D&D 5E XGTE Errata

[Phazonfish]

Just to add insult to injury. Life cleric 1/druid 3 can turn healing spirit into 10d6+40 = 75 HP. Enough to completely heal a level 20 party.

Am I missing something? Most level 20 characters have at least a bit more than 75 hp, wouldn't they? I mean, Wizards have the smallest hit dice at d6, and let's assume they have about a +2 in Con because concentration is a thing. That's 6 + (4 * 19) + (2 * 20) = 122 hp. Don't get me wrong, 75 hp of healing at level 4 sounds amazing, even more so being able to apply it to the whole party, but your statement sounds like a great exaggeration.

Improved Pact Weapon (p 57):

"You can use any weapon you summon with your Pact of the Blade feature as a spellcasting focus for your warlock spells. In addition, the weapon gains a +1 bonus to its attack and damage rolls, unless it is a magic weapon that already has a bonus to those rolls."

Does this give +1 to hit and damage when used as a spell casting focus (eldritch blast)?
And does it allow Lifedrinker and Eldritch Smite to work with eldritch blast?

It doesn't say it does any of those things, so I would assume not. A weapon's attack rolls and the wielder of a weapon's attack rolls are not necessarily the same thing.

That's just my opinion though, does anyone else think the interpretation that these bonuses apply to spells cast with the weapon as a focus seems like a stretch, or does it sound ambiguous enough to need clarification?

 

[Phazonfish]

I'm not quite following your logic. Let's just throw Battlemaster, Samurai and Cavalier up on the block. We'll assume 3rd level and an 18 strength for all of them (which is really hard to pull off, maybe even impossible, but hey, the dice loved you).

Assuming you take a race with a racial +2 to Str, rolling a 16 will result in a total of 18. Anydice tells me that the odds of rolling a 16, 17, or 18 from 4d6 keep 3 is 13.04%, thus the odds of rolling at least one 16+ in your six ability scores is about 56.76%. Hardly impossible, but I would still probably assume 16 in a key stat at level 3.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Assuming you take a race with a racial +2 to Str, rolling a 16 will result in a total of 18. Anydice tells me that the odds of rolling a 16, 17, or 18 from 4d6 keep 3 is 13.04%, thus the odds of rolling at least one 16+ in your six ability scores is about 56.76%. Hardly impossible, but I would still probably assume 16 in a key stat at level 3.

True, but a lot of people love and prefer taking the standard array, in which there is no 16.

Therefor the range, really hard to impossible.

 

[werecorpse]

Forum knee jerkers also said life clerics with a level dip as druid would ruin the game and make combat inconsequential with goodberry

And yet, I didn’t see players playing that class much, let alone often. So I agree with the designers. Let’s see how it unfolds in actual game tables first.

Using hyperbole like level 2 spells are almost limitless doesn’t do any good, and is not very accurate.

But "seeing how it unfolds" seems a weak sauce attitude. Those who have a problem with the spell being used to trivialise resource management of ooc healing or hit point recovery will likely ban it (as a few people on this thread have said they will do) those who don't play that kind of game or don't care will either not use it because it doesn't matter they get back their hit points for free anyway, or use it and not care about the issues raised.

I suspect this is the same with other features. Those who complain about it don't use it because they think it's too cheesy or broken. As a result designers can say "looks like it's not much of a problem in actual play".

Just because it isn't much of an issue in actual play doesn't mean it's not a problem spell - it may mean it is such a problem spell but it's so obviously a problem the players fixed it themselves.

I dislike healing spirit for many reasons. IMO this sort or spell mechanic could have been really neat but it needs work and that includes regarding how it can be abused to make a certain style of play trivial.

In my games the ability for a 7 player 10th level party to take a 1 minute time out and fully heal up after every couple of encounters matters a lot.

 

[Sacrosanct]

But "seeing how it unfolds" seems a weak sauce attitude. Those who have a problem with the spell being used to trivialise resource management of ooc healing or hit point recovery will likely ban it (as a few people on this thread have said they will do) those who don't play that kind of game or don't care will either not use it because it doesn't matter they get back their hit points for free anyway, or use it and not care about the issues raised.

