In regards to the AOE and the semantic game of targets:
"Damage Rolls: If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them. For example, when a wizard casts fireball or a cleric casts flame strike, the spell's damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast."
So, this is a rule. this rule explains the terminology about as clearly as possible. I wonder why, since we are discussing RaW, some folks want to adopt SOME of the rules surrounding a thing and ignore others, that clarify and provide examples of such. Also, an earlier dismissal of when the developer says........ and a poster says they are wrong. Uh, to be clear, developers are not wrong in what they say the rules actually mean. Developers are, for the game rules, "God" much like the DM is "God" in their word. When citing and talking about RaW, we don't get to pick and choose parts of the rule set, we need to review and include ALL rules that impact one another.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
In regards to the AOE and the semantic game of targets:
"Damage Rolls: If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them. For example, when a wizard casts fireball or a cleric casts flame strike, the spell's damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast."
So, this is a rule. this rule explains the terminology about as clearly as possible. I wonder why, since we are discussing RaW, some folks want to adopt SOME of the rules surrounding a thing and ignore others, that clarify and provide examples of such. Also, an earlier dismissal of when the developer says........ and a poster says they are wrong. Uh, to be clear, developers are not wrong in what they say the rules actually mean. Developers are, for the game rules, "God" much like the DM is "God" in their word. When citing and talking about RaW, we don't get to pick and choose parts of the rule set, we need to review and include ALL rules that impact one another.
Developers are like engineers, unless they have some in-the-field experience, what works on paper does not necessarily work in reality, especially when there has been several such devs/engineers who have “seasoned” their version of what’s created.
the rules have been for nearly half a century always been “general rules of play, and my be redefined or altered by circumstance or whim of the individual who is presenter and referee of such rules.”
anyone and everyone can rule as they wish, and everyone wishes the rules were better defined, but as many understand such precise rules defining would nearly encompass an entire set of encyclopedias.
Solution: generalize rules to encompass roughly the majority of the circumstances and situations that arise, and leave the outlier rulings to be determined when and if the situation calls for it.
Cons: broad interpretation of rules by various and numerous individuals will ( and always) creates debates on what such out-of-the-standard circumstances and situations that might occur, and that’s a good thing, for one may have not considered all the perspectives and variables involved.
TL;DR it’s stupid to think that rules that are generally designed to manage a broad spectrum of issues can be effectively implemented such that they cover every single aspect of play that might arise.
In regards to the AOE and the semantic game of targets:
"Damage Rolls: If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them. For example, when a wizard casts fireball or a cleric casts flame strike, the spell's damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast."
So, this is a rule. this rule explains the terminology about as clearly as possible.
It turns out that this rule actually isn't very clear to a lot of people because it doesn't say what you think it says. This rule doesn't say anything about spell effects actually targeting multiple creatures. It says that if you have already targeted multiple creatures and the spell effect then damages more than one of those targets then you roll once.
The notion that "all creatures within an AoE are targets of that AoE" is NOT supported by this rule at all. It simply doesn't say that.
Again, read it carefully. The phrase "deals damage to more than one target" is NOT the same as saying the effect targets more than one creature and damages all of them. This rule applies to targeting spells, not AoE spells.
Of course, examples are then given which do not align with the rule that was just stated, because it's just not well written as I've already explained. The rule would apply nicely to spells like Magic Missile, but not Fireball or Flame Strike.
The notion that "all creatures within an AoE are targets of that AoE" is NOT supported by this rule at all. It simply doesn't say that.
It literally does say that.
"Damage Rolls: If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them. For example, when a wizard casts >> fireball << or a cleric casts flame strike, the spell's damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast."
This pretty clearly spells out that "all creatures caught in the blast" are considered targets of the spell's effect, so we roll damage once for all of them.
You can't parse this sentence and not come away with the fact that creatures affected by a spell are considered targets of it. More specific language in other spells is intentional. Specific beats general.
Moreover, fireball doesn't only affect creatures, it affects both creatures and objects, which all become targets in the spell's text. Only creatures get a Dex save though.
Speaking of saves...
>Ch. 10 Spellcasting: Saving Throws -- Many spells specify that a target can make a saving throw to avoid some or all of a spell’s effects. The spell specifies the ability that the target uses for the save and what happens on a success or failure. --- It's clear there's "target" as the point of origin, and "target" as "affected by a spell's effects", RAW.
