• 0

    posted a message on Defensive Duelist & Shield - Reaction Before or After Damage Known?
    Quote from RAJdeBoer>>

    This seems somewhat related though: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/02/14/do-you-have-to-declare-sneak-attack-or-divine-smithe-beforehand/ meaning that you would declare before damage.

    This is the correct answer. "On a hit"/"when you're hit" happens before damage is rolled. The key tweet is this one: "(1) You make an attack roll. (2) You hit or miss. (3) You roll damage if you hit. "When you hit" happens at number 2." which is based on the rules for Making An Attack:

    Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.

    1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location.

    2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll.

    3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.

    You could think of "hit" as a "phase" of its own. I think the game uses these:
    You declare attack - targeting
    You roll the attack - attacking
    You determine if you hit - hitting
    You determine damage - damaging

    The damage part can be broken down further into two steps - making the damage roll and applying the damage. A Lore Bard's Cutting Words and the Savage Attacker feat modifies the value of the damage roll before damage is applied, while spells like Hellish Rebuke kick in afterwards.

    Posted in: Rules & Game Mechanics
  • 1

    posted a message on Using Darkness
    Quote from Wysperra>>

    But if you cast it on yourself to avoid OAs don't you suffer from not being able to see?

    You can always put away the object you cast Darkness on after you've left their reach. Alternatively you can drop the object near your enemies.

    This is more useful if multiple people need to move away; it only takes one action from the spellcaster but lets multiple people move away safely without using their actions.

    RE: counterspell, you cast darkness, so your next spell is safe from counterspell but you can't see your target? I suppose you fling a fireball in the general direction and hope for a hit?

    You don't need a whole lot of precision to aim a Fireball. In a lot of cases you don't need to see to cast spells on yourself either. You could also use it to blind enemies while someone else casts spells.

    The key thing here is that many mechanics in the game require sight and Darkness lets you temporarily blind people at will.

    Posted in: Tips & Tactics
  • 0

    posted a message on Celestial Warlock - Pact of the Blade?
    Quote from Mephista>>

    No, Crawford does indeed make lousy calls in a lot of cases. He's very much a strict technical language type of person, but the intent of 5th edition was to rely on natural fluid language and allowing local DMs to interpret the rules in a way that fits their playstyle. Crawford's rulings don't fit a lot of playstyles, so they are "bad" for a lot of people.

    Jeremy's job is to help clear up what the books say, not to provide you with the most reasonable or fun rulings. He's always made it clear that 1) the rules are a tool to support the story and make the game fun and 2) DMs should do whatever feels right for their table.

    And there have been a few times that Crawford's calls have been errata'd. Most famously, there was the incident with the elven Trance ability.

    Yeah, because the text in the book changed, and his job is to explain what the text in the book means.

    Crawford may be the main rules guy, but he's not always right.

    He rarely makes mistakes, and it's not like the books themselves haven't had mistakes in them either. If your argument is "well, he's human, one of his tweets might be wrong!" you might as well throw away the books too. It's been 4 years and there's still new errata coming out for the core books.

    So, its always good to take anything Crawford says with a grain of salt. He might be the official rules guy, but he's far from being an all knowing mind reader of the intent of the writers.

    He's the managing editor for Dungeons and Dragons. Every single piece of writing that ends up in a D&D book passes through his hands. There's no one in a better position to explain what a piece of rules text in the book was supposed to mean, and he's the only person whose job description actually includes that.

    It's fine if you want to run things differently, or if you think a piece of text was poorly written or misleading, but it's silly to insist Jeremy's tweets should be viewed with skepticism.

    Posted in: Warlock
  • 1

    posted a message on Oath of Vengance limits damage output of the class
    Quote from Maddogs1989>>

    Actually you have to hit 9 times to get close to max damage of damage in comparison with 5d10 something a paladin can deal in one hit

    The average of 5d10 is 27.5 which is less than the average of 8d6 is 28. The maximum damage is irrelevant; you're extremely unlikely to ever see it.

    and you can burn a level one spell slot to deal 2d6 damage.

    Or you could burn a 1st level slot to deal much more than 2d6 damage, since Hunter's Mark adds 1d6 to every hit.

