TRPG General Chat

nitsua60

01:14

@Yuuki Distance, though, isn't (to me) a hugely-useful metric. 10% of people within 10m of mean sea level, though... that's an interesting way to think about rising oceans.

@GreySage I'm definitely more attractive in dim light.

(IOW, "what BESW said.")

trogdor

So your saying your color and contrast is the problem then ? @nitsua60 ? :P

nitsua60

@trogdor I think I'm saying they're among the problems =)

Ben

01:34

Hey @nits, how are you?

trogdor

01:49

@nitsua60 lol

Ben

02:18

Is Jeremy Crawford an "author" of the D&D rulebook?

nitsua60

@Ben Hiya.

@Ben Yes, though I don't know to what extent his role as "lead designer" was authoring rules vs. leading a team who did so.

Ben

Yeah, just wanted to get a "title" for the appropriate person(s) authorised to make official rule clarifications.

nitsua60

@Ben Lead Designer is his formal title.

Ben

The OP appears to be in a but of a stubborn state of mind lol.

nitsua60

@Ben In their defense, I think your (completely correct to my mind and imminently reasonable) assertion about the reading would benefit from one of the designers' quotes about 5e being written in "plain language."

Since "see" and "no difficulty" aren't otherwise-defined game terms, we use the Simple English reading of them (which leads to your stated claim, IMO).

@Rubiksmoose I saw that =)

Ben

02:35

@nitsua60 Fair. This really is an interesting situation haha

RAW, both are "not wrong", even though they are contradictory haha

nitsua60

Any player of mine who tried to make that claim at my table would find their GM saying "really? So you see through your eyelids? You know that after about a week you're going to die from sleep deprivation right? 'Cause I'm fine with that, but you can just ditch your character less-dramatically if you want."

Ben

@nitsua60 I feel like I could/should add that to my answer?

nitsua60

@Ben Do what you like--I don't touch RAW with a ten-foot pole, so my advice probably isn't very useful.

Ben

Hahaha fair enough

nitsua60

[considers mod-abuse of undeleting, upvoting, then redeleting @Miniman's totem answer...]

Ben

02:48

@nitsua60 hahaha

I unfortunately missed it lol

Miniman

@nitsua60 it's a more problematic answer than I'm comfortable with.

Ben

What was the gist?

Miniman

Because the implications for darkvision or truesight are concerning and contradictory.

> You can see up to 1 mile away with no difficulty, able to discern even fine details as though looking at something no more than 100 feet away from you.

Was the gist

Ben

Also a valid point.

I'm with @nits on this lol

Miniman

Feel free to steal it if you like.

Joshua

02:51

Apparently nobody thinks I should build a traps dungeon despite the fact I believe the DM should not construct unfair traps.

Ben

@Joshua Define "unfair"

Joshua

I don't like "make this check to detect the trap or die"

MikeQ

@Joshua Define "nobody"

Joshua

Nobody I've talked to about it.

Ben

@MikeQ lol

@Joshua I will say that is very... all or none.

MikeQ

02:54

Well you're technically conversing with me, and I say you should design a dungeon with a trap and hazard theme. So that's no longer nobody.

Ben

Not saying traps can't lead to death...

Joshua

Let's put it this way, if the trap results in a TPK the party blew it.

Ah MikeQ the dungeon theme is traps and puzzles.

Tell you what, if you can find a way we can play it I can build it.

MikeQ

Especially for lower level PCs in a D&D-esque game, I prefer trap challenges because the players choose the pacing - they can notice the trap, discuss, then figure out how to address it.

nitsua60

I exist in some superposition of hating, liking, and not understanding traps.

Joshua

I also had this brilliant idea of leaving spellbooks in the dungeon to ensure the players know the necessary spells.

nitsua60

02:57

Alright, people, I've taken a big plunge.Tonight I bought my first console since the NES.

MikeQ

@Joshua - I recently wrote about trap design in an answer. tl;dr The cost of failure doesn't need to be death, just substantial enough to make the trap significant.

