New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 263

Thread: New Sage Advice

  1. - Top - End - #61
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Aug 2019

    Default Re: New Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by Crucius View Post
    Wait, does this mean closing your eyes counters the frightened condition, allowing you to walk up to the enemy (before making your attacks with disadvantage because you are still frightened or blinded)?
    I don't think so, because the bullet point indicating the "moving towards the source of the fear" doesn't have the same limitation as the disadvantage needing to have them in line of sight. That means even closing your eyes might not give you disadvantage on ability checks, but you still can't move toward them. In fact, even if your eyes were open but the source of fear was invisible, you couldn't move towards them, because you just simply can't. What, do you just innately know where the source of fear is, even when you can't see them, and that's why you can't move closer to them? Then why doesn't the source impose disadvantage still?

    I hope you don't think I am being aggressive here, but I really don't like the Sage Advice ruling here.

  2. - Top - End - #62
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    Jun 2019

    Default Re: New Sage Advice

    AL DM's are NOT required to use Sage Advice

  3. - Top - End - #63
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2017

    Default Re: New Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    Heh. Now I imagine some poor AL DM who's faced with a monk who holds (but does not don or wield) two magical shields while head-butting all of his enemies to death.

    It's not that I mind from a game balance standpoint--I just feel bad because it's such obviously cheesey nonsense, and I'm told that AL DMs are not allowed to ignore Sage Advice. (Can anyone confirm/deny?) My eyes would roll soooo hard....
    As far as AL DMs go, it is exactly the opposite. They can ignore ANY other source of rules clarifications except the rule books and official errata.

    These are from the season 9 FAQ but they haven't released a complete FAQ for season 10.

    "What Rules Do I Use?
    All Adventurers League games are played using the fifth edition Dungeons & Dragons rules—house rules and Variant and optional rules, except those listed below, aren’t permitted for use. As an Adventurers League Dungeon Master, you are empowered to adjudicate the rules as presented by the official materials (PHB, DMG, MM, etc.). Run the game according to those rules, but you are the final arbiter of any ambiguities that might arise in doing so. House rules aren’t permitted for use in play; the campaign uses the rules as presented in the PHB."

    "Official Rule Sources
    Rules from an official D&D Adventurers League source, such as the ALPG, the ALDMG, or this FAQ establish the boundaries for our current campaign.
    As a general rule, the admins don’t issue official rulings on general rules questions unless it’s directly affected by the scope and purpose of the program.
    Sage Advice/Twitter. Sage Advice (SA) and tweets from the Wizards of the Coast staff are a great barometer for the ‘rules-as-intended’, in any case. The DM can choose to utilize them at their discretion for rules adjudication."

    An AL DM can make their own rulings based on the content of the PHB. They do not need to heed Sage Advice unless they want to.

    -------------------

    The shield ruling derives from a strict reading of the DMG. It doesn't make any sense to me as a DM and I won't be using it. I am guessing they just didn't want to issue errata for the DMG though they are for some of the other answers so I don't really understand this one.

    Shield +X in the DMG says:

    "While holding this shield, you have a bonus to AC determined by the shield's rarity. This bonus is in addition to the shield's normal bonus to AC."

    All of the shields I have looked at in the DMG only require you to hold them to gain their benefits. Animated shield, sentinel shield, shield +X etc.

    Does this mean a wizard can hold a +3 shield and get +3 to their AC even if they can't actually wield a shield? It would seem so.

    -------------------

    This is a pithy answer :)

    "[NEW] What happens if I’m polymorphed or Wild Shaped into a creature with fewer than 100 hit points and then I’m targeted by power word kill? You die."

  4. - Top - End - #64
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2019

    Default Re: New Sage Advice

    Is it just me or do sage advice rulings get worse every year? 5e was written in Natural language. The amount of hyper literal parsing they are doing more and more of is going to lead to all kinds of contradictions as we are beginning to see.
    Last edited by Frogreaver; 2020-10-01 at 08:13 PM.

  5. - Top - End - #65
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2014

    Default Re: New Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by cutlery View Post
    I believe Crawford is on record stating that D&D is not a physics engine.
    ...and really, hell, I'd be scared of something that was scary AND THEN DISAPPEARED.

