It is a weak condition though and actually detrimental for ranged combat, which is where you are going to use it and it is something anyone could do near automatically with a build for it without giving up as much.
Inflicting advantage on received attacks, disadvantage on their attacks and halved movement isn't weak. Bringing down flying enemies without a save isn't weak.
To start with that is not accurate. It is only advantage on received attacks from within 5 feet, but anyone ranged as well as that PAM/GWM standing 10 feet away with reach are at DISADVANTAGE to hit a prone character. When I am playing an archer and fighting enemies with missile weapons I go prone regularly as part of my movement. It is one of the best defensive moves you can make if you are confident no one is going to melee you.
It is also not disadvantage on attacks he makes on his turn because he is going to stand up before he attacks (obviously). Unless you can keep him down, which is possible but takes more attacks/actions and requires expertise and a Rune Knight subclass ability or another spell to do reliably, making it overwhelmingly expensive.
Cutting movement in half is meaningful, but not overwhelmingly powerful and it is most meaningful when he is far away from your party, which means attacks against him are at disadvantage.
Bringing down flying enemies is not weak, but it is situational and can be done for a lower cost. Misty Step-grapple will bring down most flying enemies. Earthbind will do it on a 3rd level slot. I can get the martial adept feat and do this once a short rest without taking any invocations or using any slots.
tThe most common ways of breaking 5e combat involve some form of advantage that's way too inexpensive/reliable (e.g. grapple + prone, Farie Fire, Stunning Strike)
Exactly, but this is not inexpensive, this is EXTREMELY expensive. It is a high level spell and 3 invocations to do it well and even then it is only twice a short rest.
Inexpensive is the Undead Warlock's Form of Dread, which requires no invocations at all, can be done once every single turn he hits with an attack, round after round, with no resource cost and causes frightened, which is a far more powerful condition than prone.
, some ability that amplifies the benefits of advantage, (GWF, Sharpshooter),
You will have DISADVANTAGE using sharpshooter against a prone creature.
If you are playing that with advantage, that explains why it is so powerful at your table.
The fact that Eldritch Smite inflicts advantage, has no save, can be used from long range and can't be wasted opens it up to abuse.
It does not inflict advantage. It will inflict DISADVANTAGE on the very Warlock that we are talking about using it with.
At 5th level you can cast Fear. It ends a combat for multiple foes, or I can do some damage and make the enemy prone.
Statistically unlikely to work on everyone in a group, and it has a save per round. Also cost you the opportunity to cast Fireball instead.
Fireball is not a Warlock spell, so I don't understand why it is mentioned. He can't cast fireball anyway unless he has at least 5 levels in another class (although fireball does do way more damage than ES).
As for Fear, they do not get saves every round, they do not get a save at all until they are out of sight, which if it is this hypothetical flying creature in an open area, will be a long time, probably longer than the spell lasts. In a dungeon with a dead end they are out of the fight completely, you can have the party relax while the wizard throw daggers at him for target practice until he is dead and he can't do anything about it. He can't save again at all.
In a dungeon with an escape or somewhere he can break line of sight he will lose a minimum of 2 actions, since every turn he fails the save he takes the dash action. So if he dashes away and then saves, he has to dash back to get back in the fight.
If it works on just one enemy it ends the fight for that enemy, and one is the maximum amount of enemies eldritch smite can possibly work on.
There is no comparison here, one is WAY better than the other.
There is no such immunity, unless they can levitate and simply don't fall. Falling isn't an attack.
Falling causes 1d6 non-magical bludgeoning damage for every 10 feet fallen. If they are resistant or immune to bludgeoning damage or non-magic bludgeoning damage then they are resistant or immune to falling damage. There are over 3 pages with such creatures on DNDB
GWM, PAM and XBE are not OP either.
I call boosting your DPS another 50% on top of the large increase you already have from advantage pretty broken. Any build with those feats is on another weight class than the alternatives. They produce a degenerate strategy where the solution to almost every combat is to get advantage by any means and go to town.
GWM won't boost DPS by 50%, it will boost it by about 20%, while using your bonus action and you will have lower ability scores, lower skills, lower saves, will hit less, will have less opportunity to deliver extra damage and will be less effective at breaking concentration (because they hit less)
If you ignore everything except damage:
A 6th level fighter with PAM/GWM and a 16 strength and defense fighting style is going to average 19.03 DPR using an action and bonus action against a 15AC foe.
