player handbook errata released

[CyberThread]

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/ph_errata



Here you go folks

[Z3ro]

Very interesting. Interesting to me (given the other thread I started) is that unarmed strikes aren't weapons, which means no unarmed strike magic items with weapon properties. The hiding clarification is also amusing.

[HoarsHalberd]

So the evoker wizard and dragon sorcerer have been made less viable by clarification. (The overchannel was a no brainer but the Empowered evocation didn't need it as well.)

Grappler is now confirmed as garbage.

Stealth buff to chain warlocks as they get the MM companions and hence some resistance.

[CyberThread]

Out
So the evoker wizard and dragon sorcerer have been made less viable by clarification. (The overchannel was a no brainer but the Empowered evocation didn't need it as well.)

Grappler is now confirmed as garbage.

Stealth buff to chain warlocks as they get the MM companions and hence some resistance.




What do you think of the beast master rulings

[Xetheral]

Bestial Fury (p. 93). When you command
the beast to take the Attack action,
the beast can attack twice or take the Multiattack
action if it has that action.

I guess this means that Giant Badger pets can't use Multiattack until they get Bestial Fury, at which point it does them no good? In any case, they certainly don't get 4 attacks now with Bestial Fury. Giant Badger just went from one of the best pets to practically useless.

[Dralnu]

Why did they nerf blasters? Why did they nerf elemental monks? Ugh.

[1Forge]

Finally some fixes. i was waiting for these.

[1Forge]

Why did they nerf blasters? Why did they nerf elemental monks? Ugh.

you mean casters right not "blasters"?

[CantigThimble]

This seems less 'we're making this and this weaker' and more 'we made some typos and some things were written unclearly, here's what it was supposed to be:'

[HoarsHalberd]

Out




What do you think of the beast master rulings

Ranger's companion ruling is good, common sense instead of a tamed animal suddenly deciding to do nothing when its master goes down.

As the other poster said Bestial fury is a stealth nerf to what is already one of the weaker subclasses on paper. Does sort of ruin the giant badger as it is balanced at the CR it is supposed to be at around the multi-attack ability. Rather annoying altogether.


This seems less 'we're making this and this weaker' and more 'we made some typos and some things were written unclearly, here's what it was supposed to be:'
I agree, the clarifications aren't meant to be nerfs. But most of the clarifications have weakened already disadvantaged classes by ruling out more favourable interpretations. If you were asked to list archetypes that could do with scaling back: Dragon sorcerer (sorcerer overall) Evoker Wizard, Elemental monk and Beastmaster would not be anyone's top choices.

[Xetheral]

Partial list of problems created by the Unarmed Attacks aren't Weapons errata:

You no longer add your proficiency modifier to attack rolls with unarmed strikes (PHB 194)
It is unclear what ability modifier, if any, you add to your attack rolls with unarmed strikes (PHB 194) (monks excepted)
Can't use Stunning Strike with unarmed strikes
No bonus damage from Rage on unarmed strikes (thanks to Ruslan for catching this one)
Can't benefit from Reckless Attack when using unarmed strikes
Can't benefit from Divine Strike when using unarmed strikes
Can't use most Battlemaster maneuvers with unarmed strikes
Can't use War Magic with unarmed strikes
Can't use Eldritch Strike with unarmed strikes
Can't use Divine Smite with unarmed strikes
Can't use Hunter's Mark with unarmed strikes
Can't use Colossus Slayer with unarmed strikes
Can't use Hordebreaker with unarmed strikes
Can't make unarmed strikes while ordering a pet to attack, at any level
Can't use Mage Slayer with unarmed strikes
Can't use Savage Attacker with unarmed strikes
Can't make a Sentinel reaction attack with unarmed strikes
Can't take an unarmed attack with Haste

Edit: I've been convinced that despite unarmed strikes explicitly no longer being weapons, they're still "melee weapon attacks" and "weapon attacks". Therefore the new errata didn't break unarmed strikes, just my sanity.

[Kurald Galain]

LOL, "Hiding (p. 177). The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding."

[Xetheral]

As the other poster said Bestial fury is a stealth nerf to what is already one of the weaker subclasses on paper. Does sort of ruin the giant badger as it is balanced at the CR it is supposed to be at around the multi-attack ability. Rather annoying altogether.

On the plus side, at least now we know for sure that Multiattack is an Action, rather than an Attack. So, abilities that trigger off the Attack Action no longer trigger off of Multiattack.

[DireSickFish]

Partial list of problems created by the Unarmed Attacks aren't Weapons errata:

You no longer add your proficiency modifier to attack rolls with unarmed strikes (PHB 194) It is unclear what ability modifier, if any, you add to your attack rolls with unarmed strikes (PHB 194) (monks excepted) Can't use Stunning Strike with unarmed strikes Can't benefit from Reckless Attack when using unarmed strikes Can't benefit from Divine Strike when using unarmed strikes Can't use most Battlemaster maneuvers with unarmed strikes Can't use War Magic with unarmed strikes Can't use Eldritch Strike with unarmed strikes Can't use Divine Smite with unarmed strikes Can't use Hunter's Mark with unarmed strikes Can't use Colossus Slayer with unarmed strikes Can't use Hordebreaker with unarmed strikes Can't make unarmed strikes while ordering a pet to attack, at any level Can't use Mage Slayer with unarmed strikes Can't use Savage Attacker with unarmed strikes Can't make a Sentinel reaction attack with unarmed strikes Can't take an unarmed attack with Haste


Instead of using a weapon to make a
melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed
strike

That wording removes almost all of your problems. Instead of using a weapon attack you can use an unarmed strike. Meaning it isn't a weapon attack, but can be used where you could use one. So any time an ability calls for a weapon attack you can substitute an unarmed strike.

[Chronos]

Xetheral, your first two problems with Unarmed Strikes aren't problems, as they're fixed by another erratum (under Combat): Everyone's proficient with unarmed strikes, and they use strength.

[Xetheral]

Xetheral, your first two problems with Unarmed Strikes aren't problems, as they're fixed by another erratum (under Combat): Everyone's proficient with unarmed strikes, and they use strength.

The lack of proficiency bonus isn't due to lack of proficiency, it's due to the fact that proficiency bonus is only added to attack rolls for weapon attacks and spell attacks. Similarly, the ability modifier that controls damage is explicitly in the errata as STR, but it says nothing about attacks, and the section on adding ability modifiers to attack rolls only specifies weapon attacks and spell attacks.

Basically, they've gone and created a third category of attack, "unarmed strike", that has no rules governing it.

[Xetheral]

That wording removes almost all of your problems. Instead of using a weapon attack you can use an unarmed strike. Meaning it isn't a weapon attack, but can be used where you could use one. So any time an ability calls for a weapon attack you can substitute an unarmed strike.

Good catch. That removes a couple of the problems I think, for things that grant weapon attacks. Sadly, even if you can use an unarmed strike in place of a weapon attack, you it explicitly isn't a weapon attack, so it is incapable of triggering anything.

(List edited to remove the 2 3 4 abilities no longer affected.)

[SharkForce]

Partial list of problems created by the Unarmed Attacks aren't Weapons errata:

You no longer add your proficiency modifier to attack rolls with unarmed strikes (PHB 194) It is unclear what ability modifier, if any, you add to your attack rolls with unarmed strikes (PHB 194) (monks excepted) Can't use Stunning Strike with unarmed strikes Can't benefit from Reckless Attack when using unarmed strikes Can't benefit from Divine Strike when using unarmed strikes Can't use most Battlemaster maneuvers with unarmed strikes Can't use War Magic with unarmed strikes Can't use Eldritch Strike with unarmed strikes Can't use Divine Smite with unarmed strikes Can't use Hunter's Mark with unarmed strikes Can't use Colossus Slayer with unarmed strikes Can't use Hordebreaker with unarmed strikes Can't make unarmed strikes while ordering a pet to attack, at any level Can't use Mage Slayer with unarmed strikes Can't use Savage Attacker with unarmed strikes Can't make a Sentinel reaction attack with unarmed strikes Can't take an unarmed attack with Haste

not quite.

"Melee Attacks (p. 195).
The rule on
unarmed strikes should read as follows: ... You are proficient
with your unarmed strikes."

so you can remove the first one. the rest are still there, though.

edit: actually, that later errata clears up a lot more than i thought. here's the full paragraph:

Melee Attacks (p. 195).
The rule on
unarmed strikes should read as follows:
“Instead of using a weapon to make a
melee weapon attack, you can use an
un-armed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or
similar forceful blow (none of which count
as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike
deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 +
your Strength modifier. You are proficient
with your unarmed strikes.”

so, you can use it in most of those abilities (since you can use it in place of a weapon attack). and it sorta tells you what the modifier is, too.

still does nothing for enhancing your unarmed strike with spells that target a weapon though.

[Dralnu]

you mean casters right not "blasters"?

I meant dragon sorcerers and evoker wizards. It's a nickname for casters that specialize in blasting enemies.


This seems less 'we're making this and this weaker' and more 'we made some typos and some things were written unclearly, here's what it was supposed to be:'

Perhaps for some, but definitely not all. For example, Overchannel with Cantrips, Crawford stated the intent but now in the errata it's different. (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/25/overchannel-cantrips/)

Not that I think that was a bad change, but some of the other changes leave a really bad taste in my mouth. Like Water Whip being the only redeemable part of Elemental Monk without homebrew and they nerfed that instead of, you know, making that subclass better.

Yuck.

[Xetheral]

not quite.

"Melee Attacks (p. 195).
The rule on
unarmed strikes should read as follows: ... You are proficient
with your unarmed strikes."

so you can remove the first one. the rest are still there, though.

See my reply to Chronos above, who pointed out the same thing. If I've not explained myself well enough, let me know and I'll try again.

Incidentally, I *want* to be wrong about these. I'd like to think that I'm simply missing something and not that WoTC has made a mess of things.

[Ruslan]

I don't get the logic of Cantrips. Apparently they are so simple a Wizard knows them by rote without even scribing them into his spellbook. And yet, a mighty level 20 Wizard, who slings multiple high-level spells and can have 25 different levels 1-9 spells prepared, can only learn 5 Cantrips in his lifetime. No, he will never learn a 6th cantrip. Ever. Five is all he gets.

Before anyone says "game balance", yes, I understand it's for game balance, but the in-world logic of this eludes me.

[Z3ro]

See my reply to Chronos above, who pointed out the same thing. If I've not explained myself well enough, let me know and I'll try again.

Incidentally, I *want* to be wrong about these. I'd like to think that I'm simply missing something and not that WoTC has made a mess of things.

Many of them (for example, divine smite), say "when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack". The wording on the errata clearly states that you're still making a "melee weapon attack", just not using a melee weapon.

Some abilities (such as some battlemaster maneuvers) state "weapon attack", and those wouldn't function.

[rhouck]

I don't get the logic of Cantrips. Apparently they are so simple a Wizard knows them by rote without even scribing them into his spellbook. And yes, a mighty level 20 Wizard, who slings multiple high-level spells and can have 25 different levels 1-9 spells prepared, can only learn 5 Cantrips in his lifetime. No, he will never learn a 6th cantrip. Ever. Five is all he gets.

Before anyone says "game balance", yes, I understand it's for game balance, but the in-world logic of this eludes me.

I think it is stupid as well, and don't think game balance even factors in. Personally, I think wizards should automatically learn an additional cantrip per the "cantrips known" progression (just like they learn two free spells per level), but they should also be free to learn additional cantrips if they find them (or meet someone who knows them). The game balance issues from a 20th level wizard knowing 5 cantrips or 16 cantrips is nonexistent compared to the other spells they know and can cast!

[Ashrym]

I meant dragon sorcerers and evoker wizards. It's a nickname for casters that specialize in blasting enemies.



Perhaps for some, but definitely not all. For example, Overchannel with Cantrips, Crawford stated the intent but now in the errata it's different. (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/25/overchannel-cantrips/)

Not that I think that was a bad change, but some of the other changes leave a really bad taste in my mouth. Like Water Whip being the only redeemable part of Elemental Monk without homebrew and they nerfed that instead of, you know, making that subclass better.

Yuck.

I'm not sure that was intended so much as RAW and possibly unexpected. I found it interesting and seems okay.

The monk seemed like an obvious error.

Agonizing blast still seems rather good because it was left out of the once per rule the dragon sorcerer and wizard were hit with. I thought it might have taken the same hit, possibly.

[Xetheral]

Many of them (for example, divine smite), say "when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack". The wording on the errata clearly states that you're still making a "melee weapon attack", just not using a melee weapon.

Some abilities (such as some battlemaster maneuvers) state "weapon attack", and those wouldn't function.

How so? The errata says:


Melee Attacks (p. 195). The rule on
unarmed strikes should read as follows:
“Instead of using a weapon to make a
melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed
strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or
similar forceful blow (none of which count
as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike
deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 +
your Strength modifier. You are proficient
with your unarmed strikes.”

(emphasis added) If unarmed strikes are not weapons, then how can you make a weapon attack with them?

[Z3ro]

How so? The errata says:
(emphasis added) If unarmed strikes are not weapons, then how can you make a weapon attack with them?

Reread the errata: "Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike"

You're still making a melee weapon attack, nothing in that says you aren't making a melee weapon attack. Now yes, the later section clarifies you aren't using a weapon to make that melee weapon attack, but I'm dealing in game rules, not logic. That's why if the ability says "melee weapon attack" unarmed strike works, but "weapon attack" does not.

[CantigThimble]

"Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike:" It's still a melee weapon attack, but what you are using to perform it is not a weapon. It's really confusing but I understand why it works this way. They're differentiating melee weapon attacks and melee spell attacks but also saying that your hand isn't a weapon so disarming, sundering or anything like that has no effect.

[Dralnu]

I'm not sure that was intended so much as RAW and possibly unexpected. I found it interesting and seems okay.

The monk seemed like an obvious error.

Agonizing blast still seems rather good because it was left out of the once per rule the dragon sorcerer and wizard were hit with. I thought it might have taken the same hit, possibly.

I agree that the monk one was an error, they admitted it themselves before. But at the same time I challenge them to say any of the developers even played an elemental monk for a couple sessions. A meager amount of playtesting would conclude that nerfing water whip is one of the last changes they needed to make.

I'm glad they left Agonizing Blast alone. I wish they were as benevolent with the other two.

[Xetheral]

Reread the errata: "Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike"

You're still making a melee weapon attack, nothing in that says you aren't making a melee weapon attack. Now yes, the later section clarifies you aren't using a weapon to make that melee weapon attack, but I'm dealing in game rules, not logic. That's why if the ability says "melee weapon attack" unarmed strike works, but "weapon attack" does not.


"Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike:" It's still a melee weapon attack, but what you are using to perform it is not a weapon. It's really confusing but I understand why it works this way. They're differentiating melee weapon attacks and melee spell attacks but also saying that your hand isn't a weapon so disarming, sundering or anything like that has no effect.

So, you're both arguing that the "Plain English" edition just created a situation where you can make a melee weapon attack (which requires a weapon) with an unarmed strike (which is not a weapon)? Despite being about as far from plain English as one can get, I'm not sure the syntax supports your claim.

There are two possible sentence structures:
Instead of using <x> you can use <y> You can use <y> instead of using <z> to make a melee weapon attack
The latter structure does indeed support your claim, but I'm not sure that's the better reading. Thoughts?

[DeAnno]

And the Storm Sorc rises ever higher. It's good that Agonizing Blast avoided the nerf, but Dragon Sorcs really needed the extra rolls too. Is Fire still even the best option with Scorching Ray in the sorry state it's in now?

The nerf to Twin is pretty unpleasant to SorcLocks too isn't it? Twinned Eldritch Blast is now a thing of the past after level 5.

[Snig]

Bestial Fury (p. 93). When you command
the beast to take the Attack action,
the beast can attack twice or take the Multiattack
action if it has that action.

Does this mean that anytime a bm animal companion attacks it's just a regular attack and not one specific to your pet? (Such as pounce, knockdown, poison etc.)

[Z3ro]

So, you're both arguing that the "Plain English" edition just created a situation where you can make a melee weapon attack (which requires a weapon) with an unarmed strike (which is not a weapon)? Despite being about as far from plain English as one can get, I'm not sure the syntax supports your claim.

There are two possible sentence structures:
Instead of using <x> you can use <y> You can use <y> instead of using <z> to make a melee weapon attack
The latter structure does indeed support your claim, but I'm not sure that's the better reading. Thoughts?

As much as "plain english" is preferred, this is still a game that requires game rules to be read as rules. And frankly, in plain english, not having an unarmed strike trigger various weapon abilities is silly.

As far as sentence structure, here's how I read it: "Instead of using a weapon /to make a melee weapon attack/, you can use an unarmed strike". There's no need to add the "a weapon" if they didn't intend an unarmed strike to count as a melee weapon attack. The simpler version would have been "instead of making a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike". Part of plain english is not adding unneccesary words.

[CNagy]

So, you're both arguing that the "Plain English" edition just created a situation where you can make a melee weapon attack (which requires a weapon) with an unarmed strike (which is not a weapon)? Despite being about as far from plain English as one can get, I'm not sure the syntax supports your claim.

There are two possible sentence structures:
Instead of using <x> you can use <y> You can use <y> instead of using <z> to make a melee weapon attack
The latter structure does indeed support your claim, but I'm not sure that's the better reading. Thoughts?

If we're pulling sentence structures into this, it's actually a parallel construction that is leaving the redundancy unspoken. In other words: "Instead of using <x> to do <y>, you can use <z> [to do <y>]."


That's why if the ability says "melee weapon attack" unarmed strike works, but "weapon attack" does not.

Not true. Weapon attack includes ranged weapon attack and melee weapon attack. Unarmed strike can be used as a melee weapon attack, therefore it can be used as a weapon attack for abilities not specifying range.

[Xetheral]

As much as "plain english" is preferred, this is still a game that requires game rules to be read as rules. And frankly, in plain english, not having an unarmed strike trigger various weapon abilities is silly.

As far as sentence structure, here's how I read it: "Instead of using a weapon /to make a melee weapon attack/, you can use an unarmed strike". There's no need to add the "a weapon" if they didn't intend an unarmed strike to count as a melee weapon attack. The simpler version would have been "instead of making a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike". Part of plain english is not adding unneccesary words.

Hmm. You make a good argument. Let me think out loud here...

If your reading is correct, we end up with the following:

An unarmed strike is not a weapon. (uncontested errata)
An unarmed strike is a melee weapon attack. (your interpretation of errata)
An unarmed strike is not a weapon attack. (your interpretation of errata)
Therefore, if follows that not all melee weapon attacks are weapon attacks.
Doesn't that create a situation where a subset A of a set B includes elements not in B, which is a contradiction?

[Arial Black]

In this game, there are 'weapon attacks' and 'spell attacks'. There are 'melee attacks' and 'ranged attacks'.

That leaves four kinds of attacks: melee weapon attacks, ranged weapon attacks, melee spell attacks, and ranged spell attacks.

Strange as it may seem, you don't need an actual, manufactured weapon in order to execute a 'weapon attack', whether melee or ranged. Animals make 'melee weapon attacks' with bite/claws/etc., and even a manticore's tail spikes are a 'ranged weapon attack'.

This is a separate thing to whether these things (claws/teeth/tail spikes/unarmed strikes) are actual 'weapons' that can be bought, sold, enchanted, enspelled, etc.

