Creative uses of glyph

[Eslin]

Just discovered a fun little combo that pulls a bard (or eldritch knight with a warlock level/magical training) a bit ahead of other martials - cast glyph with hex, throw the glyph at a defenseless critter and kill it. Now for the rest of the day you have a hex spell that you don't need to maintain concentration on, thereby adding 1d6 to every attack you do and letting it combo with haste, swift quiver or elemental weapon as desired.

Now, adding spells such as haste to the glyph would be even better, but it only lasts a minute and whether haste qualifies is iffy, but hex definitely works. What other combos do we have?

[Tenmujiin]

Hex needs a target at the time of death in order to transfer doesn't it?

[Cambrian]

It doesn't transfer at time of death (or dropped to 0 hp at DM discretion). It requires a bonus action "on a subsequent turn" to transfer it from a fallen creature, implying it happens anytime after.

[Baveboi]

The dictionary is as vague as the PHB about this. I wonder if Mearl's acolytes chose this word on purpose...
But here is a definition:
Subsequent
1.
occurring or coming later or after (often followed by to): subsequent events;
Subsequent to their arrival in Chicago, they bought a new car.
2.
following in order or succession; succeeding:
a subsequent section in a treaty.

However, in either case it is heavily implied that it expects the "subsequent" event to come closely after, so I don't know if I would allow such an abuse of Hex's effect, but I wouldn't be against it if the party remained in vigil (like in a dangerous area or something). I would also feel in my rights to dismiss such trick if the party takes a short or long rest before spending the Hex.

[Eslin]

But that's wrong. It gives you the option of 8 and 24 hour durations, clearly you're not intended to spend 24 hours straight on this kind of stuff. It says on a subsequent turn, than means a later turn within the duration of the spell, full stop.

You can houserule it to cancel if you take a rest, but acknowledge that you're houseruling, not interpreting.

[randomodo]

edit: deleted all but "bag of rats ftw"

[Baveboi]

But that's wrong. It gives you the option of 8 and 24 hour durations, clearly you're not intended to spend 24 hours straight on this kind of stuff. It says on a subsequent turn, than means a later turn within the duration of the spell, full stop.

You can houserule it to cancel if you take a rest, but acknowledge that you're houseruling. Don't do what Shadow does and call your houserules interpretations.

I am not telling you how to play (or run) your own game, Eslin. You are free to make your choices and take any understanding you want of the rules, but don't you point your filthy you-are-homebrewing,-thus-your-argument-is-invalid fingers in my face when all that I have done (and am trying to do) is show some light on the subject for the sake of argumentation. I repeat; I am not trying to dictate how it should be, merely how it could be. Your actions and the game hardly happens in a vacuum, so it would do well to listen to other people on such matters.

With all that said, as a DM you should labor for the sake of the game and the fun of everyone. I have nothing against allowing players to intelligently pull such a trick on me in certain occasions, but I don't see how a DM would let a player to carry a concentration spell around a non-existential demi-plane of "decisions to be taken on future rounds" while you stroll for 24 hours caring not for continuity or logic. Consider the hideous implication this would entail. Stop and think; a Warlock could easily pull such a trick at least a dozen times, carrying around a dozen copies of Hex simultaneously and effortlessly if he is allowed to short rest just as many times to recover his slots.

Once more, to iron it out: I am not trying to dictate how it should be played, and the trick certainly is smart and worthy of note, but it is too open for abuse and it is a little bit far-fetched. Not much, tho. :smallsmile:

Sorry, Eslin. English is not my mother language, thus I have to be thrice specific and it becomes really tiring. :smallredface:

[Eslin]

Then what is the point of allowing the spell to have a 24 hour duration? Either it's expected you can keep it going all day or you can't, and if you couldn't what is the point of allowing you to keep it going so long?

[Cambrian]

Then what is the point of allowing the spell to have a 24 hour duration? Either it's expected you can keep it going all day or you can't, and if you couldn't what is the point of allowing you to keep it going so long?
Because you can go for periods of 24 hours or greater without a short or long rest? And it's a Warlock spell so higher level slots are essentially free?

For the record concentrating on a spell while "resting" your mind to gain that same slot back doesn't seem right to me.

