The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[D&D 5E] Xanathar's Guide to Striking a Nerve

1848587899099

Posts

  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    Fry wrote: »
    Smrtnik wrote: »
    We are lvl 4, DM throws an ac 20 monster at us that nobody can hit, but it has -1 on int saves. I'm so the bulk of the damage to it while it is surrounded by almost the whole rest of the party in melee just flailing at it. Including the forge cleric who is swinging a hammer at it.

    When it dies, Mystic once again declared overpowered by whole party and DM.

    I would look around for hidden cameras. It's like the DM picked an encounter intentionally to make your character shine, and then complained about it? Did your DM not work out your character's schtick the previous session?

    Yeah this straight up bonkersville. This is like complaining that Charmander is OP because he is super effective against Grass-types.

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
    FrySleepdiscriderMoridin889italianranma
  • see317see317 Taco Count 2017: 61 Registered User regular
    Ken O wrote: »
    Sounds like the rest of the party rolled pretty poorly too. 20AC would be difficult but a few shots should have landed.

    I don't know, at level 4 that's a proficiency bonus of 2, and one stat boost.
    Unless they've got some magic weapons on them (which really depends on the GM), that's likely only a +5 or +6 to their attack rolls.
    So they'd need to roll 14s or 15s to hit. I could easily see a party consistently rolling under that, especially if they're just flailing away instead of trying to use their class features.

    Sure, some would get through eventually, but if the rest of the party is whiffing most of their attacks while most of yours are landing then that would make it seem like you're the overpowered one.

    Ringo wrote: »
    Well except what see317 said. That guy's always wrong.
    Elvenshae
  • Ken OKen O Registered User regular
    No doubt if they are ignoring their class features it would be much worse.
    Not knowing the rest of the party's build they should have had options. Bless, Bardic Inspiration, spells that targeted things other than AC....

    I'm not really arguing the Psionic class either way, just more defending a high AC monster to make a challenging encounter.

    http://www.fingmonkey.com/
    Comics, Games, Booze
    RainfallMoridin889
  • ElvenshaeElvenshae Registered User regular
    Also, just lemme say this, as a long-time DM and player ...

    High AC monsters that don't have a gigantic obvious "trick" to them are, like, the worst fucking encounters ever.

    Like, nothing kills the mood around the table faster than, "Oh, look, I miss again; you, too?" for 10 minutes.

    Just, ugh. And sometimes, even the ones with the obvious trick are bad if your players aren't the type to seize on it immediately.

    omgbfz5lzi1s.png
    Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
    The Disappearance of Inigo Sharpe: Tomas à Dunsanin
    MegaMekRendSurfpossumOatsSmrtnikSleepOptimusZedToxDevoutlyApatheticNyhtJustTeeitalianranma
  • SmrtnikSmrtnik job boli zub Registered User regular
    edited September 7
    see317 wrote: »
    Ken O wrote: »
    Sounds like the rest of the party rolled pretty poorly too. 20AC would be difficult but a few shots should have landed.

    I don't know, at level 4 that's a proficiency bonus of 2, and one stat boost.
    Unless they've got some magic weapons on them (which really depends on the GM), that's likely only a +5 or +6 to their attack rolls.
    So they'd need to roll 14s or 15s to hit. I could easily see a party consistently rolling under that, especially if they're just flailing away instead of trying to use their class features.

    Sure, some would get through eventually, but if the rest of the party is whiffing most of their attacks while most of yours are landing then that would make it seem like you're the overpowered one.

    No magic weapons yet except a +1 spear that went to the ranger that went to 0 hp first round, a +str arm that went to the forge cleric, and a ring with spellslots that went to the bard. DM announced he probably won't be handing out any magic item that could be of help to a mystic.

    The monster was a Roper btw.

    Smrtnik on
    steam_sig.png
  • FryFry Registered User regular
    Smrtnik wrote: »
    DM announced he probably won't be handing out any magic item that could be of help to a mystic.

    Cynical prediction:
    DM hands out "junk" magic item that inadvertently helps the mystic, due to not still not understanding how the mystic works. Doubles down on "mystic is so OP, it even makes junk items too good."

    FuselageSleepOatsElvenshaeAnialosToxDaenrisMegaMekJustTeeMvrckMoridin889
  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    seriously smrtnik, this is a problem that has nothing to do with D&D, it's rules or whatnot. It is a personal problem and needs to be addressed as such. If you keep on this way the DM is going to keep doubling down on being a dick.

