Blake Steel

@AncientSwordRage Gotcha

@MikeQ Ah yes, designing new features for those already having reactions was difficult

@MikeQ I am curious what you think is genuine ideas and what you think is phoning it in, because it's hard for me to tell anymore, aside from a few stand-out examples

@MikeQ Oh yeah andd that's part of the reason I didn't do things other than the PHB because "you gotta start somewhere"

@MikeQ A lot of them were design-by-quota, yea. I don't remember which ones specifically, but I remember getting inspiration on battle master, vengeance paladin, and thief, as some examples

I closed my question so that I can formulate a new one with more specifications, design thoughts, and such, which I will likely do later in the day

@ThomasMarkov i want everyone to have them, yes. Each of these reactions is designed to be weaker than shield or counterspell, though, so that those are still good options.

@BardicWizard That is the intent, to separate the two, and by doing so make both a bit stronger.

@ThomasMarkov I tried (and maybe failed) to give the spellcasters (particularly wizard) that have more options more narrow reactions.

@NautArch I mean the system should work out where each class gets something of equal significance. So if a class had a reaction at level 6, I moved it to 4 and gave them something (non-reaction) at level 6. So all they're being given only one thing, so they should have roughly one reaction.

@MikeQ I'll work on adding that to the post. It was mostly me and a friend going through and adding something thematic that doesn't step on other classes' toes.

@AncientSwordRage Danke

@NautArch They don't, but if some classes already have a reaction, I moved it to 4th level and gave them a little something where that reaction would normally be

@MikeQ What do you mean?

@NautArch The only ones that are differing level are small tweaks to existing things I think, and there are a limited amount of them, so it would be like 35 4th level features and 3 of other levels. I suppose waiting is the best move, and if there's not a good answer I might bounty it or something

I suppose I could just ask a more general question here: Thoughts on this system for giving every class some reactions?: homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/ZyU5pweQZ

@ThomasMarkov Yea unfortunately my goal with the question requires its scope, so I'm not sure what to do about it either

@ThomasMarkov Hi there @ThomasMarkov

What happened to blood-hunter? Did I miss something?

@V2Blast It talks about keys for streamers, and you said that it's a fun game

@kviiri Nice!

@V2Blast Do you stream?

@Ben "this increases with each tier" is ambiguous. I figure your intent is "increase atk + dmg by 1 and decrease ac by 1 at each tier", but the goal is to make it so I don't have to figure that

Oh and 5e precedent is to have "ndx" even if n = 1. E.g. "removes 1d4 Corruption"

@Ben Yeah, just grammar stuff, like "Below Tier 1 this removes" should have a comma directly after "1" because it's a preposition at the beginning of a sentence, same thing with "At tier 2 and above this removes" should have a comma after "above".

@Ben An excellent change.

@V2Blast I've only played a few times, but it's very good. It captures the sense of a traitor among you (worry about other people having good items, mainly, for fear they'll use them against you), but doesn't let you act on it until the tension is built a good amount.

@Ben I think the corruption system you have could create many good "Betrayal at the House on the Hill" scenarios within the 5e system. It's a cool idea indeed.

@Ben In "Holy Symbols", is the intended interaction that, once you pray at an icon you can't benefit from the same icon again, or that you can't benefit from any icon? it seems a little ambiguous.

@BESW Thanks!

What is The Oracle? It's not an active user

@Shalvenay Hi there, I pop in and out every once in a while ;)

Yes, that would be 100% raw. (Given you’re only 4th level, it’ll be a while though)

Yes, because if it’s just “RAW says it can’t be”, then there’s the heart of the issue (and probably most other issues that will arise).

Did he give his reasoning?

Meaning that if you didn’t take the find familiar spell level 1, you couldn’t at further levels? Or that if you didn’t make your squirrel your familiar at level 1, you couldn’t at further levels? Because the first is just incorrect.

What reasoning did the DM give when they said no?

@DavidCoffron Most spells do not specify the source of the damage. Fireball, for example, says "A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save [...]", not "You deal" or "the spell deals".

@DavidCoffron I'll look forward to his input. Is it a common thing to be able to just reach out to the designers? I see it occasionally, but I figured it was a once in a blue moon thing

@DavidCoffron I think I understand where you're coming from now, and I think relating it to something that the designers have explicitly stated should not trigger Grim Harvest is helpful.

You're losing me there. Because shadow blade outlines the damage in the spell.

Would you say that green flame blade (if it were necrotic and 1st or higher level) would trigger Grim Harvest?

Does it have to re-state how to attack with a weapon to be a damaging spell?

I'm not familiar with RAF or RACS though, and a google search turned up Royal Air Force

No, based on that tweet

@DavidCoffron Magic Weapon (the spell) still applies with the scenario given, but yeah Shillelagh doesn't

So by casting the spell on the weapon and striking the Rakshasa, it is not the weapon affecting the Rakshasa but the spell

And is immune to non-magical weapons

But it is affecting the Rakshasa because the Rakshasa would take increased damage if the magic weapon is wielded by a good creature

Versus creating one