Official D&D Errata Updated (Nov 2018) - Page 12
Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112
Results 111 to 118 of 118
  1. #111
    Member
    Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)

    Azzy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    St.Aug, FL
    Posts
    1,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Li Shenron View Post
    What about cover?
    Does it make your AC 16 or greater? If so, then then the spell does nothing for you. If not, your AC is now 16. The spell only makes you not have an AC lower than 16 if that would not otherwise be the case under normal circumstances. It doesn't give you an AC that bonuses can be applied to.

  2. #112
    Member
    Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)

    Azzy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    St.Aug, FL
    Posts
    1,722
    Quote Originally Posted by OverlordOcelot View Post
    Azzy's description of the spell that you responded to is incorrect; the spell doesn't actually have any timing restriction, and operates continuously.
    My bad there.

  3. #113
    Member
    Minor Trickster (Lvl 4)



    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by flametitan View Post
    It might also have to do with Magic Initiate, as the previous Sage Advice rule for that was that it'd technically add that spell to your spells known if you were of the appropriate class. I'd have to read into it more carefully, but that might also play into it.
    Could you clarify what you mean by this? By my reading, nothing has changed in this regard. A wizard who takes Magic Initiate (Wizard) still gets another wizard spell known.

  4. #114
    Member
    The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)



    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    4,068
    Quote Originally Posted by BlivetWidget View Post
    Could you clarify what you mean by this? By my reading, nothing has changed in this regard. A wizard who takes Magic Initiate (Wizard) still gets another wizard spell known.
    I can say that I saw the lack of named-class-spells pre-errata to lead to some "sage got it wrong threads when he limited it to "your class" for MI.

    So, adding that language to RAW I think made that vlearer.

  5. #115
    Member
    Pit Fiend (Lvl 26)

    DEFCON 1's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Burlington, MA
    Posts
    8,251
    Quote Originally Posted by OverlordOcelot View Post
    Azzy's description of the spell that you responded to is incorrect; the spell doesn't actually have any timing restriction, and operates continuously. A correct rephrasing is "Calculate your AC using any bonuses you wish. This includes class features, armor, shields, dexterity, feats, natural armor, cover, magic items, and bonuses that I didn't think of. While this spell is in effect, if the result of your AC calculation is less than 16, then the spell raises your AC to 16. If it is equal to or greater than 16, then the spell has no effect". It's a really simply spell, people just spend a lot of effort trying to make it complicated. While it's running, your AC is either 16 or whatever it's calculated to be by normal means, whichever is better.
    Yup. The spell itself mechanically is fine. Your AC is whatever it's calculated as or 16, whichever is higher. All the issues that the rest of us have always gone on about all come down to attaching these mechanics to fluff that does not align.

    If there was ever to be any "errata" for this spell created in the future, it'd be renaming it and changing its story as that's the part they messed up on.

  6. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by BlivetWidget View Post
    Could you clarify what you mean by this? By my reading, nothing has changed in this regard. A wizard who takes Magic Initiate (Wizard) still gets another wizard spell known.
    I was saying that there was the possibility that the wording was done in relation to Magic Initiate, whether to clarify or remove it. It was something where I wasn't sure if it made it clearer or changed the ruling, and needed to read up on it more, so the answer I gave was purposefully ambiguous.

    In this case, it doesn't really change much in practice, but it pairs well with the, "You learn that spell," part of Magic Initiate.

  7. #117
    Member
    Minor Trickster (Lvl 4)



    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by flametitan View Post
    I was saying that there was the possibility that the wording was done in relation to Magic Initiate, whether to clarify or remove it. It was something where I wasn't sure if it made it clearer or changed the ruling, and needed to read up on it more, so the answer I gave was purposefully ambiguous.

    In this case, it doesn't really change much in practice, but it pairs well with the, "You learn that spell," part of Magic Initiate.
    Okay, thanks for the clarification on your thoughts. I agree it doesnt change anything wrt the sage advice on Magic Initiate. Minor wording change that seems in line with the rules and sage advice up to this point. Probably just there to head off some multiclassing arguments.

  8. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by Enevhar Aldarion View Post
    Open it up in two tabs of your browser. Keep one open to the table of contents. Read in the other one.
    I refuse to hear these perfectly reasonable solutions!



    Quote Originally Posted by CapnZapp View Post
    You get what you pay for. It's basic in more sense than one.
    This is true but there was an outline in the last version. It's a simple thing, especially if you've already gone so far as to hyperlink your headings.

    I have high standards!


Similar Threads

  1. D&D 5E Player's Handbook Official Errata
    By Morrus in forum *Dungeons & Dragons
    Replies: 302
    Last Post: Tuesday, 30th June, 2015, 07:25 PM
  2. My Batch of Homebrew Errata for the Player's Handbook
    By Adslahnit in forum *Dungeons & Dragons
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Sunday, 3rd January, 2010, 11:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •