Don Durito
Hero
Deleted as the post I was responding to was edited to be not quite so pointless.
Last edited:
I mean, if you can provide no proof of why it is a false dichotomoy then this will be as far as your discussions will go. Good for you?Is too.
![]()
If you check back you'll note I edited my response even before I saw the reply as I could already see this line of discussion would end up being utterly tedious.I mean, if you can provide no proof of why it is a false dichotomoy then this will be as far as your discussions will go. Good for you?
Since Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations it has been hard to argue for definitions of games that go further than - this is what we normally count as the given game.If you check back you'll note I edited my response even before I saw the reply as I could already see this line of discussion would end up being utterly tedious.
I'd urge you to reflect more on the constitutive nature of game rules, and what they bring to your game. You mentioned before a false dichotomy, but here you appear to be relying on one.I just find the idea of a baseline for the hobby that is not fundamentally about creating your own stuff utterly dreary.
Dreary you say? Ohh my, we can't have that. However it helps to have an established baseline so the rest of us can have a fruitful discussion. So if you don't mind we'll just stick to the one we've been using for 5+ years now?If you check back you'll note I edited my response even before I saw the reply as I could already see this line of discussion would end up being utterly tedious.
I just find the idea of a baseline for the hobby that is not fundamentally about creating your own stuff utterly dreary.
That will be homebrew then.Dreary you say? Ohh my, we can't have that. However it helps to have an established baseline so the rest of us can have a fruitful discussion. So if you don't mind we'll just stick to the one we've been using for 5+ years now?
Homebrew is, by definition, a variation on the baseline. Not the baseline itself.That will be homebrew then.
Yup, it's exactly right: "While manifested, the spectral mind can hear and see, and it has darkvision with a range of 60 feet. The mind can telepathically share with you what it sees and hears (no action required)". "Whenever you cast a wizard spell on your turn, you can cast it as if you were in the spectral mind’s space, instead of your own, using its senses."On the other hand, I agree with his call that Manifest Mind is strong. Extra range is almost always incredible. It also seems like you don't need LOS to the spot you manifest it in, and then gain LOS from that spot (does that sound right?!)
It looks fairly clunky to move (it can't dash with you), and can only be manifested once between long rests without expending a spell slot.Yup, it's exactly right: "While manifested, the spectral mind can hear and see, and it has darkvision with a range of 60 feet. The mind can telepathically share with you what it sees and hears (no action required)". "Whenever you cast a wizard spell on your turn, you can cast it as if you were in the spectral mind’s space, instead of your own, using its senses."
Which is why the original artificer version was so broken - that version had unlimited attacks and was virtually indestructible. So you could send it out to clear the dungeon whilst everyone sits in a nice safe secure room. The limited use of spells and vulnerability to Dispel Magic makes it not-broken, but it's still very strong. Send it out on it's own as an assassin, or send into to the middle of a horde of enemies and let off those short range AoEs that are so difficult for a squishy wizard to use effectively.
Well it can't be that. Unless 5 years ago you were looking into the future and making use of the hardcovers that had yet to be published.Dreary you say? Ohh my, we can't have that. However it helps to have an established baseline so the rest of us can have a fruitful discussion. So if you don't mind we'll just stick to the one we've been using for 5+ years now?
What are you on about? Do you really think that absurd leap from logic is a good argument? Or is it really that hard to comprehend that the baseline might change from time to time (as it just did with TCoE)?Well it can't be that. Unless 5 years ago you were looking into the future and making use of the hardcovers that had yet to be published.
If the published adventures are your baseline then it's one that's constantly shifting.
Unless you think WotC have some unpublished set of rules they are using for the distribution of treasure in their adventure paths.
You also end up in this weird place where the whole thing is completely and utterly meaningless to anyone who doesn't use the adventure paths.
You simple can't go digging into the adventure paths to find some kind of virtual equivalent to the wealth by level of previous editions. It doesn't make any sense.
Are you asking me if I understand something that was explicitly said in the very post you just quoted?What are you on about? Do you really think that absurd leap from logic is a good argument? Or is it really that hard to comprehend that the baseline might change from time to time (as it just did with TCoE)?
No he's right. Either your words inadvertently badly misrepresented the meaning of what you were hoping to convey or you are suggesting that the past hardcovers can't be used as examples of baseline campaigns for purposes of discussion today because they didn't exist 5+ years ago or wotc might have secret guidelines they aren't sharing that we should be using instead. Such guidelines would be great for baseline purposes and have the added benefit of giving a player or gm something to compare the current game against... but we don't have those secret guidelines you allude to. Your post was such a twisted bit of illogic that I assumed I was misreading something I'd need to let stew a bit on the brain to make it click but from your more recent post it does't sound like there's some meaning that needs to click.Are you asking me if I understand something that was explicitly said in the very post you just quoted?
In any case, you're obviously going out of your way to be unpleasant so I'm done interacting with you.
That's my main issue with it. I think it had some great abilities for a generalist but I can't stand the sentient spellbook, not what I want from a more generalist wizard.I don't have the book yet, but unfortunately it doesn't sound like it's going to satisfy my desire for a generalist wizard at all. It's so over the top with its new super- magic sentient spellbook, and features that invalidate standard wizard functioning assumptions that I don't even think I can easily salvage it to make use of the few features it has that would work.
(The reason using Evoker as generalist isn't terribly satisfying is that it is the specialist of the evocation school, and not specializing in a school is exactly what a generalist is about.)
I think there's something everyone is missing here. One with the Word is not a revive ability as the original post seems to confuse it with. It prevents all damage, meaning that for one turn you are invincible. You could face-tank a dragon, jump off a mountain, walk through lava (though I guess your equipment would get burned). Regardless, there are plenty of situations in which this could be a great ability.The level 14 feature, One with the word, is a step further in the 5 minutes workday.
A long rest won’t be enough! 1d6 days, but even the gritty realistic wont be satisfied!
Why? Is he running your game?I would like Crawford to provide an official ruling on the ink cost.
I bet that anyone from wotc would probably do, he's just the one who normally does. If wotc says it's intended then there's some justification for it being RAI that fell victim to natural language. If wotc says it's not intended then the only change is that hope can be directed elsewhereWhy? Is he running your game?
I bet that anyone from wotc would probably do, he's just the one who normally does. If wotc says it's intended then there's some justification for it being RAI that fell victim to natural language. If wotc says it's not intended then the only change is that hope can be directed elsewhere