Xanathars Q & A [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Puh Laden

2017-11-04, 08:13 AM

Darn, I was so hoping for Arcane Archer to get an equitable number of shots per rest to a Battlemaster's Superiority Dice. Two per short rest really doesn't cut it. On the other hand Cavalier sounds pretty cool as a defensive knight type. War Wizard sounds excellent for a BBEG. And Hexblade seems interesting, potentially overpowered.

EDIT: I wonder if there are some breakable new spells. That "Catnap" which, once per long rest can turn a short rest into ten minutes seems...I dunno, somehow breakable for a Warlock.

As far as breakable spells go, according to the guy with the book, the wizard’s instant fortress making spell is actually instantaneous. So that will be interesting to see come up in a fight at 18th level.:smallbiggrin:

Nettlekid

2017-11-04, 08:39 AM

As far as breakable spells go, according to the guy with the book, the wizard’s instant fortress making spell is actually instantaneous. So that will be interesting to see come up in a fight at 18th level.:smallbiggrin:

According to this (https://imgur.com/a/d2CkR#paSxaDN) it's a 1 minute casting time, so not quite as bad.

I'm excited about that Invulnerability spell. Sure, it'll never get used, but being immune to all damage for 10 minutes is pretty exciting. It's Concentration, but how would that Concentration ever get broken?

DracoKnight

2017-11-04, 08:48 AM

According to this (https://imgur.com/a/d2CkR#paSxaDN) it's a 1 minute casting time, so not quite as bad.

I'm excited about that Invulnerability spell. Sure, it'll never get used, but being immune to all damage for 10 minutes is pretty exciting. It's Concentration, but how would that Concentration ever get broken?

A sleep spell? Or some other spell that doesn’t deal damage and instead poses a condition that could break Concentration.

Puh Laden

2017-11-04, 08:54 AM

According to this (https://imgur.com/a/d2CkR#paSxaDN) it's a 1 minute casting time, so not quite as bad.

I'm excited about that Invulnerability spell. Sure, it'll never get used, but being immune to all damage for 10 minutes is pretty exciting. It's Concentration, but how would that Concentration ever get broken?

That makes way more sense.

Still, that’s only ten rounds; I’d use it in the middle of a fight just to see how the DM reacts.

Mith

2017-11-04, 09:53 AM

According to this (https://imgur.com/a/d2CkR#paSxaDN) it's a 1 minute casting time, so not quite as bad.

I'm excited about that Invulnerability spell. Sure, it'll never get used, but being immune to all damage for 10 minutes is pretty exciting. It's Concentration, but how would that Concentration ever get broken?

Concentration checks also count on things such as big waves rocking the boat for example.

jaappleton

2017-11-04, 09:55 AM

Tenser's Transformation seems like an incredibly interesting spell.

If you ignore PHB+1, I'm very curious to see the specific wording on it, as I'd like to see how it interacts with the Bladesinger and its Extra Attack, and what happens if another caster uses Haste on the Bladesinger.

And a high level Arcana Cleric picking it up sounds rather enticing as well!

jaappleton

2017-11-04, 11:07 AM

So Nettlekid's link reveals a LOT.

Thunder Step is essentially 'teleport 90 feet, leave the spell Shatter in your wake', except bumping the damage to 3d10 instead of 3d8. Which is an awesome spell, I like it for Bladelocks especially if they get into any hairy situations. I'd say its pretty solid for any Gish build.

Wizards and Rangers get Steel Wind Strike, a 5th level spell which deals 6d10 to any 5 creatures within 90 feet as you teleport around, making melee spell attacks against each target. Sounds like a decent spell for a Valor or Swords Bard to take with Magical Secrets.

With those two spells together, I love the thought of an Eladrin Bladesinger 'magical ronin' style character. Teleporting everywhere, carving people up, and leaving thunderous booms in his wake.

I'm desperately hoping that Hexblades get Steel Wind Strike on their bonus spell list, but I don't think it's there. Having any spell on their bonus list tied to XGtE means they can't reprint the archetype without reprinting that particular spell. They don't.

mephnick

2017-11-04, 11:53 AM

I wonder how much power creep all these spells will cause.

Snowbluff

2017-11-04, 12:03 PM

*CTRL + F "redemption"*

Oh thank goodness. I can rest easy until release date now.

Not going to lie, I did the exact same thing. Biggest worry is gone, we can go back to being excited.

Holy **** thank Christ

Basically it was a complete mess and got really strong extra abilities at level 3 while all other oaths only got Channel Divinity. Also an insane spell list. So they've at least removed the stupid extra abilities, which means I might not have to ban it.

I'm kind of embarrassed a lot of people didn't see any problems with the UA version. Like..it was really popular on reddit.

No it was pretty fine. Unarmored Defense was balanced, considering the ability for heavy armor and a shield to bring you to 21 AC with paladin, up to +6 more with magic armor and shields AND those can have other properties, and the fact there was a stat investment. Not to mention there are NO finesse weapons that would work with the charm feature, so dexterity would only give you AC if you wanted ot use the other feature. In short, lots of factually incorrect complaints and a Pathfinder style nerf.

Redemption paladins are dead, there is no reason to play one.

rbstr

2017-11-04, 12:27 PM

Nonsense. While 21 Ac really isn't special itself, it's massively OP to just get it by pumping an attack stat. The charm feature is irrelevant to that problem.
It makes rapier+dueling+nothingelse strictly better than Longsword+shield+plate+dueling. Besides getting 1 more AC you don't have any of the heavy armor disadvantages (like you could use bracers of defense with the feature, a much easier way of getting +2 Ac than via magic armor)
It's even good on potential great weapon builds.

That's besides the fact it was an extra feature at that level which no other Paladin Archetype got anything but channel divinity and bonus spells.

And, of course, Redemption is still a great archetype without it.

