Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 4759594" data-attributes="member: 12731">Okay, so last time someone asked about this, we got one of those mammoth threads where the answer was quickly buried among suggestions, houserules and namecalling... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />So what is the by-the-book, pure RAW, answer to these questions?The word "sustain" means "keep something going". But does it work that way in D&D? Nowhere can I find whether you need to hit with your initial attack for there to be something to sustain or not.Would sustain better be called "delayed secondary effects"? That is, can you sustain a power regardless of whether you hit or not? Whether the power has a "Hit:", "Miss:" or "Effect:" line?My troubles lie in the fact that the power and what happens at the sustain are only sometimes directly connected. For instance, take Hunger of Hadar (p134). A casual reading would make you believe it is the zone you sustain (it ends at the end of your next turn). But the Sustain line mentions nothing of the sort. So this power is only meaningful to sustain for one round, the one directly after initially casting the power?!? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" />Then, take Curse of the Bloody Fangs (same page)? Can you sustain this throughout the encounter regardless of actually hitting with it in the first place? Other sustainable spells are surprisingly clearly written. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid    :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" />Curse of the Black Frost simply and cleanly lay down the ground rules in a way that can't be misinterpreted. I wish all sustainable spells were like this!But where does this leave Crown of Madness, a spell without such language? Comparing it to a spell like the conveniently nearby Avernian Eruption I can only deduce this means that each turn, the caster can use a minor action to inflict the target with an effect that automatically makes it whack its friend until it saves. But the Warlock can keep piling on the effect, so what does it matter that the foe saves? It can easily succumb to a heap of saves.Oh why is this written in such an impenetrable way? Why did WotC use the term "sustain" for something that so seldom seems to be about actually connecting with an effect and then sustaining that effect? <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/rant.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":rant:" title="Rant    :rant:" data-shortname=":rant:" /></blockquote>

Verification