@G.Moylan Does polymorph affect subsequent spells cast on the recipient? yes. It can invalidate the recipient as a target for those subsequent spells. Does it target the subsequent spells? no.
@JohnP [personal opinion] I'd posit that system does matter here. For systems, like 5e, where mechanical mastery is rewarded and a huge part of the dynamic of the game, you are going to get much different answers than for a game like Masks where system mastery is practically nonexistant and will give you nothing.
@G.Moylan Not all things affected by a spell effects are targets. The effects of disguise self affect everyone who sees the recipient, but they are not targets.
@GcL It's this question. The hangup is explicitly the spells afterwords. The OP asserts that JC said anything affected by a spell is therefore also targeted by it.
I"m reconsidering not having duped this question Each part (Can I pick it up and how does it work if I do) seem answered already. It's just bundled here. WHat's more fun is that the answer to this is not equal to the answers to the linked.
No, official rulings now come only from the published Sage Advice Compendium
Previously, the Sage Advice Compendium has said this concerning the sources of official rulings:
Official rulings on how to interpret unclear rules are made in Sage Advice. The public statements of the D&D team, or ...
(you can find all the links you'll need in there, including (ironically) some Twitter ones)
> Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium by the game’s lead rules designer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter). The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice.
(un)fortunately, a lot of 5e is left up to the table. And it's up to the table to decide where the line is between "this is fun/cool" and "this is over the top"
@kviiri I was in much the same boat. I was a huge fan of citing and relying on JC rulings here. You can still see that in much of my early answers. But yeah, my confidence in them has degraded immensely.
@NautArch The targeting issue does seriously bug me though. Because I shouldn't have to, as a DM, figure out the complicated calculus of spellcasting rules and all the knock-on effects when answering the simple question of what a spell target is. This issue in particular, to me, see significant failing of the rules dev team.
Interesting. I remember this being a point of contention not terribly long ago: "An effect that deals damage is one that reduces the target’s hit points."
@Rubiksmoose Not disagreeing, but I think it's fairly clear when it seems like it shouldn't work. It only becomes an issue when someone says "well, if I look at it this way..."
@Rubiksmoose For the things that have been coming up, I think so from an "as DM I would" perspective. But not from a "I can fully support this with rules" perspective.
@NautArch no someone was debating whether spells that outright kill you deal any damage. And the question was asked if a spell automatically "reduces you to zero hit points" is dealing damage or just killing you
@Rubiksmoose I disagree. Either a system is designed explicitly ruling out effects interacting, or you end up with more potential interactions than can be comprehensively tested and considered.
@GcL Because, to me, "more potential interactions than can be comprehensively tested and considered" is a pretty good description of some areas of 5e's rules honestly.
@Rubiksmoose A failure of the devs to consider knock on effects. Either a system doesn't have them, or you end up with too many to comprehensively test or consider.
@G.Moylan OP also clearly has an answer in mind that they seem like they want to hear. I had suggested they submit, but instead they just challenge every answer.
@Rubiksmoose Which means it's left to interpretation of people at the table using common language. I was under the impression the rules stated that was how terms in 5e functioned.
@GcL That works well when they are using terms in a common language way, but "target" is used in a special-to-5e way that isn't fully fleshed out enough.
In the same way that using the common language term for "spell" and "attack" would not help you at all in running the rules of the game.
@Rubiksmoose I'm looking at the phb, and it doesn't look like the term is defined. There a page about what kind of targets to pick, but nothing about what the term means.
I think my first "target" definition would be "targets are defined only upon casting the spell" but I'm 100% shooting from the hip and nearly certain it would cause issues.
@DucksGoMooful IIRC, 4e uses a somewhat different model where you don't have a reflex save, you have a reflex defence, and someone trying to include you in the area of a fireball makes an attack roll against your reflex defence, they don't cause you to make a reflex save. Likewise with fortitude/willpower.