  6. - Top - End - #66
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2020

    Default Re: New Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by Frogreaver View Post
    Is it just me or do sage advice rulings get worse every year? 5e was written in Natural language. The amount of hyper literal parsing they are doing more and more of is going to lead to all kinds of contradictions as we are beginning to see.
    I always assumed sage advice was, at least in recent times, for the hyper munchkins and rules lawyers, who are going to parse text character by character anyway.

    The older the system gets, the more weird edge cases pop up.

  7. - Top - End - #67
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: New Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by HappyDaze View Post
    I've seen some argue that 0 hp (unconscious) characters drop their shields.
    Well if they want to implement this houserule there is no issue, but the 5e shield is quite literally strapped to your arm. Can't drop it any easier than you can drop your sky boots.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evaar View Post
    I get that it's magical, but the effect should be trying to do something like emulating actual fear. The Predator was perfectly capable of scaring the bejeezus out of some battle-hardened adventurers.

    It's only "look-dependent" because the game (and particularly this Sage Advice) says it is; I propose that it should be more "proximity-dependent" and tried to articulate how I would attempt to reflect that in mechanics.

    Because if you make the effect sight dependent and issue rules clarifications to support that, you end up with things like player characters closing their eyes so that they can approach the scary thing. Which, hey, I guess you could argue also happens in horror movies in the form of the wild, blind, suicidal charge at Jason or whatever.
    I can understand the feeling, but do you have the same problem with the PCs avoiding getting petrified by a Medusa by looking away?
    Last edited by Unoriginal; 2020-10-01 at 09:08 PM.

  8. - Top - End - #68
    Troll in the Playground
     
    ProsecutorGodot's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: New Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by Unoriginal View Post
    Well if they want to implement this houserule there is no issue, but the 5e shield is quite literally strapped to your arm. Can't drop it any easier than you can drop your sky boots.
    From a purely realistic facing perspective, it makes sense to reason that the shield would offer no benefits while unconscious, I just wouldn't force a player to don it again if I felt at all compelled to rule from this perspective to begin with.

  9. - Top - End - #69
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2019

    Default Re: New Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by cutlery View Post
    I always assumed sage advice was, at least in recent times, for the hyper munchkins and rules lawyers, who are going to parse text character by character anyway.

    The older the system gets, the more weird edge cases pop up.
    I think there's a change toward more hyper literalism in how they are answering questions. I think that change is what's driving the weird edge cases popping up more often now.
    Last edited by Frogreaver; 2020-10-01 at 09:29 PM.

  10. - Top - End - #70
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2006

    Default Re: New Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by cutlery View Post
    Why do they need this? Perhaps they should lose access to smite when disarmed. Using an improvised weapon isn’t that hard, and fighters, rogues, and rangers have the same sorts of issues in a prison break scenario.
    Personally I was really looking forward to making a punchy paladin with the unarmed fighting style in Tasha's. My group will probably ignore that particular part of the Sage Advice to accommodate such a build.
    We don't need no steeeenkin' signatures!

  11. - Top - End - #71
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2015

    Default Re: New Sage Advice

    According to the rules for stacking effects, holding multiple +x shields provides no more bonus to AC than holding a single +x shield, same as wearing a dozen Rings of Protection gives no more bonus AC than one. There is probably a workaround for this with specific magical shields.

    The answer about divine smite is based on the latter part of the ability. You can use divine smite after you hit with an unarmed strike (a melee weapon attack), but it will deal no radiant damage because the attack does no weapon damage. The radiant damage is in addition to the weapon's damage. It's like the answer for Savage Attacker. It doesn't work because the ability requires a weapon.