Also by RAI I'm certain the spell is not intended to be used in such a way:

If you choose an object, that object must remain in its place; if the object is moved more than 10 feet from where you cast this spell, the glyph is broken, and the spell ends without being triggered.

Here you can clearly see the intent is to not be portable.

[Baveboi]

Then what is the point of allowing the spell to have a 24 hour duration? Either it's expected you can keep it going all day or you can't, and if you couldn't what is the point of allowing you to keep it going so long?

I ask myself that everyday while I do my mourning rituals of flinging darts in the life-sized poster of Mearls I have in my room. *snick snarks*

Seriously, though, the spell is a concentration one. You are supposed to maintain it by concentrating on it. If you can concentrate for a 24 hour run you are actually worthy of songs and ballads... But perhaps you should be able to keep it going. There is nothing saying the spell ends if you rest, but again, the spell is concentration so you are still limited to one only.

If we are being overly specific, tho, it is worthy to point out that Glyph only affects one creature, so you could say that even though Hex would affect that creature for full duration of 24h considering you are casting a 5th level Hex on a 5th level Glyph (which warlocks don't have and isn't a ritual) you are well within your rights to say the spell only affects the targeted creature unless it is an area, which then becomes centered on the targeted creature. That is not the problem, mind ya, the problem is the possibility of abuse. Up to 12 ongoing Hex spells for free? Any DM (and really, any sensible player) will discard this idea.

But again, it is smart, and could be interesting if played intelligently.

[Eslin]

Because you can go for periods of 24 hours or greater without a short or long rest? And it's a Warlock spell so higher level slots are essentially free?
If you choose an object, that object must remain in its place; if the object is moved more than 10 feet from where you cast this spell, the glyph is broken, and the spell ends without being triggered.


There's also an equivalent ranger spell, and they don't get free higher slots. And the glyph doesn't have to be portable - cast it, hex a bunny, kill it. You're leaning really heavily on intent at the moment, I doubt that find steed was intended to be used as a way for my paladin to carry around his weapon collection but that doesn't stop it being a legitimate use.


I ask myself that everyday while I do my mourning rituals of flinging darts in the life-sized poster of Mearls I have in my room. *snick snarks*

Seriously, though, the spell is a concentration one. You are supposed to maintain it by concentrating on it. If you can concentrate for a 24 hour run you are actually worthy of songs and ballads... But perhaps you should be able to keep it going. There is nothing saying the spell ends if you rest, but again, the spell is concentration so you are still limited to one only.

If we are being overly specific, tho, it is worthy to point out that Glyph only affects one creature, so you could say that even though Hex would affect that creature for full duration of 24h considering you are casting a 5th level Hex on a 5th level Glyph (which warlocks don't have and isn't a ritual) you are well within your rights to say the spell only affects the targeted creature unless it is an area, which then becomes centered on the targeted creature. That is not the problem, mind ya, the problem is the possibility of abuse. Up to 12 ongoing Hex spells for free? Any DM (and really, any sensible player) will discard this idea.

But again, it is smart, and could be interesting if played intelligently.

Again, this isn't for free - this is using up 200gp and two 5th level spell slots to cast a spell that is normally used at 1st level. 12 ongoing hex spells isn't for free, it's a ton of spell slots and 2400 gold.

And the you're not well within your rights to say the spell only affects the target creature - hex only targets a single creature too, the spell specifically lets you retarget once that creature is dead.

[SliceandDiceKid]

Yeah...

You definitely don't have to move hex the immediate round after your target dies.

If a DM rules otherwise, they are significantly decreasing the viability of the entire warlock class.

[Baveboi]

Again, this isn't for free - this is using up 200gp and two 5th level spell slots to cast a spell that is normally used at 1st level. 12 ongoing hex spells isn't for free, it's a ton of spell slots and 2400 gold.

And the you're not well within your rights to say the spell only affects the target creature - hex only targets a single creature too, the spell specifically lets you retarget once that creature is dead.

And as stated before, Warlock doesn't have access to Glyph, making this a two-man con... Yeah, I can see how this is acceptable by the sheer effort put into it to make it work.

[Yagyujubei]

Honestly, if I were DMing and someone tried to pull this cheese I would have to punish in some way. I can't deny that it's RAW but I also don't think it should work this way (this is in reference to concentrating through a rest to regain the spellslot while still having hex up).

I might impose some penalty to certain checks with the logic that if you're concentrating on maintaining this spell all day, you couldn't possibly be giving your full attention to other tasks as well. You couldn't watch TV and read a book simultaneously and expect to fully retain the information from either.

[Baveboi]

Honestly, if I were DMing and someone tried to pull this cheese I would have to punish in some way. I can't deny that it's RAW but I also don't think it should work this way (this is in reference to concentrating through a rest to regain the spellslot while still having hex up).

I might impose some penalty to certain checks with the logic that if you're concentrating on maintaining this spell all day, you couldn't possibly be giving your full attention to other tasks as well. You couldn't watch TV and read a book simultaneously and expect to fully retain the information from either.

True, but you aren't concentrating on the spell anymore, the Glyph is.

While studying Glyph I found out you can use some often restrictive spells like hold person and phantasmal killer. Even spells like simulacrum although making it work would be kinda hard. The Glyph itself is rather unimpressive in defensive situations, but can have some very entertaining effects on some spells, like witch bolt.

[1of3]

Then what is the point of allowing the spell to have a 24 hour duration? Either it's expected you can keep it going all day or you can't, and if you couldn't what is the point of allowing you to keep it going so long?

The target might escape, then you try to follow. The Ranger version is made with this in mind explicitely.

The Warlock Version also hinders ability checks. So you might want to hex someone, just to give them a miserable day.

[Eslin]

And as stated before, Warlock doesn't have access to Glyph, making this a two-man con... Yeah, I can see how this is acceptable by the sheer effort put into it to make it work.

Well, as always... bards.

[stitchlipped]

The Warlock Version also hinders ability checks. So you might want to hex someone, just to give them a miserable day.

Quoted for significance. This right here is the reason for the 24 hour duration - to allow you to curse someone with poor luck just because they looked at you the wrong way, and walk away sniggering to yourself at the thought that for a full day they're going to have a crappy time.

Exploiting the 24 hour duration with a cheesy workaround to get 1d6 damage on every attack is against the spirit of the RAI.

[Eslin]

Quoted for significance. This right here is the reason for the 24 hour duration - to allow you to curse someone with poor luck just because they looked at you the wrong way, and walk away sniggering to yourself at the thought that for a full day they're going to have a crappy time.

Exploiting the 24 hour duration with a cheesy workaround to get 1d6 damage on every attack is against the spirit of the RAI.

Is it though? It gives a 24 hour duration, it was obviously meant to last that long. If it was as you suggested, it'd have an alternate way of casting where it lasted longer but didn't add the 1d6 damage. You're reading into design purpose from a skewed angle just because you don't like the idea of it working, despite the fact that it does.

Does blowing two fifth level spell slots and 200g for one day's worth of 1d6 damage really annoy you so much?

[edge2054]

It's the potential stacking I would worry about as a player.

The PCs have entered my lair. I dump bag o' rats in my glyph box and then dump them into the box o' drowning death. I now have 20 hexes active. Before combat, I begin hexing each PC while Invisible. Each PC now has 4 stacks of Hex and disadvantage on four saves. I open the fight with a 12d6 Fireball which the PCs all have disadvantage to save against, since, afterall, I'm really not a Warlock at all but a level 7 Wizard with the Magic Initiate Feat.

Anyway, I'm curious what other creative uses of glyph people have.

[stitchlipped]

Is it though?

Yes, I think it is. Note I said RAI, not RAW.

I am not debating whether it works, I just don't think it's likely this is an intended result. I don't see how you get that my view is somehow skewed - Do you really think that when they were designing the spells, Mearls and his team even considered this interaction? The idea that a player might "cast glyph with hex, throw the glyph at a defenseless critter and kill it, thereby getting a hex you don't have to maintain concentration on" is bit of a corner case, no?

See also Baveboi's sensible commentary on why this use of Hexes might reasonably be disallowed.

If you or your GM want to allow it in your games, good for you.

[Eslin]

It's the potential stacking I would worry about as a player.

The PCs have entered my lair. I dump bag o' rats in my glyph box and then dump them into the box o' drowning death. I now have 20 hexes active. Before combat, I begin hexing each PC while Invisible. Each PC now has 4 stacks of Hex and disadvantage on four saves. I open the fight with a 12d6 Fireball which the PCs all have disadvantage to save against, since, afterall, I'm really not a Warlock at all but a level 7 Wizard with the Magic Initiate Feat.

