D&D 5E Treantmonk's Guide to Wizards 5e

[FormerlyHemlock]

I think WoTC could have clarified what qualifies as interplanar travel. All of the Conjure spells say that the creature summoned "disappears when reduced to 0 hp or when the spell expires," so you are correct that we don't know if it just fades into nothing or goes back to its plane of existence. I think more clarification from WotC on that would be helpful in the next Sage Advice or Errata.

True, but not germane to the current topic. Magic Circle clearly does not and is not intended to retain conjured creatures beyond the normal duration of the spell that conjured them; neither do nor can summoned creatures (like uncontrolled elementals) return to their home plane before the conjuration duration is up. ("An uncontrolled elemental can’t be dismissed by you, and it disappears 1 hour after you summoned it." It doesn't have the option to disappear sooner than that because it doesn't have a Plane Shift ability.) Conjuration spell duration and voluntary movement two entirely different things.

 

[Thatwhichlurks]

I went to ask WotC about summoned creatures, magic circles, and Planar Binding. Here's what they had to say (Copied directly from email, not sure how else to prove it, hopefully I don't get in trouble for posting this here).

When asked about using an 4th level Magic Circle to contain a conjured elemental, then casting Planar Binding:


Thank you for contacting Wizards of the Coast!

You are once again correct about the spell interactions here; the 4th level inverted Magic Circle, as described in the Player's Handbook, would indeed keep the conjured elemental from disappearing. I would highly recommend consulting your DM about this interaction as well, however. No matter what is written in the rulebooks or what we say, the Dungeon Master has the final say on how things function in their campaign.

If you have any further questions or run into any more issues, please feel free to reach out to us again. You can reply to this email or you can call us at the phone number listed below during business hours. We’ll be happy to help as best we can.

Take care and may Gygax guide your rolls!

To login to your account or update your question, please click here.

Luke A-S
Online Response Crew
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 9am-5pm PST / 12pm-8pm EST
Saturday-Sunday 9am-5pm PST / 12pm-8pm EST


Looks like it's up to DM about the Conjured Monster/ Magic Circle interaction, which is about what I expected.

 

[CapnZapp]

It's a shorthand for Conjure X. All of the conjuration spells in the PHB have the exact same duration: 1 hour. I could write "elemental/fey/minor elemental/animal" and it wouldn't change anything except adding more letters.

No. It would add clarity. Please don't presume others are knowledgeable about your home abbreviations.

So that it lasts long enough to finish casting, obviously. Because otherwise your conjured elemental/fey/minor elemental/animal would disappear before you could finish casting the spell.

I would have been much preferred if the rules made it clear this was the case.

It is the designers job to make this clear. Having to rely on you as a self-professed authority is a poor substitute indeed.

Because 5E never had any other "half of the spell". 5E is a game. It's related to other games such as AD&D, 3E, 4E, etc., but it's a different game. I could spend a lot of time moaning about how 5E has "nerfed" a lot of spells like Magic Jar and Polymorph relative to AD&D; I could research 3E and 4E so that I could moan about how Planar Binding works in those games and how 5E's version is different from those games; but what would be the point? Those games still exist. If you like 5E better; play it. If you don't, don't. If you need to tweak 5E first to make it more fun for you, do so.

Cut the crap Hemlock.

We are both well aware 5E is a game built on several previous editions. Asking the designers to learn from past mistakes but also to rely on past successes is definitely not too much to ask.

The fact is: they had invented this particular wheel already. Yet somebody went ahead and invented a new half-wheel. That is inarguably what we in the trade call "a mistake".

Why do you insist on letting the designers off the hook, when the natural conclusion is to simply say "they messed up". We still need to move on. We still need to tweak the game. Accepting the designers meesed up doesn't mean we're evil. If anything, it just proves the designers are human too. What particularly irks me, however, is the unfathomable unwillingness for some posters to concede they're playing a less than perfect game...

Why not simply admit they left a mess for us individual DMs to clean up? And a rather small one, at that. After all, that's all I'm asking. It's not that I'm trying to get people like you and others to agree WotC are baby-eating devil-worshippers, for Chris' sake...!

I don't know any DMs who are big enough jerks to actually pull the jerk move discussed previously.

I wasn't talking about jerk DMs. In fact, I specifically would like to ask you to stop talking about DMs as jerks.

When I said it isn't the fault of DMs that WotC left this mess, I meant that DMs can and will naturally rule differently at their tables, since WotC left them with no other option. Some of them will allow the interaction, some of them won't. It doesn't make them into jerks.

Don't stamp some of those rulings as jerk DM rulings, Hemlock. If anything here is a jerk move to do, it's if you insist on shaming DMs just dealing with the mess WotC left behind in a different way than the one you approve!

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION], are you trying to engage in constructive dialogue or just looking for opportunities to make snide personal remarks? It seems like every other paragraph in your last post contains an insult.

 

[SpoCk0nd0pe]

Hey Treantmonk,

thank you again for the great guide! I've been looking through it and some things came up:

Aganazzar’s Scorcher seems better to me then you rated it. On average it deals 13,5 dmg per target, that's 27 if you manage to hit 2 targets. Scorching Ray does 21 damage if all rays hit. Aganazzar's allows for a dex save for half, Scorching Ray requires an attack roll or no damage (per ray). I think Aganazzar's is overall a way better damage dealer with decent, controllable AoE. It does have range issues but considering you probably shouldn't open the fight with a blast, I consider this a round 2 or 3 option against a multitude of enemies, where you position yourself to hit 2 or 3. It can even be better then fireball in some regards because it is easier to exclude your allies once melee began.