    SleepOatsElvenshaeAnialosMegaMekJustTeeNyht
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    edited September 7
    Oh look i used a monster you aren't supposed to beat up physically. I'm going to say the only person not trying to beat on it physically is broken, not my dumb encounter design.

    That fight was never meant to be won by a front up fighter. Ropers are like specifically for draining spells out of casters for damage while the melee fighters realize their uselessness in dealing with this threat.

    Tell him to throw a freaking mind flayer at the party, or a fuckin dragon, or something smarter than fuckin dog.

    Sleep on
    SteelhawkFryOatsElvenshaeMegaMekJustTeeNyhtMoridin889
  • SteelhawkSteelhawk Registered User regular
    Sounds like your DM doesn't have any ideas for how to design an encounter that takes into account your PC's ability to just call for Int saves. Its like he just called for something bigger and tougher and then got super frustrated that more AC and more HP didn't do the trick. All he ended up doing was highlighting your character and punishing the rest of your party.

    Hopefully he'll learn some lessons.

    SleepFryOptimusZedElvenshaeMegaMekJustTeeMrVyngaardMoridin889
  • SmrtnikSmrtnik job boli zub Registered User regular
    seriously smrtnik, this is a problem that has nothing to do with D&D, it's rules or whatnot. It is a personal problem and needs to be addressed as such. If you keep on this way the DM is going to keep doubling down on being a dick.

    Yeah, it's souring me on the whole thing.

    steam_sig.png
  • RendRend Registered User regular
    Smrtnik wrote: »
    seriously smrtnik, this is a problem that has nothing to do with D&D, it's rules or whatnot. It is a personal problem and needs to be addressed as such. If you keep on this way the DM is going to keep doubling down on being a dick.

    Yeah, it's souring me on the whole thing.

    It wouldn't be the first time a salty DM made a player swear off of role-playing. Have you had a talk with him about it at all?

    ElvenshaeJustTeeSleepTox
  • PowerpuppiesPowerpuppies Registered User regular
    if the other personalities involved are nothing to write home about, perhaps you can recapture the initial fun by rerolling?

    sig.gif
  • SmrtnikSmrtnik job boli zub Registered User regular
    if the other personalities involved are nothing to write home about, perhaps you can recapture the initial fun by rerolling?

    Thought about that too, but not sure why i should be punished for it. It's why i asked earlier in the thread if Mystic is really op and am I a jerk for playing one.

    I've been playing with these guys for 3 years now and it's the only live DnD i ever played (only stuff like Baldurs Gate before that). I just feel like I'm not allowed to optimize for damage, only a couple of them are. And their powers haven't "come online" yet/we have had encounters that favor me.

    steam_sig.png
  • Ken OKen O Registered User regular
    Sounds like you need to have a one on one talk with the DM. Let him know you feel targeted and discuss any issues he may have about the class.
    We have your back but we aren't your group. Nothing can get fixed by talking to us. Hopefully you can work it out.

    http://www.fingmonkey.com/
    Comics, Games, Booze
    ElvenshaeFryOatsJustTeeDaenrisSleepToxMoridin889
  • PowerpuppiesPowerpuppies Registered User regular
    Smrtnik wrote: »
    if the other personalities involved are nothing to write home about, perhaps you can recapture the initial fun by rerolling?

    Thought about that too, but not sure why i should be punished for it. It's why i asked earlier in the thread if Mystic is really op and am I a jerk for playing one.

    I've been playing with these guys for 3 years now and it's the only live DnD i ever played (only stuff like Baldurs Gate before that). I just feel like I'm not allowed to optimize for damage, only a couple of them are. And their powers haven't "come online" yet/we have had encounters that favor me.

    I mean they are not behaving well, for sure. Only if you didn't care about them being the ones in the wrong and if you had no hope for addressing it with them would I suggest you reroll.

    sig.gif
  • webguy20webguy20 Registered User regular
    Cross posting from the SE++ thread but I just got my minotaur mini primed and ready to paint. Going to get that going next week. I'm hoping to get it done before my Wednesday night group.
    6yaf48bo234k.jpg

    Steam ID: Webguy20
    Origin ID: Discgolfer27
    Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
    doomybearSurfpossumJustTeeThe Hanged Mannever dieMrVyngaardRainfall
  • SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    The very first time I ever tried D&D (over ten years ago now...) I played a minotaur because I had a miniature for one that I liked. It was just a friend and I, and he figured maybe the campaign didn't need to be scaled down much from the 4 players it was intended for, since minotaurs technically weren't PCs.