Anyway, I'm curious what other creative uses of glyph people have.

It's a bonus action to reassign, so you'd need 20 rounds to do that to players, not at all dangerous. If I was going to glyph stack as an npc waiting for someone in my lair I'd either use it for buff spells like haste and elemental weapon (which harm the enemy, since I'm going to hit them with it) or just cast explosive runes 50 times, put a trapdoor in the ceiling and drop the runes ten feet onto them as they walk past.

Or I'd just use them as grenades - if cast on an object, they can't be moved more than ten feet. Casting them on a surface yields no such restrictions and can be something like a table or a section of floor - cast it on a tiny table or a very small section of the floor, cut that section out, tie it to a bunch of other sections and lob it at people you don't like.


Yes, I think it is. Note I said RAI, not RAW.

I am not debating whether it works, I just don't think it's likely this is an intended result. I don't see how you get that my view is somehow skewed - Do you really think that when they were designing the spells, Mearls and his team even considered this interaction? The idea that a player might "cast glyph with hex, throw the glyph at a defenseless critter and kill it, thereby getting a hex you don't have to maintain concentration on" is bit of a corner case, no?


The thing is, 5e is completely full of holes, there are dozens of spells with unconsidered uses. Obviously whoever was designing the game wasn't really thinking much about unusual uses for things, but that means it's kind of encouraged - if they didn't want people to find interesting or hidden uses for things, they would have cleared up the ambiguities after all the playtesting they did. They left them in, which is tacitly encouraging this sort of thing.

[edge2054]

If you or your GM want to allow it in your games, good for you.

As a DM I may want to use this if I ever run a game for a party of munchkins.

The old diamond mine is said to be haunted. The local miner's guild has offered you a share of the stake if you manage to rid the mine of the ghost that haunts it.

The ghost is the invisible wizard in my post above. Having found a loophole in the laws of the universe he's become enamored with using glyphs to curse rats. Having heard of the nearby diamond mine he's used his magic to scare out the locals.

The PCs go into the mines looking for a ghost. The wizard makes some scary sounds but the PCs don't leave. Seeing that the party isn't as easily frightened as the miners the wizard dumps his bag o' rats into the glyph box.

Fred, Shaggy, Velma, Daphne, and Scooby all begin to feel a strange presence wash over them as the Hexes take effect. The Wizard lures them into favorable terrain and opens with a fireball.

If the Gang survives they realize what the viewer knew all along. Humans are the real monsters.


It's a bonus action to reassign, so you'd need 20 rounds to do that to players, not at all dangerous.

Well within the duration of Invisibility, which won't break as you're not 'casting a spell' or 'attacking'.

[Eslin]

Well within the duration of Invisibility, which won't break as you're not 'casting a spell' or 'attacking'.

Then that's the PCs fault for letting someone get the drop on them so badly, and I heartily encourage it.

[edge2054]

The thing is, 5e is completely full of holes, there are dozens of spells with unconsidered uses. Obviously whoever was designing the game wasn't really thinking much about unusual uses for things, but that means it's kind of encouraged - if they didn't want people to find interesting or hidden uses for things, they would have cleared up the ambiguities after all the playtesting they did. They left them in, which is tacitly encouraging this sort of thing.

Which is why tabletop games have judges, also known as refs, but commonly referred to as a DM. The more complicated a game is the more likely it is to have loopholes. The DM should adjudicate what is fair play in his or her game. As a player I ask myself, would I be pissed if the DM pulled this on me? If the answer is yes, I don't do it.

[Eslin]

Which is why tabletop games have judges, also known as refs, but commonly referred to as a DM. The more complicated a game is the more likely it is to have loopholes. The DM should adjudicate what is fair play in his or her game. As a player I ask myself, would I be pissed if the DM pulled this on me? If the answer is yes, I don't do it.

Except that shouldn't be the case. 5e is not complicated, and the 'loopholes' are so easy to find I just made a thread about them off the top of my head. This was a very simple edition thoroughly playtested, the fact that they decided to leave all the little tricks in means they were ok with them being used.

