JC's tweet is an interesting piece in the puzzle of how he understands both spell targeting and range to work in 5E. If Booming Blade remains War Caster eligible, then it must "target only that creature," and not also target any points or areas. And Chapter 10 tells us that wherever we find a target, that "target must be within range." So clearly, JC understands "Self (5 foot radius)" to mean 5 foot range... which means it is still Spell-Sniper-able.
If instead "Self (5 foot)" means self range, then we're left puzzling how it is that the only target of the spell happens to be the creature (outside of the spell's range, in violation of Chapter 10) and not the point (which is within the spell's range and appears to be the legal target).
Or, maybe "5-foot-radius-from-self" is an entirely different thing from "5 foot" range, even though both are drawn in the exact same way on a battle map to cover the same threatened area?
Nothing new than what I said before, but again, just interesting that JC feels these are such simple answers to throw around to complicated questions, when his answers appear to explicitly contradict the written text that he designed.
It's also possible that some people are trying to make things more complicated than they really are. I don't mean that as a dig against anyone. We naturally want to prescribe complexity to things as we mature because we equate complexity with being better or more adult. But it doesn't always have to be that way.
Q: "How do you put an elephant into a refrigerator?"
Q: "How do you put an elephant into a refrigerator?"
A: "You open the door and put them inside."
That’s actually the first question in a series that are part of a specific type of cognitive test. Interestingly enough, the two demographics of people who do the best on those kinds of cognitive tests are young children and corporate executives.... 🤔
The rules can get pretty simple when you just ignore their language . Then again, that can also cause a lot of arguments around the table, as different folks with different expectations come together. And, it isn't that helpful for DMs and players that move around to different groups week to week, and who can't just fall back on houserules that their group think are "close enough." The whole reason we play a rule system instead of free form is that the rules set a neutral playing field of shared expectations, whether you're sitting down with a group in New York or Paris or Beijing.
"RAW doesn't matter, just play it the way it's obviously supposed to work" is hardly a new opinion to pop up on this forum. While it's a fine philosophy for a DM to apply to their own group, and possibly good advice to offer in the Tips & Tactics or DMs Only forums, I for one don't find it particularly constructive opinion when it's injected into a nuanced discussion on the Rules & Game Mechanics forum in a way that seems mostly designed to belittle others or derail a thread. Also, it kind of breaks down, when the authority on how things are supposed to work (Jeremy Crawford) seems to so often change his mind about how things work, or offer opinions that contradict one another or the published works he puts his name to.
Well, quite a bit has happened since I last posted in this thread.
So, JC came out with another batch of tweets to further "clarify" what his RAI for the RAW is. Now, War Caster still works with these spells (except if you want to target two people with GFB), you can still use a Pact Weapon for these spells, but the spells unfortunately no longer work with shadow blade or natural weapons for some unknown reason.
I don't think that it is OP to allow a lizardfolk to use their bite with GFB, IMO, that is awesome and should be allowed. I don't think it's OP to allow a sorcerer to use their limited resource pool to twin these spells. I don't think it's OP to let a level 11 Eldritch Knigh/level 6 Bladesinger to attack twice and use a bonus action to cast GFB/BB.
(Another side-note, if my player asked me if I would allow Thirsting Blade to work like the new Bladesinger's Extra Attack, I 100% would allow that.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
There's a reason that Rage and Sneak Attack have different names. Because, they're different features, which work in different ways, which you get from different classes, at different levels. There's no reason for Extra Attack and Extra Attack to both be named Extra Attack, now that they do different things, and have almost nothing in common.
But there is only one extra attack feature. There is now a specific rule that alters how that feature works for one subclass. There is only one mage hand spell. There is a specific rule that alters how that feature works for one subclass.
Big oof... for real, they should've just made Mage Hand Legerdemain it's own unique spell and restricted it to only Arcane Tricksters.
In the same train-of-thought, from the opposite direction, why the **** do we have (in 5e... yes, I know the history) both Acid ArrowandMelf's Acid Arrow? There is zero difference between them.
Because of IP issues. Melf's Acid Arrow uses Melf in its name, which is a trademarked name (or has some other IP rights attached to it) that only appears in products that are not given freely. Acid arrow exists to put into freely available content. Sorry to add this late to the thread; still catching up.
