New Sage Advice (July 2016)

[busterswd]

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-july-2016

Huh. Is it me or is the disintegrate Wild Shape ruling the opposite of what they ruled earlier?

[Tanarii]

Is Elemental Adept the only feat you can take more than once?
Elemental Adept is the only feat in the Player’s Handbook that you can take more than once.

Not sure if they had clarified previously you could only take Resilient for one ability score.

[Tanarii]

Could minor illusion create a fog cloud? If so, would shooting an arrow through it cancel the illusion? An illusory object made by minor illusion is meant to be like a stool or a rock, not an atmospheric effect.
OH SNAP!

So much for the "object = things like empty space or darkness" arguments for Minor Illusion.

[JumboWheat01]

If a sorcerer casts a spell with only verbal or somatic components using Subtle Spell, can an opponent use counterspell against it? Subtle Spell protects a spell without material components from counterspell, since you can’t see the casting.

So.... does Subtle Spell protect a verbal/somatic spell from being counterspelled? Seems to be not answered.



Is Elemental Adept the only feat you can take more than once? Elemental Adept is the only feat in the Player’s Handbook that you can take more than once.

Aww... there goes snagging the Resilience feat multiple times. But I want all three major saving throws, gods blast it! :smallsigh:



If a wizard casts a spell like fireball during a surprise round, do the enemies get disadvantage on their saving throw? Being surprised has no effect on saves. If you’re surprised, you can’t move or take an action on your first turn of the combat and you can’t take a reaction until that turn ends (PH, 189).

So... if I manage to chuck a fireball at a group of surprised rogues, they could still roll on their saving throw, and if they pass, avoid damage thanks to evasion? That... that doesn't sound cool at alll.



What happens if a druid using Wild Shape is reduced to 0 hit points by disintegrate? Does the druid simply leave beast form? The druid turns to dust, since the spell disintegrates you the instant you drop to 0 hit points.

But it's not the druid hitting zero hit points, its the beast form. Still, now I know to have disintegrate tossed at every beasty, just in case it's a druid. Kill those buggers outright!

[MeeposFire]

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-july-2016

Huh. Is it me or is the disintegrate Wild Shape ruling the opposite of what they ruled earlier?

TO be honest I was on the side of Power Word Kill working to kill a WS druid since death was essentially the condiditon inflicted. I was not originally considering disintegration which works off of damage though I can see where it is coming from in a way.

Does give a rocks, paper, scissors vibe to wild shape which some will like and others will not.

[MeeposFire]

So.... does Subtle Spell protect a verbal/somatic spell from being counterspelled? Seems to be not answered.




Aww... there goes snagging the Resilience feat multiple times. But I want all three major saving throws, gods blast it! :smallsigh:




So... if I manage to chuck a fireball at a group of surprised rogues, they could still roll on their saving throw, and if they pass, avoid damage thanks to evasion? That... that doesn't sound cool at alll.




But it's not the druid hitting zero hit points, its the beast form. Still, now I know to have disintegrate tossed at every beasty, just in case it's a druid. Kill those buggers outright!

Well honestly you could never actually take resilience more than once It was a common oversight but if you look at all the discussions about the written rules it is always brought up that it was not a legal choice to take it more than once.

As for the surprise aspect even if you did grant disadvantage on the save those rogues could still make both of their roles and take no damage against your fireball. It is more likely if you only have to roll once but they could still make their saves. Also even if they failed they would still take half damage regardless so are you sure you just dislike evasion more so than this ruling?

[JumboWheat01]

Also even if they failed they would still take half damage regardless so are you sure you just dislike evasion more so than this ruling?

I dislike how evasion works with that ruling. You shouldn't be able to pull of your super-ninja dodging maneuver if you're caught off guard like that, at least disadvantage would make it slightly less likely. No saving throw would be kinda over-powered.

[pwykersotz]

So.... does Subtle Spell protect a verbal/somatic spell from being counterspelled? Seems to be not answered.

Yes, it protects it. A subtle verbal/somatic can't be counterspelled.

