Why Spellcasters suck vs melee characters

[Gtdead]

You can call it however you like but the simple fact remains. Just because someone tries to "break" something, doesn't mean he can't talk with his DM about it and ask if it's ok to use it. And yea sure, everyone needs to get along in a table, but in combat, DM and players are opposite. And combat is the most gamey aspect of the game. A player may try to break the game, or the DM may try to destroy the players with difficult encounters (assuming that it's not falling rocks). I'm fine with both, some aren't. I only need to know so I can prepare accordingly.

Intellectual dishonesty isn't what happens in trying to choose the best monster for your summon animals spell. A single cast of this spell can deal 100 dpr, or 5 dpr, depending on whims. Nor it's what happens when people assume that mordekainen's hound will attack a target that is likely to do harm to the caster.

These forums wouldn't be half as fun if people didn't come here saying "oh look, this spell can do that, is it fine by raw?", or "I had an idea of a build, will that work?", or "help me optimize this build". We aren't talking about what we do in our tables. We are having theoritical discussions that apply by RAW, and add an asterisk when we think something is too powerful. Breaking things is fun. Balancing is hard. So I stand by my point. You may be fine if I used the term "munchkins" instead of "optimizers"? No problem.

[Unoriginal]

You can call it however you like but the simple fact remains. Just because someone tries to "break" something, doesn't mean he can't talk with his DM about it and ask if it's ok to use it. And yea sure, everyone needs to get along in a table, but in combat, DM and players are opposite. And combat is the most gamey aspect of the game. A player may try to break the game, or the DM may try to destroy the players with difficult encounters (assuming that it's not falling rocks). I'm fine with both, some aren't. I only need to know so I can prepare accordingly.

Intellectual dishonesty isn't what happens in trying to choose the best monster for your summon animals spell. A single cast of this spell can deal 100 dpr, or 5 dpr, depending on whims. Nor it's what happens when people assume that mordekainen's hound will attack a target that is likely to do harm to the caster.

These forums wouldn't be half as fun if people didn't come here saying "oh look, this spell can do that, is it fine by raw?", or "I had an idea of a build, will that work?", or "help me optimize this build". We aren't talking about what we do in our tables. We are having theoritical discussions that apply by RAW, and add an asterisk when we think something is too powerful. Breaking things is fun. Balancing is hard. So I stand by my point. You may be fine if I used the term "munchkins" instead of "optimizers"? No problem.

There is a difference between having a reading that is favorable to X, and deliberately attempting to find a reading that advantages you because you want more power for the character.

For example: the other day, I re-read the ranger, and thought that the text for Whirlwind Attack meant you could attack everyone within 5ft of you and also allowed you to move between attacks, potentially leading to a lot of attacks. I thought it made sense, was hardly game-breaking, and made the feature both interesting and fun. So I asked this very forum if my reasoning was missing something, and it turned that yes, it was: Whirlwind Attack is a special action, not the Attack action but buffed up, and in consequence the "move between attacks" rule does not apply to it. And so I accepted it.

If I had searched the text for how to read Whirlwind Attack to mak it the most powerful possible and then argued to have this reading applied, knowing full well it wasn't how those rules actually interacted, then I'd have been intellectually dishonest.

[Frogreaver]

There is a difference between having a reading that is favorable to X, and deliberately attempting to find a reading that advantages you because you want more power for the character.

For example: the other day, I re-read the ranger, and thought that the text for Whirlwind Attack meant you could attack everyone within 5ft of you and also allowed you to move between attacks, potentially leading to a lot of attacks. I thought it made sense, was hardly game-breaking, and made the feature both interesting and fun. So I asked this very forum if my reasoning was missing something, and it turned that yes, it was: Whirlwind Attack is a special action, not the Attack action but buffed up, and in consequence the "move between attacks" rule does not apply to it. And so I accepted it.

If I had searched the text for how to read Whirlwind Attack to mak it the most powerful possible and then argued to have this reading applied, knowing full well it wasn't how those rules actually interacted, then I'd have been intellectually dishonest.

In relation to Whirlwind Attack, how did this rule get explained?

MOVING BETWEEN ATTACKS
If you take an action that includes more than one
weapon attack, you can break up your movement even
further by moving between those attacks.

[Unoriginal]

In relation to Whirlwind Attack, how did this rule get explained?

The explanation is that Whirlwind Attack is only one attack

[Frogreaver]

The explanation is that Whirlwind Attack is only one attack

I’m Baffled by that

Also curious about the explanation for ignoring the following rule?

“If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack.”

[PhoenixPhyre]

I’m Baffled by that

Also curious about the explanation for ignoring the following rule?

