| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| DoveArrow |
Posted - 25 Jul 2023 : 03:35:43
I have never been a fan of Jeremy Crawford. His tweets to fans about rules tend to be vague, rude, and generally unhelpful. I miss the days when we would get thoughtful, respectful, and helpful rules clarifications and insights from the design team.
Today, though, took the cake. one of my group members linked me to this post and I about hit the ceiling.
quote:
Fan: A dragon with level 2 invisibility cast on itself, may use its breath weapon without becoming visible, is it correct?
Jeremy Crawford: That's correct.
Seriously? I mean, honest to Bob, seriously? SERIOUSLY?!?
Now granted, what he's saying is technically correct. By RAW, a dragon's breath weapon is not an attack action or a spell and so the way invisibility is worded, it wouldn't cause the dragon to turn visible. HOWEVER, since 2E, the spell has been carefully worded to prevent exactly this sort of abuse. Crawford is discarding 34 years of how this spell was intended to work because he is too stubborn to admit his design team made a mistake when they wrote the spell. He also didn't consider the numerous ways that the spell could be abused as written when he responded to this tweet. For example, a dragonborn with a necklace of fireballs could decimate an entire group of enemies without ever turning visible because neither its breath weapon nor the necklace are considered attack actions. That is not how this spell worked in 2E, that is not how it worked in 3E, that is not how it worked in 4E, and that is not how it should work now.
The correct response should have been, "Technically, that's true. However, that's not what we intended when we wrote the spell. I'll talk to my design team about putting out some errata and make sure that we take care of this when we publish One D&D."
If they could do something like that with summon monster in 3.5 when 4E was on the horizon, they could have done that now. It just irks me to no end that the lead designer could overlook something so glaring. |
| 11 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| _Jarlaxle_ |
Posted - 13 Aug 2023 : 10:16:56
quote:
Originally posted by DoveArrow
What my group decided is that, if one of your racial abilities, class abilities, or magic items that you're wielding deals damage or requires a player to make a saving throw, then that is considered an attack and you are made visible. If you cut a rope bridge, trigger a trap, or cut a chandelier down, that doesn't count as an attack, because it's the object or environment that's dealing the damage. That's more in line with the 3.5 version of the spell.
That sounds reasonable. |
| Athreeren |
Posted - 03 Aug 2023 : 09:20:58
quote:
Originally posted by DoveArrow
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
Like good old Sage Advice from good old Skip Williams. In particular, his rant about Frisky Chest spell made round on the net. 
Okay, now I need a link.
I did too, so I looked in it up. It's in Dragon 225, and I think it's great advice:
The player characters in my campaign once found a big gold statue that was much too heavy for them to carry away. Rather than hacking the thing to bits and hauling away the pieces, the party cleric cast a frisky chest spell on the statue. The rest of the party lined up at strategic positions along the route back to the entrance and herded the statue all the way outside, where they had a chariot waiting. Is this feat really possible, I did I give my players an undeserved gift?
A frisky chest spell can affect any object small enough to fit inside a 10’ cube. If the statue wasn’t too big, you and your players did things according to the rules.
Now, frisky chest is a spell designed to help priests protect their stuff, it’s not for extracting treasure from dungeons. So, your players were abusing the spell and you might indeed have given them and undeserved gift. Because frisky chest is suppose to foil thieves, the statue’s movements should have been contrary to what the players wanted at every possible opportunity. Now consider how much noise a walking statue might make. Were there any denizens of the dungeon within earshot? A surprise attack by a group of monsters might have really wrecked the party’s day, especially if they were separated and concentrating on the statue when the attack came. Also think about how much the statue weighed. Could the chariot hold all that weight when the party finally herded the statue aboard? Could the dungeon floor hold the statue as the it ambled along? Note that the spell allows the animated object to sprout whatever appendages are most appropriate. Did the statue sprout wings and fly away when the PCs finally got it outside? Note also that any restraint place on the object breaks a frisky chest spell. So, the party might have caught the statue as it flew away, but the minute they got hold of it they would have been holding dead weight. That might be inconvenient if anyone was standing under it at the time.
Keep all of the foregoing in mind if your players try the same trick again. You also might want to put a weight limit on the frisky chest spell to discourage really egregious abuse. I suggest 100 pounds per caster level.
But honestly, who would ever prepare that spell? |
| DoveArrow |
Posted - 02 Aug 2023 : 04:13:51
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
Like good old Sage Advice from good old Skip Williams. In particular, his rant about Frisky Chest spell made round on the net.
Okay, now I need a link. |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 27 Jul 2023 : 21:44:13
quote:
Originally posted by DoveArrow
I have never been a fan of Jeremy Crawford. His tweets to fans about rules tend to be vague, rude, and generally unhelpful. I miss the days when we would get thoughtful, respectful, and helpful rules clarifications and insights from the design team.
Like good old Sage Advice from good old Skip Williams. In particular, his rant about Frisky Chest spell made round on the net.
quote:
HOWEVER, since 2E, the spell has been carefully worded to prevent exactly this sort of abuse. Crawford is discarding 34 years of how this spell was intended to work
...
That is not how this spell worked in 2E, that is not how it worked in 3E, that is not how it worked in 4E, and that is not how it should work now.
Isn't this pretty much a description of d20 design philosophy?
Simplify the definitions aiming at idiot level, stick to the word, ignore common sense, remove all old patches, let the cheese roll. |
| DoveArrow |
Posted - 27 Jul 2023 : 00:16:45
quote:
Originally posted by _Jarlaxle_
I disagree. Invisible doesn't say attack action, it says it ends for a target that "attacks". Yes, the PHB says "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.", but that doesn't mean anything else isn't an attack. It is also left open if "attacks" even refers to "Making an attack" in Chapter 9 of the PHB or refers to the common meaning of attacking someone. If attacking someone in D&D only meant making an attack roll, casting Firebolt on someone would be an attack, but casting Fireball on him wouldn't.
Going very strictly by RAW, there is nothing saying the Breath Weapon is or isn't an attack. But adding a tiny bit of common sense should get everyone to the conclusion that it is. So yes, the dragon would become visible.
Unfortunately Jeremy Crawford posts a lot of answers, that are not thought through very much.
What my group decided is that, if one of your racial abilities, class abilities, or magic items that you're wielding deals damage or requires a player to make a saving throw, then that is considered an attack and you are made visible. If you cut a rope bridge, trigger a trap, or cut a chandelier down, that doesn't count as an attack, because it's the object or environment that's dealing the damage. That's more in line with the 3.5 version of the spell. |
| DoveArrow |
Posted - 27 Jul 2023 : 00:07:41
Total Side Note: Everyone in my group complained about the change to summon monster when it first came out. Same when they changed how haste worked from 3E to 3.5. However, nobody grumbles about it now. Granted, they nerfed the spells quite a bit, rather than making them more powerful, but still. If this is the way Wizards goes, I'm sure I'll get over myself.
Thanks for letting me vent. |
| DoveArrow |
Posted - 27 Jul 2023 : 00:04:22
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
Didn't they said that Crawford's answers were just advice and not rulings? I remember someone in Enworld talking about that...
Maybe they did. I run games at conventions and my local game store, though, and I can't tell you how many times people will bring up Crawford's rulings. It was easier when the Sage Advice columns existed, because it was official. |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 26 Jul 2023 : 16:50:27
Didn't they said that Crawford's answers were just advice and not rulings? I remember someone in Enworld talking about that... |
| _Jarlaxle_ |
Posted - 26 Jul 2023 : 15:11:26
quote:
Originally posted by DoveArrow
Now granted, what he's saying is technically correct. By RAW, a dragon's breath weapon is not an attack action or a spell and so the way invisibility is worded, it wouldn't cause the dragon to turn visible.
I disagree. Invisible doesn't say attack action, it says it ends for a target that "attacks". Yes, the PHB says "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.", but that doesn't mean anything else isn't an attack. It is also left open if "attacks" even refers to "Making an attack" in Chapter 9 of the PHB or refers to the common meaning of attacking someone. If attacking someone in D&D only meant making an attack roll, casting Firebolt on someone would be an attack, but casting Fireball on him wouldn't.
Going very strictly by RAW, there is nothing saying the Breath Weapon is or isn't an attack. But adding a tiny bit of common sense should get everyone to the conclusion that it is. So yes, the dragon would become visible.
Unfortunately Jeremy Crawford posts a lot of answers, that are not thought through very much. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 25 Jul 2023 : 16:06:17
Yeah.... the "simplifying" of so many rules got rid of so many failsafes in 5e. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 25 Jul 2023 : 10:55:13
In 4e, a loop-hole discovered was casting Invisibility then Magic Missile and remaining invisible. Magic Missile was altered with the Heroes of the Fallen Lands supplement, an Essentials product, to no longer require an attack roll and thus removing the line completely from the spell. This was done to "fix" it, due to peoples complaints about removing the auto-hit function it once had.
To make it more crazy, you cast Wizard’s Fury (level 1 Daily) and cast Magic Missile as a minor action. Go invisible then churn out 3 castings a turn since you can turn Standard and Move actions into Minor actions. Good times and fun memories lol |
|
|
