Search results

This line of argument fails because it applies equally to the converse position. You're saying, "RAW says that concentration is less or equally strenuous to "eating, reading, etc." because there's no rule that says otherwise." Someone else could say, "RAW says that concentration is more...

He literally said "RAW you can."

This is factually inaccurate. As already pointed out in the first page, you can only benefit from a short rest if you do nothing more strenuous than "eating, drinking, reading, or tending to wounds." Furthermore, there is nothing in the rules that actually explains whether concentrating on a...

This is because there is no actual rules answer to this question. The question, "is concentrating on a spell more strenuous eating, drinking, reading, or tending to wounds?," is simply not answered by the rules and it is up to individual DMs to make a ruling/judgment call.

This sounds fine to me; filter out all the raw combat feats and let first level humans pick from the more seldomly-selected feats. This is a common misconception. While missing out on an ability score increase because you are the odd number below the threshold certainly stings for the first...

It is a gray area. For instance, in Curse of Strahd's Death House, there are doors that are barred with spinning blade traps. They inflict damage from failed saving throws as opposed to attack rolls, so aren't really attacks. When I ran it, I was prepared to rule that Blade Ward would work...

The cantrip would be a bit more useful if it applied to all sources of damage. That way, you could cast it before you attempt to dive through a spinning blade trap, etc. Aside from that, it would be cool if someone like an Abjurer could cast this spell as a bonus action.

Allowing a single classed character to get Eldritch Knight spellcasting on top of Warlock half-casting sounds like a tremendously bad idea.

I agree... perhaps the vision is of a woman's hand penetrating from the surface of a glassy lake, clutching a pristine longsword (though Arthurian Legend skews strongly Archfey as well).

I only read the thread title, skipped reading over a couple of joke suggestions, and posted. Run with "The Shrouded," I just made it up because it sounded cool.

Each of the current official pacts basically represent just three of several creature archetypes: fiends, aberrations, and fey. They match up well with three big sources of power: the lower planes, the far plane, and the feywild. If you want to concoct up some new patrons, you can simply model...

I'll be suggesting something along these lines in the next survey.

You got all that from my lone post directed toward you? I highly suspect you are conflating me with someone else you're having an argument with.

Taking an action to change your weapon does not actually provide you a unique opportunity to use your bonus action spells. That same warlock could have used those exact same bonus-action spells while beating people with his pact weapon. This argument of yours is just simply bad.

I think one of the things that would help bridge the gap between humans and their variant rules would be to let humans get the bonus language and skill proficiency that only variant humans normally get. It is a small concession, but I feel it is an important change.

Is this still directed toward me?

I'm not sure this is a matter of flavor. They can flavor the invocation as being as tentacly and as phallic as they want; that's easily dealt with. My issue was the mechanical choice of locking the weapon into a flail (or greatsword, or mace, or longbow). That has actual mechanical implications...

Then again, it makes it incompatible with the PHB's Great Old One Pact Weapon suggestion of an ancient-looking spear with an eyeball in the haft.

That's what I'm going to say in the follow-up survey: just let warlocks graft the invocation's properties onto any weapon they want.

I was not objecting to the playtest revision process.