    Yes hunters mark last for an hour but engagements do not.

    You're likely to get into more than one fight over the course of an hour if you're exploring a dungeon. Even if you don't, Hunter's Mark is still going to get you the best value for your spell slots.

    Engagements last minutes for the most part and using hunters mark with divine smite is pitiful in what a paladin can deal in a single hit.

    Hunter's Mark is cheap. Blowing your highest level slot on Banishing Smite isn't, and you don't have unlimited spell slots.

    Furthermore vow of enmity is only against a singular target. The Sacred weapon channel divinity of Devotion paladins turns your weapon magical creates light and adds your charisma to your attack. Maxed out that's a +5 to all hits against all creatures you hit.

    Advantage is better if you don't have +5 CHA, and +5 CHA won't help you crit more either.

    If you're fixated on burning all of your spell slots right off the bat, by all means, don't pick Oath of Vengeance. That's not the subclass's strength; it's dealing great damage without blowing through all of your spell slots first thing in the morning.

     

    Posted in: Paladin
  • 0

    posted a message on Using Darkness

    Darkness can be used to protect yourself or your friends from opportunity attacks, counterspell and most targeted spells and abilities. Since it can be cast on an object, you can relocate it or temporarily turn it off easily.

    Posted in: Tips & Tactics
  • 0

    posted a message on Celestial Warlock - Pact of the Blade?
    Quote from JackOfAllTirades >>

     Jeremy Crawford just loves to make lousy house rules.

    It's almost like the rules for magic item pact weapons were placed into their own paragraph on purpose.

    Posted in: Warlock
  • 1

    posted a message on Oath of Vengance limits damage output of the class

     

    Not really. Smite spells are only good for one hit and deal less damage than Divine Smite. They're situationally useful for their side effects.

    Hunter's Mark deals 1d6 per hit and lasts up to an hour with just a 1st level spell slot. You only need to hit 8 times to deal more damage than Banishing Smite or 4th level Divine Smite and you can do that with a 1st level spell slot starting at 3rd level. You still have the option of using Divine Smite if you need a big dose of damage immediately.

    Other subclasses don't get Vow of Enmity either.

    Posted in: Paladin
  • 0

    posted a message on Dissonant Whispers and constructs

    Dissonant Whispers doesn't care if the target takes damage. If it fails the save and has its reaction left, it has to move.

    Posted in: Rules & Game Mechanics
  • 0

    posted a message on Darkness spell vs daylight spell
    Quote from Trirhabda>>

    Are you suggesting that the phrase “nonmagical light can’t illuminate it” implies that magical light can illuminate it? I still think this gives DMs a little wiggle room to rule as they see fit.

    Light always illuminates darkness; that's how light and darkness work. The darkness spell makes an exception for nonmagical light only.

    "Light from any magical source can illuminate the area of a darkness spell, but the darkness spell can dispel light created by a spell of 2nd level or lower, not light created by a non-spell."

    i think the real problem we should be talking about is how Darkness and Continual Flame interact. Continual Flame isn’t technically a light spell, it’s a fire spell that sheds light. Perhaps the flame is magical but the light it sheds is not?

     

    "If any of this spell's area overlaps with an area of light created by a spell of 2nd level or lower, the spell that created the light is dispelled." Continual Flame creates light; the flame has brightness equivalent to a torch. It's also magical light, because spells are magic by definition.

    To recap:

    Quote from InquisitiveCoder >>

    Here's the short version:

    • The level of a spell always matches the level of the slot used to cast it.
    • Darkness dispels light spells of 2nd level or lower.
    • Daylight dispels darkness spells of 3rd level or lower.
    • Nonmagical light can't illuminate the area of the Darkness spell, but magical light functions normally.

     

    Posted in: Rules & Game Mechanics
  • 0

    posted a message on Eldritch Knight!
    Quote from Slaine000>>

    I played a EK til 7th or 8th level and it was ok. I had all of the problems mentioned already. I would recommend a couple levels of wizard for anyone interested in playing one. Either abjuration school or war magic. I think a EK 11/War Mage 9 would be a fairly strong combo and decently fulfill the 'Gish' fantasy.

