Search results

I am curious how the 2024 monk holds up against 2014 classes. I've been in the camp that the monk was weak in 2014, is it balanced now, or is it OP against toehr 2014 classes I wonder.

and rituals do not need slots. A wizard with no a spell slot left on their person can still do a ritual. My point is, you can't just take a spell, casting it as a ritual to get the casting time to 1 minute+, and throw on circle magic. It has to be a 1 minute+ casting time at base.

These people are your heroes. So when they are like "we are going out there and we are going to beat Galactus"....yep I believe them. And then they come back with "we don't know how to save us....well actually we do, with the sacrifice of 1 life we can save our entire race" and when they refuse...

I think its because people are parents and go so far to protect their kids that they 100% would not get it. To "possibly" save your kid, your going to kill my kid, and my friend's kid, and my neightbor's kid....and the entire human race!!! The problem with morality debates is they tend to...

So a huge thing I just noticed in that article. To be viable for a circle spell, the spell has to have a 1 minute casting time+, and use spell slots (aka no rituals). So these spells are 1 minute long casting time spells normally....that's.....garbage tbh.

Welcome to 4th edition! :) In seriousness, that is most how 4e worked. The rituals were usable more often but they cost gold to use, but the same general outline of what you put above.

yeah that was my reaction. Ok I can do this 1 mile away cool.....wait its still just a 20 foot radius effect? That seems a pretty limited use case.

Just to be fair, I think Maxperson's getting beat up a bit on their side of the argument, but I respect that this really isn't cut and dry. We are getting a bit off topic on some of the nuances of spell and attack and what all of that means. It all comes back to this line: You have Advantage...

Ok, so looks like we agree that True Strike is modifying the attack with magic. So we at least found that area in the middle.

If its not magical guidance, how am I using my magical stat? So I do what I normally do when I aim a ranged spell attack....aka the attack that is guided by magic. And while radiant damage is not a guiding effect....its certainly a magical one.

Guidance allows a cleric to have as good an acrobatics check as the party rogue. The rogue's acrobatics, while good, obeys physical laws. Ergo....Guidance is not a spell.

They definately didn't listen to feedback on those hide rules.....woof!

yes but they would be much weaker arguments. Spell Attack is a technical term the rules use. If a spell doesn't have a spell attack, then its not a spell attack

If the sorc ability had said any spell attack, that would have made it clear that true strike does not work.

I don't find this notion very productive in these discussions. You could say that in response to any complaint. Your car runs bad, well just go learn everything there is about cars and fix it. Its easy! That is a perfectly valid path for some people to walk, but that does not change the core...

I'd love the rules quote that says this. and further, what do you mean its not breaking the mundane law of physics. I am making an attack roll that is based on my "force of personality". Do you know any physics that lets me make an attack better because I'm pretty, or I talk really well? The...

Well said. 5e is simply joining the ranks of past editions. As time goes on, the shine wears off, and we start digging in to the warts. Every edition has them, and I do agree 5e overall is a step up (the closest is epic 6 3e, which is honestly the best version of 3rd edition that limits its...

The problem with the "spell attack" language is..... if it was that cut and dry why not just use that for innate sorcery? When making a spell attack from a sorceror spell, you gain advantage. That would remove any ambiguity. In the abscence of that, we have to take seriously that "attacks of...

So this all goes back to the OP. Where one of the original 5e designers is saying "yes our assumptions about how players play was wrong". If we are taking the OP at their word (and if we are not, then there is nothing to debate in this thread) that implies that a significant portion of the...

This is basically what Pathfinder 2e did. You have 3 "actions", whether its a single attack, moving X, casting a spell, etc. Now in that version some things can take 2 actions, certain spells for example. But the jist of 3 actions in a turn is there.