[R.Shackleford]

I dislike how evasion works with that ruling. You shouldn't be able to pull of your super-ninja dodging maneuver if you're caught off guard like that, at least disadvantage would make it slightly less likely. No saving throw would be kinda over-powered.

Then it isn't a super ninja dodging maneuver in the first place.

Edit

Also, I love that Barbarian + Spiritual Weapon works.

[mgshamster]

I dislike how evasion works with that ruling. You shouldn't be able to pull of your super-ninja dodging maneuver if you're caught off guard like that, at least disadvantage would make it slightly less likely. No saving throw would be kinda over-powered.

Oh come on. Don't nerf one of the weaker classes in the game just because one of the strongest classes in the game can't use one of its many tricks against a single class.

[RickAllison]

Oh come on. Don't nerf one of the weaker classes in the game just because one of the strongest classes in the game can't use one of its many tricks against a single class.

Heck, aren't the Rogue and monk (I dont count ranger, since that one is comparatively rare) supposed to be some of the greatest counters to full-casters? Rogues have great mobility, Stealth to stay out of the targeting of casters, high damage in single attacks to break concentration, and gain other features that neutralize common answers of mages. Monks have high mobility, many small attacks to break concentration through attrition, Stunning Strike, and the ability to neutralize several common Mage answers.

Mages can outright lock down regular martials, but find many tactics work less well on the skirmishers. Those skirmishers have great difficulty in standing up to martials in a straight fight, but can pierce the defenses of casters more easily. The martials can bowl over the skirmishers in battle, but find those tactics insufficient to face off against mages. It's like Fire Emblem, but with far more variations, subversions, counter-strategies, etc. But what do you expect, FE is based on strategizing with the whole of your units, while PCs have to strategize on their own or with a few others.

[bid]

"It's first turn"

How far the might have fallen. :smallbiggrin:

[bid]

So.... does Subtle Spell protect a verbal/somatic spell from being counterspelled? Seems to be not answered.
Do verbal/somatic spells have a material component?

Brainfart?

[R.Shackleford]

Heck, aren't the Rogue and monk (I dont count ranger, since that one is comparatively rare) supposed to be some of the greatest counters to full-casters? Rogues have great mobility, Stealth to stay out of the targeting of casters, high damage in single attacks to break concentration, and gain other features that neutralize common answers of mages. Monks have high mobility, many small attacks to break concentration through attrition, Stunning Strike, and the ability to neutralize several common Mage answers.

Mages can outright lock down regular martials, but find many tactics work less well on the skirmishers. Those skirmishers have great difficulty in standing up to martials in a straight fight, but can pierce the defenses of casters more easily. The martials can bowl over the skirmishers in battle, but find those tactics insufficient to face off against mages. It's like Fire Emblem, but with far more variations, subversions, counter-strategies, etc. But what do you expect, FE is based on strategizing with the whole of your units, while PCs have to strategize on their own or with a few others.

In a white room, yes, but it typically means that those classes get more concessions then the casters (such as a wizard). One of the biggest concessions is that the Rogue or Monk was even able to find the Caster (specifically the wizard).

The biggest problem is that casters can pick and choose which save to target and it doesn't take a genius to figure out if that rogue is dexterous. Now, the monk is a bit luckier as they get more save prof eventually, but even then you are talking a +5 or +6 versus a Charisma save (because what monk has Charisma? Black Belt surely didn't)... Again it doesn't take much to tell where a character is lacking. Even without meta knowlege, one can tell that the ugly socially awkward dude isn't going to have a strong charisma save.

That Monk is one Diviner away from going to the plane of "really really really bad stuff that you can't talk about in public".

However, the Monk is a magic user (ki is specifically called out as Magic) so they don't really count as martials.

The idea is correct, skirmishers tend to do better against casters, but not really as well as one would think. You would need an unoptimized caster and a very optimized martial in order for a martial win to make sense. Though, some casters can just use Shapechange to turn into a very very good martial...

[JumboWheat01]

Do verbal/somatic spells have a material component?

