@Adam @LegendaryDude I'd rather say dwarves would call all of it fist-dig, foot-dig etc. since they learn about Earth first, Battle second

@SPavel Interestingly, Google translates this into "punch" and not a literal translation

@LegendaryDude yup

@eimyr That would be a kenning - instead of stabbing you would say "I blood-mined him"

but fist strike will translate into it

@SPavel face-punch

@SPavel A "beard-fist-kick" if you will :p

That sounds like a Street Fighter move

Down+Down+Down+Down+kick

BEARD! FIST! KIIIIIICK

background scrolls furiously

@SPavel He fist-dug the body-ore. (he punched him in the gut)

Sounds like something out of Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo to me. "Fist of the Beard Kick!"

@eimyr Pretty sure any human would think that meant that you clawed his guts out

Humans are always so sensitive

@Adam ...human. For humans "drowned his ores in liquid fire" means death and not a refreshing pint.

@eimyr I thought that meant "peeing to put out a fire."

You know, that explains why dragons live inside mountains - places where they can't fly or do anything else cool

Because that's where dwarves live, and dwarves a) have gold, and b) have great booze

Man, Dwarvish is so hard.

@nitsua60 so human

@SPavel And yummy dwarf flesh

Dwarves probably don't taste good

They'd be wiry, not a lot of fat

The tastiest race is probably gnomes

*Halflings

@SPavel Stout halflings. Excellent marbling.

No, I don't speak from experience... why do you ask?

Halflings are skinnier, aren't they?

halflings like baked goods and tend to stay at home

Do they?

in my head-canon they do!

I can't remember a single setting that has halflings not just do what humans do, but smaller

@LegendaryDude Wait... doesn't this mean you'd rather they all fail their fireball-save, or none, rather than only cooking some of them?

Except Eberron, where they ride dinosaurs into battle

@SPavel Krynn?

ew dragonlance

[grr...]

in Middle-earth hobbits don't like to leave the Shire

Yeah but hobbits aren't halflings, for legal reasons :P

we're over the halflings aren't hobbits thing, right? I mean, we can synonymize them now, right?

@LegendaryDude [shh.... the Eye of Tolkien is always watching!]

Hmm. I just found the rules in pathfinder where you can make your own spells. I wonder if I can swing a lvl 2 spell that animates skeletons but they can't fight and only do basic tasks. Would be helpful for my necro getting started and not having to wait all the way till lvl 5 to be able to do stuff

@Aaron Sounds on par with unseen servant (possibly even a bit weaker)

@LegendaryDude Can have multiple skellies and they are permanent though.

There's d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/psionic-powers/c/control-object for a level 1 ability

Unseen servant lasts a few minutes right? Goes to look

The controlled object moves like a puppet, with jerky and clumsy movements, at a speed of up to 20 feet. ... A controlled object can attack an opponent if you direct it to do so.

Permanent undead, even they can't fight, seems a little too powerful for a level 2 spell

@SPavel That's a psionic, I'm talking about a wizard

Yeah, the point is that it's an effect benchmark

@LegendaryDude The lesser spell lets you make normal skeletons as a lvl 3 spell that can fight,

Pathfinder decrees that a level 1 ability can have such power

Ah. Is it permanent though? I'm talking like a lesser lesser animate dead.

@SPavel Third party material though?

d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/a/animate-dead

The lesser version is under the normal spell

It was a first party power in 3.5, and Pathfinder copied most core content word-for-word

@Aaron This spell functions as animate dead, except you can only create a single Small or Medium skeleton or zombie. seems like it would work without having to make a new spell?

@LegendaryDude Well that is the intended effect, with the added limitation of the animated skeletons being unable to fight. I figured that stipulation was limiting enough to possibly make it a lvl 2 spell

@Aaron It seems like you could just cast animate dead, lesser multiple times for multiple skeletons/zombies

@LegendaryDude Animate dead, lesser is a lvl 3 spell

@Aaron Animate dead is a level 3 spell, animate dead lesser is level 2

I won't get it until my wizard is lvl 5 which is a looooong time off in this game.

Buy a scroll of animate dead?

Oh I thought you were playing a cleric?

No. Wizard

I know it's not the best necromancer in the game but it had the theme I wanted

necro witch is best good necro <3

do you know the difference between the good necro and the bad necro?

(actually I'm not sure the joke works in English)

@AnneAunyme what?

@AnneAunyme (Can we hear it also in the original language? :D )

it was a sketch about the difference between a good hunter and a bad hu nter

@AnneAunyme Oracle is better. 6HD of undead per level with juju myster

When the bad hunter sees something, he fires

The good hunter, when he sees something, ... well, he fires too...

but he is a good hunter, yo see?

Does he fire at the bad hunter?

Is this a wordplay in the original language?

no

the sketch is here: youtube.com/watch?v=QuGcoOJKXT8

unavailable in America, rip :(

(sorry, brb)

Instead, have this video: youtube.com/watch?v=GpX6OyYUZFc

@eimyr You may enjoy this one especially

@Adam Ah, weird, usually it's Canada that's blocked from a YouTube video! (For anyone who can see the skit, the good/bad hunter joke sets up at 3m00.)

@SPavel A friend showed me that one a year ago, and I needed it explained. A year of Polish later, and it's hilarious. :D (One of my goals is to be able to remember how to pronounce his name without hearing it first.)

Pronouncing it is easy, it's spelling it that's tricky!

Although it's fairly easy to remember the way it sounds for me - Gregosh Bzhentistikevich.

@SPavel gesundheit

@LegendaryDude lol

lel

@SPavel That would be easier to remember than how to pronounce Grzegorz Brzęczyszczykiewicz. Cheating for my goal, though. One day, though, one day!

@SevenSidedDie I... What? Is that a real word?

It's the spelling of the name of the guy in that video

He makes it up to annoy the Nazis that are writing it down

i want to flag this question as opinion, but i'm given it's already got upvotes i'm not sure: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/96863/…

Then he gives his place of birth: Chrząszczyżewoszyce, powiat Łękołody

But it's legit Polish spelling and pronunciation, which is why it's hilarious.

"i'm given" = I'm not sure because. man, i have no idea how that was typed. not a good sign for me brain.

@NautArch Votes and flags/close-votes work independently. It's totally possible for something to be high-voted but off topic, or low-voted an on-topic, or any combination. Flag as you judge appropriate!

Reading Polish will do that to you

@SevenSidedDie was this an appropriate flag? Or are homebrew development questions approved?

homebrew seems entirely opinion-based

We've tackled homebrew here before

okay, i may have 'wasted' a flag :)

@NautArch I think it's on-topic/not opinion-based but also doesn't have an answer without playtesting

@NautArch Homebrew is one of those things that has always been borderline, so how the question is written and its details can make all the difference. We've come up with some guidelines as to what kinds of homebrew work well, but observation shows that there are more varieties than we've really considered. So homebrew is kind of up in the air, always, until we fully nail down what makes a good vs. bad one.

@LegendaryDude gotcha. It just seems like if you're developing something yourself and it's basically outside the rules, thenhow is it not opinion based?

Unlike an NPC or monster which we can at least follow the rules to determine CR, we have no way of determining power level of a non-damage spell except by comparing it to other spells, and naturally this spell is incomparable because it affects exhaustion.

@NautArch It can at least be playtested? It's definitely a borderline homebrew question. Comments may soon reveal that it is too opinion-based.

This is a good meta Q to start with in exploring our existing discussions of homebrew, and it has links heading to others:

@NautArch In some cases, we can compare the proposal to an existing feature. In other cases, somebody else might have done a similar thing and have a well formed answer as a result

gotcha - thank you for the clarification and the meta links

Is there any spell in 5e that affects a hostile creature that just works, guaranteed?

although...a massive chain in comments seems to me to suggest that this is more of a 'discussion' than a question/answer?

For me, homebrew is "homebrew is on topic, but *throws hands in air* *walks away in frustration*"

I know about the power words, but those still require an HP threshold to be met

@Adam Otto's...but just for the first round.

@Adam Magic missile

and that's a 6th level spell (otto's irresistible dance)

A rare few homebrew questions are clearly just looking for feedback and opinions and can be easily closed, but the rest are all shades of grey.

and it doesn't have a long rest dependent fix

exhaustion is really bad

it's the worst thing that can happen to your PC besides death, I'm pretty sure

the exhaustion creating spell isn't necessarily an encounter breaker, but it can make life very difficult for several days. and that's bad as hell.

In general, stuff just affecting you (in particular auto-suck or auto-large amounts of damage) isn't fun, so you won't find a lot of it

@LegendaryDude my dm (not surprisingly) uses the exhaustion mechanic a lot. it sucks.

@LegendaryDude Not as bad as playing a Bard, surely

@SPavel XD

@SPavel my bard glowers at you.

@NautArch Fortunately, that's his most potent attack

@SPavel ouch.

@SPavel my bard is a battlefield controlling machine. I have no regerts.

@SPavel Attacking is boring and overrated. Also why bards have meat shields.