[Z3ro]

Hmm. You make a good argument. Let me think out loud here...

If your reading is correct, we end up with the following:

An unarmed strike is not a weapon. (uncontested errata)
An unarmed strike is a melee weapon attack. (your interpretation of errata)
An unarmed strike is not a weapon attack. (your interpretation of errata)
Therefore, if follows that not all melee weapon attacks are weapon attacks.
Doesn't that create a situation where a subset A of a set B includes elements not in B, which is a contradiction?

Upon thinking, I think this is better than my original line of thinking:


In this game, there are 'weapon attacks' and 'spell attacks'. There are 'melee attacks' and 'ranged attacks'.

That leaves four kinds of attacks: melee weapon attacks, ranged weapon attacks, melee spell attacks, and ranged spell attacks.

Strange as it may seem, you don't need an actual, manufactured weapon in order to execute a 'weapon attack', whether melee or ranged. Animals make 'melee weapon attacks' with bite/claws/etc., and even a manticore's tail spikes are a 'ranged weapon attack'.

This is a separate thing to whether these things (claws/teeth/tail spikes/unarmed strikes) are actual 'weapons' that can be bought, sold, enchanted, enspelled, etc.

And as a result, all of the things on your list can be done by unarmed strikes.

[thepsyker]

If we're pulling sentence structures into this, it's actually a parallel construction that is leaving the redundancy unspoken. In other words: "Instead of using <x> to do <y>, you can use <z> [to do <y>]."

I signed in to say pretty much this, but would add that the last bit seems to be about saying that the described unarmed strikes aren't weapons, because if they were weapons they would already be <x> and so you wouldn't need <y>. To rephrase:

“Instead of using a <y> to make a <z>, you can use an <x>: [list of possible x's] (none of which count as <y>[because if they counted as y's you wouldn't need <x>])."

:edit

They released a tweet clarifying the errata:
"Addressing a nuance in the PH errata: the rule lets melee weapon attacks use unarmed strikes, despite those strikes not being weapons."
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/608776737917263872

[Ashrym]

And the Storm Sorc rises ever higher. It's good that Agonizing Blast avoided the nerf, but Dragon Sorcs really needed the extra rolls too. Is Fire still even the best option with Scorching Ray in the sorry state it's in now?

The nerf to Twin is pretty unpleasant to SorcLocks too isn't it? Twinned Eldritch Blast is now a thing of the past after level 5.

The twin issue was clarified several times already so no surprise on the clarification. Quicken still works, and better because it doesn't require a second target.

[HoarsHalberd]

Bestial Fury (p. 93). When you command
the beast to take the Attack action,
the beast can attack twice or take the Multiattack
action if it has that action.

Does this mean that anytime a bm animal companion attacks it's just a regular attack and not one specific to your pet? (Such as pounce, knockdown, poison etc.)

Blow me down. I didn't even think of that. That's the logical inference. Well BM just went from disputedly the worst archetype aside from a very specific build to definitely the worst archetype aside from a very specific build.


The twin issue was clarified several times already so no surprise on the clarification. Quicken still works, and better because it doesn't require a second target.

And worse because it costs twice as much sorcery points to do.

[SharkForce]

And the Storm Sorc rises ever higher. It's good that Agonizing Blast avoided the nerf, but Dragon Sorcs really needed the extra rolls too. Is Fire still even the best option with Scorching Ray in the sorry state it's in now?

The nerf to Twin is pretty unpleasant to SorcLocks too isn't it? Twinned Eldritch Blast is now a thing of the past after level 5.

scorching ray is good enough that most damage-focused sorcerers were probably looking at it whether they were fire or not.

and yes, fire (of the draconic sorcerer options) is still best.

it just isn't the best by quite as much. fireball is still pretty much the best AOE damage spell in the game (other than meteor swarm, which is also a fire spell anyways). scorching ray is still pretty much the best single-target elemental damage spell in the game.

[Ashrym]

Bestial Fury (p. 93). When you command
the beast to take the Attack action,
the beast can attack twice or take the Multiattack
action if it has that action.

Does this mean that anytime a bm animal companion attacks it's just a regular attack and not one specific to your pet? (Such as pounce, knockdown, poison etc.)

I think it's specific to multiattack and other benefits associated with the attacks apply as normal. Adding proficiency to damage on 4 attacks was pretty good with multi-attack twice at 11th level and above.

[SharkForce]

I think it's specific to multiattack and other benefits associated with the attacks apply as normal. Adding proficiency to damage on 4 attacks was pretty good with multi-attack twice at 11th level and above.

yeah, but it only nerfs multiattack.

it leaves pounce completely intact, just as one example.

[Xetheral]

Upon thinking, I think this is better than my original line of thinking:



And as a result, all of the things on your list can be done by unarmed strikes.


I signed in to say pretty much this, but would add that the last bit seems to be about saying that the described unarmed strikes aren't weapons, because if they were weapons they would already be <x> and so you wouldn't need <y>. To rephrase:

“Instead of using a <y> to make a <z>, you can use an <x>: [list of possible x's] (none of which count as <y>[because if they counted as y's you wouldn't need <x>])."

Ok, I'm convinced, particularly by thepsyker's comment that the entire stipulation would have been unneeded if the correct structure was: "instead of using <x> you can use <y>".

I'll edit the original list to make it clear I'm removing my objections, and that in 5e one can apparently have weaponless weapon attacks.

[Ralanr]

I don't get the logic of Cantrips. Apparently they are so simple a Wizard knows them by rote without even scribing them into his spellbook. And yet, a mighty level 20 Wizard, who slings multiple high-level spells and can have 25 different levels 1-9 spells prepared, can only learn 5 Cantrips in his lifetime. No, he will never learn a 6th cantrip. Ever. Five is all he gets.

Before anyone says "game balance", yes, I understand it's for game balance, but the in-world logic of this eludes me.

In world logic, "Bah, I have no use for such basic spells. When I reach my ultimate power, I'll have little use for petty cantrips."

This probably sounds like an overconfident wizard who trusts in spells more than people. This is a cliche true, but this is also rarely, if ever done differently. :smallannoyed:

Seriously, can we not have wizards who are overconfident in their spells and respect people who swing swords? Their power isn't as limited as their spells in terms of uses at least.

Incidentally I realized this might cause a thread derail, if that is a topic worthy of discussion then let us start another thread on it. I'm curious to see what people would think on the stereotype.

[CNagy]

Bestial Fury (p. 93). When you command
the beast to take the Attack action,
the beast can attack twice or take the Multiattack
action if it has that action.

Does this mean that anytime a bm animal companion attacks it's just a regular attack and not one specific to your pet? (Such as pounce, knockdown, poison etc.)

It also says "if in doubt, the MM version of a creature's statblock is authoritative." So your pet has its MM statblock, with changes as noted in the Beast Master companion section. You are limited in what you can make the beast do, the beast is not limited to what you can make it do, it is limited to its statblock. So beasts with poison use their poison, beasts that can trip or pounce do so if the prerequisite conditions are met, etc. Bestial Fury does gimp the Giant Badger, since it was using its multiattack when other beasts were getting one attack, but there are circumstances where you might want to use a multiattack rather than picking specific attacks to use twice. I don't think any of the current beasts have such conditions, but they would include multiattacks of 3 or more attacks and multiattacks that carried rider effects.

Edit: So apparently I've always skipped one line when reading Beast Master. The animal really does nothing if you don't command it to--I guess that's there for balance but talk about absurd.

[Kryx]

Water Whip being the only redeemable part of Elemental Monk without homebrew and they nerfed that instead of, you know, making that subclass better.
Any plans to adjust the remastered version based on this errata?

[PhantomRenegade]

Edit: So apparently I've always skipped one line when reading Beast Master. The animal really does nothing if you don't command it to--I guess that's there for balance but talk about absurd.Its totally not there for balance, its there becau- ugh i can't even muster the will to do this anymore.

Kinda wish they'd changed the Paladin's innate smite so that the paladin had to say he was smiting before the attack, i dont even care if it didn't cost any sort of action and it stayed around until he hit an attack, i just think its really lame how paladins get to pick and choose which hits to use the smite in(crits mostly from my experience.

[charlesk]

Stealth buff to chain warlocks as they get the MM companions and hence some resistance.

I assume you mean the part at the end about the monster manual? I play one of these and I'm somewhat confused. I am not sure that rule means we get the "variants" in the MM. For one thing, those aren't really part of the stat block, there isn't anything unclear (to me) in the PHB about familiars, and the MM entries say "variant".

[Dralnu]

Any plans to adjust the remastered version based on this errata?

Nope. I'm looking to make the PDF prettier at some point with that new photoshop tutorial, but that's about it.

[Ralanr]

Nope. I'm looking to make the PDF prettier at some point with that new photoshop tutorial, but that's about it.

So waterwhip is still a bonus action to you?

[Mara]

So waterwhip is still a bonus action to you?That's what it says in my book.

This is Paizo quality errata (that's not a compliment)

[Ralanr]

Eh, I don't mind it being an action. Puts it on the same level as fire snake, maybe it's still above since what reduces bludgeoning damage (creature wise I guess). I thought that was the original intention.

[Dralnu]

So waterwhip is still a bonus action to you?

Yeah. Otherwise why are you taking it over Fist of Unbroken Air? Fist is push and prone, Whip is pull or prone but not both. It's a crummy option and not even that different.

My revision changed Fist's mechanics too, by the way.

[Ralanr]

Yeah. Otherwise why are you taking it over Fist of Unbroken Air? Fist is push and prone, Whip is pull or prone but not both. It's a crummy option and not even that different.

My revision changed Fist's mechanics too, by the way.

Yeah that, AFB. I like unbroken air a lot and get saddened when people rate it down. Wouldn't stop me from using it, but still.

Edit: Concept-wise. I like it concept wise.

[Once a Fool]

Yeah. Otherwise why are you taking it over Fist of Unbroken Air? Fist is push and prone, Whip is pull or prone but not both. It's a crummy option and not even that different.

Because Fist pushes and Whip pulls. They are useful for different things.

Whip can effectively give your monk (and allies) an effective extra 25 feet of mobility/reach (relative to the target) and pull a foe into melee, which can be great if it doesn't want to be. Extra points if other melee buddies are up there with you. Now that foe must disengage to get away, or suffer possibly multiple opportunity attacks. Even more bonus points if sneak attacks are involved.

And even more bonus points if you also drag them through a wall of fire or patch of spike growth.

[Giant2005]

I'm glad they left Agonizing Blast alone. I wish they were as benevolent with the other two.

I don't really understand the inconsistency. Why nerf the ability for two classes but not the third?
I could live with all 3 being nerfed or none being nerfed but some being nerfed and not others is wrong no matter how you look at it.

I also hate the Beastmaster nerf. There really wasn't any need for that - I'm sure the number of people that think the BM needed nerfed are in the extreme minority.

[Easy_Lee]

My thoughts:

Unarmed Strike is no longer a weapon.

They did not want it to qualify for duelist or any weapon fighting style.
They specifically wanted to **** on shut down the bladelock / monk multiclass (though for what reason i'm unsure since it wasn't really all that great to begin with).

Beastial Fury

Let's make BMs even less playable. Why? Because F you, that's why.
We don't know what a panther is or we would have probably said no bonus actions.
We still haven't read the mounted combat rules or considered the possibility of a halfling riding a pteranodon.

Elemental Monks

We only included these guys because a producer's son watched Avatar and said that we had to make it a subclass. We don't want anyone to actually play it, so we'll nerf it instead of addressing the fact that its spells cost more ki per spell point than the shadow monk's spells.
Yes, all of its abilities still cost ki, meaning it will run short on resources far sooner than the other subclasses. And no, we don't care.

Sorcerer and Wizard

Some people play these things expecting to deal competitive damage? Weeeeell, that ain't gonna fly.
Let's see if players can figure out how to correctly distribute their attribute damage among the multiple rolls.

Hiding

What the hell does clearly mean? We've been over this WotC; you don't know what that word means.

Creature Statistics

We change our mind frequently; just go with whatever we printed last.

Stay (http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/2238_Money_Grubbing_Fat_Slapping_Heartless_Corpora te_Greed.html) classy (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090407/1130584421.shtml), WotC (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8wmniFNOsaCOU53cmxJLVpQcDA/edit).

[Kryx]

I don't really understand the inconsistency. Why nerf the ability for two classes but not the third?
I could live with all 3 being nerfed or none being nerfed but some being nerfed and not others is wrong no matter how you look at it.
Agreed. This makes no sense.

[Giant2005]

Draconic Sorcerers now need to cast their Scorching Ray in a 5th level spell slot to beat a high level Eldritch Blast in average damage.
I think it is safe to say that the debate as to whether or not a 2 level Warlock dip is mandatory for Sorcerers can be put to rest.

[Kryx]

Draconic Sorcerers now need to cast their Scorching Ray in a 5th level spell slot to beat a high level Eldritch Blast in average damage.
I think it is safe to say that the debate as to whether or not a 2 level Warlock dip is mandatory for Sorcerers can be put to rest.
More likely they need to apply the same ruling to Agonizing Blast.

[PhantomRenegade]

More likely they need to apply the same ruling to Agonizing Blast.Or, y'know, not make the sorcerer even worst with a damned errata

[coredump]

No one has 'nerfed' anything. These are what they were supposed to be all along.

Eldritch Blast is supposed to be the big damage dealer, that is part of the Warlock's Schtick. It makes up for only having 2 spells each short rest. Plus its only 2 blasts for the first 10 levels. Empowered Evocation worked on how many magic missiles?
It made Scorching Ray just *way* better than any other spell choice.

[PhantomRenegade]

No one has 'nerfed' anything. These are what they were supposed to be all along.

Eldritch Blast is supposed to be the big damage dealer, that is part of the Warlock's Schtick. It makes up for only having 2 spells each short rest. Plus its only 2 blasts for the first 10 levels. Empowered Evocation worked on how many magic missiles?
It made Scorching Ray just *way* better than any other spell choice.Oh the beastmaster was supposed to be total bung all along? Well yeah but i don't see why the sorcerer and the wizard need to get the shaft too.

The "its how it was supposed to be all along" argument is the most bullhonkey thing since not sliced bread, what it was supposed to be all along is balanced, if its not don't come errataing just to make things worst for the little guys.

[Easy_Lee]

No one has 'nerfed' anything. These are what they were supposed to be all along.

Eldritch Blast is supposed to be the big damage dealer, that is part of the Warlock's Schtick. It makes up for only having 2 spells each short rest. Plus its only 2 blasts for the first 10 levels. Empowered Evocation worked on how many magic missiles?
It made Scorching Ray just *way* better than any other spell choice.

Me personally, I take issue to a cantrip outdamaging a leveled spell. Also, warlocks have 2 spells each short rest at level 2, which actually puts them ahead of other casters on spells per day early. At any given level, the number of spells a warlock should be casting is close to the number of spells a wizard or sorcerer could cast in a full day, and all of them are at the warlock's highest spell level (which, until level 13, is the highest level of any other caster). The warlock just has to be savvy enough to use his slots instead of hoarding them.

The only time warlocks start to suffer is 13+, since their mystic arcanums are so much worse than actual full-spells. But level 6+ spells are BS anyway, and WotC openly admits that the high levels weren't tested very much.

[JAL_1138]

Wish they'd just save the errata for three-ish years and call it 5.5 instead of having to wonder which printing someone's looking at in a rule discussion.

[Giant2005]

No one has 'nerfed' anything. These are what they were supposed to be all along.

That stance doesn't really make sense considering they already clarified via tweet (more than once) that a Giant Badger Animal Companion was intended to use multi-attack for its attack action (And didn't require Bestial Fury to do so).
So either the change that prevents multi-attack was a nerf that wasn't the original intention, or Crawford chose to buff the ability by making a ruling that was contrary to their intention and then later decided to re-nerf the ability back to the original concept.
Maybe it is just the optimist in me speaking but I tend to believe the former is more likely as the latter would imply Crawford suffers from some kind of neurosis.

[JAL_1138]

Perhaps it still uses Multiattack if it has it instead of the Attack Action prior to Bestial Fury, but the errata means that Multiattack can't be used twice with Extra Attack from Bestial Fury.

I read it thus:
Beast does not have multiattack. It uses one Attack for its Attack Action.
Beast has Multiattack. It uses it for its Attack Action.
Bestial Fury gives an Extra Attack with the Attack Action. An animal can now use two separate Attacks for its Attack Action OR take the Multiattack action ONCE; it can't avail itself of Bestial Fury to Multiattack TWICE.

[PhantomRenegade]

Needing bestial fury to be able to take the multiattack option seems to be what they were going for.

[Giant2005]

I read it thus:
Beast does not have multiattack. It uses one Attack for its Attack Action.
Beast has Multiattack. It uses it for its Attack Action.
Bestial Fury gives an Extra Attack with the Attack Action. An animal can now use two separate Attacks for its Attack Action OR take the Multiattack action ONCE; it can't avail itself of Bestial Fury to Multiattack TWICE.

I think that is probably a bit of wishful thinking.
What you said makes sense right up until you realize that under that interpretation, a Ranger with the Giant Badger companion would get nothing at all for his level 11 ability (A level which is otherwise a defining level for every other class). I really don't think the intention could be for the crucial level 11 ability to do nothing.

[JAL_1138]

Needing bestial fury to be able to take the multiattack option seems to be what they were going for.

Except nothing in the errata actually says you need to have it before the animal can multiattack. It just says you can take two attacks or one multiattack. Is there anything anywhere that says no multiattack prior to it? I'm AFB. It seems to just be meaning it doesn't count as one attack but is a separate type of action for the purposes of Extra Attack (so you can now take two attacks with one Attack action, or take the one Multiattack action you already had).

[Troacctid]

That's what it says in my book.

It's not what it says in my book. The new printings are updated with the errata.

[CNagy]

Except nothing in the errata actually says you need to have it before the animal can multiattack. It just says you can take two attacks or one multiattack. Is there anything anywhere that says no multiattack prior to it? I'm AFB. It seems to just be meaning it doesn't count as one attack but is a separate type of action for the purposes of Extra Attack (so you can now take two attacks with one Attack action, or take the one Multiattack action you already had).

I like that reading of it, but I don't think that's what they are going for. Multiattack is a specific action. Until you get Bestial Fury, you have no way of commanding the beast to take the multiattack action. You are stuck with Attack, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, or Help. Bestial Fury modifies the attack action to be two attacks, and adds multiattack to your list of commands if the beast has multiattack.

In other words, the giant badger is double-boned. I mean, technically multiattack has always been a specific action; it is listed in creature's action blocks without being labeled "melee weapon attack" or "ranged weapon attack." But now when you do get access to it, there is no reason to use it--clawing twice is better than clawing and biting. Perhaps this is forward looking to a time when you can have CR 1/2 beast companions or even (dare we dream?) CR 1s.

[Ashrym]

Except nothing in the errata actually says you need to have it before the animal can multiattack. It just says you can take two attacks or one multiattack. Is there anything anywhere that says no multiattack prior to it? I'm AFB. It seems to just be meaning it doesn't count as one attack but is a separate type of action for the purposes of Extra Attack (so you can now take two attacks with one Attack action, or take the one Multiattack action you already had).

It should have said take the attack action twice or multiattack action twice, and stated using the attack or multiattack action once prior to be clear about allowing them.

I read it as attack action prior to bestial because multiattack and attack actions are separate actions per the MM and the ranger does not have the ability to give the multiattack action in his list of options.

Bestial Fury now states 2 attacks on the attack action or the multiattack action if the companion has multiattack. This does contradict previous feedback from devs on twitter and cuts the previous number of attacks in half for companions who had multiattack.

Giant badger is kind of nerfed because apparently having that many attacks with that size of bonus is restricted to fighters with weapons and warlocks with eldritch blasts.

The text looks pretty clear and it does limit companions more.

[Easy_Lee]

Regardless of any tweets they've made, taking the "Attack" action and taking the "Multiattack" action are two different things, by "plain English." The errata seems to follow that reasoning, allowing one to command one's beast to multiattack as an action only after level 11.

It's stupid, of course. Everything WotC has ever written about beast masters has been poorly thought out, even by their standards. A homebrew is not required to make the beast master do okay, but is required to make the thing function like an actual companion should.

Someone made a thread a while back asking whether one would prefer a beast companion or a mount. Their argument was that mounts can be commanded without giving up one's action or bonus action, while beast companions cannot. That about sums up my opinion of WotC's BM as written, errata included.

[Kryx]

Me personally, I take issue to a cantrip outdamaging a leveled spell. Also, warlocks have 2 spells each short rest at level 2, which actually puts them ahead of other casters on spells per day early. At any given level, the number of spells a warlock should be casting is close to the number of spells a wizard or sorcerer could cast in a full day, and all of them are at the warlock's highest spell level (which, until level 13, is the highest level of any other caster). The warlock just has to be savvy enough to use his slots instead of hoarding them.

The only time warlocks start to suffer is 13+, since their mystic arcanums are so much worse than actual full-spells. But level 6+ spells are BS anyway, and WotC openly admits that the high levels weren't tested very much.
I agree with everything said here.

I'd love to see some buffs to warlock 13+ that aren't just EB spam based. Better arcanums.

[Giant2005]

I wouldn't be surprised if the optional variant rules for the Beastmaster that the developers said they would bring out (In response to the survey results demonstrating that the majority think the BM is too weak) will just be the original BM back in its full glory. That way by nerfing the BM now, they can give us the promised buffs by bringing back the original and do so without throwing the originally intended balance of the game out.

[Easy_Lee]

I agree with everything said here.

I'd love to see some buffs to warlock 13+ that aren't just EB spam based. Better arcanums.

Thank you.

Treating the arcanums as long rest spell slots, so that one may cast lower level spells out of higher level arcanums, and treating arcanum spells as spells known would probably do the trick. That leaves them with a max of 4 high level spell slots per day to a wizard's six, and fewer high level spells known of course, but it goes a fair ways towards overall balance when EB is considered.

[JAL_1138]

I like that reading of it, but I don't think that's what they are going for. Multiattack is a specific action. Until you get Bestial Fury, you have no way of commanding the beast to take the multiattack action. You are stuck with Attack, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, or Help. Bestial Fury modifies the attack action to be two attacks, and adds multiattack to your list of commands if the beast has multiattack.

In other words, the giant badger is double-boned. I mean, technically multiattack has always been a specific action; it is listed in creature's action blocks without being labeled "melee weapon attack" or "ranged weapon attack." But now when you do get access to it, there is no reason to use it--clawing twice is better than clawing and biting. Perhaps this is forward looking to a time when you can have CR 1/2 beast companions or even (dare we dream?) CR 1s.

There might be a reason to Multiattack instead of use one Attack twice, like if one does piercing, one does slashing, and you don't know what the vulnerabilities or resistances of the enemy are. Or one has a rider but does less damage (can't double up the rider) so you use Multiattack and use both.

Multiattack is one use of the Attack Action, no?

In my printing, it would never get multiattack unless Multiattack is read as one use of the Attack Action. It would get to make two attacks ("attack" =/= "Multiattack" or "Attack Action") with the Attack Action from Bestial Fury at 11 but Multiattack is never mentioned anywhere. At all.

Edit: Somewhat ninja'd. I type slowly on a cell phone. Also trying to wrangle a housecat who has decided to do a great impersonation of either that gold ball thingy from the first Men in Black movie that ricochets everywhere (from his trajectory) or a stampede of buffalo (from the noise).

[Ashrym]

Regardless of any tweets they've made, taking the "Attack" action and taking the "Multiattack" action are two different things, by "plain English." The errata seems to follow that reasoning, allowing one to command one's beast to multiattack as an action only after level 11.

It's stupid, of course. Everything WotC has ever written about beast masters has been poorly thought out, even by their standards. A homebrew is not required to make the beast master do okay, but is required to make the thing function like an actual companion should.

Someone made a thread a while back asking whether one would prefer a beast companion or a mount. Their argument was that mounts can be commanded without giving up one's action or bonus action, while beast companions cannot. That about sums up my opinion of WotC's BM as written, errata included.

I still think a companion trained and used as a mount allows following the mounted combat rules.

There's no reason the mount options would not also apply. The action options both provide aren't exclusive; the ranger just uses the better choice because both are available to him. The only problem is suitable mounts and getting them trained.

[Easy_Lee]

I still think a companion trained and used as a mount allows following the mounted combat rules.

There's no reason the mount options would not also apply. The action options both provide aren't exclusive; the ranger just uses the better choice because both are available to him. The only problem is suitable mounts and getting them trained.

I agree, both are equally clear and specific. The BM may use his bonus action to command certain companion actions, or he may do it freely as per Mounted Combatant. However, I don't think commanding a beast should ever be more difficult or costly than commanding a mount. That summoned creatures and familiars do not require the caster to give up actions to command them is just icing on the cake.

[coredump]

Oh the beastmaster was supposed to be total bung all along? Well yeah but i don't see why the sorcerer and the wizard need to get the shaft too.

The "its how it was supposed to be all along" argument is the most bullhonkey thing since not sliced bread, what it was supposed to be all along is balanced, if its not don't come errataing just to make things worst for the little guys.

Which means you have completely missed the point.
When they wrote the PHB, the rule was that Empowered Evocation could only apply the ability bonus once. It was not written down correctly so that was not clear.
Nothing has been 'nerfed', it was misunderstood in a way that made it seem more powerful than it was. The errata is meant to put the rules in their 'original' condition....not to modify them. You may think the 'original' condition is stupid, or poor, or whatever.... but they have repeatedly said that this was how they were using the errata, and that any significant *changes* would be made in a different way.




Me personally, I take issue to a cantrip outdamaging a leveled spell. You are welcome to that issue. To me it isn't a problem. It is one of the benefits of a Warlock. They get a really good damage cantrip. Other classes have other benefits.
But my point still stands. This is the way the rules were created, they just didn't get put in the PHB in a clear manner. That has been fixed now. You may not like the way the rules were created, but it is the job of errata to make sure the PHB matches the rules created.


At any given level, the number of spells a warlock should be casting is close to the number of spells a wizard or sorcerer could cast in a full day, and all of them are at the warlock's highest spell level (which, until level 13, is the highest level of any other caster). Please, it is not 'close'. By level 6 its about half, and that is only *IF* they get 2 short rests. And they still can only cast a maximum of 2 for any given encounter. Yes, they are all of the highest level, but that means in the morning when fighting those easy encounters you either cast big or don't cast. At night against the BBEG, you get a max of 2 spells. Meanwhile the wizard used the low level spells for the morning, and had a ton of high level left for the BBEG.

Now, I am not saying Warlocks are weak, it is simply a trade off.... and getting a good blasting cantrip is part of that.

[Giant2005]

Which means you have completely missed the point.
When they wrote the PHB, the rule was that Empowered Evocation could only apply the ability bonus once. It was not written down correctly so that was not clear.
Nothing has been 'nerfed', it was misunderstood in a way that made it seem more powerful than it was. The errata is meant to put the rules in their 'original' condition....not to modify them. You may think the 'original' condition is stupid, or poor, or whatever.... but they have repeatedly said that this was how they were using the errata, and that any significant *changes* would be made in a different way.

It wasn't "not written down correctly", it was "not written down at all". It isn't clarifying a rule that doesn't exist, it is amending a rule with a new clause that makes it weaker.
There is no way to define that other than as a nerf and that remains true regardless of what they claimed they were going to use the Errata for.

[CNagy]

There might be a reason to Multiattack instead of use one Attack twice, like if one does piercing, one does slashing, and you don't know what the vulnerabilities or resistances of the enemy are. Or one has a rider but does less damage (can't double up the rider) so you use Multiattack and use both.

Multiattack is one use of the Attack Action, no?

In my printing, it would never get multiattack unless Multiattack is read as one use of the Attack Action. It would get to make two attacks ("attack" =/= "Multiattack" or "Attack Action") with the Attack Action from Bestial Fury at 11 but Multiattack is never mentioned anywhere. At all.

Edit: Somewhat ninja'd. I type slowly on a cell phone. Also trying to wrangle a housecat who has decided to do a great impersonation of either that gold ball thingy from the first Men in Black movie that ricochets everywhere (from his trajectory) or a stampede of buffalo (from the noise).

No. Multiattack is one use of an Action. The Attack action is a different use of an Action. Dodge is another use of an Action. As is Disengage, Help, and Dash. None of the printings would ever get multiattack--that's why it is errata'd and will appear in all future printings as an option you gain with Bestial Fury.

[Kryx]

Thank you.

Treating the arcanums as long rest spell slots, so that one may cast lower level spells out of higher level arcanums, and treating arcanum spells as spells known would probably do the trick. That leaves them with a max of 4 high level spell slots per day to a wizard's six, and fewer high level spells known of course, but it goes a fair ways towards overall balance when EB is considered.
I'd love to see one of your threads on this topic of applying the same nerf to eb and buffing other areas. This sounds like a good idea to me, but I'd love to see what others say as well.

@core: the game is balanced on giving 2 short rests. It is expected, not an if statement. If GMs don't give them then they're breaking much more than just a warlock.

Warlocks automatically casting at highest level is a big deal. They do quite well even without eb spam. The issue has always been mid levels warlocks offer less than MCing. I'd love to see some houserules that made agonizing blast add charisma once and then buff the rest of the chasis.

[Giant2005]

Regarding the Sorc and Evocation Wizard nerfs... They might not actually be nerfs. They might be clarifications that add an extreme level of complexity and confusion but barely change the abilities from how we understood them (Essentially clarifying something that was fairly well understood into something that is no longer understandable but still works in the previously understood method).

The "Damage Rolls" section of the PHB on page 196 states that when targeting more than one target with a spell, you roll the damage once for all of them. The Errata could just be trying to reinforce that point by telling us that we should only be rolling one damage roll and adding the bonus (the final result of which would apply to all targets) rather than rolling the same damage dice multiple times per hit.

That interpretation would also explain why EB was excluded from the nerf - EB didn't need to be included because Agonizing Blast doesn't effect any spells that are mandatory AOEs.

[HoarsHalberd]

Regarding the Sorc and Evocation Wizard nerfs... They might not actually be nerfs. They might be clarifications that add an extreme level of complexity and confusion but barely change the abilities from how we understood them (Essentially clarifying something that was fairly well understood into something that is no longer understandable but still works in the previously understood method).

The "Damage Rolls" section of the PHB on page 196 states that when targeting more than one target with a spell, you roll the damage once for all of them. The Errata could just be trying to reinforce that point by telling us that we should only be rolling one damage roll and adding the bonus (the final result of which would apply to all targets) rather than rolling the same damage dice multiple times per hit.

That interpretation would also explain why EB was excluded from the nerf - EB didn't need to be included because Agonizing Blast doesn't effect any spells that are mandatory AOEs.

However that doesn't apply to the most important casting for dragons, Scorching Ray. You have to make a separate attack roll per bolt hence roll damage each attack and hence the spell now needs to be cast in a fifth level slot to out damage EB. It's a hefty nerf by proxy to what is already an underpowered archetype compared to the UA sorcerer.

[coredump]

It wasn't "not written down correctly", it was "not written down at all". If you come up with 10 rules, and only put down 9 of them, you did not write down the rules correctly.

Or they wrote down the 10 rules, but in a way that we did not understand them..... it may have been 'obvious' to them, but we read it completely differently.
For example, to me it was always apparent how handcrossbows worked and Twin spell..... but others read those rules very differently.

Nothing was 'nerfed', there was no change in the rules from creation to now.... they were just communicated poorly in the first printing.

[Person_Man]

Errata: "Reach (p. 147). This property also determines your reach for opportunity attacks with a reach weapon."

Basic Rules pg 74: "You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach."

The "reach doughnut" has been heavily debated before. But this clearly confirms that if you're using a reach weapon, enemies don't provoke an Opportunity Attack until they've moved within 10 feet of you, and then move outside of that reach. Thus they can safely move around you, as long as they stay within 10 feet, and Opportunity Attacks are counter intuitively less likely to be triggered.

Though in fairness, it allows someone with a reach weapon to guard a larger area (25 feet wide instead of 15 feet).

So its harder for an enemy to completely rush past you, but easier for them to simply move around you.

[HoarsHalberd]

If you come up with 10 rules, and only put down 9 of them, you did not write down the rules correctly.

Or they wrote down the 10 rules, but in a way that we did not understand them..... it may have been 'obvious' to them, but we read it completely differently.
For example, to me it was always apparent how handcrossbows worked and Twin spell..... but others read those rules very differently.

Nothing was 'nerfed', there was no change in the rules from creation to now.... they were just communicated poorly in the first printing.

Firstly, there may have been nerfs, we cannot say for certain if some of the Errata was intended as balance changes over typos.

Secondly, the issue is that they have removed more powerful interpretations of the already weaker subclasses. Both non-warlock blasters (overchannel was a necessary clarification though), Elemental monk and Beast master were on nobodies list of too powerful.

[Easy_Lee]

I'd love to see one of your threads on this topic of applying the same nerf to eb and buffing other areas. This sounds like a good idea to me, but I'd love to see what others say as well.

@core: the game is balanced on giving 2 short rests. It is expected, not an if statement. If GMs don't give them then they're breaking much more than just a warlock.

Warlocks automatically casting at highest level is a big deal. They do quite well even without eb spam. The issue has always been mid levels warlocks offer less than MCing. I'd love to see some houserules that made agonizing blast add charisma once and then buff the rest of the chasis.

I've made one before (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?416967-Warlock-Balance-Concerns), though it quickly devolved into a discussion of blade pact warlocks. I used their expected damage with a rapier as an example of why I thought EB scaled too well compared with other options. The general opinion seemed to be that warlocks were fine, and people seemed to like the EB scaling and comparative lack of high level spells, since it made warlocks different from other casters. That said, there were a lot of homebrew ideas posted in the thread, so I also got the opinion that people generally felt something was missing from warlocks, or bladelocks.

[Giant2005]

Nothing was 'nerfed', there was no change in the rules from creation to now.... they were just communicated poorly in the first printing.

Adding a rule that was not previously expressed in any way, shape, or form is absolutely a change. Unless there is some secret area within the PHB that could possibly support the interpretation that Elemental Affinity and Empowered Evocation had, or at least could have applied only to a single damage roll of a multi-damaging attack, then it isn't an amendment but an entirely new rule that cannot possibly be considered Errata.
To consider it otherwise is akin to the WBO writing in a new rule that dictates Boxing matches can only be won by Knockout, calling it "Boxing Errata" and then taking away the titles and records of every Boxer that has previously won a match by any means other than Knockout. Obviously no-one in their right mind would accept that as being the way it has always been, and that previously no-one realized that was the rule.

[Logosloki]

Well the unarmed strike nerf means I have to put my tavern brawler warlock to rest as she no longer can pact her fists. On the other hand tome just got a whole lot better with clarifications on that the cantrips added are considered warlock spells and that you can nick the rituals from any class.

The wizard cantrip nerf is sad but life goes on.

Sorcerers just took another hit, not enough to put it into NPC tier but close enough

Beast master brings it in line with how other attacks work. Beast master is still a mess of a class and needs some help to make it smoother.

As if Elemental Monks needed more problems.

It is sad to see weapon master become even more of a joke of a feat.

Two-handed clarification is glorious.

Barbarian, Cleric, Druid and Rogue have no issues apparently.

Destructive wave clarification is good.

[silveralen]

Sorcerers just took another hit, not enough to put it into NPC tier but close enough

You don't think you might overstating things just a tad?

This changed literally a spell for dragon sorcerer and took away some single target nuking, that's really all it did. Unless this somehow means you can't apply the damage boost to AoE spells, but you roll damage once and apply it to every target so I assume that's unchanged.

Now, sorcerer actually has a leg up in some respects comapred to evocation wizard. Quicken certainly became more useful for boosting single target damage, as did empower. It boosted sorcerer's power relative to his main rival (since he has other methods of compensating said class lacks).

[Stan]

At least they clarified that animal companions get opportunity attacks and can take reasonable actions on their own. But reasonable will vary greatly among DMs.

I noticed that they stayed far away from rewriting any spells generally considered problematic and mostly limited spell changes to new schools.

[HoarsHalberd]

You don't think you might overstating things just a tad?

This changed literally a spell for dragon sorcerer and took away some single target nuking, that's really all it did. Unless this somehow means you can't apply the damage boost to AoE spells, but you roll damage once and apply it to every target so I assume that's unchanged.

Now, sorcerer actually has a leg up in some respects comapred to evocation wizard. Quicken certainly became more useful for boosting single target damage, as did empower. It boosted sorcerer's power relative to his main rival (since he has other methods of compensating said class lacks).

It's main rival in the blasting department was warlock which it now can only compete with at AOE which cannot be done after the first round or by expending large amounts of resources to catch up (either a level 5 or above spell slot or metamagic points.)

And they changed more than a spell. It nerfs Melf's Minute Meteors, Scorching Ray, Wall of Fire, Investiture of Flame or Ice and Storm Sphere.

What they have basically done is say: "Why do you want to be a competitive blaster! Just go Diviner or Conjurer Wizard instead."

[Jurai]

Oi... They clarify Once per Day, but don't remove Light Sensitivity? Why are Drow an option still?
Dwarven Combat Training means they lose throwing hammer? What imbalance is allowing a Dwarf access to a ranged weapon his class may not have?
Why must Wizards make Monk such a horrid option?
Divine Smite's clarification makes Sorcadins less controversial.
And they kept Beastmaster as an option?
Nice clarification on Flexible Casting, but gimping Twinned spell?
Elemental Affinity's errata should have been in the book in the first place. Free Concentration on Wild Magic Surges is nice.
Warlock gets... nice clarifications, though having to spend two reactions (Familiar's and your's) is sad to get an extra attack in the turn.
So this means my wizard can't copy over his dead master's Wish just because he's first level?
Elemental Affinity is Empower Evocation.
Why does Overchannel not buff cantrips? Whyyyyyyyy?
Why does Unarmed Strike not belong on the Weapon table? I reference it for damage!
Multiclassing should have been obvious.
Editors, what are you doing? Editors, Read!
Magic Initiate is a free first level spell slot. Why don't these people realize this?
A nice clarification for Martial Adept.
So, they mention what modifier the bonus attack uses, but do nothing about Quarterstaff and shield?
Sentinel's clarification is related to reach errata, so that's good.
So, wait, does Weapon Master now mean that there ARE exotic weapons?
How has that EVER been in question? I'm fairly certain that if my rogue (or whatever) is trapped in a white room with nothing in it, hiding is not an option.
They finally fixed the drown-healing issue!
Heavily obscured is clarified.
So, if, for whatever reason, I've managed to not spend a hit die during short rests, I gain one over my maximum?
Clarification on Ready is obvious, on Unarmed Strikes is... Several words I shouldn't use in mixed company.
WHY CAN'T MY NECROMANCER HAVE TRAP THE SOUL? THAT'S, LIKE, THE CLASSIC WIZARD SPELL FOR NECROMANCY AND SOULS! I CAN'T BE SHANG TSUNG AS A WIZARD ANYMORE!
So, Polymorph and True Polymorph can't affect objects?
Phantasmal Killer and Weird should be obvious. It makes no sense for an enemy that goes after my Illusionist to end a spell before it even affects him the way pre-clarification PK and Weird did.