Brainfart?

Yup, now that I've re-read that, it was a total brain fart at the time. I blame the humidity and my lack of any sugary snacks.

[R.Shackleford]

Yup, now that I've re-read that, it was a total brain fart at the time. I blame the humidity and my lack of any sugary snacks.

Really you should stay away from sugary snacks with crazy humidity. Stick with fruits as they can be sweet, healthy, and have additional water.

Anyways...

I find it funny that permanent doesn't mean permanent in 5e.

Q: Can permanent magical effects be dispelled? Or are they no longer considered magical effects once permanent?

A: If the effect of a spell becomes permanent, it can be dispelled, unless its description says otherwise.


Edit: Having an in game dictionary was something they said they didn't want to do.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

I'm happy to see that clarification on Assassinate and surprise. I've had an assassin with more than one attack and seen DM's go "no, no, no, you can only get the surprise crit with your first attack, not with your extra attack".

[R.Shackleford]

I'm happy to see that clarification on Assassinate and surprise. I've had an assassin with more than one attack and seen DM's go "no, no, no, you can only get the surprise crit with your first attack, not with your extra attack".

Which shows that the DM shouldn't have allowed Multiclassing/Feats if they weren't aware of the issues with those optional rules.

This still doesn't change anything for you, the DM can still say "not in my game".

[Pope Scarface]

True, but the attack with sneak attack getting the crit is the load bearing surprise hit. You explicitly can't sneak attack more than once on your turn.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

True, but the attack with sneak attack getting the crit is the load bearing surprise hit. You explicitly can't sneak attack more than once on your turn.

Never said you could, just saying that an Assassin with more than one attack who gets surprise is getting a crit on every one of those surprise round attacks.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

This still doesn't change anything for you, the DM can still say "not in my game".

If he's a ****, sure. And then I can just say "if you are going to ignore rules and clarifications on rules, then I don't have to play with you".

[R.Shackleford]

If he's a ****, sure. And then I can just say "if you are going to ignore rules and clarifications on rules, then I don't have to play with you".

You are overly hostile, one of the golden rules of 5e is specifically "Rulings, not rules".

You are the one that is being antagonistic toward the DM.

[Pope Scarface]

That is a rather problematic viewpoint, and 5E is really not the game for you if you think the DM needs to "stick to the official rules and clarifications on the rules all the time or he is a jerk for making your cheese less effective."

[Fflewddur Fflam]

You are overly hostile, one of the golden rules of 5e is specifically "Rulings, not rules".

You are the one that is being antagonistic toward the DM.

Choosing not to play with someone is "overly hostile". Wow, didn't realize freedom of choice was considered hostile.

If a DM is so conceited that he/she can't play by the rules as written, then I don't want to play with them. I really have no interest in playing a game with a DM who is constantly moving the goal-posts. That's not really a game with rules anymore, just a DM on a power-trip.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

That is a rather problematic viewpoint, and 5E is really not the game for you if you think the DM needs to "stick to the official rules and clarifications on the rules all the time or he is a jerk for making your cheese less effective."

But that's a subjective viewpoint, isn't it? Is multiclassing "cheese"? I don't think so. Certainly, if a DM doesn't want to allow multi-classing, I'm down with that because multi-classing is an optional rule anyway, just like feats. But if you are going to allow multiclassing, then you are going to get more powerful combinations of abilities. Given how difficult it is to get surprise on characters, I hardly think an assassin with extra attack is some kind of game-breaking cheese.

[Sigreid]

True, but the attack with sneak attack getting the crit is the load bearing surprise hit. You explicitly can't sneak attack more than once on your turn.

However, an assassin with a Battle Master spending commanding strike on that surprise round will be insane.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

However, an assassin with a Battle Master spending commanding strike on that surprise round will be insane.

How about an assassin multiclassing with Paladin for critical divine smites? That's super-nova territory.

[mgshamster]

Really you should stay away from sugary snacks with crazy humidity. Stick with fruits as they can be sweet, healthy, and have additional water.