“If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack.”

They're not. You make 1 attack roll. You then compare that number to the AC of each legal target. If success, they take damage. Edit: was wrong about that. It's a multi target attack, not multiple separate attacks. There are monsters with similar abilities.

[Valmark]

The explanation is that Whirlwind Attack is only one attack

But Whirlwind Attack says that you deal melee attacks. It even makes multiple attack rolls.
EDIT: It does not say the first, but it says the second apparently. Still against RAW to call it a single attack.

How did they justify that explanation RAW? The rule for moving between attacks doesn't even refer to the attack action but to actions that let you make multiple attacks in general.

They're not. You make 1 attack roll. You then compare that number to the AC of each legal target. If success, they take damage. It's a multi target attack, not multiple separate attacks. There are monsters with similar abilities.

Whirlwind Attack. You can use your action to make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you, with a separate attack roll for each target.

Emphasis mine (that's how you use this expression right?).

I don't think there is any room for interpretation.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But Whirlwind Attack says that you deal melee attacks. It even makes multiple attack rolls.

How did they justify that explanation RAW? The rule for moving between attacks doesn't even refer to the attack action but to actions that let you make multiple attacks in general.

You make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you, with a separate attack roll for each target.

So read that way, you make a (singular) attack that involves multiple attack rolls. But it's still only one attack.

Is this the reading I'd use? Not sure. Thematically, it's a "spin around and slash everyone" or "move so fast you hit everyone around you in a flash" ability. Not an attack-dash-attack-dash-attack ability with separated targets. At least how I see it based on the name and the wording. That militates toward a "can't move between attack rolls" stance. On the other hand, it's likely to not be that useful in that reading (since you rarely have more than one or two creatures within 5 feet. And it's a relatively high-level ability on a weaker class.

I think I'd be able to be persuaded either direction on this one, depending on the table and the arguments. Whether or not that's RAW or RAI is pretty irrelevant to me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Emphasis mine (that's how you use this expression right?).

I don't think there is any room for interpretation.

I went back and edited my original, since it was wrong after reading it again. But see my other one for how I picture it. I'm not tied to either explanation, and arguments from RAW are meaningless to me, personally.

[Gtdead]

There is a difference between having a reading that is favorable to X, and deliberately attempting to find a reading that advantages you because you want more power for the character.

For example: the other day, I re-read the ranger, and thought that the text for Whirlwind Attack meant you could attack everyone within 5ft of you and also allowed you to move between attacks, potentially leading to a lot of attacks. I thought it made sense, was hardly game-breaking, and made the feature both interesting and fun. So I asked this very forum if my reasoning was missing something, and it turned that yes, it was: Whirlwind Attack is a special action, not the Attack action but buffed up, and in consequence the "move between attacks" rule does not apply to it. And so I accepted it.

If I had searched the text for how to read Whirlwind Attack to mak it the most powerful possible and then argued to have this reading applied, knowing full well it wasn't how those rules actually interacted, then I'd have been intellectually dishonest.

When I was getting started with the edition, there was a popular tempest/evoker build that maximized chain lightnings. The author was repeating how awesome is that it can maximize damage all the damage of the spell, so I assumed that one CD could actually maximize the whole casting of Call Lightning. I came here and asked questions about how to best build it and I was confused by the responses that said that Call Lightning isn't that great. Then I understood why. Tbh, if I was playing this class in a campaign and no one had noticed that (which is a very plausible scenario), I'd be very happy with my perpetually maximized call lightnings.

This actually taught me to use the scientific method, which includes scrutiny, so I always ask others if my ideas are RAW, when I find them on the powerful side.

However there are many spells and abilities that can be read in different ways without being dishonest or mistaken. Hopefully the DM will be open to an argument on why the stronger version is fine (or not). But this argument can only be made by an optimizer which by itself creates some type of conflict, in the sense that, some players may not understand how significant the differences are between a modifier being applied in a specific way, or how much difference it makes if you summon wolves compared to other options. Or even what advantage really does. The DM too may not understand exactly how these things affect the outcome.

I don't think people ever advocate for dishonesty anyway. Perhaps kids excited about pwning their enemies may try something like that. I don't think that powergaming the **** out of any build can be bad in any shape or form though. It's fun to see it all come together and personally it makes me even more likely to "become" the character because I put a lot of energy into planning it.

