5e tricks and combos collection

[Eslin]

In the default setting of 5e, isn't the sun just a portal to the Elemental Plane of Fire?

...the hell? Then how the hell is the planet orbiting it? And how is it providing enough energy to support life considering the elemental plane of fire is only a few hundred degrees?

In that case, just use a regular star, they work better anyway.

[archaeo]

...the hell? Then how the hell is the planet orbiting it?

In that case, just use a regular star, they work better anyway.

I mean, Eslin, it's a fantasy world. Given that your plan starts with "First, teleport into a star," I think we can safely throw all physics right out the window.

[Eslin]

I mean, Eslin, it's a fantasy world. Given that your plan starts with "First, teleport into a star," I think we can safely throw all physics right out the window.

You wouldn't believe how many plans would be improved with 'first, teleport into a star'

And the point of being a conjurer isn't throwing physics out the window, it's throwing physics at people you don't like =D

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

Blade Pact Warlock + Devil's Sight invocation + cast darkness spell on yourself + Great Weapon Master feat. Run around and power attack everything that's not a fiend with advantage while they can only retaliate with disadvantage.

[Symphony]

Indeed he does. I assumed we're doing this trick as soon as it becomes available (ie. level 18). But we can wait to level 20, I guess. That's fine too.

Even if you do it at 17th level, you can just take a long rest before the simulacrum makes a simulacrum of you.

[Eslin]

Sexy, I'll add it. Why are blade pact and great weapon master necessary though?

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

Sexy, I'll add it. Why are blade pact and great weapon master necessary though?

They just make the combo better. Blade pact gives you access to some nice melee attack bonuses via invocations, like +Cha to weapon damage and a second attack. Great Weapon Master lets you get +10 damage for -5 to-hit, which is awesome if you're attacking with advantage.

There's also some interaction with the Polearm Master feat, which requires GM approval for adding all of the blade pact invocations to your d4 bonus attack. But then you get three attacks at +10 and +Cha damage with advantage, which is really nice.

You could also do it with eldritch blast, but then you can't get +10 damage per attack.

[archaeo]

You wouldn't believe how many plans would be improved with 'first, teleport into a star'

And the point of being a conjurer isn't throwing physics out the window, it's throwing physics at people you don't like =D

Well, I'm just saying, as a DM, I wouldn't let you use real-world physics knowledge for an in-character plan. Letting casters have access to all of the mundane magics of 21st century science is opening a huge Pandora's box, one I'd be really hesitant to open up on a campaign world.

[Sir_Leorik]

...the hell? Then how the hell is the planet orbiting it? And how is it providing enough energy to support life considering the elemental plane of fire is only a few hundred degrees?

In that case, just use a regular star, they work better anyway.

It's magic, specifically the magic of Wildspace! (Also the stars are portals to the Phlogiston that connects all Crystal Spheres on the Material World. There are no "regular" stars in D&D.)

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

It's magic, specifically the magic of Wildspace! (Also the stars are portals to the Phlogiston that connects all Crystal Spheres on the Material World. There are no "regular" stars in D&D.)

Depends on the setting. In 4e Greyhawk all the stars are the winking eyes of the Old Ones.

[Sir_Leorik]

Depends on the setting. In 4e Greyhawk all the stars are the winking eyes of the Old Ones.

In 2E Greyhawk, Oerth sat at the center of its Crystal Sphere (Greyspace) and the sun revolved around Oerth. And the famous example of Dragonlance, where the stars are the embodiment of the pantheons, and the three moons are the homes of Solinari, Lunitari and Nuitari, the dragon gods of magic. When Paladine or Takhisis come to Krynn, their constellations disappear until they return to the Outer Planes.

[numerek]

Then the designers should have actually proofread their ******* book, no DM should have to search through twitter for 'designers said'. 10/10 it remains.

Regarding harms other creatures - it says harms, not your inserted 'directly harms'. A hexed enemy takes additional damage whenever struck, that's harm. If it required direct harm, it wouldn't allow summoned creatures. And no, there's nothing in glyph that says you're the beneficiary of, say, hex. However Hex does, and for it to have any effect someone has to - hex causes them to take additional damage when you hurt them, there's nothing in glyph's warding to contradict that.