Anyways...

I find it funny that permanent doesn't mean permanent in 5e.

Q: Can permanent magical effects be dispelled? Or are they no longer considered magical effects once permanent?

A: If the effect of a spell becomes permanent, it can be dispelled, unless its description says otherwise.


Edit: Having an in game dictionary was something they said they didn't want to do.

That's perfectly in line with a definition of permanent. For example, I have a permanent job, but that doesn't mean I can't quit or get fired. It just means that it doesn't end in a set amount of time.

[DeAnno]

You are overly hostile, one of the golden rules of 5e is specifically "Rulings, not rules".

You are the one that is being antagonistic toward the DM.

You seem like the overly hostile one to me. He's pointing out, in a thread about Sage Advice, that the Sage Advice ruling allows a certain activity. You're barging into his face and laughing at how 5e's golden rule is that none of the actual rules matter. It just comes off as you being annoyed with the ruling, and trying to get in a one-up.

[Sabeta]

You seem like the overly hostile one to me. He's pointing out, in a thread about Sage Advice, that the Sage Advice ruling allows a certain activity. You're barging into his face and laughing at how 5e's golden rule is that none of the actual rules matter. It just comes off as you being annoyed with the ruling, and trying to get in a one-up.

Not to further derail this thread, but I disagree with this statement. It would be very hostile for a player to just quit a game because the DM prefers a different style of play. It is at the DMs discretion to bend and warp the rules in any way he sees fit in the name of enjoyment. My DM for example doesn't allow players to roll Death Saving Throws. He rolls them himself and keeps the result hidden, as otherwise we'll be less likely to help them if they have 2 passes, and very likely to help them if they've got 2 fails. It's an attempt to curb meta-gaming.

The "Non-Hostile" answer would be to find some sort of compromise, or at least try to rationalize it better to your DM. It took me over a month to convince my last DM that a Monk is able to make a Bonus Action Unarmed Strike following an attack from a two-handed Quarterstaff. That was even AFTER I showed him the twitter post saying it was legal. What finally convinced him was "I can use my elbow or knees to make an "unarmed strike", and from then on it was fine. There are more tactful ways to handle the situation than "My DM said no so I'M QUITTING!" This may just be me, but that kind of person does not strike me as an enjoyable player to have, and probably lacks in real friends to play this game with.

[ZZTRaider]

I find it funny that permanent doesn't mean permanent in 5e.

You could dispel permanent effects in 3.5e/Pathfinder, too. That was the difference between permanent and instantaneous effects. If it was instantaneous, there was no magic left to dispel, but the side effect may still persist. If it is permanent, the magic continues to be there and may be dispelled at any point.


Which shows that the DM shouldn't have allowed Multiclassing/Feats if they weren't aware of the issues with those optional rules.

Is there something that prevents a dual wielding rogue from hitting with the offhand for a crit on a surprised foe? I'm not seeing how multiclassing or feats are required to run into this issue. Seems like it would be a DM misunderstanding the standard rules.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

There are more tactful ways to handle the situation than "My DM said no so I'M QUITTING!" This may just be me, but that kind of person does not strike me as an enjoyable player to have, and probably lacks in real friends to play this game with.

Wow, thanks for insulting someone anonymous that you have never met or don't know. Very nice of you.
I have plenty of people that enjoy my company at the table, thank you very much. I have only encountered one DM that was so obstinate against players that I no longer wished to play with her again, and I did not quit during the game, I just politely asked the event manager for a different table to play at the following week.

[Arkhios]

There's a subtle difference between Resilience and Resilient.

To have resilience (a noun) suggests that in theory you can have multiple abilities to recover readily from illness, depression, adversity, or the like.
To be resilient (an adjective) suggests that you are recovering readily from (a single) illness, depression, adversity, or the like.