Also the effects that are argued the most are actually quite straighforward. For example, how magic missile interacts with evoker. You roll once, you attack with that roll. Damage is added to the roll. But this makes the spell better than most things in the game considering it doesn't need a roll. It can be tricky to counter it too because you can counter the counters. Unless there is some passive ability to counter it, it will eventually go off. It also makes the evoker such a powerhouse because it takes away the most common weakness of the wizard, which is single target damage. Even with Crawford saying that it does work like that, I doubt it's being used often and considering that so many people try to optimize wizards to deal as much damage as martials do, you'd think that the community would be ecstatic. Yet fighter still remains the standard by which dpr is measured, which is quite odd to me.

Summoning spells have similar problems. I'd much rather have a spell that says "you can summon whatever you want up to a total of x CR(less than the current options), rather than the ones we have now.

The worst part is that it's always about damage in this edition. Couatl for example is amazing as a summon, but I doubt anyone will ever contest summoning one because it doesn't do much damage. But when it comes to damage, some people go bonkers because you "steal" the spotlight away from certain classes.

This actually gets on my nerves because most builds have the potential to deal amazing damage. It does require some effort though and personally I always offer to optimize the builds of my friends. After all, to a non optimizer, it won't make much difference if the bard multiclasses into paladin for smites instead of getting glibness for counterspells. Big damage is fun for everyone, while counterspelling is utility. Some people may get ecstatic that they managed to counterspell the right spell, but others in the group may not even notice what happened while waiting for their turn to roll.

I actually recall one conversation I had with a DM back in 3.5. I wanted to play a beguiler/shadowcraft mage to try it out because I had never played an illusion specialist before, so I wanted to explain to him how it's going to work and if it would be ok for me to play it. DM wasn't interested in that, but instead banned mindbender because of telepathy, he found it too strong. I was actually surprised.

[Unoriginal]

But Whirlwind Attack says that you deal melee attacks. It even makes multiple attack rolls.
EDIT: It does not say the first, but it says the second apparently. Still against RAW to call it a single attack.

Specific beats general, and in this case they've decided that it's one attack with several attack rolls.

Can't say I like it, but it's what they've gone with.

[Valmark]

So read that way, you make a (singular) attack that involves multiple attack rolls. But it's still only one attack.

Is this the reading I'd use? Not sure. Thematically, it's a "spin around and slash everyone" or "move so fast you hit everyone around you in a flash" ability. Not an attack-dash-attack-dash-attack ability with separated targets. At least how I see it based on the name and the wording. That militates toward a "can't move between attack rolls" stance. On the other hand, it's likely to not be that useful in that reading (since you rarely have more than one or two creatures within 5 feet. And it's a relatively high-level ability on a weaker class.

I think I'd be able to be persuaded either direction on this one, depending on the table and the arguments. Whether or not that's RAW or RAI is pretty irrelevant to me.

Yeah I edited afterwards because my first reading was from an online source (where it says attacks) and then I checked the phb and it was 'a melee attack'. Ops.

...yeah I'll never stop anybody from moving through it. It's horribly situational otherwise.

[Frogreaver]

Specific beats general, and in this case they've decided that it's one attack with several attack rolls.

Can't say I like it, but it's what they've gone with.

Which is specific and which is general though? That's always been the issue I have with the "specific beats general" heuristic. I mean the rule about if it's an attack roll then it's an attack seems pretty dang specific to me.

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

"Whirlwind Attack.
You can use your action to make a
melee attack against any number of creatures within 5
feet of you. with a separate attack roll for each target."

I also don't believe Whirlwind Attack should say attacks because you are only every going to make a singular attack against each enemy with it. I do believe RAI was for Whirlwind Attack to function as they have tweeted because that last line is simply too redundant otherwise, IMO.

I think I've got this a little too far off topic though.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Yeah I edited afterwards because my first reading was from an online source (where it says attacks) and then I checked the phb and it was 'a melee attack'. Ops.

...yeah I'll never stop anybody from moving through it. It's horribly situational otherwise.

It's intended to be situational. That, unfortunately, seems to be a theme with all of the Ranger's features.

When I think of rulings like this, I compare what I feel are the best and worst case scenarios. Best case with Whirlwind Attack is that it works as intended and you strike a large amount of surrounding enemies. Feels good, looks flashy and cool.

Worst case is that you turn into a beyblade and spin across the battlefield like a ballerina until you've struck every enemy you can reach with your movement. Feels weird, being able to move somehow makes it so that you can target more creatures than the explained best and looks silly and impractical.

The latter kind of stretches the meaning of "make a melee attack against any number of targets within 5ft of you" if you pull the "well he will be within 5ft of me soon" permission slip maneuver considering that the first step of making an attack is to choose targets, and the targets must be within 5ft of you when you choose them.

All that said, I'd be okay with a middle ground that involves the Ranger wanting to swiftly strike a loose cluster of enemies, I'm just not going to let someone do something so silly as spin 30ft (or more) around the room striking each enemy they pass by.

