5e has several Places where the only way for certain abilities to function is by treating a "dead creature" as a unique term (specifically an object that was once a creature.) It directly relates to necromancy, clerics (and others with resurrection magic), PHB Rangers and such.
since I haven't seen any collected threads about the glossary, I figured I should start one.
what othet areas might need such clarification but aren't currently in the glossary sections?
That's an interesting catch that I never thought of before. I'm not sure I know of any more off the top of my head. But I guess I'm not very good at seeing them. XD
A more direct term would be "corpse" or "carcass" if we want to focus on a deceased creature's remains as being an object. Or less directly but still pretty clear "body of a dead creature."
Though I get why people have a tendency to view "dead creature" as a type of creature when really it's a type of object.
To replace/encompass "Melee Weapon Attack", "Ranged Weapon Attack", "Melee Attack with a Weapon", and all the other word weirdness surrounding what you can and cannot do with any given attack. The term "Martial Attack" would encompass anything that isn't a spell attack, from fists to swords to bows to bar stools, and anything that affects a "Martial Attack" would work on all such attacks. Then the term "Melee Weapon Attack" could mean what it ACTUALLY GODDAMN SAYS, i.e. "a melee attack made with a weapon", and we'd get three thousand percent less confusion.
To replace/encompass "Melee Weapon Attack", "Ranged Weapon Attack", "Melee Attack with a Weapon", and all the other word weirdness surrounding what you can and cannot do with any given attack. The term "Martial Attack" would encompass anything that isn't a spell attack, from fists to swords to bows to bar stools, and anything that affects a "Martial Attack" would work on all such attacks. Then the term "Melee Weapon Attack" could mean what it ACTUALLY GODDAMN SAYS, i.e. "a melee attack made with a weapon", and we'd get three thousand percent less confusion.
Yes please to this. Melee weapon attack and attack with a melee weapon being different things is one of the most annoying things about this edition. That and the headache of glass windows and other things that simultaneously allow you to see something and give it total cover. Might not be a glossary entry, but really needs to be cleaned up.
To replace/encompass "Melee Weapon Attack", "Ranged Weapon Attack", "Melee Attack with a Weapon", and all the other word weirdness surrounding what you can and cannot do with any given attack. The term "Martial Attack" would encompass anything that isn't a spell attack, from fists to swords to bows to bar stools, and anything that affects a "Martial Attack" would work on all such attacks. Then the term "Melee Weapon Attack" could mean what it ACTUALLY GODDAMN SAYS, i.e. "a melee attack made with a weapon", and we'd get three thousand percent less confusion.
Yes please to this. Melee weapon attack and attack with a melee weapon being different things is one of the most annoying things about this edition. That and the headache of glass windows and other things that simultaneously allow you to see something and give it total cover. Might not be a glossary entry, but really needs to be cleaned up.
Agreed, we need subsection specifically dealing with the interactions between cover & spellcasting! It is so utterly confusing that you can Misty Step through a transparent glass window but you cannot Vortex Warp a creature through the same window.
To replace/encompass "Melee Weapon Attack", "Ranged Weapon Attack", "Melee Attack with a Weapon", and all the other word weirdness surrounding what you can and cannot do with any given attack. The term "Martial Attack" would encompass anything that isn't a spell attack, from fists to swords to bows to bar stools, and anything that affects a "Martial Attack" would work on all such attacks. Then the term "Melee Weapon Attack" could mean what it ACTUALLY GODDAMN SAYS, i.e. "a melee attack made with a weapon", and we'd get three thousand percent less confusion.
Yes please to this. Melee weapon attack and attack with a melee weapon being different things is one of the most annoying things about this edition. That and the headache of glass windows and other things that simultaneously allow you to see something and give it total cover. Might not be a glossary entry, but really needs to be cleaned up.
Agreed, we need subsection specifically dealing with the interactions between cover & spellcasting! It is so utterly confusing that you can Misty Step through a transparent glass window but you cannot Vortex Warp a creature through the same window.
I can definitely see that as something to be part of the Mages UA.