The second one is regarding your podcast use of minor illusion: The stabby example seems pretty ideal, because the halfling is so small. If stabby was a human, the 5' hight limitation would probably forbid such uses, he'd had to somehow duck beforehand. Also I would think attacking would require you to interact with the illusion, thus revealing it's nature. The reason is, that each attack round represents 6 seconds of back and forth, not a single stab. Using slit's to stab through would probably result in disadvantage because it hinders the attacker so much.

Thanks in advance for any input on that matter!

 

[BigBadDM]

Hey Treantmonk,

One of the items I did not understand was the 1st Chromatic Orb spell which I find vastly underrated. The pain point of picking an energy type seems to be a negative in your assessment of the spell, when in fact it seems to be its greatest strength. At times giving you double damage; add to the nice scalable aspect of using in a higher slot and it can do some serious damage to creatures who are vulnerable to a energy type. So not only does it do more than Magic Missile out the door, it can potential do a lot more to the right enemy. While ranged attack is not auto, sometimes I would rather trade a spell that has a ranged attack than one that requires a spell DC. Sometimes that math works out better for ranged attack than spell DCs especially with final bosses.

Seriously Chromatic Orb can deal 6d8 as a first level spell against the right enemy. 8d8 as a 2nd level slot against the right enemy.

Just a thought.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The second one is regarding your podcast use of minor illusion: The stabby example seems pretty ideal, because the halfling is so small. If stabby was a human, the 5' hight limitation would probably forbid such uses, he'd had to somehow duck beforehand. Also I would think attacking would require you to interact with the illusion, thus revealing it's nature. The reason is, that each attack round represents 6 seconds of back and forth, not a single stab. Using slit's to stab through would probably result in disadvantage because it hinders the attacker so much.

There's no 5' height limitation on Minor Illusion. There is only the requirement that the illusion be able to fit within a 5' cube. A 5' cube's longest dimension is sqrt(5^2+5^2+5^2) = 8.66' long (from corner to corner). For example, you could fit a standard modern 30"x80"x1.75" door inside a 5' cube quite easily.

 

[BigBadDM]

There's no 5' height limitation on Minor Illusion. There is only the requirement that the illusion be able to fit within a 5' cube. A 5' cube's longest dimension is sqrt(5^2+5^2+5^2) = 8.66' long (from corner to corner). For example, you could fit a standard modern 30"x80"x1.75" door inside a 5' cube quite easily.

I will disagree here. It the spirit of gameplay and how cube spells eminate from the caster; having a cube stand on its side is not in that spirit of design. Hence a 5' foot lumit applies. Now if your DM (or youself being one) may say t is fine. As the DM in my group I would not allow it, unless you wanted a door that is slanted.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I will disagree here. It the spirit of gameplay and how cube spells eminate from the caster; having a cube stand on its side is not in that spirit of design. Hence a 5' foot lumit applies. Now if your DM (or youself being one) may say t is fine. As the DM in my group I would not allow it, unless you wanted a door that is slanted.

It's fine if you choose to disallow it--this is an Internet thread, not a real game. The purpose of discussion here is to enlighten the reader.

However, what are you talking about w/rt "cubes emanate from the caster"? Are you perhaps thinking of a different game? In 5E, cubes emanate from the point of origin, and the point of origin can be located anywhere on the cube's surface.

Cube

You select a cube’s point of origin, which lies anywhere on a face of the cubic effect. The cube’s size is expressed as the length of each side.

It doesn't emanate from the caster, and there are no restrictions on orientation. (This is in contrast to a cylinder, which must be oriented vertically according to 5E rules.)

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

Hey Treantmonk,

thank you again for the great guide! I've been looking through it and some things came up:

Aganazzar’s Scorcher seems better to me then you rated it. On average it deals 13,5 dmg per target, that's 27 if you manage to hit 2 targets. Scorching Ray does 21 damage if all rays hit. Aganazzar's allows for a dex save for half, Scorching Ray requires an attack roll or no damage (per ray). I think Aganazzar's is overall a way better damage dealer with decent, controllable AoE. It does have range issues but considering you probably shouldn't open the fight with a blast, I consider this a round 2 or 3 option against a multitude of enemies, where you position yourself to hit 2 or 3. It can even be better then fireball in some regards because it is easier to exclude your allies once melee began.

I decided to take another look at the spell. I have to say, still don't like it - at all. I'm not sure it compares that well with Scorching Ray as the two spells are quite different.

A spell that's very much like Aganazzar's Scorcher is Shatter. They are the same level, do the same damage, each provide a save for half damage. One covers 16 squares and takes effect up to 12 squares from the wizard, the other covers 6 squares in a straight line and takes effect right beside the wizard. This is a dramatic difference. I should also note that I only rate Shatter as purple.

Now shatter goes against a Con save rather than a Dex save, which I would say is worse, but it does thunder damage instead of fire damage, which I would say is better.

Now whether I rated Scorching Ray too high is a more interesting question. I may have...something I've been considering.

The second one is regarding your podcast use of minor illusion: The stabby example seems pretty ideal, because the halfling is so small. If stabby was a human, the 5' hight limitation would probably forbid such uses, he'd had to somehow duck beforehand. Also I would think attacking would require you to interact with the illusion, thus revealing it's nature. The reason is, that each attack round represents 6 seconds of back and forth, not a single stab. Using slit's to stab through would probably result in disadvantage because it hinders the attacker so much.

I agree. I wish I could go back and revise that part of the podcast. Also note the Orc could interact with the box as a free action, making it pretty useless. More likely to be useful at range. As for a human fitting in a 5'x5'x5' box - I suspect that wouldn't be very hard. Have to duck a bit.