Search results

Once again I did not design anything in with any intent to conflict with the errata. First, direct substitution has been the reasoning behind my interpretation from the beginning I was attempting to explain by example. Second, when I wrote my first post here I hadn't even considered the errata...

Claiming I'm rewriting the spell with an attempt to design it in such a way to conflict with the errata is both untrue and unhelpful. I am only discussing what the designers intent may be behind using the words [normal effects]. Attempting to interpret how much/little [normal effects] means is...

It was a simple yes or no question independent of anything else to help me understand your position. And I'm still unsure. Do you think the current errata would allow a spell with a description of doing nonmagical slashing damage to do nonmagical slashing damage? If that answer is no I would...

You don't think a spell description calling out the damage as being non magical would be enough to make that damage non magical per the errata? If that is the case I would say your interpretation of the errata is inherently flawed.

Your first part is off the mark as it was a theoretical spell based off how I see the interaction of GFB with a non descript mundane weapon. Your second part seems more in line with what I was talking about but I will rephrase in an attempt to make my position more clear and then move on. I...

I don't understand that logic. If a spell description was written "As part of casting this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within range, otherwise the spell fails. On a hit, the target suffers the attack's non magical bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage...

Good catch, I missed that verbiage slip from the original. For clarity sake he's the relevant texts directly quoted (both are freely available)

Yes a spell is granting you an attack so generally it would be magical but the description itself calls out and exception in that attack doing its "normal effect". If a theoretical spell explicitly called out its effect as nonmagical slashing/piercing/bludgeoning damage the errata wouldn't...

I am aware of the errata but would still say the "normal effect" of the attack includes both the damage die and it being non magical piercing/slashing/bludgeoning damage. Thus providing an exception to the general Errata and JC rules.

Normally I'd say it was magical as but as correctly pointed out the description states "the target suffers the attack's normal effects". That heavily implies the weapon attack of GFB is an exception to the general rule. Therefore I'm going with no.

Now that I think about it if you were to allow ready actions to trigger between multiattack spells I suppose hellish rebuke would to so death would have already been possible? Interesting, I just defaulted to waiting for the spell to finish doing its thing before allowing the reaction. Or does...

Yep, could certainly go either way. Not that he's the rule guy anyway just thought it was interesting. To expand on my curiosity question from my previous post what about being knocked prone, shoved, blocked line of sight (blindness etc), or the target gaining full cover? Granted this only...

Agreed, I've found its generally better not to try to infer more than is explicitly stated in his tweets but it can definitely be taken to mean that he does support all single attacks (even multi attack spells) to be a valid trigger. Whether the trigger you chose is "specific" and "perceivable"...

Not that I saw, I went back through those pages before I posted it. I don't know if seebs just forgot about it or what. off topic: can we please not start that up again

I agree with the points @DEFCON 1 brought up. In addition to that I wouldn't allow a cha modifier mace hand. I might let them refluff a melee spell attack but by allowing a mace to be charisma you are changing a slightly MAD character into a SAD one.

JCrawford and I also use that house rule but the RaW is that you lose the slot www.sageadvice.eu/2015/09/25/how-does-readying-a-spell-work/

If that's all you want seebs tweet already accomplished that https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/675367833069424640 If your DM allows individual rays (attacks)to be triggers then you can go between them. What is or isn't a valid trigger largely left up to the DM, however. I'm on the no...

I have nothing to add to your first two points that I haven't already said, I continue to disagree. As for the ready action

I see the whole situation differently than you from the get go. To me a ready action spell is cast as normal but is held back from materializing (or however magic works in your setting) by the will power (concentration) of the caster. Because it isn't there yet it can't be targeted by dispel...

The by the book reasoning for the concentration is to "hold its energy, which you release with your reaction" and "holding onto the spell's magic requires concentration". I don't feel either classifies as the "magical effect" of a spell on a target. The ready action adds a release step to the...