TRPG General Chat

Rubiksmoose

15:29

@Secespitus I didn't think you needed to delete your entire meta post. I thought it was very good.

Delioth

So... have you guys checked out the Pathfinder 2nd Edition playtest material yet? (It dropped yesterday)

I, for one, am super pumped and need to find a group to test what's there and build new Dedications because that subsystem is sweet.

Rubiksmoose

@Delioth Oh, I had no idea. I might give it a read-over but I don't think it is worth it for me :-/ I don't really have it in me to learn another system with as many or more rules than 5e. And I'd rather spend my time learning playing other systems.

But I am intrigued. My group and I used to love playing PF a few years back.

Delioth

Yeah, it's definitely in that design space a bit between Pathfinder's crunch+customization and 5e's streamlined form

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose This citation issue is bothering me a lot for some reason today. Grump meter must be high.

Delioth

I think it's definitely worth looking into if you like how 5e got a lot of stuff streamlined but don't like the lack of options. Even just playtest material has a lot of choices available

Rubiksmoose

15:40

@NautArch me too #teamgrump

Pixie

@ColinGross I'm sure I could benefit, but it's not really in the budget. :P

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch I hope you find my change acceptable there? I think it is much better for clarity and readability while still being clear what was changed.

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose Yup! At least until I/community decide @doppelgreener is right in replacing the source and quote is the better choice.

Delioth

Oh and you don't multiclass like every other version. Multiclasses are part of Dedications, which are Class Feats available to everyone that set up Archetypes (playtest has Pirate and Cavalier), Prestige classes (just Grey Maiden for now), and multiclasses (Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Rogue in playtest). Lets you trade out a few Class feats (NOT core class features, just other choices that normally expand on those features) for Class Feats and core features of other classes.

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose Oracle should provide my followup question on using Roll20 (and other 3rd party sources) that are known to have irregularities.

Rubiksmoose

15:43

@NautArch oh yeah that is definitely I think the ideal solution. Though it is unclear if doing that would take priority over the answerer's objections

Secespitus

@Rubiksmoose I don't feel like starting a discussion about style guides and there already is an answer that covers basically the same things. So instead of wasting more time of all people involved I deleted it.

Rubiksmoose

@Secespitus fair enough!

doppelgreener

I would change that post to directly cite D&D beyond.

That is if we know D&D Beyond has the correct text.

Also, I suggest that you not let one error have you write off roll20 completely. The page has an error but its entire compendium isn't necessarily an untrustworthy source yet. :)

Rubiksmoose

@doppelgreener the author objected strenuously to the suggestion.

@doppelgreener IIRC every instance if attack is incorrect in the site, but I do agree. Problems have arisen because of it, but also not really that many and the resolution is usually quite simple.

doppelgreener

Are we certain PHB 275 says lowercase-a "attack"?

As in, has someone yet looked at that real paper page with their fleshy eyeballs to observe the "attack" being all in lowercase?

(presuming that the page is, in fact, real paper)

NautArch

15:52

@doppelgreener confirmed

doppelgreener

Thanks.

NautArch

I'm okay with not even linking dndbeyond if @ravery has an issue with that.

Can just cite the PHB, 275.

Rubiksmoose

@doppelgreener My book has illusory paper, can I still use it?

Delioth

@Rubiksmoose Only if you fail your will save to disbelieve

GreySage

@doppelgreener What if our eyeballs aren't fleshy?

Delioth

15:54

And I don't recall if 5e lets you voluntarily fail a save

doppelgreener

I've edited the source to D&D Beyond so that we can skip all the words connected to correcting the citation. I appreciate your concern about having your posts pointing to paywalled D&D Beyond pages, though this particular page is publicly accessible. — doppelgreener ♦ 3 mins ago

NautArch

@Delioth does not.

Sir Cinnamon

@NautArch I've always found this slightly irritating

doppelgreener

@GreySage I am equal opportunity with regard to eyeball material. Steely gazes at the book, or absorption of its psychic essence, would also be acceptable for confirmation.

Sir Cinnamon

Particularly in the case of Str/Dex saves

Rubiksmoose

15:56

@NautArch (according to JC)

Delioth

@NautArch Damn. We had some stuff in Pathfinder that has extra effects if you fail the save, like some illusions which are solid if you believe in them (and thus fail your save to disbelieve). Got interesting sometimes when you have to tell your party to just trust that you, the bard, definitely conjured a totally real bridge across the chasm. And also hope that they either believe you (and intentionally fail their save when interacting with it), or that they just actually roll badly.

doppelgreener

@Rubiksmoose (& JC's rulings are advisory)

Sir Cinnamon

@Rubiksmoose That's no a ruling though right? What he says is "No rule lets you fail a save" and he's right - save for a couple specifically explained exceptions

GreySage

@Delioth I choose not to think too hard about the fact that the bard, who routinely uses illusions against enemies and has never used a bridge-summoning spell before, just summoned a bridge

Delioth

@GreySage Good job, you didn't fall to your death. Unless you happen to have one of the options like Superstitious Barbarians that require you to attempt any save that you ever can. Good things Barbarians have not-good Will saves

Rubiksmoose

16:01

@SirCinnamon The fact that the rules don't say you cannot, while not in any way indicate that you can, just mean that the rules are silent on the issue.