I suspect this is the same with other features. Those who complain about it don't use it because they think it's too cheesy or broken. As a result designers can say "looks like it's not much of a problem in actual play".

Just because it isn't much of an issue in actual play doesn't mean it's not a problem spell - it may mean it is such a problem spell but it's so obviously a problem the players fixed it themselves.

I dislike healing spirit for many reasons. IMO this sort or spell mechanic could have been really neat but it needs work and that includes regarding how it can be abused to make a certain style of play trivial.

In my games the ability for a 7 player 10th level party to take a 1 minute time out and fully heal up after every couple of encounters matters a lot.

It's not "weaksauce" and you're just speculating. If it was a genuine problem among more than just an extremely small percentage, it would in fact appear in actual play. Just like the original beast master ranger, or other issues they've addressed. Like I said in my post you quoted, we heard all the same things about the life cleric/druid level dip and goodberry breaking the game. So the better decision is to see if it's an actual problem first. Literally ever aspect of the game has had people complain about it, but it doesn't mean the design team should try to "fix" every one of those things. Nothing would ever get done. CapnZapp has complained about literally every part of the game from classes, races, monsters, spells, magic items, feats, combat mechanics, skill mechanics, you name it. Does that mean that every part of the game is broken and the designers need to start from scratch? No, of course not.

Note, I'm not saying this can't be a problem. Just that we should see what the severity of it is first.

 

[werecorpse]

It's not "weaksauce" and you're just speculating. If it was a genuine problem among more than just an extremely small percentage, it would in fact appear in actual play. Just like the original beast master ranger, or other issues they've addressed. Like I said in my post you quoted, we heard all the same things about the life cleric/druid level dip and goodberry breaking the game. So the better decision is to see if it's an actual problem first. Literally ever aspect of the game has had people complain about it, but it doesn't mean the design team should try to "fix" every one of those things. Nothing would ever get done. CapnZapp has complained about literally every part of the game from classes, races, monsters, spells, magic items, feats, combat mechanics, skill mechanics, you name it. Does that mean that every part of the game is broken and the designers need to start from scratch? No, of course not.

Note, I'm not saying this can't be a problem. Just that we should see what the severity of it is first.

Of course I'm speculating about what will happen or what may have happened, doesn't mean it's not correct speculation. The bit about people who have already indentified it as a problem for their games probably not using it is already happening. And yes some people take issue with a variety of aspects of the game they don't like and are over critical but that's not a reason to justify any design decision.

It's not like ithis is a high level spell that will only come up rarely or an ability that only activates via a specific level dip. It's something every 3rd+ level Druid or 6th+ level ranger will have access to.

Agree to disagree that the better design decision is to just put the spell in the rules and "see what happens".

 

[5ekyu]

Of course I'm speculating about what will happen or what may have happened, doesn't mean it's not correct speculation. The bit about people who have already indentified it as a problem for their games probably not using it is already happening. And yes some people take issue with a variety of aspects of the game they don't like and are over critical but that's not a reason to justify any design decision.

It's not like ithis is a high level spell that will only come up rarely or an ability that only activates via a specific level dip. It's something every 3rd+ level Druid or 6th+ level ranger will have access to.

Agree to disagree that the better design decision is to just put the spell in the rules and "see what happens".

Reminds me of line from Deep Impact... Paraphrase

"Cheyrnobel almost worked"

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[FieserMoep]

It doesn't say it does any of those things, so I would assume not. A weapon's attack rolls and the wielder of a weapon's attack rolls are not necessarily the same thing.

I don't understand where that is coming from either?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Of course I'm speculating about what will happen or what may have happened, doesn't mean it's not correct speculation..

But it's more probable that it is incorrect. We have a precedence to go by to tell us what to expect. From ranger issues to the goodberry issue. Or nonissue rather. Speculating that it may be a big problem that may never actually occur in games because everyone who doesn't like it just won't use it is pretty implausible, based on existing examples. Not only that, but in AL you don't get to just remove spells or combos willy nilly, so at the very least, if it were a problem, it would show up in AL games.

 

[pukunui]

Jeremy just posted this on Twitter: