good evening

Good hotdog, err ketchup. Err I mean hello

Good day

hey there as well @mustard, welcome to the RPG.SE lair :)

out of all the things you could say @trogdor you couldn't say MUSTARD. yet again I don't blame you, my brain works faster than my mouth.

Hehe

so I am being more or less a hypocrite

Oh hi

Hello

right now it is 8:08 so if I'm not very interactive just know that. Also I'm multitasking the dishes

It's all cool

We all are in various time zones and typically need to sleep, eat, work, and also recreate somehow other than being here

So there usually should not be pressure for any one person to immediately respond to something

yeah I've read some of the conversations awhile back

so I understand

Awesome

HEY i'm back from the dishes

Hey @MarkWells

I am going to head to bed, will be back on tomorrow at a way earlier time

seeyah

Cool

@DavidCoffron Cool! That's even higher than I thought. So no-one should be surprised if half of their 22 players all pick only three different classes.

rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/133033/… I demand everyone upvotes this comment immediately

@NautArch I have a cheese offering this morning, for your viewing pleasure. @nitsua60 @Shalvenay @Rubiksmoose

@Carcer so what do you think? Is my cheese good enough to go with a bottle of wine and some crackers?

@Carcer Hee Hee, I had to upvote. Thanks for the alert. :)

@KorvinStarmast it's pretty cheesy

@KorvinStarmast I think it's more of a cheddar. It's not an overly stinky cheese, but it's legit and I like it.

@Carcer If you want to throw it, coat a javelin or a dagger. :)

couldn't you just shape/freeze the holy water into the shape of a crossbow bolt and fire that?

[having flashbacks to Oni]

The sceptic in me would ruin that, saying that the sword no longer has an edge so it's an improvised weapon.

a club or something like that would work better :P

@Helwar I'd probably agree that at that point it's an improvised weapon.

@Helwar: club, yeah, but the flip side of that is that there is a 'magical' reaction between the holy water and the fiend/undead that renders that somewhat moot. Shape it like a javelin, and Bob's your uncle, if you are jav proficieny. Dagger. Etc.

@Helwar Not really a problem, regarding the sword and its edge, since you can shape it to conform to all of the blade but the edge ... that's why "work with your DM" is as ever a good idea. Plus, if your weapon is a Warhammer, there isn't an edge to concern yourself with. :)

I have noticed that I'm a fun-ruiner. You know how people defend the rule of fun? I agree on principle but then at the table i feel meh about thse kinds of things.

later, in hindsight, I always think I should have ruled differently

but by then it doesn't matter

Well, rule of fun is used so subjectively that it's hardly worth stressing about

it's hard to change the mindset, when a player tells you something that doesn't really compute to you, to just "let it happen" if you think the outcome would be fun. First instinct is: this wouldn't work like this....

but hey, eventually I'll improve my dming skills

it's not like I don't spend a sizeable amount of my weekends doing it :P

@Helwar Do you explicitly ask your players for things they liked and things you could have done better?

hey guys

Sup

whats going on

Nothing much here. Trying to wrap up some work before heading home

oh, I see

Having sauna and ginger beer with a friend

Same, except i have 6 hours of work left

hopefully i can get some work done before then

The customer I currently work for is relatively close to where I live but the traffic connections are abysmal compared to our downtown office :(

@kviiri Homemade ginger beer?

ok just wanted to check in probably will be on later

@Anaphory not this time, but it's on the agenda :)

@Anaphory not exactly, no. I should

@Helwar From experience, it might take them and you some getting used to talking about the things that can be improved and how they can be improved, but asking about the most awesome thing is usually easy and rewarding.

we have to change our whole behaviour around RPGs, we play very, very long sessions, but people interrupt to tell an anecdote or talk about the soccer game or whatever, some go away to walk the dog, others go to fetch supper, etc... We eventually end the session when we are too tired to continue

I want to try to do shorter, more focused sessions, with less digression, but there is some resistance to it

we see each other mostly only when we schedule for D&D so they want to catch up, and they look at the "focused" part of the proposal as not being able to, wich I understand. I just want to do it before, or after the game, not during. But well... It is what it is

@Helwar We have a reserved time for chit chat right up front. Then it's "lets get to it"

There is a break in our long sessions because of food usually from a slow cooker. Then it's "lets get to it" again.

