. The change is probably intentional.
Does anyone know if the War Domain - War Priest 3 ability is supposed to give a weapon mastery? In my printed version of the book it does not but online I've seen some sites saying it gets weapon mastery for one weapon.
No weapon mastery alas.