Page 4 of 27 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 790
  1. - Top - End - #91
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    RogueGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2014

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by DivisibleByZero View Post
    If you were allowing it, you were houseruling.
    So houserule it again now. Literally nothing changes. You were houseruling before, so houserule it again now. There is no problem that needs to be solved.
    I agree.

  2. - Top - End - #92
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Dec 2005

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by DivisibleByZero View Post
    Literally nothing changes.
    The new rule explicitly allows something which is more circuitous than what is now explicitly disallowed (and which previously did not have a rule). How is this literally not a change?
    Ur-member and coffee caterer of the fan club.

    I wish people would stop using phrases such as "in my humble opinion", "just my two cents", and "we're out of coffee".

    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for they are out drinking coffee and, like, whatever.

  3. - Top - End - #93
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    RogueGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2014

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coffee_Dragon View Post
    The new rule explicitly allows something which is more circuitous than what is now explicitly disallowed (and which previously did not have a rule). How is this literally not a change?
    If you use the new rule, obviously something changes. That's not what he was saying. I think.

  4. - Top - End - #94
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beelzebubba View Post
    I agree with the conclusion, based on how Spell Scrolls work (if it's on your list you can use it, it doesn't discriminate), but do the rules specifically say this somewhere?
    Aside from how you can freely use your Cleric spell slots to cast your Wizard spells, which implies that, there are a few stuff that pretty much confirm it:

    When a character casts any spell, the same basic rules are followed, regardless of the character's class or the spell's effects.
    Also:

    Arcana. Your Intelligence (Arcana) check measures your ability to recall lore about spells
    No distinction due to where the spell come from.

    A spell is a discrete magical effect, a single shaping of the magical energies that suffuse the multiverse into a specific, limited expression. In casting a spell, a character carefully plucks at the invisible strands of raw magic suffusing the world, pins them in place in a particular pattern, sets them vibrating in a specific way, and then releases them to unleash the desired effect-in most cases, all in the span of seconds.
    Again, no distinction between the kind of spellcaster.

    Before a spellcaster can use a spell, he or she must have the spell firmly fixed in mind, or must have access to the spell in a magic item. Members of a few classes, including bards and sorcerers, have a limited list of spells they know that are always fixed in mind.
    Again, all spellcaster must have the spell fixed in mind, no distinction if it's divine or arcane magic.

    The spells of wizards, warlocks, sorcerers, and bards are commonly called arcane magic. These spells rely on an understanding-learned or intuitive-of the workings of the Weave. The caster plucks directly at the strands of the Weave to create the desired effect. Eldritch knights and arcane tricksters also use arcane magic. The spells of clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers are called divine magic. These spellcasters' access to the Weave is mediated by divine power-gods, the divine forces of nature, or the sacred weight of a paladin's oath.
    And once more, no distinction between the spells themselves, only how direct the caster is in contact with the source of the power.
    Last edited by Unoriginal; 2017-11-10 at 01:40 PM.

  5. - Top - End - #95
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GnomeWizardGuy

    Join Date
    May 2015

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finieous View Post
    If you use the new rule, obviously something changes. That's not what he was saying. I think.
    Correct, that's not what I was saying.
    What I was saying is that you were houseruiling it before, so houserule it again now. Houserule it into whatever the heck you want to.
    That's what you did before, so why is doing it now such a problem for everyone?
    That makes no sense.

    "I don't like that there are no rules for this, so I'm going to make my own up for my table."
    Great.

    "I don't like these new rules they just presented, so I'm going to rage about the fact that the rules I made up for my table don't work any longer!"
    What?

    You were ignoring the fact that they intentionally removed those rules before, so now just ignore the new rules they introduced.
    Why is this so hard?
    Last edited by DivisibleByZero; 2017-11-10 at 01:43 PM.
    If you quote me and ask me questions,
    and I continue to not respond,
    it's probably because I have
    you on my Ignore list.
    Congratulations.

  6. - Top - End - #96
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finieous View Post
    If you use the new rule, obviously something changes. That's not what he was saying. I think.
    Yeah. Except where it might have been considered a DM ruling before, it is now considered a House rule. But nothing changes.