    Quote Originally Posted by IsaacsAlterEgo View Post
    Does smiting with an unarmed attack provide any real advantage over smiting with an improvised weapon attack? There are very, very few situations where you won't even be able to grab a rock or something, which is absolutely fine to smite with as far as I know.
    As a personal anecdote, my Paladin grappled a dragon and I had to choose between keeping my shield on, or doffing my shield so I could use my Dragon Slayer sword. Broadly, anytime a paladin grapples they'd have to make a decision between wielding a shield or a weapon in the other hand, and if they choose the shield, they could smite with the improvised shield attack or not smite with the proficient unarmed strike.
    Quote Originally Posted by Frogreaver View Post
    I think there's a change toward more hyper literalism in how they are answering questions. I think that change is what's driving the weird edge cases popping up more often now.
    I don't think there is any statistically demonstrable trend towards more literal rules answers. It has always been my experience that SAC answers are "That is literally what the book says," as much as possible.

  12. - Top - End - #72
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2020

    Default Re: New Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by GooeyChewie View Post
    Personally I was really looking forward to making a punchy paladin with the unarmed fighting style in Tasha's. My group will probably ignore that particular part of the Sage Advice to accommodate such a build.
    Right, as every table should that doesn't like it - but with AL, there must be official rulings for stuff.

  13. - Top - End - #73
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Oct 2016

    Default Re: New Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by Frogreaver View Post
    Is it just me or do sage advice rulings get worse every year? 5e was written in Natural language. The amount of hyper literal parsing they are doing more and more of is going to lead to all kinds of contradictions as we are beginning to see.
    And, given that literally has no impact on your game, unless you want it too, it just encourages the hyper literal parsing instead of "natural language".

    Quote Originally Posted by cutlery View Post
    Right, as every table should that doesn't like it - but with AL, there must be official rulings for stuff.
    except Sage Advice doesn't give official rulings for stuff... just suggestions.
    Last edited by NaughtyTiger; 2020-10-01 at 10:16 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    Just, please don't. Insisting on that technicality improves nothing.

  14. - Top - End - #74
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2019

    Default Re: New Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by NaughtyTiger View Post
    And, given that literally has no impact on your game, unless you want it too, it just encourages the hyper literal parsing instead of "natural language".
    In many ways that's true, but also, no man is an island.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zalabim View Post
    I don't think there is any statistically demonstrable trend towards more literal rules answers.
    Well, I don't think you can statistically demonstrate your subjective opinion on this either. Does that put us in the same boat?
    Last edited by Frogreaver; 2020-10-01 at 10:49 PM.

  15. - Top - End - #75
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Finland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: New Sage Advice

    You can use Divine Smite with unarmed strike.

    The class feature requires a melee 'weapon attack', which unarmed strike is, NOT an 'attack with a weapon', which unarmed strike isn't.

    'weapon attack' ≠ 'attack with a weapon'

    Both are common rules terms used in various places in the rules, and are different in meaning, even when they may refer to same action.
    The difference is subtle, but it's still a difference.

    I'm not saying it's not stupid. It is. But it's the rules we have. If you deliberately wish to make your paladin player sad and houserule that you can't smite with your fist, it's perfectly within your rights as a DM, but don't claim it's anything else than a houserule, because it is.

    Edit: If I had my way, I'd just ditch one or the other everywhere in the rules and let the one that I left to apply to all instances the other appeared in. And, to be honest, I think I'd drop the latter.
    Last edited by Arkhios; 2020-10-01 at 11:30 PM.

  16. - Top - End - #76
    Closed Account
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: New Sage Advice

    So if the party Capt America holds out his arm with his magic shield, and the whole party holds onto the edge..does the whole party get the Magic Bonus to AC?

    A +1 to +3 Magic Shield does not require Attunement.
    Theoretically you could grapple an opponent by grabbing their shield, and get an AC boost.

    The numerical bonuses from magic weapons I treat like HP, game abstractions that can be described in many different fashions.

    A magic shield doesn't automatically break down into the physical shield and then the enchantment, which according to Sage Advice, now has Star Trek like deflection properties. A magic shield can also be described as being made with preternatural skill, and outperforms even well made shields.

    The whole Paladin can't Divine Smite with unarmed attacks/ monks unarmed attacks are weaponless melee attacks is clearly niche protection and flavor protections.

    Paladins can't Smite/Super punch...monks can't have Elemental Weapon cast on their left foot.

    Treating these restriction in a manner akin to the Druid metal armor prohibition, would have been the better move, I think.