There's also Targeting Yourself, which states that when in an AOE of a spell you cast, you can target yourself, meaning you can throw fireball at your feet and become a target of the spell.
Finally, the DMG contains further rules on adjudicating AOEs, and you're gonna be mad, so take a breath.
Many spells and other game features create areas of effect, such as the cone and the sphere. If you’re not using miniatures or another visual aid, it can sometimes be difficult to determine who’s in an area of effect and who isn’t. The easiest way to address such uncertainty is to go with your gut and make a call.
If you would like more guidance, consider using the Targets in Areas of Effect table. To use the table, imagine which combatants are near one another, and let the table guide you in determining the number of those combatants that are caught in an area of effect. Add or subtract targets based on how bunched up the potential targets are. Consider rolling 1d3 to determine the amount to add or subtract.
[TABLE]
For example, if a wizard directs burning hands (a 15-foot cone) at a nearby group of orcs, you could use the table and say that two orcs are targeted (15 ÷ 10 = 1.5, rounded up to 2). Similarly, a sorcerer could launch a lightning bolt (100-foot line) at some ogres and hobgoblins, and you could use the table to say four of the monsters are targeted (100 ÷ 30 = 3.33, rounded up to 4).
There's the target definition you keep saying doesn't exist. Oops.
The notion that "all creatures within an AoE are targets of that AoE" is NOT supported by this rule at all. It simply doesn't say that.
It literally does say that.
"Damage Rolls: If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them. For example, when a wizard casts >> fireball << or a cleric casts flame strike, the spell's damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast."
This pretty clearly spells out that "all creatures caught in the blast" are considered targets of the spell's effect, so we roll damage once for all of them.
You can't parse this sentence and not come away with the fact that creatures affected by a spell are considered targets of it. More specific language in other spells is intentional. Specific beats general.
Moreover, fireball doesn't only affect creatures, it affects both creatures and objects, which all become targets in the spell's text. Only creatures get a Dex save though.
Speaking of saves...
>Ch. 10 Spellcasting: Saving Throws -- Many spells specify that a target can make a saving throw to avoid some or all of a spell’s effects. The spell specifies the ability that the target uses for the save and what happens on a success or failure. --- It's clear there's "target" as the point of origin, and "target" as "affected by a spell's effects", RAW.
There's also Targeting Yourself, which states that when in an AOE of a spell you cast, you can target yourself, meaning you can throw fireball at your feet and become a target of the spell.
Finally, the DMG contains further rules on adjudicating AOEs, and you're gonna be mad, so take a breath.
Many spells and other game features create areas of effect, such as the cone and the sphere. If you’re not using miniatures or another visual aid, it can sometimes be difficult to determine who’s in an area of effect and who isn’t. The easiest way to address such uncertainty is to go with your gut and make a call.
If you would like more guidance, consider using the Targets in Areas of Effect table. To use the table, imagine which combatants are near one another, and let the table guide you in determining the number of those combatants that are caught in an area of effect. Add or subtract targets based on how bunched up the potential targets are. Consider rolling 1d3 to determine the amount to add or subtract.
[TABLE]
For example, if a wizard directs burning hands (a 15-foot cone) at a nearby group of orcs, you could use the table and say that two orcs are targeted (15 ÷ 10 = 1.5, rounded up to 2). Similarly, a sorcerer could launch a lightning bolt (100-foot line) at some ogres and hobgoblins, and you could use the table to say four of the monsters are targeted (100 ÷ 30 = 3.33, rounded up to 4).
There's the target definition you keep saying doesn't exist. Oops.
Case closed, read your DMG folks.
Oh, but don't you know? Any instance that suggests that AOEs target the affected creatures are either mistakes or are poorly written and say something different then what they apparently say. Sure is interesting that those instances keep happening though.
Can we please drop this targeting issue? If neither side is moved after a few dozen very long posts, the discussion clearly isn't going to go anywhere.
The second point of the Shield Master feat, which allows you to add your shields AC to a Dex save to spells or other harmful effects which only target you, and the only spell this applies to is disintegrate.
The second point of the Shield Master feat, which allows you to add your shields AC to a Dex save to spells or other harmful effects which only target you, and the only spell this applies to is disintegrate.