A 6th level sword and board fighter with a 20 strength, dueling and a longsword is averaging 16.54, while having a better AC, higher strength and a bonus action available every turn.
A 6th level fighter using TWF and a 20 strength will do 18.36, while having a higher strength and the ability to attack both in melee and at range.
This assumes none have a magic weapon, however there are 21 different weapons the dueling fighter can use effectively with his fighting style, 7 the TWF can use with his and TWO the PAM/GWM can use with his, meaning it is WAY easier for the dueling fighter to boost his damage above these base numbers with magic weapons and he will do way more damage to enemies that are immune or resistant.
In the vast majority of published WOTC adventures, if you play them as written (meaning no adding magic items beyond what is published) the dueling fighter will be doing more damage than a PAM/GWM for much of the campaign, because he is going to get a magic weapon relatively quickly and he will be doing a lot more damage againstfoes at high level.
In the case of Sharpshooter it even removes the usual counterplay for ranged attacks (cover, long range.) And because they're very obviously the best options, they also limit the range of player builds because anything else would be clearly suboptimal.
Prone is the counterplay for sharpshooter, and your warlock just did this to the guy!
I don't think anyone on this forum has spent as much time as me comparing builds on spreadsheets and AnyDice. Trust me, I know where the outliers are in theory and I've seen many of these dumb rules break games in practice. I've been on the player and DM side of most of these exploits. Squashing the 5% of content that's game breaking would let the other 95% of player options thrive, make the DM's planning a lot easier and lead to fewer anticlimactic fights for players.
Bard is going arcane (it's written in the PlayTest already), Jeremy Crawford said we would get to see how classes will gain access to spells from other lists, to me, that comment seemed most likely about Bard.
An Arcane Spelldraws on the ambient magic of the multiverse. Bards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizardsharness this magic, as do Artificers.
Can you imagine a bard without cure wounds? The difference between wizards, warlocks, and sorcerers is mechanics, it's how they learn and manage spells. Bards do it exactly like sorcerers. If they don't have their own class spell list, what's the difference between bard and sorcerer?
First, that no creature has blanket resistance or immunity to bludgeoning damage. They have resistance or immunity to such damage cause by nonmagic weapons, which may or may not carve out exceptions for adamantine or silver, but that's it. If you knock a werewolf over a 100-foot cliff, it takes the full 10d6 damage.
Second, AnyDice is just a tool. A tool that can be used to do math. How useful a tool is depends on how well you use it. Saying you do or don't use it isn't a feather in anyone's cap.
Bard is going arcane (it's written in the PlayTest already), Jeremy Crawford said we would get to see how classes will gain access to spells from other lists, to me, that comment seemed most likely about Bard.
An Arcane Spelldraws on the ambient magic of the multiverse. Bards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizardsharness this magic, as do Artificers.
Can you imagine a bard without cure wounds? The difference between wizards, warlocks, and sorcerers is mechanics, it's how they learn and manage spells. Bards do it exactly like sorcerers. If they don't have their own class spell list, what's the difference between bard and sorcerer?
Remember that the rules we have so far are just a snapshot. We don't have the rules for classes yet so don't know how this new spell classification will even affect them.
Its possible that each class will still have its own spell list and this division into divine/arcane/primal is just another way of classifying spells to make it easier for features and feats (e.g. a feat can now say "You get one 1st level spell from the Arcane list").
Maybe the Bard class will say "Choose your spells from the Arcane list, plus these additional spells from the Divine list count as Arcane for you...".
Remember that the rules we have so far are just a snapshot. We don't have the rules for classes yet so don't know how this new spell classification will even affect them.
Its possible that each class will still have its own spell list and this division into divine/arcane/primal is just another way of classifying spells to make it easier for features and feats (e.g. a feat can now say "You get one 1st level spell from the Arcane list").
Maybe the Bard class will say "Choose your spells from the Arcane list, plus these additional spells from the Divine list count as Arcane for you...".
We just don't know yet :)
That's what I was saying - these lists are for classification purposes, and class-specific spell lists are veeeery unlikely to be gone.
First, that no creature has blanket resistance or immunity to bludgeoning damage. They have resistance or immunity to such damage cause by nonmagic weapons, which may or may not carve out exceptions for adamantine or silver, but that's it. If you knock a werewolf over a 100-foot cliff, it takes the full 10d6 damage.