(Another side-note, if my player asked me if I would allow Thirsting Blade to work like the new Bladesinger's Extra Attack, I 100% would allow that.)
Never understood why this was not an Invocation...
Oh, it would need to be changed so you couldn't exploit Eldritch Blast with this. Dang it. Maybe they could change it to specifically require the cantrip to only be able to attack one creature?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
There's a reason that Rage and Sneak Attack have different names. Because, they're different features, which work in different ways, which you get from different classes, at different levels. There's no reason for Extra Attack and Extra Attack to both be named Extra Attack, now that they do different things, and have almost nothing in common.
But there is only one extra attack feature. There is now a specific rule that alters how that feature works for one subclass. There is only one mage hand spell. There is a specific rule that alters how that feature works for one subclass.
Big oof... for real, they should've just made Mage Hand Legerdemain it's own unique spell and restricted it to only Arcane Tricksters.
In the same train-of-thought, from the opposite direction, why the **** do we have (in 5e... yes, I know the history) both Acid ArrowandMelf's Acid Arrow? There is zero difference between them.
Because of IP issues. Melf's Acid Arrow uses Melf in its name, which is a trademarked name (or has some other IP rights attached to it) that only appears in products that are not given freely. Acid arrow exists to put into freely available content. Sorry to add this late to the thread; still catching up.
Umm..does anyone have a link to this bit about Arcane Trickster's Mage Hand Legerdemain?
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
That's not the point, Jounichi. I guarantee that players are looking at each other's character sheets - and a DM should be encouraging people to familiarize themselves with their fellows' capabilities. You should not be shooting down players getting to know how their party members' abilities work, save that in this case the 'Extra Attack' from Bladesinger does something completely different than the 'Extra Attack' for everybody else.
Whether you believe there's no issue if someone simply tunnel-visions into what's written on their sheet alone doesn't really matter in the broader scope of the rules supposedly being written for everyone. Somebody who plays a Bladesinger one campaign and a Paladin the next will have to wonder why their Extra Attack no longer gives them the cool cantrip thing. An Eldritch Knight playing alongside a Bladesinger will have to wonder why the Bladesinger's extra attacks get to be so much better than the EK's own. Players who simply enjoy the game and read through the books to scope out their options will see several features named the same thing that have completely different effects.
It's simply bad game design. Is it disastrously bad game design, campaign-ruiningly bad game design, or whatever else? No. But that doesn't mean it's not bad design regardless, especially when it's the height of simplicity (and also just more fun) to call the feature 'Fire and Steel' or something similarly evocative.
To be clear, you're only saying it's bad game design because of the name. What are your thoughts on Unarmored Defense for both barbarians and monks? Should one of those two features have a different name? Should both of them? Or does the name really matter?
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." -Juliet Capulet
Of course it's bad game design for totally different features to have the same name! If every single class in the game was named "The Hero Class," "The Ranger," or "Rumplestilskin," I think the community would be quite upset and furious at that, as it would be confusing. Different features should have different names, because otherwise, there is no way to differentiate them.
Of course it's bad game design for totally different features to have the same name! If every single class in the game was named "The Hero Class," "The Ranger," or "Rumplestilskin," I think the community would be quite upset and furious at that, as it would be confusing. Different features should have different names, because otherwise, there is no way to differentiate them.
No less than five classes have a Spellcasting feature at 1st level. Two more get it at level 2. Two more can get it through archetypes at level 3.
Someone at WOTC decided, after who knows how many years of play and who knows how many Errata, that BB and GFB were broken, and decided to "fix" them. Clearly not understanding "unexpected consequences", they nerfed BB with Warcasting and conjured Weapons into the ground, as well as Twinning and Spell Sniper/Polearm setups. There was an immediate hue and cry, an "oh oh" moment at WOTC, and Mr. Crawford started firing off tweets backing off the damage done.
Many playstyles have been destroyed in the past 24 hours, and some of them have been resurrected, but not all.
Of course it's bad game design for totally different features to have the same name! If every single class in the game was named "The Hero Class," "The Ranger," or "Rumplestilskin," I think the community would be quite upset and furious at that, as it would be confusing. Different features should have different names, because otherwise, there is no way to differentiate them.