A lot of my own confusion from "A clear path to the target" would be cleared up if they used the words "straight line" between "clear" and "path," seeing as a "clear path" can easily be a curved one.
It only really truly clicked for me when I imagined coming up with a physics model for spellcasting, well at least for targeting. In order to establish a valid target of a spell being cast a theoretical targeting particle must pass between the caster and their target, the particle moves across any distance instantaneously but can only go as far as the spell's range. This particle is blocked by physical objects, including glass. If this particle can make the journey from caster to target the spell can be cast.
To use an easier metaphor: In order to target something with a spell you need to be positioned such that you can shoot it with an imaginary gun... and the imaginary bullets can't break glass.
Of course... then there are spells that break this such as Message and Sending.
The term "Martial" has other places where it is used and still may cause confusion. I do agree clear clean up and separation of attacks and associated actions would really help out. there are a couple of approaches they could take. (I think pathfinder may have solved this one. However, wotc will not risk potential issues of pathfinder IP Theft. I am not really that familiar with pathfinder so I may be wrong.)
I have mentally played with the idea of a "offence action" used to make "Ranged/Melee attacks" but my ideas never solidified into something cohesive. One term usually steps on the toes of another.
some clear problems it would have to avoid/clarify
Clear rules on Harvesting should also be defined with things like Live creatures and also Dead ones. in particular the lack of amounts/clarity directly discouraged Poison and crafting builds. (They have enough "problems" already) Some of my favorite characters tried to take advantage of the ethical poisoner concept but a with various dms I find a 50/50 acceptance rate even with self handicaps.
The term "Martial" has other places where it is used and still may cause confusion. I do agree clear clean up and separation of attacks and associated actions would really help out. there are a couple of approaches they could take. (I think pathfinder may have solved this one. However, wotc will not risk potential issues of pathfinder IP Theft. I am not really that familiar with pathfinder so I may be wrong.)
4th Edition used the term Military Weapons for what we now call Martial Weapons, perhaps we could bring that term back into use.
The term "Martial" has other places where it is used and still may cause confusion. I do agree clear clean up and separation of attacks and associated actions would really help out. there are a couple of approaches they could take. (I think pathfinder may have solved this one. However, wotc will not risk potential issues of pathfinder IP Theft. I am not really that familiar with pathfinder so I may be wrong.)
I have mentally played with the idea of a "offence action" used to make "Ranged/Melee attacks" but my ideas never solidified into something cohesive. One term usually steps on the toes of another.
some clear problems it would have to avoid/clarify
1. weapon attacks confusion
2. ending spells Like sanctuary
3. how objects are handled (thrown/spilled vials)
4. more I can't think of
I'm curious what you mean about Sanctuary. Only because I never had an issue with the spell. But that's probably just me not thinking very hard about it, as I often do haha. I seem to miss a lot of odd interactions.
Are you talking about the last part of the spell where it says it ends if you make an attack, cast a spell on an enemy, or deal damage? What are some of the questionable actions?
Sanctuary annoys me a lot, because the intention seems clear to me, but the wording leaves a ton of loop holes. E.g. you make no attacks but you command some creatures you already have summoned with a spell prior to casting Sanctuary to attack. Does that break Sanctuary? Technically you just said a few words, you didn't do the attacking or do the dealing of damage.
you have Spirit Guardians up and cast Sanctuary on yourself. If an enemy moves into your SG radius and take damage do you lose Sanctuary? if you move such that an enemy is in your SG radius and they might take damage at the start of their turn, do you lose Sanctuary - if so when? when you moved? when an enemy takes the damage?....
If you use a magic item (or take some other action) that causes forced movement to a creature without you making an attack roll, and that forced movement pushes them into a Wall of Fire, do you lose Sanctuary?
If you use something like Turn Undead / Destroy Undead does that break Sanctuary? - i.e. a non-spell magical ability that forces enemies to make a saving throw and imposes horrible conditions on them on a failure but doesn't deal damage...
