Search results

I didn't dispute that.

Post #92, where you pointed out that I didn't include "on your turn". Maybe you didn't ask for clarification, you added it yourself. Then expounded upon it in post #101. Unnecessarily.

Sneak attacks are not a bonus action. Divine Smite spells are. There is no need to clarify you can't do a Bonus Action on a Reaction, because that's already how things work in the action economy.

Again, the comments you're nitpicking were regarding someone else's statement, not blanket. And I think a reasonable reading of my comment on the action economy would understand that, since I'm talking about the playtest Smite spell, a Bonus Action only happens on your turn. This is another...

Except now you have to have the ability to cast two spells in a round to get that combo to work. Palalocks with quickened spell for the win!

That wasn't part of the argument the person I was responding to was making, and I didn't say everything not the same was an edge case. I completely understand the action economy, and I'm also completely fine with Divine Smite being reigned in from an "every attack" situation to "once per turn".

Then that's a special, one-off case, because none of the core demons and devils have MR that isn't just Advantage on Saves.

No, it doesn't. Magic Resistance just grants advantage on saves vs magic. The vanilla Divine Smite doesn't allow a save. Only some of the other Smite spells involve saves, and they were already spells prior to the playtest, so no change there.

I've never had a DM veto my "re-fluff" of a game mechanic, nor have I ever done so as a GM for a player's re-fluff. The only exception I might make is if a player seeks some mechanical advantage based on their re-interpretation of the ability/spell description, and even then, I usually just nix...

Flex is not just an increase in damage. It’s being able to get the max damage of a two-handed versatile weapon while also getting the benefits of a shield or dual wielding.

Also it’s now limited to once per turn by virtue of being a spell, rather than once per attack in a round. A 5th level paladin currently could get 3 smites a round if they’re hasted.

They are an exception in the playtest version, buried in the text of the spell. One that I think will cause confusion and debate like this.

Except that usually applies to “at the end of your turn” or “after you do X”. But the BA is still its own separate thing. I can’t think of a single case where the bonus action effectively becomes part of your main action. Show me another BA that you take while you’re taking your main action...

Your quoting a consequence of a proposed change I suggested, not a comment on the existing playtest material, which addresses the weirdness of a bonus action happening simultaneously with an attack. No other spells work like that. Some spells have an attack as part of them (before success or...

Not that I can think of. There are spells like booming blade and green flame blade where you cast the spell as part of the attack, and that's a bit unusual, but not quite the same. It might be better to do something like give Divine Smite a duration of "a minute or until discharged", and have...

Moon druid bear looks away, trying not to catch anyone's eye. I'm okay with this if the available monk weapons follow the Unarmed strike damage. Weapons can easily be re-flavored that way, so your "dagger" could be a sai or "long knife" or "short sword" (though this might be a touch more...

One other minor thing: besides maybe needing just a tad more oomph (d8 damage?), Wrathful Smite needs a different name. You're causing a creature to be frightened, so why not Terrible Smite, or even the obvious Fearsome Smite? "Wrathful" should be something that is tied to a retaliatory or...

I'm still not convinced it does. The wording of the spell seems to strongly indicate the damage is part of the same attack, and therefore doubling of damage dice on a crit would still apply. As you hit the target, your strike glows with divine power. The target takes an extra 2d8...

I disagree with the idea that Unarmed Strikes need a Weapon Mastery. I think what Unarmed Strikes do need is to be able to pull off the push, trip, etc. tactical moves that a lot of other classes are getting, but based on Wis or Dex instead of Str. So not a tacked on weapon mastery, but a...

I haven't seen anyone mention the roll-back of the Light Weapon property to requiring a bonus action for your off-hand attack again. I know people were really jazzed about it just being part of a regular attack action last package. EDIT: I see it's part of the Nick special weapon property, so...