Counterspelled Booming Blade

[Blatant Beast]

Why would WotC write such specific prose if at the end of it all, they essentially say "just kidding, it doesn't matter!"

Time constraints. The early 5e team was just trying to crank stuff out, not make the game flawless.

Chris Perkins said this about the classes:
“ Speaking frankly, [and] this is my own personal opinion, 12 classes is actually a lot," Perkins tells us. "If I were redesigning, if I could go back to 2012 to when we were talking about Fifth Edition for the first time, I would probably put a strong case forward that we could actually do with less classes in the core game. You know, keep the choices simple. Because when you're asking somebody to choose between a Sorcerer and a Wizard, to the untrained eye, it's not clear what the difference is until you start to drill down and you realize where they get their power from and how their spell-casting works. When you look at it superficially, they seem pretty much the same. And you know, what is the difference between a Barbarian and a Fighter? A Barbarian could almost be a subclass [for a] Fighter if we were designing this game from scratch."
https://www.gamesradar.com/dandd-dev...sses-not-more/

5e is literally a bunch of rules inspired by play throughs of prior editions, slapped together in record time, with very little support or expectations of success.

Spells, do mostly do, what they say they do…but not all the time.
Historically, spell casting on other planes, or even Underwater for example caused changes. 1e had different ranges for spells depending one wether the spell was cast together outside or inside a building.

I’ve said more than my fill on this topic. I think the space exists for more viewpoints than RAW Uber Alles, and I for one am going to represent that belief in my posts.

[Amnestic]

Time constraints. The early 5e team was just trying to crank stuff out, not make the game flawless.

Chris Perkins said this about the classes:
“ Speaking frankly, [and] this is my own personal opinion, 12 classes is actually a lot," Perkins tells us. "If I were redesigning, if I could go back to 2012 to when we were talking about Fifth Edition for the first time, I would probably put a strong case forward that we could actually do with less classes in the core game. You know, keep the choices simple. Because when you're asking somebody to choose between a Sorcerer and a Wizard, to the untrained eye, it's not clear what the difference is until you start to drill down and you realize where they get their power from and how their spell-casting works. When you look at it superficially, they seem pretty much the same. And you know, what is the difference between a Barbarian and a Fighter? A Barbarian could almost be a subclass [for a] Fighter if we were designing this game from scratch."
https://www.gamesradar.com/dandd-dev...sses-not-more/

The playtest sorcerer had its own special unique mechanic (Willpower) which - as you spent more of it on spells/abilities it gave you passive buffs until your next long rest. It was a mechanic that we see nowhere else in the edition, and was dropped from the actual printed sorcerer.

Seems kinda lame that his reflection is "we should've got rid of sorcerer and barbarian" (and probably some other classes too) instead of "we should have done a better job at making them unique in playstyle so they stood as distinct entities in their own right."

[Dr.Samurai]

The playtest sorcerer had its own special unique mechanic (Willpower) which - as you spent more of it on spells/abilities it gave you passive buffs until your next long rest. It was a mechanic that we see nowhere else in the edition, and was dropped from the actual printed sorcerer.

Seems kinda lame that his reflection is "we should've got rid of sorcerer and barbarian" (and probably some other classes too) instead of "we should have done a better job at making them unique in playstyle so they stood as distinct entities in their own right."

Totally agree.

[KorvinStarmast]

Seems kinda lame that his reflection is "we should've got rid of sorcerer and barbarian" (and probably some other classes too) instead of "we should have done a better job at making them unique in playstyle so they stood as distinct entities in their own right."

Disagree. barbarian as a sub class of fighter and sorcerer just not being in the game would have been better.

Perkins was right. Too many classes.

[Witty Username]

My personal dislike of sorcerer as a concept leaves me irrevocably biased.

[Aimeryan]

I am more, why should cloud of daggers be unblockable and unstoppable?
Which is where the conversation seems to be going.

This is an unfortunate consequence of simple 5e removing DR and having armour just contribute to miss chance. A more complicated edition would separate these things allowing for more agency through tactics, but this would have a compounding effect on other features that are built around the simple AC system that would also need changing to adjust.

The case is that 5e doesn't have the scaffolding to support this sort of complexity. It could be built, but that is a weighty task best suited to developers who have the time and motivation to do so and get paid for it. There are other systems out there, and maybe one day a 6e will be developed (despite the current WotC crew stating otherwise) to take advantages of things like smart apps to take on the burden of complexity without taking away from the grandeur of tabletop play.