Ah, I see now, thanks for the explanation! I guess I just played by what I perceived was the intent of the spell and my players don't try to find loopholes usually. That does sound like a sticky situation for some tables and should be cleared up.
There is also the question of protection against single target AOE. It comes up often enough even though generally the same conclusion is reached.
This has more to do with the definition of "target" but it could also be solved via clear names of attack and spell actions. But they also could just rewrite sanctuary.
Ah, I see now, thanks for the explanation! I guess I just played by what I perceived was the intent of the spell and my players don't try to find loopholes usually. That does sound like a sticky situation for some tables and should be cleared up.
Same. Most of my tables respect the spirit of the spell. It wasn't until I started playing online that I discovered the loop-hole community who expected these exploits to work.
"Large martial attack" attacks done by martial creatures that are large or are under enlarge of enlarge/reduce spell or are LARGE considered races.
"Larger melee" melee done by creatures that are large or are under enlarge of enlarge/reduce spell or are LARGE considered races or above
"Large Attack" a attack done by creatures that are not medium nor smaller, and includes creatures that are considered large like goliaths loxodon giff orc centaur minotaur and bugbear.
"Enlarged spell effects" the effects that involve melee spell attack or a limp like a mouth for a breathe weapon of a creature under enlarged spell or a larger creature than medium. (The spell effects area of point of melee origin is considered larger than normal Adjust line or cone effect to adjust for the bigger origin point of spell effects.)
Interesting but I do wonder if it is too narrow to divide it up by action. Rewrites for sizes would be. Good for sure. I will think on it more.
General statment not directly in response to HoruN: 5e really had just enough complexity to be deeply engaging without overcomplication(usually). I think that is part of what made it successful. Each of these terms(or other rules)need to improve on that idea to be better than what we already have.
Positioning in terms of elevation has to be codified somehow. Various situations and creatures might be treated differently depending on whether you take on them from the ground level or from above - or from below, if you're at sea, for example. Sometimes having a high ground means it's over.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
5e has several Places where the only way for certain abilities to function is by treating a "dead creature" as a unique term (specifically an object that was once a creature.) It directly relates to necromancy, clerics (and others with resurrection magic), PHB Rangers and such.
since I haven't seen any collected threads about the glossary, I figured I should start one.
what othet areas might need such clarification but aren't currently in the glossary sections?
That's an interesting catch that I never thought of before. I'm not sure I know of any more off the top of my head. But I guess I'm not very good at seeing them. XD
A more direct term would be "corpse" or "carcass" if we want to focus on a deceased creature's remains as being an object. Or less directly but still pretty clear "body of a dead creature."
Though I get why people have a tendency to view "dead creature" as a type of creature when really it's a type of object.
Glossary term: "Martial Attack"
To replace/encompass "Melee Weapon Attack", "Ranged Weapon Attack", "Melee Attack with a Weapon", and all the other word weirdness surrounding what you can and cannot do with any given attack. The term "Martial Attack" would encompass anything that isn't a spell attack, from fists to swords to bows to bar stools, and anything that affects a "Martial Attack" would work on all such attacks. Then the term "Melee Weapon Attack" could mean what it ACTUALLY GODDAMN SAYS, i.e. "a melee attack made with a weapon", and we'd get three thousand percent less confusion.
Please do not contact or message me.
Yes, great idea!
Yes please to this. Melee weapon attack and attack with a melee weapon being different things is one of the most annoying things about this edition.
That and the headache of glass windows and other things that simultaneously allow you to see something and give it total cover. Might not be a glossary entry, but really needs to be cleaned up.
Agreed, we need subsection specifically dealing with the interactions between cover & spellcasting! It is so utterly confusing that you can Misty Step through a transparent glass window but you cannot Vortex Warp a creature through the same window.
I can definitely see that as something to be part of the Mages UA.
A lot of my own confusion from "A clear path to the target" would be cleared up if they used the words "straight line" between "clear" and "path," seeing as a "clear path" can easily be a curved one.