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose Uhoh. Is this one of those "it doesn't say I can't, so I can" things?

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch " while not in any way indicitive that you can"

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose Right - so if it doesn't say you can do it, other than "why not", why would you say you could do it? While I don't think it's a huge deal either way this seems like it's a "you can't unless your DM says you can".

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch So, no lol. That logic doesn't fly with me. It does mean that the DM has to interpret the rules and the goals for their game and make the decision they think will be most fun.

@NautArch Correct. When rules are unclear/silent it is always up to the DM. It does not mean that the rules say you can't do that though. Only that they are silent.

The Oracle

1

Q: How should we handle potentially untrustworthy sources?

Based off of this meta question, I think we should address how to handle source citations that are known to be incorrect. If Roll20 (or other 3rd party sources) are known to have errors, should we allow linking? Is it up to the user of that source to make sure it's correct or is it up to the com...

discussion

NautArch

16:15

@Rubiksmoose I"m still in the camp of Not saying Yes because it doesn't say No. But I get it :)

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch Right that is never a good idea and definitely not what I am suggesting.

Sir Cinnamon

@Rubiksmoose But by having specific spells say "you can choose to fail this save" i think implicitly that means that you cant do that normally

Rubiksmoose

@SirCinnamon Implying general rules from exceptions in spells will lead you to many many bad places. There are places where general rules are in fact restated in spells as well IIRC.

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose Example? I was going to agree with @SirCinnamon but if you've got something that suggests it ain't so I'd like to know.

Rubiksmoose

@SirCinnamon and, in the end, "implies" is not "says" and thus is still up to the DM.

@NautArch I don't have one on hand, but I know this has come up before.

Sir Cinnamon

16:20

@Rubiksmoose I think at the end of the day, RAW, you cannot fail a saving throw willingly

Rubiksmoose

@SirCinnamon No, at the end of the day the rules are silent on whether you can or not.

If you say RAW you better have "writing" to back it up. And we both know it isn't written anywhere.

Sir Cinnamon

@Rubiksmoose I disagree

Rubiksmoose

@SirCinnamon Show me where the rules as Written say this then?

Sir Cinnamon

Theyre silent on intentionally failing but they give detail on "how to make a saving throw" and plenty of stuff says "make a saving throw" - there isnt room for interpretation really

NautArch

We can only solve this by use of a Thunderdome.

Rubiksmoose

16:22

@SirCinnamon That is certainly one way to Interpret the lack of a written rule.

Mike Q

@NautArch Two rulings enter, one ruling leaves!

Sir Cinnamon

"To make a saving throw, roll a d20 and add the appropriate ability modifier. For example, you use your Dexterity modifier for a Dexterity saving throw. "

Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on a point you choose must make a Dexterity save.

doppelgreener

My understanding is the rules don't make it clear, you can interpret it multiple different ways, and JC has provided advice that it means one particular way (but his advice is not the same as rules errata). Right?

Rubiksmoose

@SirCinnamon Nothing in the rules says you cannot take the result and fail it purposefully though.

Sir Cinnamon

I guess the most "unclear" part would be "A saving throw can be modified by a situational bonus or penalty and can be affected by advantage and disadvantage, as determined by the GM."

Mike Q

16:26

So by RAW, since the GM can fiat determine that a roll has advantage/disadvantage, then could a player opt to take disadvantage on a saving throw?

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose I feel torn here. While I don't think it'd be a big deal to allow a creature to purposefully fail, I also don't love this logic of it does'nt say I can't. If it doesn't say you can't, then you go by the general rules, which do say you must (unless the spell says you can opt out.)

Rubiksmoose

@SirCinnamon So you are saying that RAW the DM can just apply a -infinity situational modifier to their roll if they say they try to fail it intentionally and everything works out.

@NautArch that is not the logic here at all though

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose So what is the logic? I thought you were saying that because it doesn't say that I can't (or that I can), then it's a maybe.

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch The argument here is this and only this: if the rules are silent on an issue it is up to the DM to decide.

NautArch

BUt I can apply that same logic to a lot of things that the rules don't cover (twisted horribly to make a case)

Rubiksmoose

16:29

@NautArch For example, willing failing a will save because the player is opening up their mind purposefully by relaxing it. As a really crappy off the cuff example I just made up.

@NautArch The only possible case you could make with it is: I would allow this at my table because...

Or am I missing something here? What awful consequence do you see from this logic? Can you give me an example?

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose It's not with relation to this specific issue. It's using the logic in other cases.

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch I understand that, do you have an idea in mind?

