D&D 5E Official D&D Basic Discussion Thread

[Abstruse]

Thing is, if they were listed the way you want it'd take them a lot more paper and-or you a lot more time,

Frankly, I just wish they'd put page numbers next to the class spell lists. Would cut down on a lot of thumbing around.

 

[Venthrac]

Simple house rule: replace "5 feet" with "reach" and you're gold.

I'd make another change, however: "...when there's a foe with intellgence higher than 2 within..." as something mindless e.g. a Zombie isn't going to have enough smarts to intentionally disrupt the shooter, particularly if the shooter has friends nearby and the Zombie has to make a choice.

Lan-"eternity can be defined as the length of time it takes a Zombie to make a decision"-efan

Agreed on the first point, but I don't view the situation quite the same way as you describe. I don't personally see the penalty as the result of an enemy intentionally trying to disrupt the caster so much as the caster being under threat from a foe that's already trying to attack him while he attempts to muster enough concentration to cast and aim a spell: surely no small feat when a zombie or giant insect is trying to bite your arm off.

 

[Venthrac]

Frankly, I just wish they'd put page numbers next to the class spell lists. Would cut down on a lot of thumbing around.

Seriously.

If you're the same Abstruse who writes for AICN, I enjoyed reading your review earlier today. I thought it was fair, informative and demonstrated the same enthusiasm that I have for the new edition.

 

[Abstruse]

Seriously.

If you're the same Abstruse who writes for AICN, I enjoyed reading your review earlier today. I thought it was fair, informative and demonstrated the same enthusiasm that I have for the new edition.

That's me. Thought I had my sig updated on here.

 

[Jack99]

So ranged attacks made with spells and weapons have disadvantage when there's a foe within 5 feet of the attacker who is not incapacitated and who can see the attacker.

I don't remember this rule being in the playtest. Did I just miss it?

That is kind of huge. It gives characters a way to really hinder enemy casters and archers. I love it. If I had any gripe about 5E during the playtest it was that spell-casters seemed to dish out a lot of damage and there were no attacks of opportunity to discourage them. Nice to finally have some kind of deterrent in the rules.

However, I wish the rule had been worded differently, because enemies that have reach should not need to be within 5 feet to distract the spellcaster.

Yes and no. It was in one or more of the older versions of the playtest. I for one am glad it is back.

 

[gambler1650]

I agree with Venthrac on what the disruption of ranged weapon atatcks and spellcasters represents. If I'm a spellcaster with light armor, and there's a zombie within 5 feet, you can be SURE I'll be distracted. I don't care that it isn't very smart.

 

[d20Dwarf]

Spiritual Weapon states:

• "At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd level or higher, the damage increases by 1d8 for every two slot levels above the 2nd."

Should that be for every one slot level above 2nd or every two slot levels above 1st?

Or am I misunderstanding something? As written casting it at 3rd is pointless.

 

[skotothalamos]

Spiritual Weapon states:

• "At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd level or higher, the damage increases by 1d8 for every two slot levels above the 2nd."

Should that be for every one slot level above 2nd or every two slot levels above 1st?

Or am I misunderstanding something? As written casting it at 3rd is pointless.

The rules simply tell you how the magic works. You are not required to cast your spells in the most efficient manner.

Casting it at 5th, 7th, and 9th would also be "pointless." Unless you were out of 2nd, 4th, 6th or 8th-level slots for the day and really needed a Spiritual Weapon.

 

[d20Dwarf]

The rules simply tell you how the magic works. You are not required to cast your spells in the most efficient manner.

Casting it at 5th, 7th, and 9th would also be "pointless." Unless you were out of 2nd, 4th, 6th or 8th-level slots for the day and really needed a Spiritual Weapon.

Hmmm, given that no other spell has this bizarre higher level effect, I'm gonna go with typo.

Other spells go up a damage die per level, so think it's meant to be +1d8 per slot level above 2nd.

 

[skotothalamos]

Hmmm, given that no other spell has this bizarre higher level effect, I'm gonna go with typo.

Other spells go up a damage die per level, so think it's meant to be +1d8 per slot level above 2nd.

Magic Weapon also scales with every other level.

How could someone typo "every two" in place of "each"? That's a serious slip of the finger...