D&D 5E 5e "Anyspell," Would You Allow the Enclosed Spell?

[Ruin Explorer]

Wait a minute reactions spells DO SPECIFY THE TRIGGER in the spell.. that is alll I meant... create any trigger you want... My point is that the trigger CAN be there (and that was an oversight on my part when I wrote it the first time)... Making it trigger at the end of a creatures turn after using an object to say do1 point of damage to yourself, etc... one can SPECIFY a trigger!!!!
Really the trigger issue is a red herring at best...

No, you're fundamentally not understanding the rules, and trying to cheat them/break them.

That's what you're doing here. This isn't a "red herring", this is you not understanding 5E's action economy, or how actions work, on a really, really basic level.

Yeah, you can lie and pretend that anything is a reaction to something, but that's obviously abusing the concept of a reaction to the point where it's ridiculous. The only time in 5E where you get to specify any trigger you want is with Ready, and that is very limited, and if the trigger isn't hit, you don't get your go. You don't get to say "Uh this spell was triggered by me uh feeling I uh wanna cast a spell I guess..." or the like.

 

[Inanity]

No, you're fundamentally not understanding the rules, and trying to cheat them/break them.

That's what you're doing here. This isn't a "red herring", this is you not understanding 5E's action economy, or how actions work, on a really, really basic level.

Yeah, you can lie and pretend that anything is a reaction to something, but that's obviously abusing the concept of a reaction to the point where it's ridiculous. The only time in 5E where you get to specify any trigger you want is with Ready, and that is very limited, and if the trigger isn't hit, you don't get your go. You don't get to say "Uh this spell was triggered by me uh feeling I uh wanna cast a spell I guess..." or the like.

There are mechanics like this...

 

[Inanity]

No, you're fundamentally not understanding the rules, and trying to cheat them/break them.

That's what you're doing here. This isn't a "red herring", this is you not understanding 5E's action economy, or how actions work, on a really, really basic level.

Yeah, you can lie and pretend that anything is a reaction to something, but that's obviously abusing the concept of a reaction to the point where it's ridiculous. The only time in 5E where you get to specify any trigger you want is with Ready, and that is very limited, and if the trigger isn't hit, you don't get your go. You don't get to say "Uh this spell was triggered by me uh feeling I uh wanna cast a spell I guess..." or the like.

No the point is PICK your trigger; it could be when an enemy casting a spell, ec. (I will have to hthink about an appropriate trigger mysef; but the possible triggerrs are various in the game... if yo u had to use your object and use your reaction all in one round that is a steep cost (reacted to you using an object is already supported in the game (pulling a level that triggers a trap above your head and then react using shield, etc. it CAN occur nothing game bendng abot it... but yeah I understand your hesitancy...

 

[ccooke]

There are mechanics like this...

Look... Nobody can tell you not to do this in your game. That's where you get to have fun doing anything you like.

But conversely, if you ask people "Would you allow this" and you get pretty much universal "No", including from people who usually disagree with each other... maybe you should just accept that this idea may be your fun, but it isn't fun for most of us, and no matter what justifications you bring about, it's going to remain something that we think of as broken and overpowered. There is simply no way that I and many of the people here would allow something generic like this.

So. I strongly suggest that you either accept that you don't need any justifications to enjoy this in your own games, or you try to think about what limitations you could place on the idea to have it be something that people in general would accept. If the former, you look to have got the answer to the question you opened this thread for. If the latter... well, there are things we could discuss.

 

[Inanity]

No, you're fundamentally not understanding the rules, and trying to cheat them/break them.

That's what you're doing here. This isn't a "red herring", this is you not understanding 5E's action economy, or how actions work, on a really, really basic level.

Yeah, you can lie and pretend that anything is a reaction to something, but that's obviously abusing the concept of a reaction to the point where it's ridiculous. The only time in 5E where you get to specify any trigger you want is with Ready, and that is very limited, and if the trigger isn't hit, you don't get your go. You don't get to say "Uh this spell was triggered by me uh feeling I uh wanna cast a spell I guess..." or the like.

We have triggers that sound like "when a creature within 30ft makes an attack roll" (a bloodhunter ability). Well I CAN TRIGGER THAT MYSELF BY HITTING MY LEG if I wanted)... "when a creature drinks a potion" is surely a good trigger "when a craeture ues [insert object]" is a fine trigger

EDIT: it is a red herring because (i) I have recognized the issue and (ii) it is easy to fix!

 

[Inanity]

We have triggers that sound like "when a creature within 30ft makes an attack roll" (a bloodhunter ability). Well I CAN TRIGGER THAT MYSELF BY HITTING MY LEG if I wanted)... "when a creature drinks a potion" is surely a good trigger "when a craeture ues [insert object]" is a fine trigger

EDIT: it is a red herring because (i) I have recognized the issue and (ii) it is easy to fix!

I can just USE READY spell mechanics actually and make the spell 1 action... (I would have to reword itof course)

 

[jaelis]

We have triggers that sound like "when a creature within 30ft makes an attack roll" (a bloodhunter ability). Well I CAN TRIGGER THAT MYSELF BY HITTING MY LEG if I wanted)... "when a creature drinks a potion" is surely a good trigger "when a craeture ues [insert object]" is a fine trigger

EDIT: it is a red herring because (i) I have recognized the issue and (ii) it is easy to fix!

The issue isn't so much that you didn't include a trigger in the write up, it is that 5e uses reactions for things that are legitimately triggered by some circumstance. "When you drink a potion", something relevant to the potion occurs. You are abusing the mechanic because casting anyspell isn't related to any obvious triggering event in the game world, it seems that you are just using it to game the action economy.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

We have triggers that sound like "when a creature within 30ft makes an attack roll" (a bloodhunter ability). Well I CAN TRIGGER THAT MYSELF BY HITTING MY LEG if I wanted)... "when a creature drinks a potion" is surely a good trigger "when a craeture ues [insert object]" is a fine trigger

EDIT: it is a red herring because (i) I have recognized the issue and (ii) it is easy to fix!

The Blood Hunter has some seriously bad design. I commented on this in another thread. It's a badly-designed third-party class, that is only on Beyond because Critical Role was cool at the time (and Critical Role IS cool but Matt Mercer is NOT particularly good at designing classes, mechanically).

And no, you can't trigger that by hitting your leg, because that doesn't require an attack roll. Nor does touching your friend to cast a spell on them. But yeah, that's bad design.

You have to get rid of the Reaction element. You say it's a "easy to fix". Yeah by removing it and replacing it with an Action or Bonus Action. Which last I looked, you haven't done.

 

[jaelis]

IMO it would be an improvement to just drop the reaction and have it use the casting time of whatever spell you are duplicating. Obviously that doesn't help the balance issue, but I don't think it hurts it much either, and at least then the base mechanics aren't so problematic.

 

[Inanity]

IMO it would be an improvement to just drop the reaction and have it use the casting time of whatever spell you are duplicating. Obviously that doesn't help the balance issue, but I don't think it hurts it much either, and at least then the base mechanics aren't so problematic.

Well I ADDED THE REACTION TO B A COST (A TAX on your action economy; its intended as a severe limit to its power.... but more Ithi about i I am going to integrate ready spell mechanics into the spell and make it an action and specifiy a PARTICULAR DYNAMIC between ready spel and this spell; if oyu ready this spell you can use you rection anytime at the end of a reatures round etc.... it will functioally equal the same thng 1 action+1 reaction to use an ation spel..,. But i want to use bonus actio spells with it so ill have t thin about the wording; i see your point about not having a weird adhoc trigger (although I wouldnt mind making it the sae trigger as counterspell really...