@Helwar Also, if you have really long sessions, do take breaks!

It might even help to take deviations as indication that a break is needed.

I try to have some structure, and take breaks. A few times that I've done it one of them has taken the chance to walk the dog (good for her!), but the others spent the time twiddling and I was like: NOW IS THE TIME TO TALK ABOUT SOCCER YOU MORONS! haha

I'll have to do better :)

Dunno... I find it's best to keep the players engaged. If they're doing other things then I usually interpret that as disinterest.

@Helwar How often do you focus the spotlight on one/some of the players, and the others start doing other things (checking phones, etc.)?

oh there is disinterest all around

I have one player (THAT player taht I always complain about) that's 110% of the time playing something on the phone. I've told him several times not to do it but he complains others take too much time on their turns and dismisses me

then It's his turn and I have to explain everything that has happened

now, I'm not a misoginist or anything, but 2 members of our group are girlfriends / wifes of players. I try VERY HARD to be engaging with them, to include them in every decision, but when they have the spotlight shy away or just ask the husband/bf what to do... so there is a lot of disinterest there

So in combat, when it's the nth player's turn, I always tell the (n+1)th player that they're up next

Out of combat, I do a "Meanwhile..." thing so that one player doesn't hog the spotlight for too long

(i have a pretty flagpole with clothing pins with their names on it. Highest initiative is on top. They have a clear indication of who's turn is it...

Even with a written list, a verbal reminder goes a long way

And I try to alert the next player

don't always remember to do it, but I do try to do it always

as for out of combat

it's not an RP heavy group... at all.

And if a player doesn't know what to do, I'd list some priority things going on, and then ask them what their character would do

Usually the only guy that does things by himself is the same that's playing on the phone al the time, and I do use the "meanwhile" a lot with him

e.g. Rather than say "I recommend moving and casting Fireball", I'd point out that there's some unthreatened space, and some enemies that need dealing with, and let them decide how they want to deal with that

yeah well

they are lvl 9

How many players is it?

Character level doesn't correspond to player experience

the druid still doesn't know how produce fire works, always has to ask.

What I mean with this is.... there is a total disinterest with them

they claim they have fun but...

In the last PF game I was in, we got to 10th level, and 3 of the 6 players (who had been there since level 1) still didn't know the basic rules, because people kept telling them what to do all the time

@Helwar we've got an 18th level rogue who still does'nt know how to calculate his DC or which dice to use on an attack.

@Helwar Maybe ask if they want to play a different game since the impression your getting is disinterest.

@Helwar Have you considered playing something else? DnD combats do have this thing where the interval between one's turns gets long.

@kviiri Yeah. There are some interesting ways of dealing with that I've been trying. minute glass, chess timer, cards.

we tried a couple of one shots, Call of Cthulu, Mutants and Masterminds, Anima Beyond Fantasy, Star Wars Edge of the Galaxy....

@MikeQ It does however correspond to character experience.

it's the same all around

@Helwar maybe they're not the kind of ttrpg players that suit your style?

Change the game or change the players. Have you tried inviting them for non-TTRPGs, like board games and such?

@ColinGross true that. I'm an RPer first and a fighter second. 3 of my players just like crunching things and the other two are the SO of another player and are just there

They are my friends though :)

yeah we play board games often too, and video games

RP-heavy TTRPGs tend to involve a lot of investment, and I've found that "I'm here because my SO is here" isn't really a strong motivation to play

@Helwar Maybe play those with this group and find a different smaller group for ttrpg

we play Magic the Gathering too but then the 2 girls are just "there", exactly as when playing ttrpg

Managing 5 players is the limit for me. Four is tough enough.

@Helwar I've seen this. It's not a gender thing, it's a relationship thing.

@ColinGross thing is, they claim they like it, they are having fun, and don't want to stop. And frustrating as it is, I have fun too, when I don't want to kill that one player :P

Sometimes being there is the gig.

@Helwar The phone guy?

They show up because they want to be with their SO, but aren't interested in the activity. As a result, they end up bored and annoyed, and the other players end up a bit frustrated at the lack of participation.

@MikeQ I know I know, as I said I'm not misoginistic or anything. They are just not interested and they involve themselves because their special other does

@Helwar That's what you do sometimes. Show up and be there even if you're not super into it.

