Search results

This would be really useful to be able to do. Off the top of my head it feels like a good place to start is to index AoE damage to a level-appropriate baseline for single-target damage. That way, you're not trying to evaluate the impact of 21 damage per target to N targets, which is going to...

I read them as making a stronger claim than that -- that it was an exploit and those who allowed it were bending and twisting the rules for the purposes of gaining an exploit, with, it seemed to me, a clear implication that it was overly powerful to allow it. I don't think anybody would have...

lumenbeing was doing it, which is why the thread became active again.

That's fair. I've rarely had 6 combat days either; just picked it as the low end of the official guideline. 1-2 strikes me as low for an average, though there are certainly days like that. Certainly skews the class balance toward full casters and Paladins though.

Useful perspective! Just for clarification, is this all based on his current strength and sneak attack damage? And assuming rage is active and granting a bonus based on whether barb 5 is assumed? Would be useful to look at level 10 (the earliest he could get extra attack), and compare, say...

I think the damage is fine for the slot level, but the reaction casting time that necessarily happens on your turn is really clunky. I'd rewrite it to work like a supercharged GFB meets ice knife (if ice knife were fire based): Casting time: 1 action Range: Self When you cast the spell you...

There are the rules about how magic works, and there's fluff about how some writers envision magic working in particular settings. But the fluff doesn't actually impact the rules, nor do the rules impact the fluff. A DM (or a player, with the DM's approval) can refluff anything they want...

Ehh, I think you might be going too far with this part. Some spells have fluff in the description. Booming Blade doesn't say it makes a sound (unlike, say, Thunderwave or Shatter), so I read the "booming energy" bit as fluff. But I also don't think anything in this discussion actually rides on...

This is a really nice analysis, Blue. I was just going to point out that martials still want to invest at least to +2 in their attack stat for AC (more for rogues and monks), whereas warlocks and sorcerers (some of whom may not have anything riding on CHA besides spell attacks and DCs), and to a...

Just the fact that the thread is called "passive or active" fighting styles, with many people are arguing that some fighting styles should be both at once. Seemed to me a passive-aggressive style would fit the bill.

You know, it occurs to me that there's a whole design space here that we're overlooking. Passive-Aggressive Style When a creature makes an attack roll against you, you can expend your reaction to tell them that you think it's fine that they're fighting like that if that's what they think is...

What does that have to do with anything? Nobody is suggesting that twinning booming blade would let you attack a target that doesn't exist. You need two targets in range for it to work, just as you would if you were twinning, say, Shocking Grasp or Inflict Wounds. The rules only specify the...

Most spells have requirements you have to perform to cast the spell. Twinning lets you double the ratio of effect to effort. Maybe in this case it does that by halving the effort required to make the attack. "Magic" is as good a justification as anything else when you're talking about what fluff...

What I mean is that the average benefit is about 42% of the benefit of always getting a crit (well, a bit more than that if you let crit dice trigger it too), assuming you're not rolling any extra dice with your attack (this wouldn't apply to Hunter's Mark dice or Smite dice, or Superiority...

One of the main things that balances the blade cantrips is that you can't use extra attack if you use them, since they require the 'cast a spell' action. It's true that by making the casting time one reaction you're imposing a cost in addition to the benefit of being able to stack it with...

This would potentially make it much more powerful, by allowing you to use it with multiple attacks, and pick an attack that hits. The extra cost is your reaction, and never being able to use it on AoOs or readied actions even with war caster, but I think you'd see a lot more martials picking...

Seems messy; you'd be introducing a whole new casting time ("special"). I think if you wanted a spell that was functionally almost equivalent to BB but not twinnable, you could just give it a range of self (radius of 5'), and say that when the spell is cast (rather than "as part of casting this...

I don't see any reason to force the standard array rather than point buy, but for me rolling stats is just too high stakes and uneven for any party that's going to be together for more than a handful of sessions. There are ways to even things out some by generating pools of arrays and that sort...

That's a good point. I also wonder, with the huge variety from table to table in how people handle identifying a spell before you decide to counter it, how obvious it is supposed to be that the sorcerer is twinning a spell. Since knowing that would obviously affect the decision about whether...

I don't know that it's especially susceptible to counterspell... Any twinned spell that gets counterspelled means more resources spent for no effect.