Sorry I forgot that with War Caster a Warlock can use both Wand of the War Mage and Rod of the Pact Keeper for a total of +6 to Spell Attacks. With the Robe they can get up to +8. But that is just Warlocks.
Sorry I forgot that with War Caster a Warlock can use both Wand of the War Mage and Rod of the Pact Keeper for a total of +6 to Spell Attacks. With the Robe they can get up to +8. But that is just Warlocks.
I considered Rod of the Pact Keeper, but what is the weapon used for True Strike in that case? Maybe a Thri-Kreen Warlock using secondary arms for either Light Weapons or juggling Spell Attack items? Multiclassing a Thri-kreen Wizard/Warlock could replace the Robe of the Archmagi with an Arcane Grimoire and reach up to +9, correct? And +12 if Magic Weapon bonuses stack?
I’d like to have the Range references included in the breakdown as it plays a crucial role in limiting the range attacks can reach, both versions of the range rules for attacks/spells for both rule sets.
How do you mean? I already have "An Attack cannot be both a Weapon Attack and a Spell Attack in the same way that an attack cannot be both a melee attack and a ranged attack even if it meets the definitions of both."
Oh, sorry. It was just another example of stacking items that are in the game. The Thri-Kreen idea is cool though! That would be crazy lottery of items to get lol.
I’d like to have the Range references included in the breakdown as it plays a crucial role in limiting the range attacks can reach, both versions of the range rules for attacks/spells for both rule sets.
How do you mean? I already have "An Attack cannot be both a Weapon Attack and a Spell Attack in the same way that an attack cannot be both a melee attack and a ranged attack even if it meets the definitions of both."
Maybe it's about whether the spell targets you, your weapon or a creature.
But I think the Stance 2, path 2.1 is related, right?
Stance 1: The Attack From True Strike Is Both A Spell Attack And A Weapon Attack
True Strike is a spell and requires an attack roll and therefore meets the requirements of a Spell Attack.
True Strike tells you to make an attack with a weapon and therefore meets the requirements of Weapon Attack.
Two Paths:
True Strike's instructions to use your spellcasting attribute prevents a conflict in the resolution of a Spell Attack versus a Weapon Attack
The differences in resolution of Weapon Attacks versus Spell Attacks does not cause a conflict in the definitions themselves so Specific Supersedes General Rule is not invoked.
The addition of the Rules Glossary and the entries for Spell Attack and Weapon Attack represent new/revised rules for these concepts.
With the 2024 rules all 2014 Sage Advice is invalid.
Sorcerous Burst does not specify that it is a Spell Attack, contradicting the potentially relevant Sage Advice ruling.
Multiple items provide bonuses to Spell Attacks already exceeding the +3 limit from items. RAI Argument.
That is a pretty good summary. I might phrase the #3 paths differently, but that's hair-splitting.
Concerning #5: I don't think they've said anything, either way, about the future of Sage Advice or the SAC. I expect at least some of the 2014-era SAC rulings to continue forward, maybe in a new version. Also (and this definitely is an RAI argument), I think many of the 2024 changes were made specifically to reduce the number of questions that led to past SAC rulings, meaning it's very expected that some of the SAC would be obsolete or overruled. I think this was an intentional and substantial cleanup effort.
(And a personal quibble: I don't think of #7 as an RAI argument, so much as a piece of "negative space" in the rules. In 5e, the +3 limit has always been per-item, and it's always had ways for multiple +3 items to "stack" --- like having +3 Armor and a +3 Shield at the same time.)
The error many people make is they have a black and white thinking about the nature of the word target. When someone is a target if a spell, they process that as target of the entire spell.
But spells aren't always like that. Take silvery barbs as an example. It has two vey clear targets, both experience very different effects. Different parts of the spell. But they're BOTH targets of the spell. Just not targets of the WHOLE spell.
A lot of spell work like this in more subtle ways. And this new 24 version if true strike is just such a spell. It targets the spellcaster. And then has a secondary target. They don't have the same effect for each. The spellcaster's effect is 'make an attack' and the second target's effect is 'get rekt'.
But you'll see this in their spell design a lot more once you understand that spells have descriptions that just tell you what they do and if you read them, they'll tell you what it targets and with what part of that effect.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
A lot of spell work like this in more subtle ways. And this new 24 version if true strike is just such a spell. It targets the spellcaster. And then has a secondary target. They don't have the same effect for each. The spellcaster's effect is 'make an attack' and the second target's effect is 'get rekt'.