    A Paladin of Tyr that wants to strike with the "missing hand of god" and fist smite isn't game breaking, and plenty flavorful....with the downside that a Paladin's Hodukun punch might be better then a monk's....hence why the rules are as they are.
    Last edited by Satori01; 2020-10-01 at 11:22 PM.

  17. - Top - End - #77
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2016

    Default Re: New Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by Arkhios View Post
    You can use Divine Smite with unarmed strike.

    The class feature requires a melee 'weapon attack', which unarmed strike is, NOT an 'attack with a weapon', which unarmed strike isn't.

    'weapon attack' ≠ 'attack with a weapon'

    Both are common rules terms used in various places in the rules, and are different in meaning, even when they may refer to same action.
    The difference is subtle, but it's still a difference.

    I'm not saying it's not stupid. It is. But it's the rules we have. If you deliberately wish to make your paladin player sad and houserule that you can't smite with your fist, it's perfectly within your rights as a DM, but don't claim it's anything else than a houserule, because it is.
    I assume the logic comes from "in addition to the weapon's damage", which implies there must be weapon's damage. Stunning Strike unsurprisingly doesn't have similar phrasing.

  18. - Top - End - #78
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    EvilClericGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Somewhere
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: New Sage Advice

    Paladin: While Divine Smite always worked off melee weapon attack, IMPROVED Divine Smite required melee attack with a weapon. Perhaps the confusion comes from there?

    Quote Originally Posted by Keravath View Post
    The shield ruling derives from a strict reading of the DMG. It doesn't make any sense to me as a DM and I won't be using it. I am guessing they just didn't want to issue errata for the DMG though they are for some of the other answers so I don't really understand this one.

    Shield +X in the DMG says:

    "While holding this shield, you have a bonus to AC determined by the shield's rarity. This bonus is in addition to the shield's normal bonus to AC."

    All of the shields I have looked at in the DMG only require you to hold them to gain their benefits. Animated shield, sentinel shield, shield +X etc.

    Does this mean a wizard can hold a +3 shield and get +3 to their AC even if they can't actually wield a shield? It would seem so.
    It's not that different from the old trick of a monk who attune Shield of Missile Attraction to become ranged attack magnet for Deflect Arrows, then puts it away to get rid of the attunement but keeping the curse.
    It's Eberron, not ebberon.
    It's not high magic, it's wide magic.
    And it's definitely not steampunk. The only time steam gets involved is when the fire and water elementals break loose.

  19. - Top - End - #79
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2015

    Default Re: New Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by Frogreaver View Post
    In many ways that's true, but also, no man is an island.



    Well, I don't think you can statistically demonstrate your subjective opinion on this either. Does that put us in the same boat?
    To continue with the mariner metaphors, I think this puts us in two different boats arguing over whether the water is getting saltier, and whether we have been on the ocean the whole time.

  20. - Top - End - #80
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    BlueWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: New Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by Luccan View Post
    More than any logical fault in their argument, I question why it's important to whoever is responsible for SA that you can't use unarmed strikes for Divine Smites. It's kinda hard to build Paladin/Monks it that's what they're worried about
    I think it is a ascetics thing, like with rogue's sneak attack. Why does it matter that they can only sneak attack with weapons that have the finesse or ranged properties, because they are making rules to make what they think the rogue should be visually (daggers, hand crossbow, light armor dex build). Though this lens, unarmed strikes are not intended to be used by most classes (maybe because they think it is silly or steps on the toes of the monk or something).
    My sig is something witty.

    78% of DM's started their first campaign in a tavern. If you're one of the 22% that didn't, copy and paste this into your signature.

  21. - Top - End - #81
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Luccan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    The Old West

    Default Re: New Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by Witty Username View Post
    I think it is a ascetics thing, like with rogue's sneak attack. Why does it matter that they can only sneak attack with weapons that have the finesse or ranged properties, because they are making rules to make what they think the rogue should be visually (daggers, hand crossbow, light armor dex build). Though this lens, unarmed strikes are not intended to be used by most classes (maybe because they think it is silly or steps on the toes of the monk or something).
    I actually think there's an argument that it's more about balance on the subject of the Rogue's sneak attack limits and armor proficiency, though it seems doubtful it would be game breaking. Meanwhile an unarmed Paladin build would be weaker than a GWF Paladin. I'm also not sure why an edition that won't prevent you from playing a Paladin that sneaks around and kills unaware foes (ala the once-popular Paladin/Assassin builds) would object to you Kirk-hammering with holy fury in open combat.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nifft View Post
    All Roads Lead to Gnome.