Miniman

@nitsua60 Which one?

Ben

@Joshua I'm all for traps that kill - but there should be fair warning, and potential buffer against said death. Otherwise players should be warned to bring several character sheets before the game starts.

nitsua60

@Miniman xbox

MikeQ

@Joshua That's a valid approach. Definitely a big boost if the PCs have a wizard.

Ben

02:58

@nitsua60 Wooooow

Miniman

@nitsua60 What's the benefit over a PC?

Ben

[Impressed applause]

@Miniman You can play on the couch

Joshua

@Ben: That's what resurrection's for.

nitsua60

@Miniman Me and the kids sitting around playing whatevs on a 50" screen together.

MikeQ

@Joshua Personally I like narrative environmental clues - spatters of dried blood, discarded lockpicks, noticing that the dungeon denizens avoid certain areas, etc...

Joshua

02:59

Noiiice.

Rubiksmoose

@nitsua60 hahaha you saw nothing. [Jedi hand wave]

nitsua60

(Also, I live in laptop-world. Haven't had a desktop for a decade or so, and don't really want to pick up another machine whose maintenance is my problem.)

Ben

@Joshua True.

nitsua60

@Rubiksmoose Your petty magic tricks won't- [snores]

Miniman

@nitsua60 So any particular reason why an xbox over whatever playstation and nintendo are up to now?

MikeQ

03:02

@Joshua Lastly I'd advise against insta-kill traps, especially when healing is a limited resource. Killing the PC means that the player can't play anymore, or until they get brought back somehow.

nitsua60

@Miniman Fifa, I think was it?

Rubiksmoose

@nitsua60 BTW I totally softened my wording on the RAT question upon rereading your answer. I don't think it's fair to say to that all uses are derisive or ironic.

Joshua

@MikeQ: Ah too bad. My traps tend to be really lethal as in healing magic probably won't help much. Hmmm better start the players with a few Ressurrection scrolls.

Rubiksmoose

Still I really hope that kind of terminology doesn't catch on.

Miniman

@nitsua60 Ah, interesting.

Joshua

03:05

I've just been assuming fighter (includes druid), cleric, wizard

MikeQ

@Joshua Ok, then I'll need to understand your motives here. Why do you want lethal traps? To make them scary? Or as an exercise in resource management?

Ben

Switch = Mario Party. A game of frustration and hatred for the whole family.

Joshua

To make them scary. Resource management is supposed to be a complete non-issue and the players can take long rest between each room.

nitsua60

@Rubiksmoose For my part, I think you make a good point about RAT probably not being terribly useful in describing a source. "Quote tweets if you want, if you have feelings about how they should be taken explain those, but don't rely on obscure jargon to carry any of that water" seems like good advice.

Miniman

@Joshua This statement, combined with "really lethal as in healing magic won't help" suggests to me that your traps are of the "read my mind or die" persuasion, which is, in general, significantly less fun for players than "make a check or die".

Ben

03:07

"Mario Party. You though you hated monopoly... just you wait!"

MikeQ

@Joshua In that case there are better strategies to make dungeon elements scary

Joshua

Yeah that's the problem if I get them wrong.

nitsua60

@Miniman The requirements were (1) not PC (for aforementioned reasons), (2) Elite Dangerous, (3) FIFA, (4) as cheap as reasonable subject to 1-3.

MikeQ

The problem with too many surprise deathtraps is that it makes the players overly cautious. It often encourages a playstyle where the game slows down due to many many Perception rolls

Joshua

Most of the traps I've designed deliberately have most/all of the elements in the open for investigation.

MikeQ

03:10

Okay that's good, and I can skip the point about poorly clued warnings

Ben

@MikeQ Actually, yes. I have experienced this in one of my games. My mum and dad used to play D&D when they were younger, and apparently those dungeons were lethal. "I open the door" - "Ok, you're dead".