One way to counter it is to give some "training wheels" preferential treatment, as if they're newbie players. Be willing to bend the rules for them, so they don't have to wrestle with the game mechanics as much.

@MikeQ squires!

My conflicts with my group are usually driven more by "how" than by "what"

@MikeQ it's what I do. Still their special others end up choosing their actions more often than not

@ColinGross the phone guy

@Helwar Skip his turn.

@Helwar This may vary by the social dynamics of your group, but if I was GM in that situation, I would step in and tell them to make their own decision. Also reconsider ways to make their character simpler to play.

hey

Hello.

He IS my friend, and I do like being his friend, but in ttrpg he's a prick

@Helwar I don't know what your friend dynamic is, but you should probably tell him. Also, he's stated the issue is time between turns, so ask him for help on how to deal with that.

@MikeQ I've tried that. I stopped doing that because I felt like an evil teacher asking them to go in front of the class and recite the whole list of irregular verbs

@mustard howdy

I've used a minute timer before that starts when it's the player's turn. They have a minute to declare their action.

@Helwar You're not going to build the player's confidence if you let them use their SO as a crutch all the time

Maybe start with easier, simpler decisions

Example: as a policy, I tell new players to avoid spellcasting classes, because they're the most complex

I was planning of placing the two girls together in some kind of situation and force them to take agency that way, even going to another room without their SOs if that's what is needed

@MikeQ I do too. But you can't convince the veterinary that Druid is the hardest class to play for a newbie.

@Helwar Druids are actually kind of complex, as prepared casters

Give them the option to switch to a beastmaster ranger, perhaps?

the other girl started as a beastmaster ranger and after a session where she played a barbarian (it was a martial arts tournament and only the monk had agreed to participate, so I made them play his contrincants), she liked it and found it simpler

so switched characters to a barbarian soon after

It is so weird to wake up on my day off and have already almost hit the rep cap lol.

the vet girl doesn't even want to hear about abandoning her druid haha

@MikeQ Druids/Clerics are more complex, but I would argue that in general, they're easier to play, because you don't have to make critical spell selection choices with the class.

If you pick a spell that's bad or suboptimal, you just shrug your shoulders and repick your spells on the next Long Rest.

@Helwar Then I will back up. Do they know how their class works and how to play it? Spell selection, spell slots, ability modifiers, etc. ?

she makes the fire cantrip, unless she sees an oportunity to cast moonbeam. Then casts moonbeam. IF she is unsure, asks the SO

she does know

she selects her own spells

and does it correctly

knows how many can she cast of each level

she even knows how to upgrade a spell casting it in a higher level slot

Okay, I see. I thought you meant like, the SOs have no idea how to play and their partners just choose everything for them, including build options and in-game tactical and RP decisions

that is the weird thing

then she always tries to roll attack dice when casting moonbeam

As far as Spellcasters go, I would say the Memorized classes (Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, Artificer) are a lot more difficult, since if you make a bad spell choice, you have to stick with it until you level up (and it may interfere with picking better spells later on). And Wizard has a Tyranny of Choice problem where you're constantly agonizing over what the best choices are.

well, they mostly choose for them, including build options, but this girl has put the effort to know how her beast shapes and spellcasting works, btut then cowers in front of every decision. And she doesn't know how her most used spell works. She's a walking contradiction :)

@Xirema They're more difficult to build, but less complex to play

@MikeQ That's probably fair.

@Helwar Hm, then maybe try separating them briefly, as per your idea

If they ask the SO what to do, remind them that the SO's character isn't there

that's why I want to find a group of people that really is into the game hahaha, I can handle this game because they are my friends are all dear to me, but I kinda need a less difficult setup to decompress

haha

Do their characters have investment in the story?

If they like the RP aspects then maybe try to leverage their in-game motives

@MikeQ If you mean if I have made advancements to do so? Yes. I've done it. If you mean if the actual characters care? 2 out of 5 do

Hm... Have you tried directly asking the SOs?

you mean the boys or the girls?

Out of game, ask something like "Hey I noticed you seem kind of confused/bored/whatever when we're playing <game>. How can I make it more fun for you? Would you like to see more <something in your game>?"