No less than five classes have a Spellcasting feature at 1st level. Two more get it at level 2. Two more can get it through archetypes at level 3.
Someone at WOTC decided, after who knows how many years of play and who knows how many Errata, that BB and GFB were broken, and decided to "fix" them. Clearly not understanding "unexpected consequences", they nerfed BB with Warcasting and conjured Weapons into the ground, as well as Twinning and Spell Sniper/Polearm setups. There was an immediate hue and cry, an "oh oh" moment at WOTC, and Mr. Crawford started firing off tweets backing off the damage done.
Many playstyles have been destroyed in the past 24 hours, and some of them have been resurrected, but not all.
Ah, I see the problem. Nothing was "nerfed...into the ground". Wizards dared to revisit something published years ago and people began screaming like Chicken Little. If anyone clearly didn't understand, it's everyone who made a knee-jerk reaction to the errata.
You may not be able to twin them, but you can quicken them. That's still pretty good. And, boo hoo, you can't extend the range of the spell with...5 (really 4) martial weapons. It's not a broken combination of abilities, but stripping it away doesn't destroy anything, either. They can always fight with a spear.
Someone at WOTC decided, after who knows how many years of play and who knows how many Errata, that BB and GFB were broken, and decided to "fix" them. Clearly not understanding "unexpected consequences", they nerfed BB with Warcasting and conjured Weapons into the ground, as well as Twinning and Spell Sniper/Polearm setups. There was an immediate hue and cry, an "oh oh" moment at WOTC, and Mr. Crawford started firing off tweets backing off the damage done.
Many playstyles have been destroyed in the past 24 hours, and some of them have been resurrected, but not all.
Ah, I see the problem. Nothing was "nerfed...into the ground". Wizards dared to revisit something published years ago and people began screaming like Chicken Little. If anyone clearly didn't understand, it's everyone who made a knee-jerk reaction to the errata.
You may not be able to twin them, but you can quicken them. That's still pretty good. And, boo hoo, you can't extend the range of the spell with...5 (really 4) martial weapons. It's not a broken combination of abilities, but stripping it away doesn't destroy anything, either. They can always fight with a spear.
Someone at WOTC decided, after who knows how many years of play and who knows how many Errata, that BB and GFB were broken, and decided to "fix" them. Clearly not understanding "unexpected consequences", they nerfed BB with Warcasting and conjured Weapons into the ground, as well as Twinning and Spell Sniper/Polearm setups. There was an immediate hue and cry, an "oh oh" moment at WOTC, and Mr. Crawford started firing off tweets backing off the damage done.
Many playstyles have been destroyed in the past 24 hours, and some of them have been resurrected, but not all.
Ah, I see the problem. Nothing was "nerfed...into the ground". Wizards dared to revisit something published years ago and people began screaming like Chicken Little. If anyone clearly didn't understand, it's everyone who made a knee-jerk reaction to the errata.
You may not be able to twin them, but you can quicken them. That's still pretty good. And, boo hoo, you can't extend the range of the spell with...5 (really 4) martial weapons. It's not a broken combination of abilities, but stripping it away doesn't destroy anything, either. They can always fight with a spear.
It is far worse than you grasp.
Well, don't keep us waiting.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's also possible that some people are trying to make things more complicated than they really are. I don't mean that as a dig against anyone. We naturally want to prescribe complexity to things as we mature because we equate complexity with being better or more adult. But it doesn't always have to be that way.
Q: "How do you put an elephant into a refrigerator?"
A: "You open the door and put them inside."
That’s actually the first question in a series that are part of a specific type of cognitive test. Interestingly enough, the two demographics of people who do the best on those kinds of cognitive tests are young children and corporate executives.... 🤔
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The rules can get pretty simple when you just ignore their language . Then again, that can also cause a lot of arguments around the table, as different folks with different expectations come together. And, it isn't that helpful for DMs and players that move around to different groups week to week, and who can't just fall back on houserules that their group think are "close enough." The whole reason we play a rule system instead of free form is that the rules set a neutral playing field of shared expectations, whether you're sitting down with a group in New York or Paris or Beijing.