    In the first fight in the first room, I failed to pick up a table and then was strangled to death by a dire weasel.

    I wasn't terribly put out or anything, but, coincidentally, I didn't try D&D again for... five years?

    is this how nations are born
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    My first chatacter was a thrikreen monk, he got his finger bitten off by a roper, and would have died if it weren't for the pseudo dragon sorc blasting the thing with fire while it tried to eat me.

    MrVyngaard
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    edited September 11
    holy shit, has anyone else peeped these plane shift articles from the magic team?

    https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/plane-shift-kaladesh-2017-02-16

    https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/plane-shift-amonkhet-2017-07-05

    Look at all this wonderful content ill be stealing

    Im making some aetherborn NPCs for my newest campaign.

    Sleep on
  • AbbalahAbbalah Registered User regular
    I like the pyromancer origin in the kaladesh article:

    "Fiery Soul
    At 18th level, you gain immunity to fire damage. In addition, any
    spell or effect you create ignores resistance to fire damage and
    treats immunity to fire damage as resistance to fire damage."

    Natural language strikes again!

    The plane shift articles never seem as cool as they could be because so much of what they do is just reskinning existing content - every plane has its own varieties of elves, but they're always pretty much just the three existing varieties with mtg flavor layered on top. There are other new races...but most of them tend to be basically reskins or mashups of existing races. There's a bunch of cool plane-specific monsters, but instead of giving you statblocks for them we'll just tell you which existing statblock to use as a stand-in. Here's a cool new feat for being an on-the-fly technomagic inventor...but it's an awkward retread of Ritual Caster whose only real mechanical difference is that it's hard to get new rituals for it unless your campaign is actually happening on Kaladesh. Here's a new Cleric domain (Strength!), but it's literally just the Nature domain, with the channel divinity and capstone abilities from the War domain (incidentally, 'combine the best parts of two of the best domains' makes a real good domain!).

    The other new domains are the same sort of mashup mixing the abilities of two existing domains: Zeal is Tempest/War, Solidarity is Life/War, and Ambition is Light/Trickery. In most cases even the names of the individual abilities are the same. (And then poor Kefnet is the only Amonkhet god who doesn't get a new domain, instead just telling you to use the Knowledge domain from the PHB. Presumably taking the Knowledge domain and swapping out two or three of its abilities for ones from the Arcana or Protection domains like they did for the other four would have been too complicated.)

    They all have a bunch of really cool stuff in them and a bunch of really cool material to work with but they end up so halfassed that the execution falls flat. I'd rather they do some actual non-reskin content, even if it meant breaking things up into a bunch of smaller supplements - they could get a lot of UA mileage out of doing "the races of plane X" as one UA, "three new subclasses from plane X" as another, "four new monsters and six new items from plane X" as a third, "plane X feats" as a fourth, and so on, and the content would probably do the source material a lot more justice.

    Vedalken are nice, though (even though, again, they're basically just Rock Gnomes that get +1 Wis instead of +1 Con) - I don't think there's been an int/wis race yet (humans aside), unless I'm missing a UA race somewhere, and I've been on the lookout for one.

    The Zeal domain seems pretty notable as well, just because its Tempest-domain damage-maximization CD works on fire damage instead of lightning damage (and the domain gives haste and fireball as its level 3 domain spells). Maximize a fireball once per short rest is pretty high-impact, especially since you can pick it up (along with heavy armor and martial weapon proficiency) as a 2-level dip if you want.

  • RendRend Registered User regular
    Tap a spell slot you control to give an ally vigilance until end of turn.

    EinzelFryMrVyngaard
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    Ooh yeah on my first quick look through it was definitely seeming like a bunch of it is pretty remixy, but then again I am a big fan of remixes. Like its super light on useable stuff, just a few races and some mechanics ideas, but they are pretty useful for my home campaign.

  • AbbalahAbbalah Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Ooh yeah on my first quick look through it was definitely seeming like a bunch of it is pretty remixy, but then again I am a big fan of remixes. Like its super light on useable stuff, just a few races and some mechanics ideas, but they are pretty useful for my home campaign.

    Yeah as an exercise in adapting/customizing content to fit a theme, or as inspiration for worldbuilding, they're great, especially if you're not already familiar with mtg lore. I just wish they'd take the time to make the mechanical side more substantial.