Second, AnyDice is just a tool. A tool that can be used to do math. How useful a tool is depends on how well you use it. Saying you do or don't use it isn't a feather in anyone's cap.
I don't think fall damage is considered magical and the reference to resistance/immunity to bludgeoning was about fall damage. Though I don't think even resistance to it is that common amongst flying creatures.
Remember that the rules we have so far are just a snapshot. We don't have the rules for classes yet so don't know how this new spell classification will even affect them.
Its possible that each class will still have its own spell list and this division into divine/arcane/primal is just another way of classifying spells to make it easier for features and feats (e.g. a feat can now say "You get one 1st level spell from the Arcane list").
Maybe the Bard class will say "Choose your spells from the Arcane list, plus these additional spells from the Divine list count as Arcane for you...".
We just don't know yet :)
That's what I was saying - these lists are for classification purposes, and class-specific spell lists are veeeery unlikely to be gone.
The implication from the video was a arcane class would have full access to the arcane list and each class would have a second list of specific spells they had access to on top of that list some of which I guess could be found in other lists but others may not be found in any list other than the class specific one, a lot of the named persons spells might only be on the wizard list for example and not in arcane/divine/primal at all.
That was not the implication at all and people who're saying so are actively spreading misinformation. Please stop actively, willfully spreading misinformation.
First, that no creature has blanket resistance or immunity to bludgeoning damage. They have resistance or immunity to such damage cause by nonmagic weapons, which may or may not carve out exceptions for adamantine or silver, but that's it. If you knock a werewolf over a 100-foot cliff, it takes the full 10d6 damage.
Second, AnyDice is just a tool. A tool that can be used to do math. How useful a tool is depends on how well you use it. Saying you do or don't use it isn't a feather in anyone's cap.
I don't think fall damage is considered magical and the reference to resistance/immunity to bludgeoning was about fall damage. Though I don't think even resistance to it is that common amongst flying creatures.
Damage Immunities Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from Nonmagical Attacks that aren't Silvered
As long as the damage isn't magical or from an attack, it harms it. Damage from falling isn't magical, yes, and it also isn't from an attack. It bypassed the immunity.
That's what I was saying - these lists are for classification purposes, and class-specific spell lists are veeeery unlikely to be gone.
you need to watch the interview with Jeremy Crawford because they basically seemed to imply the class specific spell lists are basically gone, because they got too big and cumbersome, and there was too many of them. But they also mentioned classes getting access to other spell lists, which again I believe is mainly intended as comment on Bard. So presumably bard will still get access to healing word and some other healing spells in some way.
I watched the video. On the first day it was out. No such thing is implied. Crawford was speaking specifically to subclasses, feats, and other nonstandard ways of gaining spells.
Please stop maliciously spreading misinformation. Crawford never said class spell lists were dead. Stop saying they are, please.
I watched the video. On the first day it was out. No such thing is implied. Crawford was speaking specifically to subclasses, feats, and other nonstandard ways of gaining spells.
Please stop maliciously spreading misinformation. Crawford never said class spell lists were dead. Stop saying they are, please.
I would say that implies the class specific lists we have now are basically gone, there may be some type of "class" specific list afterwards but these will likely be simplified and much smaller or may be done in some other way, since they can basically remove everything in the universal lists.
If you disagree over that he inferred that, then you can disagree with it, but I won't call it misinformation because that is how I interpret it.
It just boggles my mind that people hear/read "we're adding new classifications for spells to help us better organize the spell list and feed into some cool ideas we had for feats and subclasses" and immediately jump to "ALL CLASS DIFFERENTIATION IS GONE FOREVER NOTHING WILL EVER LEARN A SPELL OUTSIDE THESE THREE STUPID LISTS EVER AGAIN THE WHOLE 1DD SYSTEM IS GARBAGE WE SHOULD COMMANDO RAID WIZARDS AND BURN THE BUILDING DOWN"
How the hell does someone logically get from Point A to Riot?
Here's where he says classes will pull from these lists AND other spells: https://youtu.be/mOQ_Exh0DmY?t=2698 Basically, they are just classifying all spells into three buckets, but there will still be class spell lists.