Unoriginal

2017-11-04, 12:38 PM

No it was pretty fine. Unarmored Defense was balanced, considering the ability for heavy armor and a shield to bring you to 21 AC with paladin, up to +6 more with magic armor and shields AND those can have other properties, and the fact there was a stat investment. Not to mention there are NO finesse weapons that would work with the charm feature, so dexterity would only give you AC if you wanted ot use the other feature. In short, lots of factually incorrect complaints and a Pathfinder style nerf.

Redemption paladins are dead, there is no reason to play one.

If that feature was so consequence-free (since heavy armor and shield can bring you to 21 AC when you play a Paladin, and there was no combo with finesse weapons), why complain that it's not here anymore?

Saying "this feature had no actual effect" and "the whole class is ruined if this feature is not here" is pretty self-contradicting.

ZorroGames

2017-11-04, 01:02 PM

https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/7alc3p/i_have_acquired_a_thing_ama/?st=J9KQLT5K&sh=b9a40d4f

Looks like somebody got an early copy!

Not going to look, waiting patiently for my pre-order copy.

nickl_2000

2017-11-04, 01:06 PM

Not going to look, waiting patiently for my pre-order copy.

Luddite :)

Potato_Priest

2017-11-04, 01:39 PM

Hmmm. Kind of annoying that tying knots is only Intelligence(sleight of hand) based. I've always enjoyed stringing up my enemies and using rope, but now it looks like I'll have to be good at a non-class stat to do it with any kind of effectiveness.

Puh Laden

2017-11-04, 02:37 PM

DracoKnight

2017-11-04, 02:41 PM

But hey, if you invest in intelligence you can act as a spotter for your counterspell-casting ally.

I foresee rogues investing in Expertised Arcana.

Klorox

2017-11-04, 02:54 PM

Potato_Priest

2017-11-04, 03:37 PM

It's a small boost to a very underused stat in this edition.

And an annoying debuff to anyone who might actually have the need to use rope, since wizards have all sorts of magical stand-ins.

Unoriginal

2017-11-04, 03:42 PM

And an annoying debuff to anyone who might actually have the need to use rope, since wizards have all sorts of magical stand-ins.

Ah, yes, it is known that only wizards have INT.

Seriously, dude, anyone who has proficiency in Sleight of Hand will be at minimum decent at rope-tying, regardless of their INT.

Tanarii

2017-11-04, 05:11 PM

Ah, yes, it is known that only wizards have INT.
Yeah, kind of weird complaint considering Int is already a nice secondary (or tertiary after Con) stat for any Rogue that wants to deal with disabling Traps.

Dr.Samurai

2017-11-04, 05:18 PM

Use Rope was based on Dexterity in 3rd edition, and tying knots doesn’t really strike me as intelligence based. More like... proficiency based. So I get complaints about it being tied to intelligence.

So if I’m reading correctly, the hexblade can no longer use his curse at-will at higher levels right? I’m joining a higher level game and was waiting to get a peek at the new hexblade before making a decision.

Potato_Priest

2017-11-04, 05:26 PM

I don't usually play wizards or rogues, but I love my rope, so that's the main reason this is a sad day for me.

But also, who seems like they ought to be better at knots, the rough-and-tumble sailor fighter, or the erudite researcher with a passion for card tricks?

Unoriginal

2017-11-04, 05:35 PM

But also, who seems like they ought to be better at knots, the rough-and-tumble sailor fighter, or the erudite researcher with a passion for card tricks?

I'll take the very smart and knowledgeable guy who has spent years training manual dexterity, hand-eye coordination, and thinking outside the box.

Use Rope was based on Dexterity in 3rd edition

It's a good thing we are not playing 3rd edition, then.

Past D&D editions are a source of inspiration for features and lore points, but that's it. 3rd edition is about as relevant to what the actual 5e rules should be than Shadowrun is.

I'm sorry for being overly agressive, but I so very, very tired of that kind of argument. 5e deserves better than being seen as 3.Poorly-Done.

and tying knots doesn’t really strike me as intelligence based. More like... proficiency based.

Being smart and knowledgeable is how you know how to do knots. As for proficiency, yes, they say if you have proficiency in Sleigh of Hand you'll get your profeciency bonus.

toapat

2017-11-04, 08:49 PM

No it was pretty fine. Unarmored Defense was balanced, considering the ability for heavy armor and a shield to bring you to 21 AC with paladin, up to +6 more with magic armor and shields AND those can have other properties, and the fact there was a stat investment. Not to mention there are NO finesse weapons that would work with the charm feature, so dexterity would only give you AC if you wanted ot use the other feature. In short, lots of factually incorrect complaints and a Pathfinder style nerf.

Redemption paladins are dead, there is no reason to play one.

the Charm ribbon was a huge problem, the Unarmored defense was inconsistent

The real problem is that Redemption paladins get access to good hard CC options and every tank mechanic relevant for Non-Tiamat encounters, when paladins have only been allowed soft CC because of the issue of already being the 4th overal standard DPR singletarget after normalization.

Naanomi

2017-11-04, 08:53 PM

I didn’t care for Redemption mechanically... seems like ‘tanky monk with smites’ would have fit the bill with less fuss than ‘heavy armor class gets super Unarmored Defense’

toapat

2017-11-04, 09:02 PM

I didn’t care for Redemption mechanically... seems like ‘tanky monk with smites’ would have fit the bill with less fuss than ‘heavy armor class gets super Unarmored Defense’

crawford said redemption was designed from tranquility monk

Naanomi

2017-11-04, 09:07 PM

crawford said redemption was designed from tranquility monk
Right, I meant if the imagery of an unarmored ‘Paladin’ was so vital to the concept; I’d start with monk instead

mephnick

2017-11-04, 09:20 PM

No it was pretty fine. Unarmored Defense was balanced, considering the ability for heavy armor and a shield to bring you to 21 AC with paladin, up to +6 more with magic armor and shields AND those can have other properties, and the fact there was a stat investment. Not to mention there are NO finesse weapons that would work with the charm feature, so dexterity would only give you AC if you wanted ot use the other feature. In short, lots of factually incorrect complaints and a Pathfinder style nerf.