Doesn't have to be like that. The rules make a pretty clear distinction between "target" and "point of origin." And people care because of War Caster, basically. (In 2014 twinning also made it matter, but they changed twinning.)
A lot of spell work like this in more subtle ways. And this new 24 version if true strike is just such a spell. It targets the spellcaster. And then has a secondary target. They don't have the same effect for each. The spellcaster's effect is 'make an attack' and the second target's effect is 'get rekt'.
Doesn't have to be like that. The rules make a pretty clear distinction between "target" and "point of origin." And people care because of War Caster, basically. (In 2014 twinning also made it matter, but they changed twinning.)
This is a 2024 topic.
And it is like that. Whether it had to be or not, they chose to write spells how they chose to write spells.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
And it is like that. Whether it had to be or not, they chose to write spells how they chose to write spells.
In 2024, the spells are written pretty clearly in this regard: True Strike does not target the caster. "Range: Self" means the point of origin is the caster, and the spell description tells you to make an attack. Nothing says it targets the caster.
(Crawford even did a video discussing this, at length, in 2020. Posted up-thread. The "blade cantrips" did not target the caster then, and were eligible for War Caster then, too.)
Concerning #5: I don't think they've said anything, either way, about the future of Sage Advice or the SAC. I expect at least some of the 2014-era SAC rulings to continue forward, maybe in a new version. Also (and this definitely is an RAI argument), I think many of the 2024 changes were made specifically to reduce the number of questions that led to past SAC rulings, meaning it's very expected that some of the SAC would be obsolete or overruled. I think this was an intentional and substantial cleanup effort.
(And a personal quibble: I don't think of #7 as an RAI argument, so much as a piece of "negative space" in the rules. In 5e, the +3 limit has always been per-item, and it's always had ways for multiple +3 items to "stack" --- like having +3 Armor and a +3 Shield at the same time.)
Yes, unfortunately, it looks like it was about a year since after 2014 was released before an official Errata was published and I think the Sage Advice Compendium was much later but was a change from Jeremy Crawford's "Sage Advice" tweets. As a correction from my earlier statements, I assumed that because they both include "Sage Advice", that the SAC was a collection of Crawford's rulings, but it does not appear so. I hope we get errata or an official FAQ/SAC sooner rather than later.
As for the item bonus, I marked it RAI since it really only serves to refute the RAI that the bonus is only intended to stop at +3. It does contradict some of the early discussions of the design decisions of 5 and is even supported by Do the AC bonuses from a ring of protection and bracers of defense stack?, but if it makes sense, I think that in a weird way, RAI is that they should not stack but the official ruling is that do stack because there is no printed rule to prevent it and they cannot add one without reintroducing typed bonuses (enhancement bonus, competence bonus, etc.) from 3.x or being too restrictive (Magic Weapon bonuses don't stack with Fighting Style bonuses, etc.). It also doesn't help the RAI analysis that the items in the example historically stacked (in 3.x Rings of Protection provided a Deflection Bonus while the Bracers of Defense provided an Armor Bonus)
Restricting it to only one item bonus can be applied to an attack roll should resolve the issue for my purposes.
In 2024, the spells are written pretty clearly in this regard: True Strike does not target the caster. "Range: Self" means the point of origin is the caster, and the spell description tells you to make an attack. Nothing says it targets the caster.
(Crawford even did a video discussing this, at length, in 2020. Posted up-thread. The "blade cantrips" did not target the caster then, and were eligible for War Caster then, too.)
Crawford's commentary that is not included in the SAC is not official, and at best hints at RAI, but may reflect his personal bias and not the opinion of the entire design team. His ruling regarding War Caster and Green-flame Blade in that interview is not included in the SAC and is therefore not official.
Popping in to say right now we've received clarification that the Sage Advice Compendium is still RAW for 2024 rules that have not been replaced. With regards to the clarifications on weapon attacks and spell attacks, the SAC rulings are still RAW.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Popping in to say right now we've received clarification that the Sage Advice Compendium is still RAW for 2024 rules that have not been replaced. With regards to the clarifications on weapon attacks and spell attacks, the SAC rulings are still RAW.
That's going to be needed in writing to be RAW. It may be their "intent" for SAC2014 ruling to apply to rules that were never written when they were. But until they put that in writing it isn't RAW. The W, in RAW, means "Written".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I looked at it. And, according to SAC it only applies to 2014. So.
I mean. Technically. According to SAC... 2024 rules aren't even official.
Sage Advice Compendium
The Sage Advice Compendium collects questions and answers about the rules of Dungeons & Dragons (fifth edition). This document will be updated when substantive additions or revisions have been made to the text.