NautArch

It doesn't say my greataxe doesn't provide an additional 4d20 damage. So why can't it? (and yes, this is an extreme and twisted example.)

Delioth

@NautArch Exactly. The rules don't say I can't manifest a flaming laser sword that does a thousand damage a hit, so why shouldn't I be able to?

Oh, I went a little more extreme and twisted but it works

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch Because the rules do say what it already does. Something can't have X and Y if X is mutually exclusive with Y.

NautArch

16:32

@Rubiksmoose Technically, the rule also tell you what to do when asked to make a save, no?

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch But failing it intentionally is not mutally exclusive

Sir Cinnamon

@NautArch Yeah, roll, compare to DC which determines if it fails or succeeds

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose Except there is no rule for failing intentionally. So you're creating a mechanic that doesn't exist. THe mechanic that does exist is "attempt your save"

Sir Cinnamon

@Rubiksmoose The rules are not silent on this issue though, the rules describe how a saving throw is made

Unless you equally agree the rules are silent on everything they don't call out as not being an option. You cannot choose not to do damage once you roll an attack

Delioth

@Rubiksmoose It is though. The rules for making a save state that you roll d20 and add modifier. They never say that you can make a save and assume 1, or make a save and fail intentionally. They say you must roll a d20 and add your modifier, and spells don't ask nicely for saves, they say that targets must attempt a save

Mike Q

16:36

I suspect that there is some sort of logical fallacy in the argument of "If you allow something non-RAW, then you must allow anything non-RAW"

NautArch

@SirCinnamon and interestingly, you can only choose to do nonlethal damage if you're doing a melee attack.

Rubiksmoose

I guess so. But here is my issue: people throw around the lack of a rule saying you can fail a roll intentionally like it means something. But it doesn't really. No matter what logic you use to justify things it is still an implied rule. A DM would reject any of your examples out of hand because they are ridiculous and have a negative impact on the game.

Delioth

@MikeQ At the very least we're employing strawman tactics on the logic. Probably Slippery slope as well

Sir Cinnamon

@NautArch Something I learned only recently - I kind of like that tactically

@Rubiksmoose We will have to agree to disagree. I really don't see it an implied rule.

NautArch

@SirCinnamon It's implied bcause it doesn't explicitly state that you cannot fail it (a specific override). It's not implied because it doesn't explicitly state you CAN fail it, so you go back to the general rules that say you must attempt a save.

@Rubiksmoose Let's take it one step further - does the character onthe receiving end choose to fail it, or does the caster have to allow them to choose that?

Sir Cinnamon

16:41

I think the ability to choose to fail a save at will is equally as supported as the ability to succeed at will, without a roll

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch No.

NautArch

Situation: Joker Gnome casts an illusion to fool an enemy. But also is okay with tricking his friends. Can his friends to choose to fail it, or does the gnome have to give them the option to do so?

Rubiksmoose

@SirCinnamon Correct. Which is to say: not at all.

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose er...no? I don't think that's a possible answer to that question?:D

Sir Cinnamon

@Rubiksmoose Which is to say, explicitly violates an established rule (how to make a saving throw/how saving throw outcome is determined_

Rubiksmoose

16:43

@NautArch Oops lol! No, the enemy caster does not have to allow it.

Delioth

It's more generally a question of whether you can take a worse result than your die shows. Which is definitely a sensible question - for example, if you're just looking to intimidate some people with a show of force. If you roll a 20, you deal critical damage and might just kill them. There's nothing that says you can downgrade that into a normal hit or a miss even... you gotta roll damage (assume like a crossbow so dealing nonlethal isn't an option)

Rubiksmoose

At my table, with my ruling which has no bearing on the rules or the RAW.

Sir Cinnamon

@NautArch More relevant - They are under the effects of a command forncing them to stand still, ally commands them to move

Capital C Command. Can they opt to fail their save vs their Ally's Command?

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose Okay, so you're saying at anytime any creature can choose to fail a save?

Rubiksmoose

I feel like by using examples you are actually getting further away from your points. Since it clearly falls within the domain of a tbale houserule and thus would be individually dependant on how each DM rules. Unless you had some fault in my logic that you were hoping to expose with this? Which is fine, but I justr don't see where it is going.

@NautArch According to the rules: no answer. According to my interpretation/houserule: No. I, as DM would allow it under certain circumstances.

Sir Cinnamon

16:47

My point is that even without the JC tweet being considered, RAW, you cannot choose to fail a save. Your DM can allow it, as they can allow anything, but RAW it isn't an option

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch but for kicks and giggles assume I said yes. What would be the harm?

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose We're not talking about harm or impact, though. :D

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch ah ok. I thought that was where you were going. What would you have said if I had said yes then?

NautArch

Just as in @Delioth's example - what's the harm in letting a creature deliver less damage then they rolled? THe harm isn't the question - the question is it allowed in the rules.

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch Sorry I was asssuming that was your point before you made it. I know we are not talking about harm here.

NautArch

16:50

@Rubiksmoose Heh, I"m not sure :) Was just thinking about it mechanically and whether or not a creature knows who has casted the spell on them to decide whether or not they want to just accept the effects of it.

Delioth

@NautArch (Hint: the harm is that you take randomness imposed by the dice, and let it be tuned down. You lose the benefit of the randomness as a storytelling element, at least from my example - the die said that that should be a crit, which possibly kills the people you were trying to intimidate... which would be marked as a partial failure in my eyes. But hit is strictly lower than crit, so being able to increase your failure makes things go more according to plan, which undermines the random)

Rubiksmoose

@SirCinnamon Eh. I can see your point. But also, I still disagree. Personally, and I just realized this I have been treating intentional failures as situational modifiers to the roll. Thus, it actually does mean what I have been doing is RAW. Though it doesn't allow the failing of any roll intentionally ever. I require narrative reasoning behind how and why they fail it.

If you can convince your DM you have given yourself a negative modifier to your roll and they give it to you, you have just intentionally failed your save RAW I think.

Sir Cinnamon

@Rubiksmoose I can see that - The DM can add any modifier to any roll based on the situation. But that's an important distinction from the player being able to willingly just fail it

Delioth

I mean I guess that's fair... but at that point roughly anything is RAW since IIRC 5e explicitly says somewhere to ignore rules if you don't want to use them (or that a GM can choose to ignore a rule or make a ruling instead)

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose That's interesting - but how did you decide to apply the modifier? If the creature doesn't know who is casting or what it is - why apply a modifier that effectively allows them to fail it?

Rubiksmoose

16:55

@NautArch Why would you try to intentionally fail something that is being cast on you without knowing who is casting it or what it is?

Sir Cinnamon

@NautArch imagine the caster says "i'm going to cast fireball - right on you!" and you say "I throw myself into the fireball with no attempt to dodge"

RAW you still have to make a dex save but narratively that doesnt make much sense

Rubiksmoose

@SirCinnamon Thus the RAW solution: you roll the d20 and the DM applies a modifier.

Sir Cinnamon

@Rubiksmoose Yep, I can get behind that

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose Exactly! WHat's happening in the cases where someone chooses to fail that gives them enough information to want that choice?

and thus get the modifier

doppelgreener

this being D&D, some of the implication is we can choose not to do things, including choosing not to make a save

Sir Cinnamon

16:57

@NautArch Charms casted by allies, to make a deception checkeasier to pass?

doppelgreener

mainly based on history though

NautArch

@SirCinnamon How does the creature know it's a charm spell? Or that it was casted by their allies?

Sir Cinnamon

They truly believe their ally is the grand duke or worchestershire and therefore they arent lying

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch What is happening is that they tell me what they are doing to modify this roll (positively or negatively) and I add modifiers or (dis)advantage as I deem fit?

doppelgreener

but partly because of the narrative behind saves: magic is automatically successful, saving is an attempt to resist it. we can forego attempting to resist it, can't we?

Sir Cinnamon

16:57

@NautArch Based on their allies assurance they lower their mental defenses?

NautArch

@SirCinnamon So the caster DOES have to say "I'm casting X, you're included. I suggest you let it happen"

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch But to answer your question directly, I wouldn't allow it. Trying to modify your roll against something you have no idea what it is, is not going to work and is likely just meta-magey cheese (which is frowned on at my table)

Sir Cinnamon

@NautArch they dont HAVE to - the receiver could simply say they want to lower their guard for no reason at all

but in that case yeah

You could impose conditions on yourself to intentionally fail some saves

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch Not necessarily, but I would say that would be the most likely and most straight-forward.

NautArch

@SirCinnamon As long as it's not metagaming as Rubik said. If they have no reason to think it's from their friend, I'd likely not allow it.

Rubiksmoose

17:00

If you have an ally who is known for always or almost awyas casting one spell or type of spell and you act on that information would be another way I can think of.

Sir Cinnamon

@NautArch Yeah for sure, you cant metagame and that would be obvious abuse

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose But again, the round is 6 simultaneous seconds across everyone's turn. HOw does the character know that particular save is from his ally?

Rubiksmoose

@doppelgreener Yeah I feel like this is definitely the underlying push behind the whole thing.

Sir Cinnamon

@NautArch He doesn't, he's vulnerable to all saves of that kind of the round

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch Oh boy, do you really want to get into the many ways treating a turn as simultaneous 6 seconds is very narratively complicated?

Sir Cinnamon

17:02

but it would be metagamey for an enemy to know that

NautArch

@SirCinnamon So they'd have to make that intent on that round? Or if they do it mid-round you just retcon any successful saves?

@Rubiksmoose Heh...no :P But in this case where it would clearly be a metagame decision, I think you need to.

Sir Cinnamon

@NautArch Depends what information they are basing the lowering of defenses on

I'd maybe call it a free action

but then they cant just do it right before the casters turn hmmmm

NautArch

@SirCinnamon Yup. If their buddy shouted out "let it happen, Bob!", then I could see the case for it (but still don't plan allowing autofails at my table.) If they didn't, then the character has no reason to do it.

Sir Cinnamon

I have a question thats bugged me for a while actually that this is coming close to

Rubiksmoose

Personally, for the vast majority of the time I treat a round as if it were 6 seconds and each turn is not simultaneous but takes some variable slice of that 6 seconds. I think it makes pretty much everything make sense that way except the infinite amount of things you can do in 6 seconds and the variable nature of each action timing.

Sir Cinnamon

17:05

Predicate 1: Readied actions require a perceivable trigger
Predicate 2: Speaking is a free action

Question: Can you ready any action with a trigger of Party member says "Do it" and have it happen whenever they want?

NautArch

@SirCinnamon Hmm, so you're giving a choice to a player when it's not their turn. If I were to allow this, I'd probably have it cost a reaction?

Sir Cinnamon

@NautArch Seems fair

NautArch

@SirCinnamon As long as it's before the start of your next turn, yes.

Sir Cinnamon

@NautArch Why would you ever NOT do that

unless you get deafened or your whole party gets silenced you dont need to worry about specific triggers

NautArch

@SirCinnamon That...is...a great idea?

@SirCinnamon Unless the event you really wanted was based on something that finishes and moves out of range before your ally says "do it"?

Rubiksmoose

17:08

Also a great/terrible idea: readying an action with a triggger of "when something happens". Then you can trigger it literally whenever you want.

Sir Cinnamon

@NautArch But you already cant interrupt spells with readied actions right

@Rubiksmoose I thought you had to give up the action if you didnt act of the first instance of the trigger

Rubiksmoose

@SirCinnamon Nope.

You can keep the trigger for as long as you want until the start of your next turn and ignore as many potential triggers as you want as well.

Sir Cinnamon

@Rubiksmoose Oh, well I'm gonna keep playing that way I think

because that's.... silly

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose I don't think "something happens' is specific enough. "Do it" is a very specific trigger.

Rubiksmoose

@SirCinnamon I don't think the ignoring triggers thing is silly actually. But I would not allow the very broad type of trigger that I just gave an example of.

@NautArch Why does it have to be specific? According to the rules?

Sir Cinnamon

17:12

@Rubiksmoose That's a hard line to draw though. "Something happens" "Enemy takes an Action" "Enemy moves" "Specific Enemy 2 Moves"

which of those are too broad?

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose Ugh, i guess not. It only requires a perceivable circumstance.

And "something" is technically perceivable?

Sir Cinnamon

@Rubiksmoose That's about the action you will take, not the trigger though

Rubiksmoose

@SirCinnamon right you are. Got ahaead of myself.

Sir Cinnamon

The title looked promising :D

Rubiksmoose

14

Q: How specific does the trigger for a readied action have to be?

Let's suppose I'm a wizard casting a ranged spell. An enemy is behind cover but I suspect he'll come out, so I ready an action to cast at him when he comes out; but I don't want to risk getting charged at by another enemy and losing concentration or taking disadvantage. Can I say: "I ready a spe...

dnd-5e readied-action

Closer.

@SirCinnamon Yeah it is a hard call, but once your players realize the "loophole" in the rules I'm not sure what else you can do. I'm against the trigger wasting after giving up the trigger because that does nerf the uses in a lot of cases.

Sir Cinnamon

17:18

@Rubiksmoose Maybe something between - you can ignore 3 triggers before you lose the readied action?

any trigger that happens more than 3 times before your next turn is likely too broad

NautArch

Am i correct in that the oathbow isn't magical damage?

GreySage

17:34

I really like how this answer does initiative

Sir Cinnamon

@NautArch I was going to disagree but I think you're right

the word magical doesn't appear in the description and it seems to for Magic weapons

Wait, found one - roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Battleaxe%20+1

NautArch

@SirCinnamon Is every weapon in the DMG a 'magic weapon" or does it need to say it gives magical damage even if it doesn't give a +.

Sir Cinnamon

Battleaxe+1 doesnt specify it being a magic weapon - but it is

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch the second.

Anything with a +X is magical as well as anything that says it is magical.

NautArch

@SirCinnamon Ugh. another roll20 failure.

Weapon +1 in the DMG says "magical weapon"

There is no singular Battleaxe +1

Is this opinion-based?

Rubiksmoose

17:39

@NautArch Yeah, but it really doesn't happen all that often. In fact, that post that was part of that tussle earlier was the first r20 citation I've seen in a long time. Or maybe I am just forgetting.

Colin Gross

@NautArch Oathbow is a magical item. I thought all damage from magical weapons had the magical type applied?

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch I don't think so. Seems pretty in line with similar GM technique questions to me.

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose I never knew of any. But now there's two in one day :/

Colin Gross

@NautArch Isn't the resistance/immunity wording "damage from non-magical weapons" or "non-magical sources" or something of that nature? So the bow is magical, and the damage is from a magic bow so it overcomes resistance/immunity from non-magical sources.

NautArch

@ColinGross Where does it say the weapon is magical?

Compare it against the Sword of Sharpness

Colin Gross

17:45

@NautArch In the DMG it's in the chapter "magical items" and it's under that heading.

Repeating "this thing is magical" would get pretty repetitive in the DMG in the magic treasure section.

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch Most of them were simply attack vs Attack, but there have been other issues as well.

Colin Gross

Additionally, Oathbow is listed as "very rare (requires attunement)"

Are there non-magical items that require attunement?

Rubiksmoose

@ColinGross Or alternatively attunement items that do nonmagical damage?

NautArch

@ColinGross So why'd they do it for Sword of SHarpness?

Gonna ask mainsite :)

Colin Gross

@Rubiksmoose That would be the implied axiom. Have you considered a career in ontology writing?

Rubiksmoose

17:51

@NautArch Might be the case of reiterating a general rule in a specific item for "clarity"?

Colin Gross

@NautArch Don't know, but the swords are not consistent with describing them as magical or not. Sometimes "when you attack with this sword" and sometimes "when you attack with this magical sword"

If there are non-magic items in the Magical Treasure section of the DMG, then we have completely different problems.

Sir Cinnamon

@ColinGross Are we assuming thats a meaningless difference though? It could be intended

Rubiksmoose

@ColinGross Maybe I have, maybe I haven't. ;)

Colin Gross

@SirCinnamon I think declaring something magical in two different ways is superfluous. I don't think there is a difference between a magical magic item and a magic item.

Sir Cinnamon

@ColinGross but does every "magical" weapon deal "Magical" damage

Delioth

17:53

@Rubiksmoose (Shameless plug for Pathfinder 2E, which has the explicit Strike as the default attack, as well as the Attack trait. Traits are neat and work like descriptors, so any action with the attack trait "is an" attack, no ambiguity. If it doesn't have the trait it isn't an attack)

Sir Cinnamon

does an immovable rod deal magical damage?

Colin Gross

@SirCinnamon I don't know. Lets go to the googles

@SirCinnamon Do spells do magical damage?

Sir Cinnamon

@ColinGross The consensus is yes

Rubiksmoose

@ColinGross yes. according to JC it is explicit.

Regardless of damage type, the direct damage of a spell is magical. https://twitter.com/DackeStaffan/status/630300159310757888

Tweeted by JeremyECrawford on August 11, 2015 at 1:37 AM

Colin Gross

Cool. Lets go find a monster that has resistance or immunity to non-magic damage and see how it's written. Where's my MM?

Found one. Planetar

"Damage Resistances radiant; bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing from nonmagical weapons."

Sir Cinnamon

17:58

Spells arent weapons, so scratch that right away

Colin Gross

@SirCinnamon That's next on my list. If the spell does piercing damage to the Planetar, does it resist?

Sir Cinnamon

@ColinGross No - It isnt a weapon

Colin Gross

Looks like the way resistance is written in the stat blocks takes care of the damage from magic weapons issue.

NautArch

@ColinGross They use "magical weapon" for nearly every item. I'm trying to find another example besides the Oathbow that doesn't say that.

Colin Gross

Sword of Answering

Sun Blade

Sir Cinnamon

18:00

9

Q: What makes a weapon magical, for the purpose of immunity to non-magical weapons?

I am planning on having an encounter with a monster that has immunity to basically any attack from a non-magical weapon. Now, my players mostly have weapons with magical qualities, but they are not all combat related (like a shortsword that gives +1 to charisma checks, or a staff that grants the ...

dnd-5e magic-items weapons immunities

Colin Gross

Staff of the Python

@SirCinnamon That was my understanding.

Delioth

@ColinGross PEP 13402: Fix inconsistent magical definition

Colin Gross

Staff of the Adder... hmm... it looks like there are two different writing styles for these items.

One has a first paragraph stating with "you can attack with this as a magic [weapon type]" and the other style just hops right into whatever the item does.

@Delioth I see what you did there, and I'm highly entertained.

Sir Cinnamon

And now we're deep into a designer intent question

NautArch

@SirCinnamon Not a great Q&A for a definitive answer. ALso, from Xanathar's none of the Moon-touched weapons state they're magical.

Sir Cinnamon

18:04

@NautArch No not really, just possibly relevant

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose @SirCinnamon I actually think my question may be a dupe of that one. Same question, will have same answer (mine is just a subset of that one.)

Colin Gross

You know, the description of Chain Mail doesn't say it's armor.

All the other armors say they're armor.

Sir Cinnamon

@ColinGross Thats fun

Mike Q

@ColinGross If the target creature does not resend the chain mail to 10 other creatures within the next 10 minutes, they will have bad luck for 10d6 years

Colin Gross

@MikeQ Ha! That's heavy. Sounds en-cumbersome.