So, yeah. Good thing we can choose to ignore errata in home games.

[obryn]

Nothing was 'nerfed', there was no change in the rules from creation to now.... they were just communicated poorly in the first printing.
This is some twisty, bizarre, rules-fundamentalist pseudo logic.

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

[Z3ro]

So, Polymorph and True Polymorph can't affect objects?


Objects have hit points, or are you referring to something else?


This is some twisty, bizarre, rules-fundamentalist pseudo logic.

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

I don't see that for the most part. Some were clearly new rules (ammunition loading needing a free hand), but others, like water whip, were clearly correcting misprints (nevermind that the misprint was better, it was still clearly an error and the designers said as much).

[Finieous]

Good clarifications. Some classes will be tweaked eventually, but better to base that on a solid rules foundation rather than allowing loopholes and exploits to do the work.

[SharkForce]

Oi... They clarify Once per Day, but don't remove Light Sensitivity? Why are Drow an option still?
Dwarven Combat Training means they lose throwing hammer? What imbalance is allowing a Dwarf access to a ranged weapon his class may not have?
Why must Wizards make Monk such a horrid option?
Divine Smite's clarification makes Sorcadins less controversial.
And they kept Beastmaster as an option?
Nice clarification on Flexible Casting, but gimping Twinned spell?
Elemental Affinity's errata should have been in the book in the first place. Free Concentration on Wild Magic Surges is nice.
Warlock gets... nice clarifications, though having to spend two reactions (Familiar's and your's) is sad to get an extra attack in the turn.
So this means my wizard can't copy over his dead master's Wish just because he's first level?
Elemental Affinity is Empower Evocation.
Why does Overchannel not buff cantrips? Whyyyyyyyy?
Why does Unarmed Strike not belong on the Weapon table? I reference it for damage!
Multiclassing should have been obvious.
Editors, what are you doing? Editors, Read!
Magic Initiate is a free first level spell slot. Why don't these people realize this?
A nice clarification for Martial Adept.
So, they mention what modifier the bonus attack uses, but do nothing about Quarterstaff and shield?
Sentinel's clarification is related to reach errata, so that's good.
So, wait, does Weapon Master now mean that there ARE exotic weapons?
How has that EVER been in question? I'm fairly certain that if my rogue (or whatever) is trapped in a white room with nothing in it, hiding is not an option.
They finally fixed the drown-healing issue!
Heavily obscured is clarified.
So, if, for whatever reason, I've managed to not spend a hit die during short rests, I gain one over my maximum?
Clarification on Ready is obvious, on Unarmed Strikes is... Several words I shouldn't use in mixed company.
WHY CAN'T MY NECROMANCER HAVE TRAP THE SOUL? THAT'S, LIKE, THE CLASSIC WIZARD SPELL FOR NECROMANCY AND SOULS! I CAN'T BE SHANG TSUNG AS A WIZARD ANYMORE!
So, Polymorph and True Polymorph can't affect objects?
Phantasmal Killer and Weird should be obvious. It makes no sense for an enemy that goes after my Illusionist to end a spell before it even affects him the way pre-clarification PK and Weird did.


So, yeah. Good thing we can choose to ignore errata in home games.

- drow can work, it just isn't always easy. there are, however, plenty of ways to fight without using attack rolls.
- throwing hammers don't even exist. light hammers are hammers that can be thrown. this change is a good thing.
- monk is a great option. elemental monks are not. but monks are just fine.
- beast master isn't really any different than before. mostly they only nerfed badgers. everything else works pretty much the same.
- free concentration is necessary to make the wild surge table work. who's gonna concentrate on being a sheep?
- at the very least, weapon master means there are weapons that are not martial or simple. presumably this is to prevent people from gaining proficiency in various monster weapons. does nothing to stop bladelocks though.
- i think the emphasis regarding stealth is on "clearly". as in, you don't have to be 100% unseen to make a hide attempt. if you've participated in the various stealth threads, you probably know why. if not, well, let's just say that there is a lot of discussion about certain abilities that allow you to hide in less than heavy obscurement...
- your necromancer basically can have trap the soul. it just takes a level 9 spell slot now. see the imprison spell for details.
- objects have HP.
- weird and phantasmal killer actually still suck, though. they just suck slightly less.

[obryn]

The funniest part is that Contagion remains as-is.

[Xetheral]

i think the emphasis regarding stealth is on "clearly". as in, you don't have to be 100% unseen to make a hide attempt. if you've participated in the various stealth threads, you probably know why. if not, well, let's just say that there is a lot of discussion about certain abilities that allow you to hide in less than heavy obscurement

That's a good point... post errata, what benefit do those abilities provide?

[Kryx]

I've made one before (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?416967-Warlock-Balance-Concerns), though it quickly devolved into a discussion of blade pact warlocks. I used their expected damage with a rapier as an example of why I thought EB scaled too well compared with other options. The general opinion seemed to be that warlocks were fine, and people seemed to like the EB scaling and comparative lack of high level spells, since it made warlocks different from other casters. That said, there were a lot of homebrew ideas posted in the thread, so I also got the opinion that people generally felt something was missing from warlocks, or bladelocks.
Ya, I guess it was quite recent. I was hoping to see feedback based on the latest errata to sorc/Wiz. Though we'll see the fallout from Sorc/Wiz "nerf". Maybe it was indeed a clarification like Giant said.

[Orbis Orboros]

On the sorcerer / evo wizard thing:

The old interpretation was that if you cast Scorching ray, which does 3+ attack rolls triggering 2d6 damage per hit, you would add your mod to each 2d6 roll, for much more damage than if it was just a single 6d6 beam.

The errata says, “The damage
bonus applies to one damage roll of a
spell, not multiple rolls.”

The first instinct is that casting Scorching Ray will do 2d6 damage per beam, but for some reason your player can only apply their superior skills to one of the beams.

However, looking deeper, we see that Wizards did not affect the Warlock Invocation that adds your charisma mod to the damage rolls of Eldritch Blast in the same way.

Why is that? It's clearly not a balance thing, as it was the Eldritch Blast thing they said they "had their eye on."

Someone on Reddit may have figured it out: the PHB says that you only roll once for the damage of a spell. Obviously, this means that when you cast a fireball, you don’t roll individually for each affected creature. But shouldn’t this mean that you also only roll once for Scorching Ray, and simply use that roll for each beam? A level 1 Magic Missile, for instance, would roll a single d4, and apply that result three times (plus 3).

Under this interpretation, things begin to make sense. The errata could be saying that if a spell, like Ice Storm, deals two types of damage, you only add the bonus to the spell once altogether, not once to each roll caused by the different elements (something most people understand intuitively, but which was not spelled out in the rules). The Warlock invocation was untouched because it could only apply to one spell, one that had a single damage type.

Thoughts?

[Kryx]

Someone on Reddit may have figured it out: the PHB says that you only roll once for the damage of a spell. Obviously, this means that when you cast a fireball, you don’t roll individually for each affected creature. But shouldn’t this mean that you also only roll once for Scorching Ray, and simply use that roll for each beam? A level 1 Magic Missile, for instance, would roll a single d4, and apply that result three times (plus 3).
Giant2005 made the same suggestion. I guess we'll have to wait and see how it was really intended to be read.

[Easy_Lee]

Giant2005 made the same suggestion. I guess we'll have to wait and see how it was really intended to be read.

Wanted to add that I too like the roll once option very much. It's simple and quick, both of which appeal to me for a tabletop game.

[PhantomRenegade]

Which means you have completely missed the point.
When they wrote the PHB, the rule was that Empowered Evocation could only apply the ability bonus once. It was not written down correctly so that was not clear.
Nothing has been 'nerfed', it was misunderstood in a way that made it seem more powerful than it was. The errata is meant to put the rules in their 'original' condition....not to modify them. You may think the 'original' condition is stupid, or poor, or whatever.... but they have repeatedly said that this was how they were using the errata, and that any significant *changes* would be made in a different way.An errata can both be a "restoration" of the rules to their intended purpose and a nerf, and in this case it very much is a nerf, and douchy nerf at that.

[DeAnno]

Someone on Reddit may have figured it out: the PHB says that you only roll once for the damage of a spell. Obviously, this means that when you cast a fireball, you don’t roll individually for each affected creature. But shouldn’t this mean that you also only roll once for Scorching Ray, and simply use that roll for each beam? A level 1 Magic Missile, for instance, would roll a single d4, and apply that result three times (plus 3).

This could really use some clarification if it was the intent. Someone should get on Twitter and bother Jeremy Crawford.

[coredump]

Firstly, there may have been nerfs, we cannot say for certain if some of the Errata was intended as balance changes over typos. Sure, I guess JC could just be lying over and over.
Even a recent tweet was talking about a spell change for Warlock, and he clarified that these were just correcting errors, not making changes.


Secondly, the issue is that they have removed more powerful interpretations of the already weaker subclasses. Both non-warlock blasters (overchannel was a necessary clarification though), Elemental monk and Beast master were on nobodies list of too powerful.Those interpretations were always against the rules, we just didn't know because of poor presentation.



The funniest part is that Contagion remains as-is.

Yes, of course. Because, despite your snarky comments to the contrary, these are *errata* not *changes*.

The rules were created.
The rules were put in the PHB.
Some rules were not presented well in the PHB, so we have Errata to correct that.

Contagion was put in the PHB exactly as it was created, thus while it may need to be changed, it has no need for errata.



I realize some of you are treating Errata as "rules we want to change", but that is *not* how it is being handled this time. They are just making sure that the rules being presented match the rules created.

[PhantomRenegade]

Those interpretations were always against the rules, we just didn't know because of poor presentation.That's not a good thing. It means that wizards was incompetent in their class balance, in their writing of the rules, and then again when they had a chance to shut up about it and chose not to, instead deciding that having the rules as they intended took precedence over having a wide variety of balanced classes for players to pick from.

This was basically them saying "No we don't want you to have fun playing a blaster sorcerer, we want you to stick to these meaningless rules that have a negative effect in game balance".

[coredump]

That's not a good thing. It means that wizards was incompetent in their class balance, in their writing of the rules, and then again when they had a chance to shut up about it and chose not to, instead deciding that having the rules as they intended took precedence over having a wide variety of balanced classes for players to pick from.

This was basically them saying "No we don't want you to have fun playing a blaster sorcerer, we want you to stick to these meaningless rules that have a negative effect in game balance".

Could be. Not arguing if their design is a good or bad idea. Just getting tired of the 'why did they nerf X" whine fest. Nothing got nerfed. Your incorrect interpretations were corrected.

Many people knew how Twinned SPell worked..... some people were making the wrong interpretation, they misunderstood the rule. The Errata did not 'nerf' that feature, it corrected the mistaken interpretations.

Now, maybe the 'mistakes' were improvements....maybe they were not. That is a different discussion.

[JAL_1138]

WHY CAN'T MY NECROMANCER HAVE TRAP THE SOUL? THAT'S, LIKE, THE CLASSIC WIZARD SPELL FOR NECROMANCY AND SOULS! I CAN'T BE SHANG TSUNG AS A WIZARD ANYMORE!


Because the spell's not in the PHB--spells on p. 283 go straight from Transport Via Plants to Tree Stride with no stop for Trap the Soul in between. The class spell lists in the PHB shouldn't refer to spells that aren't in the PHB.

EDIT: As SharkForce said, it's essentially the "Minimus Containment" part of the 9th level Imprisonment spell now. Which does almost exactly what 8th-level TtS did in 2e except it costs one spell level higher and that the gem can't be broken now.

[PhantomRenegade]

But what's the point of having an errata if you're introducing problems into your game that were not there before.

Sure maybe their internal rules had it so that the bonus damage from elemental affinity only applied to one roll, that's fine, but nobody else knew that, and experimentation showed that the class needed the multiple bonus damage to be competitive, so why in the hell would you bring that up?

Doing so shows a massive amount disrespect for the players who have put their hard earned money into buying the books and have spent months playing their characters if you're more concerned with them having the "correct" rules rather than their enjoyment of the game.


Also like i said before a errata can still be a nerf, the two are not mutually exclusive, if your entire elemental way monk player base was getting water whip, just because you intended it to be like an action from the start doesn't mean you're not nerfing their characters.

[DireSickFish]

Guys I think we're losing sight of the big picture here. Now the quick build for Warlock has CHARM PERSON instead of ray of sickness. Warlock is now great class from lvl1 because of this. No confusion about bad spells starting. Good change.

[Finieous]

But what's the point of having an errata if you're introducing problems into your game that were not there before.


The point of errata is to correct or clarify rules. If the game has class design or "balance" problems (recognizing that the designers might have a different opinion on this from yours), those need to be addressed with appropriate fixes. Neglecting unintended rules interpretations, loopholes and exploits is not an appropriate fix.

[Xetheral]

Even a recent tweet was talking about a spell change for Warlock, and he clarified that these were just correcting errors, not making changes.

Those interpretations were always against the rules, we just didn't know because of poor presentation.

Apparently we use different definitions of the word "changes". To me, fixing typos would be correcting errors. Clearing up confusion is making a substantive change. For example, consider Warlock invocation requirements:

In the rules published in the First Printing of the PHB, people disagree over whether Warlock invocation requirements are based on class level or character level. The rules are therefore unclear. In the rules published in the Second Printing of the PHB, it is explicitly stated that Warlock invocation requirements are based on class level. The rules are clear.
From the tweet we know that the Second Printing is more in line with the original designer intent. So did RAI change? Not at all. Did RAW change? I'd unequivocally say yes, and I'm hard pressed to understand why you think it didn't.

[PhantomRenegade]

The point of errata is to correct or clarify rules. If the game has class design or "balance" problems (recognizing that the designers might have a different opinion on this from yours), those need to be addressed with appropriate fixes. Neglecting unintended rules interpretations, loopholes and exploits is not an appropriate fix.I'd agree with a lawful, if you will, interpretation of the matter and that indeed first fix the "loopholes" or whatever and then fix the game balance.

i'd agree with that if Wizards hadn't shown itself to be extremely averted to touching anything in the PHB with a 50 foot pole, even this errata is as hands off and as short as they could make it, notice how they didnt say anything about fast hands and magic items because that's covered in the DMG.

The fact is they're probably never going to address any of the balance problems on the PHB and then they make it worst with this thing.

[SharkForce]

Guys I think we're losing sight of the big picture here. Now the quick build for Warlock has CHARM PERSON instead of ray of sickness. Warlock is now great class from lvl1 because of this. No confusion about bad spells starting. Good change.

charm person is awful. ray of sickness inflicts the poisoned condition for one round, which can be absolutely amazing on any target susceptible to it, and with good party cooperation you can definitely make that ray of sickness work in your favor.

you don't cast ray of sickness to deal damage. you cast ray of sickness so that within the next round every saving throw they make is at disadvantage. that doesn't make it bad, it just makes it situational.

in contrast, charm person is equally situational, except that the situation is when there is someone who doesn't want to help you but could be persuaded with charisma checks, and you only need their help for an hour and don't care if you burned your bridges, and there's nobody else around, but they're still important or powerful enough in spite of their complete lack of minions and associates to actually do something important for you.

that isn't exactly amazing.

[Suichimo]

Paladin
Divine Smite (p. 85).
You can expend any spell slot, not just a paladin spell slot.

Smites all day long from Pallylocks.

[HoarsHalberd]

Sure, I guess JC could just be lying over and over.
Even a recent tweet was talking about a spell change for Warlock, and he clarified that these were just correcting errors, not making changes.

Those interpretations were always against the rules, we just didn't know because of poor presentation.



Firstly, yes, developers lie. It's really not a surprise to anyone who has ever played a video game that they use euphemisms and sometimes outright lie to make changes more palatable.

And secondly, for the third time, I know those interpretations were a change of presentation. But by choosing to rule out kinder interpretations they have further gimped already gimped classes. If someone's starving because you didn't give them enough food rations to begin with you don't say: "Actually, you've been getting more of the bread rations than we intended so we'll take it away."

[Talderas]

On the Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock ability modifier to damage.

Original Wording

Agonizing Blast - When you cast eldritch blast, add your Charisma modifier to the damage it deals on a hit.
Elemental Affinity - when you cast a spell that deals damage of the type associated with your draconic ancestry, add your Charisma modifier to that damage.
Empowered Evocation - you can add your Intelligence modifier to the damage roll of any wizard evocation spell you cast.

At the most basic level they all have different conditions for triggering the damage. Warlock EB is on a hit. Sorcerer is added when the spell is cast. Wizard adds it to the damage roll of a spell you cast. Looking at it that way, I have no problem with the clarification of Elemental Affinity. You do not cast Scorching Ray 3 times when you cast Scorching Ray. You only cast it once. Since there's one trigger you should only get the damage once. In this case I would say the sorcerer line is a clarification. For Warlock EB you make multiple attack rolls and score multiple hit. Since you created multiple triggers you should receive the damage multiple times. It not being changed is unsurprising.

The clarification on Wizard is much weaker. Someone posted that you only roll the damage once for a spell but I could not find a line indicating that to be the case. If that line exists I would very much like a pg citation for it. However the errata says "Not multiple rolls" within it so I believe that scorching ray does indeed have multiple damage rolls and based on the triggering condition would have it occur multiple times. There is a weak out to make the original wording match the intent and that is very poorly done by saying the modifier is trigger by casting the spell, meaning you would get the modifier once. That's the only way I can read that original wording that matches the clarification.

[KorvinStarmast]

Wish they'd just save the errata for three-ish years and call it 5.5 instead of having to wonder which printing someone's looking at in a rule discussion.
Respectfully disagree.

They have already fixed the bits in the latest printing run, and by providing the errata in easy to use format are using the technology of 2015 to make it easier on the gaming community to get the corrections from the previous print runs. This isn't a big enough adjustment to justify a version change.

[Easy_Lee]

If they're going to release errata like this, I don't understand why the PHB isn't an online resource / app that players purchase access to. If they made it convenient to use through legal means, they wouldn't have to worry so much about piracy. That would make updates easy for both WotC and the players. But WotC has never been accused of making good business decisions.

[JAL_1138]

Respectfully disagree.

They have already fixed the bits in the latest printing run, and by providing the errata in easy to use format are using the technology of 2015 to make it easier on the gaming community to get the corrections from the previous print runs. This isn't a big enough adjustment to justify a version change.

No, this isn't, agreed, it's only a page. But three to five more years of errata might be enough for a "revised printing" (like the "black-border" 2e)--or eventually an outright 5.5 that patches some broken spells or revises class archetypes like Beastmaster from scratch, instead of incremental changes here and there with every print run.