I think the key component is "other harmful effects"; I believe there's a number of monsters that have single target DEX save attacks. There's also several other spells that you can use this on, such as Grasping Vine, Enervation, and Immolation. It's not a particularly broad feature, but it's one the same feat as knocking a target prone as a bonus action and spending a reaction to turn a successful DEX save to 0 damage on stuff like Fireball, or the aforementioned Enervation and Immolation. Making the bonus too wide on top of that feature would be a bit broken.
The second point of the Shield Master feat, which allows you to add your shields AC to a Dex save to spells or other harmful effects which only target you, and the only spell this applies to is disintegrate.
I think the key component is "other harmful effects"; I believe there's a number of monsters that have single target DEX save attacks. There's also several other spells that you can use this on, such as Grasping Vine, Enervation, and Immolation. It's not a particularly broad feature, but it's one the same feat as knocking a target prone as a bonus action and spending a reaction to turn a successful DEX save to 0 damage on stuff like Fireball, or the aforementioned Enervation and Immolation. Making the bonus too wide on top of that feature would be a bit broken.
That's right, I thought there were a few more spells it worked with. But yeah, it would be busted if it worked on everything, but at the same time it feels a little too narrow.
Explanation/Description: A fireball is an explosive burst of flame, which detonates with a low roar, and delivers damage proportionate to the level of the magic-user who cast it, i.e. 1 six-sided die (d6) for each level of experience of the spell caster. Exception: Magic fireball wands deliver 6 die fireballs (6d6), magic staves with this capability deliver 8 die fireballs, and scroll spells of this type deliver a fireball of from 5 to 10 dice (d6 +4) of damage. The burst of the fireball does not expend a considerable amount of pressure, and the burst will generally conform to the shape of the area in which it occurs, thus covering an area equal to its normal spherical volume. [The area which is covered by the fireball is a total volume of roughly 33,000 cubic feet (or yards)]. Besides causing damage to creatures, the fireball ignites all combustible materials within its burst radius, and the heat of the fireball will melt soft metals such as gold, copper, silver, etc. Items exposed to the spell's effects must be rolled for to determine if they are affected. Items with a creature which makes its saving throw are considered as unaffected. The magic-user points his or her finger and speaks the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A streak flashes from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body prior to attaining the prescribed range, flowers into the fireball. If creatures fail their saving throws, they all take full hit point damage frqm the blast. Those who make saving throws manage to dodge, fall flat or roll aside, taking 1/2 the full hit point damage - each and every one within the blast area. The material component of this spell is a tiny ball composed of bat guano and sulphur.
looks like nearly 50 years ago, fireball hasn’t changed much other than changing the overall damage to a constant 8d6 unless upcasted.
personally this was and is a far better example of how spells should be detailed.
The second point of the Shield Master feat, which allows you to add your shields AC to a Dex save to spells or other harmful effects which only target you, and the only spell this applies to is disintegrate.
I think the key component is "other harmful effects"; I believe there's a number of monsters that have single target DEX save attacks. There's also several other spells that you can use this on, such as Grasping Vine, Enervation, and Immolation. It's not a particularly broad feature, but it's one the same feat as knocking a target prone as a bonus action and spending a reaction to turn a successful DEX save to 0 damage on stuff like Fireball, or the aforementioned Enervation and Immolation. Making the bonus too wide on top of that feature would be a bit broken.
That's right, I thought there were a few more spells it worked with. But yeah, it would be busted if it worked on everything, but at the same time it feels a little too narrow.
True, but the other effect is quite broad (working on a great number of spells as well as some of the classic monster AoE's like dragon breath), so I think of the single target one as more of a bonus to the primary benefit.
I doubt any sane DM would allow blind characters to have their vision restored by Darkvision simply because the spell states it grants the target “the ability to see in the dark.” This was one of the first rules arguments I witnessed on these message boards. Absolute lunacy. “If I this is gonna be that kind of party, I’m gonna stick my dick in the mashed potatoes.”
Many of these appear to be debatable depending on how an individual decides to interpret the rules.
1) Use of the word "target". Obviously some interpret it one way and others want to interpret it another (eg. fireball does nothing).
2) The meaning of "completely concealed". Does a transparent obstruction provide total cover? A thin sheet of glass or plastic wrap? A wall of force? Particularly from spells that only require the ability to see for aiming them.
However, there are some others that are just but badly written ...
3) Treating darkness and dense foliage in an identical way as "heavily obscured".