NautArch

18:12

@MikeQ You sold me, and I closed my question as a dupe :)

and put an answer into that dupe.

Delioth

@ColinGross Of course chain mail isn't armor. It's when you get sent a letter which you found so hilarious, you copy it and send one to all your friends... and they do the same, and so on and so forth.

Luke Sommers

Hello guys, gals, nonbinary pals

Colin Gross

@Delioth Spam! Not only good to eat, but also provides AC 16.

NautArch

feel silly for posting a question and then marking it as a dupe

Colin Gross

@NautArch Delete it?

Rubiksmoose

18:15

@NautArch it's been done before and will happen again! I've done it

@ColinGross I don't think that is necessary.

NautArch

@ColinGross Nah, I figure someone else may search for it with the same question of "it doesn't say magical weapon"

Luke Sommers

Do y'all put the modifier in the box and the score in the oval or vice versa?

Colin Gross

@LukeSommers What box? What oval?

Luke Sommers

@ColinGross Sorry, on a character sheet.

NautArch

@LukeSommers which sheet?

there's a lot of character sheets out there :)

Luke Sommers

18:17

@NautArch Oh, true.

Colin Gross

@LukeSommers I write all of mine inside the brackets, but my character sheets are in json-ld.

@LukeSommers Generally, biggest area gets the ability score written in it. Modifiers go in the smaller area. I don't think the actual bounding shape matters.

Luke Sommers

dochub.com/christophermorrell19bdbe23/a59OxW/…

The one that looks like that

Colin Gross

There's the fancy sheets with dragons or shields or little icons... or Fallout characters

Luke Sommers

@ColinGross Really? I put the modifiers larger since I use them more...

Colin Gross

That example has the expectation baked in. Score in the box. bonus in the oval.

@LukeSommers Seems reasonable. If it works for you do it that way. I think if you wrote the + there, most people would sort it out.

Luke Sommers

18:20

@ColinGross That's just the one I found, but alright. And yeah, I always put the + in there, since I also have negatives.

Sir Cinnamon

@ColinGross I prefer the reverse - you use the mod far more than the score and therefore I put it in the bigger space

Colin Gross

@LukeSommers That does sound useful. The bonuses are used more often than the scores come to think of it.

Sir Cinnamon

but obviously thats preference and its always obvious which is which

GreySage

@LukeSommers You pretty much always use the mod, but the mod is so easy to calculate from the score I like to have the score.

Luke Sommers

@GreySage I don't have it memorized, so I just do it with the modifier standing out.

Delioth

18:23

That's fair. I just use the scores since calculating mods from scores is just second nature by now

Sir Cinnamon

@Delioth second nature check

Luke Sommers

@SirCinnamon I think that's called advantage

Colin Gross

Who remembers the subsets of STR 18? STR 18/00

Luke Sommers

@ColinGross Not a clue

NautArch

@ColinGross I think I do...was that an AD&D thing?

GreySage

18:26

@ColinGross I remember seeing them in Baulder's Gate (and related games), but never played with them

Luke Sommers

My fighter's weapons all do 1d8+3

Two rapiers, a longbow, and a light crossbow

Colin Gross

@NautArch Yeah. I guess resolving contests between competing 18 str scores was foreseen as a problem. So you got to roll a percent and add that as the degree of 18 str.

NautArch

@ColinGross Man, that was pulled from a forgotten part of my brain :)

Mike Q

From what I understand, the ability score modifier math is relative to a commoner's average stats (10 = +0, etc.)

Colin Gross

@LukeSommers Add a battle axe and flail! or are you not trying to carry all the 1d8 weapons?

Luke Sommers

18:30

@ColinGross He's a dual wielder who's DEX based. -1 STR.

I chose Light XBow because it does more damage than 2 handaxes, and it's 20 bolts rather than 2 axes.

nitsua60

@ColinGross o/

NautArch

@LukeSommers If you're dualwielding how are you reloading?

Luke Sommers

@NautArch How would you reload if you're wielding one weapon?

NautArch

@LukeSommers ...with your free hand?

Mike Q

They reload with their teeth, end of story

nitsua60

18:36

@LukeSommers mod in the big box, score below. Anyone who claims it should be elsewise: I challenge you to name the instances where [STR|DEX|CON|INT|WIS|CHA] score, not mod, is mechanically relevant. (MC prereq doesn't count, since that's based off of the boolean ">=13", not the score proper.)

Luke Sommers

@NautArch Sorry, I meant dualwielding the rapiers.

@nitsua60 That's what I thought.

Colin Gross

@nitsua60 attribute damage

Mike Q

@nitsua60 Carry weight and encumbrance?

Colin Gross

or reduction

nitsua60

@MikeQ That's one!

NautArch

18:37

@LukeSommers If you're wielding two rapiers, then you aren't reloading anything?

Mike Q

@nitsua60 Minimum negative HP until death (pre-5e)

Luke Sommers

@NautArch Sorry, being dumb. I'd switch weapons.