Rubiksmoose

@nitsua60 yeah and I just dread debating whether something is RAI/RAT or RAW/RAT and why this thing can be in multiple categories at once. Luckily I think this is all a bunch of hand wringing over something very unlikely to happen based on the current rate of usage of the term. But I did worry.

Ben

This led to a 30 minute argument about whether or not they should open a door without knowing in one way or another what was on the other side

MikeQ

Case: The undescribed dragon problem
- PCs enter a room, and GM describes some aspects of the room
- PCs walk forward and get eaten by unmentioned dragon
- The dragon wasn't invisible, but the GM says it's the players' fault for not checking for dragons

Joshua

@Ben: Illusionary wall with a chained Gorgon on the other side. The players are supposed to be able to recover from this one.

Shalvenay

03:12

hey there @Joshua

Rubiksmoose

@nitsua60 I think the ideal solution is just to ignore JC entirely lol

The bugger is that he is very helpful sometimes when he agrees and makes sense.

Shalvenay

@Joshua -- thought about your lich-on-a-magnetar -- I wonder what that lich'd see if that magnetar had a starquake....

Joshua

Well considering that he has to cast darkness with true sight on top of it to see /anything/...

Hmmm trouble is that spins up the magnatar by a few kHZ. Not good.

Shalvenay

@Joshua heheheh

"can ionizing radiation pierce magical darkness?"

Joshua

I'm not going to ask that one. I can't hope for an answer from the rules.

nitsua60

03:19

@Rubiksmoose lolfigsl =)

Ben

@nitsua60 "figsl"?

nitsua60

@Ben urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lolfigsl

Ben

Ahh lol. (No figsl)

nitsua60

@Ben (though a search of this room's transcript may lead you down a straaange rabbit hole, if you've ten minutes.)

Joshua

I was disappointed I had to toss what I thought was a well designed trap/puzzle because a material impervious to anti-magic field can't seem to exist anymore.

Shalvenay

03:31

@Joshua that's annoying

my thing with traps, though, is traps that aren't really traps

Joshua

It really needs a hemisphere anti-magic field rather than a sphere anti-magic field

Shalvenay

@Joshua Sculpt Spell or equivalent?

Joshua

I don't think you can sculpt-spell an item with a permanent anti-magic field.

"The tunnel opens into a room. You don't see a floor but you can see the tunnel on the other side of the room. There is a red spire about three feet tall just hanging there with its bottom at floor level. You see heat waves."

V2Blast

Hmm... I think Korvin's right about this question:

14

Q: How can I explain how to play D&D to new players without them falling asleep from boredom?

Some of my friends just started playing Dungeons & Dragons [5e] for the first time and don't know anything about how to play. I have tried explaining to them the things that are completely necessary and teach them the rest while playing but I could not get them to understand. None of them have a ...

being a duplicate of this one:

14

Q: How to explain D&D to new players?

I recently brought up the fact that I play D&D to a friend, and a few days later he came back to me and said that he wanted to play. I was excited at the idea and said that I would be willing to run a one-off session for him and some other friends. The first friend used to play somewhere around...

dnd-5e new-players new-gm system-introduction

I can close one as a duplicate of the other (as they are basically identical), but I feel both questions have some good answers so they might benefit from a diamond mod merging them...

nitsua60

@V2Blast Can you custom flag with a note to that effect?

V2Blast

03:45

Sure!

nitsua60

(Gets it into a nice queue where we can all easily get a look, discuss, and decide how to proceed.)

V2Blast

Done.

(I assume I should only flag one of them)

Joshua

I took a look at the questions and agree with the assessment of duplicate.

Joshua

04:02

I've kind of got this idea that attacking a high-level spellcaster in his stronghold is a truly terrible idea and a reasonable expectation of such a battle is its really sharp and not in favor of the players.

V2Blast

Am I right in guessing that the site linked in the following question rehosts non-SRD content?

1

Q: What is a dead magic zone?