@MikeQ I did that quite a few times. They claimed all was ok, sun and rainbows. It got to the point that they thought I didn't want them in the game, told that to their SOs, and we had a very interesting conversation (that got cleared pretty soon! Thankfully)

Then all I can offer is a shrug

Some players prefer to avoid the spotlight and to take a back seat

Shrug accepted

Helwar will remember that

I can't remember who in this room is into W40k.

@Yuuki Well that's a load of heresy

@MikeQ Sounds like sowing chaos to me.

@Helwar I was trying to pull from my own similar experiences, but it seems like your players (the SOs) are moderately interested, but they're cautious and want to ask someone they trust (i.e., their partner) for tactical advice

@Yuuki I was about 25 years ago :)

> I built a Homebrew army of Necrons that got hit by an ion storm while hibernating and when they woke up, they thought they were Orks. With nanomachines. They met an Ork raid and were readily accepted and are now called the Toomteefs.

@Helwar The issue is that you're not enjoying the experience, correct? The players haven't opined that they're not enjoying the time together, correct?

@Yuuki hahahaha, that's awesome

Are the necrons new? I don't remember them being an option.

@Yuuki That's entertaining.

As far as my brain remembers, back then it was orcs, marines, and eldar.

oh, and tyranids

just searched 40k races and definitely don't remember most of htem

@NautArch I don't know if they're new but I definitely recall seeing them in the hobby store.

sorry I have to go but I'll be back in an hour ,I'll answer then

duty calls sorry!

I have a build challenge I've been mulling over for awhile: Can you create a character that, with the cooperation of the DM, is only composed of (potentially multiclassed) Spellcasting classes (Bard, Druid, Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock), but can convince the other players at the table (who don't physically have access to your character sheet) that they're actually a Fighter? Bonus points if you don't, at any point, say the phrase "Hexblade".

@Xirema Some are easier than others. I thnk you could do it pretty simply with bard, druid, cleric, warlock. Wiz/Sorcerer gonna be harder.

My original concept for my Sorcerer was to try to do this, but the Eyes of Darkness + Mage Hand Legerdomain feature combo was too good to ignore, so I deviated away from it.

But I've been thinking about it again.

@Xirema In theory yes, in practice maybe. What does this accomplish?

@MikeQ It's for funsies. And also for an RP fantasy where I play with my other players genuinely thinking I'm playing a Fighter, only to reveal many sessions into the campaign with a sudden massive Fireball that I'm actually a spellcaster.

hm

I can't think of any effect readily available from early levels to other classes that gives you something which looks like an action surge

@Xirema So hiding information from the other players not just the characters?

@ColinGross "Looking at my character sheet is metagaming."

I can imagine plausible scenarios where you and the DM might be the only ones entertained by this.

@Xirema So there are character sheets but nobody looks at them?

@Xirema You could use that Warlock subclass that applies hexes while wielding a blade.

@ColinGross "Other people looking at my character sheet is metagaming"

@Yuuki "I get it. I ain't laughing, but I get it."

Hexblade, Bladesinger, and College of Swords are the really obvious cheatsheets to making this work.

@Xirema Sure. Even without seeing each others sheets, at some point you still have to lie to the other players. It's not role playing your character is hiding it from the other characters... this is the player hiding things from other players.

Forge Cleric might also be useful.

That kind of "fun secret" isn't always as fun for the other players.

@ColinGross Okay, but like, there's a difference between hiding "I'm secretly an assassin, and I'm going to kill their character the moment I spot their vulnerability" and "I'm secretly a Sorcerer, but revealing that would expose my identity, so I pretend to be someone else who's a really good fighter", on the scale of "secret information that is bad←→good to play with".

whether or not these things are acceptable depends entirely on the table in question

@Carcer I concur

Also, I don't know what your games are like, but I've never played a game of D&D where players didn't keep some critical information hidden from each other, not just in the fiction of the story.

I have known people who would have really hated there being any deception out of character and others who would think it's great

Also, if the other players are in on it, they can rp into that. Then the reveal is something everyone is in on.