@kviiri I feel like it makes more sense than the method @Carcer just described, in terms of making a save vs making an attack, but yeah I suppose initial familiarity gives you a bias
@DucksGoMooful The 4e model is pretty intuitive because everything that represents an attack is an attack, and all attacks work the same: the attacker rolls against a defense.
@GcL I feel like we're focusing on a very minor semantic point here. Is "target" given a definition in the books? Not really. Does that cause issues with the fact that they use "target" to mean a bunch of different confusing and sometimes conflicting things and have written target to be a vital term in several abilities? Yes. Does using the common English definition of the term help to resolve any ambiguities? No.
@GcL To add an extra line in the rules saying "a target includes anything affected by the spell at the time of the initial casting" eg aka a proper definition that makes the game work without relying on DMs to fix it for them.
@Carcer Yea but you quickly end up needing a full formal ontology, or you end up with an ad-hoc mess... which is a very similar mess to natural language.
Picture the following: Your party is engaged in battle on the edge of a wall of a cliff of sufficient height that a fall would be lethal. Suddenly one of your party members gets pushed over the edge.
My question is this: could a timely (and well aimed) eldritch blast with Grasp of Hadar just bef...
@GcL But.. they can literally change the edge cases to fix things. They write the rules. They have control over every aspect of the complexity of the game.
it doesn't mean you have to maximally consider every possible problem. But many of the problems in 5e's rules interpretation would go away with just a little more definitional rigour
@Rubiksmoose Even when you have full control over a system, you can end up with too many edge cases to consider. Especially when you have more than a few moving parts that can interact.
@Rubiksmoose The DM is already in the role of making rulings. That's how the game works.
Gödel's incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that demonstrate the inherent limitations of every formal axiomatic system capable of modelling basic arithmetic. These results, published by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are important both in mathematical logic and in the philosophy of mathematics. The theorems are widely, but not universally, interpreted as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all mathematics is impossible.
The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by a...
@GcL While it's DM fiat at the end, I did say "table agreement." If someone wanted to cast invisibility on a single person carrying a 2nd person to get them invisible as well,i'd just say "Cmon, man! Do you really think that's the way the spell is supposed to work?"
@GcL But that is just passing the buck and is exactly what I'm complaining about. IF the rules desginers looked at this term and said "woof we are not defining that thing, that is way too complicated" the reasonable response might be "let's simplify the system a bit to make it work better" not "let's get each DM to make their own definition of the way this really complicated term with lots of edge cases works possibly without understanding the rules fully."
Argh, I really want to answer this with a frame challenge about not needing to worry about it. But I've never actually done it, I just don't think there's an issue that needs to be 'solved'.
@GcL There's a reasonable middle ground here where they give the DM enough of a solid ground to make easy fun rulings to cater to their table without an ontology. It is a line they largely walk in a positive way throughout. There are a few specific cases where they don't give the DM enough though and this is one of them.
@GcL And if the response is argument, then you've got a player problem about pushing boundaries. It doesn't mean there won't be times of "Okay, but as DM I don't think it works like that, so it won't." Especially for those creative uses of spells.
the rules are sufficient because you're capable of interpreting them in a sensible way and you have a good intuition about what is intended in cases when those terms are used most of the time but that doesn't mean they aren't strictly ambiguous
I suppose there would probably have been almost zero confusion about how twin spell is supposed to work if it weren't for JC's sodding tweet about Dragon Breath.
I see how people can get confused, though. The spell clearly only targets one creature, and should therefore be eligible. But him saying that it's ineligible because it can affect more than one creature is confounding.
@NautArch Just a question about this comment: I'm in no way trying to pressure you here, but it seems to me like they do support various parts of their answer with references and experience. Am I missing something or are you looking for them to improve something specifically?
He even tweeted this (emphasis mine): "Twinned Spell test: can the spell affect only one creature at the spell's current level, and is its range not self? If yes, TS works"
I'm editing my answer to the first one posted, about Greater Invisibility, trying to get the wording right. I'm trying to say that if stuff carried by the target is also affected, that doesn't make them additional targets, or else you couldn't cast Greater Invisibility targeting one creature, but that doesn't sound convincing enough in my head
@Rubiksmoose it's very variable, but that seems to be the bigger lever. If you have 8 3 round encounters vs 2 8 round encounters, the calculus is very different in terms of resource usage/turn.