The feat is called "Resilient", not "Resilience", so it kinda goes without saying (to me at least) that the character, when picking the feat, has become especially resilient towards a singular thing. In itself, the Resilient feat suggests that your character has accumulated something (not numerous things) beyond his or her mundane capabilities. To have more than one would be nigh impossible (not totally impossible, but Monks wrestle in different league in this regard, because they devote their entire lives to become masters of the body and mind, and they become proficient with all saves only after they reach 14th monk level, which is quite a remarkable achievement to be fair. Non-monks have devoted their lives to something entirely different than learning mastery over their own life force.)

And to be thorough (and a bit pedantic, I admit), the Resilient feat doesn't mention that you could take it multiple times, unlike Elemental Adept.

[Gwendol]

Nice to see the disintegrate vs druid ws ruling. Gives an alternative to PWK.

Minor illusion ruling feels a clarification of the text more than a ruling. It says it can be used to create sound or the image of an object. I fail to see how fog or darkness fits that description. A leafy bush is perhaps a better choice (provides obscuration)?

Interesting ruling on grappling and shoving wrt attacks. This means that for spells/abilities triggering or ending on attacks, they count, but not for explicit hits or misses.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

And to be thorough (and a bit pedantic, I admit), the Resilient feat doesn't mention that you could take it multiple times, unlike Elemental Adept.

Well, that's the thing. In the description of feats, it says that each feat can be chosen only once unless the feat says you can take it more than once, and Resilient doesn't do that.

[Zalabim]

That Monk is one Diviner away from going to the plane of "really really really bad stuff that you can't talk about in public".

That diviner has to have a turning fork attuned to the plane you don't talk about in public, then has to hit the monk with a melee spell attack, then the monk gets two chances to make the saving throw. The diviner can guarantee a result on only one of those three rolls. There's almost certainly a more reliable strategy to use.

[R.Shackleford]

You seem like the overly hostile one to me. He's pointing out, in a thread about Sage Advice, that the Sage Advice ruling allows a certain activity. You're barging into his face and laughing at how 5e's golden rule is that none of the actual rules matter. It just comes off as you being annoyed with the ruling, and trying to get in a one-up.

There was not one hostile thing in my post, you need to try harder if you are going to try and rile me up ;).




You could dispel permanent effects in 3.5e/Pathfinder, too. That was the difference between permanent and instantaneous effects. If it was instantaneous, there was no magic left to dispel, but the side effect may still persist. If it is permanent, the magic continues to be there and may be dispelled at any point.

3e and 5e works off very different assumptions.

3e made its own definition within the game. This is something 5e specifically didn't want to do.

5e went back to "let's use a word that doesn't mean what the word means and will cause confusion".

Which is fine if you are going to build your game with its own definition for things. These spells are not meant to last nor can last indefinitely unless they specific say so.


Side Note: You never have a permanent job, there is no such thing. You may have a full time job, but that doesn't mean it is permanent. Even "President for life" isn't a permanent gig.

[Gwendol]

Even "President for life" isn't a permanent gig.

That's quotable: very funny!

[smcmike]

Side Note: You never have a permanent job, there is no such thing. You may have a full time job, but that doesn't mean it is permanent. Even "President for life" isn't a permanent gig.

"Permanent" has multiple definitions. Many jobs are, in fact, called "permanent," to distinguish them from temporary or term or probationary positions.

But don't trust me. Check your dictionary!

[JumboWheat01]

per·ma·nent
ˈpərmənənt/
adjective
adjective: permanent

1.
lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely.
"a permanent ban on the dumping of radioactive waste at sea"

Ah, intentions, always one Dispel Magic away...

[RickAllison]

Ah, intentions, always one Dispel Magic away...

We don't even need the intentions part, as we can look to the last word, "indefinitely". Not without end like eternal, but with an undefined end. Even in that definition, we see that the nature of a permanent lifespan on something is not eternal, but simply does not have a defined end.

Heck, think of permanent markers! It is not that the marks truly persist for eternity, it is that they are supposed to remain until removed through outside interference.