[edge2054]

Except that shouldn't be the case. 5e is not complicated, and the 'loopholes' are so easy to find I just made a thread about them off the top of my head. This was a very simple edition thoroughly playtested, the fact that they decided to leave all the little tricks in means they were ok with them being used.

A game with 363 different spells and I don't know how many class abilities is certainly something I would qualify as complex as far as board/table top games go. And we haven't even added magic items into the equation yet.

The more complex a system becomes the more variables need to be tracked and the harder it is to predict every possible interaction. All of the playtesting that was done prior to release hasn't stopped ambiguous rules from cropping up. Rules that the game designers themselves seem to disagree on how to handle. Additionally some spell interactions only start to appear in real games very late. Depending on the focus of playtesting some of these interactions may not have appeared in actual game play at all. It's telling that most of your loopholes, in both this thread and the other ones I've seen you post in, are based on spell interactions.

And you're telling me that the most complex part of the game, spellcasting, was so thoroughly playtested that the developers were aware of every interaction when they can't even agree on how Sentinel should work? The same developers who have said repeatedly that this edition should focus on rulings not rules?

Okay...

Seriously though I didn't come into this thread to argue. I'm disappointed that this thread has focused so much on Hex + Glyph rather than the stated topic. I would like to see some creative uses of glyph, preferably ones that don't rely on very liberal or very strict interpretations of the rules to function. Fun interactions I can use in game without feeling like I'm cheating (personal feeling here, not accusing anyone).

[Eslin]

From the top:
A game with 363 different spells and I don't know how many class abilities is certainly something I would qualify as complex as far as board/table top games go. And we haven't even added magic items into the equation yet.
363 spells, many of which are really simple. Playtest a heap, and for spells get 5 people to spend 5 minutes on each spell and tell you what loopholes they can find, that's all it would take. Most of these are incredibly obvious loopholes - there are maybe 60 spells with complicated enough descriptions or effects for abuse.

The more complex a system becomes the more variables need to be tracked and the harder it is to predict every possible interaction. All of the playtesting that was done prior to release hasn't stopped ambiguous rules from cropping up.
Yes, kind of my point. Playtesters pointed out monks needed higher unarmed damage, and instead they lowered it - the standards of playtesting were obviously crap.

Rules that the game designers themselves seem to disagree on how to handle.
Which shouldn't be the case, especially in a game this simple.

Additionally some spell interactions only start to appear in real games very late. Depending on the focus of playtesting some of these interactions may not have appeared in actual game play at all. It's telling that most of your loopholes, in both this thread and the other ones I've seen you post in, are based on spell interactions.
Spells provide the most abilities. Just like 3.5, martials can't really do much in terms of utility - so most of the interesting stuff will be spell interactions.

And you're telling me that the most complex part of the game, spellcasting, was so thoroughly playtested that the developers were aware of every interaction when they can't even agree on how Sentinel should work? The same developers who have said repeatedly that this edition should focus on rulings not rules?
Why can't they agree on sentinel? It's a very simple edition with simple rules, there's no reason for everything not to have been ironed out. Therefore if they released the book, they were aware of the loopholes and tacitly approved of them. 'Focus on rulings not rules' is a great idea for dealing with mechanics - a simple base system, so if a player wants to get a bonus to their attacks for swinging off the chandelier the DM doesn't have to consult a rulebook, he just needs to apply the simple bonus mechanics the edition gives on the fly.

However, and this is the really important bit - everything in the book is rules. Everything in the book should be clear and unambiguous, because they are already rules. Rules should not need rulings, rules should be rules. This is a really simple concept, so it bugs the hell out of me when people respond to 'why the hell isn't it clear whether you need overall levels or warlock levels to get invocations?' with 'make rulings not rules hur dur!'. There are rules for invocations, they're in the book, so they shouldn't need rulings. Again, rulings are a fantastic tool for making stuff up on the fly and I'm really glad they decided to emphasize that with this edition, BUT THE RULES ARE ALREADY MADE SO THEY SHOULD BE CLEAR.



And if they're not, that means it's ok to abuse them where possible. Because in 2014 with an edition based on simplicity of the world's largest TTRPG that has had years of playtesting, there is no excuse whatsoever for unintentional ambiguity.

[edge2054]

And if they're not, that means it's ok to abuse them where possible.

This seems to be the basis of all of your reasoning and it doesn't follow. My kids try to pull this. Kids really are the best rules lawyers. "You told me not to punch my brother in the face so I'll just punch him in the chest instead."


As his Dad he still gets in trouble for this.

Rules are guides Eslin. Even in real life most people don't get off on technicalities. It's why we have Judges to interpret the spirit of the law rather than the letter of it. It's why we have DMs for D&D.

You can keep interpreting things literally if you want and if everyone at your table is still having fun more power too you. It doesn't feel fair to me. I wouldn't use it. I wouldn't appreciate a DM using it on one of my characters.

I would appreciate some fun and creative uses of glyphs that I can use in good conscience. Which is why I clicked on this thread in the first place. Sorry my example fueled the fire. I just wanted to have some fun with my bag o' rats and box o' drowning death :smallbiggrin:

[JRutterbush]

There are already many spells that are meant to be used the next round... true strike being the one that comes to mind immediately. And they use that exact language: on the next turn, or on the next round, or something to that effect. There is no possible way that the more open-ended "on a subsequent turn" was not meant to allow reapplication at any point later in the duration. If it weren't, then it would at the very least read "on the subsequent turn".

As it is, every single turn that comes after the hexed creature dies meets the requirements of being a subsequent turn. Every turn is subsequent to every single turn that has ever come before it, stretching back through to the beginning of time.

[Eslin]

This seems to be the basis of all of your reasoning and it doesn't follow. My kids try to pull this. Kids really are the best rules lawyers. "You told me not to punch my brother in the face so I'll just punch him in the chest instead."


As his Dad he still gets in trouble for this.

Rules are guides Eslin. Even in real life most people don't get off on technicalities. It's why we have Judges to interpret the spirit of the law rather than the letter of it. It's why we have DMs for D&D.

You can keep interpreting things literally if you want and if everyone at your table is still having fun more power too you. It doesn't feel fair to me. I wouldn't use it. I wouldn't appreciate a DM using it on one of my characters.

I would appreciate some fun and creative uses of glyphs that I can use in good conscience. Which is why I clicked on this thread in the first place. Sorry my example fueled the fire. I just wanted to have some fun with my bag o' rats and box o' drowning death :smallbiggrin:

For the most part, I agree completely. I loved 3.5, but one of my biggest problems with it was the difficulty of drawing the line - there was always more optimisation to be done, and past a point it felt like cheating. And I didn't want a character that would break the game, or to feel like I was cheating, but I also wanted to create the strongest character I could (though they've all been thought exercises).

Most of this is anger at the fact that they didn't bother to actually make sure this edition worked perfectly, and just covered their ass with 'make rulings not rules' which clearly should not apply to rules. They've made the rules, and at this point there is no excuse for the rules to be so shoddy. The rules should be tight enough that I can do anything within them and not feel like I'm cheating for doing so, I want an edition that rewards my players for thinking outside the box (it should be mentioned at this point I'm a forever DM, I've never created a character for use in actual play in real life). 4E made that work, but there was tons of errata and they made thinking outside the box by having the box be small and rigid. 5e had money, experience and time on its side and it still came out stuffed with ambiguities and feeling like it had received a few hours worth of proof reading at best.

[JRutterbush]

Most of this is anger at the fact that they didn't bother to actually make sure this edition worked perfectly...I think the problem, then, is that you think it's possible to make sure any edition of any game works perfectly. Anybody who's been paying attention to tabletop gaming knows that every game has these little quirks and bugs, there's no getting around it. D&D has tried the route of codifying everything, of making a specific rule and subrule for every little thing... and that still didn't solve the problem. So now they're going a different route: "Why bother making a complicated game with a ton of rules when there will still be glitches and loopholes? Let's just make a game that gives you enough to go on, and accept the fact that there will be unintended uses of various rules. And then, in order to help curb this effect, let's make sure to stress how the DM can make changes and rulings in their home games, thus fostering an atmosphere where DM's are more comfortable making rulings to negate whatever issues might crop up."

It's impossible to cover every possible abuse or twisting of the rules... and it's ridiculous to expect the designers to have done so. They're not "covering their asses" with the "rulings, not rules" approach, they're just admitting that it's impossible to make a rule for everything, and acknowledging what every DM in the history of tabletop gaming has, until now, had to learn the hard way: you're going to have to make some rulings on some things, because that's what happens when you make a game where literally anything is possible. The thing that makes it wonderful is also the thing that makes it take just a little extra work to run the way you want it to run.