@GcL Fwiw, sorry about that. It was not intended to be a straw man, but a depiction of what 5e is not. I got distracted before I could fully make that point :)
y'all probably want to sling the meta about guessing the system at iaminsensible, I note his answer got deleted without anyone actually pointing to it in the comments
As a D&D 5e GM and ex-D&D 3.5e GM, I have found that cantrips are too strong:
After a certain level, they deal more damage than some level 1 spells.
You can use them indefinitely.
It makes a spellcaster almost never need a weapon (and so "weapon-needing" classes become bad).
The first problem...
To fulfil a prophecy: What is Eldritch Blast's maximum range?
Assuming the following constraints:
The allowed material is the PHB, DMG, MM, EE, SCAG, XGtE, VGtM, MToF
and the SA Compendium v2.3 and the errata linked therein linked.
The setting is the Forgotten Realms, 1492 DR.
The character is...
@Yuuki He says the "disadvantages are pretty significant", but I strongly disagree. Even without minmaxxing, you can put out a ton more damage than a regular character without having to worry about losing too much benefit
@Yuuki As a fighter you get plenty of Ability Score increases, so you just get maximum Dexterity and Strength and have plenty of AC from light armor, and deal tons of damage with the Strength modifier alone
Tripling the number of attacks is ludicrous\
And that's not "minmaxxing" that's just investing in the right ability scores
If you minmax for the optimal feats, you can do ludicrous amounts of damge
Think about it this way. Would you choose to sacrifice Dexterity skills to be able to make 2 extra shortsword attacks when you take the Attack action? I'd do it in a heartbeat
People go whole feats to be able to make one extra 1d6 attack at the cost of a bonus action (Crossbow Expert)
So, I was wondering if there are any guidelines on how to interact with game devs who join this site, beyond the normal rules and guidelines of SE - this question being prompted by Dave Brookshaw, the developer of a number of Onyx Path games (including Mage the Awakening), seeming to have registe...
I kinda wish they changed the capstone name to just "Steve".
It'd match the comical nature of the archetype.
> DM: "So what's everyone's capstone?" > Barbarian: "PRIMAL CHAMPION!" > Cleric: "I get Divine Intervention." > Warlock: "I become an Eldritch Master." > Fighter: "Steve." > DM: "... what was that?" > Fighter: "My capstone is Steve."
So what class is Jesus? My immediate guess is cleric because of all the healing miracles and connection to the divine, but clerics don't learn very many transmutation spells
(such as would be required for water into wine, and rocks into stone)
I'd probably put his stats at 12/12/11/10/13/15 with Variant Human to make 12/12/11/10/14/16
That gives him space to grow to 16 Wisdom and 20 Charisma with his 16 cleric levels, and to 13 Dexterity (and 12 Con) for the 1 rogue level for Expertise in Insight and Religion
Then 3 levels in bard for some minor transmutation magics (bard because he is a parablist)
Oh wait, could be Bard for the Expertise (no need for rogue)
A sorcerer with the Shadow Magic origin has a feature called Eyes of the Dark, which states the following (XGTE, p. 51):
When you reach 3rd level in this class, you learn the darkness spell, which doesn't count against your number of sorcerer spells known. In addition, you can cast it by spen...
No, official rulings now come only from the published Sage Advice Compendium
Previously, the Sage Advice Compendium has said this concerning the sources of official rulings:
Official rulings on how to interpret unclear rules are made in Sage Advice. The public statements of the D&D team, or ...
To fulfil a prophecy: What is Eldritch Blast's maximum range?
Assuming the following constraints:
The allowed material is the PHB, DMG, MM, EE, SCAG, XGtE, VGtM, MToF
and the SA Compendium v2.3 and the errata linked therein linked.
The setting is the Forgotten Realms, 1492 DR.
The character is...