  7. - Top - End - #97
    Troll in the Playground
     
    MonkGirl

    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    NW USA
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    DMs have discretion as when to use passive skill checks right? If your table really wants easier spell ID just use passive skill checks to do so

  8. - Top - End - #98
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    RogueGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2014

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Breashios View Post
    Yeah. Except where it might have been considered a DM ruling before, it is now considered a House rule. But nothing changes.
    People shouldn't be afraid of house rules. Bad house rules are bad. Good house rules (like ditching this argle bargle) are good.

  9. - Top - End - #99
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Breashios View Post
    Yeah. Except where it might have been considered a DM ruling before, it is now considered a House rule. But nothing changes.
    It would have been incorrect to consider it a DM ruling before.

    There is nothing wrong with house rules, and they're not something one should be displeased to have if they prefer it to the rules from the books.

  10. - Top - End - #100
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Naanomi View Post
    DMs have discretion as when to use passive skill checks right? If your table really wants easier spell ID just use passive skill checks to do so
    I thought they did to some extent, but we'll have to check with some of the posters here that know more than I do.

    I also think the implication of the new rule, however, is that since it is now specified that it is done as a reaction, it would no longer be done as a passive skill check.

    Which was my DM ruling (AND NOT A HOUSE RULE as I defined above). But I accept that other people have different definitions of these two things. Its just that many people considered the passive skill check to be a DM ruling in cases of Arcana for Counterspell before.
    Last edited by Breashios; 2017-11-10 at 01:49 PM.

  11. - Top - End - #101
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    At this point everyone has retreated into their corners and are saber-rattling. In the interest of stoking the flames: Has anyone considered what consequences this rule has when the DM decides if an enemy is going to use a Legendary Resistance or not?
    Last edited by Dhuraal; 2017-11-10 at 01:47 PM.

  12. - Top - End - #102
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    LeonBH's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Breashios View Post
    Yeah. Except where it might have been considered a DM ruling before, it is now considered a House rule. But nothing changes.
    The distinction between a DM ruling and a house rule is not important unless someone is grading you and giving out -1's for every house rule you use.

  13. - Top - End - #103
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    LeonBH's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dhuraal View Post
    At this point everyone has retreated into their corners and are saber-rattling. In the interest of stoking the flames: Has anyone considered what consequences this rule has when the DM decides if an enemy is going to use a Legendary Resistance or not?
    Like what consequences? Legendary resists don't take up a reaction.

  14. - Top - End - #104
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by LeonBH View Post
    The distinction between a DM ruling and a house rule is not important unless someone is grading you and giving out -1's for every house rule you use.
    This is the context I put on this before by saying it was pretty much semantics (much earlier post), but I was corrected that is was not semantics and that I was wrong. Which in posts since I have accepted. Since it is not semantics, it must be an important distinction to some.

  15. - Top - End - #105
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GnomeWizardGuy

    Join Date
    May 2015

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by LeonBH View Post
    The distinction between a DM ruling and a house rule is not important unless someone is grading you and giving out -1's for every house rule you use.
    A DM Ruling and an House Rule are the exact same thing, but the former is a one situational time thing while the latter is semi-permanent to permanent at the table.
    Some people just have an irrational bias against House Rules, as we're seeing from Breashios.
    If you quote me and ask me questions,
    and I continue to not respond,
    it's probably because I have
    you on my Ignore list.
    Congratulations.

  16. - Top - End - #106
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    LeonBH's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Breashios View Post
    This is the context I put on this before by saying it was pretty much semantics (much earlier post), but I was corrected that is was not semantics and that I was wrong. Which in posts since I have accepted. Since it is not semantics, it must be an important distinction to some.
    Their distinction may be real conceptually, but no one at the table cares if the rule interpretation the DM just performed can be categorized as a house rule or a DM ruling. The DM ruled it, so it must be.

  17. - Top - End - #107
    Halfling in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Are WotC books considered required rules (equivalent of the core books, less rules explicitly stated as optional) or optional?

    If they are optional, does everyone assume that they have to be accepted 0%/100% with nothing in between (i.e. Can you say, "Let's use Chapters 3 & 4, but everything else is stupid")?

  18. - Top - End - #108
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Dec 2005

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finieous View Post
    If you use the new rule, obviously something changes. That's not what he was saying. I think.
    Yeah, but popping in to say people shouldn't comment on a new rule or its accompanying flavour justifications because they can choose not to use it makes little sense.
    Ur-member and coffee caterer of the fan club.