In other words, hold off on errata until there's enough of it to do something significant, like a "revised printing" that changes layout, art, etc.*, or a full on half-edition.

*Edit: A revised printing with halfling art that didn't come straight out of the uncanny valley, an index that just points you to the damn page for something instead of "See under [whatever]" for every third entry, and spells arranged by class and level, might be nice.

[CNagy]

The clarification on Wizard is much weaker. Someone posted that you only roll the damage once for a spell but I could not find a line indicating that to be the case. If that line exists I would very much like a pg citation for it. However the errata says "Not multiple rolls" within it so I believe that scorching ray does indeed have multiple damage rolls and based on the triggering condition would have it occur multiple times. There is a weak out to make the original wording match the intent and that is very poorly done by saying the modifier is trigger by casting the spell, meaning you would get the modifier once. That's the only way I can read that original wording that matches the clarification.

Pg 196, Damage Rolls: "If a spell does damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them." The examples it gives are Fireball and Flamestrike.

[Talderas]

No, this isn't, agreed, it's only a page. But three to five more years of errata might be enough for a "revised printing" (like the "black-border" 2e)--or eventually an outright 5.5 that patches some broken spells or revises class archetypes like Beastmaster from scratch, instead of incremental changes here and there with every print run.

In other words, hold off on errata until there's enough of it to do something significant, like a "revised printing" that changes layout, art, etc., or a full on half-edition.

If errata has already been applied to typesetting that has been pushed to a printer, which they claim it has, then they should have released this errata because it is a clarification of rules that will ensure that new and old printer runs are in harmony.

[Dark Tira]

Bleh. Lots of the errata annoys me but I really hate having different damage rolls for the same spell. The changes to elemental affinity and its interaction with Flaming Sphere and Melf's Minute Meteors irritates me on both a thematic level and convenience of play/bookkeeping level. Oh and Contagion being untouched is definitely the cherry on my annoyance sundae.

[KorvinStarmast]

If they're going to release errata like this, I don't understand why the PHB isn't an online resource / app that players purchase access to. I understand. They are a for-profit company. Their business model looks to include limited "free" on line material and "for pay" physical material. The books with all of the goodies are products that bring in revenue. (There are other products as well, obviously).

At some point in time their business model may transition to something like what video game companies have gone to, selling the whole game electronically rather than in a box, but so far that isn't the business model chosen.

When you look at what has happened in the music industry (my son in law is in that, and not at the rock star end of the spectrum) I get why they have gone for the hybrid model at this point in time.

[Easy_Lee]

I understand. They are a for-profit company. Their business model looks to include limited "free" on line material and "for pay" physical material. The books with all of the goodies are products that bring in revenue. (There are other products as well, obviously).

At some point in time their business model may transition to something like what video game companies have gone to, selling the whole game electronically rather than in a box, but so far that isn't the business model chosen.

When you look at what has happened in the music industry (my son in law is in that, and not at the rock star end of the spectrum) I get why they have gone for the hybrid model at this point in time.

Well the long tail in the music industry has grown, meaning that the money is spread around a lot more than it used to be. With WotC, they could easily sell both physical and digital copies if they're worried. There are a lot of things that they make no effort to control about d&d. They don't design the character sheet apps, don't help people actually find a game, etc.

[silveralen]

Someone on Reddit may have figured it out: the PHB says that you only roll once for the damage of a spell. Obviously, this means that when you cast a fireball, you don’t roll individually for each affected creature. But shouldn’t this mean that you also only roll once for Scorching Ray, and simply use that roll for each beam? A level 1 Magic Missile, for instance, would roll a single d4, and apply that result three times (plus 3).

A separate attack requires separate rolls to hit and rolls on damage. This is clearly explained in the PHB.

pg 194: Each time you make an attack, such as a scorching ray, you roll damage. This is clearly laid out under "resolving attacks". Therefor, we again have confirmation each ray is a different roll, meaning scorching ray fails to benefit.

pg 196: If an attack deals damage to multiple targets at the same time, fireball/flamestrike are the examples, you roll damage once. That's the only situation. So it doesn't work with scorching ray. It could work on multiple targets if they weren't multiple attack rolls.

Please, at least look at the relevant sections of the PHB when discussing such things.


Giant2005 made the same suggestion. I guess we'll have to wait and see how it was really intended to be read.

.... just read the PHB and it makes it clear you roll damage for each attack.


This could really use some clarification if it was the intent. Someone should get on Twitter and bother Jeremy Crawford.

.......... do you people hate books? Or reading? Or have some deep inability to flip to a relevant page and see that the rules clearly, 100% indicate fireball is a single damage roll while scorching ray is multiple rolls?

I don't understand how so many people could just go "oh that's a good point" with zero fact checking. Even a cursory reading makes it clear it is a point with no merit.

[JAL_1138]

If errata has already been applied to typesetting that has been pushed to a printer, which they claim it has, then they should have released this errata because it is a clarification of rules that will ensure that new and old printer runs are in harmony.

Yes, no argument, again. What I mean is don't send the errata to the typesetter and the printer for another PHB print run until there's a fairly large collection of it. Hold it for a printing that changes art, layout, etc. too, whether it's more like three-column vs blackborder 2e (minor changes from all the collected errata, wholly reworked art/layout) or like 3.0 vs 3.5 (fairly major rule revisions, including reworking some classes, plus collected errata).

See what I mean?

[silveralen]

Yes, no argument, again. What I mean is don't send the errata to the typesetter and the printer for another PHB print run until there's a fairly large collection of it. Hold it for a printing that changes art, layout, etc. too, whether it's more like three-column vs blackborder 2e (minor changes from all the collected errata, wholly reworked art/layout) or like 3.0 vs 3.5 (fairly major rule revisions, including reworking some classes, plus collected errata).

See what I mean?

To what gain?

I mean.... the actual binding quality of the first few PHB runs was bad enough most people will need to repurchase soon anyways. Might as well sneak a few changes in before hand.

[DireSickFish]

Yeah if they're printing more books anyway might as well clear up a few things that were fuzzy the first time around. Or try to at least. Printing more books you know are going to be wrong would be negligent on there part. And holding off on printing would cost them money as they.. make money selling books.

[JAL_1138]

To what gain?

I mean.... the actual binding quality of the first few PHB runs was bad enough most people will need to repurchase soon anyways. Might as well sneak a few changes in before hand.

Reason to repurchase a PHB after it's been out three to five years, resulting in a bit extra cash for the company when sales start to flag? Ease of distinguishing printings? Having it all in one place rather than umpteen pdfs? Because that's how they done it back in my day, ya dagnabbed whippersnapper, now git off my lawn?

First runs:
http://www.critical-hits.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/add2phb.jpg

Black-border Revised:
http://www.lyberty.com/encyc/articles/dnd/img/phb_2ed_r2.gif

No, black-border wasn't that much bigger, although it had a higher pagecount; I just did a really quick GIS and the images aren't the same size



EDIT:
Yeah if they're printing more books anyway might as well clear up a few things that were fuzzy the first time around. Or try to at least. Printing more books you know are going to be wrong would be negligent on there part. And holding off on printing would cost them money as they.. make money selling books.

I'm not saying don't print more, just don't make alterations until there's enough to matter. So a second printing has identical content to a first, a third printing has identical content to a second, but, say, a fourth printing is a revised version with a new cover (and less-horrifying halflings) and errata. Etc.

[Easy_Lee]

Yeah if they're printing more books anyway might as well clear up a few things that were fuzzy the first time around. Or try to at least. Printing more books you know are going to be wrong would be negligent on there part. And holding off on printing would cost them money as they.. make money selling books.

Much like Xerox, they will hold on to their printing model as long as they can. Ultimately, they will overlook or dismiss some crucial innovation which will lead to the future of tabletop games. And they won't be a part of it.

[Orbis Orboros]

Please, at least look at the relevant sections of the PHB when discussing such things.



.... just read the PHB and it makes it clear you roll damage for each attack.



.......... do you people hate books? Or reading? Or have some deep inability to flip to a relevant page and see that the rules clearly, 100% indicate fireball is a single damage roll while scorching ray is multiple rolls?

I don't understand how so many people could just go "oh that's a good point" with zero fact checking. Even a cursory reading makes it clear it is a point with no merit.

Oh yeah, we all have PHB's on us at all times and can reference them whenever we want! I feel so ashamed of myself for not thinking to pull mine out of thin air. I have been properly admonished and will endeavor to remember to conjure my book the very instant it's needed in the future.

...

Now perhaps you could drop the attitude and put forth the information (quoted text, not just a page number and your interpretation) that you're citing so we who are away from our books can understand your counterargument.

[DireSickFish]

Much like Xerox, they will hold on to their printing model as long as they can. Ultimately, they will overlook or dismiss some crucial innovation which will lead to the future of tabletop games. And they won't be a part of it.

D&D is more of a brand than just a tabletop RPG at this point anyway. I wonder how much they make of licencing rights vs how much they make printing dead tree books.

[Person_Man]

If they're going to release errata like this, I don't understand why the PHB isn't an online resource / app that players purchase access to. If they made it convenient to use through legal means, they wouldn't have to worry so much about piracy. That would make updates easy for both WotC and the players. But WotC has never been accused of making good business decisions.

But then what would I throw at my player's when they attempt something utterly ridiculous but technically RAW? My Ipad? Too valuable! Dice? Too small! My beer? Too important!

[JAL_1138]

But then what would I throw at my player's when they attempt something utterly ridiculous but technically RAW? My Ipad? Too valuable! Dice? Too small! My beer? Too important!

Chug remaining beer, throw bottle?

[Easy_Lee]

But then what would I throw at my player's when they attempt something utterly ridiculous but technically RAW? My Ipad? Too valuable! Dice? Too small! My beer? Too important!

The dictionary they used to try to support their reading of the rules.

"Hey, show me the definition for that word."
"Sure, it's right... "
WHAP!

[Orbis Orboros]

But then what would I throw at my player's when they attempt something utterly ridiculous but technically RAW? My Ipad? Too valuable! Dice? Too small! My beer? Too important!

They make big foam dice that you could get away with actually throwing at them.

[Finieous]

Much like Xerox, they will hold on to their printing model as long as they can. Ultimately, they will overlook or dismiss some crucial innovation which will lead to the future of tabletop games. And they won't be a part of it.

Well...unless they're ready to bring that "crucial innovation" to market, holding on to their print model seems like a pretty good idea. Especially since their core business isn't selling Player's Handbooks to existing players, it's tabletop games manufacturing and book publishing. And as long as that's their core business, the commercial infrastructure it requires (principally wholesalers and retailers) is fairly important, and it might be a pretty good idea to support, rather than undermine, the businesses that comprise that infrastructure. Especially since the retail stores are likely their most effective means of capturing and training new customers, not just for D&D but for Magic, board games, and licensed products such as Attack Wing.

[Person_Man]

They make big foam dice that you could get away with actually throwing at them.

Hmmm. Maybe its time to write a homebrew LARP/tabletop fusion game with this principle in mind. Determine whether or not a monster hits by attacking the player with various Nerf weapons? But then, how do we protect the pizza and beer from miss/splash damage?

[Easy_Lee]

Well...unless they're ready to bring that "crucial innovation" to market, holding on to their print model seems like a pretty good idea. Especially since their core business isn't selling Player's Handbooks to existing players, it's tabletop games manufacturing and book publishing. And as long as that's their core business, the commercial infrastructure it requires (principally wholesalers and retailers) is fairly important, and it might be a pretty good idea to support, rather than undermine, the businesses that comprise that infrastructure. Especially since the retail stores are likely their most effective means of capturing and training new customers, not just for D&D but for Magic, board games, and licensed products such as Attack Wing.

According to WotC's research, most people get into d&d through a friend, the "big brother" model, rather than just showing up at a shop. Shops, I believe, were a distant second for how people find games. This is because d&d is a thick product that takes a long time to learn, and most people don't even know how to find games or meet people. WotC is not very good at actually selling their product.

[Ralanr]

Well...unless they're ready to bring that "crucial innovation" to market, holding on to their print model seems like a pretty good idea. Especially since their core business isn't selling Player's Handbooks to existing players, it's tabletop games manufacturing and book publishing. And as long as that's their core business, the commercial infrastructure it requires (principally wholesalers and retailers) is fairly important, and it might be a pretty good idea to support, rather than undermine, the businesses that comprise that infrastructure. Especially since the retail stores are likely their most effective means of capturing and training new customers, not just for D&D but for Magic, board games, and licensed products such as Attack Wing.

Are they still printing stories? Off topic I know, but I wanted to submit a short story to them and I to dig a lot to see if they were accepting works.

They really should make this info easy to access. Or maybe it is and I'm bad at it.

[ChubbyRain]

Twin Spell just got a huge bonus.

Hold Person at second level (and only second level) can now be twinned.

I like it.

[CantigThimble]

Twin Spell just got a huge bonus.

Hold Person at second level (and only second level) can now be twinned.

I like it.

How is that a bonus? It could always be used with hold person, but now it can't be used with magic missile or scorching Ray.

[coredump]

From the tweet we know that the Second Printing is more in line with the original designer intent. So did RAI change? Not at all. Did RAW change? I'd unequivocally say yes, and I'm hard pressed to understand why you think it didn't.Because you are equating the PHB with the "Rules of the Game". The PHB is how the rules were presented to the masses.
The designers created rules for the warlock, and that included invocations with warlock level requirements. That rule was put into the PHB in a manner that wasn't clear to some people.
The rule never changed. How it is presented in the PHB for mass consumption is what changed

[Finieous]

According to WotC's research, most people get into d&d through a friend, the "big brother" model, rather than just showing up at a shop. Shops, I believe, were a distant second for how people find games. This is because d&d is a thick product that takes a long time to learn, and most people don't even know how to find games or meet people.


First, I'm not just talking about D&D. More importantly, what amounts to "word of mouth" is great, but it's not particularly actionable for Wizards marketing. Organized play and other store programs are actionable.



WotC is not very good at actually selling their product.

I think they've been very successful against enormous headwinds, so much so that they're one of only a very small handful of profitable companies in what is otherwise an obsolete cottage industry. Despite that, there is no shortage of people on the internet ready to accuse them either of being money-grubbers who only care about profit or morons who don't know anything about their business.

[ChubbyRain]

How is that a bonus? It could always be used with hold person, but now it can't be used with magic missile or scorching Ray.

It never could with scorching ray or magic missile, people were pushing for something that didn't exist.

Before it couldn't be used with Hold Person because the way it is worded is that it is a multi target spell.

The wording before, and some tweets, made twin spell work only with single target spells that are always single target.

Now if a spell starts as single target, but later doesn't stay that way, you can still twin the spell at its based level.

This turns Hold Person 2nd level into a 3rd level spell.

[CantigThimble]

It never could with scorching ray or magic missile, people were pushing for something that didn't exist.

Before it couldn't be used with Hold Person because the way it is worded is that it is a multi target spell.

The wording before, and some tweets, made twin spell work only with single target spells that are always single target.

Now if a spell starts as single target, but later doesn't stay that way, you can still twin the spell at its based level.

This turns Hold Person 2nd level into a 3rd level spell.

My group played with it being able to twin scorching Ray. (We play mtg, we take the word target seriously). And also note that this trick matters for 3rd and 4th level only. Otherwise you can just convert the 2nd level spell and 2 sorcery points into a 3rd level spell.

[Easy_Lee]

First, I'm not just talking about D&D. More importantly, what amounts to "word of mouth" is great, but it's not particularly actionable for Wizards marketing. Organized play and other store programs are actionable.



I think they've been very successful against enormous headwinds, so much so that they're one of only a very small handful of profitable companies in what is otherwise an obsolete cottage industry. Despite that, there is no shortage of people on the internet ready to accuse them either of being money-grubbers who only care about profit or morons who don't know anything about their business.

Firstly, if a lot of people accuse one of a thing, that thing might be true.

Second, are you secretly a WotC employee? I know we have some on these forums, and I'm reasonably sure I've deduced a few identities.

Third, is your argument that, because WotC has managed to sell some products through print in the past, that thus automatically makes print the correct medium for d&d?

Fourth, I'm getting too off topic.

[coredump]

Yes, no argument, again. What I mean is don't send the errata to the typesetter and the printer for another PHB print run until there's a fairly large collection of it. Hold it for a printing that changes art, layout, etc. too, whether it's more like three-column vs blackborder 2e (minor changes from all the collected errata, wholly reworked art/layout) or like 3.0 vs 3.5 (fairly major rule revisions, including reworking some classes, plus collected errata).

See what I mean?

That seems like a truly horrible idea.

"Hey WotC, there are some mistakes and unclear rules...but don't fix them for several years."

Wut?

[Xetheral]

Because you are equating the PHB with the "Rules of the Game". The PHB is how the rules were presented to the masses.
The designers created rules for the warlock, and that included invocations with warlock level requirements. That rule was put into the PHB in a manner that wasn't clear to some people.
The rule never changed. How it is presented in the PHB for mass consumption is what changed

I absolutely disagree that the literal "Rules of the Game" are anything except what is published in the books. There is no ephemeral "pure" version of the rules of which the published print is only an imperfect reflection. D&D is the published work.

(Not that I have anything at all against tables (like mine) that choose to incorporate other material into our games. I've never played strict RAW in my life, and don't plan on it.)

[Finieous]

Firstly, if a lot of people accuse one of a thing, that thing might be true.


Or it might just be the internet.



Second, are you secretly a WotC employee? I know we have some on these forums, and I'm reasonably sure I've deduced a few identities.


No, I've never worked for Wizards.



Third, is your argument that, because WotC has managed to sell some products through print in the past, that thus automatically makes print the correct medium for d&d?


My argument is still there. There's no need to restate it.

[Easy_Lee]

My argument is still there. There's no need to restate it.

Very well, then allow me to rebut. In spite of a growing market for tabletop games and similar, given the growing acceptance of "geek culture," WotC has had steady growth. In other words, the market for their products grew considerably but WotC's share of the market, and I'm talking about D&D because this is a D&D forum, has actually decreased proportionally. This is according to their own numbers, not conjecture.

And the reason for that is because most people get into D&D through a friend. Thus, the D&D market can only grow at a fixed rate, the rate at which friends introduce each other to the game, unless and until WotC comes up with better ways to get people into D&D and help new players find games.

Instead of that, they're continuing with their current model of releasing an unfinished product, ignoring complaints, insulting the players and releasing busted errata, things which piss off their current playerbase. They have failed to adapt to any of the recent changes in the market, and have totally failed to take advantage of advances in technology.

Which is why so many people complain about WotC. It's D&D; we want to like it. WotC makes that difficult. If you think this is just the Internet being the Internet, then I invite you to participate in an Adventurer's League at your local gaming store.

[Ralanr]

Very well, then allow me to rebut. In spite of a growing market for tabletop games and similar, given the growing acceptance of "geek culture," WotC has had steady growth. In other words, the market for their products grew considerably but WotC's share of the market, and I'm talking about D&D because this is a D&D forum, has actually decreased proportionally. This is according to their own numbers, not conjecture.

And the reason for that is because most people get into D&D through a friend. Thus, the D&D market can only grow at a fixed rate, the rate at which friends introduce each other to the game, unless and until WotC comes up with better ways to get people into D&D and help new players find games.

