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

[superstition]

The issue, if one exists, is that the first paragraph or thesis of the spell states that it's used to cast harmful effects but then the body of the spell description allows for interpretation as it mentions loading spells into a glyph that effect a target creature or area.

So were I to read this like a writing instructor I'd limit glyph of warding to things that could cause a harmful effect on a target creature or area, but if I was reading this like a DM that wants his players to think outside of boxes to be cool, I'd allow anything that affects a target creature or area, knowing that the majority of spells would be harmful but that some would just be creative.

In my own games I'd not allow the use of a glyph of warding to hold a beneficial effect, nor allow the glyph to be portable in any way, but that's just me.

“When you cast this spell, you inscribe a glyph that harms other creatures, either upon a surface (such as a table or a section of floor or wall) or within an object that can be closed (such as a book, a scroll, or a treasure chest) to conceal the glyph.”

• That wording clearly states that the glyph must be harmful. There is also nothing in the wording that supports a prohibition on portability. It even specifically gives two options that are readily portable (books and scrolls).

• The "other creatures" part also specifies that the glyph is harmful to all creatures other than the caster.

• "To conceal the glyph" implies that the spell should be used in a manner where the other creatures are unaware of its presence.

The glyph has been given errata for the 6th edition. It no longer needs to be harmful:

Glyph of Warding (p. 245). The first sentence clarifies that the magical effect needn’t be harmful. The final two sentences of the first paragraph now read as follows: “The glyph can cover an area no larger than 10 feet in diameter. If the surface or object is moved more than 10 feet from where you cast this spell, the glyph is broken, and the spell ends without being triggered” (6th printing).

The spell should be renamed due to this change. Warding implies "warding off". One does not ward things off by being neutral or positive toward them.

 

[Rofel Wodring]

• That wording clearly states that the glyph must be harmful. There is also nothing in the wording that supports a prohibition on portability. It even specifically gives two options that are readily portable (books and scrolls).

The book or a scroll can be on a stand or in a confined area.

• The "other creatures" part also specifies that the glyph is harmful to all creatures other than the caster.

No. The 'other creatures' is vis-à-vis the glyph. It's even in the sentence.

• "To conceal the glyph" implies that the spell should be used in a manner where the other creatures are unaware of its presence.

So what if they don't?

 

[superstition]

The book or a scroll can be on a stand or in a confined area.

Can be, not must be.

No. The 'other creatures' is vis-à-vis the glyph. It's even in the sentence.

I don't understand your point. How is this a disagreement with what I said? Yes, as I said, the glyph is the thing that is harmful to the other creatures, as it says in the sentence. The harm comes vis-à-vis the glyph... because it's harmful.

So what if they don't?

Then they're not following the spell's instructions.

 

[Rofel Wodring]

Can be, not must be.

Your complaint assumed too narrow of a usage for books and scrolls, thus seeing a contradiction where there was none. I'm giving you an example to show how you can have a trap in a book or a scroll that still respects the 'don't move the glyph more than 10 feet' caveat.

How is this a disagreement with what I said? Yes, as I said, the glyph is the thing that is harmful to the other creatures, as it says in the sentence.

If I install a silent security alarm that sends a signal to the police if someone enters a certain area, that doesn't mean that I, the installer, should be unable to trip it. Because frankly, that might be intended behavior. For example, if someone is holding you at gunpoint to enter the warehouse's vault and bring them the money inside, you will still want the alarm to go off.

Then they're not following the spell's instructions.

A) Why not? I install a glyph that's hard to detect. I then use chalk to outline the glyph. Or put up a sign saying where the glyph is. Or just tell people where it is. Where's the violation of the spell's instructions?
B) So what if people don't use spells as intended? Programmed Illusion was definitely not meant as a combat spell, but it's a great one anyway. Transmute Rock to Mud post-Xanathar's was definitely not meant as a castle-building spell, but it's a great one, anyway.

 

[superstition]

Your complaint assumed too narrow of a usage for books and scrolls, thus seeing a contradiction where there was none. I'm giving you an example to show how you can have a trap in a book or a scroll that still respects the 'don't move the glyph more than 10 feet' caveat.

Nothing I said implied or stated that books and scrolls have to be moved or portable.

As for this 10 foot rule, that's not in the quotation I was responding to, except at the very end of a post when I discussed the naming of the spell. The 10 foot rule appears, at least in these last pages of this thread, just in the changed 6th Printing wording.

This is the quote I was actually responding to, beyond merely the issue of spell naming:

When you cast this spell, you inscribe a glyph that harms other creatures, either upon a surface (such as a table or a section of floor or wall) or within an object that can be closed (such as a book, a scroll, or a treasure chest) to conceal the glyph.

What I said was that that wording does not prohibit portability. The person I was responding to said that he is inclined to rule that the glyph-containing object cannot be portable:

nor allow the glyph to be portable in any way

In any way means no portable books, scrolls, or other items containing these glyphs. You're trying to correct me about something I never wrote or implied.

As for the rest, I've written a novella in response to try to cover everything thoroughly but I'm too tired at the moment to reorganize it.

 

[BlivetWidget]

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/610955844918886400 Magic Missile strikes simultaneously, so only one save. Scorching Ray and, even better, Eldritch Blast are better candidates for forcing a concentration save. Of course, while NPC spellcasting creatures such as the Archmage have bad concentration saves, good luck against a Mummy Lord or a Lich. You might need something more robust, or focus on improving melee frontliner damage.

Sorry to inform you this is incorrect because you are conflating two different rulings. In the post you referenced, Crawford says you only make one damage roll and apply it to all darts. However, this does not mean all darts are a single source of damage. Each dart is its own source of damage, and causes its own concentration check.

 

[bolrath]

Yo Just want to say that transmutation wizards first school skill is both useful in and out of combat, For example you and the party are going to fight werewolves, pile your weapons on the ground and a few mins later BOOM, silver weapons for an hour. or theres a large stone door with an intricate lock that no one can open, a few mins later the lock is made of wood, easily burnt wood.

 

[Kobold Stew]

(Welcome to the boards, [MENTION=6947098]bolrath[/MENTION] ! Have some XP for a useful first post!)

 

[schnee]

This one under the multiclassing surprises me.

Finally is the addition of Con save proficiency, which is the save you make to maintain concentration (and will save you taking the Resilient feat later on - plan your Con score appropriately)

You do not pick up any save proficiency when you multiclass.

 

[mikebr99]

This one under the multiclassing surprises me.

You do not pick up any save proficiency when you multiclass.

You have to start as a fighter to get the CON proficiency... that is what he is suggesting.

tks

Mike