On the topic of crits. I proposed that crits be linked to intelligence. I'm thinking something like having the critical threat range be higher than a natural 20 by default, and reduced by a combination of proficiency bonus and intelligence bonus divided by some number. Like Critical hit by default on a "Blackjack" - a 21 - reduced by (Prof. Bonus + Int Bonus)/3, rounded down. So a starting lvl 1 character with at least 12 INT (+1) and +2 Prof Bonus could still crit on a 20, while less intelligent characters would rely solely on their proficiency bonus to overcome any zero or negative INT modifiers. At best, a starting character with a high Int (18 or more) would start out with a critical threat range of 19-20. Characters with +0 Int modifier would have a critical threat range of 19-20 solely from their proficiency modifier at level 17. Assuming a max of 20 Int, higher level characters with 20 Int could get their critical threat range down to 18-20 at level 9.
All monsters CR 4 and below have a 2 prof. bonus, so unless they have at least 12 INT, they would not be able to crit. This enacts some of the protections for lower level characters but can still create that tension when a monster that CAN crit is encountered.
It just boggles my mind that people hear/read "we're adding new classifications for spells to help us better organize the spell list and feed into some cool ideas we had for feats and subclasses" and immediately jump to "ALL CLASS DIFFERENTIATION IS GONE FOREVER NOTHING WILL EVER LEARN A SPELL OUTSIDE THESE THREE STUPID LISTS EVER AGAIN THE WHOLE 1DD SYSTEM IS GARBAGE WE SHOULD COMMANDO RAID WIZARDS AND BURN THE BUILDING DOWN"
How the hell does someone logically get from Point A to Riot?
Class specific spell lists and class specific spells aren't the same thing, it seems very likely that the class specific spell lists in their current format are gone but also very likely there will still be class specific spells. They (the lists) are being replaced with something more stream-lined but that doesn't mean class specific spells themselves are gone. Jeremy Crawford very specifically says that CLASSES will draw from these new lists but he also expresses there will be something BEYOND the list that classes have access too. So class specific spells will likely exist in this "beyond", however they are not ready to actually say what that "beyond" is, as yet, we will need to wait and see.
It just boggles my mind that people hear/read "we're adding new classifications for spells to help us better organize the spell list and feed into some cool ideas we had for feats and subclasses" and immediately jump to "ALL CLASS DIFFERENTIATION IS GONE FOREVER NOTHING WILL EVER LEARN A SPELL OUTSIDE THESE THREE STUPID LISTS EVER AGAIN THE WHOLE 1DD SYSTEM IS GARBAGE WE SHOULD COMMANDO RAID WIZARDS AND BURN THE BUILDING DOWN"
How the hell does someone logically get from Point A to Riot?
Class specific spell lists and class specific spells aren't the same thing, it seems very likely that the class specific spell lists in their current format are gone but also very likely there will still be class specific spells. They (the lists) are being replaced with something more stream-lined but that doesn't mean class specific spells themselves are gone. Jeremy Crawford very specifically says that CLASSES will draw from these new lists but he also expresses there will be something BEYOND the list that classes have access too. So class specific spells will likely exist in this "beyond", however they are not ready to actually say what that "beyond" is, as yet, we will need to wait and see.
It's called an Expanded Spell List. We've had those since the warlock debuted in the PH in 2014.
It just boggles my mind that people hear/read "we're adding new classifications for spells to help us better organize the spell list and feed into some cool ideas we had for feats and subclasses" and immediately jump to "ALL CLASS DIFFERENTIATION IS GONE FOREVER NOTHING WILL EVER LEARN A SPELL OUTSIDE THESE THREE STUPID LISTS EVER AGAIN THE WHOLE 1DD SYSTEM IS GARBAGE WE SHOULD COMMANDO RAID WIZARDS AND BURN THE BUILDING DOWN"
How the hell does someone logically get from Point A to Riot?
Class specific spell lists and class specific spells aren't the same thing, it seems very likely that the class specific spell lists in their current format are gone but also very likely there will still be class specific spells. They (the lists) are being replaced with something more stream-lined but that doesn't mean class specific spells themselves are gone. Jeremy Crawford very specifically says that CLASSES will draw from these new lists but he also expresses there will be something BEYOND the list that classes have access too. So class specific spells will likely exist in this "beyond", however they are not ready to actually say what that "beyond" is, as yet, we will need to wait and see.
It's called an Expanded Spell List. We've had those since the warlock debuted in the PH in 2014.
