Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 7869980" data-attributes="member: 93670">Why bring up how the darkness spell works?  The tail end of your post <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/philosophy-devils-sight.668991/post-7869903" target="_blank">here</a> (which I quoted) seems to be confused at the relevance of this statement ""I have devils sight so see it normally & ignore magical darkness screw uncertainty for any reason other than the dense obscuring fog".  There is no confusion on my part, the confusion seems to be you wondering why the fact that DS ignores everything but fog is problematic & you seemed especially hung up on magical darkness so I pointed it out.regarding the warlock pact magic slots, your right I looked at the wrong line.  I'm capable of admitting that mistake and fixing it as I just did with an edit.  WotC could have done similar with so many warlock oversights & mistakes still not errata'd five years into 5e... They just haven't & we should reference an obscure tweet from 5 years ago.Why is the boneheaded wording on Pact Magic's "You regain all expended spell slots when you finish a short or long rest" feature a problem?... run AL games for a bit where you will see a parade of new players & ask that question again.  Yes it obviously is not intended to work that way & obviously you recover spell slots based on the rules that are associated with the source of those slots... That doesn't stop hopeful newbies & sometimes people that really should know better from trying to suggest the obvious RAW interpretation.My issue with warlock dip is that so much of warlock is balanced against "well warlocks have limited slots so it needs to be overpowered to offset that" yet WotC Makes zero attempt to avoid the too good 3.5 fighter dip effect with it.  Every class with extra attacks has them linked to their levels in that class for that reason... except warlock Agonizing Eldritch blast.  Everything combined is a pattern that supports the "designer's significant other" mocking over issuing errata over an obscure tweet.  They've even done misleading things like Aspect of the Moon  and should have known fully just how hopeful coffeelocks making their GMs explain why "all extended spell slots" does not include sorcerer slots had sanity checking not been pushed aside with something like "well warlocks have limited spell slots so it's ok if this feature is powerful".</blockquote>

Verification