From Nail of blood Inscribed along its length with wicked-looking runes, this 3-inch-long nail is made of black metal and gives off a faint, eerie blue glow. Powered by strange necromantic magic, the nail allows a spellcaster to cast spells within a magic dead zone by drawing on the caster’s ...

pathfinder

MikeQ

04:36

@V2Blast Nope, pathfinder moved its official SRD to aonprd (archives of nethys)

V2Blast

04:55

@MikeQ Ah, okay.

kviiri

06:01

@Joshua That's an idea you really shouldn't expect your players to agree with without explicit confirmation though.

2

SmokeDetector

09:18

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, blacklisted website in body, pattern-matching website in body, potentially bad keyword in body (294): This supplement is established to guide your herbal by Rinjethor on rpg.SE (@doppelgreener)

kviiri

11:06

Jeez, am I overrepresented on the starboard or what

3

Rubiksmoose

13:21

@kviiri What starboard? oh you mean the kviiriboard?

kviiri

@Rubiksmoose It's getting worse!

Carcer

you should ignore it and hope it goes away

or see a doctor

one of those two

nitsua60

13:37

@Carcer I'm in one of those cracks right now: I strained something about 6 months ago while doing squats. It slowly migrated and settled into my lower (lowest) abs. Now it feels fine for a few weeks, then I'll do a fast run or sneeze or get up out of bed too quickly and it hurts for a week.

(misfire)

kviiri

new entry on my "cool characters I'd want to play" list: personal doctor/medic/nurse to a wealthy but ailing crime lord.

Carcer

for a moment I thought I was popular

nitsua60

I definitely need to either push through it or rest it. Just don't know which.

Rubiksmoose

@Carcer get off your high horse. You are no @kviiri. We can only dream of being as wise and popular as them.

Carcer

@kviiri imgur.com/gallery/Widyfyh

Rubiksmoose

13:40

;)

RyanfaeScotland

Hey folks, would someone mind moving this into chain into chat? Can flag if preferred? It's ran its course, the answer was updated, it's now just me and another user going back and forth: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/138749/…

Rubiksmoose

@RyanfaeScotland So only a mod can do that (unfortunately IMO) but flag one of the comments with a custom flag asking for it to be moved to chat and a mod will usually do that when they see it.

If you keep going back and forth eventually once you trigger the algorithm you will be promted to continue in chat which will create a chat between those two people. This doesn't remove the comments on the original thread though.

Carcer

yes, you should flag it either way

RyanfaeScotland

Ah cheers @Rubiksmoose, I figured there might be a pack of mods handing out here, or a gaggle, or a murder, whatever a group of mods is called. :)

Carcer

we don't have enough mods to form a pack I don't think

there's... four of them?

Rubiksmoose

13:46

@RyanfaeScotland Sometimes they do! If one sees your message here and they have time they will also likely look into it. But flags are the best way to go.

kviiri

@Rubiksmoose You misspelled BESW

Carcer

yes, four mods.

RyanfaeScotland

Cheers guys, have went for a custom flag.

kviiri

@Carcer YES

Rubiksmoose

@kviiri Quick @BESW say something wise! We are lost without you counsel on the Kviiriboard.

RyanfaeScotland

13:47

Four, so a quadologyof mods maybe?

kviiri

The notable thing about personal nurse is, I've been thinking about cool character tropes to do while playing an Angel in Apocalypse World. I have been quite bad at coming up anything except "Mad doctor" or "Altruistic town healer"

And neither quite feels right to me (well, the latter is something I very much appreciate in real world!)

Carcer

grr, errant dupe on your Q there @rubiksmoose

Rubiksmoose

@Carcer Yeah I might undupe it myself, but I want to wait and think on it for a minute. The question seems different and the answers also don't answer my question so it seems pretty straight forward.

(I actually don't know if I can undupe my own but I see no reason why I wouldn't be able to).

@Miniman what do you think?