[Joe the Rat]

Nice to see the disintegrate vs druid ws ruling. Gives an alternative to PWK.
Disintegrate becomes very nasty, and very useful. Zombies lose their fortitude. Trolls don't regenerate (unless you have a loathsome limb somewhere). "Screw the Druid" (and "Screw the Half-Orc") are not killer issues, unless you are regularly facing creatures with Disintegrate - spellcasters and beholders.


Minor illusion ruling feels a clarification of the text more than a ruling. It says it can be used to create sound or the image of an object. I fail to see how fog or darkness fits that description. A leafy bush is perhaps a better choice (provides obscuration)? Or a 5x5 white sheet hanging in the air. What annoys me is that someone will have to come back and ask the same question with an object-based obscurement for them to respond to.

[Gastronomie]

OH SNAP!

So much for the "object = things like empty space or darkness" arguments for Minor Illusion.You know, or you can ask the DM.

Because the DM has no duty to listen to this "sage" (lol) advice.

[mgshamster]

Side Note: You never have a permanent job, there is no such thing. You may have a full time job, but that doesn't mean it is permanent. Even "President for life" isn't a permanent gig.

Unsure if you're joking.

If you're not, I take it you've never worked in an industry that hires temporary workers. The temp workers are the ones who have a set limit to their employment, such as six months. The permanent workers are the ones who do not have a set limit, and are employed indefinitely until some other factor (firings, quitting, etc...).

Words often have more than one definition, even in colloquial use.

Heck, "permanent employment" is an actual definition in the business world. For those of us who aren't self employed and don't work for a small business, it's a fairly common use.

[JumboWheat01]

Where I'm from, jobs are called either Temporary/Seasonal, Part Time or Full Time. Never once have I heard the term "Permanent Job" used.

Though I'll be the first to admit, we call things very differently here. Probably because of our blending of (French) Canadian, New England and New Yorker ways and speaking. You'd be amazed how many people from elsewhere I confuse when I talk about tuques.

[Plaguescarred]

At my workplace there is;

Temporary part-time
Temporary full-time
Temporary on-call
Permanent part-time
Permanent full-time
Permanent on-call
Indenpendant Contractor, variable

[Vogonjeltz]

Huh. Is it me or is the disintegrate Wild Shape ruling the opposite of what they ruled earlier?

No, it's a special exception to being returned to ones normal form upon reaching zero hit points because the spell specifies a different outcome at zero hit points, not merely damage.

Previous clarifications (not rulings) were that spells which instantly killed the subject (Power Word Kill) would kill the Druid outright, so this is entirely in line with that.


OH SNAP!

So much for the "object = things like empty space or darkness" arguments for Minor Illusion.

That and the fact that empty space is a lack of objects, and darkness is a lack of light. Weren't those all jokes anyway?


I find it funny that permanent doesn't mean permanent in 5e.

Q: Can permanent magical effects be dispelled? Or are they no longer considered magical effects once permanent?

A: If the effect of a spell becomes permanent, it can be dispelled, unless its description says otherwise.

Permanent just means the effect won't end on its own.

Even permanent marker can get scrubbed off.


A leafy bush is perhaps a better choice (provides obscuration)?

See, I'd still say no as that leafy bush strays into living creature territory.

How about a nice stone plinth or a fountain?


Even "President for life" isn't a permanent gig.

By that metric there's no such thing as a permanent spell affecting a creature as it would have a defined end (their death).

[busterswd]

No, it's a special exception to being returned to ones normal form upon reaching zero hit points because the spell specifies a different outcome at zero hit points, not merely damage.

Previous clarifications (not rulings) were that spells which instantly killed the subject (Power Word Kill) would kill the Druid outright, so this is entirely in line with that.

I actually found the previous tweet, or rather, the cache (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RTwe1eV54GEJ:www.sageadvice.eu/2015/10/15/what-happens-if-a-wild-shaped-druid-is-reduced-to-0-by-disintegrate/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us).

Reason I remember this is the occasion for this ruling actually came up in an AL game about one week before I read it. They did do a complete 180.

[RickAllison]

I actually found the previous tweet, or rather, the cache (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RTwe1eV54GEJ:www.sageadvice.eu/2015/10/15/what-happens-if-a-wild-shaped-druid-is-reduced-to-0-by-disintegrate/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us).

Reason I remember this is the occasion for this ruling actually came up in an AL game about one week before I read it. They did do a complete 180.

I did remember that, and thought it made no sense then. More justification for my ranking of strength of clarification of rules (errata > Sage Advice columns > JC tweets > Sage Advice from non-Mearls people > commentary from other DMs > Sage Advice from Mearls).

Basically, because it was published in the higher-strength of the SA column, it overrules the SA tweet.

[CantigThimble]

If a DM is so conceited that he/she can't play by the rules as written, then I don't want to play with them. I really have no interest in playing a game with a DM who is constantly moving the goal-posts. That's not really a game with rules anymore, just a DM on a power-trip.

Tell that to the people on the homebrew forums! But seriously it's a bit silly to claim the game is perfect as written and shouldn't be altered. As long as the dm is consistent with their rule changes, lets you know ahead of time and applies them to NPCs changes are fine. Problems arise when they change rules continuously without warning to get the results they want in a situation.

[Easy_Lee]

Those net rules, though...always disadvantage. Funny that you can technically get around it with some feats, such as Xbow Xpert.

[Tanarii]

You know, or you can ask the DM.

Because the DM has no duty to listen to this "sage" (lol) advice./shrug
JC has a far better track record than Skip did for actually trying to work within the RAW & RAI for his Sage rulings. It's not flawless, but I'm less inclined to rant about how official it is than I was in previous editions.

Besides, I DM far more than I run PCs.


That and the fact that empty space is a lack of objects, and darkness is a lack of light. Weren't those all jokes anyway?Unless it was an amazing example of Poe's Law, I'm fairly sure the people arguing that Minor Illusion could create empty space and darkness were completely serious.

Of course, given that the months of arguments about Minor Illusion were triggered by the question of: If you use Silent Image to create a Fog Cloud, and if arrows piercing it reveal it, his answering a question about Minor Illusion and Fog Clouds is kind of a pain in the ass. It answers the 'object' definition of Minor Illusion. But it leaves the question of arrows piercing illusion Fog Clouds open.

[Easy_Lee]

But it's not the druid hitting zero hit points, its the beast form. Still, now I know to have disintegrate tossed at every beasty, just in case it's a druid. Kill those buggers outright!

Indeed. I think they made this ruling specifically to give players a way to deal with level 20 DMPC druids. Just kidding; they intended killer DMs to use disintegrate on druid players. A player casting disintegrate on a DMPC would probably have the spell get absorbed by some previously unmentioned magical ring of anti-disintegration.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

But seriously it's a bit silly to claim the game is perfect as written and shouldn't be altered.

And I have never said the game is perfect as written and shouldn't be altered.


As long as the dm is consistent with their rule changes, lets you know ahead of time and applies them to NPCs changes are fine. Problems arise when they change rules continuously without warning to get the results they want in a situation.

True. All I ask of a DM is that they are not on a power-trip. If a DM can't listen to reason and can't be reasonable, and more importantly, if the DM thinks that a DM's role is to be the enemy of the players, then that's not a DM I want to play with. Since playing 5e, I've really only played with one DM like that, though.

[GlenSmash!]

Also, I love that Barbarian + Spiritual Weapon works.

Me too. I've been thinking of running a barb/cleric as a sort of tribal shaman character.

[CantigThimble]

And I have never said the game is perfect as written and shouldn't be altered.

I wasn't trying to claim that you did, just using a bit of rhetorical hyperbole on the ideas in the quote. I fully expected you to agree with me that the 'no rules changes' attitude could be taken too far in the same way excessive rules changes can. :smallwink:

The DM and the players both have the right to play the game they want to play. It's just as unfair for players to expect that the DM run a game he doesn't want to run as it is for a DM to expect that his players play in a game they don't want to. Usually people can find a middle ground though.

[R.Shackleford]

Me too. I've been thinking of running a barb/cleric as a sort of tribal shaman character.

Do it, I've ran a Frenzy Barbarian 3/ Light Cleric 10 before that was absolutely beastly.

More times than not I would have spiritual weapon running, drop a fireball on myself just to hit all the bastards that were surrounding me, then go into rage. Saved my higher slots of healing my exhaustion unless I wanted something super dead.

[Vogonjeltz]

Of course, given that the months of arguments about Minor Illusion were triggered by the question of: If you use Silent Image to create a Fog Cloud, and if arrows piercing it reveal it, his answering a question about Minor Illusion and Fog Clouds is kind of a pain in the ass. It answers the 'object' definition of Minor Illusion. But it leaves the question of arrows piercing illusion Fog Clouds open

The answer seems fairly obvious to me, as the spell contains two lines:
1) What occurs if an illusion is revealed to be an illusion (it becomes transparent); and
2) Physical interaction reveals an illusion for what it is. (Arrows going into an illusion are physically interacting).

I don't see how there is any confusion there.

[Xetheral]

The answer seems fairly obvious to me, as the spell contains two lines:
1) What occurs if an illusion is revealed to be an illusion (it becomes transparent); and
2) Physical interaction reveals an illusion for what it is. (Arrows going into an illusion are physically interacting).

I don't see how there is any confusion there.

You may not see how there is any confusion, but the lengthy previous threads on the subject are evidence that controversy exists.

[jas61292]

The answer seems fairly obvious to me, as the spell contains two lines:
1) What occurs if an illusion is revealed to be an illusion (it becomes transparent); and
2) Physical interaction reveals an illusion for what it is. (Arrows going into an illusion are physically interacting).

I don't see how there is any confusion there.

To me, the confusion is with "physical interaction." When I read the sentence "Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it," the first clause makes me think an individual creature has to physically interact with it to reveal it as an illusion. However, the second clause seems like it would make anything interact it end it for anyone who can see it. It seems contradictory.

[Gwendol]

I actually found the previous tweet, or rather, the cache (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RTwe1eV54GEJ:www.sageadvice.eu/2015/10/15/what-happens-if-a-wild-shaped-druid-is-reduced-to-0-by-disintegrate/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us).

Reason I remember this is the occasion for this ruling actually came up in an AL game about one week before I read it. They did do a complete 180.

The tweet made absolutely no sense, and it furthers the argument that tweets are generally best left ignored.

On nets: the rules for using nets are just awful. The constant disadvantage, the asinine rule of the net attack using the full action to make it (but still allowing a reaction net attack), forcing the wielder to twf, etc.

[Tanarii]

To me, the confusion is with "physical interaction." When I read the sentence "Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it," the first clause makes me think an individual creature has to physically interact with it to reveal it as an illusion. However, the second clause seems like it would make anything interact it end it for anyone who can see it. It seems contradictory.
Actually one of the many arguments against was that an arrow can normally pass through a fog cloud, so it doesn't trigger the physical interaction part. The other side was: of course it physically interacts in the process of passing through it.

Even though I'm on the latter side of that debate, I totally understand the PoV and interpretation of people espousing the former. (In those threads I strenuously argued my PoV, as I usually do, but that doesn't mean I didn't understand the opposite view.) Also, not really interested in hashing it out again in this thread. If you're interested in another round of debate, start a new thread and I'll jump right in. :smallwink: :smallbiggrin:

[MaxWilson]

rule of the net attack using the full action to make it (but still allowing a reaction net attack)

How is that? All the reaction attacks that I can think of function only with melee weapons, with the sole exception a monk expending ki after a missile catch. I'm AFB--am I missing one?

[SharkForce]

How is that? All the reaction attacks that I can think of function only with melee weapons, with the sole exception a monk expending ki after a missile catch. I'm AFB--am I missing one?

ready action, i presume.

[Gwendol]

How is that? All the reaction attacks that I can think of function only with melee weapons, with the sole exception a monk expending ki after a missile catch. I'm AFB--am I missing one?

I was simply paraphrasing JC.