  • DenadaDenada Registered User regular
    Abbalah wrote: »
    I like the pyromancer origin in the kaladesh article:

    "Fiery Soul
    At 18th level, you gain immunity to fire damage. In addition, any
    spell or effect you create ignores resistance to fire damage and
    treats immunity to fire damage as resistance to fire damage."

    Natural language strikes again!

    Hahaha this is such a classic piece of 5E writing. It's totally obvious what they're trying to say, but it's not what they said. "Unearthed Arcana" should be renamed to "You Get What We're Trying To Do Here, Right?"

    ElvenshaeSleepFuselagewebguy20DevoutlyApatheticRiusCantide
  • The Hanged ManThe Hanged Man Once I ate a pizza so big, they gave me a prize. Then I threw up and they took it back.Registered User regular
    Abbalah wrote: »
    I don't think there's been an int/wis race yet (humans aside), unless I'm missing a UA race somewhere, and I've been on the lookout for one.

    The most recent UA has Githzerai who get +1 Wis (race)/+2 Int (subrace). Also Githyanki (+2 Str from subrace) and a more interesting Eladrin writeup than the example one in the DMG.

    TUMBLR: canstthoudrawoutleviathan.tumblr.com (mostly tabletop RPG anecdotes & art)
    TWITTER: @DesertLeviathan, PSN: LeviathanAscends, 3DS FRIEND CODE: 1590-4800-2407
    0c9YdeS.png
  • FryFry Registered User regular
    Denada wrote: »
    Abbalah wrote: »
    I like the pyromancer origin in the kaladesh article:

    "Fiery Soul
    At 18th level, you gain immunity to fire damage. In addition, any
    spell or effect you create ignores resistance to fire damage and
    treats immunity to fire damage as resistance to fire damage."

    Natural language strikes again!

    Hahaha this is such a classic piece of 5E writing. It's totally obvious what they're trying to say, but it's not what they said. "Unearthed Arcana" should be renamed to "You Get What We're Trying To Do Here, Right?"

    Is the "wrong" reading of this that, since you treat immunity to fire damage as resistance, you can then ignore it? Including your own immunity to fire damage, if you were to fireball yourself for some reason?

    ElvenshaeDenadaSleepMoridin889
  • ElvenshaeElvenshae Registered User regular
    Fry wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    Abbalah wrote: »
    I like the pyromancer origin in the kaladesh article:

    "Fiery Soul
    At 18th level, you gain immunity to fire damage. In addition, any
    spell or effect you create ignores resistance to fire damage and
    treats immunity to fire damage as resistance to fire damage."

    Natural language strikes again!

    Hahaha this is such a classic piece of 5E writing. It's totally obvious what they're trying to say, but it's not what they said. "Unearthed Arcana" should be renamed to "You Get What We're Trying To Do Here, Right?"

    Is the "wrong" reading of this that, since you treat immunity to fire damage as resistance, you can then ignore it? Including your own immunity to fire damage, if you were to fireball yourself for some reason?

    Even if it doesn't, uh, recurse like that, you still treat your own immunity to fire damage as resistance, so you're only partially immune to your own fire spells.

    omgbfz5lzi1s.png
    Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
    The Disappearance of Inigo Sharpe: Tomas à Dunsanin
    RendSleepOatsMoridin889Cantide
  • RendRend Registered User regular
    The right way to say it, as I understand it, would be "Spells and effects you create ignore fire resistance and deal half damage to targets with fire immunity."

    Or maybe "deals full damage to targets with fire resistance, and half damage to targets with fire immunity"

    But honestly like, the fact that we all understand what they're going for is a success of natural language. Yes, it can be interpreted a different way if you read it legalistically, but we understand its intention, which is the important part.

    OatsMegaMekMrVyngaarditalianranma
  • RendRend Registered User regular
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    Fry wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    Abbalah wrote: »
    I like the pyromancer origin in the kaladesh article:

    "Fiery Soul
    At 18th level, you gain immunity to fire damage. In addition, any
    spell or effect you create ignores resistance to fire damage and
    treats immunity to fire damage as resistance to fire damage."

    Natural language strikes again!

    Hahaha this is such a classic piece of 5E writing. It's totally obvious what they're trying to say, but it's not what they said. "Unearthed Arcana" should be renamed to "You Get What We're Trying To Do Here, Right?"

    Is the "wrong" reading of this that, since you treat immunity to fire damage as resistance, you can then ignore it? Including your own immunity to fire damage, if you were to fireball yourself for some reason?

    Even if it doesn't, uh, recurse like that, you still treat your own immunity to fire damage as resistance, so you're only partially immune to your own fire spells.

