D&D 5E Pew Pew magic......AHHHHHHH! Make martials all day swingers and casters limited per day slingers.

[Mistwell]

[self-removed]

 

[Morrus]

Well you can let yourself out. The rest of us will continue discussing pew pew magic.

Stop referring to it as "pew pew magic". It drips with hostility. You are aware it causes arguments, and your point can be made without being a jerk. I've already asked you once to stop being a jerk. Last warning.

 

[Jacob Marley]

Thanks, but I don't think it's a question relevant to anyone other than Forever Slayer. He's the guy enraged over this, in like 20 different threads, so I think it's fair to ask him why he's not OK with simply houserulling it like he's done for things in other versions of the game. You know, since he raised his acceptance of houseruling.

The question of why it is acceptable to overwrite the rules as written in one instance, but annoying in another is an interesting discussion and worthy of pursuing beyond [MENTION=91812]ForeverSlayer[/MENTION]'s specific complaint. I think I get where he is coming from, and thought it worth posting. Maybe I should have split that discussion off to another thread?

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Stop referring to it as "pew pew magic". It drips with hostility. You are aware it causes arguments, and your point can be made without being a jerk. I've already asked you once to stop being a jerk. Last warning.

So what about all the other guys that are being jerks around here?

Mistwell is the one who starts trouble on these threads. Pew pew reference is all over these threads. It's a common reference at this point.

 

[Mistwell]

You are looking at casting time which is not the same thing.

When a wish creates or improves a
magic item, you must pay twice the normal
XP cost for crafting or improving the item,
plus an additional 5,000 XP.

So the spell still requires the crafting rules. XP cost is still a part of the crafting rules.

So while the efreet would not have to pay the Wish XP cost, it says nothing about not having to pay the XP cost of the item created. A DM could rule this either way.

And you are looking at the spell not the spell-like requirements. No components required for a spell-like ability. Nor does it say "requires the crafting rules". It says everything it requires. If it required actually crafting the item, it would be a meaningless entry as YOU WOULD JUST CRAFT THE ITEM. In order for you to add words to the requirements, such as "and you have to follow all the crafting rules" you would need to houserule it.

So yes, a DM could rule that way, but only if that DM is willing to houserule it.

And if you are OK houseruling this, why are you not OK houseruling cantrips?

 

[ForeverSlayer]

And you are looking at the spell not the spell-like requirements. No components required for a spell-like ability. Nor does it say "requires the crafting rules". It says everything it requires. If it required actually crafting the item, it would be a meaningless entry as YOU WOULD JUST CRAFT THE ITEM. In order for you to add words to the requirements, such as "and you have to follow all the crafting rules" you would need to houserule it.

So yes, a DM could rule that way, but only if that DM is willing to houserule it.

And if you are OK houseruling this, why are you not OK houseruling cantrips?

Stay on the topic.

 

[Fanaelialae]

If you're okay with a wizard with a crossbow firing every six seconds for 16 straight hours, then let them cast Ray of Frost for the same period.

If you rule that there are limits to firing a crossbow, apply those same limitations to cantrips.

At-will doesn't have to mean effortless, unless you choose to interpret it that way.

 

[Morrus]

So what about all the other guys that are being jerks around here?

Mistwell is the one who starts trouble on these threads. Pew pew reference is all over these threads. It's a common reference at this point.

Thanks for making it easy. Talking back to moderation; take a week off. It seems to be a day for troublemakers to provide their own rope today.

 

[Mistwell]

The question of why it is acceptable to overwrite the rules as written in one instance, but annoying in another is an interesting discussion and worthy of pursuing beyond [MENTION=91812]ForeverSlayer[/MENTION]'s specific complaint. I think I get where he is coming from, and thought it worth posting. Maybe I should have split that discussion off to another thread?

Naw, you raise a fair point and I shouldn't have dismissed it.

In this instance, I think they want the at-will cantrips because of feedback they received during the closed playtest, the open playtest, the polling articles, paid consultant feedback, and the internal authors and editors liking it. That's a lot of movement towards that type of rule being in the game as the default.

 

[Minigiant]

Really this is all the fault of their being no core setting.

So there is room for Daily magic, Atwill magic, rechargeable magic, at will fighting, rechareable fighting, dailmagic, and everything between.

Because I want resource management without being a squishy mage or a diety strapped cleric, dog.