@Xirema My tables explicitly don't do this anymore. It usually is fine, but when it goes sour it has 86'd entire campaigns.

in fact, one of the stories that's retold often in my old RPG circle was about a player whose character was an illusionist who was permanently invisible and the entity that everyone thought was him was just a very convincing illusion, which was revealed when a T-Rex "ate" the illusion

The druid in our campaign has apparently got some super secret dark aspect of his backstory that only the DM knows about, and which I only know about because he refused to let me look at the backstory portion of his character sheet when I was helping him level up.

Also, the DM and one player chuckling about something might make the other players feel like their on the outside of an inside joke or worse that maybe they're the butt of it.

My players usually just don't have more than 3 lines of backstory. Problem solved! :P

@Xirema secret edgelord?

@ColinGross No idea. Supposedly there was almost an overlap between the (very murdery) backstory of my paladin and his backstory, but the locations/timescales didn't line up.

Though there is one player who always has elaborate backstories and then decides in the first few sessions to play his character completely differently anyway, so it's just ignored...

@ACuriousMind Ha! As long as they enjoyed writing the backstory.

@ColinGross Yeah, he really likes coming up with character high concepts. He's just not very good at making ones that he actually finds fun to play

@ACuriousMind Have you considered yoink? File those away for an NPC or set of NPCs for another day/campaign ?

@Xirema uh oh

@ACuriousMind Full disclosure, that was me in my first campaign.

to be honest I think there's almost always an adjustment from concept to reality to some extent

One of my ideas for making this work was RPing a Stone Sorcerer by having them always stand near someone they were "protecting" and "Readying an Action" to attack anyone that tried to harm them, and "teleporting" only a few feet at a time when using their reaction to attack, explaining it away as a weird [DM-approved] Racial trait.

regardless of what you come up with, you have to actually play it to figure out which bits are fun to play, and there's an element of compromising for party cohesion which probably happens (consciously or not)

I had written a character that was all gung-ho about joining the militia and fighting "the bad guys". Went off to war raring to fight and came back to a hometown burnt to the ground.

@Yuuki Did he feel really bad about leaving the oven on?

@ColinGross He left all the ovens on, unfortunately.

@Yuuki The short, short version is that my Paladin used to do very bad poop before she became a Paladin, and a lot of people died both directly and indirectly by her hand. So if my backstory overlaps with anyone's, it's 50:1 odds I killed their parents. XD

@Yuuki have you read the Darkest Dungeon crusader origin? It's like the opposite of that.

@Yuuki Oh, I think it's completely normal unless you're really committed to playing the role you set out to play

Was supposed to be a morose character that didn't like fighting because it reminded him about what he gave up to join "the good fight".

@Xirema Oooo... I like that even less! That sounds like a setup for inter player conflict!

I ended up with a dwarven magical girl that defeated BEFRIENDED their enemies with The Power of Love And Copious Amounts of Gratuitous Violence.

I tend to make rather vague backstories for my PCs because I know I'll only know how I want to play them until I've interacted with the other PCs for a session or two

@Yuuki Are your Magical Girls Celestial Warlocks, or Redemption/Devotion Paladins?

@ACuriousMind Prudent course of action. You find that works out well for you and them?

@Xirema gotta say, this feels very close to a myguy

@Xirema This was in 3.5e. I had rolled a Cleric and my DM homebrewed a Magical Girl prestige class for me.

@ACuriousMind Can you expound a bit on that with a brief example... not that I'm going to be making copy pasta of it later.... just want to know... for a friend.

Mainly because I was tearing all our enemies a new one despite having a backstory of "prefers non-violence".

@NautArch No it doesn't My Guy is about doing stuff which is completely unfun at the table. A violent backstory is not

@ColinGross I mean, in session 1, I cast Command on our Rogue to stop her from threatening a captive we had tied up, and as of this session, she doesn't trust me because of my use of a magical artifact we think might have evil power in it, so "inter-player conflict" is sort of our bread & butter. XD

@Carcer I agree. I think the violent backstory where one character killed the other's parents and this ends up being a surprise to the players could set up a situation that's ripe for the unfun "it's what my character would do!" as now there's PvP

^

@Xirema If your table likes that and it's all well known up front, go for it.

that's only not fun if the group thinks it's not fun, indeed

Really, any time character backstories interact, there needs to be a discussion between the players beforehand.

Because when you or someone else writes a part of another character's backstory, that affects the agency of the player.

@Yuuki Sound advice.