NautArch

@nitsua60 Jumping distance

Colin Gross

@nitsua60 Jump distance

nitsua60

@MikeQ What are you talking about?

@NautArch Yes! The ever-important long jump!

Mike Q

18:38

@nitsua60 0 HP is unconscious, but (-Con) HP is dead

nitsua60

@MikeQ Sorry, I thought we were talking 5e.

Speed in the astral plane!

Minutes holding one's breath!

(I've just about run out....)

NautArch

@nitsua60 that too! ANd we just used it :)

Turns out my 12 int Paladin moves faster than my pegasus steed in the astral plane.

nitsua60

Incapacitation by an intellect devourer!

Mike Q

@nitsua60 That may fall under the ability damage umbrella though

Luke Sommers

@nitsua60 Are you talking about mods or scores? I believe holding your breath is 1+CON mod minutes.

NautArch

18:40

@LukeSommers Yeah, having to drop the weapon after a shot is the annoying thing :(

nitsua60

@LukeSommers oh, you're right. Back to long jump and astral speed.

Luke Sommers

@NautArch I have the dual wielder feat, can draw or stow 2 weapons rather than one.

NautArch

@LukeSommers oooh, dats nice.

Luke Sommers

@NautArch So yeah, I don't have to drop one.

NautArch

Loving this question on obscurity

Colin Gross

18:44

@LukeSommers Switching weapons in combat is always tricky. Your free action allows you to stow or draw, but not both. You'd spend your free action putting your weapons away. Then you'd need your action to draw the new weapon.

I usually give dropping on the ground as an absolutely free action because it really forces players to choose if they want to put something where the enemy could get it or where it could be affected by fireball etc.

NautArch

@ColinGross I'm pretty sure dropping is no cost,

Luke Sommers

@ColinGross If I would be switching weapons, it would be because enemies are approaching and I had a ranged weapon out. Stow, then next round draw both rapiers.

Colin Gross

@LukeSommers Yeah. If you split it out into two rounds. Fire then stow. Draw then attack.

Luke Sommers

@ColinGross That would be my plan.

Colin Gross

@NautArch That's always been my assumption, but I've never looked it up.

@LukeSommers Why'd you take two weapon fighting and not just max out DEX?

errr... dual wielding..

NautArch

18:49

@ColinGross This is dangerously close to our saving throw discussion :) see this question

Axoren

Yo, we are gonna need a pathfinder-2e tag if we don't have one already. The playtest came out yesterday and the book is organized like ass.

Luke Sommers

@ColinGross DEX is my highest stat, I'm a variant human and chose that as my feat

Axoren

The PF Reddit Discord is already filled with loads of questions

doppelgreener

A tag for a thing can't exist before there's questions about the thing.

so when we get our first pathfinder-2e question, someone will get the honor of creating our pathfinder-2e tag

Colin Gross

@LukeSommers It was a thematic choice? The math of dual wielding never looked particularly advantageous.

Luke Sommers

18:50

@ColinGross Really? Why's that? 2d8+6 vs 2d6+3?

Colin Gross

@LukeSommers Maxing Dex gets you the bonus to AC unless you're wearing heavy armor. Attacking with non-light weapons isn't that useful for a dex build since they're going to go with finesse weapons anyway.

Also, dex is going to save your butt on a lot of saving throws

NautArch

@ColinGross I know there was a Q&A about this recently...

searching

Colin Gross

The AC bonus doesn't get you out of damage from traps or aoe.

Luke Sommers

@ColinGross Yes, however Rapiers aren't light.

Colin Gross

@LukeSommers Yeah, you'd go with short swords or scimitars or something like that.

Maybe reskin a short sword as a stiletto or something wicked looking.

Straight dex just gets you more stuff.

Luke Sommers

18:55

@ColinGross If I didn't have the feat, I would, which would only get me 2d6+6 rather than 2d8+6. However, I do have the feat, so I can draw or stow two weapons at once, and I get +1 to my currently 14 AC due to 11 from leather armor +3 DEX.

NautArch

@ColinGross @LukeSommers ASI vs dual wielding

Colin Gross

On average it's a bonus 1 damage. Drawing two weapons is only advantageous when you don't think a fight is coming.

@NautArch Thanks for digging that up.

Also, straight dex improves your initiative order.

And to hit bonus

Mike Q

Dual wielding is beneficial when there is a per-hit effect

Luke Sommers

I took this as my Variant Human feat, it's a level 1 fighter. I can't get a higher ASI right now.

Colin Gross

@MikeQ You can still make two attacks without the dual wielding feat.

@LukeSommers Was the variant human trade off higher ability scores or take a feat?

Luke Sommers

18:59

@ColinGross +1 to everything or +1 to two scores and a feat.

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch You might even say the forgotten realm of your brain?

NautArch

@ColinGross Yes, yes you can

Colin Gross

@LukeSommers Gotcha. So your dex wouldn't be higher anyway.

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose ohmy

Transcript for