Carcer

definitely not the same question IMO

though I think the answer is also a pretty simple no

Rubiksmoose

I'm glad to have another that sees the way I do. It is often tricky with ones own question to adjudicate without bias.

Carcer

13:58

afaik the only resource that describes rules for creating spell scrolls in the first place is xanathar's expanded downtime rules and that doesn't mention anything about changing the level at which a scroll is cast

I'm assuming that answers that say "if you're the DM you can make magic items that do whatever you want" aren't helpful

Colin Gross

@Rubiksmoose it's technically not a duplicate question.

and as we know, being technically correct is the best kind. /S

Rubiksmoose

@Carcer Not the most helpful because I mean I already know that. I was hoping there would be some rules guidance on whether they are allowed or not, but if that is the only thing available then I guess I'll just stick with that.

Carcer

well

the rules don't expressly forbid such things existing

spells are only cast from scrolls at lowest level because the general rule about casting spells from magical items is that they're cast at lowest level "unless otherwise stated"

and there are magic items which do specify they produce upcast versions of spells

Rubiksmoose

I think I may have falsely assumed that all spell scrolls have explicit levels associated with them

Carcer

the staff of power for instance specifies it produces 5th level versions of fireball and lightning bolt

Rubiksmoose

14:07

Though kind of technically true I guess if you consider assuming the default lowest level to be explict.

Colin Gross

@Rubiksmoose It is the stated default.

Rubiksmoose

@ColinGross right right but that isn't exactly what I meant

Colin Gross

@Carcer Xanathar's doesn't mention anything about what level you have to scribe the scroll at. It just gives prices for spell level.

Carcer

... yes

Rubiksmoose

So can a PC scribe a 2nd level magic missle scroll according to the rules?

Carcer

14:11

no

the downtime rules let you scribe bog standard scrolls of X

so you get a spell scroll of X, with a cost determined by the spell's level, and as per general rules if you use that scroll to cast the spell it's cast at the lowest possible level

Rubiksmoose

Cool. I think that would be useful information to add to an answer fwiw.

Even though I didn't explicitly ask for it, saying DM can make one PCs can't would be very complete I think.

Carcer

yeah, I'm writing

hm

revising stance

Rubiksmoose

hahaha no worries

Carcer

the rules don't tell you how to make upcast versions of these things but they also don't say that, if your DM declares that such things exist, that you can't do that

if as DM you say "spell scrolls of magic missile at 2nd level are a thing" then the rules don't prohibit that being a magical item a PC could craft

Colin Gross

@Carcer It says it makes a spell scroll. Nothing about spell scroll in the DMG specifies that it has to be the base level of the spell. It just gives a table for the spell level.

Carcer

14:19

and it'd make sense to treat it pricewise as a second level spell

Rubiksmoose

Normally I operate under the assumption that the rules, with regards to finniky mechanical processes, tell you what you can do not what you cannot.

Carcer

Colin: don't conflate the level of a spell and upcasting

Colin Gross

So you could have a magic missile scroll. That would be assumed to be level 1 per the general rules. You could have a scroll of magic missile level 2.

That fits the spell scroll general description and the table provided.

Carcer

A scroll of magic missile that casts magic missile at second level is still a scroll with a first-level spell on it

Colin Gross

Nothing states that a spell scroll cannot be a level other than the base level of the spell.

Rubiksmoose

14:20

Well technically the spell is the level it is cast at.

Carcer

is it?

Colin Gross

@Rubiksmoose I believe that is correct

Carcer

hm

Colin Gross

@Carcer Cast fireball at a rakasha using a L7 spell slot. Does it do damage?

Rubiksmoose

Yeah that is the interpretation that seems most accepted given the statements in the rules.

Carcer

14:21

yes

hm

Colin Gross

So the fireball spell that was cast was level 7.

Carcer

let me just double check something. I think I've confused myself with something else

for reference I think this is an entirely sensible way to rule

Rubiksmoose

27

A: Does upcasting bypass Limited Magic Immunity?