Its interesting because you lowered other tricks/combos because of dm fiat but you don't think any dm is going to listen to what the designers say.

No the spell hunter's mark doesn't harm another creature, it enhances you. its just like divine favor with the exception that it only enhances you against a single creature at a time, for this limitation you get better casting time, better damage dice, and additional enhancement and longer duration. If the spell made the target take extra damage from all sources then that could be considered harm but it doesn't it only enhances the damage you deal. And this is exactly the way you are trying to use the spell as a personal buff. And Hex if you really want I would say that the creature that triggers the glyph can have disadvantage on an ability's checks for the full duration. But it doesn't just give you a 24 hour buff when it doesn't follow the wording of the spell or the intent.

Yes you can allow whatever you want and you can try to convince a dm of whatever you want but you don't need to be playing 5th edition to have the same ability apply to any game. You can take any game and apply dm fiat liberally and change it to any other game, you can make 5th edition into white wolf via dm fiat. If you want to play 5th edition you play by the intent of the designers otherwise you are playing whatever game you and your group come up with. And perhaps this newly created game can have your own forum and where people can talk about the tricks and combos of it. And players of said game can say disparaging remarks about its designers for not proofreading the book if one ever ends up getting published.

[Eslin]

It's not 'listening to what the designers say'. This is a simple edition with lots of playtesting and time, there is no reason whatsoever a DM should have to go searching online for individual conversations for answers to things that should have been in the book.

If it's in there and it's not clearly abusing the rules (see: horse doublecasting), it's fair game.

[Shadow]

If it's in there and it's not clearly abusing the rules (see: horse doublecasting), it's fair game.

So horse doublecasting is abusing the rules, but casting hex on a glyph is fine?
The problem with a hex glyph is that the DM could absolutely and easily rule that the glyph becomes the source of the hex once it gets triggered, not you, so the glyph would need to be the one that changes targets when available.... except it obviously can't do that.
Not to mention the fact that the glyph can't hurt the target, so the hex has no effect other than skill check shenanigans.
So congratulations, you just used two higher level spell slots to make exactly nothing happen.
Good job.

[Totema]

Minor conjuration creates free items (Thanks Slipperychicken)
Benefits: Gain useful or expensive items for free
RAW: 10/10. There is absolutely no reason you can't use it to create an adamantine shortsword or expensive material component.

(emphasis mine)

Hmm, what about the fairly explicit line,

...and its form must be of a nonmagical object that you have seen.

At 2nd level a PC barely knows their own backside from their elbow, so unless the DM is generous to the point of insanity and follows RAW to a degree that is no longer encouraged by the system itself, there won't be any free adamantine swords until very high levels. Don't get me wrong -- it's still an absolutely strong ability (and one that I will beat heavily with the nerfstick for my own games) but it's not 10/10.

[Slipperychicken]

At 2nd level a PC barely knows their own backside from their elbow, so unless the DM is generous to the point of insanity and follows RAW to a degree that is no longer encouraged by the system itself, there won't be any free adamantine swords until very high levels. Don't get me wrong -- it's still an absolutely strong ability (and one that I will beat heavily with the nerfstick for my own games) but it's not 10/10.

So it's completely insane to think that a PC has ever glimpsed an adamantine shortsword in his entire life before the game started?

[Totema]

So it's completely insane to think that a PC has ever glimpsed an adamantine shortsword in his entire life before the game started?

Adamantine isn't even a weapon material in the PHB. Given that the power level is significantly lower in 5e than in previous editions, it's possible that adamantine weapons are inherently magical and thereby off limits.

And, yeah, I think it is. Even if it's technically possibly by RAW, if a player tried to explain that their character saw an adamantine sword at some point in their life for seemingly no other purpose than to crap one out for an hour, that's really just munchkin stupidity.

Edit: I realized I actually can already see if adamantine weapons are assumed to be magical and mundane, since I just got my new Monster Manual and it does extensively discuss the drow, which are known to use them. And what do you know, they still do, and they apparently aren't magic. Bangin'. Well alright, with this being the case, how do they stack up? Looking at the drow elite warrior (Surely an elite warrior would have an adamantine sword!) and eliminating all known contributors to its attack bonus and damage bonus (namely, its CR and Dex modifier) it turns out... they do nothing special. No attack bonuses Adamantine weapons are apparently identical in capability as old fashioned steel. Maybe its responsible for that neat parry ability but I doubt it, since a CR 5 creature ought to be more than an NPC stand-in and without an extra ability it wouldn't stack up.