Redemption paladins are dead, there is no reason to play one.

A) So you believe a subclass should get a free extra feature that mimics the AC of full plate and shield with zero investment (Dex is already your stat and you don't have to shell out 1500g for plate) a full 3 levels earlier than said full plate user could actually afford the armour? Seriously?

B) There are 3 monks weapons that do bludgeoning damage that can be used with finesse and can trigger the charm ability so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

I really hope anyone who was fine with the UA Redemption Paladin doesn't run games or make homebrew. It was a dndwiki level mess.

Tanarii

2017-11-04, 10:11 PM

Use Rope was based on Dexterity in 3rd edition, and tying knots doesn’t really strike me as intelligence based. More like... proficiency based. So I get complaints about it being tied to intelligence.

But also, who seems like they ought to be better at knots, the rough-and-tumble sailor fighter, or the erudite researcher with a passion for card tricks?Given that "securely tie up a prisoner" is a Dexterity check in the PHB, per Other Dexterity Checks, clearly Dex is right for run of the mill tying someone up. So I have to agree with both of you.

As far as a variant check that might use Intelligence instead, and based on my own personal experience: recalling how to tie a not-commonly used climbing knot while under time pressure. Such as a friction hitch, tying one rope to another already anchored rope, in a way that it only slides one direction, allowing you to climb up but your weight locking it so it doesn't slide down.

Dr.Samurai

2017-11-04, 10:31 PM

I'll take the very smart and knowledgeable guy who has spent years training manual dexterity, hand-eye coordination, and thinking outside the box.
{scrubbed}. One guy obviously knows how to tie knots and has been doing it all his life. The other guy is smart. You’re choosing the other guy to make a point.

It's a good thing we are not playing 3rd edition, then.

.....

Past D&D editions are a source of inspiration for features and lore points, but that's it. 3rd edition is about as relevant to what the actual 5e rules should be than Shadowrun is.
Spare me please. I get from most of your posts that you’re typically gunning to prove a point. But there’s no point for you to get across here. Sleight of Hand is a dexterity check in this edition. And Use Rope used to be a dexterity check in 3rd edition. I understand why people might complain that it’s now intelligence based. It’s not intuitive.

I'm sorry for being overly agressive
Me too. I wish you had a point worth being aggressive over at least.

Being smart and knowledgeable is how you know how to do knots.
No. I’d say proficiency is what determines that, since anyone can learn to tie knots without being particularly clever.

As for proficiency, yes, they say if you have proficiency in Sleigh of Hand you'll get your profeciency bonus.
Not what I’m saying. You’re making the case that smart people are the knot-tiers of the world. I’m saying the skill is probably more based on proficiency than anything else (intelligence or dexterity) and since the skill is usually dex based ( sleight of hand) and used to be dex based(use Rope), I can see why people might complain. You’re too busy being a jackass and apologizing for it that you seem to be missing the point.

Saiga

2017-11-04, 11:03 PM

Being smart and knowledgeable is how you know how to do knots. As for proficiency, yes, they say if you have proficiency in Sleigh of Hand you'll get your profeciency bonus.

I have to take issue with this. Practice and learning are how you make knots. That's covered by proficiency already. Intelligence is more intuitive ability and reasoning, otherwise proficiency would be a redundant bonus in most cases.

So like, improvising a knot? I can see why you'd use your intelligence in that. But executed a particular knot that you've practiced? Your proficiency is the mental side of that, your dexterity the physical.

Naanomi

2017-11-04, 11:09 PM

I’m fine with it being INT... memory is a function of INT, and remembering a variety of specialty knots, the ‘trick’ to make them, and thinking how to best combine them is more important in a good lashing/etc than nimble fingers, quick feet, or a sense of balance

Finlam

2017-11-04, 11:11 PM

I didn't see anything about it in the thread, but does anyone know if they changed the Chaos Bolt spell? It REALLY sucked when they introduced it; I'm hoping it's better (or a non-scalable cantrip) by now.

Tanarii

2017-11-04, 11:15 PM

I have to take issue with this. Practice and learning are how you make knots. That's covered by proficiency already. Intelligence is more intuitive ability and reasoning, otherwise proficiency would be a redundant bonus in most cases.tying knots you definitely know or where a complex knot isn't needed should clearly be a dexterity check, given the PHB example of other Dex checks is tying someone up.

Now that I've made that clear that I agree with you :smallwink: ... it's important to remember that Intelligence in 5e is recall as well as deduction. And that checks are things with time pressure. So recalling how to use a knot you don't commonly use is a fair Intelligence check. (I also think that a logical extension of your statement on not needing Int for your commonly practiced knots.) IMO recalling things is an important use of Intelligence that is often overlooked, and one reason it's under utilized by DMs and undervalued by players is its so often overlooked.

of course, as with any Int check, if you have time and you can succeed, you will. Ie if you learned the rarely used knot at some point, if you can think about it and mess around for a few minutes (or whatever -0x as long is), the DM shouldn't be messing around with a Int check. Unless the DM is into a state of the world "did you ever learn this thing" checks (which I am most definitely not).

And as you say, improvising something specific to the situation certainly counts as deduction.

Saiga

2017-11-04, 11:49 PM

Tanarii

2017-11-05, 12:01 AM

That all makes sense, and I am aware of how Int is recall - but I think that opens up a potential can of worms, because almost any skill check is going to include recall as a fundamental element of that. Even stuff like proper grappling form or sword technique involve recalling skills.IMo ts not a can of worms, but rather one of the things Int checks are for. If it's something that the character might have trouble recalling under time pressure, for whatever reason, an Intellegence check to see if they recall under time pressure (ie no time think on it, covered by the automatic success rule) is always approropriate. Although it takes some cooperation and agreement between DM and player to know what those things might be for any given PC. A DM willy-nelly calling for Int checks to remember stuff done and practiced a lot, on their whim, is definitely going to upset players.