"RAW doesn't matter, just play it the way it's obviously supposed to work" is hardly a new opinion to pop up on this forum. While it's a fine philosophy for a DM to apply to their own group, and possibly good advice to offer in the Tips & Tactics or DMs Only forums, I for one don't find it particularly constructive opinion when it's injected into a nuanced discussion on the Rules & Game Mechanics forum in a way that seems mostly designed to belittle others or derail a thread. Also, it kind of breaks down, when the authority on how things are supposed to work (Jeremy Crawford) seems to so often change his mind about how things work, or offer opinions that contradict one another or the published works he puts his name to.
Just my two cents.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Well, quite a bit has happened since I last posted in this thread.
So, JC came out with another batch of tweets to further "clarify" what his RAI for the RAW is. Now, War Caster still works with these spells (except if you want to target two people with GFB), you can still use a Pact Weapon for these spells, but the spells unfortunately no longer work with shadow blade or natural weapons for some unknown reason.
I don't think that it is OP to allow a lizardfolk to use their bite with GFB, IMO, that is awesome and should be allowed. I don't think it's OP to allow a sorcerer to use their limited resource pool to twin these spells. I don't think it's OP to let a level 11 Eldritch Knigh/level 6 Bladesinger to attack twice and use a bonus action to cast GFB/BB.
(Another side-note, if my player asked me if I would allow Thirsting Blade to work like the new Bladesinger's Extra Attack, I 100% would allow that.)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Because of IP issues. Melf's Acid Arrow uses Melf in its name, which is a trademarked name (or has some other IP rights attached to it) that only appears in products that are not given freely. Acid arrow exists to put into freely available content. Sorry to add this late to the thread; still catching up.
Never understood why this was not an Invocation...
"Normality is but an Illusion, Whats normal to the Spider, is only madness for the Fly"
Kain de Frostberg- Dark Knight - (Vengeance Pal3/ Hexblade 9), Port Mourn
Kain de Draakberg-Dark Knight lvl8-Avergreen(DitA)
Oh, it would need to be changed so you couldn't exploit Eldritch Blast with this. Dang it. Maybe they could change it to specifically require the cantrip to only be able to attack one creature?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
no no they are "clarifying"
lol
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Umm..does anyone have a link to this bit about Arcane Trickster's Mage Hand Legerdemain?
"Let me clarify: I ****ed up big time." :P
[edit] Vince: Arcane Trickster
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Where's the **** up?
To be clear, you're only saying it's bad game design because of the name. What are your thoughts on Unarmored Defense for both barbarians and monks? Should one of those two features have a different name? Should both of them? Or does the name really matter?
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." -Juliet Capulet
Of course it's bad game design for totally different features to have the same name! If every single class in the game was named "The Hero Class," "The Ranger," or "Rumplestilskin," I think the community would be quite upset and furious at that, as it would be confusing. Different features should have different names, because otherwise, there is no way to differentiate them.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
No less than five classes have a Spellcasting feature at 1st level. Two more get it at level 2. Two more can get it through archetypes at level 3.
I guess they're all badly designed, too.
Someone at WOTC decided, after who knows how many years of play and who knows how many Errata, that BB and GFB were broken, and decided to "fix" them. Clearly not understanding "unexpected consequences", they nerfed BB with Warcasting and conjured Weapons into the ground, as well as Twinning and Spell Sniper/Polearm setups. There was an immediate hue and cry, an "oh oh" moment at WOTC, and Mr. Crawford started firing off tweets backing off the damage done.
Many playstyles have been destroyed in the past 24 hours, and some of them have been resurrected, but not all.
We should just go back the source of the problem where we have an overuse of the term level. https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html
Ah, I see the problem. Nothing was "nerfed...into the ground". Wizards dared to revisit something published years ago and people began screaming like Chicken Little. If anyone clearly didn't understand, it's everyone who made a knee-jerk reaction to the errata.
You may not be able to twin them, but you can quicken them. That's still pretty good. And, boo hoo, you can't extend the range of the spell with...5 (really 4) martial weapons. It's not a broken combination of abilities, but stripping it away doesn't destroy anything, either. They can always fight with a spear.
Yes, one feature clearly bears no resemblance whatsoever to the other.
It's fine.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
It is far worse than you grasp.
Well, don't keep us waiting.