Results 91 to 120 of 790
-
2017-11-10, 01:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2014
-
2017-11-10, 01:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.
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.
-
2017-11-10, 01:37 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2014
-
2017-11-10, 01:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2017
Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.
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.
Arcana. Your Intelligence (Arcana) check measures your ability to recall lore about spells
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.
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.
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.Last edited by Unoriginal; 2017-11-10 at 01:40 PM.
-
2017-11-10, 01:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2015
Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.
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.
-
2017-11-10, 01:40 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2016
- Location
- Phoenix, AZ
- Gender
-
2017-11-10, 01:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2013
- Location
- NW USA
- Gender
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
-
2017-11-10, 01:44 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2014
-
2017-11-10, 01:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2017
-
2017-11-10, 01:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2016
- Location
- Phoenix, AZ
- Gender
Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.
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.
-
2017-11-10, 01:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
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.
-
2017-11-10, 01:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2017
- Gender
-
2017-11-10, 01:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2017
- Gender
-
2017-11-10, 01:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2016
- Location
- Phoenix, AZ
- Gender
Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.
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.
-
2017-11-10, 01:55 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2015
Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.
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.
-
2017-11-10, 01:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2017
- Gender
-
2017-11-10, 01:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
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")?
-
2017-11-10, 01:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.
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.
-
2017-11-10, 02:07 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2016
- Location
- Phoenix, AZ
- Gender
Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.
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.
-
2017-11-10, 02:20 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Location
- 61.2° N, 149.9° W
- Gender
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?
-
2017-11-10, 02:21 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2015
Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.
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.
-
2017-11-10, 02:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2017
- Gender
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.
-
2017-11-10, 02:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2017
Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.
-
2017-11-10, 02:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2013
-
2017-11-10, 02:37 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
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
-
2017-11-10, 02:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.
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 opinionLast edited by Dhuraal; 2017-11-10 at 02:53 PM.
-
2017-11-10, 02:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2015
Re: The New Counterspell 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.
-
2017-11-10, 02:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2013
Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.
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.
-
2017-11-10, 02:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2012
Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.
-
2017-11-10, 02:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2015
Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.
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.