I watched the video. On the first day it was out. No such thing is implied. Crawford was speaking specifically to subclasses, feats, and other nonstandard ways of gaining spells.
Please stop maliciously spreading misinformation. Crawford never said class spell lists were dead. Stop saying they are, please.
It just boggles my mind that people hear/read "we're adding new classifications for spells to help us better organize the spell list and feed into some cool ideas we had for feats and subclasses" and immediately jump to "ALL CLASS DIFFERENTIATION IS GONE FOREVER NOTHING WILL EVER LEARN A SPELL OUTSIDE THESE THREE STUPID LISTS EVER AGAIN THE WHOLE 1DD SYSTEM IS GARBAGE WE SHOULD COMMANDO RAID WIZARDS AND BURN THE BUILDING DOWN"
How the hell does someone logically get from Point A to Riot?
Then the people in the video were really bad at explaining it. I watched the whole thing and came to the same conclusion as Dudeicas.
It just boggles my mind that people hear/read "we're adding new classifications for spells to help us better organize the spell list and feed into some cool ideas we had for feats and subclasses" and immediately jump to "ALL CLASS DIFFERENTIATION IS GONE FOREVER NOTHING WILL EVER LEARN A SPELL OUTSIDE THESE THREE STUPID LISTS EVER AGAIN THE WHOLE 1DD SYSTEM IS GARBAGE WE SHOULD COMMANDO RAID WIZARDS AND BURN THE BUILDING DOWN"
How the hell does someone logically get from Point A to Riot?
First off, no one's rioting. Second off, the video was really unclear about that, so while you may be right or may have seen something we haven't, but as of now we don't really know for sure how it's gonna go, personally I don't think we should make conclusions one way or another.
Anyways, no one said the all caps statement, in fact, I like a lot of things in the 1DD system, such as the new* way they do backgrounds.
First, that no creature has blanket resistance or immunity to bludgeoning damage. They have resistance or immunity to such damage cause by nonmagic weapons, which may or may not carve out exceptions for adamantine or silver, but that's it. If you knock a werewolf over a 100-foot cliff, it takes the full 10d6 damage.
This is not true. There are 3 pages of creatures on DNDB with blanket resistance to bludgeoning.
Here are just a few links, there are about 50 more or so in addition to these, I did not have time to link them all:
To start with that is not accurate. It is only advantage on received attacks from within 5 feet, but anyone ranged as well as that PAM/GWM standing 10 feet away with reach are at DISADVANTAGE to hit a prone character. When I am playing an archer and fighting enemies with missile weapons I go prone regularly as part of my movement. It is one of the best defensive moves you can make if you are confident no one is going to melee you.
It is also not disadvantage on attacks he makes on his turn because he is going to stand up before he attacks (obviously). Unless you can keep him down, which is possible but takes more attacks/actions and requires expertise and a Rune Knight subclass ability or another spell to do reliably, making it overwhelmingly expensive.
Cutting movement in half is meaningful, but not overwhelmingly powerful and it is most meaningful when he is far away from your party, which means attacks against him are at disadvantage.
Bringing down flying enemies is not weak, but it is situational and can be done for a lower cost. Misty Step-grapple will bring down most flying enemies. Earthbind will do it on a 3rd level slot. I can get the martial adept feat and do this once a short rest without taking any invocations or using any slots.
Exactly, but this is not inexpensive, this is EXTREMELY expensive. It is a high level spell and 3 invocations to do it well and even then it is only twice a short rest.
Inexpensive is the Undead Warlock's Form of Dread, which requires no invocations at all, can be done once every single turn he hits with an attack, round after round, with no resource cost and causes frightened, which is a far more powerful condition than prone.
You will have DISADVANTAGE using sharpshooter against a prone creature.
If you are playing that with advantage, that explains why it is so powerful at your table.
It does not inflict advantage. It will inflict DISADVANTAGE on the very Warlock that we are talking about using it with.
Fireball is not a Warlock spell, so I don't understand why it is mentioned. He can't cast fireball anyway unless he has at least 5 levels in another class (although fireball does do way more damage than ES).
As for Fear, they do not get saves every round, they do not get a save at all until they are out of sight, which if it is this hypothetical flying creature in an open area, will be a long time, probably longer than the spell lasts. In a dungeon with a dead end they are out of the fight completely, you can have the party relax while the wizard throw daggers at him for target practice until he is dead and he can't do anything about it. He can't save again at all.