I have nothing against bards, it's just the class that works best for the joke

Heat metal doesn't have a save if the creature can't drop the item being heated.

@Dom very good point! Love that spell :)

That exhaustion spell might be fixed by adding a caveat that a target can only be affected by it once every 24 hours. That makes it far less potent, but also workable without being potentially abused.

Yep, really helps.

@LegendaryDude and if saved, not able to affected again until 24 hours have passed.

The Night Hag's nightmnare haunting is a somewhat similar effect

Other creatures have similar too.

I would like to say that in order to 'answer' this, it requires a lot of discussion. and that does not seem to a standard means to answer a question...

Not sure about 5e monsters but I know PF has a lot of, "if save, can't be affected for 24 hours by this effect from this creature"

@NautArch Yeah. I'm noticing it's just turning into discussion in the comments. I think it needs to be closed.

(am guilty myself of perpetuating the conversation)

@LegendaryDude I'm almost positive the frightful presence of every dragon has that caveat. Anecdotally, it's a pretty common thing in 5e for monster special techniques that you gain immunity to them if you save

@Adam I think you're right, I just couldn't think of any off the top of my head. I think in most cases they're fear-type effects. Makes sense, too -- if you steel yourself against the fear then why would you suddenly be afraid again in the next round?

@SevenSidedDie To heck with just the fighter. If you can cast that sap strength spell at higher levels to affect more people, just get 6 NPCs to wipe the party all at once

@Adam Yeah. The problem with the power of the spell appears to be that its power curve goes from "meaningless" to "OMGosh" with only a little bit of space in between. The curve is the wrong way around.

is it 'wrong' to put a question that was posed on a forum here? It's pretty interesting :)

@Adam Oh yeah, I missed that part

Everything that is not forbidden is permitted

@NautArch Is it someone else's question?

@LegendaryDude it is

My concern would be the copyright; you are taking the content of that forum and posting it here

@NautArch Not wrong per se. It can be a trap though, if it needs work to make it fit here nicely and that isn't done.

And here, all posts are under the CC license used by SE

Nobody's going to pursue copyright on a question posted on a forum

@SevenSidedDie I think I can phrase it to be appropriate here. It's fairly straightforward, but not the answer (in my mind)

No monetary losses

p.migdal.pl/tagoverflow/?site=rpg&size=32

@NautArch In my experience, it works to say “There is a problem that blablah[link]. Question question question?” So I give attribution and stuff, and put the actual question in my own words.

@SPavel If the forum owns the content, and not the poster, and the forum makes ad revenue?

@SPavel Looks like the graph function provided in X-Pack for Kibana/ElasticSearch

It's interesting that 3.5 and 5e are in the same "community"

And 4e is not

@SPavel I personally feel that 3.5 and 5e are more similar than 4e with either

@SPavel The separate community around gm-techniques is interesting.

True, but apparently they are similar enough to attract the same people

If you bump up the number of tags

Yeah, they merge back

It puts 4e in with the other editions

Which is odd

Pathfinder becomes its own thing though

With 100 tags Pathfinder is in the D&D family

As does "history of gaming/dungeons-and-dragons"

I'm not risking 100 hehe

ok maybe once

Druid and wild shape, very interestingly, are grouped more with armor, magic items, crafting, etc, than the d&d community tags

I didn't even think we had 100 tags

i like that it warns that SE might block you if you run the 64 tag query, lol

With 100 tags, dnd-3e is not part of the D&D group

But of the history of gaming/general dnd group

Which makes sense I guess

@SPavel on rpg, you don't get to tags with < 50 questions until page 5 of tags

at 36 tags per page, that's over 150 with 50+ questions

what is this math nonsense, don't you math at me young man

Haha, why is there a Windows Phone stack

Because no one else wanted them around?

the interesting thing is looking at a specific game tag

@SPavel Bunch of sad zombies shuffling around and moaning "market shaaaaare... maaaaaarket shaaare..."

suuuuurface phooooone

liiiiiive tiiiiiiles

well, gonna post it. hopefully won't get downvoted to oblivion.

I think you mean... DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS!

DJ Drew remixed that into a pretty catchy song.

I... might play that occasionally when I'm doing code review.

@Karelzarath lol

Sorry, Digital Droo. I hang my head in shame.

@Karelzarath the illusion itself doesn't seem like it's doing casting, just that it "seems" like it's doing the casting.

Right. You're doing the casting, just doing it effectively from the illusion's space.

