Mechanics that dont make sense [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

MoiMagnus

2022-01-06, 03:35 PM

Why doesn't that make sense? Nothing before Xan rule for identifying spells being cast as a reaction implied it was possible at all. So counterspelling blind was the norm already.

Was it, though?
The norm is not systematically to get the minimal amount of information the rules guaranties you have.

I'd say it's more precise to say that the norm was to rely on GM fiat like for every kind of perception issue. E.g, every spell that relies on material component, you might be able to guess it from the GM's description of "the enemy mage take a small piece of metal and light a small flame above it, starting to incant" (this would be the casting of Heat Metal) ... assuming the GM does provide those kind of descriptions.

And then you have an additional layer of GM fiat on the worldbuilding: if spells are unique enough in the exact posture your need to make to cast them, for spell famous enough like Fireball, even non-mages might recognise the posture of casting them (similarly to how a lot of us would recognise Dragon's Ball's Kamehameha).

For me, before Xanathar, we were pretty much in the same case of whether or not enemy HP are public:
+ nothing in the rules says you know how much HP they have, but you can still ask your GM how injured they look, and while some GMs will give you a qualitative descriptions, others will not bother and give you the exact amount, even if that's more information than what your character would know.
+ nothing in the rules says you know exactly what spell the enemy are casting, but you can still ask your GM what the spellcasting looks like, and while some GMs will give you a qualitative descriptions hinting at the possible spells, others will not bother and give you the exact spell cast, even if that's more information than what your character would know.

Sorinth

2022-01-06, 03:40 PM

In even makes logical sense: When you let the spellcasting progress to the point you can tell what's coming, it's too late to stop it. Now, Counterspell chains or counter-Counterspell on the other hand....

I mean I get that, but it doesn't have to be the case. If to cast Summon Lesser Demons you have to say Klaatu Verata Nikto three times and it's the only spell that uses those words then logically it should be easy to identify with time remaining to cast counterpsell if desired (Assuming you pass the arcana check to know that Summon Lesser Demons is the only spell that uses those words).

The being able to counterspell while in the middle of casting a spell on the other hand I agree never really made sense.

Greywander

2022-01-06, 03:47 PM

There is a way to use this, though. Have one person identify the spell, and shout it out. Someone else casts Counterspell if it's worth Counterspelling. Often, though, whatever spell an enemy is casting is designed to ruin your day, so they're probably all worth Counterspelling. If someone decides to cast a useless spell, they're voluntarily giving up their turn to do nothing or next to nothing, which is a losing strategy even if you don't get Counterspelled. Unless you're in some kind of mage duel and you both have Counterspell and you're trying to outlast your opponent by not spending too many slots on Counterspell, in which case it's a matter of playing mind games and guessing what your opponent is casting while trying to trick them with regards to what you're casting.

Okay, fine, bad example. What are some that dont make sense?
If you attack someone you can't see, you have disadvantage. If you attack someone who can't see you, you have advantage. Makes sense, right? What if you both can't see each other? Then you have both advantage and disadvantage, which cancels out. Okay, that's kind of weird, but I guess it makes some sense at least. You're flailing around blindly, but the other person can't see to defend themselves, so you get a lucky hit about as often as if you could both see to fight properly. Where this gets truly weird is when considering cases where you would normally have disadvantage, since it can't stack. For example, shooting from long range; if you shoot into or out of a Fog Cloud, even at long range, you shoot with both advantage and disadvantage, cancelling it out. So dropping Fog Cloud on a group of archers will actually increase their accuracy at long range.

RSP

2022-01-06, 03:53 PM

I mean I get that, but it doesn't have to be the case. If to cast Summon Lesser Demons you have to say Klaatu Verata Nikto three times and it's the only spell that uses those words then logically it should be easy to identify with time remaining to cast counterpsell if desired

In terms of a spell cast as an Action, it’s probably only taking a couple seconds, in-game. If you think of all the things you could do during an ~6 second turn, the Action part of it is probably about a 1/3rd of that time.

I know that’s not really how the game is necessarily designed, but that’s how the in-game logic breaks down.

So it’s more about if one can realistically identify a spell in about a second (I don’t think anyone could intelligibly say Klaatu Verata Nikto one time in a second, assuming that’s what would be needed for V components), in order to decide, and cast, Counterspell before the target casting is over.

Plus, RAW, it’s not the words themselves, but specific pitch and resonance that’s needed, so you could have different casters using different words (not to mention in different languages) to cast the spells, which makes it all the more difficult to identify the spell in about that second.

Sorinth

2022-01-06, 04:29 PM

In terms of a spell cast as an Action, it’s probably only taking a couple seconds, in-game. If you think of all the things you could do during an ~6 second turn, the Action part of it is probably about a 1/3rd of that time.

I know that’s not really how the game is necessarily designed, but that’s how the in-game logic breaks down.

So it’s more about if one can realistically identify a spell in about a second (I don’t think anyone could intelligibly say Klaatu Verata Nikto one time in a second, assuming that’s what would be needed for V components), in order to decide, and cast, Counterspell before the target casting is over.

Plus, RAW, it’s not the words themselves, but specific pitch and resonance that’s needed, so you could have different casters using different words (not to mention in different languages) to cast the spells, which makes it all the more difficult to identify the spell in about that second.

I'm not sure the action takes 2s is in anyway RAW or even RAI. A fighter isn't spending 2s attacking, 2s moving, and 2s doing nothing because they didn't have a BA to use that turn. They are attacking and moving at the same time which is why they can split their attacks in the middle of the movement, so the action is pretty much the full 6s. And I don't see why a spellcaster couldn't also be seen to be moving while casting. And nobody is spending 2s doing nothing because they lack a BA.

In the end it all comes down to how particular the V and S components are. If the difference between summon demon and fey is Klaatu Verata Nikto and Klaatu Verata Niktai then yeah it's going to be hard to identify the spell before it's too late, if Klaatu is only ever used for summon demons then it's going to be a lot quicker to identify.

But anyways the point is more you can't really apply logic, because there's no real foundation to draw any conclusions from.

LudicSavant

2022-01-06, 04:31 PM

JackPhoenix

2022-01-06, 04:37 PM

There is a way to use this, though. Have one person identify the spell, and shout it out. Someone else casts Counterspell if it's worth Counterspelling.

How often do you feel the need to identify what spell is being cast during your turn so it can be Counterspelled? Because you can't shout out what's going on when it's not your turn.

So dropping Fog Cloud on a group of archers will actually increase their accuracy at long range.

Assuming, of course, they are shooting into the right area at all.

RSP

2022-01-06, 05:05 PM

I'm not sure the action takes 2s is in anyway RAW or even RAI. …They are attacking and moving at the same time which is why they can split their attacks in the middle of the movement, so the action is pretty much the full 6s. And I don't see why a spellcaster couldn't also be seen to be moving while casting. And nobody is spending 2s doing nothing because they lack a BA.

Never said it was either RAW or RAI.

What I said was it appears that way using in-game logic.

A fighter cannot be moving and doing their attack at the same time if they’re moving their full speed to get to the target. I really don’t see how its logical to say “okay you attack the target that’s 30’ away from you with your longsword.” The attack begins when they’re within their weapon’s Reach, or their final position of attack (for instance, if using the variant flanking rule, the attack wouldn’t be until the character got into appropriate position to get Advantage).

Likewise, consider a Wizard having to swim and cast a spell with V and S components: they couldn’t swim and cast at the same time.

Or if the character knew another caster had Counterspell and needed to move 30’ to get behind full cover before starting to cast so as not to be seen (thereby preventing Counterspell). If they start casting while moving, then they’re Counterspell-able.

So if you take the full amount of possible stuff in a turn, (I’m sure optimizers can come up with better) for instance a Multiclass Fighter/Sorcerer could use their BA on a spell, then their Action on a spell, then Action Surge for an additional spell, and move 35’ (Wood Elf) to full cover before any casting. That’s 3 spells and separate moving during ~6 seconds. Let’s say it takes 2 seconds to move 35’. That means the 1 Action casting time takes less than 2 seconds, in order to also fit in the swifter BA spell.

5eNeedsDarksun

2022-01-06, 05:15 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2022-01-06, 05:31 PM

I guess anything where decisions can happen to impact the result after you've seen the results of the dice roll or determined success or failure. Start with Divine Smite and Inspiration Dice and work your way along to Shield Spell and now Silvery Barbs. I'm sure it's a really long list at this point.
To me all of these things would require time to back up a bit then have the user apply the ability, then get time going again. If I were designing a game you'd have to apply these sorts of things pre-roll. I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I lose a little suspension of disbelief every time this happens... and the game loses a little flow.

I see those things as artifacts of atomic(ish) actions. During action resolution, the in-game universe is paused until the entire thing is fully resolved, including damage. There's no delay between making the attack and dealing the damage in universe, but there's a sequence point in the game layer. Shield, Smite, Inspiration Dice, etc are happening (in the fiction) during the attack, but act as interrupts inside the resolution sequence in game.

Even shield isn't actually a-temporal; it's just last second. In fiction, the rock would have hit, except that at the last second <magibabble> happened, which deflected it. The attack roll itself has no meaning until the whole action (not the formal Action, but including interrupts) resolves; time is paused.

Basically, as soon as you try to get time resolutions more precise than 6 seconds (an entire round), you cause yourself absurdity. That's what happens when you break abstractions and go below the resolution of the system. Just like if you get too close to a screen or picture, you can no longer see the image but just a bunch of dots.

Keravath

2022-01-06, 05:35 PM

1) I too have also always played counterspell so that the caster doesn't know what spell they are countering.

2) If you want a rule that really doesn't make sense - it would have to be the mess they have made of the rules for heavily obscured and darkness.

"A heavily obscured area-such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage-blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A) when trying to see something in that area."

"Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness."

These work fine if everything is dark. It also works fine if you are trying to see something inside a darkened area.

In these cases, natural darkness blocks vision entirely as described in the text.

However, natural darkness does not behave the same as opaque fog or dense foliage when viewing something on the other side of it or when looking out of a darkened area. In the real world, you can see through natural darkness to lighted areas - you can NOT see through opaque fog or dense foliage.

Something that blocks vision entirely, blocks vision into it, out of it and through it from one side to the other. This is a good description for opaque fog, dense foliage and magical darkness (since the Darkness spell contains the additional rider that it blocks Darkvision entirely). However, it breaks most people's concept of reality with natural darkness and I don't know anyone who plays it this way.

So - I would say that the RAW for natural darkness really doesn't make much sense. :)

Naanomi

2022-01-06, 05:46 PM

I like to use passive skills a lot so... I allow 'passive arcana' to recognize some spells being cast without taking an action to do so

The rules over the distinctions between attacks with a weapon and weapon attacks and the like lead to some silly situations sometimes

Keravath

2022-01-06, 05:50 PM

Under that Xanathar's rule, you don't need to counterspell blind, you can just have someone other than the counterspeller identify the spell.

Personally, I don't like the rule at all, for several reasons, not the least of which being that if I see someone pull out the material components of a Fireball spell, I instantly know what spell they're casting OOC, and I didn't study magic for 80 years.

Then I'd be sure to ostentatiously pull out my little piece of bat guano every time I cast firebolt :) since I know everyone else will waste a counterspell just because I pulled out an irrelevant material component. :)

There is more to identifying what spell is being cast than just seeing a particular material component.

In addition, it is never stated that the V,S,M components for any spell are identical for every different person casting the spell. There could be multiple variations on these components that all work fine for casting the spell. A wrist flick to the right or left might both work, different types of bat guano might work, it might even work with refined bat guano, alternatively the intonation and sounds may differ somewhat because everyone's voice is different.

Does a particularly high or low pitched verbal spell component mean that some folks can't cast that spell? Or are the components flexible enough that minor modifications to suit the individual all work? These are obviously world building questions which 5e doesn't answer but it also doesn't state that every spell uses identical components so identifying a spell might be expected to require some work and time.

Gtdead

2022-01-06, 05:54 PM

I'll just repeat what I said in another post.

You don't need to know what you are counterspelling. The only thing you need to know is that you took a turn away from an enemy spellcaster. If the enemy CR12 Archmage tries to juke you with a cantrip or gets counterspelled, then he instantly transforms into a CR4 monster which can't really survive the party's damage.

That's like saying "oh, I can't stun strike the spellcaster because I don't know what he is going to cast". Xanathar's rule has zero effect on the spell's functionality. It only alienates players that want their their cake whole while eating it too and it lowkey triggers players (including myself) that think it should be easy to identify spells for a learned caster, which is my second point.

In MMOs, I can accurately guess the spell based on circumstance and animation, even if the animation is similar between various spells, and I can also do that for multiple enemies although I have to think proactively. This is a process that happens in a split second and comes naturally with experience and knowledge.

By the same logic, I can't for the life of me understand how an educated wizard with high arcana skill can't instantly determine what spells are being cast or the school at the very least. Most of the time I, as a player using meta knowledge, can guess the intentions of an enemy spellcaster, even without sensory information. Being able to see the material components, hearing the incantations etc should be enough info for an identification.

Darth Credence

2022-01-06, 06:19 PM

I'll just repeat what I said in another post.

You don't need to know what you are counterspelling. The only thing you need to know is that you took a turn away from an enemy spellcaster. If the enemy CR12 Archmage tries to juke you with a cantrip or gets counterspelled, then he instantly transforms into a CR4 monster which can't really survive the party's damage.

Two level 20 wizards are battling each other. The one with initiative casts a spell. The other counterspells, because it will take their turn away. First wizard begins to cast their second spell, and a blade shaped planar rift appears in front of the second, which proceeds to hit it twice, doing a total of 8d12 damage, taking away about half their HP.

Turns out, the first spell was a cantrip, because why not send out a firebolt cantrip before casting blade of disaster for their bonus action? Would have been better to have counterspelled the 9th level than the cantrip, right? No juking, no metagaming, just how someone would actually cast a bonus action spell and a cantrip in the same turn, and with only one counterspell, they don't lose a turn. Would have been better off with shield.

LudicSavant

2022-01-06, 06:35 PM

Then I'd be sure to ostentatiously pull out my little piece of bat guano every time I cast firebolt :)

Sure. Then you just have to...
- Use your object interaction to draw that.
- Be in a situation where people are prepared to blow midlevel slots on you this turn, but you don't need to do anything more than cast Firebolt at them.
- Inform the DM of what spell you're casting, but not let that influence how the target responds at all. Otherwise, instead of actually being bluffed, the person has to determine whether or not their character would be bluffed, then *pretend* to be bluffed, and decide how many resources they would waste as a result of being bluffed.
- Avoid describing/flavoring the spellcasting process in an evocative and potentially recognizable way, which might affect the fun or thematics of the game for some.
- Hope none of the people other than the counterspeller are using their Reactions to identify what you're doing.
- Have nothing in your hands (since you need one hand for the guano, another for the Fire Bolt somatic component)
- Have nobody notice that you're doing something totally different with your other hand.
- Resolve an attempt at deception by some means or another.

In addition, it is never stated that the V,S,M components for any spell are identical for every different person casting the spell. There could be multiple variations on these components that all work fine for casting the spell. A wrist flick to the right or left might both work, different types of bat guano might work, it might even work with refined bat guano, alternatively the intonation and sounds may differ somewhat because everyone's voice is different. Certainly. And that may or may not be the case.

When it is, however, if people evocatively describe their casting in a flavorful way, I can sometimes guess what they're casting, with access to significantly less information than an in-world observer would have (let alone one who actually studied magic). Not all the time, but definitely a non-zero percentage of the time.

And if there's not evocative and flavorful roleplaying description and it's just "guy is casting a spell, do you react?" then I have an entirely different reason to be annoyed.

Either way I find the rule unsatisfying and inelegant. And again, it hasn't actually stopped me from identifying and countering spells. I just have people other than the counterspeller take the knowledge skills and identify the spell. So if indeed the intent, as it is sometimes hypothesized, is to make everyone be blind countering... well, it doesn't fulfill that intent, let alone elegantly.

I can accurately guess the spell based on circumstance and animation, even if the animation is similar between various spells, and I can also do that for multiple enemies although I have to think proactively. This is a process that happens in a split second and comes naturally with experience and knowledge.

By the same logic, I can't for the life of me understand how an educated wizard with high arcana skill can't instantly determine what spells are being cast or the school at the very least. Most of the time I, as a player using meta knowledge, can guess the intentions of an enemy spellcaster, even without sensory information. Being able to see the material components, hearing the incantations etc should be enough info for an identification.

Yeah. You basically would have to contrive the system of casting to be as vague as possible from a sensory-information perspective... more vague than it is generally described in actual D&D lore! And even then, like you say, you can sometimes guess with no sensory information at all.

And that's decidedly without being a person who has dedicated their entire higher education to the mastery of magic, or made a living hunting down rogue sorcerers, or whatever.

Tanarii

2022-01-06, 07:30 PM

2) If you want a rule that really doesn't make sense - it would have to be the mess they have made of the rules for heavily obscured and darkness. Agreed. That's probably the biggest "doesn't make sense" mess in the rules.

In addition, it is never stated that the V,S,M components for any spell are identical for every different person casting the spell. There could be multiple variations on these components that all work fine for casting the spell. A wrist flick to the right or left might both work, different types of bat guano might work, it might even work with refined bat guano, alternatively the intonation and sounds may differ somewhat because everyone's voice is different.

Does a particularly high or low pitched verbal spell component mean that some folks can't cast that spell? Or are the components flexible enough that minor modifications to suit the individual all work? These are obviously world building questions which 5e doesn't answer but it also doesn't state that every spell uses identical components so identifying a spell might be expected to require some work and time.
Not only might they be individual for the individual involved, but they might be uniquely different each time the same individual is casting the spell depending on the parameters. And of course, M components being used instead of a generic focus is important. Being able to identify a spell at all was a major addition with Xanathar's, assuming a DM uses the rule.

---------

It is worth noting under the Xan rule you can't fool Counterspell by pulling out the wrong M component for a spell, or waving around a focus when it's not needed, or even faking V and S components that are valid. Counterspell requires a spell to actual be cast to use, and an foci used as an M component by a sorcerer with subtle spell to cast a spell is different/identifiable from one just holding it. So faking a spell (even under the PHB rules), or a different spell from the one actually being cast (under the Xan rules), isn't possible.

Gtdead

2022-01-06, 07:54 PM

Two level 20 wizards are battling each other. The one with initiative casts a spell. The other counterspells, because it will take their turn away. First wizard begins to cast their second spell, and a blade shaped planar rift appears in front of the second, which proceeds to hit it twice, doing a total of 8d12 damage, taking away about half their HP.

Turns out, the first spell was a cantrip, because why not send out a firebolt cantrip before casting blade of disaster for their bonus action? Would have been better to have counterspelled the 9th level than the cantrip, right? No juking, no metagaming, just how someone would actually cast a bonus action spell and a cantrip in the same turn, and with only one counterspell, they don't lose a turn. Would have been better off with shield.

Out of the two most popular ways to sidestep counterspell, one being outranging it and the other being just casting whatever you want and counterspelling the counterspell, the initiative winning Wizard decided to use a level 9 slot to cast.. Blade of Disaster? And that's an argument against a blind counterspell? This could only be good when operating under the assumption that the duel happens in a 30ft radius arena. In other scenarios, the second wizard just moves out of range and Shapechanges.

Counterspell doesn't work in duels anyway. You can counterspell the counterspell unless you engineer it. For example the initiative winning Wizard can Shapechange into a Marilith (who has reactive), while counterspelling the Counterspell, then counterspell the next spell since the enemy wizard doesn't have any reactions left (tongue twister ^^). If the initiative losing Wizard tries to shield he has instantly lost at this point.

Hytheter

2022-01-06, 08:51 PM

There is a way to use this, though. Have one person identify the spell, and shout it out. Someone else casts Counterspell if it's worth Counterspelling.

Under that Xanathar's rule, you don't need to counterspell blind, you can just have someone other than the counterspeller identify the spell.

To me it makes little sense to allow this rather than just let one guy tackle the whole process themselves. If the argument is supposed to be that there isn't enough time to both identify and counter a spell in the casting window, there's no way an extra 'explain the spell to another person' step will fit in there.

Tanarii

2022-01-06, 10:34 PM

To me it makes little sense to allow this rather than just let one guy tackle the whole process themselves. If the argument is supposed to be that there isn't enough time to both identify and counter a spell in the casting window, there's no way an extra 'explain the spell to another person' step will fit in there.

It also doesn't work. You can only speak on your turn.

OTOH that rule itself might be one that's worth debating if it makes sense. :smallamused:

Pex

2022-01-06, 11:26 PM

Okay, fine, bad example. What are some that dont make sense?

No, it's not a bad example. Before there was a rule to identify a spell being cast the same people telling you it's a bad example were cheering there wasn't and yelling at me for wanting there to be one. Counterspell was supposed to be blind use. By adding a rule to identify a spell being cast the developers chose to keep Counterspell as a blind use. To do that they made identifying a spell a reaction. They believe knowing the spell before Counterspell made the spell too strong. They want the caster not knowing if he's countering Fireball or Fire Bolt. You have every right to disagree with that decision.

To get around the rule is to have party cooperation. One player uses his reaction to identify the spell. The other player uses his reaction to Counterspell if he deems it's worth it. It is a high cost of two players' reactions. It is up to the players if that is worth the cost to counter the enemy spell. Depending on combat circumstances and the spell in question it could very well be worth it. Using your reaction is not an atrocity. A reaction is simply an action economy resource. Plenty of things use a reaction, and you are not doing anything wrong choosing to spend your reaction on one thing instead of another. If identifying a spell so another player can Counterspell is worth doing for you then you are using your reaction wisely.

That said, you are still free and clear to think identifying a spell should not cost a reaction. Depending on your DM it may not matter. Some DMs freely announce the spell the bad guy is casting as it is happening and have no problem whatsoever with a player choosing to Counterspell or not because of it. DMs were doing that before the official rule of identifying a spell existed. The DM is not wrong doing it this way. The DM is also not wrong not doing it this way, just saying a spell is cast and let the player decide to Counterspell or not before applying the effects. If Counterspelling will be a significant thing for your character to do it is best to discuss with your DM how he will handle it.

Khrysaes

2022-01-07, 04:30 AM

So this thread got derailed.