In a dungeon with an escape or somewhere he can break line of sight he will lose a minimum of 2 actions, since every turn he fails the save he takes the dash action. So if he dashes away and then saves, he has to dash back to get back in the fight.
If it works on just one enemy it ends the fight for that enemy, and one is the maximum amount of enemies eldritch smite can possibly work on.
There is no comparison here, one is WAY better than the other.
Falling causes 1d6 non-magical bludgeoning damage for every 10 feet fallen. If they are resistant or immune to bludgeoning damage or non-magic bludgeoning damage then they are resistant or immune to falling damage. There are over 3 pages with such creatures on DNDB
GWM won't boost DPS by 50%, it will boost it by about 20%, while using your bonus action and you will have lower ability scores, lower skills, lower saves, will hit less, will have less opportunity to deliver extra damage and will be less effective at breaking concentration (because they hit less)
If you ignore everything except damage:
A 6th level fighter with PAM/GWM and a 16 strength and defense fighting style is going to average 19.03 DPR using an action and bonus action against a 15AC foe.
A 6th level sword and board fighter with a 20 strength, dueling and a longsword is averaging 16.54, while having a better AC, higher strength and a bonus action available every turn.
A 6th level fighter using TWF and a 20 strength will do 18.36, while having a higher strength and the ability to attack both in melee and at range.
This assumes none have a magic weapon, however there are 21 different weapons the dueling fighter can use effectively with his fighting style, 7 the TWF can use with his and TWO the PAM/GWM can use with his, meaning it is WAY easier for the dueling fighter to boost his damage above these base numbers with magic weapons and he will do way more damage to enemies that are immune or resistant.
In the vast majority of published WOTC adventures, if you play them as written (meaning no adding magic items beyond what is published) the dueling fighter will be doing more damage than a PAM/GWM for much of the campaign, because he is going to get a magic weapon relatively quickly and he will be doing a lot more damage againstfoes at high level.
Prone is the counterplay for sharpshooter, and your warlock just did this to the guy!
I use math, I don't use spreadsheets or anydice.
Can you imagine a bard without cure wounds? The difference between wizards, warlocks, and sorcerers is mechanics, it's how they learn and manage spells. Bards do it exactly like sorcerers. If they don't have their own class spell list, what's the difference between bard and sorcerer?
I'd like to point out two things.
First, that no creature has blanket resistance or immunity to bludgeoning damage. They have resistance or immunity to such damage cause by nonmagic weapons, which may or may not carve out exceptions for adamantine or silver, but that's it. If you knock a werewolf over a 100-foot cliff, it takes the full 10d6 damage.
Second, AnyDice is just a tool. A tool that can be used to do math. How useful a tool is depends on how well you use it. Saying you do or don't use it isn't a feather in anyone's cap.
Remember that the rules we have so far are just a snapshot. We don't have the rules for classes yet so don't know how this new spell classification will even affect them.
Its possible that each class will still have its own spell list and this division into divine/arcane/primal is just another way of classifying spells to make it easier for features and feats (e.g. a feat can now say "You get one 1st level spell from the Arcane list").
Maybe the Bard class will say "Choose your spells from the Arcane list, plus these additional spells from the Divine list count as Arcane for you...".
We just don't know yet :)
That's what I was saying - these lists are for classification purposes, and class-specific spell lists are veeeery unlikely to be gone.
I don't think fall damage is considered magical and the reference to resistance/immunity to bludgeoning was about fall damage. Though I don't think even resistance to it is that common amongst flying creatures.
The implication from the video was a arcane class would have full access to the arcane list and each class would have a second list of specific spells they had access to on top of that list some of which I guess could be found in other lists but others may not be found in any list other than the class specific one, a lot of the named persons spells might only be on the wizard list for example and not in arcane/divine/primal at all.
That was not the implication at all and people who're saying so are actively spreading misinformation. Please stop actively, willfully spreading misinformation.
Please do not contact or message me.
Take another look at the werewolf.
As long as the damage isn't magical or from an attack, it harms it. Damage from falling isn't magical, yes, and it also isn't from an attack. It bypassed the immunity.
you need to watch the interview with Jeremy Crawford because they basically seemed to imply the class specific spell lists are basically gone, because they got too big and cumbersome, and there was too many of them. But they also mentioned classes getting access to other spell lists, which again I believe is mainly intended as comment on Bard. So presumably bard will still get access to healing word and some other healing spells in some way.