This means that darkness will block line of sight to an area of light on the other side since "heavily obscured" areas block vision through them. Alternatively, if the DM decides that heavily obscured areas can see to a non-obscured area on the other side (as in darkness with a lit area) then a creature can see through 100' feet of jungle to the clearing in the middle of it. By treating darkness the same as other types of vision impairment that can cause "heavily obscured" - the rules give some very weird results that few DMs would actually use. There isn't one set of "rules" that works for different kinds of vision imparing effects. In the interests of "simplicity", the rules created a situation that doesn't correspond with how most DMs/players would run it.
Finally, there are the straight up RAW but lunatic examples :) (my opinion :) ).
4) A creature with the Invisible condition retains all the benefits of being invisible EVEN when they can be seen as if they were visible.
See invisible, blindsight, true sight - all of these may allow the creature to see an invisible target but none of them remove the invisible condition. The condition is written in such a way that the detailed effects (which are the same as in effect when a creature can see their target but their target can not see them - i.e. same as vision effects), still apply even when the creature can be seen.
This comes down to the rules that describe how conditions are removed and being able to see an invisible creature does not remove the invisible condition (as written) and the benefits of the invisible condition do not depend on whether you can see the creature.
5) The friends cantrip example mentioned above is also a good one. You can cast the friends cantrip on yourself and choose anyone who then becomes "hostile" towards you even if there is no reasonable way for the affected creature to have any idea you even exist.
However, this spell has an "out".
"Another creature might seek retribution in other ways (at the DM’s discretion), depending on the nature of your interaction with it."
This last allows the DM to decide how the spell works in their game world (they can always do that of course but this is a specific example). A DM could decide based on having NO interaction with the target that this then constrains how the affected creature reacts when they discover that someone has tried to use magic to influence them.
The spell indicates that the target becomes "hostile towards you" but if the target has no way to know who "you" is based on the nature of your interaction, the DM is allowed to substitute a different response in terms of seeking retribution based on the nature of the interaction. So the friends spell doesn't have to be "lunacy" unless the DM wants it to be :)
(The distant king's response could involve seeking clerical advice, getting divination and other spells cast a few times and narrowing down the choices of who might have been trying to irritate them and then perhaps dispatching some minions to deal with the issue).
2) The meaning of "completely concealed". Does a transparent obstruction provide total cover? A thin sheet of glass or plastic wrap? A wall of force? Particularly from spells that only require the ability to see for aiming them.
I always interpreted "completely concealed" was used in the context of completely covering it since total cover has more to do with obstruction than hidden. I recalled the devs brought up being unable to target behind total cover when answering Wall of Force question in the past and always ruled that way since such an obstruction is not a clear path..
CONCEALverb If you conceal something, you cover it or hide it carefully.
You know, they don't define "target" in the combat chapter either, despite using the word 50-something times there. Yet, the combat rules work just fine, because 5e uses "natural language" rules. Target means what target means.
Maybe the decision to not fill the rules with technical term definitions was a bad one. But then, they sell more books than me so what do I know...
You know, they don't define "target" in the combat chapter either, despite using the word 50-something times there. Yet, the combat rules work just fine, because 5e uses "natural language" rules. Target means what target means.
Indeed, and natural language rules rely on surrounding context to establish meaning. When we've got entire adjudication guidance on AOEs both with and without miniatures describing creatures and objects inside of an AOE as "potential targets" we see exactly what a "target" of a spell's area of effect is.
Clearly I've made a mistake assuming one would change their mind after an example so cut and dry, but here we are.
Responding to a post that attempts to derail the thread, engages in bad faith argument, or aims to provoke an emotional response from other users only serves to further that purpose.
Another RAW ruling that I think is absurd is saying that a Fairy that gains a lineage like Dhampire keeps their flying speed but loses their Flight trait due to the Ancestral Legacy lineage feature.
To avoid derailing the thread, please take focused discussion on a particular rule to a separate thread. The topic of this thread is the collection of individual player/dm's personal opinions on rules that make no sense to them or their group.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Another one i can think of is disadvantage capping. If you're restrained and blinded you're as much disadvantaged as if you only were suffering from either one conditions.
Also, how a blinded creature can still orient itself easily and target others with ranged weapon attacks with as much precision this upon significant distance. For example, you can move about where you want and target someone up to 600 feet away with your longbow with as much ease as if you could see. I know disadvantage apply to attack, but the possibility to target and move unhindered under such condition is dumb.
