D&D 5E (2024) Poll: How good are the new Arcana Unleashed Adept Feats?

[UngeheuerLich]

Strictly speaking RAW 5.5 only seems to work.

BUT yeah rules lawyer I can see Paul's point.

Lvl 4 gane invention domain cleric and wold magic sorcerer both took conjuration adept.

Cloud of daggers is conjuration.

It says invisible. Note that conditions in 5.5 are printed bold. So this is just the normal english word.

A case of:
This spell is imba...
But there are a lot of counters RAW...
... nah they do not work, because some weird rules interaction This spell is just imba and breaks our game...

By all means, use the interpretation that does not destroy your game.

 

[Zardnaar]

It says invisible. Note that conditions in 5.5 are printed bold. So this is just the normal english word.

Yeah for me its ask the DM territory.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yeah for me its ask the DM territory.

Or the "how do players feel if it used againt them" territory.

 

[Silam]

Or the "how do players feelnif it used againt them" territory.

I would wager that players are much more likely than monsters to pack Misty Step on their character sheets, so "on average" they’ll come out ahead by saying that MS pierces through WoF

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I would wager that players are much more likely than monsters to pack Misty Step on their character sheets, so "on average" they’ll come out ahead by saying that MS pierces through WoF

Probably yes. But optimizers tend to cry foul when the DM uses their own tactics/loopholes against them.

 

[Maxperson]

Not the same thing, but the one - full cover - explicitly prevents the other - seeing. This is in the rules, which don't make any distinction between transparent and opaque full cover.

There are, of course, other things that might interfere with seeing a target, full cover is only one of them.

Specific still beats general. Invisible still means it can't be seen. RAW still lets you Misty Step past the Wall of Force.

You are arguing that a wall that cannot be seen, still blocks sight to the other side, making the wall be seen.

You can in fact see through an invisible wall of force. It's not visible to block vision, and the specific invisibility portion of the Wall of Force spell overrides the general cover rules.

Total cover just prevents targeting of things behind it and Misty Step has no target, so is unaffected by that portion.

 

[SkidAce]

This is not true in the 5.5E rules. The rules on Line of Sight don't mention cover at all and the rules on Cover don't mention being able to see through or not see through it at all. These are two completely different things in the 5.5E rules and nowhere in 5.5E does it say that cover blocks sight or that you can not see through cover.

Also, the method in the DMG for using lines to determine Cover and Line of Sight between two squares on a grid are different. Line of sight is determined using one line from one corner of one square to any part of the other square (side, center, anywhere). Cover is determined by measuring a line from one corner of one square to all 4 corners of the other square.



They absolutely do make a very specific distinction between seeing and having cover. These two things in different sections of the rules. Saying Cover and Line of Sight are the same thing in 5.5E is like saying Weapons and Spells are the same thing; they very much are NOT the same thing.

Line Of Sight is one paragraph on page 45 of the DMG, and that paragraph does not mention cover at all. This is the only place Line of Sight is mentioned at all AFAIK. Cover is detailed at least 4 different places in the PHB and the DMG and the sections on cover do not mention Line of Sight or seeing the target at all.

A Window or a Stone wall, or an invisible creature, all provide cover, but you can see through two of those and not the third. All three of those things can provide cover, but only the Stone Wall can break Line of Sight. That the rules don't explicitly say you can see through transparent cover is meaningless, because that is the definition of transparent. The rules also don't say you can see through air, but you can!

The rules on cover don't mention transparent or opaque cover because sight is meaningless for cover. The rules on Line of sight do mention things blocking vision, because that is what matters for Line of Sight. For example the rules on Line of Sight mention fog specifically, and it is because Fog breaks line of sight, but it obviously provides no cover at all.

Very well laid out explanation.

 

[Maxperson]

This. Paul's using 5.0 stuff.

I reread 5.5 several times over. Same conclusion as you.

His argument doesn't work in 5e, either.

Total Cover still only prevents targeting as part of the clear path to the target rules. Misty Step still has no targeting requirement. Wall of Force is still invisible, and therefore impossible to see without True Sight or something. You can still see the other side just fine.

 

[Maxperson]

It says invisible. Note that conditions in 5.5 are printed bold. So this is just the normal english word.

A case of:
This spell is imba...
But there are a lot of counters RAW...
... nah they do not work, because some weird rules interaction This spell is just imba and breaks our game...

By all means, use the interpretation that does not destroy your game.

They also say invisible condition. Hiding grants(stupidly in my opinion) the invisible condition. The invisibility spell grants the invisible condition. Wall of Force doesn't get the invisible condition. It's simply invisible(can't be seen).

 

[Maxperson]

I would wager that players are much more likely than monsters to pack Misty Step on their character sheets, so "on average" they’ll come out ahead by saying that MS pierces through WoF

Yep, and I'm not going to ask the players at all. Just like I wouldn't ask them if Fireball works on both them and monsters, or Cone of Cold. RAW allows Misty Step to bypass Wall of Force in both 5e and 5.5e, so it does. Both the players and monsters can do it.