D&D (2024) Warcaster Cheesy Fondue 2024

[Blue]

Because everyone understands (hopefully) it isn't RAI, even if it is RAW.

I agreed with everything you said, except this.

I'm not saying it's definitely rules as intended. But for this to be an accident, then two changes needed to be made, in very different parts of the book. If it was a single change, I'd agree it's likely a mistake. But multiple changes seems harder to be seen as anything except an intentional change.

Now, what would help show it's not RAI is if "hostile" was removed from other places as well, so it might be a global search & replace that they didn't double check. Like the (in)famous Encyclopedia Magicka where they replaced "mage" with "wizard" but didn't limit it to whole words, so every example of "damage" became "dawizard".

But if other "hostiles" are still there, then making two targeted changes in different parts of the book are hard to dismiss as anything except intentional.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I doubt it was actually intended, but Crawford has a history of being unable to admit that they made a mistake and instead insisting that obvious nonsense was intentional, so I'm not sure than an errata is forthcoming...

 

[Guest 7037866]

But if other "hostiles" are still there, then making two targeted changes in different parts of the book are hard to dismiss as anything except intentional.

I agree with @FitzTheRuke:

BTW, I suspect that the only reason that word hostile is missing from both OA and WC is because they specifically mentioned that they did a "brevity" pass on all the rules, and whoever cut the word in both cases probably thought "Why would you beat up an ally for moving past you? OBVIOUSLY it's redundant to say 'hostile' here!"

It's not really telling that the 'change' was intended, just because it's been made in two places. It just means that they didn't notice this rather silly corner-case.

If not, I think the move towards eliminating "offensive" language such as "hostile" from the text is likely the reason.

Any references in the free DNDBeyond to hostile has them with a capital "H" as in "Hostile", which is defined in the Rules Glossary:

I believe all lower-case references were removed intentionally. The text in OA still specifieds "enemies" and "foes" in the text, so I doubt the RAI was for War Caster to buff allies.

 

[FrozenNorth]

The reference to enemies and foes in Opportunity Attack rules to me clearly indicate which creature triggers them.

It frustrates me to no end that RAW means “ignore all references to ‘enemies dropping their guard’ and ‘moving heedlessly past foes’ “.

 

[jayoungr]

you can always argue that it is you who decides, who is and when hostile from your point of view.

You could probably argue that this was technically always possible with 2014 rules by stretching the definition of "hostile"

Why would you want to buff a hostile creature?

 

[mellored]

You can buff an ally already on your turn, so why should all those buffs which otherwise cost you your action become reactions due to making an "Opportunity Attack" against an ally?

You can attack an enemy already on your turn..

The whole "spell attack" instead of OA weapon attack is fine, but IMO should be restricted to cantrips.

Sure. Cantrip could be reasonable.

But even so, it wouldn't make sense that you could shocking grasp an enemy but not guidance on a friend.

Narratively it would be odd if you choose to Haste an enemy anyway.

Not when you can drop concentration at any time...

 

[Guest 7037866]

You can attack an enemy already on your turn..

Not if you are using your action to buff an ally.

Using War Caster this way allows the PC to do "double-duty" as it were. Now, if casting a 1 action spell using your reaction via War Caster meant you didn't have your action on your next turn... that would be fine. You have the option of acting more quickly when the opportunity presents itself instead of waiting until your next turn.

Sure. Cantrip could be reasonable.

But even so, it wouldn't make sense that you could shocking grasp an enemy but not guidance on a friend.

If you restricted it to cantrips you could shocking grasp an enemy or cast guidance on a friend... Both would be possible.

Skimming through the list of cantrips, however, you don't have many options for allies: guidance, message, and resistance were the only applicable cantrips I think?

Not when you can drop concentration at any time...

Yeah, but you can't haste an enemy, so it is a moot point.

 

[ECMO3]

Why would you want to buff a hostile creature?

Haste on an enemy would be pretty debilitating. Haste then end concentration immediately and he can't take actions for a round.

 

[Zardnaar]

Well lots llke no one's really disagreeing on RAW that's mostly what I was wondering about.

RAI who knows. I've got a few more cheesy thing I've noticed so next one might be today or tomorrow.

Showed this one to the resident power gamer. She missed it on the first read through. Had to have 2014 and 24 side by side to compare before she saw it.

 

[mellored]

Yeah, but you can't haste an enemy, so it is a moot point.

Except you previously took out the enemy wizard, took the Actor feat, and cast disguises self to pretend to be them.

And it wouldn't make any sense that haste would work under that specific situation, but not under more normal ones.