[edge2054]

For the most part, I agree completely. I loved 3.5, but one of my biggest problems with it was the difficulty of drawing the line - there was always more optimisation to be done, and past a point it felt like cheating. And I didn't want a character that would break the game, or to feel like I was cheating, but I also wanted to create the strongest character I could (though they've all been thought exercises).

Most of this is anger at the fact that they didn't bother to actually make sure this edition worked perfectly, and just covered their ass with 'make rulings not rules' which clearly should not apply to rules. They've made the rules, and at this point there is no excuse for the rules to be so shoddy. The rules should be tight enough that I can do anything within them and not feel like I'm cheating for doing so, I want an edition that rewards my players for thinking outside the box (it should be mentioned at this point I'm a forever DM, I've never created a character for use in actual play in real life). 4E made that work, but there was tons of errata and they made thinking outside the box by having the box be small and rigid. 5e had money, experience and time on its side and it still came out stuffed with ambiguities and feeling like it had received a few hours worth of proof reading at best.

I hear ya and I had similar issues with 3.5 but from the other side of the table. Character Optimization in that edition was to the point I had a really hard time making characters I believed in. I'd end up sacrificing so much fluff for crunch that in the end I only remember the name of one of my 3.x edition characters.

I think 5th Edition has struck a better balance. I know it's not perfect but 2nd Edition wasn't either, which is the Edition I had the easiest time with as a player.

[Cambrian]

The thing is, 5e is completely full of holes, there are dozens of spells with unconsidered uses. Obviously whoever was designing the game wasn't really thinking much about unusual uses for things, but that means it's kind of encouraged - if they didn't want people to find interesting or hidden uses for things, they would have cleared up the ambiguities after all the playtesting they did. They left them in, which is tacitly encouraging this sort of thing.No, they literally just did not care about munchkins. Mike Mearls' quote summarizes it nicely: "we are not going to try to make rules that would stop people who want to be bored from doing boring things."

In other words 5e assumes you're an adult and behave as such. There is nothing wrong with playing the way you want, but it would be completely erroneous to draw that they at all encourage rules abuse.

[Eslin]

No, they literally just did not care about munchkins. Mike Mearls' quote summarizes it nicely: "we are not going to try to make rules that would stop people who want to be bored from doing boring things."

In other words 5e assumes you're an adult and behave as such. There is nothing wrong with playing the way you want, but it would be completely erroneous to draw that they at all encourage rules abuse.

I am an adult, and I behave as such. This isn't 3.5 - it has the benefit of knowing 3.5's problems, more experience with games in general, more money, more feedback and more time. This is 5e, and it's a lot simpler, with rules and abilities covering a lot less ground - so I expect the stuff they have to be rock solid. And if it isn't, I expect them to get onto fixing them as soon as the problems are pointed out (something that should have happened during playtesting) - not just go 'rulings not rules lololol' and claim that is in any way relevant. I love rulings not rules, but for concrete rules there should not need to be rulings.

And yes, the whole point of rulings not rules is so they don't have to make a rule for everything - so when they do make rules, I expect them to be well thought out.

[Cambrian]

I am an adult, and I behave as such. This isn't 3.5 - it has the benefit of knowing 3.5's problems, more experience with games in general, more money, more feedback and more time. This is 5e, and it's a lot simpler, with rules and abilities covering a lot less ground - so I expect the stuff they have to be rock solid. And if it isn't, I expect them to get onto fixing them as soon as the problems are pointed out (something that should have happened during playtesting) - not just go 'rulings not rules lololol' and claim that is in any way relevant. I love rulings not rules, but for concrete rules there should not need to be rulings.

And yes, the whole point of rulings not rules is so they don't have to make a rule for everything - so when they do make rules, I expect them to be well thought out.I'd start getting prepared for disappointment as they don't appear to be changing their philosophy. You could ask for a ruling from Mike Mearls & co. on twitter if you're interested; however, I think we both know what way that ruling would fall.

In this instance it is very easy to see the RAI of the spell and you can either accept it being how it is and follow that or abuse the RAW.