    I wish people would stop using phrases such as "in my humble opinion", "just my two cents", and "we're out of coffee".

    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for they are out drinking coffee and, like, whatever.

  19. - Top - End - #109
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by DivisibleByZero View Post
    A DM Ruling and an House Rule are the exact same thing, but the former is a one situational time thing while the latter is semi-permanent to permanent at the table.
    Some people just have an irrational bias against House Rules, as we're seeing from Breashios.
    I agree that is what you are seeing, but I want to be clear it is not my personal view. It is my, for the sake of argument position. And here is why -

    In real life, I run a 5e campaign where the players started with the demand for a RAW game. We play that to the extent that we can. I could see this exact particular case would be an issue, because no rule said you could identify a spell being cast, how would the players know?

    So before it came up in actual play we discussed it and they (all six) said the same thing. "Obviously, just because it didn't say you could did not mean RAW you couldn't."

    They demanded the ability to make passive Arcana checks (if they had the skill) when seeing spells being cast and we took a half hour to work out what that would look like, with some minor refinements in game as the campaign progressed. As I have indicated before they worked great.

    On the other side I play a lot as well. With the group I play with the most, the DM is crazy into the HOUSE RULES and I enjoy that game just as much as running the other one. I have no problem with house rules and therefore no "irrational bias against House Rules."

    Just to be clear.

    But for one group I need to know the difference. I appreciate the discussion and have no problem with seeing it another way. I'm just trying to point out, for a lot of people, they did not think they were "House ruling" the passive Arcana checks. - Now they would have to accept that they are.

  20. - Top - End - #110
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Telok's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    PRAK

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't reactions take place after the action that triggers them unless the ability/spell specifically states that it interrupts?
    Niven's Laws, #5
    If you've nothing to say, say it any way you like. Stylistic innovations, contorted story lines or none, exotic or genderless pronouns, internal inconsistencies, the recipe for preparing your lover as a cannibal banquet: feel free. If what you have to say is important and/or difficult to follow, use the simplest language possible. If the reader doesn't get it then, let it not be your fault.

  21. - Top - End - #111
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GnomeWizardGuy

    Join Date
    May 2015

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Telok View Post
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't reactions take place after the action that triggers them unless the ability/spell specifically states that it interrupts?
    .... unless timing is specified otherwise.
    Identifying a spell as it is being cast clearly specifies otherwise.
    If you quote me and ask me questions,
    and I continue to not respond,
    it's probably because I have
    you on my Ignore list.
    Congratulations.

  22. - Top - End - #112
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    LeonBH's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Breashios, when your group that demanded to play by RAW asked you to let them identify spells as they were being cast, for the purpose of Counterspelling them, they were asking you to enforce a house rule.

    "Just because the rules don't say, doesn't mean it's not RAW" is totally wrong. The rules don't disallow, but neither did they prescribe. There was no RAW way of doing it.

    In order to do it at all, you had to create a new rule that the table would abide by. That rule was not in the RAW. But it was a rule binding everyone playing at your table.

  23. - Top - End - #113
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by lunaticfringe View Post
    Is this optional/variant? I wasn't planning to use new rules from X's because I like how 5e works as is. Some Sage Advice and comments from the design team have lead me to believe they will be terrible. Like we have different approaches. The game wasn't designed for spell identification so I figured it was going to be a tacked on **** fest to appease dumbasses & whiners.
    Quote Originally Posted by mrumsey View Post
    Are WotC books considered required rules (equivalent of the core books, less rules explicitly stated as optional) or optional?

    If they are optional, does everyone assume that they have to be accepted 0%/100% with nothing in between (i.e. Can you say, "Let's use Chapters 3 & 4, but everything else is stupid")?
    Each of Xanathar's Guide's rules is just a proposed option, as far as I know. You can select or not choose any of them, as you wish.

    Like one subclass but not the Identifying Spell rule? Pick the first, ignore the second.

  24. - Top - End - #114
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Sep 2013

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Unoriginal View Post
    Each of Xanathar's Guide's rules is just a proposed option, as far as I know. You can select or not choose any of them, as you wish.

    Like one subclass but not the Identifying Spell rule? Pick the first, ignore the second.
    Excellent, I assumed/hoped they would be. Why is this an issue then?

