Search results

What needs to be clarified? You clearly get 5th level slots that replenish on a short rest. You clearly get the Mystic Arcanum to cast higher level spells. What part needs to be clarified?

Hi, Thanks for this listing. I think it would be great if you expanded it to also include an index of the Sage Advice columns.

Its not about allowing or not allowing. It is about allowing or not allowing under which specific conditions. Can he do it if no one knows he is back there? Of course. What if someone knows he is back there? What if somene watches him go back there? What if he did this before, 6 seconds ago...

Ummm.... no you won't. You will pretty much never see a buttspike used from the second rank... it just doesn't work that way. Besides, the field battle is a horrible place to look. Try the bridge, or maybe Town battles. Fighting from the second rank with a reach weapon makes perfect sense...

Hmmm..... an instructor with Ranger training that was 'into weapons' creamed someone that had 'no idea what they were doing'..... Maybe the issue was not 'reach'.......

Hi bolded the important part. As a wizard, you only have permission to use spell slots to cast wizard spells. So if you use Magic Initiate to learn a wizard spell, you can cast it with your spell slots. If you used MI to learn a sorc/druid/etc spell....then you can't use your slots to cast it...

Maybe next time you want to attack someone's post... you should bother to actually *read* the post first. Since you are *agreeing* with everything I said, and have been saying.....

Which is exactly why I think sorcerers should get access to more metamagic than they do now. They only get a few spells, so they should have a lot of options on how they cast them.

I am not as concerned with the number of known spells..... I think they should get the metamagic choices faster and more.... limited spells is fine, but they should be able to cast them many different ways, not just the big 2 or 3.

It is also a typical result of people going off without reading the entire errata, and others trying to create problems that don't exist.

Yes, which is exactly what I said. That particular *casting* of the spell only targets one creature. But the *spell* itself does not target only one creature. Nope, the requirement is it targets "only one creature". Does it target more than one? nope. There is no requirement that 'one...

You need to check the wording of the spells. BOth Blinding and Branding trigger from *hitting* the target. You hit the wizard, the damage was just applied elsewhere. So the conditions still trigger. If a spell has a condition that triggers off of 'damaging' a target, then it would not trigger.

Of course it was ambiguous.... that is exactly why it needed errata. The point is the rule has always been the same, it was just written in a way that lead to misunderstandings.

And you have proven that you misunderstand the written rule. "targets only one creature" is a requirement of the *spell* selected, not just that particular casting of the spell. The rule has always been the same, many people interpreted it correctly, you interpreted it incorrectly. The Errata...

No. it is in the errata, but people are more intent on impersonating Chicken Little "Oh Noes, the Rules are falling!!" Check the errata you are complaining about, third column under Combat - Melee Attacks. The rules work just fine....

I had not considered that..... that could be a downer. OTOH.... thinking about it.... it might also help build the tension. As people wait to see who is next, you flip the card and..... haha not telling yet! But that may also play out as annoying..... hhmmmm..... Another possibility is I...

If I ever try this (doesn't fly in AL) I think I will start with one card per +1 dex bonus.... just to try it. But I am thinking it may be too bloated. I think your method is likely a better compromise. On thought, you could put the break points on the odd numbers. (I like to think of ways to...

Yes they were, because some folks thought you could twin Magic Missile.... which you can't, and couldn't. But some folks interpreted the rule wrong and thought you could. They didn't understand that "targets one creature" was a characteristic of the spell itself, as opposed to a characteristic...

Sneak attack never worked with unarmed strike... it was never a finesse weapon.

Ding DIng.... we have a winner. People are looking for some way to declare these changes as 'stupidbadwrong' and are trying to create problems that simply don't exist.