[JackPhoenix]

Disagree. barbarian as a sub class of fighter and sorcerer just not being in the game would have been better.

I don't mind those classes being in the game, IF THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THEM AND OTHER CLASSES (that goes for everyone else, too). Sorcerer as it is now (and always was) is too similar to a wizad. Make the different: have them use spell points instead of the good old boring spell slots is the bare minimum. Ideally, lean into the fact they are not studying the same magic, they are born with supernatural powers and they never heard about spell components in their entire live. Something like 3.5 warlock or PF1 kineticist would be great... you're blaster, you're based on throwing raw magical energy around and shaping it to a different forms. Elemental blasts, breath weapons, offensive telekinesis, smashing your enemies with fists wrapped in magical energy... add physical changes like growing wings, natural weapons and similar abilities related to their source of power, and we're talking.
Barbarian? Fighter is the "mundane" warrior, barbarian is the one who gets supernatural powers, a melee focused sorcerer in a way. Rage as just a few numeric boosts boring, but hulking out to grow in size, turn into a monster, have a bunch of ancestral spirits assist you in combat? Now the barbarian has a reason to exist as something other than a fighter's subclass.

[Dalinar]

Page 201 of the PHB has this to say about spells:
“ WHAT Is A SPELL?
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.”

Yet even in this quote, it is made clear with the use of the hyphen, that spell unleash their desired effect only “in most cases”.

(italics mine)

Huh?

The passage pretty clearly reads "in most cases, all in the span of seconds" (as in: most spells have a casting time of an action or less), not "unleash the desired effect in most cases" (as in: occasionally spells don't do what you want them to do).

Reading forward in the thread, I see this has been pointed out already. I don't actually disagree with your conclusion (RAW is only a good concept insofar as it's useful, and in its capacity as a source of endless internet acrimony it certainly is not that), I'm just confused how you got that from this passage, especially by citing the hyphen that seems to me like it does the opposite of what you say it does.

Which, ironically, backs up the point. If people can have conflicting reads of the same text, how can RAW be authoritative?

[Psyren]

Seems kinda lame that his reflection is "we should've got rid of sorcerer and barbarian" (and probably some other classes too) instead of "we should have done a better job at making them unique in playstyle so they stood as distinct entities in their own right."

Agreed, and that thinking worries me for when we actually get 6e. But who knows, 10 years from now people might be ready for some consolidation.

No, no. You said "[The DM's] table isn't having fun, [the DM] needs to fix it".

How does the DM fix this particular issue?

By talking with their players, only sitting down to play with people who care about their own happiness as well, and ultimately, having a backbone.

Are you conflating the "edition" with how people talk about it online?

No?

It's just a general thought that follows along this conversation. This edition is about rulings. That should include interactions with spells. Saying "but this is what the discrete description of the spell says" is meaningless in a game of imagination, improv, and make believe.

It's not meaningless. The text is the common starting point we all share. We just need to recognize that it is in fact a starting point.

[Christew]

Page 201 of the PHB has this to say about spells:
“ WHAT Is A SPELL?
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.”

(italics mine)

Huh?

The passage pretty clearly reads "in most cases, all in the span of seconds" (as in: most spells have a casting time of an action or less), not "unleash the desired effect in most cases" (as in: occasionally spells don't do what you want them to do).

Reading forward in the thread, I see this has been pointed out already. I don't actually disagree with your conclusion (RAW is only a good concept insofar as it's useful, and in its capacity as a source of endless internet acrimony it certainly is not that), I'm just confused how you got that from this passage, especially by citing the hyphen that seems to me like it does the opposite of what you say it does.

Which, ironically, backs up the point. If people can have conflicting reads of the same text, how can RAW be authoritative?

It is a lot easier for it to be authoritative when you don't misquote it and then double down on the issue with misleading underlining. The "quoted" section of PHB page 201 features an em dash, not a hyphen.

[Darth Credence]

Page 201 of the PHB has this to say about spells:
“ WHAT Is A SPELL?
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.”

Yet even in this quote, it is made clear with the use of the hyphen, that spell unleash their desired effect only “in most cases”.

So no, BY The POWER OF RAW, spells only do what they say they do, “in most cases”. I would like the internet to acknowledge that we have been discussing D&D, wrong for 10 years now.

If you would like to join my class action lawsuit, feel free to contact the law firm of Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe. ;)

You are reading that wrong. What it says is not that the spells unleash the desired effect in most cases. It says that spells unleash the desired effect, and that in most cases that desired effect is released in the span of seconds. The exception clearly being longer casting time spells, rituals, stuff like that.

