D&D 5E Companion thread to 5E Survivor - Subclasses (Part XV: The FINAL ROUND)

[CleverNickName]

Woops, forgot that this was the actual Survivor thread and not the commentary one. I've added spoiler tags to my post. Sorry 'bout that.

EDIT: Nevermind, I'm just punch-drunk from a long week. Is it game time yet?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Woops, forgot that this was the actual Survivor thread and not the commentary one. I've added spoiler tags to my post. Sorry 'bout that.

EDIT: Nevermind, I'm just punch-drunk from a long week. Is it game time yet?

Tomorrow, game time tomorrow...

 

[CleverNickName]

Tomorrow, game time tomorrow...

Not here; my next game starts in 3-1/2 hours. Five little baby 1st level characters are getting to go through their first little dungeon crawl!

They're always so adorable at this age.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Not here; my next game starts in 3-1/2 hours. Five little baby 1st level characters are getting to go through their first little dungeon crawl!

They're always so adorable at this age.

I have to wait about 16 hours before I get to play tomorrow.

At least I am not DMing, though.

 

[CleverNickName]

"Aw, come on little guy! You can do it! Bash that mean old Mister Skeleton! Who's a little hero? You are! Yes you are!"

 

[EzekielRaiden]

"It's not a crossbow! It's a cantrip! It does 1d8 points of piercing damage on a hit, and requires a crossbow bolt as a material component. Why is that so hard to understand? Stop calling it a crossbow!"

Can it be counterspelled?
Does it stop working completely (not just not getting bonuses) in an antimagic field?
Does it have a casting time?
Do you use the Cast a Spell action to use it?
Does it have somatic and/or verbal components?

If yes to any of these (but especially the first and second), then yes, it is absolutely 100% a spell. It's a spell that crudely mimics physically firing a crossbow, but it is unequivocally a spell and not merely firing a crossbow.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Can it be counterspelled?
Does it stop working completely (not just not getting bonuses) in an antimagic field?
Does it have a casting time?
Do you use the Cast a Spell action to use it?
Does it have somatic and/or verbal components?

If yes to any of these (but especially the first and second), then yes, it is absolutely 100% a spell. It's a spell that crudely mimics physically firing a crossbow, but it is unequivocally a spell and not merely firing a crossbow.

How often do you actually see anti magic in play?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I dunno, you'll have to ask the DM.
(this is my answer to 99.99% of all questions about the rules)

And that's the problem.

It's my favorite rule in 5E.

And it is by far the part of 5e I hate the most. Hate is not casually chosen here. I legitimately despise this.

Because it means 5e is explicitly and intentionally the "rug pull" edition. Enjoy having everything rewritten on a whim! Unless, of course, you play a caster. Because spells should always work as advertised. Play a martial? Hahahahah get bent.

There is nothing in the game that can't be "subject to DM fiat."
Some DMs are more subtle than others, and the best ones aren't even noticeable, but no part of the game is out of the DM's reach. And whether this is a good thing or a bad thing will depend entirely, like everything else, on the DM.

And here's my second most hated part: illusionism and active deception. Don't bother being honest or sincere with your players. Players lack the wit and wisdom to truly produce good gaming experiences. So do not actually tell the truth to them. You know better than they do what "fun" is and how to have a good time. Herd them, as they are in need of herding, but don't let them know you herd them, because it will hurt their feelings, even though you're only doing it for their own good.

 

[CleverNickName]

I'm sure you figured it out by now, but I was being facetious.

I will never understand the argument against wizards with crossbows. For some folks, a wizard with a weapon is a character design flaw. And for others, the lack of a weapon is the real problem. I don't really have a problem with either. It seems like you do, however, and that's fine. I'm not here to change anyone's mind.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'm sure you figured it out by now, but I was being facetious.

I will never understand the argument against wizards with crossbows. For some folks, a wizard with a weapon is a character design flaw. And for others, the lack of a weapon is the real problem. I don't really have a problem with either. It seems like you do, however, and that's fine. I'm not here to change anyone's mind.

It's more about the iconography.

The wizard with a crossbow is 'iconic' because of a quirk of a casting system that doesn't line up with most fantasy except this one sci-fantasy story Gygax liked.

Meanwhile, the iconic wizard's weapon is magic or the implements thereof like the staff of the wand (something else D&D does really wonkily). Heck, if the crossbow was somehow magical and did magiky things, but that's not the case.

Plus, thanks to the magic of ~verisimilitude~, crossbows suck as weapons for characters not specced into them. so you're not just not getting to play the character you're trying to play, you're getting to be the worst character in the party to boot. Yay! Excitement!

A wizard in popular culture who is out of spells is a wizard who is tapped out, injured and too tired to do anything else. A traditional faux-Vancian wizard is an empty gun that needs to be a club now.