Upcasting does indeed bypass limited magic immunity When a spellcaster casts a spell using a slot that is of a higher level than the spell, the spell assumes the higher level for that casting. (PHB p.201) The general rule is that a spell cast using a higher level spell slot is actually that...

Carcer

yes

that's pretty much exactly what I was doublechecking

probably doing a 3.X/5e mixup in my head there

Colin Gross

@Carcer That still catches me out too often.

So does the old lore from 2nd edition and my now irrational fear of encounters with wights

goodguy5

14:29

@ColinGross no, they're still terrifying

Colin Gross

@goodguy5 Meh... it's max hp drain until long rest now? It used to be permanent level drain

goodguy5

Didn't greater restoration still fix that?

Rubiksmoose

@ColinGross That bothers my DM a lot too lol

Carcer

@goodguy5 not before 3e

Colin Gross

@Rubiksmoose Yeah. I still avoid having wights in my encounters. Even though they're basically upstaged shadows now.

@Carcer I think you originally needed wish or limited wish to restore the levels.

goodguy5

14:36

oh no

I played 2e, but I don't think we fought any wights.

Derpy

be glad - at least the player is informed of the drop. Diablo had the Black Death monsters that dropped your max hp by one permanently on each successful hit... and didn't bother to make the player aware of that

Carcer

yeah, 2e's wights just say "you lose a level. Off you go"

goodguy5

so, material components

you can substitute your focus if there isn't a cost listed, right?

Colin Gross

@goodguy5 or the spell component bag item.

kviiri

The wording is actually slightly ambiguous also regarding costless consumed components

Colin Gross

14:46

@kviiri Really? I thought it was pretty clear for spells with material components.

" A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell."

@kviiri I was under the impression the confusion was about the somatic components and spell focus. If there's a material component, then your somatic hand can also be your focus hand. If it's somatic only, the spell focus gets in the way.

goodguy5

@ColinGross yes but what about listed components that have cost? Such as Alchemy Supplies

Colin Gross

@goodguy5 Is a cost indicated for the component?

goodguy5

not in the spell, but it lists alchemy supplies, which are listed Alchemist’s supplies 50 gp 8 lbs.

kviiri

@ColinGross The next part (iirc)

Colin Gross

If the spell doesn't indicate a cost, then it meets the requirements for spell focus.

kviiri

14:54

You cut it short

Carcer

where's Healing Elixir found?

goodguy5

unearthed arcana

Carcer

ah

Colin Gross

@kviiri "If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell. A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components -- or to hold a spellcasting focus -- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."

Carcer

so it's only in UA

kviiri

14:56

@ColinGross Actually, looking at the revised version, it's much less ambiguous

No wait, that is the current version.

Carcer

in which case it seems likely to me that that particular interaction of rules is an oversight and you aren't intended to be able to bypass the material component with a focus

Colin Gross

@Carcer Probably the case, but UA is basically homebrew anyway.

kviiri

So does "this component" here mean the particular object or substance specified?

Seems like the most natural interpretation to me

Although not necessarily the best for gameplay...

Colin Gross

@kviiri Where are you seeing "this component" ?

kviiri

@ColinGross The text you copied?

Carcer

14:59

"the caster must provide this component"

Colin Gross

Gotcha.

@kviiri Yeah, unless they're using a component pouch or spellcasting focus

Carcer

this merrow question makes me sad

kviiri

@ColinGross Like I said, I think a more natural reading is that "this component" refers to the specific object/substance and cannot be substituted.

Colin Gross

@kviiri The arcane focus and spell component bag specifically call out that they are substitutes for the components of spells unless the component has a cost.

kviiri

@ColinGross They don't say exactly that.

Colin Gross

15:02

I think we have differing interpretations of " in place of the components specified for a spell"

kviiri

No, we have a differing interpretation of "this component" in the rule regarding consumed components.

Colin Gross

@kviiri If the consumed component does not have a cost, the focus is a substitute

kviiri

@ColinGross In your reading, yes, I get that. But I disagree that it's the obvious reading.