I watched the video. On the first day it was out. No such thing is implied. Crawford was speaking specifically to subclasses, feats, and other nonstandard ways of gaining spells.
Please stop maliciously spreading misinformation. Crawford never said class spell lists were dead. Stop saying they are, please.
Please do not contact or message me.
https://youtu.be/mOQ_Exh0DmY?t=2786
I would say that implies the class specific lists we have now are basically gone, there may be some type of "class" specific list afterwards but these will likely be simplified and much smaller or may be done in some other way, since they can basically remove everything in the universal lists.
If you disagree over that he inferred that, then you can disagree with it, but I won't call it misinformation because that is how I interpret it.
I would say that we'll probably get an answer fairly soon so why not just wait?
It just boggles my mind that people hear/read "we're adding new classifications for spells to help us better organize the spell list and feed into some cool ideas we had for feats and subclasses" and immediately jump to "ALL CLASS DIFFERENTIATION IS GONE FOREVER NOTHING WILL EVER LEARN A SPELL OUTSIDE THESE THREE STUPID LISTS EVER AGAIN THE WHOLE 1DD SYSTEM IS GARBAGE WE SHOULD COMMANDO RAID WIZARDS AND BURN THE BUILDING DOWN"
How the hell does someone logically get from Point A to Riot?
Please do not contact or message me.
Here's where he says classes will pull from these lists AND other spells: https://youtu.be/mOQ_Exh0DmY?t=2698 Basically, they are just classifying all spells into three buckets, but there will still be class spell lists.
On the topic of crits. I proposed that crits be linked to intelligence. I'm thinking something like having the critical threat range be higher than a natural 20 by default, and reduced by a combination of proficiency bonus and intelligence bonus divided by some number. Like Critical hit by default on a "Blackjack" - a 21 - reduced by (Prof. Bonus + Int Bonus)/3, rounded down. So a starting lvl 1 character with at least 12 INT (+1) and +2 Prof Bonus could still crit on a 20, while less intelligent characters would rely solely on their proficiency bonus to overcome any zero or negative INT modifiers. At best, a starting character with a high Int (18 or more) would start out with a critical threat range of 19-20. Characters with +0 Int modifier would have a critical threat range of 19-20 solely from their proficiency modifier at level 17. Assuming a max of 20 Int, higher level characters with 20 Int could get their critical threat range down to 18-20 at level 9.
All monsters CR 4 and below have a 2 prof. bonus, so unless they have at least 12 INT, they would not be able to crit. This enacts some of the protections for lower level characters but can still create that tension when a monster that CAN crit is encountered.
Class specific spell lists and class specific spells aren't the same thing, it seems very likely that the class specific spell lists in their current format are gone but also very likely there will still be class specific spells. They (the lists) are being replaced with something more stream-lined but that doesn't mean class specific spells themselves are gone. Jeremy Crawford very specifically says that CLASSES will draw from these new lists but he also expresses there will be something BEYOND the list that classes have access too. So class specific spells will likely exist in this "beyond", however they are not ready to actually say what that "beyond" is, as yet, we will need to wait and see.
It's called an Expanded Spell List. We've had those since the warlock debuted in the PH in 2014.
That is definitely a strong possibility.
Then the people in the video were really bad at explaining it. I watched the whole thing and came to the same conclusion as Dudeicas.
First off, no one's rioting. Second off, the video was really unclear about that, so while you may be right or may have seen something we haven't, but as of now we don't really know for sure how it's gonna go, personally I don't think we should make conclusions one way or another.
Anyways, no one said the all caps statement, in fact, I like a lot of things in the 1DD system, such as the new* way they do backgrounds.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.This is not true. There are 3 pages of creatures on DNDB with blanket resistance to bludgeoning.
Here are just a few links, there are about 50 more or so in addition to these, I did not have time to link them all:
Boneless - Monsters - D&D Beyond (dndbeyond.com)
Kelpie - Monsters - D&D Beyond (dndbeyond.com)
Sahuagin Hatchling Swarm - Monsters - D&D Beyond (dndbeyond.com)
Topi - Monsters - D&D Beyond (dndbeyond.com)
Yggdrasti - Monsters - D&D Beyond (dndbeyond.com)