It only really truly clicked for me when I imagined coming up with a physics model for spellcasting, well at least for targeting. In order to establish a valid target of a spell being cast a theoretical targeting particle must pass between the caster and their target, the particle moves across any distance instantaneously but can only go as far as the spell's range. This particle is blocked by physical objects, including glass. If this particle can make the journey from caster to target the spell can be cast.
To use an easier metaphor: In order to target something with a spell you need to be positioned such that you can shoot it with an imaginary gun... and the imaginary bullets can't break glass.
Of course... then there are spells that break this such as Message and Sending.
The term "Martial" has other places where it is used and still may cause confusion. I do agree clear clean up and separation of attacks and associated actions would really help out. there are a couple of approaches they could take. (I think pathfinder may have solved this one. However, wotc will not risk potential issues of pathfinder IP Theft. I am not really that familiar with pathfinder so I may be wrong.)
I have mentally played with the idea of a "offence action" used to make "Ranged/Melee attacks" but my ideas never solidified into something cohesive. One term usually steps on the toes of another.
some clear problems it would have to avoid/clarify
1. weapon attacks confusion
2. ending spells Like sanctuary
3. how objects are handled (thrown/spilled vials)
4. more I can't think of
Clear rules on Harvesting should also be defined with things like Live creatures and also Dead ones. in particular the lack of amounts/clarity directly discouraged Poison and crafting builds. (They have enough "problems" already) Some of my favorite characters tried to take advantage of the ethical poisoner concept but a with various dms I find a 50/50 acceptance rate even with self handicaps.
4th Edition used the term Military Weapons for what we now call Martial Weapons, perhaps we could bring that term back into use.
I'm curious what you mean about Sanctuary. Only because I never had an issue with the spell. But that's probably just me not thinking very hard about it, as I often do haha. I seem to miss a lot of odd interactions.
Are you talking about the last part of the spell where it says it ends if you make an attack, cast a spell on an enemy, or deal damage? What are some of the questionable actions?
Sanctuary annoys me a lot, because the intention seems clear to me, but the wording leaves a ton of loop holes.
E.g.
you make no attacks but you command some creatures you already have summoned with a spell prior to casting Sanctuary to attack. Does that break Sanctuary? Technically you just said a few words, you didn't do the attacking or do the dealing of damage.
you have Spirit Guardians up and cast Sanctuary on yourself. If an enemy moves into your SG radius and take damage do you lose Sanctuary? if you move such that an enemy is in your SG radius and they might take damage at the start of their turn, do you lose Sanctuary - if so when? when you moved? when an enemy takes the damage?....
If you use a magic item (or take some other action) that causes forced movement to a creature without you making an attack roll, and that forced movement pushes them into a Wall of Fire, do you lose Sanctuary?
If you use something like Turn Undead / Destroy Undead does that break Sanctuary? - i.e. a non-spell magical ability that forces enemies to make a saving throw and imposes horrible conditions on them on a failure but doesn't deal damage...
Ah, I see now, thanks for the explanation! I guess I just played by what I perceived was the intent of the spell and my players don't try to find loopholes usually. That does sound like a sticky situation for some tables and should be cleared up.
There is also the question of protection against single target AOE. It comes up often enough even though generally the same conclusion is reached.
This has more to do with the definition of "target" but it could also be solved via clear names of attack and spell actions. But they also could just rewrite sanctuary.
Clear language around all three would help.
Same. Most of my tables respect the spirit of the spell. It wasn't until I started playing online that I discovered the loop-hole community who expected these exploits to work.
Interesting but I do wonder if it is too narrow to divide it up by action. Rewrites for sizes would be. Good for sure. I will think on it more.
General statment not directly in response to HoruN: 5e really had just enough complexity to be deeply engaging without overcomplication(usually). I think that is part of what made it successful. Each of these terms(or other rules)need to improve on that idea to be better than what we already have.
Positioning in terms of elevation has to be codified somehow. Various situations and creatures might be treated differently depending on whether you take on them from the ground level or from above - or from below, if you're at sea, for example. Sometimes having a high ground means it's over.