ETA - IOW, what Dalinar said.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't mind those classes being in the game, IF THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THEM AND OTHER CLASSES

Concur.

Sorcerer as it is now (and always was) is too similar to a wizard.

Yes. That said, the niche for "very different arcane caster" is well filled by Warlock. Too bad they didn't stick with INT as the casting stat.

Make the different: have them use spell points instead of the good old boring spell slots is the bare minimum. Ideally, lean into the fact they are not studying the same magic, they are born with supernatural powers and they never heard about spell components in their entire live. Something like 3.5 warlock or PF1 kineticist would be great... you're blaster, you're based on throwing raw magical energy around and shaping it to a different forms. Elemental blasts, breath weapons, offensive telekinesis, smashing your enemies with fists wrapped in magical energy... add physical changes like growing wings, natural weapons and similar abilities related to their source of power, and we're talking.

A rebuild from the ground up? That takes work.

Barbarian? Fighter is the "mundane" warrior, barbarian is the one who gets supernatural powers, a melee focused sorcerer in a way. Rage as just a few numeric boosts boring, but hulking out to grow in size, turn into a monster, have a bunch of ancestral spirits assist you in combat? Now the barbarian has a reason to exist as something other than a fighter's subclass.

OK, I see your drift.

Or, the Barbarian is a 1/3 druid caster as a counterpoint to EK.

[Psyren]

Even if I agreed that sorcerer and wizard are too similar... I'd rather add differences to them like they did with Sorcerous Rage Innate Sorcery, than recombine them into one being a subclass of the other. Same with Cleric/Druid and Fighter/Barbarian.

I would be totally fine with a Barbarian 1/3 caster subclass (sorcerer or druid).

[GeneralVryth]

Even if I agreed that sorcerer and wizard are too similar... I'd rather add differences to them like they did with Sorcerous Rage Innate Sorcery, than recombine them into one being a subclass of the other. Same with Cleric/Druid and Fighter/Barbarian.

I would be totally fine with a Barbarian 1/3 caster subclass (sorcerer or druid).

Agreed completely.

I tended to envision something like:
Rogue (Skill Focused, Sneak Attack/Ambusher)
Fighter (Weapon Master, tactical warrior)
Barbarian (Rager, physical behemoth)
Monk (Unarmed expert, Ki Master)

Paladin (Martial/Cleric Half Caster, Auras)
Ranger (Martial/Druid Half Caster, Terrain/Foe Expertise)
Artificer (Martial/Wizard Half Caster, Magic Item/Crafting Expertise)

Druid (Primal short rest caster, potential shapeshifting mastery)
Warlock (Arcane short rest caster, choice of martial/caster potential)

Bard (Jack of all trades full caster, more support/skill abilities)
Cleric (Divine long rest full caster, empowered by their deity)
Sorcerer (Arcane spell point, long rest full caster, major subclass focus with different bloodlines having a larger than normal impact on abilities)
Wizard (Arcane full caster, spellbook, magical expert)

And then have some subclasses that can provide psuedo mixes. Eldritch Knight (Fighter/Wizard), Draconic (Sorcerer/Monk), Bladesinger (Wizard/Fighter), Brawler (Monk/Barbarian) etc...

[Slipjig]

See, on the one hand I agree with you based on the post you were quoting, but on the other I'm fine with telling players "Sorry, that's just how the game works even if it makes no sense". An NPC using chains to bypass a spell is BS and would never fly at my table. The same holds true for players. Players wouldn't be able to put out a Wall of Fire, no matter how much water they have. Wall of Fire doesn't have anything that states it can be ended early, so the only way to end it early is via Dispel Magic and breaking Concentration.

While you are certainly free to run your table as you see fit, this approach causes a major problem: it divides problems into "magic problems" and "non-magic problems". Casters can contribute to solving both types of problems (and they already have superior tools to solve most problems). But if "the only solution to magic problems is other magic", then martials just don't get to contribute any time magic problems come up.

[Blatant Beast]

It is a lot easier for it to be authoritative when you don't misquote it and then double down on the issue with misleading underlining. The "quoted" section of PHB page 201 features an em dash, not a hyphen.

There is no misrepresentation, it is a cut and past from a PDF of the PHB, 10th printing.

Any dispute regarding an interpretation based off a sole punctuation mark, no less an ambiguous Em dash, is not something that can be characterized as ‘clear’, and one better have more supporting evidence.