Treantmonk just recently did a video that points out that fire storm has some weird wording in it that means it doesn't have to behave like you might think or the devs intended.
"Each cube must have at least one face adjacent to another cube" doesn't mean that all 10 cubes have to be in a contiguous chain. As long as each cube you place has one partner sharing a face, the spell doesn't say the rest need to touch. You can place 5 groups of 10'x10'x20' according to that interpretation. There is a Jeremy Crawford tweet opposing this interpretation, but the spell text seems to be fine with it. The spell seems to be written such that you'd place the cubes sequentially, adding the next to a face of a previous; but Treantmonk seems to assume placing them all instantaneously, possibly in pairs. This one is questionable.
The other bit is about how it says it damages items. He interprets that part a bit differently than I might, saying that the spell damages items whether they're worn or carried. I think it is a little tough to tell whether the "that aren't being worn or carried" applies to both phrases separated by the "and" before that in the sentence or just the last one. He says that it only applies to the second phrase, meaning that the first part "the fire damages objects in the area" is complete. This means that a PC in the area would likely lose all of its items based on the damage of the spell and estimates of HP of items. This one seems a bit harsh to read Treantmonk's way.
I mean no disrespect to Treantmonk and don't want to bring any ill will his way. His videos are good. I just was reminded of that video when I saw this topic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In regards to the AOE and the semantic game of targets:
"Damage Rolls: If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them. For example, when a wizard casts fireball or a cleric casts flame strike, the spell's damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast."
So, this is a rule. this rule explains the terminology about as clearly as possible. I wonder why, since we are discussing RaW, some folks want to adopt SOME of the rules surrounding a thing and ignore others, that clarify and provide examples of such. Also, an earlier dismissal of when the developer says........ and a poster says they are wrong. Uh, to be clear, developers are not wrong in what they say the rules actually mean. Developers are, for the game rules, "God" much like the DM is "God" in their word. When citing and talking about RaW, we don't get to pick and choose parts of the rule set, we need to review and include ALL rules that impact one another.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Developers are like engineers, unless they have some in-the-field experience, what works on paper does not necessarily work in reality, especially when there has been several such devs/engineers who have “seasoned” their version of what’s created.
the rules have been for nearly half a century always been “general rules of play, and my be redefined or altered by circumstance or whim of the individual who is presenter and referee of such rules.”
anyone and everyone can rule as they wish, and everyone wishes the rules were better defined, but as many understand such precise rules defining would nearly encompass an entire set of encyclopedias.
Solution: generalize rules to encompass roughly the majority of the circumstances and situations that arise, and leave the outlier rulings to be determined when and if the situation calls for it.
Cons: broad interpretation of rules by various and numerous individuals will ( and always) creates debates on what such out-of-the-standard circumstances and situations that might occur, and that’s a good thing, for one may have not considered all the perspectives and variables involved.
TL;DR it’s stupid to think that rules that are generally designed to manage a broad spectrum of issues can be effectively implemented such that they cover every single aspect of play that might arise.
It turns out that this rule actually isn't very clear to a lot of people because it doesn't say what you think it says. This rule doesn't say anything about spell effects actually targeting multiple creatures. It says that if you have already targeted multiple creatures and the spell effect then damages more than one of those targets then you roll once.
The notion that "all creatures within an AoE are targets of that AoE" is NOT supported by this rule at all. It simply doesn't say that.
Again, read it carefully. The phrase "deals damage to more than one target" is NOT the same as saying the effect targets more than one creature and damages all of them. This rule applies to targeting spells, not AoE spells.
Of course, examples are then given which do not align with the rule that was just stated, because it's just not well written as I've already explained. The rule would apply nicely to spells like Magic Missile, but not Fireball or Flame Strike.
It literally does say that.
"Damage Rolls: If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them. For example, when a wizard casts >> fireball << or a cleric casts flame strike, the spell's damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast."
This pretty clearly spells out that "all creatures caught in the blast" are considered targets of the spell's effect, so we roll damage once for all of them.
You can't parse this sentence and not come away with the fact that creatures affected by a spell are considered targets of it. More specific language in other spells is intentional. Specific beats general.
Moreover, fireball doesn't only affect creatures, it affects both creatures and objects, which all become targets in the spell's text. Only creatures get a Dex save though.