  25. - Top - End - #115
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default The New Counterspell Rules

    The new rule seems functional (although the old rule was also functional). I guess you would choose one or the other based on personal taste as it applies to the tone of the campaign you are running.

    DM: Determines the NPC action
    NPC: Starts casting
    PC: Choose whether to use Reaction to blindly Counterspell
    DM: Resolve Spell as appropriate

    DM: Determines the NPC action
    NPC: Starts casting
    PC ONE: Use Reaction to identify spell
    PC TWO: Choose whether to use Reaction to Counterspell
    DM: Resolve Spell as appropriate

    DM: Determine if the NPC would blindly Counterspell
    PC: Start Casting _insert spell_
    DM: Determine if the NPC would have blindly Counterspelled
    DM: Resolve Spell as appropriate

  26. - Top - End - #116
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by lunaticfringe View Post
    Excellent, I assumed/hoped they would be. Why is this an issue then?
    The only reasonable explanation is that the folks having an issue with it play in AL.

    Otherwise, in my opinion, it is just about validation. If you are using a house rule when there is no official rule; no big deal. But if you are using a house rule when there is an official ruling? Then someone could tell you that they prefer the official way, and now you have to justify why you're rule is better than the official one.

    Compound that with the fact that it is after the fact. Had the official rule been in line with your house rule "Hey! I was right all along!" But, since it is different, it creates the emotional reaction to having the official source tell you that you were, in fact, "wrong" all along.

    Not that I think anyone is thinking this way explicitly. Just that it is the driving force, the little voice back in the mind, that is causing the ardent rejection of it.

    I am also not a psychologist. Just another fool online with an opinion
    Last edited by Dhuraal; 2017-11-10 at 02:53 PM.

  27. - Top - End - #117
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GnomeWizardGuy

    Join Date
    May 2015

    Default Re: The New Counterspell Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by OldTrees1 View Post
    The new rule seems functional (although the old rule was also functional)
    The "old rule" didn't exist.
    That was a 3e rule that people ported over and used as an house rule.
    There were no rules for this in 5e prior to XGtE, and that was intentional.
    If you quote me and ask me questions,
    and I continue to not respond,
    it's probably because I have
    you on my Ignore list.
    Congratulations.

  28. - Top - End - #118
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by DivisibleByZero View Post
    The bottom line here is this:
    People are getting all bent out of shape because the rules do not allow them to identify a spell and counterspell it, by themselves, in the same turn.

    News flash: The rules never allowed this in the first place.
    You're complaining that the rules "no longer" allow something which the rules never actually allowed to begin with.
    If you were allowing it, you were houseruling.
    So houserule it again now. Literally nothing changes. You were houseruling before, so houserule it again now. There is no problem that needs to be solved.
    Perhaps people wanted this ability to happen and are disappointed when the subject is addressed in an official capacity it's still not a thing to happen in an official capacity. They want official justification so as it's no longer needed as a house rule.

    The house rule will work fine at one table but go to another table it's not there and no official rule to do what they wanted an ability to do.
    Quote Originally Posted by Erit View Post
    "The DM is the world, the gods, the trees and the bees. But no matter what covenant is struck or words exchanged, the DM is not the PCs."

  29. - Top - End - #119
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    mephnick's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2012

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by lunaticfringe View Post
    Excellent, I assumed/hoped they would be. Why is this an issue then?
    It's not.

    A) Optional rule

    B) The DM was already metagaming each spell being cast because the player HAS to tell the DM what's happening. This actually makes a DM counterspelling a strong PC spell HARDER

    People are weird.

  30. - Top - End - #120
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GnomeWizardGuy

    Join Date
    May 2015

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    Perhaps people wanted this ability to happen and are disappointed when the subject is addressed in an official capacity it's still not a thing to happen in an official capacity. They want official justification so as it's no longer needed as a house rule.

    The house rule will work fine at one table but go to another table it's not there and no official rule to do what they wanted an ability to do.
    It was removed form this edition on purpose, with reasons.
    People cried because they wanted it back.
    WotC gave way to their demands, but in a way that kept the foundation for the reasons they removed it to begin with intact.

    If you want official, then these rules either do not exist at all, or they have now been introduced in what I can only imagine will be listed under an Optional Rules category.
    There's your official rules.
    If you quote me and ask me questions,
    and I continue to not respond,
    it's probably because I have
    you on my Ignore list.
    Congratulations.

Posting Permissions

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