It is a lot easier to sound authoritative, when you have the gods on your side, and are right, and righteous! 😉

The game is better, if you allow stuff, and skills, and Martials, and people do things and interact with the situation, and the environment, through means other than spells.

You are free to disagree, but Baldur’s Gate 3 says hello.

As I stated previously, the conversational requirement of RAW Only, has been dominate for 10 years, and frankly RAW conversation has been exhausted, and become extremely repetitive.

I would love some practical conversations about D&D.
RAW is soulless.

[KorvinStarmast]

I would be totally fine with a Barbarian 1/3 caster subclass (sorcerer or druid).

Glad you like it. (And IMO it would fit even better if the "primal/divine/arcane" thing had been embraced in the next edition...right, too much like work, so it goes to the cutting room floor).

Blatant Beast:
RAW is soulless: OK, you win a nice cold beer for that.

[Psyren]

While you are certainly free to run your table as you see fit, this approach causes a major problem: it divides problems into "magic problems" and "non-magic problems". Casters can contribute to solving both types of problems (and they already have superior tools to solve most problems). But if "the only solution to magic problems is other magic", then martials just don't get to contribute any time magic problems come up.

Yeah, but like - the vast majority of the world's physics are non-magic, so it's trivial to have challenges that entail both if your players are bringing both. When Doctor Strange is having a wizard duel against Ebony Maw, the rest of the Avengers aren't standing around playing Scrabble, they're fighting off Cull Obsidian and Corvus Glaive. When Scarlet Witch is busy with a ritual to destroy the Mind Stone, Captain America and Hawkeye are keeping the enemy from reaching her. And even when the caster is faced with a "non-magic problem" - the opportunity cost of them solving it with their magic is often much, much higher than simply letting the martial take care of it. Sure a wizard can spam Knock and free all the prisoners on the cellblock, but the party's chances of fighting the guards will be much higher if they simply let the rogue do it and save their spell slots to fight their way out.

[Rukelnikov]

While you are certainly free to run your table as you see fit, this approach causes a major problem: it divides problems into "magic problems" and "non-magic problems". Casters can contribute to solving both types of problems (and they already have superior tools to solve most problems). But if "the only solution to magic problems is other magic", then martials just don't get to contribute any time magic problems come up.

It has an even bigger problem which is that the narrative is put in service of the mechanics, when the mechanics are designed to serve the narrative.

[Dr.Samurai]

While you are certainly free to run your table as you see fit, this approach causes a major problem: it divides problems into "magic problems" and "non-magic problems". Casters can contribute to solving both types of problems (and they already have superior tools to solve most problems). But if "the only solution to magic problems is other magic", then martials just don't get to contribute any time magic problems come up.

As I stated previously, the conversational requirement of RAW Only, has been dominate for 10 years, and frankly RAW conversation has been exhausted, and become extremely repetitive.

I would love some practical conversations about D&D.
RAW is soulless.

It has an even bigger problem which is that the narrative is put in service of the mechanics, when the mechanics are designed to serve the narrative.

All excellent points.

[Aimeryan]

While you are certainly free to run your table as you see fit, this approach causes a major problem: it divides problems into "magic problems" and "non-magic problems". Casters can contribute to solving both types of problems (and they already have superior tools to solve most problems). But if "the only solution to magic problems is other magic", then martials just don't get to contribute any time magic problems come up.

It should be noted that sithlordnergal is following 5e rules that magic works as stated, nothing more, nothing less. So, Wall of Fire is not spread by mundane means, is not put out by mundane means.
5e sacrificed verisimilitude for quick and simple play - it is not a flaw, it is a feature. Changing 5th edition to Slipjig edition is fine - that is what the homebrew forums are for. However, you should recognise that someone playing by 5e's rules are definitely free to run the table as such.

[Dr.Samurai]

It should be noted that sithlordnergal is following 5e rules that magic works as stated, nothing more, nothing less. So, Wall of Fire is not spread by mundane means, is not put out by mundane means.

Nothing about the spell states that it can't spread, or can't be put out. You are pre-emptively making a ruling.

5e sacrificed verisimilitude for quick and simple play - it is not a flaw, it is a feature.

I don't think that's quite it. It sacrificed codifying virtually everything about the world for quick and simple play, with the expectation that the DM would fill everything in as needed.

Spells and magic are absolutely NOT an exception to this design approach.

So Wall of Fire does whatever the players attempt to do with it that the DM decides to adjudicate as possible.