So, alright, I changed my mind. Yeah, a player can make an adamantine weapon if they want. They can roll a knowledge check or whatever to see if they saw one. But it's no better than pretty much any weapon of its kind, since this isn't 3.5 anymore.

[Vintrastorm]

Abjuration specialist plus armour of agathys
Benefits: Keeps the damage reflection from armour of agathys for far longer than usual.
RAW: 10/10. Cast armour of agathys with a high level spell slot to deal slot levelx5 damage to anyone that strikes you and then have arcane ward absorb damage from attacks, keeping your temporary hp from armour of agathys safe and greatly extending the duration.

ESLIN: Combine this with Armor of Shadow (Mage Armor, lvl 1 abjuration at will) to always replenish your Arcane Ward.

[Eslin]

{{scrubbed}}

ESLIN: Combine this with Armor of Shadow (Mage Armor, lvl 1 abjuration at will) to always replenish your Arcane Ward.

Ooo, nice one.

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

Minor conjuration creates free items (Thanks Slipperychicken)
Benefits: Gain useful or expensive items for free
RAW: 10/10. There is absolutely no reason you can't use it to create an adamantine shortsword or expensive material component.

It has a lot of downsides, like only being able to conjure one object at a time. The GM may rule that the "takes any damage" limitation means that an adamantine shortsword also disappears when it deals damage.

[JRutterbush]

Edit: I realized I actually can already see if adamantine weapons are assumed to be magical and mundane, since I just got my new Monster Manual and it does extensively discuss the drow, which are known to use them. And what do you know, they still do, and they apparently aren't magic. Bangin'. Well alright, with this being the case, how do they stack up? Looking at the drow elite warrior (Surely an elite warrior would have an adamantine sword!) and eliminating all known contributors to its attack bonus and damage bonus (namely, its CR and Dex modifier) it turns out... they do nothing special. No attack bonuses Adamantine weapons are apparently identical in capability as old fashioned steel. Maybe its responsible for that neat parry ability but I doubt it, since a CR 5 creature ought to be more than an NPC stand-in and without an extra ability it wouldn't stack up.

What are you talking about? The drow in the monster manual aren't using adamantine weapons. You can't just say "Oh, surely they would be using adamantine!" when there is nothing at all to suggest this to be the case. It does say that drow craft weapons of adamantine, but the actual stat blocks don't include adamantine weapons.

You're well within your right to say that adamantine is magical enough to be off-limits, or even just say that it's not available yet since there are no rules for it yet. But don't use faulty reasoning as your argument, it doesn't work.

ESLIN: Combine this with Armor of Shadow (Mage Armor, lvl 1 abjuration at will) to always replenish your Arcane Ward.

This sort of thing is why I'm changing it to read like the conjurer version: no recharging the Ward unless you cast a spell using a spell slot. I think this was an oversight, but I can't be sure, so RAW it still works. Definitely gonna house-rule it for my games, though.

[Slipperychicken]

It has a lot of downsides, like only being able to conjure one object at a time. The GM may rule that the "takes any damage" limitation means that an adamantine shortsword also disappears when it deals damage.

Firstly, attacking with a weapon doesn't deal damage to it anywhere in the PHB.

Secondly, if using a weapon to attack dealt damage to that weapon, then weapons would be pretty short-lived, and unarmed strikes would be masochistic if not suicidal at low levels.

[archaeo]

This sort of thing is why I'm changing it to read like the conjurer version: no recharging the Ward unless you cast a spell using a spell slot. I think this was an oversight, but I can't be sure, so RAW it still works. Definitely gonna house-rule it for my games, though.

As an aside, I asked Jeremy Crawford about this on Twitter, who pointed out that the Arcane Ward does have an HP limit. But I'd broadly agree that the rule could be better written to reflect that.

[Shadow]

Since it's become very obvious we never agree on how things are played, try to stick to idea suggestion rather than criticism in this kind of thread.