Instead of that, they're continuing with their current model of releasing an unfinished product, ignoring complaints, insulting the players and releasing busted errata, things which piss off their current playerbase. They have failed to adapt to any of the recent changes in the market, and have totally failed to take advantage of advances in technology.

Which is why so many people complain about WotC. It's D&D; we want to like it. WotC makes that difficult. If you think this is just the Internet being the Internet, then I invite you to participate in an Adventurer's League at your local gaming store.

One: a lot of people get into things based on friends. I see nothing wrong with that.

Two: local gaming stores are kinda dying out. It's a rarity where I am and the one I mainly go to where I go to college doesn't sell d&d stuff.

We need to do more in bringing these stores back.

[DireSickFish]

Two: local gaming stores are kinda dying out. It's a rarity where I am and the one I mainly go to where I go to college doesn't sell d&d stuff.

We need to do more in bringing these stores back.

I strongly disagree with that. The Fantasy Flight Game Center by me just moved to a huge new space with event area by me and has a ton of people at it every weekend.

The Source also is packed constantly and I have multiple smaller gaming stores near me. Maybe this is just how it is in the Midwest but gaming around here is in something of a renaissance with kickstarter and whatnot.

They all got shelves with rpg books along with the board games.

[Ralanr]

I strongly disagree with that. The Fantasy Flight Game Center by me just moved to a huge new space with event area by me and has a ton of people at it every weekend.

The Source also is packed constantly and I have multiple smaller gaming stores near me. Maybe this is just how it is in the Midwest but gaming around here is in something of a renaissance with kickstarter and whatnot.

They all got shelves with rpg books along with the board games.


That sounds awesome. Might just be in my area.

[DireSickFish]

That sounds awesome. Might just be in my area.

Move to Minnesota, we have legit gaming in Roseville. Some of the biggest game space in the country.

[Ralanr]

Move to Minnesota, we have legit gaming in Roseville. Some of the biggest game space in the country.

I didn't have a destination in mind after college. Now I can start a list.

[ChubbyRain]

My group played with it being able to twin scorching Ray. (We play mtg, we take the word target seriously). And also note that this trick matters for 3rd and 4th level only. Otherwise you can just convert the 2nd level spell and 2 sorcery points into a 3rd level spell.

Homebrewing is fine, but playing AL/Encounters as many people do (or by RAW), you was never able to twin scorching ray.

When you are playing AL and you can essentially get a higher level spell than you technically can cast, that is a big thing. Even in home games that don't quick level it is awesome.

I need to see what higher level spells do this, perhaps dominate monster. Hold Person was just an example.

[CantigThimble]

Um, correct me if I'm wrong but the original wording for Twin Spell refers to you casting a spell with a single target. A scorching ray spell aiming at one person with every ray has a single target. They changed that to referring to spells that can only have one target. No home-brew involved, just interpretation of RAW. The same interpretation used on another WotC product, MtG.

[Ashrym]

Um, correct me if I'm wrong but the original wording for Twin Spell refers to you casting a spell with a single target. A scorching ray spell aiming at one person with every ray has a single target. They changed that to referring to spells that can only have one target. No home-brew involved, just interpretation of RAW. The same interpretation used on another WotC product, MtG.

No, the spell still had multiple targets and the player was just making the same selection of targets repeatedly. ;-)

The spell still attacks multiple targets whether the player makes that choice or not. Casting a spell with a single target isn't the same thing as casting a spell that with multiple targets and choosing to only select one of them.

It was just an attempt by players to work the system. The intent was clarified on twitter many times because it was a common argument that could be made either way and the errata only reinforces one interpretation over the other as the intended interpretation.

[Easy_Lee]

Um, correct me if I'm wrong but the original wording for Twin Spell refers to you casting a spell with a single target. A scorching ray spell aiming at one person with every ray has a single target. They changed that to referring to spells that can only have one target. No home-brew involved, just interpretation of RAW. The same interpretation used on another WotC product, MtG.

This us correct. There is no doubt that the errata will be the ruling of choice in AL games. Just from my experience with them, I can tell you that those DMs like railroading and dislike creativity, because that's how AL encourages them to run the game. Their players must accomplish specific objectives in a specific order and gain experience at a specified rate. The only character I would seriously play in AL would be a barbarian with great weapon mastery who Reckless Attacks every time.

[KorvinStarmast]

They make big foam dice that you could get away with actually throwing at them.
In 1978, our DM used a nerf ball (about softball sized) for precisely that purpose. It got the point across that he was done with the argument and that it was time to get back to playing.

[KorvinStarmast]

Firstly, if a lot of people accuse one of a thing, that thing might be true.
Easy Lee is a witch! (Cue the Monty Python "weighs as much as a duck" sketch from MP's Holy Grail film ...

Argumentum ad populum may not be the best way to go here.


Second, are you secretly a WotC employee? I know we have some on these forums, and I'm reasonably sure I've deduced a few identities. The handle Finieous made me think of a certain Mr Fingers and the evil wizard Kask.

Third, is your argument that, because WotC has managed to sell some products through print in the past, that thus automatically makes print the correct medium for d&d? [/QUOTE]
I note that even with all the Kindles in the world, book stores still sell books. At some point, as I noted above, the WotC/Hasbro bunch will probably find a way to go to a more hybrid model. Just not yet.

[Ralanr]

In 1978, our DM used a nerf ball (about softball sized) for precisely that purpose. It got the point across that he was done with the argument and that it was time to get back to playing.

Note to self: Get something similar for my DM as a present. I tend to argue way too much and this is better than having someone raise their voice.

[KorvinStarmast]

And the reason for that is because most people get into D&D through a friend. Thus, the D&D market can only grow at a fixed rate, the rate at which friends introduce each other to the game, unless and until WotC comes up with better ways to get people into D&D and help new players find games. You do understand how a virus works, right? Original D&D spread like a virus. Friend to friend contact. It succeeded well beyond the author's expectations.

At around the same time, there was a TV add that used a pretty lady talking about shampoo. She extolled its virtues, and then said

"I'll tell two friends, and she'll tell to friends, and son on ... "
Each time she spoke, the number of images of her doubled. And doubled again. And so on, and so on, and so on. Screen soon had 256 images of her, or something like that.

So you tell two friends, and have them tell two friends. :smallbiggrin:


totally failed to take advantage of advances in technology. "totally?" Nope. I noted above the mix of stripped down rules in free pdf and the real thing for money. Errata via pdf, electronic means. They have indeed used tech.


If you think this is just the Internet being the Internet, then I invite you to participate in an Adventurer's League at your local gaming store. Are you saying that this isn't possible?

[CNagy]

D&D embraced tech, at least back in the TSR days. I still have my Core Rules and Expansion cd-rom around here somewhere. It was like "hey, how would you like every book for this edition up to this point, and a bunch of programs to make character creation, campaign building, maps, etc easy?" The good ole broken days.

[Cactuar]

What I find funny is that Quickened Firebolt + Firebolt is a better (read: higher damage) use of a 2nd spell slot than Scorching Ray in most situations - it does more damage at level 6 than scorching does now.

Only downside is that you lose your bonus action for two turns, but what are you really going to do with that as a sorc anyway?

[Doug Lampert]

Could be. Not arguing if their design is a good or bad idea. Just getting tired of the 'why did they nerf X" whine fest. Nothing got nerfed. Your incorrect interpretations were corrected.

Many people knew how Twinned SPell worked..... some people were making the wrong interpretation, they misunderstood the rule. The Errata did not 'nerf' that feature, it corrected the mistaken interpretations.

Now, maybe the 'mistakes' were improvements....maybe they were not. That is a different discussion.

Specifically, those claiming twin spell worked on Scorching Ray or Magic Missile were insisting on RAW that the spell was only targeting one creature. And then they were insistent in ignoring RAW on what twin spell actually does. It lets a spell target two creatures.

Congratulations. If twin spell works on Scorching Ray then it's ONLY EFFECT would be to allow the spell to target two creatures, when normally it could target three.

Nothing anywhere said or implied that you got double the rays. That was added with nothing in RAW to support it by people who's whole argument utterly depended on RAW.

Twin spell quite explicitly doesn't cast the spell twice, because then it would be useless on concentration spells, it casts the spell once and lets it target two creatures.


Um, correct me if I'm wrong but the original wording for Twin Spell refers to you casting a spell with a single target. A scorching ray spell aiming at one person with every ray has a single target. They changed that to referring to spells that can only have one target. No home-brew involved, just interpretation of RAW. The same interpretation used on another WotC product, MtG.

Which is fine, but then WHAT DOES TWIN SPELL DO!

It allows the spell to target two creatures. That's what it says it does. So it does nothing useful for twin spell.

You have to ADD something to your RAW argument that isn't in RAW for twin spell to be in any way useful with Scorching Ray.

This is the 3.5 Commoner Railgun rides again, "We'll argue literal rules as written right up to the point where they say 'that doesn't work at all', and then we'll ignore them and substitute something from 'common sense'."

Right.

No. Twin spell never worked on Scorching Ray. To make it work you need to assume it makes you cast the spell twice, when that isn't what it does. What it does is let you target two creatures with the spell, which was already possible with Scorching Ray, so it does NOTHING! It lets you do what you could already do.

[Easy_Lee]

I do understand the virus model, the trouble is threefold.

Firstly, d&d has not retained all of its players, largely due to WotC finding ways to piss off its fans. Some attrition is expected, but d&d has suffered a lot of loss to games like Pathfinder.

Second, not everyone playing d&d is fully equipped to introduce friends, because there are only a small portion of the players who can DM and WotC has no good training programs for DMs. The best way to learn to DM is reading guides online or getting a tutor.

And third, this model has a fixed growth rate. While the tabletop gaming crowd recently exploded, d&d's growth did not change. This is because players don't usually get into the game without another player introducing them because it is difficult to do so.

Those are the flaws with WotC's current model.

[silveralen]

Oh yeah, we all have PHB's on us at all times and can reference them whenever we want! I feel so ashamed of myself for not thinking to pull mine out of thin air. I have been properly admonished and will endeavor to remember to conjure my book the very instant it's needed in the future.

...

Now perhaps you could drop the attitude and put forth the information (quoted text, not just a page number and your interpretation) that you're citing so we who are away from our books can understand your counterargument.


PG 194: "Whether you're striking a target with a melee weapon... or making an attack roll as a part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.

1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, object, or location.

2. Determine modifiers. [not relevant]

3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit you Roll damage, unless that particular attack has rules which specify otherwise.

If ther's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rules is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you are making an attack"


PG 273: Scorching ray [...] make a ranged spell attack for each ray

So, each ray is a seperate attack, as per the spell. As per PG 194, each separate attack, if it hits, requires a damage roll.

Also, did you really get snippy with me when five people couldn't be bothered to open the book before talking about the need for clarifications from the designers?

[CantigThimble]

Which is fine, but then WHAT DOES TWIN SPELL DO!

It allows the spell to target two creatures. That's what it says it does. So it does nothing useful for twin spell.

You have to ADD something to your RAW argument that isn't in RAW for twin spell to be in any way useful with Scorching Ray.

This is the 3.5 Commoner Railgun rides again, "We'll argue literal rules as written right up to the point where they say 'that doesn't work at all', and then we'll ignore them and substitute something from 'common sense'."

Right.

No. Twin spell never worked on Scorching Ray. To make it work you need to assume it makes you cast the spell twice, when that isn't what it does. What it does is let you target two creatures with the spell, which was already possible with Scorching Ray, so it does NOTHING! It lets you do what you could already do.


I've never been much for RAW, this is just what my entire play group thought when they read the ability. It's not remotely an unreasonable interpretation, and it's exactly what would be the case if this was MtG. (see precursor golem and arc lightning)

[ChubbyRain]

I've never been much for RAW, this is just what my entire play group thought when they read the ability. It's not remotely an unreasonable interpretation, and it's exactly what would be the case if this was MtG. (see precursor golem and arc lightning)

It is unreasonable to take an ability and try to twist it. The ability is clear and your argument is "well we housruled it so that's how it is".

Play the game how you want but don't be spreading false information, not cool.

I can argue that there are no such thing as raccoons because my friends and I call them fluffsparkledarlings and I've never been one for traditiinal names. That doesn't mean I'm right and I shouldn't tell others that raccoons don't exist but fluffsparkledarlings are a fact.

[CantigThimble]

....I'm not spreading false information. I'm stating how I think the ability works. I'm not twisting RAW, that's how I interpret them. I'm also done with this conversation as of now.

[Vogonjeltz]

Very interesting. Interesting to me (given the other thread I started) is that unarmed strikes aren't weapons, which means no unarmed strike magic items with weapon properties. The hiding clarification is also amusing.

Basically everything fell into one of two categories:
1) of course that's how it worke
2) we saw a plethora of posters doing their best to misinterpret the plain text meaning for personal gain, so this needed to be clarified to deal with munchkins.

[PhantomRenegade]

Yeah cuz the muchkins are really gonna go for Sorcerer, or beastmaster, or elemental way monk, cuz that's a thing.

[Solusek]

Ouch. So the best thing Dragon Sorcerers had over the newer .pdf released sorcerous origins was their extra damage output - a big part of which was the Scorching Rays stacking with Elemental Affinity. Now that that has received errata I'm not feeling too happy about playing a dragon origin sorcerer any more. It really seems vastly underpowered.

[HoarsHalberd]

Basically everything fell into one of two categories:
1) of course that's how it worke
2) we saw a plethora of posters doing their best to misinterpret the plain text meaning for personal gain, so this needed to be clarified to deal with munchkins.

The munchkinnery is pretty much Xbow expert and Overchannel right? Because there's no way any munchkin would use a dragon sorcerer, elemental monk or beast master.

[silveralen]

Ouch. So the best thing Dragon Sorcerers had over the newer .pdf released sorcerous origins was their extra damage output - a big part of which was the Scorching Rays stacking with Elemental Affinity. Now that that has received errata I'm not feeling too happy about playing a dragon origin sorcerer any more. It really seems vastly underpowered.

Not really, you still have the damage casters always excelled at: AoE. Fireball still gets the damage boost on every target.

[PhantomRenegade]

@HoarsHalberd: But the hand crossbow ruling doesnt even hit characters that hard, the only thing it changes is that you can't use it with a shield on. Literally every other build still works, and the shield thing can be overcome with a magic or gnomish hand crossbow.

[ChubbyRain]

Yeah cuz the muchkins are really gonna go for Sorcerer, or beastmaster, or elemental way monk, cuz that's a thing.

Sorcerers actually are better than people think at first glance.

Wild Sorcerers make good MC gish. Fighter 5/Wild Sorcerer 15 is fun.

Dragon Sorcerer only really needs to take 1 damaging spell at spell level 1, 3, 5. Everything else is spells that offer utility. Careful Spell Sleet Storm is amazing, Twin Haste. Quicken Cantrip. They don't get enough spells, true, but UA looks to be fixing that.

20 Dex gives you an AC of 18, pick up a shield (through feat), and keep the shield spell handy. 20/25 AC is no joke.

Hell, you can play a sorcerer with little to no charisma if you wanted. Dex/Con based and just use buff spells. Twin and Quicken Spell makes you a mighty fine Gish.

The sorcerer is not the wizard, sure, but it isn't as bad ad people think.

Besides real munchkins go Drow Sorcerer and never have to roll an attack roll in their life.

[HoarsHalberd]

Sorcerers actually are better than people think at first glance.

Wild Sorcerers make good MC gish. Fighter 5/Wild Sorcerer 15 is fun.

Dragon Sorcerer only really needs to take 1 damaging spell at spell level 1, 3, 5. Everything else is spells that offer utility. Careful Spell Sleet Storm is amazing, Twin Haste. Quicken Cantrip. They don't get enough spells, true, but UA looks to be fixing that.

20 Dex gives you an AC of 18, pick up a shield (through feat), and keep the shield spell handy. 20/25 AC is no joke.


Aye, sorcerers aren't garbage-tier (though as you said, they aren't wizards) and the twin spell shenanigans was nonsensical and munchkinny. But DS was underpowered as a blaster when not using twin spell shenanigans and didn't need another hit.

As for AC. Getting 20 dex and 20 Cha as a dragon sorcerer and then taking a shield through a feat gimps you tremendously as Dragon sorcerers -need- elemental affinity and you need two feats as a sorcerer to get shields. (Lightly Armored and then Moderately Armored as you aren't proficient with light armour.)

And UA sorcerers are a great improvement, but dragons suffer from less spells known than a -warlock- and have to spend a 5th level slot at level 20 to keep up with their at will DPR.

[silveralen]

have to spend a 5th level slot at level 20 to keep up with their at will DPR.

You are not a single target damage class. Use fireballs. That's a much better damage per slot. Leave single target damage to the classes built for it.

[Sindeloke]

Basically everything fell into one of two categories:
1) of course that's how it worke
2) we saw a plethora of posters doing their best to misinterpret the plain text meaning for personal gain, so this needed to be clarified to deal with munchkins.

Yes, because the only possible reason that someone could ever interpret something differently from you is because they're a terrible human being trying to sneakily lie and cheat to a horrifically unfair advantage that no miserable peon like themselves could ever deserve. That is definitely a reasonable and productive way to percieve your fellow gamers.

[Vogonjeltz]

Yeah cuz the muchkins are really gonna go for Sorcerer, or beastmaster, or elemental way monk, cuz that's a thing.

Monk clarifications were just that, two typos and providing range on throwing something back.

Ranger clarifications were again, just that.

Sorcerer was also clarifications. Prove otherwise.

[PhantomRenegade]

I don't need to prove anything given that these "clarifications" constitute a ruling that demonstrably decreases the power of archetypes thus making them by definition a nerf, and a mean one at that given that it affects classes that were already kind of struggling.

Munchkins dont use these archetypes, they use good ones, this didn't touch munchkins, all this affects is honest hard working roleplayers.

[SharkForce]

i'll grant that a sorcerer may struggle to compete with a sorcerer/warlock for single target damage, but a pure sorcerer vs a pure warlock isn't that bad.

sorcerer can use two firebolts (costing 2 SP per round). 8d10 + 10 (average 54 damage) is not bad when warlocks are dishing out 4d10 + 4d6 + 20 (average 56) when they have hex running.

yeah, the warlock pulls ahead, but it isn't exactly by a huge amount.

edit: meanwhile, the sorcerer can also throw in a sunbeam for most hard fights, and deal half of their damage to a line. gated by a dex save (lots of high level enemies have bad absolutely awful dex saves, not so many have awful AC), dealing half damage even if the targets do succeed, and causing blindness, if they want to give up a spell slot and concentration. that doesn't sound like "really bad at blasting" to me.

[ChubbyRain]

Aye, sorcerers aren't garbage-tier (though as you said, they aren't wizards) and the twin spell shenanigans was nonsensical and munchkinny. But DS was underpowered as a blaster when not using twin spell shenanigans and didn't need another hit.

As for AC. Getting 20 dex and 20 Cha as a dragon sorcerer and then taking a shield through a feat gimps you tremendously as Dragon sorcerers -need- elemental affinity and you need two feats as a sorcerer to get shields. (Lightly Armored and then Moderately Armored as you aren't proficient with light armour.)

And UA sorcerers are a great improvement, but dragons suffer from less spells known than a -warlock- and have to spend a 5th level slot at level 20 to keep up with their at will DPR.