    I for one support the Gnoman Empire.
    Avatar by linklele

    Spoiler: Build Contests
    Show

    E6 Iron Chef XVI Shared First Place: Black Wing

    E6 Iron Chef XXI Shared Second Place: The Shadow's Hand


  22. - Top - End - #82
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    GreenSorcererElf

    Join Date
    Jun 2019

    Default Re: New Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by Unoriginal View Post
    I can understand the feeling, but do you have the same problem with the PCs avoiding getting petrified by a Medusa by looking away?
    No, that’s part of the legend of Medusa. It’s true to the myth, so the mechanics correctly express the story you’re telling with that creature.

    And let’s keep in mind that some fear effects are magical, but Frightened is not a magical condition. Battlemasters can inflict it with Menacing Strike, for example. The condition is intended to represent debilitating terror, and the mechanics don’t really do that. We’re getting kind of off topic though, I was only commenting here because I previously would have assumed being invisible doesn’t invalidate other creatures being frightened because... obviously. Then I just started imagining how i would design it to maintain verisimilitude.
    Last edited by Evaar; 2020-10-02 at 02:17 AM.

  23. - Top - End - #83
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: New Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by Evaar View Post
    No, that’s part of the legend of Medusa. It’s true to the myth, so the mechanics correctly express the story you’re telling with that creature.

    And let’s keep in mind that some fear effects are magical, but Frightened is not a magical condition. Battlemasters can inflict it with Menacing Strike, for example. The condition is intended to represent debilitating terror, and the mechanics don’t really do that. We’re getting kind of off topic though, I was only commenting here because I previously would have assumed being invisible doesn’t invalidate other creatures being frightened because... obviously. Then I just started imagining how i would design it to maintain verisimilitude.
    Not all fear effects are magical, but all fear effects are fantastic al (and in my previous posts I was talking about all fear effects, not just magical ones).


    Menacing Strike, being a special combat move that can only be used a few times a day and which creates irrational panicon the target, is fantastical. The Frightened condition isn't just fear, it actively impose limits on what a character can do.


    A bunch of goblins might not want to face a Paladin of the Ancient who one-shot their leader because of fear, but that wouldn't be the Frightened condition. If the goblins have to fight the Paladin anyway, they would not be hindered by their fear like a Frightened creature would. Now if they were fighting a Paladin of Conquest, they would certainly have to deal with the Conqurst Oath's fantastical, fear-fabricating phenomenons.

  24. - Top - End - #84
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Jun 2015

    Default Re: New Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by Amnestic View Post
    Can someone explain the design intent behind separating unarmed strikes from counting as weapons, especially when natural weapons do apparently count as weapons?

    If there's a broken combo I'm not aware of, cool, but it just seems so arbitrary and unintuitive.

    Also you should be able to smite with your fist. It's cool.
    Well, if unarmed is separated from weapons, that would mean that things like immunities and resistances to damage queued off of weapon damage would not apply to unarmed attacks. Without looking this up I believe this would mean for example that you can't kill a werewolf with a non magic and non-silver dagger, but you could beat one to death in a bar fight.
    I am the flush of excitement. The blush on the cheek. I am the Rouge!

  25. - Top - End - #85
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: New Sage Advice

    The curious part is unarmed strikes not being weapons, but natural weapons are.

    Yep, I finally have an idea for a Paladin, and it's an Ancients Paladin Lizardfolk. Light's Might Smite Bite.


    If the RAI is for smites to require weapons besides fists and foreheads, then the PHB needs to use the phrase "attack with a melee weapon" (which requires an item), rather than the attack matrix "melee weapon attack". They've had this distinction... well, in the same class's features (Improved Smite), but I think was pretty well codified with SCAG (the X-blade cantrips).
    Why yes, Warlock is my solution for everything.