Rather than arguing whether blind counterspells vs identifying spells as a reaction make sense, which they PERSONALLY do not, but I can understand it as a decision game design-wise,

I was more interested in learning other mechanics that I may not be thinking of, didn't know, or forgot, about that don't make sense to other people.

So please stop arguing if counterspell makes sense or not. I used it as an example because personally it doesn't make sense to me.

How about this. The cantrip true strike.

Use an action to gain advantage on the next attack, usually the next round. Vs use an action to attack twice, rolling the same number of dice and having the same chance to hit, but having a chance of doing more damage.

Dualight

2022-01-07, 04:36 AM

I suspect that the current version of true strike is the result of (probably overzealous) nerfing, as I know that it was a spell worth using in some earlier edition(s)(but this is all I know on the topic), but someone with more knowledge of that spell's history will be needed to confirm or reject this speculation of mine.
As it stands, 5e true strike is extremely situational. I think an Arcane Trickster rogue who cannot safely get into position to (Sneak)attack on one turn, but will be able to on the next could make use of it to generate the advantage for Sneak Attack on that next turn, but it is not a cantrip I have ever (seen) used.

Azuresun

2022-01-07, 04:54 AM

Dualight

2022-01-07, 05:13 AM

The goblin boss' Redirect Attack reaction gets better, as it does not specify that the goblin who takes the hit must not be the attacker. So a goblin boss can make a goblin PC hit themself with their own attack. I have a goblin PC in a campaign I DM, I have to use this bit sometime.:smallamused:
EDIT: I am probably going to be glad I play over Discord.

Khrysaes

2022-01-07, 05:39 AM

I quite liked the rule that the Goblin Boss can use a reaction to make another goblin take a hit for them. But it doesn't specify that the goblin has to be on the same side as the Boss.

So if one of your PC's is playing a goblin, you now have a way to make them throw dice at you!

Did the goblin boss predate the goblin player race? That would make sense to me, not from a mechanic standpoint, but a reason this problem exists.

qube

2022-01-07, 05:51 AM

How about this. The cantrip true strike.

Use an action to gain advantage on the next attack, usually the next round. Vs use an action to attack twice, rolling the same number of dice and having the same chance to hit, but having a chance of doing more damage.Except, that's like arguing swords don't make sense if you assume enemies are at range - but that's not what they are there for.

True strike, first and foremost, is a wizard spell. But it wouldn't make sense because of the extra attack class feature? ... sorry, what? :smallconfused:

Sure, WotC should introduce more attack roll spells to make the cantrip viable for more levels; and personally I feel the bonus is a bit on the low side -- but it has it's use; the mechanic does make sense.

Sometimes, you only have one level 2 spell slot, or can't afford to just burn through your spellslots. If that acid arrow has to hit, you might want an extra round focussing.

That's what true strike is: it's like the help action; but more specifically - it's the help yourself action.

I suspect that the current version of true strike is the result of (probably overzealous) nerfing, as I know that it was a spell worth using in some earlier edition(s)(but this is all I know on the topic),in dnd 3.5 it was a lvl 1 spell that granted +20 to hit on your next attack.

I don't think it was really a result of overzealous nerfing

action + spellslot = sure hit (bar fumble)
-->
action + no spellslot = better chance to hit
I just think that it doesn't really work that well in it's reduced form.

Khrysaes

2022-01-07, 05:56 AM

Except, that's like arguing swords don't make sense if you assume enemies are at range - but that's not what they are there for.

True strike, first and foremost, is a wizard spell. But it wouldn't make sense because of the extra attack class feature? ... sorry, what? :smallconfused:

Sure, WotC should introduce more attack roll spells to make the cantrip viable for more levels; and personally I feel the bonus is a bit on the low side -- but it has it's use; the mechanic does make sense.

Sometimes, you only have one level 2 spell slot, or can't afford to just burn through your spellslots. If that acid arrow has to hit, you might want an extra round focussing.

Its more of that the wizard could attack one round, then attack the next round, rolling a d20 each round with a chance to do damage.

Mathematically, to hit, its the same as rolling 2d20 because of casting true strike one round, then the next round, an attack, but with less maximum damage.

it DOES pair better with leveled spells that require attack rolls, but for things like at will attacks, either from a cantrip such as firebolt, or a melee attack, it is worse.

Also wizards have familiars that can give them advantage instead.

qube

2022-01-07, 06:21 AM

Mathematically, to hit, its the same as rolling 2d20 because of casting true strike one round, then the next round, an attack, but with less maximum damage.only if you're able to do the same attack each of the two turns, which is not a given.

Also wizards have familiars that can give them advantage instead.So can party members.

Personally I don't think familiars belong in combat; at least from what familiars are/were in folkore.
They are beloved pets - Not 10 gp sacrificial lambs (you need to send your familiar into melee for the help action. And IIRC there's only one of the types of creatures that happen to have a way out of opportunity attacks.)

Your cat familiar? dead meat.
Your spider familiar? dead meat.
Your frog familiar? dead meat.

Khrysaes

2022-01-07, 06:26 AM

only if you're able to do the same attack each of the two turns, which is not a given.

So can party members.

Personally I don't think familiars belong in combat; at least from what familiars are/were in folkore.
They are beloved pets - Not 10 gp sacrificial lambs (you need to send your familiar into melee for the help action. And IIRC there's only one of the types of creatures that happen to have a way out of opportunity attacks.)

Your cat familiar? dead meat.
Your spider familiar? dead meat.
Your frog familiar? dead meat.

All this is true.

Derges

2022-01-07, 06:37 AM

What are other mechanics that are counterintuitive or dont make sense that exist?

Multiple advantages/disadvantages being mitigated by one of the other.

I get the design choice to simplify the endless stacking of +2s but an infinite number of advantages mitigated by a single disadvantage bugs me. Wouldn't the count of one minus the other to decide if it's adv, 0 or dis make more sense and still be quite simple?

Khrysaes

2022-01-07, 06:43 AM

Multiple advantages/disadvantages being mitigated by one of the other.

I get the design choice to simplify the endless stacking of +2s but an infinite number of advantages mitigated by a single disadvantage bugs me. Wouldn't the count of one minus the other to decide if it's adv, 0 or dis make more sense and still be quite simple?

From a simplification point, no, because then you have to track many. But I can understand it not making sense.

EggKookoo

2022-01-07, 07:25 AM

Rule that doesn't make sense:

If you use your bonus action to cast a spell, the only other spell you can cast on your turn is a cantrip with a casting time of one action.

This rule in isolation is fine, but there's no corresponding rule about using your action to cast a spell. So you cast spiritual weapon using your BA and someone counterspells it, you can't use your reaction to counterspell that counterspell because "the only other spell you can cast on your turn is a cantrip with a casting time of one action." But if you cast fireball using your action and someone counterspells it, you can use your reaction to cast counterspell.

Similarly, if you use your BA to cast a spell and then move in a way that prompts an OA, you can't cast shield to defend yourself from that attack. But you can do that if you used your action to cast it.

LudicSavant

2022-01-07, 09:09 AM

I was more interested in learning other mechanics that I may not be thinking of, didn't know, or forgot, about that don't make sense to other people.

Here's one for me (and quite a lot of others, it seems).
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?631165-I-wish-WotC-would-errata-the-Soulknife-(Rant)

Spiritchaser

2022-01-07, 09:21 AM

Why doesn't that make sense? Nothing before Xan rule for identifying spells being cast as a reaction implied it was possible at all. So counterspelling blind was the norm already.

I actually think the Xan rule doesn’t make sense for my table because it messes up play flow.

I’ll grant that this is a subjective valuation, but if I tell the players that an opponent is casting… something… there’s the necessary pause to wait to see who wants to try to counterspell blind, or arrange any other shinanigans.

Personally I feel that the strength of 5e is that it generally flows pretty well.

Before xan the “right” way to do this was totally open to interpretation, in my opinion the newly defined “right” way negativity impacts the game and the deviation at my table needs added to the session zero handout which is in danger of getting bloated enough for “no-one reads at first because it’s a bit too long” status

JackPhoenix

2022-01-07, 09:32 AM

I actually think the Xan rule doesn’t make sense for my table because it messes up play flow.

I’ll grant that this is a subjective valuation, but if I tell the players that an opponent is casting… something… there’s the necessary pause to wait to see who wants to try to counterspell blind, or arrange any other shinanigans.

As compared to what... pausing to wait to see if anyone wants to try to Counterspell knowing what the spell is, or arrange any other shinanigans?

Keltest

2022-01-07, 09:43 AM

As compared to what... pausing to wait to see if anyone wants to try to Counterspell knowing what the spell is, or arrange any other shinanigans?

IME, people with counterspell will become EXTREMELY trigger-happy with it if they know off hand which spells are being cast freely. Its really easy to say that you dont care about fire bolt but dont want to screw with your CHA 7 wizard possibly being plane shifted out of the fight.

JackPhoenix

2022-01-07, 09:49 AM

IME, people with counterspell will become EXTREMELY trigger-happy with it if they know off hand which spells are being cast freely. Its really easy to say that you dont care about fire bolt but dont want to screw with your CHA 7 wizard possibly being plane shifted out of the fight.

To reiterate what others have said, even if you don't know what's being cast, any spell a hostile spellcaster (of a relevant power, nobody cares about Apprentice Wizards) considers a worthy use of his action in a battle is something you don't want to ignore.

MoiMagnus

2022-01-07, 09:52 AM

True strike, first and foremost, is a wizard spell. But it wouldn't make sense because of the extra attack class feature? ... sorry, what? :smallconfused:

It's also a Bard and a Warlock spell, and both Valor Bard and Blade Warlock get access to extra attack (the Warlock through an Invocation), or can get attacks with their bonus action with some feats.

Sure, WotC should introduce more attack roll spells to make the cantrip viable for more levels; and personally I feel the bonus is a bit on the low side -- but it has it's use; the mechanic does make sense.

Sometimes, you only have one level 2 spell slot, or can't afford to just burn through your spellslots. If that acid arrow has to hit, you might want an extra round focussing.

That's what true strike is: it's like the help action; but more specifically - it's the [I]help yourself action.

IMO, it's use are way too narrow, because there are too many constraints everywhere:
+ As you said, attack spells with a single attack roll are sadly not that numerous to begin with.
+ The 30ft range mean it's impossible to use with long distance spells or attacks. And when preparing an ambush, so when you would be the most likely to have waiting time where you can use actions to prepare your attacks, you're likely way to far away to cast this.
+ It costs your concentration, making it incompatible with a lot of builds. And combine with the low reach, it means you must be within reach of enemy melee attack, making concentration even harder to maintain.
+ The biggest problem for me is the temporality: you need to be two rounds in a row within reach, and not loose concentration in the meantime (or have other urgent matters that force you to change of plan) or you wasted your action. This temporality is not a problem with the regular help action, as you use the bonus from help during the same round as you obtain it. But here, you have to wait one full round.

The Baldur's Gate 3 implementation buffs this cantrip a lot, first, it removes the "up to 1 round" constraint on the concentration, making it more flexible on when you use the bonus. And additionally it allows it to apply to all your attacks against the target, as long as you're maintaining concentration, instead of just the first one. This second part combined with the first possibly makes it too good for a cantrip.

Naanomi

2022-01-07, 09:57 AM

I got one: any action that has to be taken at certain points during a turn. Turns are abstractions, real combat it is modeling is fluid... I don't stand there doing nothing then have a quick flurry of blows every 6 seconds, presumably I'm getting my hits in when I can, maneuvering when there are openings, etc. If I am a master of the shield, I shield-bash someone when I have an opportunity to do so... It isn't some combo move where I have to attack with my sword twice first (and then when I level up, 3 times...) Nor is it something that exhausts me so I have to 'rest' for 5 seconds before I rejoin combat...

I'm sure other examples of weird timing restrictions exist as well

Khrysaes

2022-01-07, 10:01 AM

Darth Credence

2022-01-07, 10:20 AM

Out of the two most popular ways to sidestep counterspell, one being outranging it and the other being just casting whatever you want and counterspelling the counterspell, the initiative winning Wizard decided to use a level 9 slot to cast.. Blade of Disaster? And that's an argument against a blind counterspell? This could only be good when operating under the assumption that the duel happens in a 30ft radius arena. In other scenarios, the second wizard just moves out of range and Shapechanges.

Counterspell doesn't work in duels anyway. You can counterspell the counterspell unless you engineer it. For example the initiative winning Wizard can Shapechange into a Marilith (who has reactive), while counterspelling the Counterspell, then counterspell the next spell since the enemy wizard doesn't have any reactions left (tongue twister ^^). If the initiative losing Wizard tries to shield he has instantly lost at this point.

You said that you didn't need to know the spell. You said it in multiple comments. I brought up a situation where, without attempting to trick someone, knowing the spells would have made a difference in how counterspell was done. That's all it was, but if you now want to pretend like it never matters, fine, that's your prerogative.

Psyren

2022-01-07, 10:21 AM

It also doesn't work. You can only speak on your turn.

There you go OP, another rule that doesn't make sense.

Keltest

2022-01-07, 10:24 AM

There you go OP, another rule that doesn't make sense.

Is that actually a rule?

Psyren

2022-01-07, 10:28 AM

Is that actually a rule?

It's in the "Other Activity On Your Turn" section. Unlike 3.5/PF, there's no rule saying you can speak even when it's not your turn.

I call it a stupid rule because literally no table I've been at enforces it, including Adventurers League tables.

RSP

2022-01-07, 10:32 AM

There you go OP, another rule that doesn't make sense.

A lot doesn’t make sense about PCs talking during combat: if a PC says a sentence that takes 6 seconds to say, that’s being said throughout everyone’s Turn that Round.

There is no time for others to respond that Round. Technically, others shouldn’t even be able to use the info in that sentence until the next Round.

Yora

2022-01-07, 10:37 AM

1"A heavily obscured area-such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage-blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A) when trying to see something in that area."

"Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness."

These work fine if everything is dark. It also works fine if you are trying to see something inside a darkened area.

In these cases, natural darkness blocks vision entirely as described in the text.

However, natural darkness does not behave the same as opaque fog or dense foliage when viewing something on the other side of it or when looking out of a darkened area. In the real world, you can see through natural darkness to lighted areas - you can NOT see through opaque fog or dense foliage.

The obvious way to deal with it in the game would be to treat creatures and objects that are in darkness but in front of a lit background as being lightly obscured.
Though it admittedly doesn't say so in the text.

Psyren

2022-01-07, 10:44 AM

A lot doesn’t make sense about PCs talking during combat: if a PC says a sentence that takes 6 seconds to say, that’s being said throughout everyone’s Turn that Round.

There is no time for others to respond that Round. Technically, others shouldn’t even be able to use the info in that sentence until the next Round.

You don't need to spend 6 seconds on a sentence. Just a single word or gesture can be enough, and can take less than one second even.

Other editions handled this fine without imploding. It didn't need to be changed.

Keltest

2022-01-07, 10:47 AM

It's in the "Other Activity On Your Turn" section. Unlike 3.5/PF, there's no rule saying you can speak even when it's not your turn.

I call it a stupid rule because literally no table I've been at enforces it, including Adventurers League tables.

I mean, that sounds an awful lot like it isnt actually a rule then. Certainly i cant actually find anything saying you cant talk when it isnt your turn.

Khrysaes

2022-01-07, 10:50 AM

I mean, that sounds an awful lot like it isnt actually a rule then. Certainly i cant actually find anything saying you cant talk when it isnt your turn.

I think it is implicit because it is specified as an activity on your turn.

Psyren

2022-01-07, 10:51 AM

I mean, that sounds an awful lot like it isnt actually a rule then. Certainly i cant actually find anything saying you cant talk when it isnt your turn.

That's "the rules don't say I can't" which generally isn't how RAW works. The rules say that talking is part of what you can do on your turn, and that's it. (Again, speaking purely as written here.)

Keltest

2022-01-07, 10:57 AM

That's "the rules don't say I can't" which generally isn't how RAW works. The rules say that talking is part of what you can do on your turn, and that's it. (Again, speaking purely as written here.)

Right, but thats just in the context of establishing what you can do when your turn comes around. While i agree that "the rules dont say i cant" is typically poor form to argue, in this case i think it matters. Otherwise you start to get into "well the rules only said i can talk on my turn in combat, and we arent in combat" territory.

Psyren

2022-01-07, 11:13 AM

Right, but thats just in the context of establishing what you can do when your turn comes around. While i agree that "the rules dont say i cant" is typically poor form to argue, in this case i think it matters. Otherwise you start to get into "well the rules only said i can talk on my turn in combat, and we arent in combat" territory.

That's covered by the general rule: "when you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible, and what kind of roll you need to make (if any) to determine success or failure."

I expect outside of combat, most GMs would allow talking and not require a roll. But if you tried to talk underwater or in a vacuum, they would be likely to disallow it.

Keltest

2022-01-07, 11:36 AM

That's covered by the general rule: "when you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible, and what kind of roll you need to make (if any) to determine success or failure."

I expect outside of combat, most GMs would allow talking and not require a roll. But if you tried to talk underwater or in a vacuum, they would be likely to disallow it.

Sure, but speaking is detailed elsewhere in the rules. So either we're making the assumption that it is not an exhaustive list of appropriate times when you can speak, or we arent.

Psyren

2022-01-07, 11:37 AM

Sure, but speaking is detailed elsewhere in the rules. So either we're making the assumption that it is not an exhaustive list of appropriate times when you can speak, or we arent.

Speaking is detailed during combat, I thought you were saying it isn't anywhere else? If that's not true, provide that citation and use it. If it is true, the general rule applies.

Tanarii

2022-01-07, 11:45 AM

I actually think the Xan rule doesn’t make sense for my table because it messes up play flow.100% agree, provided you consider the 'normal' flow to be that person announces and begins resolving, and at any point before resolution is all wrapped up someone can shout out "counterspell!" And for what it's worth, that's exactly how I actually DM it at the table, just because I can't help but blurt out what spells my creatures are casting. :smallamused:

Otherwise, if rewinding in the middle of resolution once further information has possibly been gained about targets, damage, etc is not allowed ... as JackPhoenix points out, there needs to be a pause before any spell's resolution begins for counterspelling opportunity. Regardless of if it's blind or not blind.

Khrysaes

2022-01-07, 11:46 AM

Here is one that no one actually follows RAW as they understand the RAI,

Revivfy: "You touch a creature that has died"
Raise dead: "You return a dead creature you touch to life"
Resurrection: "You touch a dead creature that has been dead"
True resurrection: "You touch a creature that has been dead"
Reincarnate: "You touch a dead humanoid or a piece of a dead humanoid. Provided that the creature has been dead "

https://publish.twitter.com/?query=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FJeremyECrawford %2Fstatus%2F752915549294891008&widget=Tweet

So this would mean the spells can't work because there are no creatures that have died, just objects.

Note: JC responds saying that "a creature" is different than "a creature that has died" or "a creature that has been dead" etc.

EggKookoo

2022-01-07, 11:52 AM

So this would mean the spells can't work because there are no creatures that have died, just objects.

Arguably, "creature that has died" is just a type of object. IOW a dead creature is both an object and a "creature that has died."

Khrysaes

2022-01-07, 11:59 AM

Arguably, "creature that has died" is just a type of object. IOW a dead creature is both an object and a "creature that has died."

That is Effectively the response JC gave.

Keltest

2022-01-07, 12:15 PM

Speaking is detailed during combat, I thought you were saying it isn't anywhere else? If that's not true, provide that citation and use it. If it is true, the general rule applies.

"elsewhere" in this case means "in the combat section" as opposed to "in the non-combat sections."

Im not actually trying to insist that the rules say we can only talk during combat, naturally, simply pointing out that the assumption that we cant talk on other peoples turns is inconsistent with the other assumptions we have to make about speech in the game for it to make any sense.

KorvinStarmast

2022-01-07, 12:23 PM

Did the goblin boss predate the goblin player race? Yep. And when they made the decision to establish goblin player race in volo's they forgot to retcon that ability.

Psyren

2022-01-07, 12:31 PM

"elsewhere" in this case means "in the combat section" as opposed to "in the non-combat sections."

Even if you believe* that line only applies to Combat, this general rule is present at the beginning of the PHB as well: "The players describe what they want to do...The DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions." So outside of combat, if the players decide they want to talk, the DM determines whether that happens.

*I know you don't actually believe that, but I'm playing devil's advocate to your devil's advocate, i.e. there is a general rule that covers actions outside of combat.

Im not actually trying to insist that the rules say we can only talk during combat, naturally, simply pointing out that the assumption that we cant talk on other peoples turns is inconsistent with the other assumptions we have to make about speech in the game for it to make any sense.

My issue isn't that there is no construct at all for talking outside your turn. There is, it just requires DM permission every time you do it (or blanket if they're nice) since it's not included as part of the specific rules for what you can do on your turn.

Rather, my issue is that prior editions did explicitly include "you can talk on other people's turns as long as you aren't too wordy" and it worked fine. It's more the lack of table variation I'm looking for. I'd rather that talking out of turn is the default that a GM can disallow than the reverse, even if in practice 99.9% of GMs do run it that way.

RSP

2022-01-07, 01:08 PM

You don't need to spend 6 seconds on a sentence. Just a single word or gesture can be enough, and can take less than one second even.

Other editions handled this fine without imploding. It didn't need to be changed.

You don’t need to spend 6 seconds on a sentence, unless the information needing to be passed requires 6 seconds.

I’m not sure what your point here is as “just a single word or gesture can be enough” has no bearing on any situation except exactly when “just a single word or gesture can be enough.”

In my experience, Players try to relay way more than a 6 second sentence when wanting to relay info during combat. And when pointed out, they then rephrase the words to within 6 seconds (the process of which takes more than 6 seconds).

So yeah, trying to have that not only occur within 6 seconds, but having subsequent Players be able to use that info in meaningful ways over that same 6 second period, doesn’t make sense.

Past editions have no bearing on whether or not this makes sense, which is the point of this thread.

Naanomi

2022-01-07, 01:14 PM

Eventually I let Telepathic Bond cover in-party chatter needs during combat

Evaar

2022-01-07, 01:23 PM

If you're a Beast Barbarian using your Claws, they don't have the Light property. If you attack with your Claw during the Attack action, you can make one extra attack. So if you're using a shield, you can claw 3 times with one hand. If you aren't using a shield, you can claw 3 times with one hand.