So that's why I think int's recall should represent more "oh, I remember hearing about this" (which is why it's tied to history, arcana, religion and nature) and not recalling something you've specifically trained in.I disagree with those kind of state of the world (or state of the characters having learned something or heard something or not) Int checks. I don't like them. It's like making a check to determine "is this lock pick able". It also doesn't work well sith the default way to make checks is that you can keep making the check until you succeed, if the only consequence for failure is time. That includes for Lore checks.

But I realize that a lot of people like to use them that way for Int checks specifically.

Laserlight

2017-11-05, 12:22 AM

Apparently identifying a spell being cast calls for Arcana DC15 (which I'm fine with) and uses your Reaction, which means you can't also Counterspell.

Aside from nerfing Counterspell (did it need a nerf?), it opens up the situation where the BBEG casts, the party bard says "My goodness, he's casting Fireball!" and then the party wizard counterspells.

Naanomi

2017-11-05, 12:25 AM

Aside from nerfing Counterspell (did it need a nerf?)
Only a nerf if your homerule was more permissive than that to begin with

Saiga

2017-11-05, 12:25 AM

IMo ts not a can of worms, but rather one of the things Int checks are for. If it's something that the character might have trouble recalling under time pressure, for whatever reason, an Intellegence check to see if they recall under time pressure (ie no time think on it, covered by the automatic success rule) is always approropriate. Although it takes some cooperation and agreement between DM and player to know what those things might be for any given PC. A DM willy-nelly calling for Int checks to remember stuff done and practiced a lot, on their whim, is definitely going to upset players.

I disagree with those kind of state of the world (or state of the characters having learned something or heard something or not) Int checks. I don't like them. It's like making a check to determine "is this lock pick able". It also doesn't work well sith the default way to make checks is that you can keep making the check until you succeed, if the only consequence for failure is time. That includes for Lore checks.

But I realize that a lot of people like to use them that way for Int checks specifically.

Unfortunately, not many people run the automatic success thing. I am aware that they should (and this frustrates me) but that's why I'm not fond of using int as recall because if your DM doesn't understand the lack of time pressure, it will get even more frustrating than it normally is.

edit: I dislike identifying spells using your reactions. When the DM runs counterspell, they know exactly what you're casting and can act appropriately. I think players should at least recognize spells on their classes' spell list.

jas61292

2017-11-05, 01:08 AM

As far as the whole tying knots thing, I'm cool with it being Int based. It makes far more sense than Dex. I mean... I'm not particularly dexterous, but I can tie knots just fine. Making me more dexterous won't make me better at knot tying. Rather, its all about knowing what kinda knot to tie. Now, most of the time this should be a simple yes or no, based on whether I know what I am doing. The only checks I can really see one needing for a knot if you know how to tie it would be to see if you are able to do so in a rushed situation. Personally, I see that as less about Dexterity, and far more about your ability to think and concentrate under pressure, which fits well with Intelligence.

Unoriginal

2017-11-05, 07:02 AM

You’re being disingenuous. One guy obviously knows how to tie knots and has been doing it all his life. The other guy is smart. You’re choosing the other guy to make a point.

No, I'm not being disingenuous. If I'm asked "who do you think is the best at tying up people: a 18th century sailor or a magician like Houdini?", I'll take the magician.

I get from most of your posts that you’re typically gunning to prove a point.

No? You don't prove a point by gunning, and that's not something I typically do.

I understand why people might complain that it’s now intelligence based. It’s not intuitive.

Except people weren't complaining that it's not intuitive, they were complaining that it was a "nerf" for PCs who likes to use ropes but don't have high INT.

No. I’d say proficiency is what determines that, since anyone can learn to tie knots without being particularly clever.

[...]

Not what I’m saying. You’re making the case that smart people are the knot-tiers of the world. I’m saying the skill is probably more based on proficiency than anything else (intelligence or dexterity)

As I said:

anyone who has proficiency in Sleight of Hand will be at minimum decent at rope-tying, regardless of their INT.

and since the skill is usually dex based ( sleight of hand) and used to be dex based(use Rope), I can see why people might complain. You’re too busy being a jackass and apologizing for it that you seem to be missing the point.

Given that it was not what what people were complaining about, and that my own complain on the topic is that what it used to be in 3rd edition is irrelevant (after all, you could also say "it's not how it worked in 4e" or "it's not how it worked in AD&D", yet people tend to treat 3.X as if it's the only past edition that matter), I think you're mistaken in what you believe to be the subject of contention.

That being said, I recognize I acted like a jackass, and I shouldn't have. So again, I apologize.

Lombra

2017-11-05, 07:43 AM

No, I'm not being disingenuous. If I'm asked "who do you think is the best at tying up people: a 18th century sailor or a magician like Houdini?", I'll take the magician

Bruh Houdini had no magic at all, he had at least expertise in slight of hand, it's not a comparison in favour of your theory.

Vaz

2017-11-05, 08:02 AM

Anyone got info on the changes to the Ancestral Guardians Barbarian?

Unoriginal

2017-11-05, 08:05 AM

Bruh Houdini had no magic at all, he had at least expertise in slight of hand, it's not a comparison in favour of your theory.

...yes, Houdini didn't have magic. I never implied he had. He was just a smart guy who was good with Sleight of Hand, which is exactly my point.

Lombra

2017-11-05, 08:49 AM

...yes, Houdini didn't have magic. I never implied he had. He was just a smart guy who was good with Sleight of Hand, which is exactly my point.

I happen to understand magic if someone mentions magician, maybe you intended escape artist, illusionist at most. His smartness was in setting up and performing seemingly impossible acts, not in being effective at tying and escaping, that is all hard work and practice, also known as proficiency or expertise. Anyone with sufficient training can perform any knot, you don't have to be smart to make a good knot, you just have to train in it the same way you would train for physical exercises.

Unoriginal

2017-11-05, 09:03 AM

I happen to understand magic if someone mentions magician, maybe you intended escape artist, illusionist at most.

Stage magicians are a thing, you know. That's generally what Harry Houdini's job is called.