[Eslin]

RAI wise, putting hex on there so you can do extra damage to whoever triggered the glyph is obviously fine. Why then does using the 24 hour duration to extend it become abuse? If one of my players thought of that, I'd congratulate them on being clever and warn them not to get too enamored with it since it requires 200gp, two mid level spell slots and an hour's prep time.

[Baveboi]

Guys, guys... This is a Creative Uses of Glyph thread. Not a What is Wrong With 5th thread. Let's put down our hostilities and try our best to create better uses for Glyph, yeah? Perhaps uses that are tied to specific classes, bonus points if the class already has Glyph.

[Cambrian]

RAI wise, putting hex on there so you can do extra damage to whoever triggered the glyph is obviously fine. Why then does using the 24 hour duration to extend it become abuse? If one of my players thought of that, I'd congratulate them on being clever and warn them not to get too enamored with it since it requires 200gp, two mid level spell slots and an hour's prep time.You misunderstand me-- I'm not saying Hex can't be used, or that the 24 hour duration would not be concentration free. I'm am claiming RAI that the spell is not intended to be portable-- so no scribing the glyph on a ceramic tile and throwing it at your enemies. Look at the first paragraph:
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. If you choose a surface, the glyph can cover an area of the surface no larger than 10 feet in diameter. If you choose an object, that object must remain in its place; if the object is moved more than 10 feet from where you cast this spell, the glyph is broken, and the spell ends without being triggered.

The bolded part shows the intent is not to have the glyph a portable pseudo-scroll. The obvious oversight was a floor, wall, etc... is not portable, but there are many other portable surfaces (which are also generally objects). Unless an explanation more simple than that can be provided, then Occam's razor leads us to RAI that glyph is not intended to be portable.

Lastly with Rulings not Rules, RAI > RAW.

[Eslin]

Lastly with Rulings not Rules

Words cannot express my contempt for this sentence.

[archaeo]

Words cannot express my contempt for this sentence.

Uh? I mean, I get that it's frustrating in the context of talking about RAW, however discouraged RAWism is in the new edition, but the PHB hammers home the point that your DM is the final arbiter over and over. It's an inescapable part of the philosophy of the system.

[Eslin]

It's part of the philosophy for every system, from dark heresy to 3.5 if your DM wants to change something, that's how it works now.

The new edition shouldn't be 'RAW is discouraged', it should be 'RAW is RAI' and have the rules be the solid core to build rulings around. You build a simple set of rules with clear logic around them (advantage, ability checks etc) and then encourage rulings so you don't have to spend 500 pages slowing down the game with rules on how sliding down the stairs on your shield or constructing a palisade work.

You do NOT use 'make rulings not rules' as an excuse for your rules being imperfect.

[archaeo]

You do NOT use 'make rulings not rules' as an excuse for your rules being imperfect.

I don't think anyone has done this though, with the possible exception of copping to the stealth rules being intentionally vague. Given that Mearls has openly talked about doing errata when it's necessary, promising a survey for next spring, it seems like the plan is still to patch imperfect rules. Expect errata next year, and in the meantime, use your best judgement.

[Cambrian]

Getting the thread back on topic...

A wizard could safeguard their study by setting marked books on the shelves protected with spells. The spell notes it is intended to harm other creatures, so it might be fair to assume that the caster can't trigger it. But their familiar could...

If that was say an evil wizard the party was trying to stop, the DM could make an interesting battle in the study using this spell. An example might be to have an imp familiar for the BigBad wizard that runs around triggering area of effect spells by grabbing the books off shelves and lecturns. Using something like an imp has advantages in that they are immune to fire and poison for spells like Fireball and Stinking Cloud-- though the fireball would likely be too destructive in a study. The imp also could arguably do this while invisible, but DM discretion should be used.

Alternatively a Levitate spell could be used as part of a trap. Placed in the center of a room with a high ceiling and many characters will be stuck midair flailing ineffectually. Alternatively the ceiling can be lower and part of a greater trap-- place the glyph below a spider's web, or under a surface that is burning hot or covered in spikes, perhaps even another glyph or trap trigger on the ceiling.

[pwykersotz]

It's not THAT creative, but I like Glyph of Maze myself. It's a brutal way to thin a party (or enemies).