Haste

Quote from PercivalTheAstralChampion >>

Technically this is better than the 2014 one since it gives the actual Incapacitated condition meaning immune creatures can still take actions.

That is true, though I think there are about two or three creatures in the entire official catalog that are immune to that condition.

Quote from PurplBanana >>

Ah, "Attack (one weapon attack only)" changed to "Attack (one attack only)." This means Valor Bards, Eldritch Knights, and Bladesingers can cast a (non-Eldritch Blast) attack roll cantrip with that action.

Though, if you are any of those people, you'll probably be casting True Strike, Green-Flame Blade, or Booming Blade - which already worked with the old wording. At least, I thought it did, and now it definitely does.

If you don't think this works because it says "one attack only" instead of "only one attack," Eldritch Knights still bypass this with their wording of War Magic - Fire Bolt is one attack as much as a standard weapon attack is in this case. I think it's clear that the intention is for 7th-level Eldritch Knights and 6th-level Valor Bards/Bladesingers to have equivalent Extra Attack features.

if you still don't think it works for the full casters because Haste overrules their Extra Attack feature, you must also think that they have to make both attacks in a non-Haste Attack action for one of them to be replaced with a cantrip. The feature says you *can* attack twice instead of once, not that you have to. What, if you decide to only make one attack - it can't be a cantrip? Say a Valor Bard is holding two daggers and casts True Strike as part of the Attack action, which triggers the Light Property. They make their Light attack, which kills the last enemy in their range, so they end their turn. Well, they didn't use the second attack of their Attack action, so they must've had to cast TS with the Magic action! Then how did they make the Light attack?

I really feel like you're being a bit too cheeky with the rules at the end there, if only because of the flippant tone of voice. It comes off like "I can totally game the system by SAYING I take the Attack Action to benefit from Extra Attack, when I'm secretly actually taking the Magic Action". Whether that works for your DM is up to them but if I were your DM I would challenge it.

Quote from VultureSniper >>

Quote from Jreamer >>

Because candy is dandy but licorice is quicker-ish?

oh, no, I had to look it up. It actually makes you GO faster. 

 Cause sugary foods gives you a quick boost of energy followed by a "crash," which is basically what Haste does.  

 A cup of coffee would work too.

Im sorry to hear that, but one of my favorite parts about dnd, and specifically wizards approach to 5e is that its less of strict rules that they release, but more of guidelines. 

so let your dm know, or tell your group that your gonna swap that rule out for the old one, 5e is meant to be easy to mod/ house rule

Quote from deffdefying >>

Quote from PurplBanana >>

Ah, "Attack (one weapon attack only)" changed to "Attack (one attack only)." This means Valor Bards, Eldritch Knights, and Bladesingers can cast a (non-Eldritch Blast) attack roll cantrip with that action.

Though, if you are any of those people, you'll probably be casting True Strike, Green-Flame Blade, or Booming Blade - which already worked with the old wording. At least, I thought it did, and now it definitely does.

If you don't think this works because it says "one attack only" instead of "only one attack," Eldritch Knights still bypass this with their wording of War Magic - Fire Bolt is one attack as much as a standard weapon attack is in this case. I think it's clear that the intention is for 7th-level Eldritch Knights and 6th-level Valor Bards/Bladesingers to have equivalent Extra Attack features.

if you still don't think it works for the full casters because Haste overrules their Extra Attack feature, you must also think that they have to make both attacks in a non-Haste Attack action for one of them to be replaced with a cantrip. The feature says you *can* attack twice instead of once, not that you have to. What, if you decide to only make one attack - it can't be a cantrip? Say a Valor Bard is holding two daggers and casts True Strike as part of the Attack action, which triggers the Light Property. They make their Light attack, which kills the last enemy in their range, so they end their turn. Well, they didn't use the second attack of their Attack action, so they must've had to cast TS with the Magic action! Then how did they make the Light attack?

 

I really feel like you're being a bit too cheeky with the rules at the end there, if only because of the flippant tone of voice. It comes off like "I can totally game the system by SAYING I take the Attack Action to benefit from Extra Attack, when I'm secretly actually taking the Magic Action". Whether that works for your DM is up to them but if I were your DM I would challenge it.

 Totally valid to challenge it. I don't think I myself would allow a Hasted cantrip for those subclasses 💀💀

I was hoping my "☝️🤓" comment would spark insightful/argumentative replies, since I really don't know if it works RAW. I'm assuming they only changed the wording so that Unarmed Strikes remained usable with Haste

This spell isn't strong enough to warrant a penalty... maybe if you cast it on a Rogue for double sneak attack, but on almost any other class it just isn't. Not nearly as strong as Hypnotic Pattern, Fear or Spirit Guardians. Probably not as good as Conjure Animals.

Quote from CynnamonV >>

This spell isn't strong enough to warrant a penalty... maybe if you cast it on a Rogue for double sneak attack, but on almost any other class it just isn't. Not nearly as strong as Hypnotic Pattern, Fear or Spirit Guardians. Probably not as good as Conjure Animals.

Even with this spell on them, Rogues still can't use Sneak Attack more than once per turn anyway.

Quote from wagnarokkr >>

Quote from CynnamonV >>

This spell isn't strong enough to warrant a penalty... maybe if you cast it on a Rogue for double sneak attack, but on almost any other class it just isn't. Not nearly as strong as Hypnotic Pattern, Fear or Spirit Guardians. Probably not as good as Conjure Animals.

Even with this spell on them, Rogues still can't use Sneak Attack more than once per turn anyway.

 If a Rogue has Haste on them they can attack and sneak attack with their regular action. Ready the second action, with the trigger being the end of their *turn* and then burn their reaction to double sneak attack.

This is completely RAW, RAI and used quite a bit.

Quote from CynnamonV >>

Quote from wagnarokkr >>

Quote from CynnamonV >>

This spell isn't strong enough to warrant a penalty... maybe if you cast it on a Rogue for double sneak attack, but on almost any other class it just isn't. Not nearly as strong as Hypnotic Pattern, Fear or Spirit Guardians. Probably not as good as Conjure Animals.

Even with this spell on them, Rogues still can't use Sneak Attack more than once per turn anyway.

 If a Rogue has Haste on them they can attack and sneak attack with their regular action. Ready the second action, with the trigger being the end of their *turn* and then burn their reaction to double sneak attack.

This is completely RAW, RAI and used quite a bit.

Ah. I definitely don't allow stuff like that at my table, but to each their own.

I mean sure… I guess a DM could do whatever they want, but on what grounds outside your prerogative? Ready an action is a thing, Sneak Attack is clearly 1 per turn… we know from the UA process they know about this strategy. Why would you rule against it?

Quote from CynnamonV >>

I mean sure… I guess a DM could do whatever they want, but on what grounds outside your prerogative? Ready an action is a thing, Sneak Attack is clearly 1 per turn… we know from the UA process they know about this strategy. Why would you rule against it?

Well, just to clarify: I'm fine with people using the Ready action, and I'm fine with people using Sneak Attack on other people's turns in situations where that makes sense. What I would rule against is anything where the player is trying to exploit a loophole in the rules to do something that the rules do not seem intended to allow.

Taking the Ready action with a trigger of "when my turns ends" or something similar is very clearly an attempt to circumvent the once-per-turn restriction on Sneak Attack by effectively making an attack that's on your turn and not on your turn at the same time. Is this technically allowed by RAW? Probably. Is it how the Ready action was intended to be used? Almost certainly not. This sort of thing is what the "rules rely on good-faith interpretation" bit in the 5.5e Dungeon Master's Guide is warning against.

I'm aware that some players and DMs are really into this kind of hyper-optimization and finding loopholes in the rules that allow them to do impressive things. I'm happy for people who want to play that way to do so at their own tables, and I do find all the weird loopholes and tricks interesting, but I have no interest in indulging it when I'm DMing.

Quote from wagnarokkr >>

Quote from CynnamonV >>

I mean sure… I guess a DM could do whatever they want, but on what grounds outside your prerogative? Ready an action is a thing, Sneak Attack is clearly 1 per turn… we know from the UA process they know about this strategy. Why would you rule against it?

Well, just to clarify: I'm fine with people using the Ready action, and I'm fine with people using Sneak Attack on other people's turns in situations where that makes sense. What I would rule against is anything where the player is trying to exploit a loophole in the rules to do something that the rules do not seem intended to allow.

Taking the Ready action with a trigger of "when my turns ends" or something similar is very clearly an attempt to circumvent the once-per-turn restriction on Sneak Attack by effectively making an attack that's on your turn and not on your turn at the same time. Is this technically allowed by RAW? Probably. Is it how the Ready action was intended to be used? Almost certainly not. This sort of thing is what the "rules rely on good-faith interpretation" bit in the 5.5e Dungeon Master's Guide is warning against.

I'm aware that some players and DMs are really into this kind of hyper-optimization and finding loopholes in the rules that allow them to do impressive things. I'm happy for people who want to play that way to do so at their own tables, and I do find all the weird loopholes and tricks interesting, but I have no interest in indulging it when I'm DMing.

 I guess I really disagree on this being a bad faith interpretation or really this being hyper optimization