His smartness was in setting up and performing seemingly impossible acts, not in being effective at tying and escaping, that is all hard work and practice, also known as proficiency or expertise. Anyone with sufficient training can perform any knot, you don't have to be smart to make a good knot, you just have to train in it the same way you would train for physical exercises.

Putting the fact I've already said that the proficiency is the most important thing to be decent at tying knots, let me ask you a question.

Who do you think would be the best at tying knots, assuming they got the same amount of training: the meathead who has some troubles remembering details and who's not the most thoughtful before taking a decision, or the guy who has a good memory and who can imagine several scenarios quickly before choosing an option?

Lombra

2017-11-05, 09:38 AM

Putting the fact I've already said that the proficiency is the most important thing to be decent at tying knots, let me ask you a question.

Who do you think would be the best at tying knots, assuming they got the same amount of training: the meathead who has some troubles remembering details and who's not the most thoughtful before taking a decision, or the guy who has a good memory and who can imagine several scenarios quickly before choosing an option?

Both are equally good at tying knots, so if the task is "tie a knot with the following properties: ..." either could perform the task correctly, provided that both know which knot to tie.

By your reasoning intelligence should apply to every single skill or task, not that it wouldn't be accurate, but that's not clearly in the spirit of the current game-state.
One could call for an intelligence (athletics) checks to tell which exercise is good for your abs, but that person is not doing sit-ups with his brains only. Theory is different than practice.

Vaz

2017-11-05, 09:54 AM

Both are equally good at tying knots, so if the task is "tie a knot with the following properties: ..." either could perform the task correctly, provided that both know which knot to tie.
So experience and knowledge, rather than how quickly you can move your fingers?

One could call for an intelligence (athletics) checks to tell which exercise is good for your abs, but that person is not doing sit-ups with his brains only. Theory is different than practice.
Of course not. And if there was a challenge that was how many situps you could do, it would be an athletics checks.

But if someone falls off their ship, and they have a rope thrown to them, if someone makes a Use Rope check, and pass it, that would be them knowing how to make a Bowline knot which would mean that I wouldn't make the person on the other side of the rope have to keep making Athletics checks to hold on. If someone needed to do that extremely quickly, say as a Bonus Action, I'd allow them to make a Dexterity Check to see if they could do so, or even as a Reaction. Or a Forgery Kit requires Intelligence to know how to use it appropriately, rather than Dexterity for finesse of hand.

A Climber might make an Intelligence Check to spot where the best part of the wall would be to climb. A Rope in combination with some Pitons would lower the DC requires to climb. But it's still going to require an Str athletics check to make that climb.

Doing pullups makes you able to be stronk, but it doesn't help you so much when you have to crawl an overhang.

Rfkannen

2017-11-05, 09:59 AM

rbstr

2017-11-05, 11:01 AM

Not in that thread, but in another they said that the celestial patron is bassically the same (at least at level 1) except for guiding bolt has replaced burning hands.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/7aw7nn/to_anyone_who_already_has_xanathars_how_does/dpdlx6v/

I guess that's a nice and flavorful spell but...This is just another single-target option when EB does nearly the same damage. Burning Hands was way more useful.
I hope this guy was just skimming and the level 6 feature became more useful. Wouldn't it be fun if Sacred Flame was actually good enough that EB could take the back-burner on the Celestial?

Celestial looks ridiculous sitting next to the Hexblade that is nothing but synergy. What the hell Wizards?

Tanarii

2017-11-05, 11:28 AM

Apparently identifying a spell being cast calls for Arcana DC15 (which I'm fine with) and uses your Reaction, which means you can't also Counterspell.

Only a nerf if your homerule was more permissive than that to begin with

edit: I dislike identifying spells using your reactions. When the DM runs counterspell, they know exactly what you're casting and can act appropriately. I think players should at least recognize spells on their classes' spell list.
Personally I'm glad to see they didn't buff Counterspell from the current default, which is that there's no way to indentify a spell being cast, unless the DM makes it up.

I'm curious how this could even work anyway. Unless you can see a material component specific to a spell (as opposed to a focus), or casting one that requires specific guestures (True Strike) or Words (Suggestion) nothing says that any two casters use the same V or S components to cast a spell. For that matter, nothing that's that any given individual caster uses the same V or S components any time he casts any given individual spell.

That said, most of the time when I DM usually it goes like this:
Me (DM): "The lizardfolk with big headdress in back casts a spell, and 4 Crocadiles appear here, here, here ..."
Player: I Counterspell.

So it's not really a problem. :smallamused:

Snowbluff

2017-11-05, 12:19 PM

A) So you believe a subclass should get a free extra feature that mimics the AC of full plate and shield with zero investment (Dex is already your stat and you don't have to shell out 1500g for plate) a full 3 levels earlier than said full plate user could actually afford the armour? Seriously?

B) There are 3 monks weapons that do bludgeoning damage that can be used with finesse and can trigger the charm ability so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

I really hope anyone who was fine with the UA Redemption Paladin doesn't run games or make homebrew. It was a dndwiki level mess.

1) 19 versus 19 at level 1 with starting armor and max dex. Then by level 8 when Dex is at 20, you can afford fullplate anyway and you might have acquire magic items by then. In AL you sure as hell at least have an uncommon or 2 to trade for few +1s.

In general "extra" isn't a word I would use to describe features for Oaths/paths/etc. The whole package should be considered ( and redemption paladin might come out good on this metric), but for some classes the options of their subclasses in the PHB are anemic, so the future subclasses should be given some leeway if the extra options encouraging meeting the flavor.

2) Redemption Paladins don't have the ability to finesse though weapons without multiclassing, As far as I can tell. That means you have to multiclass, so 13 wis and 13 str required. Other paladins can multiclass too, getting some of the best spells from redemption paladin as a result, like Storm sorc for minor celerity and shield, or Dragon Sorc for unarmored defense which works with shields, or any class that can cast mage armor...