I forgot you need lightly armored, though with a variant human you could pull it off. Or even Dwarf lol.

But you don't really need it.

I would keep Dex at 16 and just boost Con/Cha.

DS is not under powered as a blaster. Their at wil damage is awesome and can get a boost via twin/quick.

However I don't think of the sorcerer as a blaster. That extra blasting power (+Cha mod) is a nice perk but not the central focus of the sorcerer.

They make for better utility/control types than any other class. The only thing holding them back is spell list. Twin Haste, Careful Sleet Storm, Quicken Web? No other class can do this.

They are a controller that has some damage capabilities.

Quick Maximilian Earthen Grasp + Dex save cantrip.

Wait... Can you twin MEG? I'll need to look into that one.

On a single turn, when you want to sleep a target, you can first damage it with a cantrip and then decide if you want to attempt to sleep the target. If you crit or roll high you may decide to go ahead and try to sleep the target. No other class gets to do this sort of thing.


I don't need to prove anything given that these "clarifications" constitute a ruling that demonstrably decreases the power of archetypes thus making them by definition a nerf, and a mean one at that given that it affects classes that were already kind of struggling.

Munchkins dont use these archetypes, they use good ones, this didn't touch munchkins, all this affects is honest hard working roleplayers.

Please prove this because I munchin the hell out of dragon sorcerer.

[Ralanr]

Of course sorcerers aren't wizards. It'd be pointless to differentiate then if they were.

[PhantomRenegade]

Please prove this because I munchin the hell out of dragon sorcerer.Lets say you do, lets also read your previous post in its entirety which i didnt quote cuz that'd be silly, you munchkin him as a buffer, this errata didnt really touch the effectiveness of your character.


Also this is a bit of a side discussion, i know that the Sorcerer is better as a buffer/crowd control but i kind of take issue with that, he really shouldnt since the fluff on the book is all about them blasting, literally, even the warlock has a line in there about opening a portal, it really sucks for people who just read the books and don't immediately jump online to see what a class is good at.

[coredump]

Um, correct me if I'm wrong but the original wording for Twin Spell refers to you casting a spell with a single target. A scorching ray spell aiming at one person with every ray has a single target. They changed that to referring to spells that can only have one target. No home-brew involved, just interpretation of RAW. The same interpretation used on another WotC product, MtG.
Hey Cantig,

Here is the issue. When Twin Spell says "Spell that targets one creature" the phrase "targets one creature" is meant as requirement for the *spell* itself, not just this particular casting of that spell.

So the spell Magic Missile does not "target one creature', granted you can cast it at only one creature... but that isn't the requirement.
And yes, it was less than obvious, which is why it was erratad. But the point is the rule was not changed, it is the same now as it was then.... it is just presented better.

[Vogonjeltz]

I don't need to prove anything given that these "clarifications" constitute a ruling that demonstrably decreases the power of archetypes thus making them by definition a nerf, and a mean one at that given that it affects classes that were already kind of struggling.

Munchkins dont use these archetypes, they use good ones, this didn't touch munchkins, all this affects is honest hard working roleplayers.

Actually you do have to prove that it is "demonstrably" reducing the power by so demonstrating.

This should be an incredibly interesting demonstration given that the abilities definitively never worked the way you seemingly wanted them to.

[Kryx]

Also, did you really get snippy with me when five people couldn't be bothered to open the book before talking about the need for clarifications from the designers?
If what he did was snippy then you were very rude.

Giant talked about how the errata ruling likely wasn't a nerd like we all thought. In some cases it still is with that interpretation (scorching Ray).

I'm sure the devs will have to clarify their confusing wording on these 2 abilities.

No need to be rude and then be hypocritical and call others rude.

[Xetheral]

Monk clarifications were just that, two typos and providing range on throwing something back.

Ranger clarifications were again, just that.

Sorcerer was also clarifications. Prove otherwise.

Originally it was very ambiguous whether a Ranger's pet could be commanded to use Multiattack. Then it was clarified via twitter that yes, a Ranger's pet can be commanded to use Multiattack. Now, it's been errata so that no, a Ranger's pet cannot be commanded to use Multiattack until level 11, and even then it can only do so at the expense of not taking two attacks. So either, 1) the original clarification was outright wrong, or, 2) the Ranger errata constituted a change in the rules for Beastmasters.

[ChubbyRain]

Of course sorcerers aren't wizards. It'd be pointless to differentiate then if they were.

In all honesty Sorcerer, Wizard, and Warlock could have been one class.

Arcane Source: Heritage, Pact, Research

But the point is that people look at the sorcerer and think, oh it isn't as good as the wizard at doing Wizard things, so it sucks. However the sorcerer is actually one of the better classes in the game for what you can do with it. It takes more planning than people realize though.

@Phantom

The errata didn't change anything for the sorcerer on the basis of them being a blaster.

Twin spell never could never legally touch scorching ray.

Judging something off from a homebrew rule isn't really judging it. It is like if I said "I don't like football because they the pitcher has to get three strikes in order to get the guy out".

Elemental Effinity works the same as before, only people who were adding more to it than it gave us thought it applied to each beam of scorching ray.

The DS is unchanged from before, now it is just clarified so people can't try to sneak bull crap past a DM.

[Ralanr]

But the point is that people look at the sorcerer and think, oh it isn't as good as the wizard at doing Wizard things, so it sucks.


I can't understand this line of thinking. If you want something that is as good as the wizard at what the wizard does, then play a wizard.

Is this because of spellcasting? It just has different spell casting from wizard. It's not suppose to play like a wizard, it's suppose to be it's own thing.

Does every magic user have to be a wizard? IF everyone was as good at magic as the wizard was, then the wizard loses some of its credibility.

[ChubbyRain]

I can't understand this line of thinking. If you want something that is as good as the wizard at what the wizard does, then play a wizard.

Is this because of spellcasting? It just has different spell casting from wizard. It's not suppose to play like a wizard, it's suppose to be it's own thing.

Does every magic user have to be a wizard? IF everyone was as good at magic as the wizard was, then the wizard loses some of its credibility.

Exactly.

Though where the legitimate argument comes in is that with the full casters, the sorcerer's spell known is way down. Even the Bard has more.

However in every wotc d&d the sorcerer has more balanced than the wizard and I've always said we shouldn't hold the wizard as the standard but make the sorcerer the standard for casters.

In 5e I would love to see a hybrid caster between warlock and sorcerer. Short rest casting + metamagic + invocations.

[Gwendol]

A bit of a mixed bag:

hiding: this will put some debates to rest. Wood elves and lightfoot halflings now have effective HiPS under specific circumstances.

BM ranger: Overall a better situation as there is an argument to be made that the beast can and will act independently if not commanded. As for multiattack, the rules still don't say anything about using multiattack as an attack action before gaining bestial fury, only that when gaining the ability there is a choice between multiattack and making two attacks.

Unarmed strikes: a most welcome clarification. Unarmed strikes are by definition weaponless attacks, and proficiency should be the norm. This was a point of contention already in 3e where some claimed the monk was dysfunctional because they weren't proficient with their unarmed strikes.

Reach: very good to have it clarified. Also want to point out that the "reach doughnut" of 3e does not apply here since the reach property adds 5' to the reach, which is not the same as setting the reach to 10'.

I note that the magic circle/planar binding dysfunction is still there, mounted combat hasn't been touched on, and that grapple (the feat) is clearer but not more attractive.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sorcerers actually are better than people think at first glance.

Wild Sorcerers make good MC gish. Fighter 5/Wild Sorcerer 15 is fun.
Have you played one through to level 20?

@ Easy_Lee: your three points on how both competition and decisions at WoTC cost them market share are taken, and mostly agreed. Not sure if the whole "not using enough tech" is a root cause. :smallbiggrin:

[thepsyker]

Originally it was very ambiguous whether a Ranger's pet could be commanded to use Multiattack. Then it was clarified via twitter that yes, a Ranger's pet can be commanded to use Multiattack. Now, it's been errata so that no, a Ranger's pet cannot be commanded to use Multiattack until level 11, and even then it can only do so at the expense of not taking two attacks. So either, 1) the original clarification was outright wrong, or, 2) the Ranger errata constituted a change in the rules for Beastmasters.

I'm not sure that is the case, the errata only says that you can either command the creature to attack twice or you can command it to multiattack, i.e. you can't command it to multiattack twice. It doesn't say anything about when you can first command it to multiattack.

Seems like it would be something worth checking with the designers if their previous comments about commanding multiattack still stand and that this line was just meant to stop double multiattacking or if they meant it to mean that multiattack wasn't allowed until 11th.

[Gwendol]

I'm not sure that is the case, the errata only says that you can either command the creature to attack twice or you can command it to multiattack, i.e. you can't command it to multiattack twice. It doesn't say anything about when you can first command it to multiattack.

Seems like it would be something worth checking with the designers if their previous comments about commanding multiattack still stand and that this line was just meant to stop double multiattacking or if they meant it to mean that multiattack wasn't allowed until 11th.

Until further notice it has to be the former. Multiattack is part of the CL of the beast, and removing that option will make that beast underperform relative to CL-equivalent ones.

[thepsyker]

Until further notice it has to be the former. Multiattack is part of the CL of the beast, and removing that option will make that beast underperform relative to CL-equivalent ones.

That would be my take as well, even if just on the grounds that since they didn't directly address the previous "ruling" I would assume it still stands.

[PhantomRenegade]

Actually you do have to prove that it is "demonstrably" reducing the power by so demonstrating.

This should be an incredibly interesting demonstration given that the abilities definitively never worked the way you seemingly wanted them to.The abilities worked how they were printed in the very expensive 45 euro book people bought.

The elemental way monks are justifiably pissed off that Wizard’s nerfed their already subpar archetype with the errata since I’m sure you realize that making a ability that was used as a bonus action because that was how it was printed into a ability that requires an action makes that class demonstrably weaker, same thing with making a ability that used to require level 11 require level 17.

The Beastmasters are justifiably pissed off that Wizards backpedaled on something that had been confirmed by the lead designer via tweet, something that almost literally doubled the damage output of one of their best beast choices; this demonstrably makes the archetype worst.

The DC sorcerers are justifiably pissed off that wizards "clarified" the elemental affinity ruling, a ambiguous feature that many people interpreted as applying the charisma bonus multiple times on some spells because that was required for the class to be competitive in blasting damage with the warlock and wizard.
The fact that the players expected the class to be competitive with those other classes in blasting damage is not unreasonable since if you read the fluff at the start of the sorcerer class all it talks about is blasting, and if you read the fluff of the other classes they have some stuff about utility in there. With regards to demonstrating how this makes the class weaker I’m sure you don't need me to tell you that getting the charisma modifier more than once on a spell is better than getting it just once.



@Phantom

The errata didn't change anything for the sorcerer on the basis of them being a blaster.

Twin spell never could never legally touch scorching ray.

Judging something off from a homebrew rule isn't really judging it. It is like if I said "I don't like football because they the pitcher has to get three strikes in order to get the guy out".

Elemental Effinity works the same as before, only people who were adding more to it than it gave us thought it applied to each beam of scorching ray.

The DS is unchanged from before, now it is just clarified so people can't try to sneak bull crap past a DM.Except it did via the elemental affinity ruling, it was ambiguous before and whether their intent was for it to apply only once or not is irrelevant since that was needed for the class to be competitive damage wise.
Reasoning your level 2 spell boosted by your archetype feature deals the same damage as a cantrip boosted by a general class feature of the warlock is not "sneak(ing) bull crap past a DM" its reasoning your class is actually supposed to do what Wizards tells you it’s supposed to do in the freaking book.

That's why people are pissed off, people aren't complaining that the sorcerer doesn't have as many spells as the wizard, people are complaining because this makes him even worst at doing what the book tells them the sorcerer does, blasting.

[ChubbyRain]

Have you played one through to level 20?

@ Easy_Lee: your three points on how both competition and decisions at WoTC cost them market share are taken, and mostly agreed. Not sure if the whole "not using enough tech" is a root cause. :smallbiggrin:

Has anyone played any/every class 1 - 20?

This doesn't really happen all that much.

I have ran a WMS gish at low, mid, and high levels in three separate one shots (6+ hour marathon games). I used fighter for two and paladin for the third.

It worked nicely on all accounts.

[CNagy]

Until further notice it has to be the former. Multiattack is part of the CL of the beast, and removing that option will make that beast underperform relative to CL-equivalent ones.

Multiattack isn't removed from the beast's statblock, but the clarification is objectively clear: now that it is clarified that multiattack is considered an action and not an attack action, the Ranger has no way to command the beast to multiattack before 11th level. Until Bestial Fury, he can only command the use of Attack, Dodge, Disengage, Help, or Dash actions.

[Gwendol]

Multiattack isn't removed from the beast's statblock, but the clarification is objectively clear: now that it is clarified that multiattack is considered an action and not an attack action, the Ranger has no way to command the beast to multiattack before 11th level. Until Bestial Fury, he can only command the use of Attack, Dodge, Disengage, Help, or Dash actions.

I really don't see that. The errata only says the ranger can choose between attacking twice or multiattacking, it says nothing of using multiattack prior to Bestial Fury, and in my mind that makes it an acceptable option.

[ChubbyRain]

I really don't see that. The errata only says the ranger can choose between attacking twice or multiattacking, it says nothing of using multiattack prior to Bestial Fury, and in my mind that makes it an acceptable option.

Yup.

Also as you or another person said, if you take away multiattack then you are lowering the CR of the creature.

Though on second thought, that is a very WotC thing to do.

[Xetheral]

I really don't see that. The errata only says the ranger can choose between attacking twice or multiattacking, it says nothing of using multiattack prior to Bestial Fury, and in my mind that makes it an acceptable option.

I agree with CNagy. The errata explicitly refers to multiattack as "the multiattack action", resolving the prior ambiguity as to its status. We know what actions a beastmaster can order their pet to perform prior to level 11, and multiattack isn't on the list.

[rynstone]

Basically everything fell into one of two categories:
1) of course that's how it worke
2) we saw a plethora of posters doing their best to misinterpret the plain text meaning for personal gain, so this needed to be clarified to deal with munchkins.

Except that there are tweets from Crawford where he clearly states Empowered Evocation works on every missile from MM ...

[Ralanr]

Except that there are tweets from Crawford where he clearly states Empowered Evocation works on every missile from MM ...

Hasn't it been debated that the Tweets are not 100% right? Just what the designer would play it as?

There's probably stuff the designers wanted but removed/didn't put in for sake of balance

[Easy_Lee]

Hasn't it been debated that the Tweets are not 100% right? Just what the designer would play it as?

There's probably stuff the designers wanted but removed/didn't put in for sake of balance

Fair, though I believe we can all agree that it's confusing. The same man who said one thing now says the opposite.

[Kryx]

Hasn't it been debated that the Tweets are not 100% right? Just what the designer would play it as?

There's probably stuff the designers wanted but removed/didn't put in for sake of balance
Nope. Mearls tweets are as you describe, but Crawford tweets are designed to be used as clarifications and rulings.

[Ralanr]

Fair, though I believe we can all agree that it's confusing. The same man who said one thing now says the opposite.

That's what I figured anyway.

[SharkForce]

The DC sorcerers are justifiably pissed off that wizards "clarified" the elemental affinity ruling, a ambiguous feature that many people interpreted as applying the charisma bonus multiple times on some spells because that was required for the class to be competitive in blasting damage with the warlock and wizard.
The fact that the players expected the class to be competitive with those other classes in blasting damage is not unreasonable since if you read the fluff at the start of the sorcerer class all it talks about is blasting, and if you read the fluff of the other classes they have some stuff about utility in there. With regards to demonstrating how this makes the class weaker I’m sure you don't need me to tell you that getting the charisma modifier more than once on a spell is better than getting it just once.

Except it did via the elemental affinity ruling, it was ambiguous before and whether their intent was for it to apply only once or not is irrelevant since that was needed for the class to be competitive damage wise.
Reasoning your level 2 spell boosted by your archetype feature deals the same damage as a cantrip boosted by a general class feature of the warlock is not "sneak(ing) bull crap past a DM" its reasoning your class is actually supposed to do what Wizards tells you it’s supposed to do in the freaking book.

That's why people are pissed off, people aren't complaining that the sorcerer doesn't have as many spells as the wizard, people are complaining because this makes him even worst at doing what the book tells them the sorcerer does, blasting.

draconic sorcerers *are* competitive in blasting. they just do it with metamagic instead of their elemental damage bonus.

in one round, a sorcerer can quicken a firebolt and cast another one (they can also twin that second one, but that's not single-target damage, so we'll ignore it for the sake of argument). when they do so, their damage is extremely similar after getting elemental affinity (when the warlock is doing 2d10 + 2d6 + 5 for average 23, the sorcerer is doing 4d10 + 10 for average 31; at level 11 it is 6d10 + 10, average 43, vs 3d10 + 3d6 + 15, average 43; at level 17 it is 8d10 + 10, average 54, vs 4d10 + 4d6 + 20, average 56). there really is not a huge discrepancy there. heck, if you want, empower can probably take you beyond the warlock's damage, and may even be able to do so if you don't have the element (i really don't feel like doing the math on that). obviously, all numbers need to be multiplied by hit chance, but that should be equal anyways.

that, of course, is with spending equal resources (a level 2 spell slot can be converted to 2 sorcery points to fuel quicken). again, empower can take you higher, and if you twin the non-quickened firebolt your damage is vastly superior (but is no longer single-target).

as for wizards, well, the only reason wizards were remotely competitive in blasting was evoker, and evoker just got nerfed way harder than the draconic sorcerer. they lost overchannel on cantrips (it isn't even an option to take damage and overchannel) *and* their multi-hit proc. so sorcerers definitely are still competitive in blasting with wizard... if by "competitive" you mean "vastly superior" (of course, that evocation wizard is still a wizard, so they're better in other areas... but yeah, i don't think i'd want to play an evoker any more).

not saying draconic sorcerers needed to be toned back or anything. but their damage is still competitive with warlock damage. a bit more expensive, but still, competitive.

[Ralanr]

It should be noted that warlocks have less spell slots than sorcerers. Thus less versatile casting. This (to me) makes more sense as to why sorcerer blasting is more expensive to keep up in damage consistently

[Kryx]

It should be noted that warlocks have less spell slots than sorcerers. Thus less versatile casting. This (to me) makes more sense as to why sorcerer blasting is more expensive to keep up in damage consistently
This is a pretty narrow comparison. Warlock also casts at the highest level and gets spells back on short rests. At early levels that's 2x3 = 6 spells. At 11+ it's 3x3 = 9. At high levels that's 4x3 = 12 spells. All at highest level.

It's no where near as limited as your initial statement claims.

[ChubbyRain]

This is a pretty narrow comparison. Warlock also casts at the highest level and gets spells back on short rests. At early levels that's 2x3 = 6 spells. At 11+ it's 3x3 = 9. At high levels that's 4x3 = 12 spells. All at highest level.

It's no where near as limited as your initial statement claims.

Plus invocations and class features (Hurl Through Hell is the best spell ever by fluff alone).

[Ralanr]

This is a pretty narrow comparison. Warlock also casts at the highest level and gets spells back on short rests. At early levels that's 2x3 = 6 spells. At 11+ it's 3x3 = 9. At high levels that's 4x3 = 12 spells. All at highest level.