[Theodoxus]

Nothing about the spell states that it can't spread, or can't be put out. You are pre-emptively making a ruling.

I don't think that's quite it. It sacrificed codifying virtually everything about the world for quick and simple play, with the expectation that the DM would fill everything in as needed.

Spells and magic are absolutely NOT an exception to this design approach.

So Wall of Fire does whatever the players attempt to do with it that the DM decides to adjudicate as possible.

Well, yes... but. Some spells talk about spreading or catching things on fire. So, since some do, it's implied that those that don't, don't. DMs are free to countermand the RAW, but at that point, Wall of Fire becomes a homebrew spell for that specific campaign.

[Psyren]

Nothing about the spell states that it can't spread, or can't be put out. You are pre-emptively making a ruling.

I don't think that's quite it. It sacrificed codifying virtually everything about the world for quick and simple play, with the expectation that the DM would fill everything in as needed.

Spells and magic are absolutely NOT an exception to this design approach.

So Wall of Fire does whatever the players attempt to do with it that the DM decides to adjudicate as possible.

Agreed with all this.

Well, yes... but. Some spells talk about spreading or catching things on fire. So, since some do, it's implied that those that don't, don't. DMs are free to countermand the RAW, but at that point, Wall of Fire becomes a homebrew spell for that specific campaign.

Ruling that Wall of Fire can ignite things just like Create Bonfire can is not "homebrew." It's a ruling. You could make such a ruling just fine in AL, where homebrew isn't allowed.

[Theodoxus]

Agree to disagree. If Firebolt didn't set things on fire, you'd have a point. But adding properties to something that doesn't explicitly have them is the realm of homebrew, not rulings. IMO.

[Aimeryan]

Nothing about the spell states that it can't spread, or can't be put out.

And nothing states it can. That is the point of RAW vs Homebrew. Following RAW is the expectation, not the exception.

Whether or not we want to call this DM Ruling or Homebrew is just going to be a lot of faff about nothing. If in a module the DM rules rocks fall, you all die, is that a DM Ruling or Homebrew? Wordplay, at best.

[Amnestic]

is not "homebrew." It's a ruling.

A worthless distinction to draw. Either way you're changing/adding to the rules of the game. I doubt you're going into the threads in the homebrew forum of class/feat/spell fixes/tweaks and going "these are houserules, not homebrew".

"Magic Missile can guaranteed Blind targets by choosing to target their eyes, so long as they have equal to or fewer eyes than missiles you unleash." - Is this a houserule, or homebrew? Who cares?

[stoutstien]

Well, yes... but. Some spells talk about spreading or catching things on fire. So, since some do, it's implied that those that don't, don't. DMs are free to countermand the RAW, but at that point, Wall of Fire becomes a homebrew spell for that specific campaign.

That would only be a argument if there was any consistently to begin with. It's arbitrary what spell do it say they do.

Why does fireball, flame sphere, and bonfire catch objects on fire but incendiary cloud, wall of fire, and burning hands don't besides just because? Is some spell based fire hotter than the others?

Why do some fire based spells have the amount of illumination it provides but others don't? Does a wall of fire really provide no light?

[Aimeryan]

That would only be a argument if there was any consistently to begin with. It's arbitrary what spell do it say they do.

Why does fireball, flame sphere, and bonfire catch objects on fire but incendiary cloud, wall of fire, and burning hands don't besides just because? Is some spell based fire hotter than the others?

Why do some fire based spells have the amount of illumination it provides but others don't? Does a wall of fire really provide no light?

Simple explanation? Magic.

[Theodoxus]

I didn't write the spells, and I'm not a developer of TTRPGs, so I can't state definitely why or why not spell X does Y and Spell A doesn't. Is it arbitrary? Maybe. Maybe there is an underlying physics we're not privy to, and for whatever reason, it doesn't reach the level of nerdom like trying to find the underlying math for weapons that was The Big Thing in 2015.

I do know, the transitive properties of role playing is, if something is specified somewhere, than anything else that is remotely close can't do it. Monks can run up walls. Fighter's thus, can't, no matter how high you boost your athletics. No Parkour for you!

And with all things TTRPGs, the gamemaster is perfectly within their rights to change whatever they want. It does NOT however, allow the player to then take their character that has been allowed to burn all the forest down with their Wall of Fire to port it into a completely different game with a different gamemaster and demand the same spell has the same properties.

THAT is the difference between RAW and homebrew. That this apparently needs to be stated is mindboggling.