Now if you're using two short swords, they DO have the Light property, so if you attack with one in your main hand then you can use a bonus action to attack with the one if your offhand.

If you're a Beast Barbarian using your Claws, you can hold two short swords and take the Attack action. First, attack with your mainhand short sword. Then drop the shortsword and attack with your mainhand claw. Now you've met the requirement for getting an extra attack with your claw, so do that. You also attacked with a Light weapon in your main hand during the Attack action, and you're holding a Light weapon in your offhand, so now you get to make a 4th attack with your offhand short sword. Now use your free object interaction to pick up the short sword you dropped.

By juggling your short swords and using your claws in this way, you get to make 4 attacks per turn instead of the 3 you'd be limited to if you were just concentrating on your attacks. And, again, this is a Barbarian - not a Swords Bard who arguably would use blade juggling as a kind of combat strategy.

Houserule fix: just make the Claws count as Light weapons and give them the 4th attack from the bonus action, it's fine, they're fine, they aren't going to get to use GWM with it anyway, they aren't broken.

RSP

2022-01-07, 01:30 PM

Eventually I let Telepathic Bond cover in-party chatter needs during combat

My tables love TB, and it likewise usually takes the place in-party speech.

But it still doesn’t make sense that information is passed during turns and info that is learned, and then passed, at the end of one turn, can then be used by a different character at the beginning of their turn, and acted upon, even though the two turns occur over the same 6 second time period.

For example, what recently occurred on our weekly game:

PC A casts a spell then moves forward, ending after about 20’ when they encounter an invisible wall. PC A relays to other party members that there’s a wall there and ends their turn.

PC B then goes on their turn. Though chronologically the info about the invisible wall will not be relayed until at least 4 or 5 seconds into their turn, they get to act on it from the beginning of their turn.

This is just another factor of turn-style play and could also be used with any sort of knowledge the comes from a prior character’s turn (like if an enemy drops, it won’t be the target of the next character’s turn, even though it dropped at the end of a 6 second Turn).

Obviously the game works with this style, but it still doesn’t make sense when it’s applied to the in-game fiction.

Evaar

2022-01-07, 01:38 PM

Artificers use their tools as spellcasting implements.

They use tools to cast spells.

There's no rules definition of "use" to differentiate between using tools to cast a spell versus using a tool to, say, pick a lock. Using a tool is using it.

"Proficiency with a tool allows you to add your proficiency bonus to any ability check you make using that tool."

Artificers eventually gain expertise in all tools with which they are proficient. So they would double their proficiency bonus.

When you cast Dispel Magic, you make an ability check. Because you're an Artificer, you're using a tool to cast Dispel Magic. (Artificers don't get Counterspell.)

If you're a Wizard, you could choose to take the Artificer Initiate feat. "You gain proficiency with one type of artisan's tools of your choice, and you can use that type of tool as a spellcasting focus to any spell you cast that uses Intelligence as its spellcasting ability."

So if you'd like to add your proficiency bonus to your Counterspells and Dispel Magics, be a Wizard, take Artificer Initiate, and use your Cobbler's Tools to cast them. Or be one of the Dragonmarked races that gets an additional bonus to using certain tools, pick that, tool, get your proficiency plus that extra 1d4 or whatever.

Psyren

2022-01-07, 01:38 PM

I’m not sure what your point here is as “just a single word or gesture can be enough” has no bearing on any situation except exactly when “just a single word or gesture can be enough.”

My point is that if you as the DM want to forbid talking out of turn that's totally fine, but saying that it takes 6 seconds to talk out of turn is a bullcrap reason for doing so. "It's a fireball!" does not take 6 seconds to yell.

Past editions have no bearing on whether or not this makes sense, which is the point of this thread.

What makes sense has no relation to edition but everything to do with game design.

RSP

2022-01-07, 01:50 PM

My point is that if you as the DM want to forbid talking out of turn that's totally fine, but saying that it takes 6 seconds to talk out of turn is a bullcrap reason for doing so. "It's a fireball!" does not take 6 seconds to yell.

I never said it took 6 seconds to yell “it’s a fireball” so, there’s that.

However, if you’re referring to yelling “it’s a fireball” in response to another character casting a spell, it does take more time to determine a) someone is casting a spell, and b) determining what that spell is, before they can even tell that statement.

In my opinion, and as I detailed previously in this thread how casting a 1 Action spell takes about 2 seconds, recognizing a spell is being cast and identifying what spell is being cast, and yelling out that a spell is being cast, probably takes more than 2 seconds.

What makes sense has no relation to edition but everything to do with game design.

Yet you decided to bring up past editions, and I still don’t know why that’s relevant to a thread about what rules don’t make sense in 5e.

5eNeedsDarksun

2022-01-07, 02:00 PM

I'll put another one in that is a pet peeve of our other DM: That there seems to be no rhyme or reason behind whether there is a limit on whether an action or spell can move a creature of larger size. It starts with the melding together of Med and Small creatures so there are very few functional differences to PC races in the game. Then many things read that you can only move Large and don't seem to account for times you might be enlarged to a Large creature yourself. Then there are other abilities where you could RAW move Tiamat, but that seems way OP. Without an itemized list, I'd say this variation tends to benefit casters more than Martials but I could be wrong on that account.

Anyway our other DM has for the moment put in a houserule that all abilities in this regard can only impact one size larger (with the exception of Small creatures who can still move large).

noob

2022-01-07, 02:06 PM

Burley

2022-01-07, 02:12 PM

But the mage in front of you who studied magic 2+ years had the brilliant idea to pull simultaneously bat guano and a small leather strap so that you could not know whenever he was casting fireball or freedom of movement.

In which case the mage should prolly make a Deception check to pull off their trick or Sleight of Hand to conceal the real components while they throw confetti around.

Psyren

2022-01-07, 02:13 PM

Yet you decided to bring up past editions, and I still don’t know why that’s relevant to a thread about what rules don’t make sense in 5e.

Because rules should be changed for logical design reasons and not by throwing darts at a board.

The Xanathar's rule is one of the ones I have seen criticized or dismissed most heavily, and the speaking-out-of-turn one is outright ignored at most tables I've seen. Generally if everyone and their mother is ignoring a rule, chances are it's a bad rule. And that feedback deserves to be highlighted, especially when we have a major revision actively being worked on by the devs.

Khrysaes

2022-01-07, 02:22 PM

Psyren

2022-01-07, 02:33 PM

To be completely accurate, your GM decides if your proficiency bonus with those tools applies to that ability check. But this is a pretty solid argument for getting it.

Burley

2022-01-07, 02:46 PM

Because rules should be changed for logical design reasons and not by throwing darts at a board.

The Xanathar's rule is one of the ones I have seen criticized or dismissed most heavily, and the speaking-out-of-turn one is outright ignored at most tables I've seen. Generally if everyone and their mother is ignoring a rule, chances are it's a bad rule. And that feedback deserves to be highlighted, especially when we have a major revision actively being worked on by the devs.

I agree with what you're saying, with a tweak: if people are ignoring a rule, it's not necessarily a "bad rule," just an inconvenient rule, or maybe an obstructive rule, if it makes the game less fun. Characters need to eat, but most tables ignore that, too, by having rations in their haversack and, rather than tally up and down, they just "buy" more next time they're in town, because eating is boring and we wanna throw fireballs. Are eating and exhaustion bad rules? No, but enforcing them takes extra time and usually makes the game less fun.

Is the talking rule (which is in a book and isn't being policed by anybody if ignored) a bad rule, or is it inconvenient at most times? While ignored 95% of the time, there's going to be a time when referencing and enforcing that rule makes sense.

LudicSavant

2022-01-07, 02:57 PM

HPisBS

2022-01-07, 03:23 PM

Every time I read this title, my mind goes ♪ It don't make sense! Big Bird ain't got nothin on me ♪ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmbEtgw9Pf4&t=70s) (1:17 mark).

Sorry, just thought you should know. lol

Psyren

2022-01-07, 03:24 PM

I agree with what you're saying, with a tweak: if people are ignoring a rule, it's not necessarily a "bad rule," just an inconvenient rule, or maybe an obstructive rule, if it makes the game less fun. Characters need to eat, but most tables ignore that, too, by having rations in their haversack and, rather than tally up and down, they just "buy" more next time they're in town, because eating is boring and we wanna throw fireballs. Are eating and exhaustion bad rules? No, but enforcing them takes extra time and usually makes the game less fun

I would argue that keeping a supply of rations on hand isn't "ignoring" the eating rules, it's following them. That there is an easy, even trivial way to follow a rule doesn't mean the table is ignoring it when they do.

Is the talking rule (which is in a book and isn't being policed by anybody if ignored) a bad rule, or is it inconvenient at most times? While ignored 95% of the time, there's going to be a time when referencing and enforcing that rule makes sense.

It's a bad rule because unlike eating, there's no way to bypass it or even mitigate it save by ignoring it, even at high levels. There's no spell or item for instance that will let you speak out of turn, even something like sign language or telepathy wouldn't as written.

And even for a group that decides to enforce it, often doing so is more burdensome than not. Being the group nanny constantly hushing up or interrupting table talk is one more thing for the DM to keep track of, and the players are almost always on the negative end.

For me the obvious mitigant to talking out of turn is that enemies can hear you just as easily, and the smart ones can exploit what you say. That will encourage circumspection in PCs far more effectively than a blanket ban.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-01-07, 04:05 PM

It's a bad rule because unlike eating, there's no way to bypass it or even mitigate it save by ignoring it, even at high levels. There's no spell or item for instance that will let you speak out of turn, even something like sign language or telepathy wouldn't as written.

In general I agree with you on this point, but this argument is one I can't agree with. Absolute rules are not bad rules, at least inherently. There are lots of rules you can't (or shouldn't be able to) get around or bypass or mitigate. They just exist and are binding constraints. That doesn't make them bad. Or good. "Can I get around it" is entirely orthogonal to "fit for purpose" (which is the only sane meaning of good/bad in this context).

Evaar

2022-01-07, 04:12 PM

Huh. Didnt realize artificer proficiency and expertise applied to dispel and counterspell.
To that note. As you said, wizard with artificer initiate, OR, mark of sentinel human artificer. OR azorious background artificer would all get counterspell.

Most DMs are going to say there's a difference between "using" a tool to do things you might reasonably expect a tool to do, versus "using" a tool to cast a spell.

RAW, I don't think there's any difference. The text does nothing to differentiate one use from another use. RAI, I think it's very likely not intended and they just didn't consider how letting Artificers user tools for spellcasting might interact with Tool Proficiency rules.

But you could sort of try to argue that the automatic Tool Expertise feature is a whisper of evidence that it was intentional, since it's a pretty niche ribbon feature without that interaction and that's otherwise a dead level when you'd get it. Not saying that's a GOOD argument, but you could try it.

There's also some flavor justification for Artificers, the engineers of spellcasting, being especially good at disassembling a spell effect.

Again note that Artificers don't inherently get access to Counterspell. The feature would only interact with Dispel Magic. Wizards get more options, naturally, at the cost of a feat.

Given all that, though, given how non-obvious and counter-intuitive it is you'd think if it was intentional they would have specifically pointed the interaction out.

Psyren

2022-01-07, 04:28 PM

In general I agree with you on this point, but this argument is one I can't agree with. Absolute rules are not bad rules, at least inherently. There are lots of rules you can't (or shouldn't be able to) get around or bypass or mitigate. They just exist and are binding constraints. That doesn't make them bad. Or good. "Can I get around it" is entirely orthogonal to "fit for purpose" (which is the only sane meaning of good/bad in this context).

I think there's two different things being conflated here - following a rule, and mitigating it over time.

The party getting rations in their starting equipment, and being sure to buy more when they go to town if they've used those up, is following the rule. If a party throws all their rations in the river or they get stolen, then beginning to starve is also following the rule. In neither case is the rule being "ignored."

For mititgating the rule over time, the key consideration is tiers of play. There are some rules that, by their very design, are meant to matter more in some (generally lower) tiers than others. "How many rations will we need on this journey" is one of those rules. Similarly, "How far can I walk overland" becomes a lot less important when everyone can afford horses and a carriage, and nonexistent when they can teleport. Also similarly, "how much can I carry unencumbered" becomes a lot less important once bags of holding and portable holes become easily obtainable. Those rules still exist, but having ways to bypass them provides the differences in kind that make high level play not just feel like low level play but bigger numbers.

Gtdead

2022-01-07, 04:55 PM

You said that you didn't need to know the spell. You said it in multiple comments. I brought up a situation where, without attempting to trick someone, knowing the spells would have made a difference in how counterspell was done. That's all it was, but if you now want to pretend like it never matters, fine, that's your prerogative.

I don't "pretend" that it doesn't matter, I'm arguing that the threat of a blind counterspell already did it's damage when the actor has to drastically change his tactics and use Bonus Action high level spells which by default are more circumstantial than their Main Action counterparts.

Kane0

2022-01-07, 05:24 PM

-Expertise on spellcasting ability checks using a tool as a focus

Hah thats brilliant, gotta remember that one.

Darth Credence

2022-01-07, 05:57 PM

I don't "pretend" that it doesn't matter, I'm arguing that the threat of a blind counterspell already did it's damage when the actor has to drastically change his tactics and use Bonus Action high level spells which by default are more circumstantial than their Main Action counterparts.

That isn't necessarily a change in tactics. It's casting a spell at 60 ft range that can make two attacks per round, dealing 4d12 damage on a hit, or 12d12 on an 18 or higher roll. And that you can keep active and attacking twice more per round for a full minute, moving 30 feet per round to attempt to keep up with someone who runs away from it. Against a wizard, an 18 or higher roll has a good shot of putting them down in one hit, and warming it up with a firebolt just helps that out. As I said, no juking, no changing things, just a possible strategy that would sure make it nice to know what the spell was.
But, hey, since it isn't a strategy you would use, it clearly isn't one anyone would use, so there is absolutely no case in which it makes sense to know what the spell is. (Would it make a difference to you if the BA spell was draconic transformation, so they could give themselves a breath weapon for the duration? I guess probably not, since you will say that that is changing what the person would normally do and somehow that means counterspell has already done its damage.)

greenstone

2022-01-07, 08:37 PM

You can use your reaction to cast counterspell OR identify the spell being cast, but not both. So you always counterspell blind.

What are other mechanics that are counterintuitive or dont make sense that exist?

Almost all the rules I find counterintuitive are like the example you gave - modelling real-time with turn-based game rules.

I also find the idea that you can fight just as effectively at 1 HP as at full HP to be nonsense, but I understand that game rule is there to prevent death spirals, which are no fun at all.

Gtdead

2022-01-07, 08:45 PM

That isn't necessarily a change in tactics. It's casting a spell at 60 ft range that can make two attacks per round, dealing 4d12 damage on a hit, or 12d12 on an 18 or higher roll. And that you can keep active and attacking twice more per round for a full minute, moving 30 feet per round to attempt to keep up with someone who runs away from it. Against a wizard, an 18 or higher roll has a good shot of putting them down in one hit, and warming it up with a firebolt just helps that out. As I said, no juking, no changing things, just a possible strategy that would sure make it nice to know what the spell was.
But, hey, since it isn't a strategy you would use, it clearly isn't one anyone would use, so there is absolutely no case in which it makes sense to know what the spell is. (Would it make a difference to you if the BA spell was draconic transformation, so they could give themselves a breath weapon for the duration? I guess probably not, since you will say that that is changing what the person would normally do and somehow that means counterspell has already done its damage.)

I really didn't want to get into PvP but please understand that you gave a dueling scenario. I already said that counterspell doesn't work in dueling and I wouldn't blindly counterspell as the initiative losing Wizard in your scenario, even without knowing your tactic first hand.

Scenarios:

Scenario 1:

T1: Wizard #1, casts spell, Wizard #2 counterspells, Wizard #1 counter counterspells, spell goes through. Wizard #2 suffers the effect.
T2: Wizard #2 casts if allowed by the effect or still alive, spell goes through.

Wizard #2 is forced to suffer the disadvantage of lost initiative.

Scenario 2:

T1: Wizard #1 casts spell, Wizard #2 doesn't react, suffers the effect
T2: Wizard #2 casts if allowed by the effect or still alive, Wizard #1 counterspells, Wizard #2 counter counterspells, spell goes through.

Again, same exact result. There is absolutely no reason to counterspell in the scenario you are proposing. In fact your scenario accentuates a reason to never counterspell first if you lose initiative, because if you do, you can't cast your spell on your turn. You will never find a scenario where losing initiative and counterspelling first of your turn is a smart thing to do unless your enemy doesn't have access to the spell or there is subtle metamagic involved in some asymmetric capacity.

You are arguing for Blade of Disaster over any other level 9 spell as a base tactic. It won't change anything. I won't counterspell in your turn even if I lose initiative because it won't save me anyway. If I counterspell against your tactic I have lost, because now I will either have to mimic your tactic and probably lose due to going second even if I break your concentration (you will break mine in your turn), or you will counterspell my spell since I don't have any reactions left. I will hold on to my counterspell, hope that I will survive your turn through a combination of luck, feats and class features, and then cast Shapechange into a Legendary Resistance form while countering your counterspell, which is the only way to gain an advantage in this scenario.

Now that we are past that, and coming back to the usual 3-5 man party PvE, which is the only discussion that matters in a vacuum, Meteor Swarm destroys Blade of Disaster in damage done, Upcasted ranged Tasha's Summons offer similar damage with the added benefit of being ranged and not getting 100% countered by a PC with ANY mobility boosting ability. The enemy Wizard can cast these spells without problems because he can just counterspell your counterspell (unless of course there are numerous counterspellers in the party, which is always a good strategy). Casting BoD is either an RP choice or a "going easy on the party" one. In your scenario, casting BoD while getting counterspelled on Firebolt allows him to cast Shield when focused by the party martials, but he literally traded 420-700 damage depending on party size for 50-60 dpr.

Tanarii

2022-01-07, 11:38 PM

Is that actually a rule?
Yes, speaking on turn is an actual rule. PHB 190: "You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn."

JackPhoenix

2022-01-08, 12:12 AM

But the mage in front of you who studied magic 2+ years had the brilliant idea to pull simultaneously bat guano and a small leather strap so that you could not know whenever he was casting fireball or freedom of movement.

Or worse, waves a staff around instead, so you can't even tell if he's a wizard, sorcerer, warlock or druid. Now what? Or a dagger with the Ruby of the War Mage attached, so he can be anything.

Again, same exact result. There is absolutely no reason to counterspell in the scenario you are proposing. In fact your scenario accentuates a reason to never counterspell first if you lose initiative, because if you do, you can't cast your spell on your turn. You will never find a scenario where losing initiative and counterspelling first of your turn is a smart thing to do unless your enemy doesn't have access to the spell or there is subtle metamagic involved in some asymmetric capacity.

The bolded part is false. Well, the entire conclusion is false, but the bolded part stands out.

Countering the Counterspell means you don't have a reaction to stop whatever the other wizard decides to cast on his turn, so you'd better be sure the spell you make go through is a big deal. It's also not guaranteed to work if the other wizard decides to use higher level slot for CS and you don't, or, if you do, you risk wasting more of your limited resources disproportionately. It's a gamble, not automatic win.

If you lose initiative and use CS, you're taking a risk. If you don't, you're taking more of a risk, because whatever spell is being cast may prevent you from acting on your turn anyway. It's pretty much always better to at least try to stop the enemy from doing whatever he's doing than just letting him act unopposed and hope you'll be still able to retaliate afterwards.

Kane0

2022-01-08, 01:50 AM

Mechanic that doesnt make sense to me? Taking a reaction during your own turn.

EggKookoo

2022-01-08, 05:55 AM

Mechanic that doesnt make sense to me? Taking a reaction during your own turn.

A reaction is just... reacting to something that's happening. If that thing that's happening happens on your own turn, why wouldn't you be able to react to it?

It's my turn. I move away from you. You OA me. I use my reaction to cast shield. Where's the problem?

Tanarii

2022-01-08, 09:53 AM

Mechanic that doesnt make sense to me? Taking a reaction during your own turn.
Yeah it threw me the first few times I saw it referenced, specifically in regards to countering a counterspell. It feels a little to ... MtG, I guess.

RSP

2022-01-08, 10:02 AM

Yeah it threw me the first few times I saw it referenced, specifically in regards to countering a counterspell. It feels a little to ... MtG, I guess.

To me, Counterspelling a Counterspell doesn’t make sense RAW.

Casting Counterspell “take[s] a fraction of a second to bring about”, RAW. In the game world, the casting of Counterspell is completed before anyone would have the chance to realize its being cast, much less decide to, and complete, the movements necessary to cast one’s own Counterspell.

EggKookoo

2022-01-08, 11:15 AM

I see that as two different issues. Counterspelling counterspell is one thing -- it's casting a second spell while in the process of casting another one (or at the tail end of it). I don't have a problem with it but I get why people do.

But simply using your reaction on you own turn is different.

noob

2022-01-08, 01:16 PM

I now imagine someone casting shield in reaction to an opportunity attack then someone else casting counter spell but being in front of someone who readied an action to hit him with a sword to attempt to interrupt the casting but someone else at that moment uses silvery barbs to try to prevent that sword from hitting but yet another person casts counter spell against the silvery barb thus allowing the opportunity attack to finally hit.

PhantomSoul

2022-01-08, 01:22 PM

EggKookoo

2022-01-08, 01:24 PM

And counterspelling the counterspell against your own spell is a third!

You can't counterspell a counterspell against your own counterspell. You're out of reactions.

PhantomSoul

2022-01-08, 01:28 PM

You can't counterspell a counterspell against your own counterspell. You're out of reactions.

Your own (action) spell, not your own counterspell :)

ProsecutorGodot

2022-01-08, 01:29 PM

A reaction is just... reacting to something that's happening. If that thing that's happening happens on your own turn, why wouldn't you be able to react to it?

It's my turn. I move away from you. You OA me. I use my reaction to cast shield. Where's the problem?

Probably more "unintuitive" than nonsensical. It's fairly uncommon for a reactions trigger to happen on your turn so it's easy to forget that Reactions do explicitly say they can happen on your turn or someone else's.