Also, there's a difference between backstory and current events.

@NautArch To be clear, I wasn't the one who made that call, that was my DM connecting dots of "Okay, ten years ago, she was a bit murdery, and in his backstory, [BACKSTORY REDACTED], when did that happen...?"

And turned out things didn't overlap, anyways.

@ColinGross Well, in one game I played a street magician specialized in illusions and all sorts of people skills. All I knew about his backstory was that he was a noble that had acted as a spy during a recent civil war, and fallen in disgrace after that. I resisted the urge to specify what specifically he had done, how exactly he was good at handling people. During the first two sessions he became this overconfident compulsive liar

who mainly used his illusions to get away once he saw no other way out. Originally, I had more pictured him has being very diplomatic and formal, using subtle illusions to bolster his standing - but I avoided nailing that down in the backstory. It was much more fun to "discover" him through play than trying to shoehorn my original vision into the chaotic ragtag group he found himself ending up with.

Yeah, I've had a lot of fun leaving my character less penciled-in for this Dungeon World multi-shot.

@Yuuki "Play to find out what happens."

My second-most favourite bit of things DW makes explicit in the rules, right after "Be a fan of the characters"

@NautArch Also, w/r/t my Paladin, I've been very specifically conscious that she refuses to outright kill people unless she's convinced that leaving someone alive will cause more harm than good. A party member (justifiably) pissed at something she did a decade ago is waaaay below that threshold, even if they are actively trying to kill her.

Slowly, for my magician, it emerged that he'd been found out as a spy because he just enjoyed telling elaborate lies too much, and that he escaped his death sentence only through an illusionist hat trick with his guards. Perfect fit as a backstory for who he was now, while what I had in advance simply made no sense for his personality as I had played him

@Xirema I'll give you ten points if she attends Murderers Anonymous meetings and keeps a tally of how many days she's gone without killing someone

@Carcer I could retcon that into her backstory! She would have attended alongside her second-in-command, who lived with her after the war.

@ACuriousMind To be fair, backstories work a lot better as "conflict fodder" for the DM to sift through than they do for "why does my character act the way they do"

@ACuriousMind Even though literally everyone tries to do it the other way around.

Although maybe I take that to heart too much. My paladin's first question after encountering a surprisingly sentient skeleton was to ask "have I murdered you before?"

Which, I think we can all agree is the best icebreaker.

If it works for the other players then I guess it's ok

Normally I've found that distrust of character motives can be kinda rocky for party cohesion

One time I told an already not-quite-trusting party that I'd bring a cleric (my previous character perma-died), and my first action was necromancing up some big spoopy skeletons, and then casting charms on our NPC allies to stop them from attacking

@ACuriousMind yoink

@Rubiksmoose I still think that question is a dupe :) The answers took the earlier question to mean one thing, but the question did actually encompass this one.

@NautArch Which is the potential dupe target?

I thought it was a dupe because the question is merely about using a feature - not specifically about activating one. And the new question is asking the exact same thing. Can I use a feature after polymorph.

not sure if it's worth a meta

@NautArch The old one is asking about using class features while polymorphed, while the new one is asking if the effect of a class feature (not using it itself) is canceled while in polymorph.

@NautArch I had a duplicate claim denied on the basis that the two questions weren't literally identical to each other. So I get the sense that the standards for "are these questions duplicates" are higher than I (or you, apparently) are expecting.

Compare Bladesong to Mage Armor.

@GreySage I guess I"m reading that using is using :)

It's a hard line to parse though. Calling a question a duplicate if the OP doesn't agree can feel like you, the person making the claim, aren't putting any effort into understanding their issue, which brushes up against that Be Nice rule we have.

Whether it's is this still active (using) or can I enable it (using)

@Xirema yeah, which is why i put in the answer. It wasn't worth a debate and I could answer it for them.

@NautArch Whether or not I can cast a spell while Polymorphed is very different from whether a spell effect falls off when I'm polymorphed

@GreySage These aren't spell effects - they are class features, though.

Spells are different

@NautArch Activating Bladesong is a class feature. Bladesong itself is an effect

@GreySage But it's not a spell. It's a class feature and whether or not you're using it.

But clearly it's borderline enough not to dupe :)

@GreySage But I think disagree that activating and using a class feature are different things.