Tanarii

2017-11-05, 12:26 PM

Monk Martial Arts doesn't give weapons the finesse property. It just lets them be used with Dex. (Not having looked at the subclass under discussion, not sure if that's an important distinction or not.)

Gryndle

2017-11-05, 12:43 PM

That all makes sense, and I am aware of how Int is recall - but I think that opens up a potential can of worms, because almost any skill check is going to include recall as a fundamental element of that. Even stuff like proper grappling form or sword technique involve recalling skills.

So that's why I think int's recall should represent more "oh, I remember hearing about this" (which is why it's tied to history, arcana, religion and nature) and not recalling something you've specifically trained in.

I'd like something for using a flat Int check for skills you're not proficient in as an alternative, or something, but int + prof seems redundant in this case.

I disagree with INT/recall being a fundamental element of CLOSE combat or for that matter, much of physical activity. Muscle memory and instinct are much more important. If you are trying to think you're way through a close range fight, then you are getting the crap beat out of you. That is the prime reason you drill techniques over and over and over ad nauseum even after you have learned to perform it correctly, to build that muscle memory and instinct. This even applies to a lot of things outside of combat. As an example, simply walking. If, not thinking about it, you got up from your computer and walked to the fridge, you would walk one way. If you got up and consciously thought about walking, your stride would be different.

That said, I only disagree with your example, but not your greater point. 5E makes the concession that you can use abilities for skill checks other than the default ability when appropriate. And I can see certain elements of knot-tying and rope use being more dependent on INT than DEX. From rope use in seamanship and construction to exotic knots used to tie up a captive or in Japanese bondage. I'm a fairly dexterous guy, but were I to encounter some of those kinds of knots, my solution is a very sharp knife.

jaappleton

2017-11-05, 01:04 PM

The wait for this is ----ing killing me, it really is.

miburo

2017-11-05, 01:18 PM

I'm bummed that Arcane Archer got massively nerfed. According to the thread the 3rd level magic +1 bow ability got moved to 7th level, and is now just a magic bow (no +1 bonus). Also it didn't get any extra magic shots beyond the two.

That's pretty crappy. by 7th level most characters will have a magic bow already, and two magic shots per short rest, with no increases at later levels, is not very fun. I was hoping they would either add more arrows at high level (like a Battlemaster) or make it Int modifier # of arrows or something like that.

DracoKnight

2017-11-05, 02:07 PM

The wait for this is ----ing killing me, it really is.

Saaaaame! I need to rework my Hexblade with official rules that aren’t reliant on a greatsword, because damn, the thing is unwieldy when you can’t set up darkness in a way that doesn’t f*** your party.

ZorroGames

2017-11-05, 04:03 PM

Luddite :)

Been called a lot worse.

BTW, someways accurate but since I am online... :smallwink:

Saiga

2017-11-05, 04:03 PM

Personally I'm glad to see they didn't buff Counterspell from the current default, which is that there's no way to indentify a spell being cast, unless the DM makes it up.

I'm curious how this could even work anyway. Unless you can see a material component specific to a spell (as opposed to a focus), or casting one that requires specific guestures (True Strike) or Words (Suggestion) nothing says that any two casters use the same V or S components to cast a spell. For that matter, nothing that's that any given individual caster uses the same V or S components any time he casts any given individual spell.

That said, most of the time when I DM usually it goes like this:
Me (DM): "The lizardfolk with big headdress in back casts a spell, and 4 Crocadiles appear here, here, here ..."
Player: I Counterspell.

So it's not really a problem. :smallamused:

In my experience, it's "he's casting a spell. What do you do?" And we're not even given a hint what it might be until we cast Counterspell.

And then, when we want to cast Silence to shut down a spellcaster "oh no he's definitely going to Counterspell that".

Vaz

2017-11-05, 04:22 PM

Just think how many people are going to be Marilith cultists now.

Unoriginal

2017-11-05, 04:28 PM

DMs shouldn't use meta-knowledge to boost their bad guys.

An enemy spellcaster shouldn't know more about the spell you're casting than what you know of the spell they're casting.

Now I've just realized how powerful a ring or another magic item that let you identify any spells active or being cast in the vicinity would be. Could be an hell of an item.

Just think how many people are going to be Marilith cultists now.

Wrong book for that, Vaz. The Fiendish Cult stuff isn't in the Xanathar's Guide, and will probably be released in their next "Manual of the Planes" kind of book.

That being said Mariliths are indeed mighty worshipable *wiggle eyebrows*

mephnick

2017-11-05, 04:41 PM

I think they got the reaction for identifying a spell right. Counterspell is "oh crap he's casting something, throw out some power out to block it and hope for the best" type thing.

I don't know why players expect to be able to watch a spell being cast, study the intricate motions and rhythms used to cast a spell as a free action, AND then use a reaction to cast their own spell as a reaction.

Tanarii

2017-11-05, 04:45 PM

In my experience, it's "he's casting a spell. What do you do?" And we're not even given a hint what it might be until we cast Counterspell.

And then, when we want to cast Silence to shut down a spellcaster "oh no he's definitely going to Counterspell that".
Point out the double standard. Edit: or just start saying "I cast a spell" wait for them to ask which one, then once you tell them, if they try to Counterspell tell them it's too late.

Ryuu Hayato

2017-11-05, 04:49 PM

I want to know about Samurai. =/

At any time, this waiting will kill me. hahaha

Rfkannen

2017-11-05, 04:51 PM

I'm really intrigued by the guardian of nature spell, it seems they basically made the warden class a spell and that is very interesting! I wonder how it works through.

Also, who do you all think makes the best use of tenders tranformation? My thought would be it would be best on a dragon sorcerer, just grab a rapier and go to town. I want it to work on the war wizard or abjureration wizard, but I'm not sure how effective that would be.

Tanarii

2017-11-05, 05:03 PM

Couldn't youbjust have 1 person identify it and another counterspell It?Rary's telepathic bond? Some other form of instantaneous mental communication? Using your reaction to yell "fireball" ... except you used your reaction already to identify it. (Communicating for "free" is on your turn.)

