D&D 5E October 2016 Sage Advise

[IgnatiusJ.Reilly]

I certainly haven't noticed the PHB errata on Glyph of Warding. "The effect needn't be harmful", oh my, now that opens a world of possibility.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

And secondly, this leads to some rather absurd situations like a two-handed Longsword out-critting a Greatsword.

By 1 point at Brutal Critical 2 and 3 points at Brutal Critical 3. I'm not going to tear my hair out over it.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Why would they care if people use the greataxe or not? If it was an issue they'd just make both a d12 (or both 2d6).

Greatsword is more reliable, greataxe is swingier. Lets you choose your style of play.

I doubt they sat around considering weapons when they designed the critical hit rules.

Um... why not? Weapons are after all what the critical hit rules operate on. Give them a little credit.

 

[Corwin]

The 0.5 damage difference between the greatsword and a greataxe is insignificant. It takes the better part of a campaign to roll enough for the bell curve to matter enough for the extra 1/2 damage

I don't think it is beneficial, or accurate, to evaluate these two weapons in a vacuum. There are many system aspects (racial, class, and feat options just off the top of my head, maybe others) that impact how they function. That's important, IMO.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Yes, it gives the Greataxe a niche, but niche protection is largely an outdated philosophy.

It's not "niche protection" to provide two actually different options - like the greatsword with its higher minimum damage, higher average damage, and comparatively more likely to be average or near to it damage, and the greataxe with its lower minimum, lower average, and comparatively higher chances of rolling low or high damage - that gets a further bump in difference if you play a barbarian and choose the axe, which is incentivized because axes are perceived as fighting the barbarian archetype more strongly than swords.

And secondly, this leads to some rather absurd situations like a two-handed Longsword out-critting a Greatsword.

"Absurd" is subjective, as is "out-critting". For instance, comparing 3d10 to 5d6 I know that I would pick the 3d10 because I like the higher chance of getting near the maximum and don't mind the greater risk of getting near the minimum, while my buddy that plays a barbarian would choose the 5d6 because it is less likely to roll below average and has a better "worst" result - the difference primarily being that I believe I am lucky, and he believes his dice hate him.

Going up to 4d10 vs. 6d6, my buddy still wouldn't choose the same as I would - the 4 higher possible damage that I can be hopeful for, doesn't outweigh the 2 higher minimum and better odds of getting around 21 for him.

Why would they care if people use the greataxe or not?

Because why put an option in the game besides so that people use it?

I doubt they sat around considering weapons when they designed the critical hit rules.

I recall one of the WotC guys, I think it was Mearls, saying that the reason the rule worked like it did was to incentivize people playing barbarians that use axes because that's the archetypical D&D barbarian (see, as an example, the barbarian art in the PHB).

 

[Qbert]

They finally fixed the EK can't change the 3rd level spell from any school problem. I had always played it that way and thought that must have been what they intended but it wasn't fixed for so long that i started to wonder.

 

[LordEntrails]

...
The Spiked Armor only being a weapon for Battleragers bit is very strangely worded. ...

Me too. I assume this means that there is something else in concept (another setting or...?) were spiked armor would be usable by more than just Battleragers in the FR.

 

[Prakriti]

True Resurrection (p. 284).
There’s a new sentence at the end of the second paragraph: “If the creature was undead, it is restored to its non-undead form” (6th printing).

That clears up some long-standing questions about how to "cure" undeath. But 25,000 gp... Ouch!

I really dislike this change:

Glyph of Warding (p. 245).
The first sentence clarifies that the magical effect needn’t be harmful. The final two sentences of the first paragraph now read as
follows: “The glyph can cover an area no larger than 10 feet in diameter. If the surface or object is moved more than 10 feet
from where you cast this spell, the glyph is broken, and the spell ends without being triggered” (6th printing).

In my campaigns, the Red Wizards often ward envelopes and scroll-cases against prying eyes. This change completely removes that functionality.

 

[Satyrn]

I really dislike this change:

Glyph of Warding (p. 245).
The first sentence clarifies that the magical effect needn’t be harmful. The final two sentences of the first paragraph now read as
follows: “The glyph can cover an area no larger than 10 feet in diameter. If the surface or object is moved more than 10 feet
from where you cast this spell, the glyph is broken, and the spell ends without being triggered” (6th printing).

In my campaigns, the Red Wizards often ward envelopes and scroll-cases against prying eyes. This change completely removes that functionality.

You already know how to fix this, but let me offer up a suggestion.

Create a new spell called Satyrn's seal of secrecy.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The Glyph of warding needs a tule like in 5th edition that if you stack them they interfere and can easily be detected.