This goes hand in hand with the idea that tends to go forgotten - combat being done in 6 second rounds is a mechanics abstraction, all turns are happening simultaneously in that 6 second period as far as the narrative is concerned. There's no narrative difference between using a reaction on your own turn or someone else's, it's the same 6 seconds regardless.

stoutstien

2022-01-08, 01:33 PM

Honestly you could put a lot of reactions in the category of don't make sense. The shield spell can prevent the trigger from occuring and all that.

Gtdead

2022-01-08, 01:55 PM

The bolded part is false. Well, the entire conclusion is false, but the bolded part stands out.

Countering the Counterspell means you don't have a reaction to stop whatever the other wizard decides to cast on his turn, so you'd better be sure the spell you make go through is a big deal. It's also not guaranteed to work if the other wizard decides to use higher level slot for CS and you don't, or, if you do, you risk wasting more of your limited resources disproportionately. It's a gamble, not automatic win.

If you lose initiative and use CS, you're taking a risk. If you don't, you're taking more of a risk, because whatever spell is being cast may prevent you from acting on your turn anyway. It's pretty much always better to at least try to stop the enemy from doing whatever he's doing than just letting him act unopposed and hope you'll be still able to retaliate afterwards.

You do you, if you want to counterspell in your first turn, by all means do so. Whatever chance you have of succeeding with your counterspell, is the same chance that the enemy will have when countering yours unless you want to upcast it to level 9. If you think that it's a good tactic to trade your level 9 slot for a sub 50% chance to counter the Wizard #1 spell, I can't say I understand it, but I won't try to persuade you otherwise.

As for the rest of your comments, you haven't proven anything wrong about my position. So I'll just say that you are wrong and let you explain why I'm mistaken. Talking vaguely about things without providing math that at least prove that your actions would be advantageous is pointless. It's the same fallacy as the "if the ubercharger wins initiative" arguments in PvP, when we all know that this has less than 10% chance of happening in an optimized pvp duel. If an action has the same percentage to succeed for both actors then it cancels out. You only need to prove that your actions as Wizard #2 will generate an advantage, even if it's just 1% better.

EggKookoo

2022-01-08, 02:30 PM

Honestly you could put a lot of reactions in the category of don't make sense. The shield spell can prevent the trigger from occuring and all that.

Yeah, but a lot of that could be due to an attempt to make the phrasing more efficient. Take shield -- it says you can use this spell when hit by an attack, which gives you +5 to your AC against the attack that just hit you, and you'd (probably) only do it if you know the +5 would turn the hit into a miss. If the attack becomes a miss, it's not a hit, which means you weren't hit by an attack, so you can't cast the spell, etc...

The RAI is that you can use it when subject to an attack that would have hit you if you hadn't used it, but you're not limited only to ones that are negated by its use (you do enjoy the +5 until your next turn, after all). So it might be worth it to use it when +5 isn't enough to stop the trigger, because you might still benefit from it. But that's a complicated thing to get across, so the RAW just says "hit by an attack" and leaves it there.

Kane0

2022-01-08, 03:55 PM

A reaction is just... reacting to something that's happening. If that thing that's happening happens on your own turn, why wouldn't you be able to react to it?

It's my turn. I move away from you. You OA me. I use my reaction to cast shield. Where's the problem?

Yeah its a game design thing for me, a flaw produced by breaking realtime into turns. Your turn is where you act and others react to you, other peoples turns are where they act and you react. If you react while you are acting, the one thing you are supposed to be able to do for the rest of the round is used up, at the time you have been allocated everything else to do.

ProsecutorGodot

2022-01-08, 04:05 PM

Yeah its a game design thing for me, a flaw produced by breaking realtime into turns. Your turn is where you act and others react to you, other peoples turns are where they act and you react. If you react while you are acting, the one thing you are supposed to be able to do for the rest of the round is used up, at the time you have been allocated everything else to do.

It says specifically that you can react on your own turn. I don't see the issue here. To repeat myself, it's the same 6 seconds regardless of whether you're reacting on your own turn or someone else's. Things aren't actually happening sequentially, it's just the easiest way for the mechanics to be resolved.

It can't be a mechanics problem, there are no mechanics contradicting themselves here. If the reason you think it doesn't make sense is narrative then I don't really get that either as a round of combat is all simultaneous action, someone isn't attacking and then standing still for the remainder of the turn waiting to react.

False God

2022-01-08, 04:17 PM

Yeah it threw me the first few times I saw it referenced, specifically in regards to countering a counterspell. It feels a little to ... MtG, I guess.

"First one in, last one out." Would be a great MTG rule to port over.
BBEG Turn: Fireball
Reaction: Counterspell
BBEG reaction: Counterspell.
-anyone else? No? Turn concludes.
BBEG counterspells your counterspell so he can then successfully cast Fireball.

Of course, I'm also of the opinion that Reactions and Bonus Actions should be eliminated entirely, and everyone should just be given two Actions that can be used at any time in the Round.

Spiritchaser

2022-01-08, 04:25 PM

100% agree, provided you consider the 'normal' flow to be that person announces and begins resolving, and at any point before resolution is all wrapped up someone can shout out "counterspell!" And for what it's worth, that's exactly how I actually DM it at the table, just because I can't help but blurt out what spells my creatures are casting. :smallamused:

This is pretty much how I do it.

Added benefit, after 7 hours of play, at two am, you don’t have to worry about getting sloppy and accidentally blurting out “Fireball!!!” That’s just how it’s supposed to go

ProsecutorGodot

2022-01-08, 04:28 PM

"First one in, last one out." Would be a great MTG rule to port over.
BBEG Turn: Fireball
Reaction: Counterspell
BBEG reaction: Counterspell.
-anyone else? No? Turn concludes.
BBEG counterspells your counterspell so he can then successfully cast Fireball.

Of course, I'm also of the opinion that Reactions and Bonus Actions should be eliminated entirely, and everyone should just be given two Actions that can be used at any time in the Round.

Chains resolve backwards - a rule from Yugioh. It's a common rule in several card games that have counter or reaction mechanics.

Not that it really needs to be a specific rule for DND, it's how it would resolve intuitively. Your counterspell is successfully countered, the fireball obviously goes off without issue. Then again, there's always a benefit in calling out specifics even if they're redundant.

EggKookoo

2022-01-08, 04:42 PM

It says specifically that you can react on your own turn. I don't see the issue here. To repeat myself, it's the same 6 seconds regardless of whether you're reacting on your own turn or someone else's. Things aren't actually happening sequentially, it's just the easiest way for the mechanics to be resolved.

Really, so many things make so much more sense if you internalize that the mechanics are almost completely divorced from the narrative. Almost as much as in chess, where the knight has its two-over-one-diagonal move, but real-world cavalry didn't do anything like that. It's a system designed for playability, variety, and balance.

sithlordnergal

2022-01-08, 04:43 PM

Again, same exact result. There is absolutely no reason to counterspell in the scenario you are proposing. In fact your scenario accentuates a reason to never counterspell first if you lose initiative, because if you do, you can't cast your spell on your turn. You will never find a scenario where losing initiative and counterspelling first of your turn is a smart thing to do unless your enemy doesn't have access to the spell or there is subtle metamagic involved in some asymmetric capacity.

So...I've read your thing a couple of times...why wouldn't Wizard 2 be able to cast their chosen spell on their turn if they Counterspell on Turn 1? Not only that, but Reactions come back at the start of their turn, so they could Counterspell on turn 1, then on their turn tart casting their spell and counter the Counterspell that Wizard 1 might cast to stop them.

I suspect you may be mixing the rules for Bonus Action spells. If you cast a Reaction spell, you're still allowed to cast a leveled spell that round, where as if you cast a Bonus Action spell you can only use Cantrips.

False God

2022-01-08, 05:11 PM

Chains resolve backwards - a rule from Yugioh. It's a common rule in several card games that have counter or reaction mechanics.

Not that it really needs to be a specific rule for DND, it's how it would resolve intuitively. Your counterspell is successfully countered, the fireball obviously goes off without issue. Then again, there's always a benefit in calling out specifics even if they're redundant.

Right, that's more my point, codify certain gameplay elements to provide clarity.

On the whole, I'm generally sadded by the "single reaction" design choice of 5E. I find the game becomes much more engaging, and choices become much more meaningful, when you can't "card count" who can react to you. It makes the game feel very stop-and-go, a lot like a turn-based JRPG where each character gets to take their turn free and clear.

Gtdead

2022-01-08, 05:21 PM

So...I've read your thing a couple of times...why wouldn't Wizard 2 be able to cast their chosen spell on their turn if they Counterspell on Turn 1? Not only that, but Reactions come back at the start of their turn, so they could Counterspell on turn 1, then on their turn tart casting their spell and counter the Counterspell that Wizard 1 might cast to stop them.

I suspect you may be mixing the rules for Bonus Action spells. If you cast a Reaction spell, you're still allowed to cast a leveled spell that round, where as if you cast a Bonus Action spell you can only use Cantrips.

Because they don't have any reactions to counterspell the counterspell since they used it on the Firebolt. Wizard #1 never counterspelled so he has a free reaction. To illustrate:

Turn 1: Wizard #1 casts Firebolt, Wizard #2 counterspells. Wizard #1 casts Bonus Action Blade of Disaster.
Turn 2: Wizard #2 casts whatever, Wizard #1 counterspells.

Wizard #2 has no answer here because he wasted his counterspell blindly on the firebolt and Wizard #1 didn't care about it.

My argument is that the discussion about PvE use of counterspell doesn't apply to duels, and I go on to explain why I don't see any reason to counterspell as Wizard #2 in this situation, even if I advocate for blind counterspell in general.

Edit: Oh wait, you assumed that the reaction will come back at the start of their turn, but I'm not sure about this. The text says "When you take a Reaction, you can’t take another one until the start of your next turn." You haven't had a first turn yet, so the word "next" here creates a conflict. I've never seen it played that way because it essentially allows the one who lost initiative to act more times, but perhaps I'm wrong about this or at the very least, perhaps other people play it as you suggest.

Kane0

2022-01-08, 05:41 PM

It says specifically that you can react on your own turn. I don't see the issue here. To repeat myself, it's the same 6 seconds regardless of whether you're reacting on your own turn or someone else's. Things aren't actually happening sequentially, it's just the easiest way for the mechanics to be resolved.

It can't be a mechanics problem, there are no mechanics contradicting themselves here. If the reason you think it doesn't make sense is narrative then I don't really get that either as a round of combat is all simultaneous action, someone isn't attacking and then standing still for the remainder of the turn waiting to react.

To my mind, it doesnt make sense. I didnt say it was an actual gameplay problem.

Evaar

2022-01-08, 05:59 PM

Here’s a classic one, from Beast Master Ranger:

If you don't issue a command, the beast takes the Dodge action.

You know, like animals in fights do.

ProsecutorGodot

2022-01-08, 06:08 PM

To my mind, it doesnt make sense. I didnt say it was an actual gameplay problem.

In what way exactly does it not make sense if it isn't a mechanical problem? Do you believe it's a narrative issue? What makes using a reaction on your own turn so functionally different, or to phrase this differently, why would it make more sense for a character not to be allowed to react to things on their own turn?

That's what I would find doesn't make sense, that for whatever reason the fact that I'm being attacked on my own turn means I can't use shield if I would otherwise be able to, that would be terribly nonsensical.

False God

2022-01-08, 06:11 PM

Here’s a classic one, from Beast Master Ranger:

You know, like animals in fights do.

Ranger and animal companion design in 5E is generally incompatible with 5E.

The point of having an animal companion is usually a trade-off of direct damage for greater action economy. But 5E has locked down the action economy so hard that the animal companion doesn't really give you anything. You can....move around and yell at your pet. Your pet can hold still and take it to the face while you shoot a bow.... and absolutely none of it makes sense.

Kane0

2022-01-08, 06:20 PM

In what way exactly does it not make sense if it isn't a mechanical problem? Do you believe it's a narrative issue? What makes using a reaction on your own turn so functionally different, or to phrase this differently, why would it make more sense for a character not to be allowed to react to things on their own turn?

That's what I would find doesn't make sense, that for whatever reason the fact that I'm being attacked on my own turn means I can't use shield if I would otherwise be able to, that would be terribly nonsensical.

Eh, more like reacting to something that was dome in response to you performing an action, like deflecting an attack while you're making an attack or casting a spell while casting a spell. Its like, dude you're busy still doing the first thing that started this.

Keltest

2022-01-08, 06:27 PM

Because they don't have any reactions to counterspell the counterspell since they used it on the Firebolt. Wizard #1 never counterspelled so he has a free reaction. To illustrate:

Turn 1: Wizard #1 casts Firebolt, Wizard #2 counterspells. Wizard #1 casts Bonus Action Blade of Disaster.
Turn 2: Wizard #2 casts whatever, Wizard #1 counterspells.

Wizard #2 has no answer here because he wasted his counterspell blindly on the firebolt and Wizard #1 didn't care about it.

My argument is that the discussion about PvE use of counterspell doesn't apply to duels, and I go on to explain why I don't see any reason to counterspell as Wizard #2 in this situation, even if I advocate for blind counterspell in general.

Edit: Oh wait, you assumed that the reaction will come back at the start of their turn, but I'm not sure about this. The text says "When you take a Reaction, you can’t take another one until the start of your next turn." You haven't had a first turn yet, so the word "next" here creates a conflict. I've never seen it played that way because it essentially allows the one who lost initiative to act more times, but perhaps I'm wrong about this or at the very least, perhaps other people play it as you suggest.

Why would your first turn not also be able to be your next turn? You havent had a turn yet, so it actually is your next turn.

ProsecutorGodot

2022-01-08, 06:34 PM

Eh, more like reacting to something that was dome in response to you performing an action, like deflecting an attack while you're making an attack or casting a spell while casting a spell. Its like, dude you're busy still doing the first thing that started this.

Counterpoint - Most times you're doing something on your own turn that would prompt a reaction, it's an active decision from the player to trigger that event. It's a prepared choice to trigger an opportunity attack if you have shield ready to prevent a possible hit, or to fireball yourself if you plan to mitigate the damage with absorb elements.

You are doing the first thing because you are already prepared to do the second thing.

If it isn't something done intentionally, I still don't really buy this reasoning. You can trigger a reaction to traps outside of combat that you've walked over, how is that so different from potentially triggering a trap during your movement in combat where your concentration is considered to be at its peak.

What about a different example - someone else has readied an action to trigger when you move, does it make sense that you wouldn't be able to react to that if you're able? All you're doing is moving, hands free, no actions taken and you can't react because it's your turn?

It might seem like I'm harping on this but the point I'm trying to make is that the alternative makes much less sense, it makes significantly less sense for you to be completely unable to use a reaction on your own turn just because you could maybe be doing something else in that 6 second round.

Bit of a side tangent here - those moments also feel very dynamic. It's a very cool image for a spellcaster to be weaving their arcane power and at the same time deflect an oncoming arrow, or for a physical fighter to parry or straight up ignore incoming arrow fire in the midst of their swing. The idea of a Monk spinning across the battlefield dodging through arrows and actively deflecting and returning the one that was going to most assuredly hit them while they approach for a ferocious strike with their quarterstaff is cool.

Gtdead

2022-01-08, 06:54 PM

Why would your first turn not also be able to be your next turn? You havent had a turn yet, so it actually is your next turn.

Because the word "next" assumes some kind of continuity. If I give you 2 guns, one with real bullets and the other with blanks, and tell you that the next gun will kill you, would you be 100% sure what I'm talking about? (the reason I'm using guns is because there is no room for error in this scenario and you have to take it seriously).

Additionally it just doesn't sit well with me that the one who loses initiative gets more actions per round. So as the rules are written, there is ambiguity and I'm using the version where there isn't any net gain. It could just as well say that "at the start of each of your turns, you gain your reaction back". The usage of the word "next" here makes me think that it's intentional for the reason I'm explaining.

Keltest

2022-01-08, 07:01 PM

Because the word "next" assumes some kind of continuity. If I give you 2 guns, one with real bullets and the other with blanks, and tell you that the next gun won't kill you, would you be 100% sure what I'm talking about? (the reason I'm using guns is because there is no room for error in this scenario and you have to take it seriously).

Additionally it just doesn't sit well with me that the one who loses initiative gets more actions per round. So as the rules are written, there is ambiguity and I'm using the version where there isn't any net gain. It could just as well say that "at the start of each of your turns, you gain your reaction back". The usage of the word "next" here makes me think that it's intentional for the reason I'm explaining.

Ok, lets take a step back here. Lets have the same wizard interaction, except its on Round 2 of the combat. The two wizards spend round 1 convincing the fighters to let them out of their cage or something, doesnt matter. Its round 2. Do you still feel there is room for ambiguity about what happens?

Kane0

2022-01-08, 07:04 PM

-Snip-

Agreed, I wouldnt make a blanket houserule that you cant reaction during your turn as it makes things worse, however things like the Battlemasters Evasive Footwork exist and I think fills that same niche better, if only there were more of those.

ProsecutorGodot

2022-01-08, 07:07 PM

Because the word "next" assumes some kind of continuity. If I give you 2 guns, one with real bullets and the other with blanks, and tell you that the next gun will kill you, would you be 100% sure what I'm talking about? (the reason I'm using guns is because there is no room for error in this scenario and you have to take it seriously).

Additionally it just doesn't sit well with me that the one who loses initiative gets more actions per round. So as the rules are written, there is ambiguity and I'm using the version where there isn't any net gain. It could just as well say that "at the start of each of your turns, you gain your reaction back". The usage of the word "next" here makes me think that it's intentional for the reason I'm explaining.

I don't think there's any mechanical reason that a non-surprised character wouldn't get a reaction before and after their first turn in combat. It doesn't matter if there's an implied continuity, your next turn is always your next turn, even if you haven't had a turn yet.

Your analogy here doesn't really apply either, the example is constructed to be ambiguous in that if gives multiple choices when "your next turn in combat" is not a multiple choice thing, you only have one.

Gtdead

2022-01-08, 07:15 PM

Ok, lets take a step back here. Lets have the same wizard interaction, except its on Round 2 of the combat. The two wizards spend round 1 convincing the fighters to let them out of their cage or something, doesnt matter. Its round 2. Do you still feel there is room for ambiguity about what happens?

Let me give you a full example. There are 2 actors, Actor #1 who wins initiative and Actor #2 who goes second.

Scenario 1:

Round 1 begins:
A#1's turn: A#1 acts, A#2 uses his reaction
A#2's turn: A#2 doesn't gain back his reaction because it's not the "next" turn, rather it's the first turn.

Round 2 begins:
A#1's turn: A#1 acts, A#2 still can't use reaction
A#2's turn: A#2 gains his reaction back because it's the next turn, and goes that way for every subsequent turn. He can use it on his turn if he wants to.

Only 1 reaction possible per round.

Scenario 2:

Round 1 begins:
A#1's turn: A#1 acts
A#2's turn: A#2 uses his reaction on a Silvery Barbs to boost his Hold Person.

Round 2 begins:
A#1's turn: A#1 acts, A#2 can't use reaction
A#2's turn: A#2 gains back his reaction and can use Silvery Barbs again.

Again only 1 reaction possible per round.

Scenario 3:

Round 1 begins:
A#1's turn: A#1 acts
A#2's turn: A#2 acts

Round 2 begins:
A#1's turn: A#1 acts, A#2 uses reaction
A#2's turn: A#2 gains back reaction, can use on a Silvery Barbs or keep it for the next round.

Again only 1 reaction possible per round.
I don't think there's any mechanical reason that a non-surprised character wouldn't get a reaction before and after their first turn in combat. It doesn't matter if there's an implied continuity, your next turn is always your next turn, even if you haven't had a turn yet.

Your analogy here doesn't really apply either, the example is constructed to be ambiguous in that if gives multiple choices when "your next turn in combat" is not a multiple choice thing, you only have one.

The example isn't ambiguous any more than the rule is. You don't see it that way because you believe beyond doubt that your first turn is your next turn in this situation. By your definition, these 2 sentences have absolutely no difference in meaning:

"When you take a Reaction, you can’t take another one until the start of your next turn."
"When you take a Reaction, you can’t take another one until the start of (each of) your turn(s)."

There is absolutely no reason (or at least no reason that I can possibly find) to not use the second one in this case, even without the added words in parenthesis. So the way I read it, the word "next" has meaning and it solves the problem of giving an advantage to those who "lost" initiative.

Keltest

2022-01-08, 07:24 PM

Let me give you a full example. There are 2 actors, Actor #1 who wins initiative and Actor #2 who goes second.

Scenario 1:

Round 1 begins:
A#1's turn: A#1 acts, A#2 uses his reaction
A#2's turn: A#2 doesn't gain back his reaction because it's not the "next" turn, rather it's the first turn.

Round 2 begins:
A#1's turn: A#1 acts, A#2 still can't use reaction
A#2's turn: A#2 gains his reaction back because it's the next turn, and goes that way for every subsequent turn. He can use it on his turn if he wants to.

Only 1 reaction possible per round.

Scenario 2:

Round 1 begins:
A#1's turn: A#1 acts
A#2's turn: A#2 uses his reaction on a Silvery Barbs to boost his Hold Person.

Round 2 begins:
A#1's turn: A#1 acts, A#2 can't use reaction
A#2's turn: A#2 gains back his reaction and can use Silvery Barbs again.

Again only 1 reaction possible per round.

Scenario 3:

Round 1 begins:
A#1's turn: A#1 acts
A#2's turn: A#2 acts

Round 2 begins:
A#1's turn: A#1 acts, A#2 uses reaction
A#2's turn: A#2 gains back reaction, can use on a Silvery Barbs or keep it for the next round.

Again only 1 reaction possible per round.

Round 1 Begins:
A#1's turn: A#1 acts
A#2's turn: A#2 acts

Round 2 begins:
A#1's turn: A#1 casts a spell, which A#2 counterspells. A#1 lets this happen.
A#2's turn: A#2 casts a spell, which A#1 counterspells. A#2 then counter-counterspells, as he has gotten his reaction back due to it now being his turn.

Do you agree that this is a valid scenario? If so, then why does it become invalid if the counterspelling happens on round 1 but not round 2 or beyond?