    I think this is probably intentional. If you're capable of hurting things that are immune to fire damage, including other people with Fiery Soul, then you're also capable of hurting yourself, or at least that makes sense to me.

    Elvenshae
  • DenadaDenada Registered User regular
    edited September 12
    And now we're back to the shitty part of natural language. With codified language there's a lot less room for "I think this is probably intentional."

    It still happens because bad writing is still bad writing even if you're using Capital Words, but it happens less.

    Edit: And to be clear I'm just poking fun at this particular piece of writing. It's not that bad. Just a little sloppy.

    Denada on
    ElvenshaeSteelhawkSleepOatsToxAegis
  • RendRend Registered User regular
    Denada wrote: »
    And now we're back to the shitty part of natural language. With codified language there's a lot less room for "I think this is probably intentional."

    It still happens because bad writing is still bad writing even if you're using Capital Words, but it happens less.

    Edit: And to be clear I'm just poking fun at this particular piece of writing. It's not that bad. Just a little sloppy.

    I'd certainly be shocked to see it on a MtG card.

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Rend wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    And now we're back to the shitty part of natural language. With codified language there's a lot less room for "I think this is probably intentional."

    It still happens because bad writing is still bad writing even if you're using Capital Words, but it happens less.

    Edit: And to be clear I'm just poking fun at this particular piece of writing. It's not that bad. Just a little sloppy.

    I'd certainly be shocked to see it on a MtG card.

    That the rule sets come out of the same company always baffles me.

    SleepOats
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    Rend wrote: »
    The right way to say it, as I understand it, would be "Spells and effects you create ignore fire resistance and deal half damage to targets with fire immunity."

    Or maybe "deals full damage to targets with fire resistance, and half damage to targets with fire immunity"

    But honestly like, the fact that we all understand what they're going for is a success of natural language. Yes, it can be interpreted a different way if you read it legalistically, but we understand its intention, which is the important part.

    Ehhh, it's not so clear-cut as you think it is: the book is also used in non-English speaking groups. The better phrased a rule is, the less confused I get by it. Even if the intent is clear to me, it could be interpreted differently by another player in my group. We have wasted a lot of time getting everyone on the same page. Especially our nostalgic 3.5e player has the tendency to bring different interpretations to the table.

    I am perfectly fine with weird words in my books, I can look those up and that's all right, but ambiguous phrasing is super confusing to non-native speakers like me.

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
    RendElvenshae
  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    Rend wrote: »
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    Fry wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    Abbalah wrote: »
    I like the pyromancer origin in the kaladesh article:

    "Fiery Soul
    At 18th level, you gain immunity to fire damage. In addition, any
    spell or effect you create ignores resistance to fire damage and
    treats immunity to fire damage as resistance to fire damage."

    Natural language strikes again!

    Hahaha this is such a classic piece of 5E writing. It's totally obvious what they're trying to say, but it's not what they said. "Unearthed Arcana" should be renamed to "You Get What We're Trying To Do Here, Right?"

    Is the "wrong" reading of this that, since you treat immunity to fire damage as resistance, you can then ignore it? Including your own immunity to fire damage, if you were to fireball yourself for some reason?

    Even if it doesn't, uh, recurse like that, you still treat your own immunity to fire damage as resistance, so you're only partially immune to your own fire spells.

    I think this is probably intentional. If you're capable of hurting things that are immune to fire damage, including other people with Fiery Soul, then you're also capable of hurting yourself, or at least that makes sense to me.

    My argument would be Fiery Souls casting fire magic and then walking through said magic like it was nothing is awesome.
    And also how that ability should work.

    ElvenshaeMrGrimoire
  • ElvenshaeElvenshae Registered User regular
    Rend wrote: »
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    Fry wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    Abbalah wrote: »
    I like the pyromancer origin in the kaladesh article:

    "Fiery Soul
    At 18th level, you gain immunity to fire damage. In addition, any
    spell or effect you create ignores resistance to fire damage and
    treats immunity to fire damage as resistance to fire damage."

    Natural language strikes again!

    Hahaha this is such a classic piece of 5E writing. It's totally obvious what they're trying to say, but it's not what they said. "Unearthed Arcana" should be renamed to "You Get What We're Trying To Do Here, Right?"

    Is the "wrong" reading of this that, since you treat immunity to fire damage as resistance, you can then ignore it? Including your own immunity to fire damage, if you were to fireball yourself for some reason?

    Even if it doesn't, uh, recurse like that, you still treat your own immunity to fire damage as resistance, so you're only partially immune to your own fire spells.

    I think this is probably intentional. If you're capable of hurting things that are immune to fire damage, including other people with Fiery Soul, then you're also capable of hurting yourself, or at least that makes sense to me.
    discrider wrote: »
    Rend wrote: »
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    Fry wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    Abbalah wrote: »
    I like the pyromancer origin in the kaladesh article:

    "Fiery Soul
    At 18th level, you gain immunity to fire damage. In addition, any
    spell or effect you create ignores resistance to fire damage and
    treats immunity to fire damage as resistance to fire damage."

    Natural language strikes again!

    Hahaha this is such a classic piece of 5E writing. It's totally obvious what they're trying to say, but it's not what they said. "Unearthed Arcana" should be renamed to "You Get What We're Trying To Do Here, Right?"

    Is the "wrong" reading of this that, since you treat immunity to fire damage as resistance, you can then ignore it? Including your own immunity to fire damage, if you were to fireball yourself for some reason?

    Even if it doesn't, uh, recurse like that, you still treat your own immunity to fire damage as resistance, so you're only partially immune to your own fire spells.

    I think this is probably intentional. If you're capable of hurting things that are immune to fire damage, including other people with Fiery Soul, then you're also capable of hurting yourself, or at least that makes sense to me.

    My argument would be Fiery Souls casting fire magic and then walking through said magic like it was nothing is awesome.
    And also how that ability should work.

    Yeah, this is why I'm not sure which way it "should" work.

    omgbfz5lzi1s.png
    Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
    The Disappearance of Inigo Sharpe: Tomas à Dunsanin
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Fry wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    Abbalah wrote: »
    I like the pyromancer origin in the kaladesh article:

    "Fiery Soul
    At 18th level, you gain immunity to fire damage. In addition, any
    spell or effect you create ignores resistance to fire damage and
    treats immunity to fire damage as resistance to fire damage."

    Natural language strikes again!

    Hahaha this is such a classic piece of 5E writing. It's totally obvious what they're trying to say, but it's not what they said. "Unearthed Arcana" should be renamed to "You Get What We're Trying To Do Here, Right?"

    Is the "wrong" reading of this that, since you treat immunity to fire damage as resistance, you can then ignore it? Including your own immunity to fire damage, if you were to fireball yourself for some reason?

    Your own immunity to fire damage is an effect you create and so you treat it as resistance. :P

    wbBv3fj.png
  • AbbalahAbbalah Registered User regular
    The success of natural language: "We all understand what they're obviously intending to say" to three different interpretations of the ability's function in under 10 posts.

    SurfpossumRingoElvenshaeAldoJustTeeAegisMoridin889MrVyngaard
  • RendRend Registered User regular
    edited September 12
    discrider wrote: »
    Rend wrote: »
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    Fry wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    Abbalah wrote: »
    I like the pyromancer origin in the kaladesh article:

    "Fiery Soul
    At 18th level, you gain immunity to fire damage. In addition, any
    spell or effect you create ignores resistance to fire damage and
    treats immunity to fire damage as resistance to fire damage."

    Natural language strikes again!

    Hahaha this is such a classic piece of 5E writing. It's totally obvious what they're trying to say, but it's not what they said. "Unearthed Arcana" should be renamed to "You Get What We're Trying To Do Here, Right?"

    Is the "wrong" reading of this that, since you treat immunity to fire damage as resistance, you can then ignore it? Including your own immunity to fire damage, if you were to fireball yourself for some reason?

    Even if it doesn't, uh, recurse like that, you still treat your own immunity to fire damage as resistance, so you're only partially immune to your own fire spells.

    I think this is probably intentional. If you're capable of hurting things that are immune to fire damage, including other people with Fiery Soul, then you're also capable of hurting yourself, or at least that makes sense to me.

    My argument would be Fiery Souls casting fire magic and then walking through said magic like it was nothing is awesome.
    And also how that ability should work.

    I mean I agree with you, that is awesome and I also think that's how it should work.
    But I don't agree with every rule written in dnd :p (and I usually just change the ones I don't agree with)

    Rend on
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    I can stand in a dragon's fire, all day long, the fire i create burns even me

  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    I can stand in a dragon's fire, all day long, the fire i create burns even me

    Seriously.
    3rd degree burns.
    I only have fire resistance at the best of times and my fire cuts straight through that.

This discussion has been closed.