I also don't believe Whirlwind Attack should say attacks because you are only every going to make a singular attack against each enemy with it. I do believe RAI was for Whirlwind Attack to function as they have tweeted because that last line is simply too redundant otherwise, IMO.

The intention is that it's a single attack and you don't move, explained as such in the Sage Advice Compendium.

Can a ranger move between the attack rolls of the Whirlwind Attack feature? No. Whirlwind Attack is unusual, in that it’s a single attack with multiple attack rolls. In most other instances, an attack has one attack roll. The rule on moving between attacks (PH, 190) lets you move between weapon attacks, not between the attack rolls of an exceptional feature like Whirlwind Attack.

It also explains that Whirlwind Attack is the specific rule in this case.

If you're ever confused about which rule is specific or general, the class/spell/item feature is very likely a specific rather than a general, otherwise any class features that conflict with a general rule (classified as pretty much everything that isn't those 3 things) would not function. It's when you start comparing the general rules that conflict that things become less clear.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Which is specific and which is general though? That's always been the issue I have with the "specific beats general" heuristic. I mean the rule about if it's an attack roll then it's an attack seems pretty dang specific to me.

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

"Whirlwind Attack.
You can use your action to make a
melee attack against any number of creatures within 5
feet of you. with a separate attack roll for each target."

I also don't believe Whirlwind Attack should say attacks because you are only every going to make a singular attack against each enemy with it. I do believe RAI was for Whirlwind Attack to function as they have tweeted because that last line is simply too redundant otherwise, IMO.

I think I've got this a little too far off topic though.

General: found in the "How to play the game" chapters at the back or in the intro. Everything in a class entry is specific and overrides anything in the general entry if it conflicts. This isn't 3e, where there are levels of specificity. Abilities never introduce general rules, and the general rules are general unless they specifically call themselves out as an exception (cf grapple/shove).

In this case, they're breaking the "one attack roll == one attack" rule, making it a "many attack rolls are still one attack" ability. Or so they said. Either way, it rather doesn't matter to me. Each table should figure out which reading they want to use. And none of it sets precedent, because nothing sets precedent. All specific rules are independent of each other and only override general rules and other specific rules that they explicitly say they override. There's no override chain or domino effect.

[Frogreaver]

General: found in the "How to play the game" chapters at the back or in the intro. Everything in a class entry is specific and overrides anything in the general entry if it conflicts. This isn't 3e, where there are levels of specificity. Abilities never introduce general rules, and the general rules are general unless they specifically call themselves out as an exception (cf grapple/shove).

In this case, they're breaking the "one attack roll == one attack" rule, making it a "many attack rolls are still one attack" ability. Or so they said. Either way, it rather doesn't matter to me. Each table should figure out which reading they want to use. And none of it sets precedent, because nothing sets precedent. All specific rules are independent of each other and only override general rules and other specific rules that they explicitly say they override. There's no override chain or domino effect.

Read that section, it calls out longbow proficiency from wood elf and the passwall spell as examples of specific beats general. Not really the same level of "general" rule we are evaluating here.

In neither case was the "general rule" worded in such a way as - if there's ever any question about this then X. I would suggest it makes a huge difference when a so called "general" rule sets itself up as a defining standard for something as is the case for attack rolls and attacks. I would also suggest that in other cases of specific rules that they clearly and directly call out the exemption.

Looking at disengage, the general rule is - you take an OA when you leave somethings reach. The rule for disengage says, your movement doesn't provoke opportunity attacks for the rest of the turn. A clear contradiction that is resolved by knowing that disengage is clearly carving out an exception in the opportunity attack rules. Whirlwind Attack doesn't do that - or if it intends to it does so too unclearly.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Read that section, it calls out longbow proficiency from wood elf and the passwall spell as examples of specific beats general. Not really the same level of "general" rule we are evaluating here.

In neither case was the "general rule" worded in such a way as - if there's ever any question about this then X. I would suggest it makes a huge difference when a so called "general" rule sets itself up as a defining standard for something as is the case for attack rolls and attacks. I would also suggest that in other cases of specific rules that they clearly and directly call out the exemption.

Looking at disengage, the general rule is - you take an OA when you leave somethings reach. The rule for disengage says, your movement doesn't provoke opportunity attacks for the rest of the turn. A clear contradiction that is resolved by knowing that disengage is clearly carving out an exception in the opportunity attack rules. Whirlwind Attack doesn't do that - or if it intends to it does so too unclearly.