Also, you seem to have forgotten somehow that in your Scenario 3, there are 2 reactions possible in the second round. If he uses his reaction, then gets it back and uses it on an SB, then he has used 2 reactions in a round.

Gtdead

2022-01-08, 07:39 PM

Round 1 Begins:
A#1's turn: A#1 acts
A#2's turn: A#2 acts

Round 2 begins:
A#1's turn: A#1 casts a spell, which A#2 counterspells. A#1 lets this happen.
A#2's turn: A#2 casts a spell, which A#1 counterspells. A#2 then counter-counterspells, as he has gotten his reaction back due to it now being his turn.

Do you agree that this is a valid scenario? If so, then why does it become invalid if the counterspelling happens on round 1 but not round 2 or beyond?

Yes, this scenario is perfectly fine. It matters that it only happens on round 2 because on round 1 it allows the possibility for 3 reactions/2rounds

Also, you seem to have forgotten somehow that in your Scenario 3, there are 2 reactions possible in the second round. If he uses his reaction, then gets it back and uses it on an SB, then he has used 2 reactions in a round.

This also isn't a problem because it still allows a total of 2 reactions/2 rounds. You can't get more than that. This is normal due to the way the rule works. If instead everyone was getting their reactions back at the start of a new round, it wouldn't be possible for example. But it's constructed in a manner that makes it more likely for the reaction to be used on the subsequent rounds rather than the round you gain it back, assuming that you rolled low enough.

Keltest

2022-01-08, 07:43 PM

Yes, this scenario is perfectly fine. It matters that it only happens on round 2 because on round 1 it allows the possibility for 3 reactions/2rounds

This also isn't a problem because it still allows a total of 2 reactions/2 rounds. You can't get more than that. This is normal the way the rule works. If instead everyone was getting their reactions back at the start of a new round, it wouldn't be possible.

Sure, some people can squeeze an extra reaction out in the first round. The advantage of going first in the first round is that nobody can do anything to you before your turn that would require your reaction to negate. I still dont see the thing that says this is actually disallowed rather than just being a little odd. The first round has no special significance in the rules for actions or reactions that im aware of. There are a couple of class features that want you to have higher initiative to work at all (looking at you, assassin rogue), but thats specific trumping general.

ProsecutorGodot

2022-01-08, 07:43 PM

The example isn't ambiguous any more than the rule is. You don't see it that way because you believe beyond doubt that your first turn is your next turn in this situation. By your definition, these 2 sentences have absolutely no difference in meaning:

"When you take a Reaction, you can’t take another one until the start of your next turn."
"When you take a Reaction, you can’t take another one until the start of (each of) your turn(s)."

Since there is absolutely no reason to not use the second one in this case, even without the added words in parenthesis, so the way I read it, the word "next" has meaning here and it solves the problem of giving an advantage to those who "lost" initiative.

Sure there's a difference, we know there is because only a surprised creature is restricted from using their reaction before and during their first turn of combat.

This isn't at all complicated. If you're not surprised, there is no restriction on your reaction, if there is no restriction on your reaction you can use it, if you use it then you can't do so again until the start of your next turn and your "next turn" is your first turn, where your reaction comes back.

In your interpretation a character is being punished similarly to if they were surprised for no reason, characters can end up having an entire round of combat without a reaction even if they were fully alert at the start. Under your interpretation, if a non surprised character reacts to the first enemy in initiative they lose the opportunity to react to that enemies next turn, why?

Gtdead

2022-01-08, 07:55 PM

Sure, some people can squeeze an extra reaction out in the first round. The advantage of going first in the first round is that nobody can do anything to you before your turn that would require your reaction to negate. I still dont see the thing that says this is actually disallowed rather than just being a little odd. The first round has no special significance in the rules for actions or reactions that im aware of. There are a couple of class features that want you to have higher initiative to work at all (looking at you, assassin rogue), but thats specific trumping general.

The only thing that (at least in my reading) disallows this is the word "next". There isn't any other rule here, and this actually is the root of the problem. I don't think that being able to react two times in the first round is ok and since there is the word "next" there, I think it's the designer's attempt to provide a solution to this "conundrum". It's not the most significant thing in the world, it's just something that I can't read any other way. I wouldn't care too much if it worked otherwise in another table.

Sure there's a difference, we know there is because only a surprised creature is restricted from using their reaction before and during their first turn of combat.

This isn't at all complicated. If you're not surprised, there is no restriction on your reaction, if there is no restriction on your reaction you can use it, if you use it then you can't do so again until the start of your next turn and your "next turn" is your first turn, where your reaction comes back.

In your interpretation a character is being punished similarly to if they were surprised for no reason, characters can end up having an entire round of combat without a reaction even if they were fully alert at the start. Under your interpretation, if a non surprised character reacts to the first enemy in initiative they lose the opportunity to react to that enemies next turn, why?

Why do you bring the surprise rules in this. I never said that you can't react. You still can react during the first round. You just don't gain it back until the start of your second turn (which I consider the first "next turn").

RSP

2022-01-08, 08:01 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2022-01-08, 08:05 PM

To be a bit philosophical, the first round of any given person's experience starts within 6 seconds of their birth. We don't normally track all of those rounds, but they're happening in the game-level simulation. Any reading of the rules that gives particular weight (without explicit guidance to that effect) to one round over another is suspect IMO. Generally, like the law, the game does not hide elephants in mouseholes. Finding major effects hidden in abstruse wording differences, while a favored pastime of these forums, is not actually something that the rules or expectations of the game support.

sithlordnergal

2022-01-08, 08:08 PM

Why do you bring the surprise rules in this. I never said that you can't react. You still can react during the first round. You just don't gain it back until the start of your second turn (which I consider the first "next turn").

RSP makes a good point. Shield and Absorb Elements both say "Until the start of your next turn..." for their durations. By your ruling, they would last until the start of the second round

Gtdead

2022-01-08, 08:08 PM

So if you cast Shield before your first Turn, it lasts until the start of your second Turn?

Yep.

To be a bit philosophical, the first round of any given person's experience starts within 6 seconds of their birth. We don't normally track all of those rounds, but they're happening in the game-level simulation. Any reading of the rules that gives particular weight (without explicit guidance to that effect) to one round over another is suspect IMO. Generally, like the law, the game does not hide elephants in mouseholes. Finding major effects hidden in abstruse wording differences, while a favored pastime of these forums, is not actually something that the rules or expectations of the game support.

Even on a philosophical level, rounds and turns are different. It doesn't matter if a character is able to gain 50 turns in a round, they still happen in 6 seconds. Turns are only possible once initiative is rolled. You can calculate rounds as you would calculate time. For example, it's not 100 years since the world creation, it's 525600000 rounds. You can't do the same for turns because they don't measure time. They are a byproduct of initiative so every time you roll initiative, you gain a new set of turns.

ProsecutorGodot

2022-01-08, 08:14 PM

Why do you bring the surprise rules in this. I never said that you can't react. You still can react during the first round. You just don't gain it back until the start of your second turn (which I consider the first "next turn").
I bring up the surprise rules because you're inventing a restriction that is meant to mirror their function. You think they shouldn't get several reactions in such a small span of time because they were "slower" in initiative, despite the fact that their being "slower" is mechanically represented by them being unable to take a full turn before those who rolled higher. It also demonstrates well what an actual written and explicit restriction on reactions would look like.

Yep.

############# (ten character limitation)

I think this highlights a major fault in your reasoning. You're saying a spell that lasts until the beginning of your "next" turn has now lasted through the full duration of one of your turns into a second turn and you don't see the issue here?

EggKookoo

2022-01-08, 08:37 PM

They are a byproduct of initiative so every time you roll initiative, you gain a new set of turns.

Thing is, a round is just the time between two of your turns, or more precisely the time from the start of one of your turns to the start of the next. The person that goes first in initiative order is really just setting the pace for the "combat rounds," but rounds don't really exist independently of turns. Round length is squishy (6 seconds is the alleged average), which is why init order can change from combat to combat.

Gtdead

2022-01-08, 08:39 PM

I bring up the surprise rules because you're inventing a restriction that is meant to mirror their function. You think they shouldn't get several reactions in such a small span of time because they were "slower" in initiative, despite the fact that their being "slower" is mechanically represented by them being unable to take a full turn before those who rolled higher. It also demonstrates well what an actual written and explicit restriction on reactions would look like.

I think this highlights a major fault in your reasoning. You're saying a spell that lasts until the beginning of your "next" turn has now lasted through the full duration of one of your turns into a second turn and you don't see the issue here?

The shield thing is a problem of power and balance of a specific spell, the problem that I'm bringing forth is one of action economy. If I gave you a reaction spell that instantly kills a target of your choice when he is about to act, would you prefer my reading or yours?

A more practical example is the counterspell example that I was arguing for quite a while. If you duel a Cleric for example, he can never cast even if he wins initiative, because he casts, you counterspell, you cast, and then you counterspell again when he casts. How is that better than shield lasting a couple more rounds?

Thing is, a round is just the time between two of your turns, or more precisely the time from the start of one of your turns to the start of the next. The person that goes first in initiative order is really just setting the pace for the "combat rounds," but rounds don't really exist independently of turns. Round length is squishy (6 seconds is the alleged average), which is why init order can change from combat to combat.

The problem here are abilities like Thief Rogue's Thief's Reflexes and Samurai Fighter's Strength Before Death. If you imagine a round as 6 seconds independent of turns then there is nothing breaking the continuity. If you imagine then as something that repeats every 6 seconds once a turn has passed, they break continuity.

ProsecutorGodot

2022-01-08, 08:57 PM

The shield thing is a problem of power and balance of a specific spell, the problem that I'm bringing forth is one of action economy. If I gave you a reaction spell that instantly kills a target of your choice when he is about to act, would you prefer my reading or yours?
Irrelevant, I don't care about the balance of any particular reaction, I care about what makes sense and having effects that end "at the start of your next turn" extend through any of your turns does not. It's not consistent with my understanding of what "next turn" (or "next" anything for that matter) means when read and I'm positive it's not consistent with any design intentions of that either.

A more practical example is the counterspell example that I was arguing for quite a while. If you duel a Cleric for example, he can never cast even if he wins initiative, because he casts, you counterspell, you cast, and then you counterspell again when he casts. How is that better than shield lasting a couple more rounds?

I don't see anything mechanically wrong with this example though I'll talk more on it below. If you (the one who is currently able to "lead" in counterspells) are spending high enough slots to guarantee your success, you're eventually going to run out. The cleric will eventually cast something. It's not a "significant" advantage because there's no guarantee of success unless you burn your highest possible slots and even then you might still fail to counter a spell.

The example, of course, looks bad in this specific example devoid of context and actions taken other than "I cast a spell within counterspell range" but how about I adjusted the example just a bit to demonstrate the advantage the Cleric has.

The Cleric wins initiative and walks to a distance of 61ft from their target. They can now successfully cast a spell, almost any spell they want so long as it has a range greater or equal to 61ft and the enemy caster can't react to it because the Cleric has the advantage of winning initiative.

Khrysaes

2022-01-08, 08:59 PM

Man, this thread got so derailed.

sithlordnergal

2022-01-08, 09:04 PM

Edit: Oh wait, you assumed that the reaction will come back at the start of their turn, but I'm not sure about this. The text says "When you take a Reaction, you can’t take another one until the start of your next turn." You haven't had a first turn yet, so the word "next" here creates a conflict. I've never seen it played that way because it essentially allows the one who lost initiative to act more times, but perhaps I'm wrong about this or at the very least, perhaps other people play it as you suggest.

So I can finally break into this a bit more now that I'm at a computer.

First, there really isn't any conflict here. You say that using the word "next" implies that it doesn't count towards the first round because there wasn't a round before that. But that's not what the word "next" even means. If your ruling is caused by the word "next" then it fails on a definition level because the definition of the word "next" is "(of a time or season) coming immediately after the time of writing or speaking.", "coming immediately after the present one in order, rank, or space.", "on the first or soonest occasion after the present; immediately afterwards.", or "following in the specified order.".

All of those are effectively saying the same thing, "next" is the moment that something happens immediately after something else happened. So if you use your Reaction before you've had your first turn, your next turn would be that first turn.

Second, you say you have issue that a person going second in initiative has more actions then someone who goes first. While this is technically true, this is mitigated by the fact that the person going first is, well, going first. There's actually a name for this, I think its called First-Move Advantage or First-Mover Advantage. Either way, it shows up in every single game that relies on turns, from board games, to DnD, to card games, and everything in between. The basic gist is that the advantages of going first tend to be great enough that game creators have to balance it out by making it worthwhile to go second. Same applies here in DnD.

Sure, the person going 2nd will get one extra reaction by allowing their Reaction to recharge at the start of the first turn. This is balanced by the fact that someone going first can simply deny that person a chance to act at all. Consider the Monk, if they go first they can open with Flurry of Blows and a Stunning Strike on each attack. There's a good chance the Monk's target will fail their con save, now they get to skip their first turn. Same with the Wizard and spells like Hold Person, Force Cage, Dominate Person, ect. Going first naturally balances out the fact that everyone else gets one extra reaction.

Third and final point, it greatly increases the power of spells like Shield and Absorb Elements. Sure its only on the first turn, but having +5 to AC, or being able to gain resistance to an elemental damage type for 2 turns is pretty strong. Also, depending on how you handle Surprise Rounds and Ambushes, it could make certain abilities insane. I know a lot of tables where you get one strike from a successful ambush before you roll initiative. Hand that to a Monk with Stunning Strike and your ruling. They'd effectively stun a creature for 2 turns.

All in all, you're free to use your ruling...but I feel like its a poorly thought out ruling with questionable reason behind it.

EDIT: As the the OP's original thoughts...its a very weird rule, and I've yet to find a single DM that uses it. Because most players and DMs just blurt out what they're going to cast when they're going to cast it. Even my own DM tried to make use of it, but dropped the rule shortly after using it because he kept accidentally blurting out the spell.

Hytheter

2022-01-08, 09:18 PM

Come on guys, the answer is obvious. The final turn you took in your previous combat is the last turn, and the one you're yet to take in the current combat is your next turn. ;)

Not blue because this makes no less sense than what Gtdead is trying to assert here.

Gtdead

2022-01-08, 09:33 PM

Irrelevant, I don't care about the balance of any particular reaction, I care about what makes sense and having effects that end "at the start of your next turn" extend through any of your turns does not. It's not consistent with my understanding of what "next turn" (or "next" anything for that matter) means when read and I'm positive it's not consistent with any design intentions of that either.

I can understand this, because it's similar to how I view my reading too. I saw something that allows me to use my reaction twice, I wondered if that was right, then I saw the word "next" and I considered what it meant. I consider turns a byproduct of initiative as I explained earlier, and since the definition of the word "next" requires something that comes before, I reasoned that it has to mean the second turn. You may disagree with it, but it doesn't break functionality in any shape or form. It just affects the balance of some abilities.

Frankly, after all this discussion, I think it would be better overall for everyone to regain reactions at the start of every round and make shield and other effects with a reaction casting time to last for that particular round.

I don't see anything mechanically wrong with this example though I'll talk more on it below. If you (the one who is currently able to "lead" in counterspells) are spending high enough slots to guarantee your success, you're eventually going to run out. The cleric will eventually cast something. It's not a "significant" advantage because there's no guarantee of success unless you burn your highest possible slots and even then you might still fail to counter a spell.

In this game, even if you always operate at a mathematical disadvantage, it's not a 100% guarantee that you will lose due to RNG. Failure can be minimized through build engineering, I don't like talking about it because it requires assumptions. It's not about just 1 duel. It's about the average result of a large number of duels. Sometimes the counterspell will fail, others will succeed. If this makes the Wizard win 75% of the time instead of 50% (assuming that the classes are balanced in the first place), then it's an obviously advantageous tactic.

The example, of course, looks bad in this specific example devoid of context and actions taken other than "I cast a spell within counterspell range" but how about I adjusted the example just a bit to demonstrate the advantage the Cleric has.

I agree the example is forced. It's similar to the example I was given which spawned this discussion which is why I used it.

So I can finally break into this a bit more now that I'm at a computer.

First, there really isn't any conflict here. You say that using the word "next" implies that it doesn't count towards the first round because there wasn't a round before that. But that's not what the word "next" even means. If your ruling is caused by the word "next" then it fails on a definition level because the definition of the word "next" is "(of a time or season) coming immediately after the time of writing or speaking.", "coming immediately after the present one in order, rank, or space.", "on the first or soonest occasion after the present; immediately afterwards.", or "following in the specified order.".

All of those are effectively saying the same thing, "next" is the moment that something happens immediately after something else happened. So if you use your Reaction before you've had your first turn, your next turn would be that first turn.

Sorry for ignoring the rest of your post but I don't have something to add there except that my reasoning was a byproduct of maintaining the advantage of rolling high initiative. We agree on most points. However on the definition point I flat out disagree.

You probably confused rounds and turns here since the rule applies to turns, but it's probably a typo so I will assume that you meant turn.

Turn is a thing in a list, it's not a measurement of time (like round is), which is why we have (non-magical) abilities that mess with turn counts. So the definition that applies is: "coming immediately after the present one in order, rank, or space."

By this definition, we need a present turn to have a next one. At the moment of casting a reaction, which isn't a turn, we don't have a present or even a previous turn. Turns are determined at the start of the combat when rolling initiative. They can't exist without it and only make sense while in scenarios where the turn order needs to be respected. For example in a social scenario without combat we only need to respect the 6 second rule per action, we don't need to roll initiative and only act in this particular order.

If I ask you to read the next thing in a list that I just gave you, are you expected to understand what I'm saying or ask for clarification? If I give you two pieces of candy and tell you that the next is strawberry flavored, are you expected to understand which candy I'm talking about? So no, I don't think my argument fails definition wise.

If reaction was a turn, then you'd be right, but it isn't.

Willowhelm

2022-01-08, 09:53 PM

Gtdead’s definition of “next” and all the discussion is frankly bizarre. There is confusion when people talk about “next Tuesday” vs “this Thursday”. There is no confusion when people say “next time I see you” or “10% off on your next visit” (when you’ve never been to the store before or you’re currently there) or “the next arrow I shoot will probably miss” or any number of other examples. These rules do not have that ambiguity.

Your next turn can be your first turn. Simple.

ProsecutorGodot

2022-01-08, 09:55 PM

Frankly, after all this discussion, I think it would be better overall for everyone to regain reactions at the start of every round and make shield and other effects with a reaction casting time to last for that particular round.

I don't think so, the current system is simple if you just take things as face value and ignore the extremely small potential advantage to rolling a lower initiative in just the first turn of combat.

I'm sorry, I just can't understand how you could think that "next turn" somehow skips a turn because you haven't taken one in this combat. It's very obvious that it's referencing the next turn you take in relation to whatever effect is active until then, if that effect happens before you've had a turn then the first turn you take is your next turn. Simple.

Tanarii

2022-01-08, 10:10 PM

There is confusion when people talk about “next Tuesday” vs “this Thursday”.
Edit: Derp, read this as saying Tuesday twice :smallbiggrin:

Gtdead

2022-01-08, 10:20 PM

I don't think so, the current system is simple if you just take things as face value and ignore the extremely small potential advantage to rolling a lower initiative in just the first turn of combat.

I'm sorry, I just can't understand how you could think that "next turn" somehow skips a turn because you haven't taken one in this combat. It's very obvious that it's referencing the next turn you take in relation to whatever effect is active until then, if that effect happens before you've had a turn then the first turn you take is your next turn. Simple.

It's because I view turns as a thing as defined under "your turn" segment, not a time indicator. So I don't think it's right to relate a reaction with a turn in a sequence.

Gtdead’s definition of “next” and all the discussion is frankly bizarre. There is confusion when people talk about “next Tuesday” vs “this Thursday”. There is no confusion when people say “next time I see you” or “10% off on your next visit” (when you’ve never been to the store before or you’re currently there) or “the next arrow I shoot will probably miss” or any number of other examples. These rules do not have that ambiguity.

Your next turn can be your first turn. Simple.

Ehm, if it's on your next visit, can you get the 10% off in your first ever visit to the store? This is exactly the situation that I'm describing. I don't know about the stores you have near you, but in order for me to have a 10% off my next visit, I either need to have a coupon, or a punched card or something, to prove that this is indeed my "next" visit. (unless of course someone gives me one). So unless I break the rule somehow, my first can't be my next.

ProsecutorGodot

2022-01-08, 10:36 PM

It's because I view turns as a thing as defined under "your turn" segment, not a time indicator. So I don't think it's right to relate an action with a turn in a sequence.

The mechanics don't support that, they actively go against that reasoning. Combat based effects (which I will define as "features and spells that are primarily or only effective in combat") are, in almost ever case where they have a duration, tied to a turn based duration and those durations are specifically tied to a certain creatures turn.

Stunning Strike - The end of your next turn
Shield/Absorb Elements/Dodge - Until the start of your next turn
Reactions returning - At the start of your next turn
Help/Ready - Before the start of your next turn
Ongoing spell saving throws - The beginning or end of a turn, determined by the spell
Surprise - until the end of your first turn
Assassinate - Against creatures who haven't taken a turn
Dash - for the current turn

The game is designed to use turns as a time indicator in combat, their are so many effects beyond what I've listed that rely on using a turn as an indication of their timing or duration that to insist they can't or shouldn't be used as one is absolutely confusing to me.

Ehm, if it's on your next visit, can you get the 10% off in your first ever visit to the store? This is exactly the situation that I'm describing. I don't know about the stores you have near you, but in order for me to have a 10% off my next visit, I either need to have a coupon, or a punched card or something, to prove that this is indeed my "next" visit. (unless of course someone gives me one). So unless I break the rule somehow, my first can't be my next.
Let's not get overly specific into the details of how promotional coupons work*, the point is that you have a working and usable coupon that says that you get 10% of your next visit. It will work on your next visit, even if you've never been their because the next time you visit will be your first time.
It would be an absolute nightmare to try and play these word games with any customer, if the coupon is valid we take the coupon. The only possible way we could prevent them from using an applicable coupon is for them not to have the coupon until after that transaction and EVEN THEN our customer service is encouraged to honor and refund those customers for the amount if they happen upon or had forgotten a coupon for an item in the transaction. The grace period is incredibly generous as well, I recall that we've refunded customers for products purchased years ago.