Vaz

2017-11-05, 05:05 PM

Wrong book for that, Vaz. The Fiendish Cult stuff isn't in the Xanathar's Guide, and will probably be released in their next "Manual of the Planes" kind of book.

That being said Mariliths are indeed mighty worshipable *wiggle eyebrows*

Been playing Hexblades since UA came out virtually, not too fussed about them being in the book just yet, but good to know that even if a MotP isn't the one then a Fiend Folio is an option later. But 2 reactions is going be even more worthy.

Rfkannen

2017-11-05, 05:13 PM

Rary's telepathic bond? Some other form of instantaneous mental communication? Using your reaction to yell "fireball" ... except you used your reaction already to identify it. (Communicating for "free" is on your turn.)

Oh right, I forgot it was a houserule at my table that you can talk whenever during combat. Never mind!

Finlam

2017-11-05, 05:17 PM

Oh right, I forgot it was a houserule at my table that you can talk whenever during combat. Never mind!

I forgot that too: we have the same rule. Doesn't this mean that identifying spells being cast is almost, but not quite entirely useless?

Vaz

2017-11-05, 05:21 PM

I forgot that too: we have the same rule. Doesn't this mean that identifying spells being cast is almost, but not quite entirely useless?

Depends if you are 60ft away or not. Readying also takes your Reaction doesn't it, so that's a no go, so ye, pretty much.

Tanarii

2017-11-05, 05:50 PM

Oh right, I forgot it was a houserule at my table that you can talk whenever during combat. Never mind!Even with that, it'd be hard to communicate fast enough after you've already spent time figuring out what the spell was (reaction), communicate (over the sounds of combat), for them to comprehend it, then counter the spell before its done being cast. All of that needs to happen within a second or two.

I mean, if you've preplanned tactics and practiced so they automatically counterspell without thinking when they hear "FIREBALL!", that's one thing. But when they hear "HASTE!" are they really going to understand you're designating it a threat to be counter spelled?

Players tend to try and play combat like a hive-mind game of chess enough as it is. :smallwink:

Saiga

2017-11-05, 05:53 PM

"COUNTER THAT" you don't need to tell them the spell to tell them to counter it. Any party that makes it to 5th level and beyond should have built up enough trust each other enough for that

Puh Laden

2017-11-05, 06:03 PM

I forgot that too: we have the same rule. Doesn't this mean that identifying spells being cast is almost, but not quite entirely useless?

Maybe they bring it up in the new rule. These new rules aren’t clarifications; according to the DnDBeyond video, they’re new optional rules. That’s why it’s okay that rope-tying is Intelligence-based when it’s listed as a Dexterity check in the PHB; it’s not a clarification; it’s an alternative.

Tanarii

2017-11-05, 06:16 PM

"COUNTER THAT" you don't need to tell them the spell to tell them to counter it. Any party that makes it to 5th level and beyond should have built up enough trust each other enough for that
Still take a house rule to allow using a reaction, followed by free speaking, followed by another reaction... All triggered by the same reaction trigger. Two house rules, actually. One for the speech out of turn, and second for having the reaction triggered by the speech (or serially by the same trigger).

If you're doing all that why not just allow he counter speller to identify the spell themselves?

Finlam

2017-11-05, 07:59 PM

Still take a house rule to allow using a reaction, followed by free speaking, followed by another reaction... All triggered by the same reaction trigger. Two house rules, actually. One for the speech out of turn, and second for having the reaction triggered by the speech (or serially by the same trigger).

If you're doing all that why not just allow he counter speller to identify the spell themselves?
100% agreed.

It's a shame: spell identification was one of the things I was looking forward to and it turned out to be non-sense :/

Saiga

2017-11-05, 08:48 PM

Still take a house rule to allow using a reaction, followed by free speaking, followed by another reaction... All triggered by the same reaction trigger. Two house rules, actually. One for the speech out of turn, and second for having the reaction triggered by the speech (or serially by the same trigger).

If you're doing all that why not just allow he counter speller to identify the spell themselves?

Well, I would, I'm just trying to think of a way for this rule to be used that isn't completely pointless. I can only imagine th intent was for someone to identify it for the benefit of the counterspeller, even though that's not RAW.

Tanarii

2017-11-05, 09:07 PM

Well, I would, I'm just trying to think of a way for this rule to be used that isn't completely pointless. I can only imagine th intent was for someone to identify it for the benefit of the counterspeller, even though that's not RAW.Why does it need to have anything to do with counter spelling to not be completely pointless? The are lots of spells without visible effects it'd be worth knowing what they just cast. For starters, it'd let you know if they just cast a concentration spell that could be dispelled or brought down by Con saves.

Kane0

2017-11-05, 09:19 PM

It also has some wierd interactions with Mage Slayer, both using reactions and all.

samcifer

2017-11-05, 09:57 PM

The wait for this is ----ing killing me, it really is.

If you can hold out til friday and there's a hobby store in your area, you can get it then. Sadly I have to work, so I'll have to wait until after work to go get it.... :(

Kuulvheysoon

2017-11-05, 09:59 PM

If you can hold out til friday and there's a hobby store in your area, you can get it then. Sadly I have to work, so I'll have to wait until after work to go get it.... :(

Pffft. I wish I could grab it that early. I've had it on preorder on Amazon for months now because I live 6 hours away from the nearest gaming store.

Saiga

2017-11-05, 10:45 PM

Why does it need to have anything to do with counter spelling to not be completely pointless? The are lots of spells without visible effects it'd be worth knowing what they just cast. For starters, it'd let you know if they just cast a concentration spell that could be dispelled or brought down by Con saves.

That's a good point, I just thought most spells are immediately obvious once actually executed so I couldn't see the point to this.