If a race had a racial feature that turned yourself invisible (similar to the spell, but not the spell), and you used it and then got polymorphed, would you still be invisible?

@GreySage If it's not the spell, I'd say no. You aren't that race anymore. That racial feature is no longer available.

If it was the spell, I'd say yes.

@NautArch Does that depend on the phrasing of the racial?

e.g. You can cast the invisibility spell on yourself once perlong rest

@NautArch Okay, Beholder hits you with sleep ray, then you get polymorphed. Are you asleep?

@GreySage Yes

>Why does Polymorph stops an active Rage on a Barbarian (no more class features), but doesn’t remove Arcane Ward?Arcane Ward is an external effect that you activate. Its duration isn't dependent on your form. — Jeremy Crawford

Bam

Arcane Ward is a wizard class feature very similar to Bladesong

@GreySage But that's a spell, not a racial feature

@SirCinnamon No, its a class feature

> Persistent Spell Metamagic. If you lose concentration on a spell for any reason, you may use your Reaction to spend 1 Sorcery Point and regain concentration on that spell, and the spell continues to function as though you never lost concentration.

From the school of abjuration

How is that not a thing?

@GreySage Whoops, your eright, I was thinking of something else.

That's definitely inconsistent

@Xirema It may be more balanced as 1 sorcery point per spell level (would have to play test), but that is a very good alt Metamagic that I could totally see in the game

@Xirema I agree with David, that's really strong

@DavidCoffron Yeah, I'd probably go for that.

@SirCinnamon Or maybe 1 sorcery point per damage taken beyond 10 (similar to DC test)

@DavidCoffron sorcery point to reduce DC by x number of points?

stackable?

Idk, but 1 sorcery point makes conjuration spells really good for just a couple levels of sorcerer

That's what I'm worried about

Like a wizard 6/sorcerer 2

It would have to be something more costly

Sorcerers are already proficient in con saves

@SirCinnamon That was my initial thought, that Sorcerers would be having an easier time resisting concentration breaks in the first place.

and you only have to activate this if you fail the save so I could see it as 1 point to autosave BEFORE knowing outcome

> Spend 1 Sorcery point to automatically succeed at your concentration check. You must choose to spend this point before attempting the roll.

@Xirema Yeah, I like that I think

Or

> Spend 1 Sorcery Point per spell level to automatically succeed...

@Xirema That might be too far the other way

after all, creating a 5th level spell slot is 7 points - 5 points to maybe prevent losing an existing one is a big gamble

@SirCinnamon Personally, I think I prefer it with just 1 point, just throwing the alternative out for juxtaposition

i think i like those 2 forms - either spend spell level to regain a failed concentration save OR spend 1 to prevent making it at all

Frankly speaking, I think there should be as many Metamagics as there are Warlock invocations. WotC needs to step up their game.

metamagics are probably hard to write in a way that makes them apply to a good amount of spells

and to keep roughly at the same power level

@SirCinnamon Yeah, but power level is easier to scale, since all you need to do is adjust how many points they cost.

@Xirema true

10 points to increase spell save DC by 10

@SirCinnamon I think 5e discourages that kind of design. Heightened Spell is closer to how they'd design a Metamagic like that.

> Misdirected Spell Metamagic. When you cast a spell, you may spend 1 Sorcery Point to make it appear as though another creature was the source or target of the spell. A creature can make an Intelligence(Investigation) or a Wisdom(Perception) check (against your Spell Save DC) to see through this illusion.

Pair that with...

@Xirema Why? Metamagic can apply to a number of spells. Invocations are essentially warlock only powers and they're rarely widely applicable.

> Phantom Spell. When you cast a spell, you may spend 1 Sorcery Point to instead produce an illusory effect that merely resembles the spell you attempted to cast. The spell itself is not actually cast, and the Spell Slot (if applicable) is not consumed. A creature can make an Intelligence(Investigation) or Intelligence(Arcana) check (against your Spell Save DC) to see through the illusion.

@Xirema I'm not sure if illusion'istic metamagics will work. It's supposed to show that the sorcerer can adjust the fundamental aspects of the spell since it is ingrained.

Effects like that don't seem right

@DavidCoffron I feel like "can make a spell look like it's doing something other than what it's actually doing" counts as "adjusting the fundamental aspects of the spell".