We've even refunded for food items that were obviously spoiled through negligence because we can't prove otherwise and it's better to lose a few dollars than deal with an irate customer complaining higher and higher up the chain of command.

So yeah, your next visit is the next time you come in, even if you just moved here from a different planet and your foster brother got his fiancé's cousin's nephew to give you the discount and you've never been here before.

Willowhelm

2022-01-08, 10:43 PM

It's because I view turns as a thing as defined under "your turn" segment, not a time indicator. So I don't think it's right to relate a reaction with a turn in a sequence.

Ehm, if it's on your next visit, can you get the 10% off in your first ever visit to the store? This is exactly the situation that I'm describing. I don't know about the stores you have near you, but in order for me to have a 10% off my next visit, I either need to have a coupon, or a punched card or something, to prove that this is indeed my "next" visit. (unless of course someone gives me one). So unless I break the rule somehow, my first can't be my next.

Yes. Your first visit can be your next visit. I read a magazine with the voucher, I tear it out, I go to the store. First visit. This is the “next time” I go to this store. It’s also the first. It might be the only and also the last. All these things can be true at once. It’s not “next time unless it is your first” it is on your nth+1 visit whether n is 0 or not.

If I’m at the store and I’m given it in the store then that is like using my reaction on my turn. My next visit is clearly not my current visit. There is no confusion at all to the vast majority of English speakers. I have to work really hard to even understand how you can force any other reading.

EggKookoo

2022-01-08, 10:50 PM

Ehm, if it's on your next visit, can you get the 10% off in your first ever visit to the store? This is exactly the situation that I'm describing. I don't know about the stores you have near you, but in order for me to have a 10% off my next visit, I either need to have a coupon, or a punched card or something, to prove that this is indeed my "next" visit. (unless of course someone gives me one). So unless I break the rule somehow, my first can't be my next.

Without exception, every single time I've experienced anything akin to "10% off your next visit" (like in an advertisement or something) they mean literally the next time you walk into the store, which could indeed be the first time you've ever done it. I've never even heard of anyone saying they went to the store and was told they can't benefit from the promotion (or whatever) because they didn't provide some kind of evidence that they had a "previous" visit.

Gtdead

2022-01-08, 11:00 PM

The mechanics don't support that, they actively go against that reasoning. Combat based effects (which I will define as "features and spells that are primarily or only effective in combat") are, in almost ever case where they have a duration, tied to a turn based duration and those durations are specifically tied to a certain creatures turn.

Aside from the obvious difference in reaction spells and abilities, there isn't any other conflict. I can give you the exact same argument.

1) Stunning Strike - The end of your next turn

I run it same thing as Shield. Aside from the AoO scenario there isn't any other conflict.

2) Shield/Absorb Elements/Dodge - Until the start of your next turn

Already discussed

3) Reactions returning - At the start of your next turn

Already discussed

4) Help/Ready - Before the start of your next turn

No conflict at all because they are actions.

5) Ongoing spell saving throws - The beginning or end of a turn, determined by the spell

All these are at the start/end of each of turns. Not next turn, so no conflict at all.

6) Surprise - until the end of your first turn

Why not "next turn" then if we can equate first with next? My reading has no conflict with surprise.

7) Assassinate - Against creatures who haven't taken a turn

No conflict

8) Dash - for the current turn

No conflict

In any case, it seems like the majority think that my reading is bizarre, so I will try to use your reading in other discussions. As I said I have no problem with either reading because it's not that important. Out of curiosity I asked my gf to read the rule and she agreed with me so at least I know I'm not completely crazy. Or we could both be crazy, dunno. I'm not changing my mind anyway :p

About the coupons:

If you get a coupon from an outside source, yes, the next visit will be the first. If the store is the only establishment that provides the coupons through the first purchase, then you need to make your first visit, get a coupon with your receipt, and use it on your next. Let's not compare apples and oranges here. The definition of next is the same in every language. It's the exact same language used in my country too. Buy something, get a bonus/points/discount for your next purchase. If you have already have a coupon from another store/magazine/whatever or someone gave you points etc, then you don't need to have your "first" visit, your next is your first.

ProsecutorGodot

2022-01-08, 11:09 PM

In any case, it seems like the majority think that my reading is bizarre, so I will try to use your reading in other discussions. As I said I have no problem with either reading because it's not that important. Out of curiosity I asked my gf to read the rule and she agreed with me so at least I know I'm not completely crazy. Or we could both be crazy, dunno. I'm not changing my mind anyway :p

I was demonstrating instances where your turn is used to determine how long an effect remains for and instances where that duration can fluctuate depending on your position in initiative. Turns are used as a way to track time in combat, it's just how the system works and your claim was that they shouldn't/aren't. All of these examples clearly conflict with the idea that your turn is not designed to be used as a way to track time in a sequence of events.

Clearly we're at an impasse here, at this point I think it's at the most fundamental level of how 5E combat is designed to run rather than this specific instance within it. You're right though, as long as you continue to have fun in your own games it's not big deal... it's just a really bizarre way to read "next".

Gtdead

2022-01-08, 11:15 PM

I was demonstrating instances where your turn is used to determine how long an effect remains for and instances where that duration can fluctuate depending on your position in initiative. Turns are used as a way to track time in combat, it's just how the system works and your claim was that they shouldn't/aren't. All of these examples clearly conflict with the idea that your turn is not designed to be used as a way to track time in a sequence of events.

It somewhat tracks time but it's not perfect like a round is. It's like using weight for mass when it measures force. It mostly works, but it's not exactly correct. For example, if a level 17 Thief Rogue with Thief's Reflexes managed to get shield somehow, his shield on the first round would last shorter because he gets two turns.

ProsecutorGodot

2022-01-08, 11:35 PM

It somewhat tracks time but it's not perfect like a round is. It's like using weight for mass when it measures force. It mostly works, but it's not exactly correct. For example, if a level 17 Thief Rogue with Thief's Reflexes managed to get shield somehow, his shield on the first round would last shorter because he gets two turns.

I'm not talking about a narrative sense of time, I'm talking about a mechanical sense of time. Rounds have a static narrative duration (6 seconds) with a defined start and end point, they can't be properly used to time events that last for durations that aren't divisible by that or have start/end points during a round.

That's where turns come in, they're a good way to break rounds down into parts for keeping track of these effects that have durations that extend between several rounds or only last for parts of one. It's a time keeping tool for players.

You're correct too, that's exactly how it would work for the Thief. I think the benefits of having two turns in the first round will heavily outweigh the extremely specific and most likely inapplicable potential downside.

Hytheter

2022-01-08, 11:39 PM

About the coupons:

If you get a coupon from an outside source, yes, the next visit will be the first.

So you agree the first time you do something can also be the next. That kind of clinches it, doesn't it?

Gtdead

2022-01-09, 03:29 AM

So you agree the first time you do something can also be the next. That kind of clinches it, doesn't it?

No it doesn't. This isn't precise language. If only the store hands out the coupons, then your next time can't be the first time. If your friend gives you his coupon, then your next time can be a first time, but it's cheating. Additionally it doesn't matter if the coupon says "on your next visit". It's just a form of currency accepted by the store. It can say " idiots get 10% off on the item of their choice". Who's the idiot, the one who gets offended or the one who gets the 10% off? Marketing doesn't change the meaning of words.

I read rules in an algorithmic fashion. To have a next turn, I require a previous turn. But ok, enough about that. I'm tapping out. As I said, for the purposes of online discussions I'll use the majority's reading in the future.

EggKookoo

2022-01-09, 06:00 AM

If you get a coupon from an outside source, yes, the next visit will be the first.

To have a next turn, I require a previous turn.

One of these things is not like the other.

Hytheter

2022-01-09, 07:34 AM

No it doesn't. This isn't precise language. If only the store hands out the coupons, then your next time can't be the first time.

What if they sent it to me in the mail? Dominos does this all the time.

If your friend gives you his coupon, then your next time can be a first time, but it's cheating.

It's only cheating if you assume that the coupon requires you to have been to the store before (which is by no means a given, as in the above mail vouchers) but frankly that's beside the point. The fact remains that your next visit was also your first visit, so your insistence that 'next' and 'first' are mutually exclusive is bogus by your own admission.

Gtdead

2022-01-09, 09:25 AM

One of these things is not like the other.

One is circumstance and the other is a strict sequence of events. There is absolutely no chance that I can get a discount in my first ever hotel booking on the site I'm using. I can only get it on my next ones (read second and subsequent) once the first payment has been finalized. I can't get someone else's discount because it's account based, I can't get a coupon from a magazine or any other way. There is no possible scenario where first = next because the system is strictly enforced. There is no mistaking or any hope that I will get the discount on my first ever payment and I never thought otherwise when I first saw the advertisement.

What if they sent it to me in the mail? Dominos does this all the time.

It's only cheating if you assume that the coupon requires you to have been to the store before (which is by no means a given, as in the above mail vouchers) but frankly that's beside the point. The fact remains that your next visit was also your first visit, so your insistence that 'next' and 'first' are mutually exclusive is bogus by your own admission.

No, it's not beside the point. I know of pizzerias that don't even ask you for coupons anymore and give you the discount anyway, while their online delivery prices are the same as the coupon discounted ones. It's not a good example to define the word "next" and it's not enforced in any shape or form unlike the previous example of booking. Or at least it's not a good example to be used against my argument, because I argue for a tightly regulated system, not a pizzeria's marketing move that doesn't have any actual rules. I admit that it can happen due to circumstance. In the same vein I can hold on to my coupon and use it on my tenth purchase. Is next = tenth now? Also how exactly does Dominos have your mail to send you these coupons in the first place.

EggKookoo

2022-01-09, 09:35 AM

One is circumstance and the other is a strict sequence of events. There is absolutely no chance that I can get a discount in my first ever hotel booking on the site I'm using. I can only get it on my next ones (read second and subsequent) once the first payment has been finalized.

Of course, because the condition that provided the discount was the close of the sale of the current booking. "Next" means what it seems to mean.

But if the event that provides the discount isn't dependent on an existing prior transaction -- like clipping a coupon from a magazine (if people still do this) or an event that happens prior to your first turn in combat -- then your "next" event is just the next one that comes along. In the case of the coupon, it's the next time you book a hotel room, even if it's the first time you've ever done it. In the case of D&D, the "next" turn is your next turn that comes along, even if it's your first one in the first round.

I'm curious how you play stuff like this. Combat starts. Your opponent beats your initiative. He runs away from you. Do you get to use your reaction to OA him? Or are you prohibited from doing that since you haven't had a turn yet? No surprise rules here, just a simple combat.

Gtdead

2022-01-09, 09:40 AM

Of course, because the condition that provided the discount was the close of the sale of the current booking. "Next" means what it seems to mean.

But if the event that provides the discount isn't dependent on an existing prior transaction -- like clipping a coupon from a magazine (if people still do this) or an event that happens prior to your first turn in combat -- then your "next" event is just the next one that comes along. In the case of the coupon, it's the next time you book a hotel room, even if it's the first time you've ever done it. In the case of D&D, the "next" turn is your next turn that comes along, even if it's your first one in the first round.

I'm curious how you play stuff like this. Combat starts. Your opponent beats your initiative. He runs away from you. Do you get to use your reaction to OA him? Or are you prohibited from doing that since you haven't had a turn yet? No surprise rules here, just a simple combat.

No, you can use your reaction normally, you just don't get it back during the first round of combat where you have your first turn, maintaining the 1 reaction/round quota. A scenario may happen where you get to use your reaction twice in a single round, but that would mean that you didn't use it during the previous round. On subsequent turns it works as usual.

DarknessEternal

2022-01-09, 10:34 AM

{scrubbed}

Here's one that doesn't make sense to me. Deception, Persuasion, and Intimidation all exist as different skills. They all do the exact same thing mechanically, persuade people with Charisma. This should be one skill.

Their differentiation is narrative, not mechanical. We don't have backhand slash, overhead slash, and forehand slash for swinging a sword.

Keltest

2022-01-09, 10:39 AM

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Here's one that doesn't make sense to me. Deception, Persuasion, and Intimidation all exist as different skills. They all do the exact same thing mechanically, persuade people with Charisma. This should be one skill.

Their differentiation is narrative, not mechanical. We don't have backhand slash, overhead slash, and forehand slash for swinging a sword.

I disagree. Lying, outright persuasion and scaring people are different skills that dont necessarily cross over. A liar wont inherently be any good at scaring people into compliance, and vice versa.

Segev

2022-01-09, 10:55 AM

6 pages in and there's been roughly 3 on-topic posts. Good job internet.

Here's one that doesn't make sense to me. Deception, Persuasion, and Intimidation all exist as different skills. They all do the exact same thing mechanically, persuade people with Charisma. This should be one skill.

Their differentiation is narrative, not mechanical. We don't have backhand slash, overhead slash, and forehand slash for swinging a sword.

I disagree. Lying, outright persuasion and scaring people are different skills that dont necessarily cross over. A liar wont inherently be any good at scaring people into compliance, and vice versa.

I think Deception is in arguably a distinct skill from the other two: its mechanical use is to deceive. To conceal truth or convince of an untruth. It does not directly influence behavior: you can convince the guard that you're a circus performer rather than an adventurer; he still isn't letting you in to the King's bedchamber while the Queen is working with him on an heir.

Deception is useful for getting people to act in certain ways only in that it can make Persuasion or Intimidation checks more persuasive. "The King is about to be assassinated but I can save his life" might involve both deception and persuasion checks.

The more I think about it, though, the more I grow frustrated with the distinction between intimidation and persuasion. On the one hand, there is an obvious difference in ability and use, so having it be possible to do one and not the other makes sense. On the other, you can just change your "stunt" to turn one into the other, so why would you ever need both? And yet, those who want to role play with some variety of approaches will want both. It feels like an RP tax.

EggKookoo

2022-01-09, 11:01 AM

No, you can use your reaction normally, you just don't get it back during the first round of combat where you have your first turn, maintaining the 1 reaction/round quota. A scenario may happen where you get to use your reaction twice in a single round, but that would mean that you didn't use it during the previous round. On subsequent turns it works as usual.

PHB: When you take a reaction, you can't take another one until the start of your next turn.

Rounds/turns are always happening in the abstract, so you (almost) always start combat with a reaction available. This also means the Thief can start combat with a reaction, use his regular turn, use another reaction, use his secondary "first round" turn, and use a third reaction all during the "first round of combat" (which doesn't independently exist but is just another term for the round owned by the creature with the highest initiative result).

Psyren

2022-01-09, 11:04 AM

Here's one that doesn't make sense to me. Deception, Persuasion, and Intimidation all exist as different skills. They all do the exact same thing mechanically, persuade people with Charisma. This should be one skill.

They ARE one skill in 5e, because there are no "skills." What you're actually doing is making a Charisma check, and then convincing your DM that your character's proficiency bonus should apply to it based on their approach. Deception/Intimidation/Persuasion proficiencies are just ways to get that bonus applied more easily; you don't actually need all three of them if you're sufficiently creative and your GM is sufficiently lenient.

EggKookoo

2022-01-09, 11:11 AM

They ARE one skill in 5e, because there are no "skills." What you're actually doing is making a Charisma check, and then convincing your DM that your character's proficiency bonus should apply to it based on their approach. Deception/Intimidation/Persuasion proficiencies are just ways to get that bonus applied more easily; you don't actually need all three of them if you're sufficiently creative and your GM is sufficiently lenient.

Further, some of them work better with different abilities in certain circumstances. You can do Strength (Intimidation) or Intelligence (Persuasion) as long as your DM understands that it's not breaking the rules to swap these things out. They represent different actions. Strength (Intimidation) is showing off your physicality in a way that's different from Charisma (Intimidation). Heck, I'd say a number of derring-do stunts could be Strength (Performance) or Dexterity (Performance).

I do think the books do a lousy job of explaining how to make "skill" checks. There's a whole facet of the game there that could be explored.

Segev

2022-01-09, 11:12 AM

They ARE one skill in 5e, because there are no "skills." What you're actually doing is making a Charisma check, and then convincing your DM that your character's proficiency bonus should apply to it based on their approach. Deception/Intimidation/Persuasion proficiencies are just ways to get that bonus applied more easily; you don't actually need all three of them if you're sufficiently creative and your GM is sufficiently lenient.

Again, I agree on Persuasion vs. Intimidation, but Deception is used for a different end result.

Persuasion doesn't trick people into believing things that aren't true, and Deception doesn't let the deceiver guide the reaction to the new belief.

Deception can hide your tells in a poker game, but it can't convince the cautious player with a low hand to risk it nor an aggressive player with a high hand that your hand is the one that could beat his. Persuasion can't convince the player with the low hand to call when he can tell you're going to win because he read you like a book. Nor will Intimidation (barring extra-game threats) persuade the player with the high hand who read your mediocre hand on your face that he should fold. You'd need both Deception and one of the others to actually guide the other player's behavior.

Any of them alone will fail because the player either knows your feelings on your hand, or is going to act on his own recognissance and may surprise you as to his choice given what you think you've tricked him into believing.

JNAProductions

2022-01-09, 11:19 AM

While we're talking about Charisma skills, I don't get why Performance is a skill. It should be covered under tool proficiencies-instruments or singing or whatever.

Psyren

2022-01-09, 11:21 AM

Again, I agree on Persuasion vs. Intimidation, but Deception is used for a different end result.

Persuasion doesn't trick people into believing things that aren't true, and Deception doesn't let the deceiver guide the reaction to the new belief.

Deception can hide your tells in a poker game, but it can't convince the cautious player with a low hand to risk it nor an aggressive player with a high hand that your hand is the one that could beat his. Persuasion can't convince the player with the low hand to call when he can tell you're going to win because he read you like a book. Nor will Intimidation (barring extra-game threats) persuade the player with the high hand who read your mediocre hand on your face that he should fold. You'd need both Deception and one of the others to actually guide the other player's behavior.

Any of them alone will fail because the player either knows your feelings on your hand, or is going to act on his own recognissance and may surprise you as to his choice given what you think you've tricked him into believing.

I'm not saying Deception proficiency is the same as the other two. I'm saying that that ultimately what you're doing is trying to convince someone of something (whether believing something to be true they might not otherwise, or to follow a course of action they might not otherwise) in such a way that your proficiency bonus should apply. None of 5e's "skills" are actually needed for that unless your DM requires them to be. Unlike prior editions, there are no specific rules tied in to Bluff/Deception vs. Diplomacy/Persusasion etc that can only be invoked by investing in those skills - they're all just ability checks.

So if you want to threaten someone into not questioning a lie, or trick someone into being your friend, you can do these things in 5e much more readily than before, because the separation between these approaches no longer exists.

Keltest

2022-01-09, 11:44 AM

While we're talking about Charisma skills, I don't get why Performance is a skill. It should be covered under tool proficiencies-instruments or singing or whatever.

I assume its a legacy from 3.5 where it actually was relevant for bards in as much as it was basically a skill tax to use their class features :smallyuk:

RSP

2022-01-09, 11:54 AM

No, you can use your reaction normally, you just don't get it back during the first round of combat where you have your first turn, maintaining the 1 reaction/round quota. A scenario may happen where you get to use your reaction twice in a single round, but that would mean that you didn't use it during the previous round. On subsequent turns it works as usual.

Let me start by saying I don’t believe this to be RAW or RAI.

However, it’s an interesting thought to consider the in-game timeframe of all Turns in a Round occurring at the same time. In this sense, “next” can represent the Turn that occurs outside of the current Round.

Khrysaes

2022-01-09, 12:13 PM

None of 5e's "skills" are actually needed for that unless your DM requires them to be. Unlike prior editions, there are no specific rules tied in to Bluff/Deception vs. Diplomacy/Persusasion etc that can only be invoked by investing in those skills - they're all just ability checks.

I would argue that some are specifically needed. Some features or abilities specifically call them out. A kenku’s mimicry comes to mind, as it specifies charisma(deception) against wisdom(insight). Same with i think a changeling’s disguise. But for more freeform checks not specified ii will agree that the ability and proficiency needed are up to the dm. Unfortunately, most dm’s default to the given ability score rather than allowing alternative ability scores.

Khrysaes

2022-01-09, 12:13 PM

6 pages in and there's been roughly 3 on-topic posts. Good job internet.

I gave up.

Contrast

2022-01-09, 12:23 PM

While we're talking about Charisma skills, I don't get why Performance is a skill. It should be covered under tool proficiencies-instruments or singing or whatever.

In fairness there is a difference between the acts of how competently you can play an instrument and how competently you can entertain a crowd.

Being able to play an instrument well is not the same thing as being able to feel the mood of the crowd and know what to play next and handle the hecklers and so on. Of course a good bard will be good at both. It would probably make more sense most of the time to test the tool proficiency and then depending on the outcome of that test for it to give you advantage (or nothing or disadvantage) on the Performance test.

Of course this is arguably more in depth than 5E likes to get with its skill systems so I get being grumpy about it but I don't think its fair to say it doesn't make sense.

EggKookoo

2022-01-09, 12:24 PM

I gave up.

To be fair, a topic like this is almost guaranteed to cause spinoff debates.

Psyren

2022-01-09, 12:38 PM

I would argue that some are specifically needed. Some features or abilities specifically call them out. A kenku’s mimicry comes to mind, as it specifies charisma(deception) against wisdom(insight). Same with i think a changeling’s disguise. But for more freeform checks not specified ii will agree that the ability and proficiency needed are up to the dm. Unfortunately, most dm’s default to the given ability score rather than allowing alternative ability scores.

Even for things like Kenku mimicry, without Deception you're just making a Charisma check. But depending on the situation and what you're attempting to do, the DM might allow you to use your proficiency bonus anyway, despite it not coming from Deception.

I'm okay with defaulting to the listed ability scores for most things, but if the player is creative then I agree, alternative ability scores should be allowed. Strength (Intimidate) being a prime example.

Tanarii

2022-01-09, 03:11 PM

While we're talking about Charisma skills, I don't get why Performance is a skill. It should be covered under tool proficiencies-instruments or singing or whatever.
Amen to that. It's also the most useless skill. Even medicine has more applicability.

False God

2022-01-09, 11:55 PM

Amen to that. It's also the most useless skill. Even medicine has more applicability.