Colin Gross

Does the spell have a material component? if yes, does the component have a cost listed? if no, the focus is a substitute

Nothing about the focus specifies that it does not substitute for consumed components.

kviiri

@ColinGross Nothing about the focus specifies it doesn't deal 3d8 radiant damage when used as an improvised weapon.

Colin Gross

15:05

@kviiri The rules for improvised weapons state otherwise

kviiri

The rules for material components state that a focus can be used in place of material components.

That's the first rule, a general one.

Colin Gross

@kviiri Okay. It states that it substitutes for components while failing to state that consumed components are an exception to the previous statement.

kviiri

Then there's a new rule, that costly components cannot be substituted. An obvious exception.

goodguy5

I think that costless consumed components can be substituted.

Colin Gross

@kviiri Focus is the exception to the general rule that material components must be provided.

Generally, you must have the material components for the spell.

kviiri

15:07

@ColinGross Yes, I don't disagree with that specifically, as a general statement

Finally, a third rule says that if a component is consumed, this component needs to be provided for each casting of the spell.

Colin Gross

@kviiri So generally, you don't need the components?

kviiri

@ColinGross That's right, you only need them when casting a spell that says you do

Colin Gross

@kviiri I can see how you might construe that as more specific than the arcane focus. I think you should join the small bandwagon of wanting a formal ontology of specificity for 5e.

goodguy5

I think you have the order wrong.

I think it's
1. You need components for a spell (when listed)
2. You need to provide a new one every time if the spell consumes them
3. You can use a focus/pouch if the component does have a cost.

kviiri

For that third rule, the most natural way to read it to me is that either "this component" is the specific component required by the spell, not a substitute... or alternatively, you can use and consume your focus to substitute it.

Colin Gross

15:09

@goodguy5 That's my impression as we, but can see how one could flip 2 and 3

Xirema

The three rules of Spell Components:

1. If it is consumed, you must provide the specific component (and it will be consumed)
2. If it has a cost, you must provide the specific component
3. If it has neither, then a focus is good enough.

goodguy5

but, aren't a focus and component pouch interchangeable?

kviiri

@goodguy5 I just used the term "focus" for brevity. What's the difference in this case?

Xirema

@goodguy5 Yes. A component pouch is implied to contain all possible non-consumed, non-costed components in existence.

goodguy5

@Xirema what about consumed noncosted components?

kviiri

15:11

But seriously, now that I think about it, I find the interpretation that RAW one's focus is consumed to be rather sensible.

(plus I'd like to see a Bard set their lute on fire casting a spell)

Xirema

@goodguy5 You still have to provide them. There are only a very small subset of spells that have non-costed, consumed components.

The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Protection from Good and Evil, which consumes a "splash of holy water".

Colin Gross

@kviiri I see how you could get around to that, but you're implicitly making an equivalence between a focus and components.

That's one interpretation of in place of, but probably not how most people think of durable goods.

goodguy5

So, @Xirema you're telling me that you need to have a supply of glass beads to cast Globe of Invulnerability?

kviiri

@ColinGross Isn't that correct, then? It wouldn't be substitution if it wasn't treated similarly.

Also, it makes sense given the wording of the rule.

Xirema

@goodguy5 As DM, that's how I would rule it.

Colin Gross

15:15

@kviiri It's not correct, but I can see how you could select definitions to walk around to that conclusion.

kviiri

@ColinGross Why do you say it's not correct?

Colin Gross

@kviiri Because it's not. Spell foci are not consumed by casting spells.

