Search results

What Bothers Me - Part One: Cantrips I'd like to see most of the damaging cantrips be toned down -- either eliminating the scaling damage or reducing the size of the damage dice (or both). I'm onboard with giving casters magical at-will attacks, but I don't like that they overshadow weapons...

I was going to let it go with a 👍, but now I want to say more. I appreciate that you shared ideas about survival challenges in mythic locales and how you treat spells as technology. These are not ideas that will be useful to everyone, of course, but they’re valuable contributions nonetheless. I...

Hmm. That it’s an inference is completely relevant. It is in fact my point. Reading and interpreting RAW requires inference. There’s little meaning without it. This doesn’t feel like we’re having a conversation, so I’ll be stepping away.

That ... that's an inference. Reading the text, drawing a conclusion that's not stated explicitly in the text.

No, those really aren't comparable and that's not where the logic leads. The rules DO say you can take an additional action on your turn, with no stated restrictions on when during your turn that action takes place. I would like to hear how you answer this question, posed earlier in the thread:

Of course we make inferences when interpreting rules as written. It's a D&D rulebook, not an internally consistent theorem of symbolic logic. Inferences and making conclusions and giving weight to various bits of sometimes contradictory (or missing) information - we all do it. Tell me...

That’s also a reasonable ruling.

That’s a reasonable ruling.

There are very few rules associated with action surge, so this should be easy. When you use extra attack, is it still your turn between your two attack rolls? Yes. Then by RAW you can use action surge at that point. Without an explicit limiter elsewhere in the ruleset, restricting the timing...

How is it? I like some of his stuff quite a bit. Some, not so much. Declare is one of my favorite books.

Fair enough. I can't defend booming blade. But a poorly designed cantrip is just a poorly designed cantrip. Players who get angry about the way you run a D&D game don't need to be at the table, IMO. No revision of the rules will change that.

I dislike booming blade, but I didn't have angry or frustrated players. In the scenario you describe, I'd be quicker to cut the player loose than to prohibit the cantrip.

Yes. Dropping a marker onto the monster's token to remember which target is subject to the boom every turn, making case by case decisions every round about how the target will react to that every turn, and, if it does move, rolling an extra die during the target's turn to do a few more hit...

I've only seen these cantrips in play for a short time. A rogue picked them up with the magic initiate feat and used one or the other with every single melee attack, because why not? It became tiresome very quickly. I imagine it would be the same with an eldritch knight, at least until extra...

My answer: yes, you can! Breaking down a character's turn into actions, bonus actions, reactions, and movement is the tool we use to facilitate orderly resolution of various events in the game. Like the initiative order itself, it's a system of sequential events and resolution of a combat...

In o5e, anything that prevents you from using an action also prevents you from using a bonus action. I don’t know if that applies to A5e.

In this case, "take an OA" means "be targeted by an OA."

Delete. Wrong game.

@Micah Sweet My group isn’t interested in adopting a new player-facing rule set. Are the Level Up exploration rules suited to implement while retaining the 5e class and skill framework? If so, I will want to check it out.

AD&D 1e DMG page 115. Spell Research.