The ability could be a little most explicit, but it reads like the spell's point of origin is the illusion, not you. This is important for lines and determining line of effect.

except for things like targeting, range, etc. that's all from your own space.

@SPavel I would be very interested in seeing how that work

@NautArch There's nothing in the ability description that says that, though.

I have no idea how it works

Not sure how it works but it's pretty easy to set one up using Elasticsearch and Kibana.

*with a very expensive license or a 30 day-trial

@Karelzarath "...but you must use your own senses"

Right, so you have to be able to see where or what you're targeting. That says nothing about point of origin.

so if there's a 30' range on the spell, i'd think that the range is from your space, but the spell looks like it's cast from theillusion?

@LegendaryDude I am professionaly developing a tool to do a similar thing :)

It is going to be open-source, though

@NautArch How can a touch spell come from the illusion's square if you're 15 feet away?

Ranged touch?

@Karelzarath It comes from the illusion, so I think range, LoE etc would all be centred on the illusion. I think counterspelling would need to target the real caster though.

@Karelzarath @GreySage I added a link to the question about touch/invoke duplicity

Do you counterspell the area a fireball lands in, even though that is considered the point of origin for the spell's effect?

but given that you are supposed to use "your senses" I don't see how a touch spell could work.

@Adam no, you counterspell the wizard casting it.

Exactly. There's my argument. The cleric is casting the spell, not the illusion. Even if the spell's origin is the illusion's space

@Adam so you are arguing the opposite of @Karelzarath?

But if the cleric is effectively in the illusion's square, you're counterspelling nothing. That's like aiming your counterspell attempt at an empty square.

I suppose I am

the cleric isn't effectively in the square though. There is nothing in that square but an illusion

@Adam and that's why i posted it :) I can see both arguments and really don't know which way to go.

By casting at the illusion, you are actually casting at nothing

@Adam "as though you were in the illusion’s space" says they are.

my rules laywer in me says it's like "cleric has to use their own location as range, but spell is cast from the illusion. counterspell must be at the illusion." But I don't love the idea of an illusion actually casting spells.

it feels like it should be "cleric can make it LOOK LIKE they are casting from their illusion, but in reality, they are the caster and counterspell must target them to be effective"

what's the target description for counterspell?

@DForck42 sensible question.

Well obviously you are making the spell cast from the illusion using ~*~magic lenses~*~ and a counterspeller can fire energy back down the ~*~magic lenses~*~ to counterspell it

#logic

@DForck42 1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you Casting a Spell

Which actually does give you an answer. The illusion isn't a creature

It has a range of 60 feet with no target.

By the way, which spell are we talking about?

So is the related question's answer wrong?

@Zachiel discussing trickery cleric and invoke duplicity and how to counterspell a spell cast through it

I would think as long as the caster is within 60 feet even if the illusion triggers the counterspell it would go off.

@Zachiel I'm not sure that the actual spell being cast is important, but rather the situation in which said spell is beign cast. i think the other important component is the spell that creates the illusion (which i don't know it off the top of my head)

or class ability it seems

@NautArch Ooooh, trickery devotion. I know that effect. I think that illusion is way more real than you seem to think it is.

Class ability. It's the Trickery Domain's channel divinity

Uh wait.

@Dom The illusion just has to be within 120 feet of the caster, so there are many scenarios where the illusion or caster are within counterspell range but not both.

5e?

5e, yes

Ah no, I had the 3.5e version in mind.

as far as i can tell, there's 3 possible outcomes: you CAN counterspell, you CAN'T counterspell, and a homebrew you have a 50% chance of counterspelling

@NautArch Interesting question, BTW. Very thought provoking.

When you cast a spell from the same space as the duplicate, does the duplicate have to perform the verbal or somatic components of the spell, or can it just look like it's sitting there?

Because while I am now more in agreement with @Karelzarath, I believe the answer might be a little more complicated than just "who do I target".

this illusion thing's from the newest UA, right?

No, it's in the PHB

@Adam The ability just says "...create an illusory duplicate of yourself ... perfect illusion of yourself...", so I would imagine it makes the same motions and sounds that you do.

I don't think you have to use the duplicate... Just that you can.

It feels like a boosted mislead

@NautArch Agreed.

Not mirror image

@Karelzarath ahh. there are still classes in the phb I'm unfamiliar with, sadly

So it doesn't mirror you, it's under your control.

The ability in question can be seen here: mcdt25e.wikidot.com/subclass:trickery-domain

The description is a bit sparse on details.