Speaking of saves...
>Ch. 10 Spellcasting: Saving Throws
--
Many spells specify that a target can make a saving throw to avoid some or all of a spell’s effects. The spell specifies the ability that the target uses for the save and what happens on a success or failure.
---
It's clear there's "target" as the point of origin, and "target" as "affected by a spell's effects", RAW.
There's also Targeting Yourself, which states that when in an AOE of a spell you cast, you can target yourself, meaning you can throw fireball at your feet and become a target of the spell.
Finally, the DMG contains further rules on adjudicating AOEs, and you're gonna be mad, so take a breath.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/running-the-game#AdjudicatingAreasofEffect
There's the target definition you keep saying doesn't exist. Oops.
Case closed, read your DMG folks.
Oh, but don't you know? Any instance that suggests that AOEs target the affected creatures are either mistakes or are poorly written and say something different then what they apparently say. Sure is interesting that those instances keep happening though.
Can we please drop this targeting issue? If neither side is moved after a few dozen very long posts, the discussion clearly isn't going to go anywhere.
Yeah moving on...
The second point of the Shield Master feat, which allows you to add your shields AC to a Dex save to spells or other harmful effects which only target you, and the only spell this applies to is disintegrate.
I think the key component is "other harmful effects"; I believe there's a number of monsters that have single target DEX save attacks. There's also several other spells that you can use this on, such as Grasping Vine, Enervation, and Immolation. It's not a particularly broad feature, but it's one the same feat as knocking a target prone as a bonus action and spending a reaction to turn a successful DEX save to 0 damage on stuff like Fireball, or the aforementioned Enervation and Immolation. Making the bonus too wide on top of that feature would be a bit broken.
That's right, I thought there were a few more spells it worked with. But yeah, it would be busted if it worked on everything, but at the same time it feels a little too narrow.
Sorry but 1978 texted:
looks like nearly 50 years ago, fireball hasn’t changed much other than changing the overall damage to a constant 8d6 unless upcasted.
personally this was and is a far better example of how spells should be detailed.
True, but the other effect is quite broad (working on a great number of spells as well as some of the classic monster AoE's like dragon breath), so I think of the single target one as more of a bonus to the primary benefit.
I doubt any sane DM would allow blind characters to have their vision restored by Darkvision simply because the spell states it grants the target “the ability to see in the dark.” This was one of the first rules arguments I witnessed on these message boards. Absolute lunacy. “If I this is gonna be that kind of party, I’m gonna stick my dick in the mashed potatoes.”
Many of these appear to be debatable depending on how an individual decides to interpret the rules.
1) Use of the word "target". Obviously some interpret it one way and others want to interpret it another (eg. fireball does nothing).
2) The meaning of "completely concealed". Does a transparent obstruction provide total cover? A thin sheet of glass or plastic wrap? A wall of force? Particularly from spells that only require the ability to see for aiming them.
However, there are some others that are just but badly written ...
3) Treating darkness and dense foliage in an identical way as "heavily obscured".
This means that darkness will block line of sight to an area of light on the other side since "heavily obscured" areas block vision through them. Alternatively, if the DM decides that heavily obscured areas can see to a non-obscured area on the other side (as in darkness with a lit area) then a creature can see through 100' feet of jungle to the clearing in the middle of it. By treating darkness the same as other types of vision impairment that can cause "heavily obscured" - the rules give some very weird results that few DMs would actually use. There isn't one set of "rules" that works for different kinds of vision imparing effects. In the interests of "simplicity", the rules created a situation that doesn't correspond with how most DMs/players would run it.
Finally, there are the straight up RAW but lunatic examples :) (my opinion :) ).
4) A creature with the Invisible condition retains all the benefits of being invisible EVEN when they can be seen as if they were visible.
See invisible, blindsight, true sight - all of these may allow the creature to see an invisible target but none of them remove the invisible condition. The condition is written in such a way that the detailed effects (which are the same as in effect when a creature can see their target but their target can not see them - i.e. same as vision effects), still apply even when the creature can be seen.
This comes down to the rules that describe how conditions are removed and being able to see an invisible creature does not remove the invisible condition (as written) and the benefits of the invisible condition do not depend on whether you can see the creature.