    Might as well just go full Bladesinger.

    As a single classed character a EK is just a fighter that can cast Shield or Absorb Elements every so often. They can't even use ritual magic without taking a feat and spell components (remember spells with V,S require one free hand and spells with V,S,M require two) will prevent them from being anything other than a duelist. 

     Not really. A spell that has both M and S components still only requires one hand; you can use the same hand that's holding the material component to perform the somatic component. Anyone using a two-handed weapon (melee or ranged) automatically has a hand available.

    If you're using sword and shield, the War Caster feat lets you cast spells with no M component easily - that includes all offensive cantrips, shield and absorb elements. But even without the feat you can just drop your weapon, cast the spell and pick it back up. If your DM forbids that for whatever reason you can put the weapon away normally and draw it next turn.

    If your DM is really nice they'll let you get a hold of a Ruby of the War Mage.

    Posted in: Fighter
  • 1

    posted a message on Darkness spell vs daylight spell
    Quote from Wysperra >>

    No, it's not. It is specifically stated that Darkness CANNOT be upcast to counter Daylight.

     No one is saying that. We're saying it can be upcast to prevent Daylight from dispelling it.

    Posted in: Rules & Game Mechanics
  • 1

    posted a message on Human Variant, Help needed!
    Quote from Tim >>

    Especially the Lucky feat.  

    Lucky is a great feat but Crossbow Expert, Polearm Master and Heavy Armor Master are way stronger at 1st level.

    Posted in: Rules & Game Mechanics
  • 1

    posted a message on Armoured Wildshape
    Quote from Stormknight >>

    Hey folks, Mage Armor doesn't care whether the character is wearing physical armor or not - it offers an alternative AC calculation.

     Mage Armor ends if the target dons armor.

     
    Posted in: Druid
  • 0

    posted a message on Nova builds and other awesome builds!
    Quote from BDaddLy >>

    Empowered Evocation + Magic Missile on a level-10 using a 5th-level spell slot without the tome deals 7d4+42=59.5 on average (not factoring for hit) or .98 FoUA.

     Minor nitpick but the damage is (1d4 + 6) * 7 = 1d4 * 7 + 42, not 7d4 + 42. You only roll the d4 once.

    Posted in: Tips & Tactics
  • 2

    posted a message on The charm condition
    Quote from David42>>

    Charm doesn't cause any damage and just changes the attitude of the target towards the caster. They view them as a friend, they wouldn't continue to attack, they would try to convince anyone else attacking the caster to stop (since they are his friend), they might even step in and actively fight for the caster depending on the circumstances. (Most folks would step into a fight on behalf of a friend even if they are being attacked by other friends ... you have to ask your other friends what they are thinking ...)

    To be clear, Charm Person makes the target treat the caster as a friendly acquaintance, but that's not a feature of the charmed condition. Also note that "friendly acquaintance" doesn't equal "friend." How far a creature is willing to go to help an acquaintance depends on its personality and alignment. Good creatures are altruistic and are more likely to take risks for an acquaintance. Evil creatures are generally selfish and might only help if it doesn't inconvenience them, or might expect something in return afterwards.

    Quote from TexasDevin >>

    "When the spell ends, the creature knows it was charmed by you."

    What if someone informs the person they are charmed? Is there anything preventing the person from accepting that they are charmed, or is it just an issue that they don't notice it on their own? And if someone brings it to their attention, might it be reasonable that a person cast dispel magic on themself to cure the condition, assuming they had that ability?

    For someone to inform the person they've been magically charmed, they'd have to have seen Charm Person being cast and recognized it, or used magic like Identify to recognize the person's being affected by Charm Person. Even if someone saw the spell being cast, they might not know who was targeted, so they'd have to recognize a difference in someone's attitude towards the caster.

    Whether the charmed person believes it also depends on whether they saw the spell being cast and recognized it, how much they trust the charmer and how much they trust the person that's telling them they've been charmed.

    Ultimately this is just roleplaying; there's no hard rules.

    Posted in: Rules & Game Mechanics
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.