@Karelzarath very much so

the way i read it, you're still casting the spell, but the illusion acts kind of like a range extender

@DForck42 except no because you have to use your senses

it doesn't explicitly say if the spell comes from the illusion, just that you can cast as if you were in the illusion's space

@NautArch right, in braod daylight in an open field i don't think that would be a problem. at night/in darkness/etc, yeah it'd be different

So maybe... It only looks like the spell is from the illusion. That's the duplicity.

@NautArch I'm not sure where you're getting that

i still think the spell comes from you

it doesnt' say the illusion copies your movements, other than to move once a turn

ie: this was not written very well

The crux of the confusion is the very vague clause "as though you were in the illusion’s space".

@Karelzarath yes

@DForck42 so you're advocating against karelzarath

It really feels like this was a clumsy attempt at an effect like the old project image spell.

@NautArch well, as RAW, it's very hamfisted

if it were at my table, I'd probably do the counterspell at 50% chance of targeting the right one

cause then, the player gets to use their illusion, and hopefully sink an opponent's spell slot and get their slot used effectively

@Adam sneaky nonanswer :)

another weird edge case is, if an opponent attacks the illusion and discovers it's fake, does your advantage disappear?

@DForck42 I'd probably let them make an Arcana check to up the odds of picking the right one.

@NautArch Based on that response, it sounds to me like the question isn't about counterspell targetting anybody

Counterspell says 1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell.

cause the illusion isn't destroyed, but if they have an int of at least 8 they should figure it out

You are still casting the spell, not the illusion.

The spell only originates from the illusion, though you are the caster.

So counterspell has to hit you, not your illusion.

@Karelzarath depends on the side of the table, i tend to lean if favor of players

@nautArch If you understand that counterspell doesn't target, then your question is really "Is the illusion a creature for the purposes of casting counterspell, if the cleric is casting through it"

@DForck42 Same.

@Adam What do you mean counterspell doesn't target? It targets a creature in the process of casting a spell.

@LegendaryDude no it doesn't. The spell's effect doesn't target anything. It doesn't say anything is targeted. Only that you have to see a creature casting a spell

It most certainly does

Counterspell only has a range without a target.

roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Counterspell#content

@NautArch As of the last edit, my answer stands. Both because you still use the term "target" and because of my last sentence "Arguably the illusion is not a real creature, so you would need to be within range and able to see the cleric himself to fulfill both requirements of the counterspell casting time."

@Karelzarath No spell in 5e specifies target in the spell stats. It's defined in the description.

Fireballs says that it targets. Magic Missiles say they target, even Mass Suggestion says "targets". But counterspell doesn't say that. That's my logic and I'm sticking to it

@LegendaryDude Huh. That seems silly, but okay.

@Adam The omission of the word "target" is not meaningful in the description of a spell.

@LegendaryDude I wholeheartedly disagree

If you consider an argument by omission a weak one, I accept that. But I believe that if counterspell targeted, they would be consistent with the language

Counterspell targets a creature in the process of casting a spell.

It's the first line of the spell description.

@Adam I have to run to a meeting but your answer feela like a workaround the question rather than a answer to the intent

@NautArch I'm sorry. I'm not trying to work around anything. Perhaps I just have a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem

@LegendaryDude yeah, it doesn't explicitly say "target" but it has a "target" defined in the description

Relevant other question, also sage advice I mention here goes into what's considered a target.

so, you have to see the creature casting the spell to counter it. however, again, invoke duplicity doesn't explicitly state that the illusion copies your movements

IIRC the sage advice in that podcast considers both the initial target of the spell as the target as well as anyone/thing affected by it at all.

@Adam intent is are you counterspelling the Cleric or illusion

I'll point out that cure wounds doesn't specify a target either. It just says "A creature you touch regains a number of hit points equal..." but it clearly has a target.

From what I can read, counterspell isn't actually targeting a spell, or a creature, but rather every spell being cast at that exact moment (which of course will only be the one, since we have sequential turns). So I would argue that if the real caster were in the 60ft range, they would get hit by the counter spell, but not if only the illusion were. I would also argue you could cast counterspell if you were OUT of the 60ft range of the illusion, if (for example) you knew it was an illusion.

I've got to side with @LegendaryDude on this one.

Found some sage advice in all those related questions which confirms that I am in error. Agreed, @Karelzarath. I am, indeed wrong

Time to reformat the argument!

:D

heh

So if the illusion is in 60' but the Cleric is 70',can it be countered?

Sorry for being a fool everyone! Thanks for showing me the error of my ways

20 lashes!

My gut says that the counterspeller needs to be in range of the cleric.

My argument is still no, though for a slightly restructured reason. I edited my answer to match