5) The friends cantrip example mentioned above is also a good one. You can cast the friends cantrip on yourself and choose anyone who then becomes "hostile" towards you even if there is no reasonable way for the affected creature to have any idea you even exist.
However, this spell has an "out".
"Another creature might seek retribution in other ways (at the DM’s discretion), depending on the nature of your interaction with it."
This last allows the DM to decide how the spell works in their game world (they can always do that of course but this is a specific example). A DM could decide based on having NO interaction with the target that this then constrains how the affected creature reacts when they discover that someone has tried to use magic to influence them.
The spell indicates that the target becomes "hostile towards you" but if the target has no way to know who "you" is based on the nature of your interaction, the DM is allowed to substitute a different response in terms of seeking retribution based on the nature of the interaction. So the friends spell doesn't have to be "lunacy" unless the DM wants it to be :)
(The distant king's response could involve seeking clerical advice, getting divination and other spells cast a few times and narrowing down the choices of who might have been trying to irritate them and then perhaps dispatching some minions to deal with the issue).
I always interpreted "completely concealed" was used in the context of completely covering it since total cover has more to do with obstruction than hidden. I recalled the devs brought up being unable to target behind total cover when answering Wall of Force question in the past and always ruled that way since such an obstruction is not a clear path..
CONCEAL verb If you conceal something, you cover it or hide it carefully.
You know, they don't define "target" in the combat chapter either, despite using the word 50-something times there. Yet, the combat rules work just fine, because 5e uses "natural language" rules. Target means what target means.
Maybe the decision to not fill the rules with technical term definitions was a bad one. But then, they sell more books than me so what do I know...
Indeed, and natural language rules rely on surrounding context to establish meaning. When we've got entire adjudication guidance on AOEs both with and without miniatures describing creatures and objects inside of an AOE as "potential targets" we see exactly what a "target" of a spell's area of effect is.
Clearly I've made a mistake assuming one would change their mind after an example so cut and dry, but here we are.
My advice to everyone in this thread is if you feel that a post violates the site rules and guidelines you should simply report it and move on.
For reference here are the site rules and guidelines: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/news-announcements/135626-site-rules-guidelines
Responding to a post that attempts to derail the thread, engages in bad faith argument, or aims to provoke an emotional response from other users only serves to further that purpose.
Another RAW ruling that I think is absurd is saying that a Fairy that gains a lineage like Dhampire keeps their flying speed but loses their Flight trait due to the Ancestral Legacy lineage feature.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorTo avoid derailing the thread, please take focused discussion on a particular rule to a separate thread. The topic of this thread is the collection of individual player/dm's personal opinions on rules that make no sense to them or their group.
Homebrew Rules || Homebrew FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
Another one i can think of is disadvantage capping. If you're restrained and blinded you're as much disadvantaged as if you only were suffering from either one conditions.
Also, how a blinded creature can still orient itself easily and target others with ranged weapon attacks with as much precision this upon significant distance. For example, you can move about where you want and target someone up to 600 feet away with your longbow with as much ease as if you could see. I know disadvantage apply to attack, but the possibility to target and move unhindered under such condition is dumb.
Treantmonk just recently did a video that points out that fire storm has some weird wording in it that means it doesn't have to behave like you might think or the devs intended.
"Each cube must have at least one face adjacent to another cube" doesn't mean that all 10 cubes have to be in a contiguous chain. As long as each cube you place has one partner sharing a face, the spell doesn't say the rest need to touch. You can place 5 groups of 10'x10'x20' according to that interpretation. There is a Jeremy Crawford tweet opposing this interpretation, but the spell text seems to be fine with it. The spell seems to be written such that you'd place the cubes sequentially, adding the next to a face of a previous; but Treantmonk seems to assume placing them all instantaneously, possibly in pairs. This one is questionable.
The other bit is about how it says it damages items. He interprets that part a bit differently than I might, saying that the spell damages items whether they're worn or carried. I think it is a little tough to tell whether the "that aren't being worn or carried" applies to both phrases separated by the "and" before that in the sentence or just the last one. He says that it only applies to the second phrase, meaning that the first part "the fire damages objects in the area" is complete. This means that a PC in the area would likely lose all of its items based on the damage of the spell and estimates of HP of items. This one seems a bit harsh to read Treantmonk's way.
I mean no disrespect to Treantmonk and don't want to bring any ill will his way. His videos are good. I just was reminded of that video when I saw this topic.