It's no where near as limited as your initial statement claims.

This is true. But are we counting by single encounter effectiveness or multiple? How many if multiple? How many rests (short or long) do we get between these encounters? What CR? How many creatures? What creatures?

See how ridiculous these factors start to get?

[Kryx]

Plus invocations and class features (Hurl Through Hell is the best spell ever by fluff alone).
Invocation spells add to the amount as well, ya.


This is true. But are we counting by single encounter effectiveness or multiple? How many if multiple? How many rests (short or long) do we get between these encounters? What CR? How many creatures? What creatures?
The comparison is made at 2 short rests per day. That is the expected amount based on the recommendations. This is stated in several places. Obviously if a DM doesn't play by the recommendations then it makes some classes less viable.

The other factors aren't important in a general comparison... You don't see people bringing up CR or how many creatures when comparing other classes. That would require a lot of modeling.

[Ralanr]

Invocation spells add to the amount as well, ya.


The comparison is made at 2 short rests per day. That is the expected amount based on the recommendations. This is stated in several places. Obviously if a DM doesn't play by the recommendations then it makes some classes less viable.

The other factors aren't important in a general comparison... You don't see people bringing up CR or how many creatures when comparing other classes. That would require a lot of modeling.

Didn't know that. My bad.

[PhantomRenegade]

-snip-I've been talking more about the DS cuz that's what people have been talking about, its not like i think the Wizard didn't get screwed over.

Also while they can be competitive, to do so they are expending a limited resource, now classes are different we all know that, thats fine but the sorcerer isnt going to be able to quicken every round or twin every round in fact he's going to be running out of points pretty fast.

Lets say the sorcerer converts two spell slots of the same level as the warlock uses to get hex off, at level 6 he can quicken for 6 rounds, that's two combats right there, if you assume you're fighting twice before each short rest the sorcerer still has 4 fights to go with his DPS in the dumps. At level 10 he can quicken for 10 rounds, good for about half as many fights as he'll get into before a long rest.

[Ashrym]

I really don't see that. The errata only says the ranger can choose between attacking twice or multiattacking, it says nothing of using multiattack prior to Bestial Fury, and in my mind that makes it an acceptable option.

It's not the errata that really makes the distinction. Attack and multiattack actions distinct actions per the MM and the PHB doesn't allow the ranger to give the multiattack action.

The errata left that as is so is RAW and because it was omitted in the errata correct as the errata is the most recent (and official) rules update.

Right now, there is no option for multiattack before bestial fury in the PHB or the errata. The only way for it to be allowed is by decision outside of the published rules.

Multiattack isn't completely lost because the companion is confirmed options when the ranger isn't able to direct it, so multiattack should work in those circumstances.

[Ralanr]

What's the difference between multiattack and multiple attacks? My DM used them as the same.

[Ashrym]

What's the difference between multiattack and multiple attacks? My DM used them as the same.

Multiattack is an action. The attack action is a different action.

Where are you getting multiple attacks from?

[Ralanr]

Multiattack is an action. The attack action is a different action.

Where are you getting multiple attacks from?

Level 5 in martial classes.

[Xetheral]

Level 5 in martial classes.

Extra Attack is a class feature that permits multiple attacks when taking the Attack Action on your turn. Post-errata, Multiattack is a different action possessed by some monsters that permits multiple attacks.

Arguably this was true pre-errata as well, but it was contested whether Multiattack could be used when taking the Attack Action, or if it was an Action in its own right. Developer tweets, for example, indicated that a Beastmaster pet could Multiattack when order to take the attack action. Now, however, the errata quite clearly refers to Multiattack as an Action, rending it ineligible for Beastmaster pets to use until they reach 11th level and are expressly permitted (again by the errata) to be ordered to take the Multiattack action. (Note however, that the Ranger would not be able to attack along with the pet, as the Ranger's attack is triggered by ordering the pet to take the Attack Action, and no provision was made in the errata to expand that feature to include ordering the pet to take the Multiattack action.)

[PhantomRenegade]

That's called extra attack not multiattack, for one.

For another it states that you make two attacks when you take the attack action, that's why your DM treats it as an attack action.

[Dralnu]

when the warlock is doing 2d10 + 2d6 + 5 for average 23, the sorcerer is doing 4d10 + 10 for average 31;

2d10 + 2d6 + 10 = 28 , you forgot a +CHA on one bolt. 28 vs 32 is not much of a difference.


that, of course, is with spending equal resources (a level 2 spell slot can be converted to 2 sorcery points to fuel quicken).

One factor that isn't being considered is how many rounds of combat in between short rests. How many rounds is the sorc keeping up this quicken fire bolts vs. How many rounds is the lock keeping up hex eb? Admittedly this is difficult to quantify, but my point is that once the lock keeps Hex for 6+ hours, and we assume two short rests per day, a lock should be keeping up Hex with one of his two slots for every single round of combat. I doubt that the sorc can keep up this tactic close to as long.

In my mind, my dragon sorcerer excels when casting 3 spells: burning hands, fireball, and melfs minute meteors. I shine if I hit 3 targets with these. For everything else its sub par blasting now, or equal to others for a grossly disproportionate amount of resources spent. Dipping into warlock for agonizing EB just got a lot better.


On the other hand, stormborn is an easy choice to pick now -- assuming your playgroup allows it. Those much needed bonus spells, plus you're still getting a damage boost among other things.

EDIt: 32 not 31

[SharkForce]

2d10 + 2d6 + 10 = 28 , you forgot a +CHA on one bolt. 28 vs 32 is not much of a difference.



One factor that isn't being considered is how many rounds of combat in between short rests. How many rounds is the sorc keeping up this quicken fire bolts vs. How many rounds is the lock keeping up hex eb? Admittedly this is difficult to quantify, but my point is that once the lock keeps Hex for 6+ hours, and we assume two short rests per day, a lock should be keeping up Hex with one of his two slots for every single round of combat. I doubt that the sorc can keep up this tactic close to as long.

In my mind, my dragon sorcerer excels when casting 3 spells: burning hands, fireball, and melfs minute meteors. I shine if I hit 3 targets with these. For everything else its sub par blasting now, or equal to others for a grossly disproportionate amount of resources spent. Dipping into warlock for agonizing EB just got a lot better.


On the other hand, stormborn is an easy choice to pick now -- assuming your playgroup allows it. Those much needed bonus spells, plus you're still getting a damage boost among other things.

EDIt: 32 not 31

hmmm... yeah, missed that. anyways, main thing is that it's pretty close.

and yeah, you can't keep it up indefinitely. but it isn't like sorcerers had infinite scorching ray either, and at high levels, you can pretty much keep it up for an expected day of adventuring (also, if you settle for twin, it's half as much SP and still doubles your damage, just not against a single target).

[Gwendol]

Extra Attack is a class feature that permits multiple attacks when taking the Attack Action on your turn. Post-errata, Multiattack is a different action possessed by some monsters that permits multiple attacks.

Arguably this was true pre-errata as well, but it was contested whether Multiattack could be used when taking the Attack Action, or if it was an Action in its own right. Developer tweets, for example, indicated that a Beastmaster pet could Multiattack when order to take the attack action. Now, however, the errata quite clearly refers to Multiattack as an Action, rending it ineligible for Beastmaster pets to use until they reach 11th level and are expressly permitted (again by the errata) to be ordered to take the Multiattack action. (Note however, that the Ranger would not be able to attack along with the pet, as the Ranger's attack is triggered by ordering the pet to take the Attack Action, and no provision was made in the errata to expand that feature to include ordering the pet to take the Multiattack action.)

Multiattack is a monster action. A monster with multiattack is supposed to use that as their attack action. To force them to do otherwise underplays their CR.
I see what you are getting at, but unless there is a definite statement regarding multiattacks pre-bestial fury I'd say the RAW is fuzzy enough to allow it.

[Ashrym]

Level 5 in martial classes.

As mentioned by a couple of posters, that's the attack action and those extra attacks are specific to the attack action.

By contrast, hunter rangers also have the multiattack action and it is also a separate distinct action. A hunter who uses the multiattack action is specially not using the attack action, so doesn't gain extra attack on top of multiattack, for example.

This came up in a debate on hunters moving between whirlwind attacks based on the rules regarding moving between attacks. Twitter response was whirlwind was a single attack targeting multiple opponents and was not intended to allow movement between attacks.

It was another clear demonstration of the attack and multiattack action differences regardless of which side of the debate a person was on.

We still allow moving between the attacks and I am surprised it wasn't in the errata.

[Dralnu]

hmmm... yeah, missed that. anyways, main thing is that it's pretty close.

and yeah, you can't keep it up indefinitely. but it isn't like sorcerers had infinite scorching ray either, and at high levels, you can pretty much keep it up for an expected day of adventuring (also, if you settle for twin, it's half as much SP and still doubles your damage, just not against a single target).

At some point in high levels, I don't know exactly when, yeah you could reasonably keep doing this while still having some spells leftover. Like at 20 you've got 20 SP, so that's 10 rounds of it, aka 2-3 fights, then cannibalize all your lvl 2 spells for 3 more rounds, then maybe a couple 1st level spells and you should be set for most days. It's actually more efficient than casting Scorching Ray once you get to 3d10's.

But at the levels that the vast majority of people are playing, which is 1-6 according to the latest survey (and realistically hoping to get to 11), not so good.

At level 6 a sorcerer can do this trick 3 rounds so like 1 fight? Another 3 rounds if he eats up all his 2nd level spells. That's a good half of his resources for the day right there, just to do roughly equivalent damage to a warlock's Hex + EB.

Meanwhile at level 6 the warlock casts Hex for 8hours, way more than enough time to get to that next short rest. His other spell slot keeps replenishing. Plus he has the benefits of his archetype and invocations, while we've already accounted for nearly all of the dragon sorcerer's abilities (+1 HP = warlock's D8, 13 AC = warlock's light armor, the only thing sorcerers still get up is spending SP for fire resistance and RP bonuses with dragons). That's the depressing part for me.

Fireball and Burning Hands (just in terms of plain efficiency) are still great, don't get me wrong. But I dunno. I definitely wouldn't have picked a Dragon Sorc if I knew this was coming. Sorry for being so whiney about it, just needed to vent. I'll quiet down now. On the plus side, with errata clarifying Paladin MC smites, a Paladin / Stormborn Sorcerer might be a very fun MC. Thunderous Smite while doing AOE damage could be sweet. Likely Paladin 6 / Sorc X.

[Gwendol]

Right, ranger whirlwind attack. I forgot about that one, but do they really mean movement is never allowed between multiattack attacks? That is seriously nerfing monsters, and hauling part of the game back to the 3e combat distinction of attacks and full attacks.

[CNagy]

Multiattack is a monster action. A monster with multiattack is supposed to use that as their attack action. To force them to do otherwise underplays their CR.
I see what you are getting at, but unless there is a definite statement regarding multiattacks pre-bestial fury I'd say the RAW is fuzzy enough to allow it.

There has been a definite statement; multiattack is an action, not an attack action. It doesn't matter if it underplays a monster's CR--not all beasts even in the same CR are equal in terms of how suitable they are to be a beast master's companion. And what does adding from +2 to +6 to AC, attack rolls, damage, and saves do to their CR?

The Raw is simple: 3rd level Beast Master feature tells you what actions you can command a beast companion to take. If the errata had said "two attacks or multiattack as an attack action," then you could use multiattack before Bestial Fury. But instead is says "multiattack action." Replace that with any other action and it is abundantly clear; "cast a spell action," or "interact with objects action" (sidenote: I have to say it does kind of suck that you can't command your beast companion to fetch something). Multiattack is a specific action that Beast Master Rangers do not learn how to command until 11th level. Doesn't mean it can't be house-ruled that way, but the RAW here doesn't really leave wiggle room.

[Easy_Lee]

There has been a definite statement; multiattack is an action, not an attack action. It doesn't matter if it underplays a monster's CR--not all beasts even in the same CR are equal in terms of how suitable they are to be a beast master's companion. And what does adding from +2 to +6 to AC, attack rolls, damage, and saves do to their CR?

The Raw is simple: 3rd level Beast Master feature tells you what actions you can command a beast companion to take. If the errata had said "two attacks or multiattack as an attack action," then you could use multiattack before Bestial Fury. But instead is says "multiattack action." Replace that with any other action and it is abundantly clear; "cast a spell action," or "interact with objects action" (sidenote: I have to say it does kind of suck that you can't command your beast companion to fetch something). Multiattack is a specific action that Beast Master Rangers do not learn how to command until 11th level. Doesn't mean it can't be house-ruled that way, but the RAW here doesn't really leave wiggle room.

This illustrates the main reason why the BM companion rules as written are complete, total, insulting, infuriating, inordinately limiting, horrendous crap. Not only does one give up one's own actions that the companion may act, but one is extremely limited in what one can command the companion to do. The companion acts as a mindless slave, only able to act if given detailed, explicit, and copious instruction.

It simply will not do.

[Ralanr]

This illustrates the main reason why the BM companion rules as written are complete, total, insulting, infuriating, inordinately limiting, horrendous crap. Not only does one give up one's own actions that the companion may act, but one is extremely limited in what one can command the companion to do. The companion acts as a mindless slave, only able to act if given detailed, explicit, and copious instruction.

It simply will not do.

What about switching the command action to bonus action?

[Ashrym]

Right, ranger whirlwind attack. I forgot about that one, but do they really mean movement is never allowed between multiattack attacks? That is seriously nerfing monsters, and hauling part of the game back to the 3e combat distinction of attacks and full attacks.

I don't think movement was meant to be denied during other multiattacks; just whirlwind as an exception to the general rule.

[Easy_Lee]

What about switching the command action to bonus action?

I think the simplest solution is to let the companion act freely and simply remove extra attack from the BM ranger (make it a hunter feature), so the number of attacks remains reasonable.

[Ralanr]

I think the simplest solution is to let the companion act freely and simply remove extra attack from the BM ranger (make it a hunter feature), so the number of attacks remains reasonable.

So basically have something that acts independent of you. Giving you maybe two turns while everyone else gets one?

[ChubbyRain]

So basically have something that acts independent of you. Giving you maybe two turns while everyone else gets one?

Yeah you know, like the familiars that wizards and warlocks get. However this one will be focused on attacking instead of utility/sneaking.

[CNagy]

Right, ranger whirlwind attack. I forgot about that one, but do they really mean movement is never allowed between multiattack attacks? That is seriously nerfing monsters, and hauling part of the game back to the 3e combat distinction of attacks and full attacks.

Movement is still allowed between multiattack attacks, because it is multiple attacks triggered by one action and you can move between attacks. I think that section of the Hunter Ranger's features is misnamed, because both Whirlwind Attack and Volley are single attacks using multiple attack rolls. Because it is one attack, there is nothing to move between. They really should be called Mass Attacks or Area Attacks or whatever because multiattack, as we now have confirmed, is its own kind of action.

[Person_Man]

I think the simplest solution is to let the companion act freely and simply remove extra attack from the BM ranger (make it a hunter feature), so the number of attacks remains reasonable.

In that setup, the BM Ranger would undisputably uber for levels 3 and 4. 1 attack from the Ranger, 1 attack from the companion, PLUS a status effect (poison/trip/grapple), or another attack (multiattack), and the Companion adds your Proficiency bonuses to everything.

For that reason, I would suggest:
3rd level: You gain a Companion of your choice with the normal limits. It can act on its own, generally following your direction, but with its normal intelligence. (So you can tell it to attack, or run, or guard, or whatever, but it can't really understand specific tactics or directions). But it doesn't possess any special benefits (higher hit points, proficiency bonus, etc) a Companion normally does.
5th level: Your Companion gains all the normal bonuses of being a Companion, plus you gain a telapathic link to it (like the Warlock) allowing you to basically control it directly. But you don't get Extra Attack (yet).
11th level: You gain Extra Attack.


I would also allow the Ranger to change out its spell selection, and expand out their 3rd-5th level spell selection, both to buff the Ranger itself and make Share Spells more useful when you finally get it.

[Sindeloke]

Yeah you know, like the familiars that wizards and warlocks get.

Don't forget summon spells!


I would also allow the Ranger to change out its spell selection, and expand out their 3rd-5th level spell selection, both to buff the Ranger itself and make Share Spells more useful when you finally get it.

I would move Share Spells waaaaaay down to be a basic companion feature (perhaps requiring the beast and ranger to be touching when the spell was cast). Or at least add some ranger-specific spells that give companions flight or let them bypass mundane weapon resistance, so they don't have to rely on their long-suffering buff sorc spending two slots or precious twin metamagic on them.

[Easy_Lee]

In that setup, the BM Ranger would undisputably uber for levels 3 and 4. 1 attack from the Ranger, 1 attack from the companion, PLUS a status effect (poison/trip/grapple), or another attack (multiattack), and the Companion adds your Proficiency bonuses to everything.

For that reason, I would suggest:
3rd level: You gain a Companion of your choice with the normal limits. It can act on its own, generally following your direction, but with its normal intelligence. (So you can tell it to attack, or run, or guard, or whatever, but it can't really understand specific tactics or directions). But it doesn't possess any special benefits (higher hit points, proficiency bonus, etc) a Companion normally does.
5th level: Your Companion gains all the normal bonuses of being a Companion, plus you gain a telapathic link to it (like the Warlock) allowing you to basically control it directly. But you don't get Extra Attack (yet).
11th level: You gain Extra Attack.


I would also allow the Ranger to change out its spell selection, and expand out their 3rd-5th level spell selection, both to buff the Ranger itself and make Share Spells more useful when you finally get it.

I actually included something like that in the homebrew (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?420455-Beast-Master-OverHaul-Ranger-Update)I wrote recently (WiP) on Beast Masters. Early on, the link is not as strong. A ranger must devote his full attention to the companion if ordering it to attack, and thus cannot take the attack action in the same turn. At level 5 the link becomes psychic and both may freely act, something the BM gets in place of extra attack that allows for the rough equivalent of a hunter's expected DPR. Basically, I came to the same conclusions as you did, and implemented pretty close to the same mechanics.

There are a lot of little things that bother me about the archetype, and having too many / not enough attacks per round, doing too much damage, or having too low of a hit rate depending on level and setup are a few of them. Swift Quiver on rangers was another issue I have, since it's very much a Hunter thing which is easily taken by bards earlier than a ranger can get it, and because it won't work in tandem with hunter's mark.

I dunno, it's all a preference thing. Me personally, I think having a beast companion is the entire point of a beast master, but the current implementation does not support this. Right now, familiars, mounts, and summoned creatures are more useful and independent than a companion, which to me does not make sense.

[ChubbyRain]

Don't forget summon spells!



I would move Share Spells waaaaaay down to be a basic companion feature (perhaps requiring the beast and ranger to be touching when the spell was cast). Or at least add some ranger-specific spells that give companions flight or let them bypass mundane weapon resistance, so they don't have to rely on their long-suffering buff sorc spending two slots or precious twin metamagic on them.

Yes, and summoning spells!

You could even make beast companion take an action to command and then work it via concentration and bonus actions during concentration.

[coredump]

I don't think movement was meant to be denied during other multiattacks; just whirlwind as an exception to the general rule.

I don't see anything preventing movement between whirlwind attacks.

[ChubbyRain]

I don't see anything preventing movement between whirlwind attacks.

Plus that's the only thing keeping equal to volley