Class and racial abilities, along with spells are always specific (because they're not general). Rules from outside those chapters are general unless they say they're specific. Anytime there's a conflict, racial or class abilities win over general rules.

That's the meaning--general rules can always have implied exceptions anytime a new class ability, racial trait, or spell is written. If there's ever a conflict, the class, race, or spell wins. Period.

[Unoriginal]

Which is specific and which is general though? That's always been the issue I have with the "specific beats general" heuristic. I mean the rule about if it's an attack roll then it's an attack seems pretty dang specific to me.

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

"Whirlwind Attack.
You can use your action to make a
melee attack against any number of creatures within 5
feet of you. with a separate attack roll for each target."

I also don't believe Whirlwind Attack should say attacks because you are only every going to make a singular attack against each enemy with it. I do believe RAI was for Whirlwind Attack to function as they have tweeted because that last line is simply too redundant otherwise, IMO.

I think I've got this a little too far off topic though.

"If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple" indicates a general (this is what you do, unless the contrary is precised).

Whirlwind Attack is an exception to this, and such a specific.

[Frogreaver]

"If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple" indicates a general (this is what you do, unless the contrary is precised).

Whirlwind Attack is an exception to this, and such a specific.

There's a thread opened up on specific and general rules. I'm taking my thoughts there.

[MaxWilson]

"If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple" indicates a general (this is what you do, unless the contrary is precised).

Actually, that rule is the most specific rule in 5e.

Specific: clearly defined or identified.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Actually, that rule is the most specific rule in 5e.

Specific: clearly defined or identified.

But it would be a general rule when referencing other rules that conflict with it, otherwise Grappling and Shoving aren't an attack even though they say they are.

[MaxWilson]

But it would be a general rule when referencing other rules that conflict with it, otherwise Grappling and Shoving aren't an attack even though they say they are.

What breaks if you conclude that Grappling and Shoving don't count as attacks for purposes of rules like Sanctuary, etc.? Now you can grab priests by the collar even when you can't bring yourself to punch them in the mouth. Why is that such a bad thing that you think it can't possibly be a real rule?

[Waazraath]

To be fair, he said DMs, not everyone. Which I kind of agree with. Some very simple examples are, how many DMs will allow magic missile shenanigans, or (a) won't try to control summoning spells? (b) The job of optimizers is to read the abilities in the most favorable way while the job of the DM is to do the opposite so he can create meaningful encounters without some player ****ting all over his attempts.

a) thnx for the example, yes, players trying to deceide what they summon with the conjure line is exactly one of the things I'm talking about. By RAW and RAI (sage advise) it's really clear that the DM deceides, but many casters argue that it should be them. That issue is about people trying to make casting arbitrary stronger, not about DM's nerfing it.

b) no our job as optimizers aint that! Stop giving us a bad name. Our "job" is to create fun a and memorizable stuff (and be smart enough to understand what is only for discussion on the boards and what is fun in actual play), and imho also to create something that complement the team/party. Our job isn't rules lawyering.

[Gtdead]

a) thnx for the example, yes, players trying to deceide what they summon with the conjure line is exactly one of the things I'm talking about. By RAW and RAI (sage advise) it's really clear that the DM deceides, but many casters argue that it should be them. That issue is about people trying to make casting arbitrary stronger, not about DM's nerfing it.

b) no our job as optimizers aint that! Stop giving us a bad name. Our "job" is to create fun a and memorizable stuff (and be smart enough to understand what is only for discussion on the boards and what is fun in actual play), and imho also to create something that complement the team/party. Our job isn't rules lawyering.

a) Sage advice also says that the player can state a preference and the DM can comply or not based on if it's campaign appropriate or it's fun to introduce to a scene. Can you make a good argument why pixies wouldn't be fun to introduce to a scene? ^^ . I concede the part about being campaign appropriate, if it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. No problem with that. As far as the pixes are concerned, it's a very nuanced option and to be honest I really dislike how it gets shutdown so easily in most online discussions. Personally, if I ever use this spell, I fully expect the DM to comply with my preference, otherwise it's going to be a TPK. However if someone uses these types of spells all the time and clog the battleground with minions that cast spells etc, I fully expect the DM to curb it cause it will become annoying. Wolves on the other hand, I don't mind at all, as long as the player using them is prepared to resolve the rounds quickly. Being good in combat means that eventually the DM will up the challenge, which means that I (and hopefully the group too) have a better experience.

There are many reasons why the DM should be the one to choose aside from nerfing. The game doesn't assume metagame knowledge, so when a player casts a spell like this, he doesn't necessarily know what to ask for. Also I believe that the language is intentionally vague. It would be extremely easy to state that the DM chooses what the "spirits" transform into. Instead it states that he has the stats of the summons. The players aren't supposed to have stats beyond their character sheet afaik.