    Quote Originally Posted by obryn View Post
    Active Abilities are great because you - the player - are demonstrating your Dwarvenness or Elfishness. You're not passively a dwarf, you're actively dwarfing your way through obstacles.

  26. - Top - End - #86
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: New Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by NaughtyTiger View Post
    The interpretation of holding a magical shield is crap.
    I assume they think it applies to Armor of Piercing Resistance, too... just strap it to your back...
    *giggle*
    Quote Originally Posted by Merudo View Post
    Only one of the two shields can grant benefits. "You can benefit from only one shield at a time.", PHB p.144
    That seems pretty clear. The only exception that I can think of is one of the variant Fire Giants in Volo's Guide to Monsters, and that's a monster not a PC thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Frogreaver View Post
    Is it just me or do sage advice rulings get worse every year? 5e was written in Natural language. The amount of hyper literal parsing they are doing more and more of is going to lead to all kinds of contradictions as we are beginning to see.
    I have the same feeling.
    Quote Originally Posted by cutlery View Post
    I always assumed sage advice was, at least in recent times, for the hyper munchkins and rules lawyers, who are going to parse text character by character anyway.
    The game has always attracted folks like that; the war games before D&D also did. (Tim Kask used to refer to them as Twitchers in the context of historical table top miniatures battles)
    Quote Originally Posted by Witty Username View Post
    I think it is a ascetics thing, like with rogue's sneak attack.
    While I think you meant aesthetics, I caught your drift.
    Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Works
    a. Malifice (paraphrased):
    Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    b. greenstone (paraphrased):
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct!
    Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society

  27. - Top - End - #87
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2018

    Default Re: New Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigreid View Post
    Well, if unarmed is separated from weapons, that would mean that things like immunities and resistances to damage queued off of weapon damage would not apply to unarmed attacks. Without looking this up I believe this would mean for example that you can't kill a werewolf with a non magic and non-silver dagger, but you could beat one to death in a bar fight.
    I think this is the most incredible result of 5e's "weapon" legalese I've seen yet. Feels like an indication that they probably weren't really thinking about being so legalistic about weapon phrasing when they first wrote a bunch of the parts, and later decided it should be hard coded without really doing a thorough check of how things had been written.

    edit: oh someone below pointed out this was errata'd. sad.
    Last edited by OvisCaedo; 2020-10-02 at 08:40 AM.

  28. - Top - End - #88
    Banned
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: New Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by Unoriginal View Post
    I can understand the feeling, but do you have the same problem with the PCs avoiding getting petrified by a Medusa by looking away?
    I know you weren't asking me, but the Medusa thing seems perfectly logical. You have to look at it to be turned to stone, so looking away or closing your eyes makes sense as a defence (though obviously it makes fighting more awkward).


    In contrast, not seeing something tends to make the thing more frightening, not less. Especially if you know (or believe) that it is still close by.

  29. - Top - End - #89
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Millstone85's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Paris, France
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: New Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigreid View Post
    Well, if unarmed is separated from weapons, that would mean that things like immunities and resistances to damage queued off of weapon damage would not apply to unarmed attacks. Without looking this up I believe this would mean for example that you can't kill a werewolf with a non magic and non-silver dagger, but you could beat one to death in a bar fight.
    Hence the following errata.
    Quote Originally Posted by Errata: Monster Manual v2.0
    Damage Resistances/Immunities. Throughout the book, instances of “nonmagical weapons” in Damage Resistances/Immunities entries have been replaced with “nonmagical attacks.”

  30. - Top - End - #90
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Jun 2015

    Default Re: New Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by OvisCaedo View Post
    I think this is the most incredible result of 5e's "weapon" legalese I've seen yet. Feels like an indication that they probably weren't really thinking about being so legalistic about weapon phrasing when they first wrote a bunch of the parts, and later decided it should be hard coded without really doing a thorough check of how things had been written.
    Interestingly (at least to me) it actually lines up pretty well to some mythology where the invulnerable creature was killed or defeated by an unarmed hero.
    I am the flush of excitement. The blush on the cheek. I am the Rouge!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •