Give them the sole purpose of making sure the wording is simple and succinct. After that get a bunch of year olds to read the abilities and ask if they understand it. Yea one of my friends was an English major They actually did consider naming certain things different.
- Girl’s Night Out: Erotika Fantasy The Vampire Deception Series, Novella #1;
- Enacting European Citizenship;
- Navigation menu.
- Kayleigh Clarke!
- Spirit Babies: How to Communicate with the Child Youre Meant to Have!
- 50 Ways to Lower Cholesterol (50 Ways…Series)?
Dungeon floors, spell ranks, and character levels for example but people didn't like that. They preferred it the other way.
I would love to find the playtesting group they questioned and just call them all idiots. I dunno, I dont hold too much against them for missing a few things, or some wording that may be a little off That could be the case, and absolutely is for video games, but I can't fathom they planned on fixing things later on printed products. Their ideas are there and haven't changed or been patched out, outside of typos. I think they just focused so much on streamlining that they have reached major ambiguities.
But I've always wondered, is that planned? Maybe that's how they patch it later? They leave things ambiguous so the DM can decide it.
Fire and Ice
I mean even the basic out of house playtesting would have revealed a lot of these issues but when its playtested by the people who built the game they already have these preconceived notions of how the ability will be used. Wasn't 5E publicly playtested for an extended period? I didn't even touch it until well after release but it was everywhere and hard to miss. Except few people that i knew played it. And I still need to look at the beta but ive heard that not everything that was beta tested was actually put into the game, and not everything that was put in the game was ever beta tested.
Few people that you knew participated in the public beta, so it wasn't far-reaching and widely publicized? I couldn't throw a stone without hitting someone playing the 5e beta. I played online and most people on the sites i looked for players on played it once and said "meh". You have to learn to read the text thats there, and not look for loopholes, because the confusion usually stems from someone squinting really hard at it for a different result. I dont have any issues reading it. Except the way i read Dragons Breath is that the Target is who you give the ability to not who they then may or may not use their own action to blast.
Yes the Spell description says what the breath weapon does but if it had just been worded that "the target gets the dragon born breath weapon that they can use every turn" then there wouldn't be any confusion at all. Also as to the Squinting really hard, you got it backwards i had 3 of my 5 players look at the spell and ask them what the target was all 3 of them said the creature getting the breath weapon. After i explained how it was according to Crawford 2 of them said that he was clearly wrong and the third sat there trying to figure out how that could possibly be the case I think that the issue with your reading of it is that the breath portion of the spell is intended to be part of the spell- its a concentration effect that grants a special action like the bonus action effect on witch bolt or something.
Haste and polymorph meanwhile just alter the creature, and then the creature leverages their action normally- attacking isn't in the haste or polymorph spell, its a normal part of your skills- but the special action of dragon breath is explicitly the effect of the spell. The player you give it to is simply determining where to direct it's effect- whereas the text of the haste spell is done with you right when it changes your action economy.
Also your players are probably at least partially confused by the same thing that keeps getting brought up, target is just a word in english, not a game term- anything directly affected by the spell is a target, but the way you phrase that makes it sound like you're meant to identify a singular target, so of course their reading restricts it's scope.
Except the PHB clearly defines what target means in the Spellcasting section. By RAW the PHB technically lists the center of fireball's radius is the target, now twinning fireball is probably ridiculous but at the same time that is just after a basic reading of what the book has listed, i didn't have to go looking for loopholes. I honestly feel that if they didn't want spells like DB to be twinned they should more clearly explain what Twinned spell can do, because as written It clearly uses TARGET as a keyword.
Whether they meant to or not isn't the question, although maybe if they used the whole keyword system it would simplify all these questions. No it doesn't, it just happened to use the word target in an example- game terms are written in bold- the center of a fireball is described in the "areas of effect section" as follows:. Every area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the spell's energy erupts. The rules for each shape specify how you position its point of origin.
Typically, a point of origin is a point in space, but some spells have an area whose origin is a creature or an object. A spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin. If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn't included in the spell's area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover, as explained in chapter 9. In the instance you're attempting to cite, the word is used in it's english sense to show that you can drop fireball on a point of space as opposed to a creature , that point in space isn't the only target of the spell- because when we look at the spell.
A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. Here we see target referring to the creatures making the saving throw, the use of target in the game rules is like most of the other words in the rules- contextual english words, target isn't a keyword, they literally mean you can't twin a spell that affects multiple creatures in the context of the spell's effects. Sometimes the issues are born when Crawford squints really hard at something and gets results contrary to how everyone else reads it. Cases in point, twinned dragon's breath and Empowered Evocation magic missile.