@Xirema I don't know; just feels more like the kind of thing that would show up as some weird sorcerous origin to me

@DavidCoffron Hmm. Maybe a few Metamagics unique to each Origin?

@Xirema They don't like retconning old subclasses (they didn't add ranger spells to the old archetypes when they made the XGtE each have their own)

I mean. I certainly would think that origin specific metamagics would be super cool

@ColinGross Because the selection as-provided by the PHB is limited, and kind of boring TBH.

Or require hours of rules lawyering (See Twinned Spell)

Phantom Spell would need to be adjusted. It occurred to me that it duplicates the effects of Major Image (but limited to only producing illusions that look like spells you can already cast, hence the reduced cost) but would behave very strangely if you actually tried to cast, say, Major Image.

@Xirema The reason for having more warlock invocations to match sorcerer metamagic is "selection of metamagic is limited and has many edge cases" ?

> sup dawg, I put a Major Image in your Major Image...

@Xirema Sounds like they should just cast an illusion spell

> Comical Spell. As long as you have 1 Sorcery Point when you cast a spell, you may choose to also produce a minor illusory effect that resembles a one-word phrase in any language you choose.

KA-POW!

@Yuuki scribbles notes for my 5e Superhero campaign...

@Xirema ZOUNDS!

@GreySage Well, for the former case, it does something that an Illusion spell can't do. And in the latter case, it reproduces Major Image at a cheaper cost, but with severe restrictions on what it can do.

A metamagic which delays a spell maybe? Cast it now but set a timer or trigger anytime in the next hour?

@SirCinnamon I was in the process of composing such a metamagic!

@Xirema I think setting a trigger might be too strong/abuse-able. A straight up timer is more clear

"We need a distraction. I want to walk into the other room and cast firebolt into that curtain, delayed by 5 minutes. Then i return to where I was, where everyone can see me."

This question, rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/133064/…, is the kind of thing I go round with with my min-maxer.

> Pre-Causal Spell. When you cast a spell, you may choose to spend a number of Sorcery Points equal to its level to not spend a spell slot. You must spend a spell slot of this level within the following week or pass a DC25 Concentration check to not wink out of existence.

> Delayed Spell Metamagic. When you cast a spell, you may spend 1 sorcery point to delay the beginning of the spell's effects by a fixed period of time that you specify, up to [X QUANTITY OF TIME].

Not sure what X should be.

@Xirema IMO, 1 hour

Also, should they be required to maintain concentration during the delay?

@Xirema I'm not sure, but I suppose he gon give it to us.

Doesn't seem like the type to wait for us to get it on our own.

@Xirema I would say... no - but if it's a concentration spell then they immediately give up any existing concentration when it starts, and depending on the spell exactly, if the target has become invalid the spell will fail

@Yuuki I like the idea, but I don't think I'd permit that to be accessible to a level 3 Sorcerer. Maybe a class of "Advanced Metamagics" would be appropriate for something like that.

@Yuuki It also would require some playtesting. It seems very potentially abuseable.

Almost definitely.

I just thought it was a funny anti-thesis to the delayed spell you were talking about.

Rather delaying the spell's effect, it delays the spell's cost.

Or another way to look at it, you're firing a spell into the past

instead of into the future

@SirCinnamon More like pulling a spell out of the future.

Divination Sorcerers, man.

Spend one sorcery point while touching an ally - the next time you cast a spell you can instead cause the ally to deliver the spell as if it had cast the spell

> Expedited Spell Metamagic. When you begin casting a spell that has a casting time greater than 1 round, you may spend 4 Sorcery Points to cause the spell to immediately take effect. You are then incapacitated for a duration of time equal to the amount of time the spell normally requires to cast.

@Yuuki I can only see this being useful if the spell is permitted to bypass normal targeting/range restrictions.

I'm wondering if also "it automatically hits".

@Xirema I think that's the intention

Maybe add a "No matter what"

So like you could send in your damage-resistant dude for a "danger close" play using an AoE spell.

@Yuuki And then cast the spell from way outside the normal range permitted by that spell? Because I could see that being cool.

@Yuuki Dragonborn fireball kamikaze?

It'd be interesting to use on range: self spells.