@kviiri But I think that would be an interesting question for the stack.

kviiri

@ColinGross That's an assertion, not an argument. If you don't want to argue it, that's fine, but then i wouldn't be quick to throw around the "incorrect" hammer either

Colin Gross

Lay out the rule citations and definitions you're using to get to the conclusion. I'd be interested to see the responses.

kviiri

@ColinGross Nah, it'd probably just be a flamewar with JC quotes thrown in.

goodguy5

15:16

@Xirema or you need to find mandrake root for Create Homonculous?

kviiri

"If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell." there's actually two ways to interpret that even outside our main debate. One is that "you need to provide this component each time you cast the spell" and the other is that "you need to provide a separate instance of this component each time you cast the spell"

goodguy5

So, these things require the GM to allow the player to get non-listed items, without a clear cost?

kviiri

I think the correct interpretation is the latter, because the former is true of any spell with any material component.

Colin Gross

@kviiri It's a discrete question, and you've got the logic to support it.

kviiri

@ColinGross But it's also a stupid question, the answer of which I don't really care about apart from exercising my rule reading

Colin Gross

15:18

@kviiri I don't think adding separate instance clarifies the interaction with spell foci and component bags very much. I think you'd need to specifically and directly address that interaction.

kviiri

@ColinGross There's no further specification in the rules --- we just know that the spell focus is used to replace material components, and those material components are consumed when casting a spell.

Colin Gross

@kviiri You could also interpret that as material components are consumed. Since none are provided, none are consumed.

kviiri

And since the rule for component consumption says the component must be provided for each casting, and I have grounds to interpret that as meaning a brand new instance each time....

goodguy5

I'm working on a metaphor here, but it's slow going.

Colin Gross

Spells consume material components, not spell foci.

Carcer

15:20

IIT: maximum pedantry

goodguy5

IIT?

kviiri

@ColinGross So I guess this boils down to the question: are spell foci used to provide a material component, or are they a bypass to the material component mechanic?

Carcer

it's like ITT except spelled wrong

goodguy5

oh! that makes much more sense

kviiri

If it's the former, I'd argue they're consumed, RAW. Otherwise, I think not.

Carcer

15:21

and this isn't even a thread, it's a chatroom

Colin Gross

@kviiri I think that's a succinct summary.

Carcer

so it should be ITC

but in my office that means IT Co-ordinator

Sir Cinnamon

ITT = in this tab

of my browser, obviously

kviiri

@ColinGross But yeah the ultimate reason I don't awnt to stack this is that I think there's already way too much rules pedantry questions re: DnD 5e there

Carcer

in this topic might work as a more general thing

kviiri

15:22

I'd be fine asking this if this was an actual problem and not just an exercise of playing around with the rule text

Colin Gross

@kviiri Given the prevalence of them, I would assume they're generally enjoyed by the audience participants.

kviiri

@ColinGross Well, I'm not in that audience :)

goodguy5

@kviiri I'm stacking it right now

kviiri

(also, I believe people often need to be protected from things they love too much)

@goodguy5 That's on you then x)

TBH the RAW reads to me more like the focus not actually being a material component

in which case it's pretty clear they're not consumed

Colin Gross

@kviiri You're more of the summon lesser devil's advocate type?

kviiri

15:27

@ColinGross My favorite questions concern more concrete situations where people can actually be helped, instead of being just rules puzzles :P

That said, I do enjoy tearing at the rules every now and then just for kicks

But the most of this stuff is never going to be an issue in any table

(if for no other reason, because the GM rules it as they please ending the need for debate!)

goodguy5

and posted

now, I can finally get some work done

kviiri

@goodguy5 Huh, I thought you were going to ask whether the focus gets consumed in their stead

goodguy5

@kviiri oh, no. I'm sure that it doesn't and I'm fairly certain that literally nothing could change my mind on that.

And besides, why would their horse consume it, in the first place?

kviiri

15:43

@goodguy5 Not even the mental image of the Bard breaking their lute to seal an intense solo, and then setting it on fire?

goodguy5

@kviiri They're welcome to do that, and I might even give advantage for it, but it's not required.

nitsua60

@RyanfaeScotland Chatified--thanks for being conscientious =)

(And I believe we, as in so many ways, are like crows: a "murder of mods.")

Transcript for