Dr.Samurai

2017-11-05, 10:46 PM

No, I'm not being disingenuous. If I'm asked "who do you think is the best at tying up people: a 18th century sailor or a magician like Houdini?", I'll take the magician.
Ignoring the fact that the PHB specifically calls out "tying up people" as a Dexterity check, Houdini did many other things besides escape knots. He also escaped handcuffs and jail cells and straightjackets, held his breath for minutes at a time while trying to escape water-filled chambers, etc. Did he accomplish these tasks because he was smart and knowledgeable? Was he able to perform these tasks under pressure because of his incredible recall? So were these all intelligence checks? What makes the "escaping from a rope" trick intelligence based, and all the others based on more intuitive ability/skill checks?

Except people weren't complaining that it's not intuitive, they were complaining that it was a "nerf" for PCs who likes to use ropes but don't have high INT.
...and...

Given that it was not what what people were complaining about, and that my own complain on the topic is that what it used to be in 3rd edition is irrelevant (after all, you could also say "it's not how it worked in 4e" or "it's not how it worked in AD&D", yet people tend to treat 3.X as if it's the only past edition that matter), I think you're mistaken in what you believe to be the subject of contention.
Potato Priest complained it was a debuff to his character, specifically because it is now Intelligence based. Wrapped up in that sentiment is the idea that rogues will have a 20 dex (or thereabouts) and not a 20 int (maybe 14 or something). So that's a debuff. Now, a debuff might be easier to swallow if it makes sense or is relatively easy to justify. In this case, intelligence based sleight of hand isn't exactly intuitive (to some). Part of the reason for this is that this skill has been, and still is, dexterity based (whether it's sleight of hand, a check to a tie up a prisoner, or the use rope skill).

So I get all that. I understand where that's coming from. It's not intuitive, and it wasn't done like that before. Minutes after I posted that, the next post was Potato Priest once again, this time asking who would be better at tying knots, a sailor or a smart guy. It's almost like I knew people wouldn't think it makes sense for it to be intelligence based. Go figure...

For me, I can see intelligence governing the check if you're creating the knot on your own without ever having known how. If it's just pure intellect figuring out how to make this length of rope do what you want it to do. But if you're a boy scout and you're being taught knots and how to make them, and you become proficient in it, well, after that it's just a matter of your fingers and hands moving and actually making the knots. Again, I'm not married to it being dexterity based either, but it does fit in some sense, and *it's been like that and still is like that*.

mephnick

2017-11-05, 10:54 PM

Tying knots is definitely a mix of INT and DEX, recalling which knot to use on the spot is tough, but there are universal ones that are good in almost any situation.

If I had to simplify it I'd probably choose DEX over INT. If I had to run it in my game I wouldn't call for a check and just let the character do it because who gives a ****.

Naanomi

2017-11-05, 11:02 PM

If I had to simplify it I'd probably choose DEX over INT. If I had to run it in my game I wouldn't call for a check and just let the character do it because who gives a ****.
The only time it should matter is when it is contested... one person ties someone up, who then tries to escape

Dr.Samurai

2017-11-05, 11:05 PM

Malifice

2017-11-05, 11:55 PM

Have we really just had 4 pages of discussion re tying knots in our magic fantasy elf game?

That says.... a lot really.

Finlam

2017-11-06, 12:02 AM

Have we really just had 4 pages of discussion re tying knots in our magic fantasy elf game?

That says.... a lot really.
Tying knots and elf-fantasies go together?

JBPuffin

2017-11-06, 12:14 AM

Tying knots and elf-fantasies go together?

More like DnD nerds consist of some of the nit-pickiest of nerds.

This book coming out means I'll be able to scrap a good chunk of the UA articles on my computer, which is nice. I do wonder, how many of these are actually ready for release...?

DracoKnight

2017-11-06, 12:21 AM

Tying knots and elf-fantasies go together?

Kinky. I like it.

More like DnD nerds consist of some of the nit-pickiest of nerds.

This book coming out means I'll be able to scrap a good chunk of the UA articles on my computer, which is nice. I do wonder, how many of these are actually ready for release...?

...I don't think that's what they meant... :smallwink:

Malifice

2017-11-06, 12:28 AM

Tying knots and elf-fantasies go together?

Touche.

Still. Its one of those 'who cares' things for mine.

Vaz

2017-11-06, 02:30 AM

Ignoring the fact that the PHB specifically calls out "tying up people" as a Dexterity check, Houdini did many other things besides escape knots. He also escaped handcuffs and jail cells and straightjackets, held his breath for minutes at a time while trying to escape water-filled chambers, etc. Did he accomplish these tasks because he was smart and knowledgeable? Was he able to perform these tasks under pressure because of his incredible recall? So were these all intelligence checks? What makes the "escaping from a rope" trick intelligence based, and all the others based on more intuitive ability/skill checks?

As a sailor, marine, and generally outdoorsyguy, I can definitely say out of experience that learning which is the most appropriate knot to use in the situation is half the struggle. Making a monkey's fist, Bowline, round turn and two half hitches, reef knot, false reef or a granny.

I don't give a flying **** if you put cirque du soleil in the shade and can crawl inside your own sphincter, if you tie the wrong knot, you're only wasting time. When you abstract it down, intelligence plays a lot more than any other ever will in regards to knots.

Like perform is charisma based. Doesn't matter how technically great you are if you can't provide a proper show for someone. There is a video about a violinist who played at Carnegie, IIRC, playing in the underground. Barely anyone gave a damn. And yet you can have buskers or street dancers who areless technically good able to pull crowds of dozens because their showmanship is better.

I'd argue that Wisdom would thus be a better option, but given that there is no clear delineation between Wisdom and Intelligence psychologically, I'm more than happy to have it Int based.

Given after all that 5e makes a point of encouraging different aspects of rules: a character breaking a bunch of bricks with his head to intimidate someone is going to be using Str, IMHO. Not very intimidating if you don't breka them, and I'm not going to penalise someone by making them make 2 checks to potentially fail. Thus, a Bondage expert using ropeplay to keep their client edging would possibly have Charisma, an old Sailor might be using Wisdom, while one attempting to make the check quick enough i'd possibly allow a Dex check to do it quicker than intended. Or just up the DC to the extent where it would probably match their Int bonus.