Because it's a highly subjective skill on when to apply. Telling the King 1001 stories to keep him from chopping your head off would certainly be something that I'd apply a Performance - Storytelling check to, but another DM might just call this some form of generic Charisma check.

At best it's only ever going to fill a niche, and that niche is only ever going to appear at DM discretion.

Now, to contrast, if a DM is running a highly niche-specific, skill-heavy game, having Performance could be highly valuable. You never know when knowing how to sing or write a poem or paint under pressure will come in handy in resolving a situation.

Of course being both too specific and too general with skills has long been a fault of D&D.

DarknessEternal

2022-01-10, 12:42 AM

Psyren

2022-01-10, 09:11 AM

Unless you want to play the game as printed with the dozens of places requiring specific version of that skill.

"This specific proficiency is called out in the check" != "That is the only possible way to get your proficiency bonus applied to that check, ever"

Darth Credence

2022-01-10, 10:22 AM

I really didn't want to get into PvP but please understand that you gave a dueling scenario. I already said that counterspell doesn't work in dueling and I wouldn't blindly counterspell as the initiative losing Wizard in your scenario, even without knowing your tactic first hand.

Scenarios:

Scenario 1:

T1: Wizard #1, casts spell, Wizard #2 counterspells, Wizard #1 counter counterspells, spell goes through. Wizard #2 suffers the effect.
T2: Wizard #2 casts if allowed by the effect or still alive, spell goes through.

Wizard #2 is forced to suffer the disadvantage of lost initiative.

Scenario 2:

T1: Wizard #1 casts spell, Wizard #2 doesn't react, suffers the effect
T2: Wizard #2 casts if allowed by the effect or still alive, Wizard #1 counterspells, Wizard #2 counter counterspells, spell goes through.

Again, same exact result. There is absolutely no reason to counterspell in the scenario you are proposing. In fact your scenario accentuates a reason to never counterspell first if you lose initiative, because if you do, you can't cast your spell on your turn. You will never find a scenario where losing initiative and counterspelling first of your turn is a smart thing to do unless your enemy doesn't have access to the spell or there is subtle metamagic involved in some asymmetric capacity.

You are arguing for Blade of Disaster over any other level 9 spell as a base tactic. It won't change anything. I won't counterspell in your turn even if I lose initiative because it won't save me anyway. If I counterspell against your tactic I have lost, because now I will either have to mimic your tactic and probably lose due to going second even if I break your concentration (you will break mine in your turn), or you will counterspell my spell since I don't have any reactions left. I will hold on to my counterspell, hope that I will survive your turn through a combination of luck, feats and class features, and then cast Shapechange into a Legendary Resistance form while countering your counterspell, which is the only way to gain an advantage in this scenario.

Now that we are past that, and coming back to the usual 3-5 man party PvE, which is the only discussion that matters in a vacuum, Meteor Swarm destroys Blade of Disaster in damage done, Upcasted ranged Tasha's Summons offer similar damage with the added benefit of being ranged and not getting 100% countered by a PC with ANY mobility boosting ability. The enemy Wizard can cast these spells without problems because he can just counterspell your counterspell (unless of course there are numerous counterspellers in the party, which is always a good strategy). Casting BoD is either an RP choice or a "going easy on the party" one. In your scenario, casting BoD while getting counterspelled on Firebolt allows him to cast Shield when focused by the party martials, but he literally traded 420-700 damage depending on party size for 50-60 dpr.

Absolutely doesn't have to be dueling. Others can be fighting in the same area. BoD is a spell that does high damage as a bonus action for multiple turns. Meteor swarm does high damage once, and could be completely countered by counterspell. Getting a use out of a bonus action is not necessarily easy for a wizard, and I know players who will absolutely attempt to ensure they get one, and would therefore do something like this. Mobility matters in some places where fights can occur, and not at all in others - if this is all happening inside, and it isn't possible to flee the entire area, swarm of meteors may be a really bad idea, and BoD may be able to stay in reach of anyone just because there is nowhere to go. BoD can also eliminate one enemy, and then move right on to another one. Your 420-700 damage statement doesn't make much sense here - you have left out one or two member parties. There are plenty of games that have one or two players only, which couldn't take nearly that much damage.
Then you have your statement that you never cast counterspell your first turn if you lose initiative. If you have 99 hp, and you know the enemy is casting power word kill, you would just say, well, I should never counterspell on my first turn, so I guess I'll just die? Fairly certain I'd burn a level 9 slot on counterspell at that point and survive, trading a 9th for a 9th. So, that's a pretty obvious point where one would change whether or not to use counterspell based on knowing the spell. You made an absolute statement, several times, that it never matters. It's OK, you can admit you were wrong about that.

Amechra

2022-01-13, 09:27 PM

To go back to the topic of the thread for a bit...

Did you know that, by RAW, Small characters use up the same amount of food, water, and air as a Medium characters?

Keltest

2022-01-13, 09:31 PM

To go back to the topic of the thread for a bit...

Did you know that, by RAW, Small characters use up the same amount of food, water, and air as a Medium characters?

I mean, that sort of checks out. You need the same input to get the same output. You could argue they'd be more or less efficient, but they're fantasy creatures, so that's not automatic.

RSP

2022-01-13, 09:34 PM

To go back to the topic of the thread for a bit...

Did you know that, by RAW, Small characters use up the same amount of food, water, and air as a Medium characters?

Is there actually anything that states how much air a creature of a certain size needs?

JackPhoenix

2022-01-13, 09:49 PM

Elephants are pretty good at jumping and climbing, with their high Str. Much better than, say, cats.

Amechra

2022-01-13, 09:55 PM

Tanarii

2022-01-13, 11:42 PM

Given that halflings and gnomes have the same Strength as medium player races, I'd think they need all that relatively extra food and water. :smallamused:

Psyren

2022-01-14, 01:05 AM

...
It's good to know that your familiar takes up as much air as the Paladin's warhorse, for whenever that comes up.

Sounds like a good reason to dismiss it if air is an issue :smalltongue:

LudicSavant

2022-01-14, 01:14 AM

Amechra

2022-01-14, 02:43 AM

Here's a mechanic that doesn't make sense:

Movement speeds. Like, in general. Seriously, try converting the move speeds for things into MPH. People in 5e just can't run.

Of course, this is because previous editions had a "run" action that would quadruple movement speed, and 5e just took that out without replacing it with anything. So... yeah. People in 5e just can't run. Horses can't gallop. And so forth.

5e also simultaneously overestimates (if you do the math, someone with Str 10 has to be an experienced weightlifter, given how much they can lift) and underestimates (the world record for deadlifting would require a Strength of 37) how much a healthy adult human can lift.

Khrysaes

2022-01-14, 02:55 AM

Elephants are pretty good at jumping and climbing, with their high Str. Much better than, say, cats.

Heh.. this one doesn't make sense.. you are right.

qube

2022-01-14, 03:30 AM

Here's a mechanic that doesn't make sense:

Movement speeds. Like, in general. Seriously, try converting the move speeds for things into MPH. People in 5e just can't run.30 ft / 6 seconds = 5 ft / s = 5.5 km/h or 3.4 mph

google'd "walking speed":
"3 to 4 miles per hour"

using your action to increase your speed as well (instead of walking - running), gets you 60 ft / 6 seconds = 10 ft/s = 11 km/h or 7 mph

google'd "running speed" :
What is a good running speed?
The optimal speed is between 5 and 7 mph,

Do note

Speed
Your speed determines how far you can move when
traveling (chapter 8) and fighting (chapter 9).
~~ 17

Between
the amount of gear you're wearing
the quality of the gear (12th century leather boots =/= nike running shoos)
the situation (it's not a running track where you can just casually focus on running alone)
lack of specialisation (lower armored flanking skirmishers - lets cal them bonus-action-dash rogues - are still faster)

I honestly don't see much problems with that.

I see it more of a "there are no rules for sprinting contests" thing then "the rules for sprinting contests make no sense"

5e also simultaneously overestimates (if you do the math, someone with Str 10 has to be an experienced weightlifter, given how much they can lift) and underestimates (the world record for deadlifting would require a Strength of 37) how much a healthy adult human can lift.Arguably, a world record holder would have something akin to a feat or something -- an ability that denotes their training. Deadlifting (just like most sports) isn't just raw ability score.

But I do agree with 150 lb (~70kg) carrying capacity being a lot for a STR 10 character.

Keravath

2022-01-14, 10:39 AM

...

Ugh. This is embarrassing.

There actually are rules adjusting how much food or water a creature needs based off size — it's just under the Foraging rules on p. 111 of the DMG, not the Food & Water rules on p. 186 of the PHB. Which kinda makes sense, since Small and Medium creatures have the same requirements... but that feels sloppy, especially if a player wants to know how much food a horse needs (or whatever).

The rules for suffocation, though, appear to be universal. It's good to know that your familiar takes up as much air as the Paladin's warhorse, for whenever that comes up.

EDIT: I haven't found anything that explicitly says how much air a creature of a given size needs... it's just that the rules for the Bag of Holding, Heward's Handy Haversack, and Portable Hole all say that a "breathing" creature has 10 minutes of breathable air if you close it on them. So that means that a creature consumes something like 8, 64, or ~283 cubic feet of air in 10 minutes, regardless of size.

I think both of these fall under the 5e simplicity principle. 5e isn't a simulation, its a roleplaying game so 99.9% of the time it doesn't matter if one creature typically needs 1800 calories/day while another needs 2400 calories/day. It also doesn't really matter if the small creature might take 50% longer to start suffocating.

In addition, these are fantasy races, there is no indication of relative metabolism so there could be NO correlation between size and food/water consumption, at least for playable races. For animals, the DM just needs to come up with a number that works for their game.

So, I wouldn't say these rules don't make sense in 5e - they are fine, they make sense to the extent that creatures without food and water starve or creatures without air suffocate. Anything beyond that is pretty much needless detail for 5e unless a DM really wants to come up with some house rules that will be rarely used.

5eNeedsDarksun

2022-01-14, 12:07 PM

Keltest

2022-01-14, 12:08 PM

Naanomi

2022-01-14, 12:19 PM

In addition, these are fantasy races, there is no indication of relative metabolism so there could be NO correlation between size and food/water consumption, at least for playable races.
Beyond that it is fantasy physics... Eating is about acquiring Positive Energy and trace Elemental Matter, what is this 'metabolism' you are talking about?

5eNeedsDarksun

2022-01-14, 12:23 PM

If the noble is surprised, he doesnt get to stuff any chicken in his mouth at all. He doesnt get to do anything that turn due to being surprised. Doesnt matter that he won initiative overall, that first round, he doesnt do anything, period.

So he just sits there frozen for 6 seconds, yet the assassin still doesn't get the benefit? That makes even less sense.

Segev

2022-01-14, 12:48 PM

So he just sits there frozen for 6 seconds, yet the assassin still doesn't get the benefit? That makes even less sense.

The noble notices the strike incoming, but cannot react beyond whatever moves he makes that render the assassin unable to auto-crit. The noble is surprised on his turn, but he is SURPRISED, which means he noticed something to surprise him.

His turn is spent trying to assess and ready. Becoming unsurprised.

If the assassin had stricken before the noble could react, then that would have meant the assassin had won initiative.

LudicSavant

2022-01-14, 12:53 PM

google'd "running speed" :
What is a good running speed?
The optimal speed is between 5 and 7 mph,

The "optimal speed"? I don't know what you believe your unspecified google result was referring to, but 5 to 7 mph is a modest jogging speed (https://www.google.com/search?q=human+jogging+speed&sxsrf=AOaemvLp1MSFzbWC8BGoCyBuhIkEvdMZNQ%3A1642183 216686&source=hp&ei=MLrhYeKpJPHOkPIP1N6X-Ac&iflsig=ALs-wAMAAAAAYeHIQGGDvVZky3zPnDvoxQPoz0rfB2MC&ved=0ahUKEwjigaCa6bH1AhVxJ0QIHVTvBX8Q4dUDCAg&uact=5&oq=human+jogging+speed&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBAgjECcyBQgAEIAEMgYIABAWEB4 yBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB4yBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQF hAeMgYIABAWEB4yBggAEBYQHjoECAAQQzoECC4QQzoHCC4QsQM QQzoKCAAQgAQQhwIQFDoFCC4QgAQ6CwguEIAEELEDEIMBOggIA BAWEAoQHjoFCAAQhgNQAFigD2D_D2gAcAB4AIABxQGIAdUUkgE EMC4xOJgBAKABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz), not an athletic person's running or sprinting speed (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=human+sprinting+speed).

An athletic human often runs about 15+ miles per hour (~132 ft per round). Elite athletes run more like 24 (~211 ft per round). Usain Bolt's top speed is 27-ish (~238 ft per round).

That 5e guy in a life or death situation who absolutely has to get from point A to point B as fast as possible Dashes 60 feet in 6 seconds, or about 6.8 miles per hour. A 5e horse maxes out at about 13.6 mph, while real galloping horses can clock over 50 mph.

In past editions, the base walk speed was 30, jog speed was 60, run speed was 120 (or more). 5e just didn't include a run speed at all, and changed nothing about the other numbers to reflect that, so now a light jog is many a Remarkable Athlete Champion's maximum speed.

Psyren

2022-01-14, 01:15 PM

I know it's been touched on in this thread before, but Surprise.
Imagine a noble sitting down to eat a fine meal, his only action being to stuff roast into his mouth. An assassin approaches from behind and silently readies his weapon and succeeds in all other mechanics (rolls) of gaining surprise... until initiative. The noble 'wins' initiative and manages to stuff another mouthful of roast in before the assassin strikes. And because of that the assassin doesn't get the benefit of surprise??!!!

If anyone can explain the logic of that sequence I look forward to it. (We don't do this at our table BTW)

I agree with this. I understand that they were trying to do away with the added bookkeeping of surprise rounds, but the "surprised" condition should really last until the end of that first round/start of your next turn, not vanish right after that first turn is over.

In other words, people who successfully get the drop on someone and have features that rely on the surprised condition, shouldn't also have to win initiative to be able to use those features. They put in the work of catching those enemies off-guard to begin with, getting screwed out of a single-round advantage they worked for purely by the dice just feels bad.

Segev

2022-01-14, 01:38 PM

I agree with this. I understand that they were trying to do away with the added bookkeeping of surprise rounds, but the "surprised" condition should really last until the end of that first round/start of your next turn, not vanish right after that first turn is over.

In other words, people who successfully get the drop on someone and have features that rely on the surprised condition, shouldn't also have to win initiative to be able to use those features. They put in the work of catching those enemies off-guard to begin with, getting screwed out of a single-round advantage they worked for purely by the dice just feels bad.

This, I agree with.

5eNeedsDarksun

2022-01-14, 01:39 PM

The noble notices the strike incoming, but cannot react beyond whatever moves he makes that render the assassin unable to auto-crit. The noble is surprised on his turn, but he is SURPRISED, which means he noticed something to surprise him.

His turn is spent trying to assess and ready. Becoming unsurprised.

If the assassin had stricken before the noble could react, then that would have meant the assassin had won initiative.

So by way of acting first that effectively overturns all Stealth, Perception, and/ or any other checks that were made leading up to the round. Initiative (which is often a coin flip and has little or nothing to do with the skills of the combatants) ends up being the deciding factor in surprise. Doesn't make sense to me (and our table, which is why we houserule around it) which is the title of the thread. If it makes sense to some of you then so be it.

Tanarii

2022-01-14, 01:42 PM

For sprinting in a straight line with no gear and with no other actions possible, the DM can ad-hoc a Strength (Athletics) check.

For lifting more than their Lift capacity, with no gear and a weight designed for lifting (or not designed if you're emulating a Strongman competion), the DM can ad-hoc a Strength check, possibly with an Athletics bonus if they feel it's appropriate.

The variant encumbrance rules do somewhat address the absurdly high carrying capacity before there is a negative impact.

Keltest

2022-01-14, 01:49 PM

Psyren

2022-01-14, 01:52 PM

Initiative doesnt affect surprise at all. Surprise is determined before initiative is even rolled.

Initiative determines when the surprised condition ends. Which means you can put in the work to surprise someone and get no reduced (sometimes drastically) benefit thanks to a random roll.

Segev

2022-01-14, 02:20 PM

So by way of acting first that effectively overturns all Stealth, Perception, and/ or any other checks that were made leading up to the round. Initiative (which is often a coin flip and has little or nothing to do with the skills of the combatants) ends up being the deciding factor in surprise. Doesn't make sense to me (and our table, which is why we houserule around it) which is the title of the thread. If it makes sense to some of you then so be it.

Initiative determines when the surprised condition ends. Which means you can put in the work to surprise someone and get no reduced (sometimes drastically) benefit thanks to a random roll.

I think of it this way, personally: Losing on the stealth/perception competition means you don't notice them lining up the shot, or drawing their weapon, or what-have-you, until it's almost too late. Winning initiative means you can react as they're doing it, just as you notice. Sort-of; you're Surprised, so you can't actually do anything but notice it, and you're still granting them advantage. You're just able to START moving, which might ruin the perfect headshot the assassin lined up.

JNAProductions

2022-01-14, 02:23 PM

The "optimal speed"? I don't know what you believe your unspecified google result was referring to, but 5 to 7 mph is a modest jogging speed (https://www.google.com/search?q=human+jogging+speed&sxsrf=AOaemvLp1MSFzbWC8BGoCyBuhIkEvdMZNQ%3A1642183 216686&source=hp&ei=MLrhYeKpJPHOkPIP1N6X-Ac&iflsig=ALs-wAMAAAAAYeHIQGGDvVZky3zPnDvoxQPoz0rfB2MC&ved=0ahUKEwjigaCa6bH1AhVxJ0QIHVTvBX8Q4dUDCAg&uact=5&oq=human+jogging+speed&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBAgjECcyBQgAEIAEMgYIABAWEB4 yBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB4yBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQF hAeMgYIABAWEB4yBggAEBYQHjoECAAQQzoECC4QQzoHCC4QsQM QQzoKCAAQgAQQhwIQFDoFCC4QgAQ6CwguEIAEELEDEIMBOggIA BAWEAoQHjoFCAAQhgNQAFigD2D_D2gAcAB4AIABxQGIAdUUkgE EMC4xOJgBAKABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz), not an athletic person's running or sprinting speed (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=human+sprinting+speed).

An athletic human often runs about 15+ miles per hour (~132 ft per round). Elite athletes run more like 24 (~211 ft per round). Usain Bolt's top speed is 27-ish (~238 ft per round).

That 5e guy in a life or death situation who absolutely has to get from point A to point B as fast as possible Dashes 60 feet in 6 seconds, or about 6.8 miles per hour. A 5e horse maxes out at about 13.6 mph, while real galloping horses can clock over 50 mph.

In past editions, the base walk speed was 30, jog speed was 60, run speed was 120 (or more). 5e just didn't include a run speed at all, and changed nothing about the other numbers to reflect that, so now a light jog is many a Remarkable Athlete Champion's maximum speed.

As was said earlier, this is combat speed. And, hell, you can get to 300' without even touching magic. Tabaxi has 30' base, +10' for Mobile, +10' for Scout gives you 50' base. Double that with Feline Agility to 100', Dash twice (you are a Rogue) and you're faster than Usain Bolt. But, unlike Usain Bolt, you're not running in a straight line on a track made for running in shoes made for running. You're weaving, ducking, and bobbing to dodge arrows being shot at you, turning corners, vaulting over low objects...

For those who played 3.5 more than I have, how often did the Run action come up? Because I don't recall seeing it ever used in any game I've played. So not including it doesn't seem like a huge loss.

Psyren

2022-01-14, 02:25 PM

I think of it this way, personally: Losing on the stealth/perception competition means you don't notice them lining up the shot, or drawing their weapon, or what-have-you, until it's almost too late. Winning initiative means you can react as they're doing it, just as you notice. Sort-of; you're Surprised, so you can't actually do anything but notice it, and you're still granting them advantage. You're just able to START moving, which might ruin the perfect headshot the assassin lined up.

Yeah but - do you see how it might be frustrating to put in effort (at some tables, a great deal of effort) to pull off your build's signature technique, only to get utterly screwed out of it by a single die roll?

Personally I think an easy fix here is to buff the Assassin directly - let them be able to treat a surprised target as still being surprised for the duration of that first round. That way you don't mess with the surprise rules for anyone else.

PhantomSoul

2022-01-14, 02:26 PM

I think of it this way, personally: Losing on the stealth/perception competition means you don't notice them lining up the shot, or drawing their weapon, or what-have-you, until it's almost too late. Winning initiative means you can react as they're doing it, just as you notice. Sort-of; you're Surprised, so you can't actually do anything but notice it, and you're still granting them advantage. You're just able to START moving, which might ruin the perfect headshot the assassin lined up.

Yeah, I have to say I've come to even appreciate it overall; (I suspect/feel) it makes it easier for the DM to go with the players and be more generous with Surprise even with characters who make massive use of Surprise for boosts (plus makes it slightly less bad if the enemies get it). Losing a turn is already big!

Segev

2022-01-14, 02:28 PM

Psyren

2022-01-14, 02:35 PM

Oh, no, I absolutely understand the frustration. I just have a mental model I can use to make what is probably not the best way to handle it at least make sense.

Assassins should get their bonus if their target was surprised at all. Might be tricky to word it right without reworking surprise itself; maybe, "You automatically score a critical hit on the first round of combat if your target started the combat Surprised."

I like "treat as surprised even after their first turn is over*" as it accomplishes the same objective, while also future-buffing the design - other features that might care about surprise later will make an assassin multiclass attractive, and that's elegant in-universe too (assassin training should involve being better at getting/exploiting the drop on people than other rogues.)

(*But before the next round)

PhoenixPhyre

2022-01-14, 03:03 PM

Yeah but - do you see how it might be frustrating to put in effort (at some tables, a great deal of effort) to pull off your build's signature technique, only to get utterly screwed out of it by a single die roll?

Personally I think an easy fix here is to buff the Assassin directly - let them be able to treat a surprised target as still being surprised for the duration of that first round. That way you don't mess with the surprise rules for anyone else.

My personal view on the Assassinate feature is that the core isn't the critical hit. It's the "advantage against anyone lower than you" part. Which guarantees sneak attack, whereas if you go first normally (ie with a Thief rogue), you'd be reliant on some other way of getting advantage, since your allies aren't in range yet.

Basically, Assassinate is, like the Swashbuckler level 3 feature, more about reliably getting Sneak Attack (in this case on round 1, because after that it's pretty easy) and less about the OMGWTFBBQ damage. The free crit is a nice tasty bonus when it fires, but the feature isn't trash when it doesn't.

And of the PHB rogues (against which it should really be compared, due to power creep), it's the only one that gets a real combat power boost at level 3. Thieves get Fast Hands and Second-Story Work, Arcane Tricksters get cantrips and spells (which until the bladetrips weren't all that much of a power boost, especially focusing on illusion and enchantment).

Of course, if you always have something like a free place to hide + ranged attacks or (now) the Careful (?) Aim from Tasha's, it loses a lot of punch. But the first is rarer for melee rogues and the second does have other costs (like also being tough for melee rogues). So it's not as much "doesn't make sense" as it is "superseded by play style and power creep". At least for me.

Darth Credence

2022-01-14, 03:18 PM

LudicSavant

2022-01-14, 03:20 PM

But, unlike Usain Bolt, you're not running in a straight line on a track made for running in shoes made for running. You're weaving, ducking, and bobbing to dodge arrows being shot at you, turning corners, vaulting over low objects...

This is just not a good rationalization for the kinds of speeds we're talking about, because we're not just talking about just falling short of Usain Bolt's 27 miles an hour on a track made for running.

We're talking about falling well short of what an unathletic person like me can do without trying.

RSP

2022-01-14, 03:25 PM

I think I must be understanding surprise wrong, although it seemed pretty clear to me from the books. Reading in the combat chapter of the basic rules, it says that you are surprised at the start of the encounter if you don't notice the enemy…It does not say that you are no longer surprised that round. So if there was an assassin in my game, they would still get the auto crit on any hit on someone surprised in the first round. I'm not sure if that would be considered RAW or not, but it's how I would rule it.

Interestingly, the RAW never says that surprise ends…

“Any character or monster that doesn’t notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter.

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”

As Darth points out, nothing says being surprised ends with a creature’s turn, it just says the surprised creatures lose their Actions and movement on their first turn.

If this reading is right, Assassins, RAW, can auto crit throughout combat on any creature that started combat surprised.

Assassinate
“You have advantage on attack rolls against any creature that hasn't taken a turn in the combat yet. In addition, any hit you score against a creature that is surprised is a critical hit.”

JNAProductions

2022-01-14, 03:26 PM

But we're not just talking about just falling short of Usain Bolt's 27 miles an hour. We're talking about falling well short of what an unathletic person like me can do without trying.

Average sprinting speed for an athlete (seems reasonable for an adventurer) is 15 MPH, according to google. That's 132 feet per round, or a little more than twice what your typical, 30' move speed adventurer can do... In the middle of combat. With full turning capability. Over terrain not designed for running-not difficult terrain, full on, but not a track.

As Qube said...

I see it more of a "there are no rules for sprinting contests" thing then "the rules for sprinting contests make no sense"

If you import 3.5's Running rules, for 4X speed, you get 120' per round. Slightly less than a typical athlete, but close enough for me, at the very least.

LudicSavant

2022-01-14, 03:31 PM

Average sprinting speed for an athlete (seems reasonable for an adventurer) is 15 MPH, according to google. That's 132 feet per round

If you import 3.5's Running rules, for 4X speed, you get 120' per round. Slightly less than a typical athlete, but close enough for me, at the very least.

That's what I said.

An athletic human often runs about 15+ miles per hour (~132 ft per round).

In past editions, the base walk speed was 30, jog speed was 60, run speed was 120 (or more). 5e just didn't include a run speed at all, and changed nothing about the other numbers to reflect that, so now a light jog is many a Remarkable Athlete Champion's maximum speed.

JNAProductions

2022-01-14, 03:33 PM

Right, but you seem to be framing it as "It's not included, therefore the physics of the world don't allow for anyone to achieve greater than 10' a second without major investment," and not as "They didn't include rules for sprinting all out, because it wouldn't come up often, but you can easily allow someone to run faster as a DM."

Hyperbole, a bit, but still. Apologies if I'm reading your tone wrong.

Psyren

2022-01-14, 03:49 PM

I think I must be understanding surprise wrong, although it seemed pretty clear to me from the books. Reading in the combat chapter of the basic rules, it says that you are surprised at the start of the encounter if you don't notice the enemy. Then it says you can't use an action or move on your first turn, and you can't use a reaction until that turn ends (I read the reaction part as you can take a reaction after your initiative spot has happened). It does not say that you are no longer surprised that round. So if there was an assassin in my game, they would still get the auto crit on any hit on someone surprised in the first round. I'm not sure if that would be considered RAW or not, but it's how I would rule it.
The other part, advantage on any attack against someone who hasn't taken a turn yet, isn't tied to surprise, it is purely a function of the assassin winning initiative. That seems reasonable to me, and a reason to increase dexterity and look for opportunities to get advantage on initiative. It seems like that was an intentional design choice - you can do things with the character to increase the chance of winning initiative, or you can do other things and accept that you won't always get that initial advantage.

Interestingly, the RAW never says that surprise ends…

“Any character or monster that doesn’t notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter.

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”

As Darth points out, nothing says being surprised ends with a creature’s turn, it just says the surprised creatures lose their Actions and movement on their first turn.

If this reading is right, Assassins, RAW, can auto crit throughout combat on any creature that started combat surprised.

Assassinate
“You have advantage on attack rolls against any creature that hasn't taken a turn in the combat yet. In addition, any hit you score against a creature that is surprised is a critical hit.”

Per Sage Advice:

"For triggering the rogue’s Assassinate ability, when does a creature stop being surprised? After their turn in the round, or at the end of the round?

A surprised creature stops being surprised at the end of its first turn in combat."

So initiative > assassinate.

EDIT:

I think of it this way, personally: Losing on the stealth/perception competition means you don't notice them lining up the shot, or drawing their weapon, or what-have-you, until it's almost too late. Winning initiative means you can react as they're doing it, just as you notice. Sort-of; you're Surprised, so you can't actually do anything but notice it, and you're still granting them advantage. You're just able to START moving, which might ruin the perfect headshot the assassin lined up.

For the record I don't have an issue with your reasoning, but I think you put more thought into it than the designers did. I'm willing to bet that most assassins in their playtesting simply won initiative vs the thing they were trying to alpha-strike anyway due to being so dextrous, so the unintuitive interaction never actually came up.

LudicSavant

2022-01-14, 04:02 PM

5e also simultaneously overestimates (if you do the math, someone with Str 10 has to be an experienced weightlifter, given how much they can lift) and underestimates (the world record for deadlifting would require a Strength of 37) how much a healthy adult human can lift.

Yeah, the push/drag/lift rules are weird. And make big high fantasy Strong Things pretty underwhelming in terms of the sort of stuff they can actually move.

And it's not like this weirdness was for the sake of simplicity either, because there are much simpler ways it could have been done, and it's already fiddly enough that many people cringe at the thought of actually taking note of encumbrance.

Right, but you seem to be framing it as "It's not included, therefore the physics of the world don't allow for anyone to achieve greater than 10' a second without major investment," and not as "They didn't include rules for sprinting all out, because it wouldn't come up often, but you can easily allow someone to run faster as a DM."

Hyperbole, a bit, but still. Apologies if I'm reading your tone wrong.

It's not that they didn't include rules for sprinting contests on a track designed for running. It's that they didn't include rules for sprinting, just like, generally.

Sprinting is an activity that adventurers (and people around adventurers) do from time to time, be it in movies, books, or videogames. Whether they're a melee character trying to charge a kiting archer, get out of that collapsing dungeon after grabbing the load-bearing macguffin, or panicked villagers fleeing the dragon that just landed in the village square.

I can recount more than a few times I've seen people blowing Action Surges and the like just for movement (or wishing they could). It doesn't need to come up every round or even every session for it to matter.

Naanomi

2022-01-14, 04:22 PM

Strongmen competition winners are clearly Goliath Bear-Totem barbarians in disguise, maybe juicing and Magic Tomes

LudicSavant

2022-01-14, 04:26 PM

Strongmen competition winners are clearly Goliath Bear-Totem barbarians in disguise, maybe juicing and Magic Tomes

IMHO, if a Goliath Bear Totem Barbarian juicing with Magic Tomes is just even in the ballpark of competing with real people, then I think that falls into the category of mechanics that don't make sense. D&D's genre is high, epic fantasy. A world where people with pointy sticks are able to clash with Gargantuan monsters with skin like supple steel and blazing breath that hurts more than being fully immersed in lava.

IMHO, A super strong race from a super strong class juiced with strong magic shouldn't be in the ballpark of competing with a guy at the gym... even if it is the biggest guy, at the best gym.

Kane0

2022-01-14, 04:37 PM

I just change the assassin to deal d8 sneak attacks instead if d6s, and cull the surprise/initiative stuff.

Evaar

2022-01-14, 04:40 PM

IMHO, if a Goliath Bear Totem Barbarian juicing with Magic Tomes is just even in the ballpark of competing with real people, then I think that falls into the category of mechanics that don't make sense. D&D's genre is high, epic fantasy. A world where people with pointy sticks are able to clash with Gargantuan monsters with skin like supple steel and blazing breath that hurts more than being fully immersed in lava.

IMHO, A super strong race from a super strong class juiced with strong magic shouldn't be in the ballpark of competing with a guy at the gym... even if it is the biggest guy, at the best gym.

Yeah, I'm reminded of an R.A. Salvatore book I read back in high school which, at the climax, had the characters inside a collapsing mountain. The party's centaur friend is able to hold the weight of the entire mountain enabling them to escape (and of course killing him).

I think this wasn't technically a D&D series, but it's the same genre. Martial characters should be capable of epic achievements like that if it's how they've invested their build.

Similarly, not a math guy, but if you take a human Fighter, give him the Mobile feat, and cast Haste on him, he still can't quite match Usain Bolt. And the Fighter is literally using magic to go as fast as possible, spending 2 actions on Dash. That seems.. wrong.

Amechra

2022-01-14, 04:42 PM

It's not that they didn't include rules for sprinting contests on a track designed for running. It's that they didn't include rules for sprinting, just like, generally.

In (feeble) defense of 5e, I have seen considerably worse. I think my favorite is how Chronicles of Darkness has rules that modify how quickly you can swim... but doesn't have rules for how fast someone can swim normally. More famously, one of the Shadowrun editions has rules for treading water, but no rules for breaking a fall... in a game about urban heisting, where "you take a tumble out of the window of a skyscraper" is an in-genre risk.

Segev

2022-01-14, 06:08 PM

I'm willing to bet that most assassins in their playtesting simply won initiative vs the thing they were trying to alpha-strike anyway due to being so dextrous, so the unintuitive interaction never actually came up.Possibly! I stand by Gloomstalker 3 being an exquisite dip for assassin, and assassin 3 being an excellent dip for gloomstalker. (Gloomstalker adds Wisdom mod to initiative, and gives +1 attack with an extra d8 damage on the first round of combat. Synergy with the assassin's first-round features are just amazing.)

It's not that they didn't include rules for sprinting contests on a track designed for running. It's that they didn't include rules for sprinting, just like, generally.

Sprinting is an activity that adventurers (and people around adventurers) do from time to time, be it in movies, books, or videogames. Whether they're a melee character trying to charge a kiting archer, get out of that collapsing dungeon after grabbing the load-bearing macguffin, or panicked villagers fleeing the dragon that just landed in the village square.

I can recount more than a few times I've seen people blowing Action Surges and the like just for movement (or wishing they could). It doesn't need to come up every round or even every session for it to matter.
I definitely see where you're coming from, and am a fan of having better codification. I view this as less of an issue than the poor handling of skill DCs - i.e., their entire lack of guidance on how to determine whether a given activity is easy or hard - but I think the solution here might be this sort of thing. A Strength(Athletics) or Dexterity(Athletics) check for somebody spending their full round sprinting all out to add some extra distance, maybe equal to the result, when you dash in a straight line, perhaps.

5eNeedsDarksun

2022-01-14, 08:25 PM

Per Sage Advice:

"For triggering the rogueÂ’s Assassinate ability, when does a creature stop being surprised? After their turn in the round, or at the end of the round?

A surprised creature stops being surprised at the end of its first turn in combat."

So initiative > assassinate.

EDIT:

For the record I don't have an issue with your reasoning, but I think you put more thought into it than the designers did. I'm willing to bet that most assassins in their playtesting simply won initiative vs the thing they were trying to alpha-strike anyway due to being so dextrous, so the unintuitive interaction never actually came up.

I'm not sure why assassins would win initiative that often; other than bumping dex with ASIs against at least 1/2 of monsters that get some sort of Dex bonus already to yield maybe on average a +2 or 3 advantage. There's nothing in the Rogue class or Assassin subclass to boost initiative by default, so you're basically left with optional rules: feats and multi-classing to bring your success rate to much over 50% if the DM is playing surprise RAW.
And this doesn't just concern the Assassin. Any Rogue should have the opportunity to at least create advantage on their first attack if they are able to successfully Stealth or Slight of Hand or whatever the DM determines is appropriate. Even in a game that allows for feats and multi-classing the RAW rules here are a huge feat and multi-class tax on rogues (particularly assassins) to make surprise a somewhat reliable tactic.

Tanarii

2022-01-14, 08:46 PM

In (feeble) defense of 5e, I have seen considerably worse. I think my favorite is how Chronicles of Darkness has rules that modify how quickly you can swim... but doesn't have rules for how fast someone can swim normally. More famously, one of the Shadowrun editions has rules for treading water, but no rules for breaking a fall... in a game about urban heisting, where "you take a tumble out of the window of a skyscraper" is an in-genre risk.
That sounds like the need for rules on lava.

Witty Username

2022-01-14, 09:28 PM

The existence of the Identify spell is odd as anyone can identify a magic item with a short rest without a roll.
I use 2 houserules with identifying magic items.
1. If identifying an item with a short rest, it automatically attuned to the character. This makes identify have some use with dangerous/unwanted items.
2. Identity lore. When using the Identity spell, I give the caster some recent history of the item. And some info on how and why it was created. Like say if a mage made a magic sword as a gift, you would learn who made it and who it was made for. If it was used in a robbery then the caster may have a little vision of the sword being used to intimidate a guard or breaking down a door during the robbery. It makes the Identify spell more interesting and easier for me to grok as a spell.

Willowhelm

2022-01-14, 10:00 PM

Based on the way people are approaching this question… are there any mechanics which *do* make sense?

The entire game is an arbitrary set of over simplified mechanics which only make potential sense in that context. Any individual mechanic is entirely unrealistic and doesn’t make sense at all when compared to the real world.

What does “make sense” even mean?

Tanarii

2022-01-14, 10:08 PM

The existence of the Identify spell is odd as anyone can identify a magic item with a short rest without a rollIt only takes ten minutes as a ritual. It also can be used to Identify spells on a creature. Sometimes the latter is even worth a slot to know if something needs to be dispelled, or what level of dispel to use.

JackPhoenix

2022-01-14, 10:20 PM

It only takes ten minutes as a ritual. It also can be used to Identify spells on a creature. Sometimes the latter is even worth a slot to know if something needs to be dispelled, or what level of dispel to use.

Identify only targets objects, not creatures. And it's 11 minutes, as it does have 1 minute casting time in itself, not that it's a significant difference.

Tanarii

2022-01-14, 10:25 PM

Identify only targets objects, not creatures. And it's 11 minutes, as it does have 1 minute casting time in itself, not that it's a significant difference.
"If you instead touch a creature throughout the casting, you learn what spells, if any, are currently affecting it."

And 11 minutes is still faster than a short rest for identifying magic items.

JackPhoenix

2022-01-14, 10:26 PM

"If you instead touch a creature throughout the casting, you learn what spells, if any, are currently affecting it."

And 11 minutes is still faster than a short rest for identifying magic items.

Well, that's on me for not reading beyond the first sentence.

Witty Username

2022-01-14, 10:27 PM

It only takes ten minutes as a ritual. It also can be used to Identify spells on a creature. Sometimes the latter is even worth a slot to know if something needs to be dispelled, or what level of dispel to use.
Doesn't really effect the usefulness of the spell for my group.
Detect magic covers spell identification (at least at my table the biggest concern when thinking of dispelling is if it is a spell, as conditions and their severity tend to be somewhat obvious). And for identifying items, each PC can identify an item over a short rest so time saving has limited application.
My bigger problem is that the spell replicatesan effect that can be done by anyone, so including something that is a least somewhat less easy as part of its effect gives it some more weight. And makes it useful as a DM tool to convey information.

But that is me and mine, if it works for you, then it works for you.

Hytheter

2022-01-14, 11:09 PM

If this reading is right, Assassins, RAW, can auto crit throughout combat on any creature that started combat surprised.

My Assassin/Gloom Stalker/Battle Master likes this reading a lot. :P

PhoenixPhyre

2022-01-15, 12:27 AM

Doesn't really effect the usefulness of the spell for my group.
Detect magic covers spell identification (at least at my table the biggest concern when thinking of dispelling is if it is a spell, as conditions and their severity tend to be somewhat obvious). And for identifying items, each PC can identify an item over a short rest so time saving has limited application.
My bigger problem is that the spell replicatesan effect that can be done by anyone, so including something that is a least somewhat less easy as part of its effect gives it some more weight. And makes it useful as a DM tool to convey information.

But that is me and mine, if it works for you, then it works for you.

Had someone identify an object they found. Not really a magic item, more like part of a large ritual. Couldn't do that over a short rest.

Witty Username

2022-01-15, 01:02 AM

So, some other magic imbued object?

PhoenixPhyre

2022-01-15, 01:12 AM

So, some other magic imbued object?

A crystal that served as part of a necromantic persistent "effect generator device", strengthening local undead while keeping them in a particular area.

Removed from the housing, it's just a nexus of demonic (charged by blood magic) and necromantic energy. Not something with abilities, but in theory something you could use as a component for something or smash to cause an explosion.

I do lots of these sorts of things. This particular campaign has quite a lot of old magitech (some of it demonic, some not), most of which can't take be used like magic items but are more like spells locked to a particular area or devices that produce large-scale effects.

Witty Username

2022-01-15, 01:19 AM

I've had an item or two come up like that. I'll keep that in mind for future identify stuff.

I still like the bit of houserule on identify on a magic item getting name of the item, creator, intended purpose, previous owner, notable event used in as applicable. It's made for some fun.

5eNeedsDarksun

2022-01-15, 01:17 PM

I had another thought around surprise/ initiative. If a group is playing RAW, what's to stop a character who has successfully fulfilled all of the conditions applied by the DM to gain surprise, then loses initiative to simply not do anything, walk away, then come back in a round or 2 and try again? I mean there is nothing explicitly in the rules that says an otherwise surprised character actually notices a potential attacker just because he/she wins initiative. In fact that character can't take actions or reactions. So if the potential attacker doesn't attack, combat hasn't actually started yet, so I would think it would be well within a player's rights to say, "OK, I duck back behind the tree, compose myself, and try again in a few moments."

Keltest

2022-01-15, 01:27 PM

Tanarii

2022-01-15, 01:58 PM

I mean, presumably the NPC who is surprised has been surprised by something. If initiative is rolled, combat has started, and youve done something to make them aware of your presence in some way, even if they cant act on it before you do something.
Thats how I run it. But it's not explicit that an entirely unnoticed group that surprises the enemy is automatically noticed when one of them initiates combat.

Keltest

2022-01-15, 03:02 PM

Thats how I run it. But it's not explicit that an entirely unnoticed group that surprises the enemy is automatically noticed when one of them initiates combat.

Does it need to be? That's kind of what initiating combat is, isn't it? Certainly I won't let my group declare combat, roll initiative, then let them back off just because they don't like how it turned out without surprise. Why would adding surprise change that?

Xetheral

2022-01-15, 03:37 PM

For mechanics that don't make (thematic) sense, I would note that Barbarians who Dash towards their foes risk dropping out of Rage if the enemy happens to miss them (or chooses a different target). If they want to guarantee they keep Rage they have to make a ranged attack instead of Dashing. Slowly advancing while making ranged attacks seems far less thematic than Dashing into melee.

For those who played 3.5 more than I have, how often did the Run action come up? Because I don't recall seeing it ever used in any game I've played. So not including it doesn't seem like a huge loss.

Quite a bit in outdoor battles. It was often advantageous to take the penalties for running to avoid having to spend two rounds moving and/or end one's turn out of full cover. Then again, my game probably had longer encounter distances (and a heavier reliance on full cover) than many other tables did in 3.5. I know my 5e games do--it's why I had to houserule the Barbarian problem I mention above.

And of the PHB rogues (against which it should really be compared, due to power creep), it's the only one that gets a real combat power boost at level 3. Thieves get Fast Hands and Second-Story Work, Arcane Tricksters get cantrips and spells (which until the bladetrips weren't all that much of a power boost, especially focusing on illusion and enchantment).

Fast Hands can be a circumstantial combat boost via grenade-like weapons. On the other hand, the rules in use for grenade-like weapons specifically (and improvised weapons more broadly) vary so much from table to table that YMMV.

5eNeedsDarksun

2022-01-15, 04:13 PM

I mean, presumably the NPC who is surprised has been surprised by something. If initiative is rolled, combat has started, and youve done something to make them aware of your presence in some way, even if they cant act on it before you do something.

First I disagree that you've necessarily done anything that might alert anyone, which I guess is the main reason I think this mechanic is crap. At an extreme situation the attacker is invisible, silent and 100 yards away; there literally is nothing he could do at that point, despite acting 2nd, that could alert their victim. Even in less extreme situations we're talking about a world that allows fantastic spells, so a high level Rogue abilities should be effectively comparable.

I'm thinking of movies where a potential attacker goes to strike, the potential victim looks around, moves, or does something else, so the attacker backs off for a moment then tries again. In D&D game terms there would be a cost to this. Any spells the attacker (and allies) had pre-cast would be using up rounds. The attacker would likely have to re-roll stealth vs perception successfully a second (or more) time. You're risking someone else coming along and messing things up.

If I were to start DMing RAW and including an initiative roll for surprised creatures, giving stealthy players an option to back off at this point and re-try would be the only way I could feel like I was doing right by those players. And I don't think it contradicts RAW.