Since it's become very obvious that we never agree on how things are played, perhaps you should have expected me to pop in here with a comment.
I completely ignored this thread and only commented to confirm something that another poster stated until you hypocritically called one use abusive while claiming that another was acceptable.
Gaming an ambiguity in the wording to essentially get a 24 hour buff to your damage, which does not require concentration, is absolutely and unquestionably abuse.

[Eslin]

An hour minimum prep time, two fifth level spell slots and 200g per day for +1d6 damage is abuse? And it's there's no ambiguity about it, it works.

[Shadow]

An hour minimum prep time, two fifth level spell slots and 200g per day for +1d6 damage is abuse? And it's not an ambiguous about it, it works.

Well, if you want to be techincal, it doesn't work.
Period.

"When you cast this spell, you inscribe a glyph that harms other creatures, either upon a surface (such as a table or a section o f floor or wall) or within an object that can be closed (such as a book, a scroll, or a treasure chest) to conceal the glyph."

Emphasis mine. Hex doesn't harm other creatures. Hex modifies the damage from other sources, but it doesn't do anything harmful in and of itself, and is therefore not a valid spell to be placed on a glyph in the first place.

[Cambrian]

An hour minimum prep time, two fifth level spell slots and 200g per day for +1d6 damage is abuse? And it's not an ambiguous about it, it works.

It's probably fair to say that you're both right-- it's abuse in the sense that it is not the intention of the spell. It's also not game breaking and I would allow it under the right circumstances.

The Armor of Shadow interaction is 100% RAW, and 100% not happening in my games. The player would get the ward from the first casting of mage armor, and if they cast it again 8 hours later (or it was dispelled) they'd get the 2 HP. But they would not be able to fully ward themselves before combat.

Hex doesn't harm other creatures. Hex modifies the damage from other sources, but it doesn't do anything harmful in and of itself, and is therefore not a valid spell to be placed on a glyph in the first place.

What about the disadvantage part? That surely is harming them, even if not physically. Unless you'd also rule hold person also would not be a viable spell to use with glyph of warding.

[Shadow]

What about the disadvantage part? That surely is harming them, even if not physically. Unless you'd also rule hold person also would not be a viable spell to use with glyph of warding.

Hold person paralyzes the target. That is absolutely harmful.
Applying disadvantage to a single skill check, however, might be classified as annoying, but calling it harmful is a stretch.
Regardless, the intention is clear, and that intention was not to create a situation wherein a caster could gain a permanent, floating damage buff not requiring concentration, and therebye allowing other concentration spells to be held in tandem with the damage buff.

The harmful spell clause and the fact that the glyph is the one in control of the spell (rather than you, evidenced by the fact that concentration remains), along with all that the glyph being in control entails, should be enough to drop this cheese from a 9/10 to a 4-or-5/10 at best.

[Eslin]

Well, if you want to be techincal, it doesn't work.
Period.

"When you cast this spell, you inscribe a glyph that harms other creatures, either upon a surface (such as a table or a section o f floor or wall) or within an object that can be closed (such as a book, a scroll, or a treasure chest) to conceal the glyph."

Emphasis mine. Hex doesn't harm other creatures. Hex modifies the damage from other sources, but it doesn't do anything harmful in and of itself, and is therefore not a valid spell to be placed on a glyph in the first place.

It doesn't need to be harmful in and of itself - if it did, it would say directly harmful. It doesn't even need to damage them, otherwise it would say damage. It needs to harm them, directly or indirectly - curse and hold person don't directly damage someone, but they're obviously valid targets. Hex applies disadvantage and causes them to take additional damage, I'd definitely call that harm.

[Cambrian]

The harmful spell clause and the fact that the glyph is the one in control of the spell (rather than you, evidenced by the fact that concentration remains), along with all that the glyph being in control entails, should be enough to drop this cheese from a 9/10 to a 4-or-5/10 at best.

I think it would be fair for a DM to rule that the hex was under the control of the glyph and therefore was not able to be transferred or provide the damage.

Restricting what counts as harmful, while useful, should be used sparingly. I wouldn't allow a heal glyph for example; however, if a situation came up where it could be used to harm a creature it would work with an specialized trigger condition.

Would you allow levitate as a spell? It's not harmfull but can make a good trap in a large room by keeping a character suspended 20 feet in the air unable to move for 10 minutes.