Btw I think what's funnier is that MM shenanigans are legal according to JC.

b) I understand that there is a taboo thing going on here which I don't get, perhaps because I'm a relative newcomer to this and I don't fully understand the culture. I have a background in MMOs and being an aggressive optimizer is actually cherished there. My core belief is that you can't be an optimizer without understanding the ins and outs of the spells/abilities you are trying to optimize for. And yes, this includes rule lawyering in order to dispel the vagueness. Being precise is not a bad thing, its part of a process, and the DM should count on you to help him decide if something should be allowed or not because you are the expert and have unique insights.

When you build around an ability, you actually have to test it and make a good case. You will spend more energy on builds than anyone else in the group, and if you actually want to play your creation, you have to give a reason for the DM to not shut you down. Same thing applies when you give advice to the group.

I will apologize if you seriously believe that the way I worded my post gives reason to people reading it to try and suckerpunch the DM and it's not just a "culture" thing.

[Waazraath]

a) Sage advice also says that the player can state a preference and the DM can comply or not based on if it's campaign appropriate or it's fun to introduce to a scene. Can you make a good argument why pixies wouldn't be fun to introduce to a scene? ^^ . I concede the part about being campaign appropriate, if it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. No problem with that. As far as the pixes are concerned, it's a very nuanced option and to be honest I really dislike how it gets shutdown so easily in most online discussions. Personally, if I ever use this spell, I fully expect the DM to comply with my preference, otherwise it's going to be a TPK. However if someone uses these types of spells all the time and clog the battleground with minions that cast spells etc, I fully expect the DM to curb it cause it will become annoying. Wolves on the other hand, I don't mind at all, as long as the player using them is prepared to resolve the rounds quickly. Being good in combat means that eventually the DM will up the challenge, which means that I (and hopefully the group too) have a better experience.

There are many reasons why the DM should be the one to choose aside from nerfing. The game doesn't assume metagame knowledge, so when a player casts a spell like this, he doesn't necessarily know what to ask for. Also I believe that the language is intentionally vague. It would be extremely easy to state that the DM chooses what the "spirits" transform into. Instead it states that he has the stats of the summons. The players aren't supposed to have stats beyond their character sheet afaik.

Btw I think what's funnier is that MM shenanigans are legal according to JC.

b) I understand that there is a taboo thing going on here which I don't get, perhaps because I'm a relative newcomer to this and I don't fully understand the culture. I have a background in MMOs and being an aggressive optimizer is actually cherished there. My core belief is that you can't be an optimizer without understanding the ins and outs of the spells/abilities you are trying to optimize for. And yes, this includes rule lawyering in order to dispel the vagueness. Being precise is not a bad thing, its part of a process, and the DM should count on you to help him decide if something should be allowed or not because you are the expert and have unique insights.

When you build around an ability, you actually have to test it and make a good case. You will spend more energy on builds than anyone else in the group, and if you actually want to play your creation, you have to give a reason for the DM to not shut you down. Same thing applies when you give advice to the group.

I will apologize if you seriously believe that the way I worded my post gives reason to people reading it to try and suckerpunch the DM and it's not just a "culture" thing.

as for A, yeah, I think you are right about MM shenenigans. Imo quite obvious an oversight when JC made that clarification, but as far as we are now, it's legal. To use this as an illustration: it is a cool loophole that has been expertly exploited on this forum to make a very powerful build. That's fun optimizing for on these boards, showing how high numbers you can hit. In 3.5, there was the difference between 'practical optimization' (PO), with the purpose of using it, and 'theoretical optimization' (TO), which isn't reallly meant to be played. For me, this falls in the latter. That's personal though, but regardless: it sure as heck shouldn't be uses as a baseline for 'what a caster does' in a martial/caster balance discussion, cause it's a a (very) far outlier based on a questionable ruling. Same for conjure anytyhing: it's a good spell, and I concur that often a DM could let the player deceide, but in discussions as these it's nonsense to use this spell as an argument for 'caster power' while pretending the caster can summon whatever (s)he wants, cause it's just not RAW.

