D&D 5E Counterspell nerfed!

[Maxperson]

Unarmed strikes are a really unclear area of the game, which honestly does not bother me since we have always considered it silly to train specifically for unarmed in a world where monsters can be made of lava, fire, acid, poison, etc. But if it's a spell attack, how does it not fall into the category of mentioning a spell ?

Wait, wait. Upthread you belittled 3% of encounters as being insignificant, but now it's "silly" to train in unarmed due to less than 1%? That's fantastic!

 

[Lyxen]

ROFL Now you're going to try and say that Innate Spellcasting somehow makes a difference to this discussion? You can counterspell the innate spells, so it applies equally. Give me a freaking break. You'll go to any lengths to try and avoid being wrong.

This is funny considering the length to which you attack my character about supposed strawmen in a vain effort to stop being proven wrong on subject after subject, instead of answering topics in a factual fashion. Or just dropping subjects quietly...

As for the innate spellcasting, all the other arguments are still totally valid to show why this is almost irrelevant, these are in general less powerful spells and not damaging ones, as demonstrated by the actual statblocks themselves.

Irrelevant. Power is the key, not damage. They are taking the strongest spells and turning them into actions. All of them have offensive spells.

No. Just read the book, OK ? All those who have been transformed are damaging spells, and by far not the most powerful ones. Want a simple example, look at Z. (we all know who this is), did they transform Maze or Wish ?

Whereas I'm going by what the designer said. You're just trying to extrapolate in a way that makes him a liar. Which of us is most likely correct?

And I'm going by actual proof of what has been written. So suddenly, you are no longer "mister RAW" around here ? And JC is no longer an inconsistent idiot from your perspective ? Interesting the lengths to which you will go...

Barlgura has two offensive spells and the Mind Flayer has one.

Yep, offensive but not damaging ones. As for the Mind Flayer, it goes with what I've told you elsewhere, it's not a question of power, it's a question of damage and helping the newer DMs with choosing their actions.

And it's still THREE PERCENT at most...

 

[Maxperson]

And it's still THREE PERCENT at most...

cough Unarmed combat and their "silly" less than 1% cough

 

[Lyxen]

Wait, wait. Upthread you belittled 3% of encounters as being insignificant, but now it's "silly" to train in unarmed due to less than 1%? That's fantastic!

It's not about statistical probability, it's about the belief that someone would actually go down in a dungeon expecting to fight with his bare hands against whatever you can find in there. It's as ugly as it is ridiculous, but that's just me.

 

[Lyxen]

cough Unarmed combat and their "silly" less than 1% cough

Yes, we all know how you lack arguments for this specific thread, thanks for pointing that out twice in a row.

 

[Mort]

It's not about statistical probability, it's about the belief that someone would actually go down in a dungeon expecting to fight with his bare hands against whatever you can find in there. It's as ugly as it is ridiculous, but that's just me.

1. Assume that monks essentially have Iron Fist like powers for their hands; or
2. Monks use weapons too and then "harder" less flammable parts of their body; or, easiest of all
3. Best not to think about it, it's IS silly, but the point is to just have fun with it!

 

[Lyxen]

1. Assume that monks essentially have Iron Fist like powers for their hands; or
2. Monks use weapons too and then "harder" less flammable parts of their body; or, easiest of all
3. Best not to think about it, it's IS silly, but the point is to just have fun with it!

On this specific topic, honestly, it's just personal preferences, and we usually don't have monks in our campaigns, for the above reasons but also because they definitely have a more oriental flavour. While we love oriental games too, having a complete mish-mash of genre is not our thing.

Of course everyone is free to enjoy monks and unarmed combat in their games, just explaining why we don't like them that much and don't use them, that's all. It's a matter of taste.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

By the same ruling, that action is NOT magical

Not quite. One criteria to be magical is replicating a spell.

 

[MerricB]

Not quite. One criteria to be magical is replicating a spell.

Tell me about the "Holy Fire" spell and which rulebook it appears in.

I do believe that requiring a DM to know that an ability is replicating a spell if there's nothing indicating that is the case is terrible design.

 

[Maxperson]

Tell me about the "Holy Fire" spell and which rulebook it appears in.

I do believe that requiring a DM to know that an ability is replicating a spell if there's nothing indicating that is the case is terrible design.

I find the whole distinction between magics to be terrible design as well. This magical effect is background magic that can't be stopped by an anti-magic ray, but that very similar one over there that happens to be the same as a spell can be.