Rules References
The fifth edition of D&D has three official rulebooks, each of which was first published in 2014:
Player’s Handbook (abbreviated PHB)
Monster Manual (abbreviated MM)
Dungeon Master’s Guide (abbreviated DMG)
Edit/add: What's worse is the SAC references back to the 2014 rule books IN the rulings. So, IF the SAC is RAW for 2024, then what is being said is that 2024 rulebooks aren't stand alone, and need 2014 rulebooks to get to the RAW. That seems... wildly incorrect.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Popping in to say right now we've received clarification that the Sage Advice Compendium is still RAW for 2024 rules that have not been replaced. With regards to the clarifications on weapon attacks and spell attacks, the SAC rulings are still RAW.
Did they actually specifically mention weapon and spell attacks?
Popping in to say right now we've received clarification that the Sage Advice Compendium is still RAW for 2024 rules that have not been replaced. With regards to the clarifications on weapon attacks and spell attacks, the SAC rulings are still RAW.
Since you popped in may I ask a relevant question?
What is the best way at this point to ask for Updated Sage Advice for the 2024 Rules Update?
Popping in to say right now we've received clarification that the Sage Advice Compendium is still RAW for 2024 rules that have not been replaced. With regards to the clarifications on weapon attacks and spell attacks, the SAC rulings are still RAW.
Popping in to say right now we've received clarification that the Sage Advice Compendium is still RAW for 2024 rules that have not been replaced. With regards to the clarifications on weapon attacks and spell attacks, the SAC rulings are still RAW.
When you say "we" do you mean "dndbeyond staff" or is there some announcement we're forgetting about?
(Also, given the addition of a glossary and several "new" definitions in it, it's possible some of these rules have, indeed, been "replaced." But maybe you have an official read on this.)
In 2024, the spells are written pretty clearly in this regard: True Strike does not target the caster. "Range: Self" means the point of origin is the caster, and the spell description tells you to make an attack. Nothing says it targets the caster.
(Crawford even did a video discussing this, at length, in 2020. Posted up-thread. The "blade cantrips" did not target the caster then, and were eligible for War Caster then, too.)
Crawford's commentary that is not included in the SAC is not official, and at best hints at RAI, but may reflect his personal bias and not the opinion of the entire design team. His ruling regarding War Caster and Green-flame Blade in that interview is not included in the SAC and is therefore not official.
This has some resemblance (emphasis mine):
Second, neither green-flame blade nor booming blade works with Extra Attack or any other feature that requires the Attack action. Like other spells, these cantrips require the Cast a Spell action, not the Attack action, and they can’t be used to make an opportunity attack, unless a special feature allows you to do so.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sorry I forgot that with War Caster a Warlock can use both Wand of the War Mage and Rod of the Pact Keeper for a total of +6 to Spell Attacks. With the Robe they can get up to +8. But that is just Warlocks.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I considered Rod of the Pact Keeper, but what is the weapon used for True Strike in that case? Maybe a Thri-Kreen Warlock using secondary arms for either Light Weapons or juggling Spell Attack items? Multiclassing a Thri-kreen Wizard/Warlock could replace the Robe of the Archmagi with an Arcane Grimoire and reach up to +9, correct? And +12 if Magic Weapon bonuses stack?
How do you mean? I already have "An Attack cannot be both a Weapon Attack and a Spell Attack in the same way that an attack cannot be both a melee attack and a ranged attack even if it meets the definitions of both."
How to add Tooltips.
Oh, sorry. It was just another example of stacking items that are in the game. The Thri-Kreen idea is cool though! That would be crazy lottery of items to get lol.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
No, don't be sorry.
Just for context, I always advocate for a few things:
I love thought arguments. Though if there is anything you are interested in, we may want to start a new thread to avoid this tired and bitter thread.
Cheers!
How to add Tooltips.
Maybe it's about whether the spell targets you, your weapon or a creature.
But I think the Stance 2, path 2.1 is related, right?
That is a pretty good summary. I might phrase the #3 paths differently, but that's hair-splitting.
Concerning #5: I don't think they've said anything, either way, about the future of Sage Advice or the SAC. I expect at least some of the 2014-era SAC rulings to continue forward, maybe in a new version. Also (and this definitely is an RAI argument), I think many of the 2024 changes were made specifically to reduce the number of questions that led to past SAC rulings, meaning it's very expected that some of the SAC would be obsolete or overruled. I think this was an intentional and substantial cleanup effort.
(And a personal quibble: I don't think of #7 as an RAI argument, so much as a piece of "negative space" in the rules. In 5e, the +3 limit has always been per-item, and it's always had ways for multiple +3 items to "stack" --- like having +3 Armor and a +3 Shield at the same time.)
The error many people make is they have a black and white thinking about the nature of the word target. When someone is a target if a spell, they process that as target of the entire spell.
But spells aren't always like that. Take silvery barbs as an example. It has two vey clear targets, both experience very different effects. Different parts of the spell. But they're BOTH targets of the spell. Just not targets of the WHOLE spell.
A lot of spell work like this in more subtle ways. And this new 24 version if true strike is just such a spell. It targets the spellcaster. And then has a secondary target. They don't have the same effect for each. The spellcaster's effect is 'make an attack' and the second target's effect is 'get rekt'.
But you'll see this in their spell design a lot more once you understand that spells have descriptions that just tell you what they do and if you read them, they'll tell you what it targets and with what part of that effect.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Doesn't have to be like that. The rules make a pretty clear distinction between "target" and "point of origin." And people care because of War Caster, basically. (In 2014 twinning also made it matter, but they changed twinning.)
This is a 2024 topic.
And it is like that. Whether it had to be or not, they chose to write spells how they chose to write spells.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
In 2024, the spells are written pretty clearly in this regard: True Strike does not target the caster. "Range: Self" means the point of origin is the caster, and the spell description tells you to make an attack. Nothing says it targets the caster.
(Crawford even did a video discussing this, at length, in 2020. Posted up-thread. The "blade cantrips" did not target the caster then, and were eligible for War Caster then, too.)
Yes, unfortunately, it looks like it was about a year since after 2014 was released before an official Errata was published and I think the Sage Advice Compendium was much later but was a change from Jeremy Crawford's "Sage Advice" tweets. As a correction from my earlier statements, I assumed that because they both include "Sage Advice", that the SAC was a collection of Crawford's rulings, but it does not appear so. I hope we get errata or an official FAQ/SAC sooner rather than later.
As for the item bonus, I marked it RAI since it really only serves to refute the RAI that the bonus is only intended to stop at +3. It does contradict some of the early discussions of the design decisions of 5 and is even supported by Do the AC bonuses from a ring of protection and bracers of defense stack?, but if it makes sense, I think that in a weird way, RAI is that they should not stack but the official ruling is that do stack because there is no printed rule to prevent it and they cannot add one without reintroducing typed bonuses (enhancement bonus, competence bonus, etc.) from 3.x or being too restrictive (Magic Weapon bonuses don't stack with Fighting Style bonuses, etc.). It also doesn't help the RAI analysis that the items in the example historically stacked (in 3.x Rings of Protection provided a Deflection Bonus while the Bracers of Defense provided an Armor Bonus)
Restricting it to only one item bonus can be applied to an attack roll should resolve the issue for my purposes.
Crawford's commentary that is not included in the SAC is not official, and at best hints at RAI, but may reflect his personal bias and not the opinion of the entire design team. His ruling regarding War Caster and Green-flame Blade in that interview is not included in the SAC and is therefore not official.
How to add Tooltips.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorPopping in to say right now we've received clarification that the Sage Advice Compendium is still RAW for 2024 rules that have not been replaced. With regards to the clarifications on weapon attacks and spell attacks, the SAC rulings are still RAW.
Homebrew Rules || Homebrew FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
That's going to be needed in writing to be RAW. It may be their "intent" for SAC2014 ruling to apply to rules that were never written when they were. But until they put that in writing it isn't RAW. The W, in RAW, means "Written".
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I take it to mean their SAC official ruling still stand.
I looked at it. And, according to SAC it only applies to 2014. So.
I mean. Technically. According to SAC... 2024 rules aren't even official.
Edit/add: What's worse is the SAC references back to the 2014 rule books IN the rulings. So, IF the SAC is RAW for 2024, then what is being said is that 2024 rulebooks aren't stand alone, and need 2014 rulebooks to get to the RAW. That seems... wildly incorrect.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Did they actually specifically mention weapon and spell attacks?
Since you popped in may I ask a relevant question?
What is the best way at this point to ask for Updated Sage Advice for the 2024 Rules Update?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Thank you! ❤️
When you say "we" do you mean "dndbeyond staff" or is there some announcement we're forgetting about?
(Also, given the addition of a glossary and several "new" definitions in it, it's possible some of these rules have, indeed, been "replaced." But maybe you have an official read on this.)
This has some resemblance (emphasis mine):