As for B, not need to apologize, no worries, but the thing is that "cranking numbers" is a large part of a video game, a rpg is much broader. At a table, in a live game, my experience is that 1) rules lawyering is less fun for everybody (including the rules lawyer when other people get annoyed): it detracts from the game and the fun, people want to create story, have fun and whack monsters, not discussing the precise meaning of PHB p29 when you put it next to what the DMG says on 134 (pulled the numbers out of my, eh, neck). 2) optimizing for power also greatly reduces fun for everybody, unless everybody optimizes up to the same level. If you have 1 player that kills all challenges, the rest of the players have less fun; if 1 player has a much lower power level than the rest and can't contribute, that's less fun. That's why 'optimizing for really high numbers' is mostly fun on these boards (TO), but hardly useable in real games unless you specifically deceide so in session 0. And practical optimization is more making a bad concept or something goofy work well enough to be playable, or optimizing a character to maximum complement a party. That's my opinion at least.

[ProsecutorGodot]

What breaks if you conclude that Grappling and Shoving don't count as attacks for purposes of rules like Sanctuary, etc.? Now you can grab priests by the collar even when you can't bring yourself to punch them in the mouth. Why is that such a bad thing that you think it can't possibly be a real rule?

Nothing breaks if you want to do it like that but that doesn't mean it's written that way.

[Skylivedk]

.
In the past on this forum, mostly past weeks, I've seen people argue on how they would hit 5 creaturers with their 5x5 cantrip, how a wizard should have more money than other classes cause "they can use spells to make more money",

4 I'd get, five is a stretch...

I don't understand how you can't see a caster make more money than a non-caster in an open world. The world has to be extremely high magic for all the services you can provide as a caster to be freely available. The downtime gold making makes no sense in the books as they are, especially when you look at the suggested price for buying a single casting of a spell. That's before you take into consideration what you can do with Scrying, Teleportation Circles etc.

If you as a DM put some artificial cap on economic endeavours, sure. If you actually look at what things cost, or services in some of the published adventures, casters become gold making machines somewhere between late tier 2 and early tier 3.

see people pretent invisibility makes them undetectable and being a win button, seen people argue the power of the lvl 1 caster because they have max. 3 sleeps for 6-8 encounters, seen people argue that rules on material and somatic components should be handwaived, assuming that 'charm' is some kind of social "I win" button instead of a liability with the possible of fierce repercussions, seen familiars counted as automatic advantage buttons, seen people get really annoyed when somebody brings up the fact that in a world with a lot of magic people might, you know, actually have defenses against said magic...

but everybody is "favoring the 'mundanes'"?! Blimey.

Agreed on weird reading of invisibility and auto-advantage. No advantage from familiars is also weird though, and not counting the mitigation provided by having enemies focus on familiars is also odd.

Dork_Forge countered the narrative potency by saying all characters will have narrative potency. This of course says nothing about the classes and if anything just disqualifies his way of playing from talking about narrative potency of a class (not character, class). If the DM has decided that classes don't matter for world/story interactions, then they won't, because everything necessary will always appear to help the players follow the story the DM has planned.

If you play in an open world with multiple ongoing disasters, crises etc. then it's super costly to be stuck at 30-50 ft movement speed without long range communication, no intel gathering except what your eyes and ears provide. In other words: if you play a boxed game with pre-imagined challenges, enemies and story line then I can easily see how the gap seems small/non-existent. I'm an open world, I can't. Even with many of the published adventures (ie. Rise of Tiamat), casters can skip several steps ahead in the plot very very early. The published adventures I've seen so far are often and easily solved using magic (post level 7 or 9).

Interesting. I never really thought about it, but you're actually unable to capture any creature larger than medium in a hemispherical wall of force.

Since a large creature's space is a 10×10ft square on a grid but a 10ft radius sphere cuts through it, using Wall of Force on anything as basic as a Troll or Hill Giant is doomed to fail

Edit: this is wrong, but the principal is right. Yes, a 10ft radius hemisphere is large enough horizontally to fit a 10ft square. That part is wrong. However, the height of the creature's space is also 10ft high, making a 1000ft^3 cube. However, a hemisphere has a single point where it goes 10ft high, the rest slopes downward. Basically, the hemisphere cuts through the cube just barely at their point, making it impossible to completely trap a large creature in a 10ft radius hemisphere.

The feet a creature take on the grid is a poor measurement for its height unfortunately. Horse Vs Dwarf Vs Dog. I would very much like physical ranges of monsters in mm for this reason :-)

[Asisreo1]

The feet a creature take on the grid is a poor measurement for its height unfortunately. Horse Vs Dwarf Vs Dog. I would very much like physical ranges of monsters in mm for this reason :-)

That actually doesn't matter. What matters is the space a creature occupies, which is a cube with a constant length depending on the size. It doesn't matter that a dog is longer than a human but a human is taller, their space is a 125 ft^3 cube.