In most cases yes, granted every now and then theres a new mechanic that's screwy until they reword it. Yep, it pretty much pigeonholes sorcerers to single target damage spells for twinning, or healing spells for paladin - mount combo however there are some pretty cool things a paladin can still do, a vengeance paladin misty stepping with his horse is still my favorite. A lot of people give leeway to sorcerers for twinning though, which I can easily see why, as others have said, sorcerers have gotten the short end on a lot of things.
I mean, the Divine Soul has a lot of other interesting things to twin, Healing Word, Shield of Faith, Revivify Gods forbid you have two party members die in the same fight.
xecykisypife.tk: Kayleigh Clarke: Books, Biography, Blogs, Audiobooks, Kindle
So before this discussion of 'target' had developed much, there were some painfully cheesy things. Basically, the logic was because that you are only targeting yourself with cone of cold Self - 60 feet is the target , it also applies to your mount. So a Paladin - Wizard multiclass could cast cone of cold twice on his turn. Here's the original post, I think. I never meant that you could use Dragon's Breath in lieu of Cone of Cold in that regard, merely that this ruling focuses on the same subject that prevents double cone of cold from being possible as well as preventing many spells from being twinned.
If I understand you correctly, this brings up another ambiguity. Find steed says "you can make any spell you cast that targets only you also target your steed.
Does that refer to spells where the only possible target is yourself Misty Step , or in that specific casting, only targets you Cure Wounds. By the logic in your post, you would say that Cure Wounds cannot by used with Find Steed? I would rule you can, otherwise there's not many spells that can benefit from that feature. Can the designers of a game be wrong about the rules they made? Because I kind of think they are here. Jeremy Crawford seems to really dislike a few classes, sorcerers being one of them.
His ruling on arcane focuses not working for somatic with spells that don't have material components is asinine and breaks half the caster classes. If a spell has material and somatic components the hand manipulating the material component can also be used for the somatic component. If a spell has somatic but no material components the hand doing the somatic component must be empty. Also by crawford and from this year, as that may matter https: He's stated multiple times that the intent of an Arcane focus is to be perfectly usable in a situation where you have a torch in one hand, your focus in the other, and a spell with a somatic component.
He's made this point abundantly clear, specifically in regards to a clerics holy symbol in the rulings I've linked, and some of the most common ones on the subject. It's possible I have missed another such ruling, but no amount of searching has brought me to Jeremy Crawford ruling that you have to do so.
Does it have to be included in the somatic component? If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell PH, If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component. She likes to wade into melee combat with a mace in one hand and a shield in the other. She uses the holy symbol as her spellcasting focus, so she needs to have the shield in hand when she casts a cleric spell that has a material component.
If the spell, such as aid, also has a somatic component, she can perform that component with the shield hand and keep holding the mace in the other. They could give a baseline for everyone to work form, so we know what needs clarified in Session 0. I say could because I don't think most people follow him in the day to day, so I don't think its as useful as could be in advance sometimes since its in tweets. I'm completely sorry, I misunderstood your question.
I'm not actually familiar with his ruling being one of the people that doesn't often follow his tweets. Seems to imply that it works fine, it just doesn't add or subtract anything, since you're brandishing your focus to take care of the somatic components, and the focus is also the nothing the spell requires. Knowing Crawford he could have modified that statement later though. Also his 'how your caster looks' thing seems like a weird thing to really bring up and kindof irrelevant, since its more about the situation you find yourself in.
I replied to you by mistake cuz I clicked the wrong button, then you replied to me seemingly thinking reasonably, that I was the person you were engaged in conversation with. Which means that unless a spell has a material component I must have a free hand to cast spells. So if I can't use my wand for generic somatic components, why not carry around a component pouch that sits on my belt instead of staying in my hand?
The problem is that override has completely misrepresented it. According to another ruling https: The only exception would be if the material component was not a free one, however you need a hand for that regardless of your choice to have a focus or component pouch. This issue just outright doesn't exist through any rulings I've found. Uh, that SA is saying that if your somatic spell does not have a material component then you need to drop your focus to have a free hand. Which is exactly the stupid ruling we are complaining about. I've been saying he's a hack for over a year now.
Instead of using clear concise terminology they constantly over complicate all the wordings so that they can just "clarify" it later and save time on proper playtesting. I thought arcane focuses only removed the need for material components anyway They are also supposed to not obstruct your somatic components.
Except Crawford thinks that they should obstruct your somatic components if your spell doesn't have material components. Which overcomplicates what should be a fairly simple issue. That is not true though. Somatic says you need a free hand to cast spells.
That is the general rule. Under material components it says that if a spell has both somatic and material components, you can use the same hand as the one holding the focus. It totally makes sense and it doesnt break half caster classes at all. Plebbit as always exagerating by minor inconviniences. How does it make sense from a design perspective for wizards to throw their staves to the ground before they can cast a spell unless it has material components - it's an unnecessary complication, unnecessary complications are why 4th edition sucked. How does his ruling break half the caster classes?
The ruling that's been linked further in the chain just states that you don't need an Arcane focus to cast a spell without material components, which is how Arcane focus's work.
Welcome to Reddit,
Meanwhile, another ruling and errata , https: Directly states that you can hold your wand, rod, or whatever form your focus takes, and cast spells with somatic components with that same hand. This "asinine" ruling that "breaks half the caster classes" literally doesn't do anything that the books don't do. And the books don't do that either! They are, as Jeremy states, a distinction made purely for flavor. You can only use a wand for somatic components if it also has material components, otherwise you must drop your focus. It's a silly ruling that makes the game unnecessarily complicated.
I feel like people use passive perception wrong a lot. It should be something enemies roll against with stealth. If there is something just sitting around that players should notice without having to actively look for it, just have them find it. Otherwise, make them actually look for it with an active check. When people read "target", they assume it means "a thing that was chosen as a target", but the 5e rules use the larger definition of target, which means anything directly affected by the spell is a target. Look at the rules text of Fireball for an example of this, any creature in the area is a target of Fireball.
Jeremy explains this very thoroughly in this podcast: A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect". And a little bit above that: For a spell like magic missile, the target is a creature. For a spell like fireball, the target is the point in space where the ball of fire erupts.
Which by the actual text in the book means that the claim "which means anything directly affected by the spell is a target. Its yet another example of really shoddily worded rules and its part of the "Patch it later" culture that's become so widespread with the internet. That also means you can't do life transference because that damages you and heals a second creature. Would also mean you can't twin Crown of Madness because you chose who it attacks mentally on the target's turn.
Still only able to target a single target at a time. The limitation on Twinning seems intended to stop things that are able to have multiple targets at the same time from being twinned, which would rule out dragons breath. Right, but it's not the AoE that makes them ineligible according to Crawford it's that the spell effects more than a single target. The target you cast the spell on, and the "targets" that can be effected by the text of the spell. Which means you can't twin Crown of Madness, or even something like Armor of Agathys, or Protection from Good and Evil, because all these spells have effects on more than one creature in the spell description.
Which would also mean it's not eligible for doubling the effect via Find Steed rules. I wouldn't consider creatures in the area of the breath weapon a target of the spell; That's like saying haste can't be twinned because if you took the extra action to attack it targets another creature. Which, according to Jeremy's next tweet, is irrelevant because apparently Dragon's Breath has its own rules.
This is a dumb ruling. If dragon's breath has it's own rules, the description of the spell would be the place to put them, Jeremy is just taking his usual attitude of "screw sorcerers". I just don't like some of Jeremy's rules; as a DM I'd skip that one myself, to be honest. While in England, Frost also established a friendship with the poet Ezra Pound , who helped to promote and publish his work.
Frost served as consultant in poetry to the Library of Congress from to Though his work is principally associated with the life and landscape of New England—and though he was a poet of traditional verse forms and metrics who remained steadfastly aloof from the poetic movements and fashions of his time—Frost is anything but merely a regional poet. The author of searching and often dark meditations on universal themes, he is a quintessentially modern poet in his adherence to language as it is actually spoken, in the psychological complexity of his portraits, and in the degree to which his work is infused with layers of ambiguity and irony.
In a review of The Poetry of Robert Frost , the poet Daniel Hoffman describes Frost's early work as "the Puritan ethic turned astonishingly lyrical and enabled to say out loud the sources of its own delight in the world," and comments on Frost's career as the "American Bard": About Frost, President John F. Kennedy, at whose inauguration the poet delivered a poem, said, "He has bequeathed his nation a body of imperishable verse from which Americans will forever gain joy and understanding.
Robert Frost lived and taught for many years in Massachusetts and Vermont, and died in Boston on January 29, One of the most celebrated poets in America, Robert Frost was an author of searching and often dark meditations on universal themes and a quintessentially modern poet in his adherence to language as it is actually spoken, in the psychological complexity of his portraits, and in the degree to which his work is infused with layers of ambiguity and irony. Leave this field blank. Fire and Ice Robert Frost , - Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire I hold with those who favor fire. But if it had to perish twice, I think I know enough of hate To know that for destruction ice Is also great And would suffice. First printed in Harper's Magazine , December