[Asmotherion]

I was about to drop this pointless discussion, but, just to clearify a few things on my so called absurd claim on invisibility:

The most fundamental tasks of adventuring—noticing danger, finding hidden objects, hitting an enemy in combat, and targeting a spell, to name just a few—rely heavily on a character's ability to see. (Player's Handbook, p183)

And Further:

A creature in a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from the blinded condition (Player's Handbook p183)
A blinded creature can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight. (Player's Handbook p290)

So, tell me again how the Non-Caster can know the space the caster occupies and attack the right spot when they automatically fail the ability check (Perception) to find the exact location?

So, yes, unless you choose to bypass part of the rules to Favor the non-caster, the attacker can't target a Heavyly Obscured target, just guess it's location. I'd give a maximum 50% chance of targeting the right space, depending on the circumstances.

And even if you try to support the "caster needs to use the Hide Action, or everyone knows his location", which does not even stand logically, he can still bypass that by taking a few extra steps (Rope trick, pull the rope, Hide next turn; Fly before that for extra credit).

So, unless you bend the rules to favor the mundane (as I said earlyer), yes, you can bypass full encounters with minimum resources.

Now, if the premice was supposed to be "Who provides more for the party", since apparently "class vs class" automatically means PVP for some people (not like the Archmage, Specialist Wizards, Warlock Subtypes, Druids, Bearserkers etc are Monster Manual and other Book entries or anything, I'm probably just making that up, right?), let's focus on that.

Level 1: The Caster can:

Disguise Self (Infiltration), Feather Fall (Save the party from a Fall), Find Familiar (Scout ahaid), Silent Image + Minor Illusion (Misdirect), Thunderwave (Deal a Lot of Damage), Chromatic Orb (Deal the right kind of damage), Prestidigitation/Mage Hand/Mold Earth (Provide a tone of Utility) wile having a Pick of great Cantrips to do consistent Damage.

The Non-Caster (Since Mundane seems to Trigger some people): Can deal damage with a big Metal Stick.

Level 3: Invisibility/Darkness (Bypass whole encounters), Dragon's Breath (AoE each Round; If having a Familiar, at no action cost)/ Flaming Sphere/ Spiritual Weapon, Mirror Image (Survivability), Rope Trick (Lots of Utility and Strategies around it), Misty Stem (Teleport out of Harm's way),

Meanwile, the Non-Caster: Can deal more Damage with a Metal Stick. Potentially has a couple once-per short rest control.

Level 5: Counterspell/Dispell Magic (Defend the Party against enemy Spells), Tiny Hut (Provide a completelly safe resting place for the Party, that can duble as a Fort). Hypnotic Pattern (Disable the Whole enemy group in 1 Round), Haste (Buff the Guy with the Metal Stick to do more Damage), Fly (Have the Higher Ground, Tactical Advantage, Access otherwise Unaccessible Places), Spirit Guardians (Better Tank than the Actual Tank), Animate Dead (Have extra things that can Bruse the Opponent), Wall Of Sand/Water (Good Control Option), Tongues (Communicate with things that don't speak what you speak).

Non-Caster: Can deal even more damage with a Big Metal Stick, Now twice per turn.


I'm listing the lower levels on purpose, since at higher levels, it's not even a competition anymore. So, explain to me, in what context, especially a non-combat one (since me mentioning encounters was apparently out of context), is the Non-Caster so far superior to the Caster, that the Caster, and I quote "sucks" in comparison?

[Unoriginal]

I was about to drop this pointless discussion, but, just to clearify a few things on my so called absurd claim on invisibility:

The most fundamental tasks of adventuring—noticing danger, finding hidden objects, hitting an enemy in combat, and targeting a spell, to name just a few—rely heavily on a character's ability to see. (Player's Handbook, p183)

And Further:

A creature in a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from the blinded condition (Player's Handbook p183)

A blinded creature can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight. (Player's Handbook p290)


So, tell me again how the Non-Caster can know the space the caster occupies and attack the right spot when they automatically fail the ability check (Perception) to find the exact location?

Sure:

Unseen Attackers and Targets

Combatants often try to escape their foes' notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.

When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly.

When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it.

If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.

PHB, p. 194.

Wisdom (Perception) doesn't rely ONLY on sight. Nowhere it is said that fighting *requires* sight. Not being able to see is hindering, but not as much as as you're trying to pretend it is. An invisible opponent is NOT hidden by default, they need to be both unseen (which they are) and unheard (which requires either to be out of hearing range, to be under a silence-type effect, to have the opponent be deafened OR to succeed the Hide action/a Dex (Stealth) check to be unheard).


If *you* decide to ridiculously boost invisibility's power by declaring that all non-casters are deaf or somehow unable to perceive sounds if they're made by a caster, that's your issue.