Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Any D&D/D20

Shadowrun

World of Darkness

Palladium

Other (feel free to post about it)

[Loud Whispers]

The Goblin-Lithuania Commonwealth will reign supreme

[MrRoboto75]

The Goblin-Lithuania Commonwealth will reign supreme

something something local noble instead

[Loud Whispers]

something something local noble instead

We choose a Hob-Jagobllion instead

[Kagus]

It's struck me that an Alchemist 3/Warlock 2 would have two short-rest spell slots available for making experimental elixirs.

Considering the variety of effects available, having a few spare Boldness/Flight/Transformation potions on hand for the party to use when needed seems pretty dang snazzy to me. Particularly with Boldness basically being a silent, no-concentration, one-person Bless-in-a-bottle, the utility seems pretty sweet.

Of course, this does mean having to grab at least 13 CHA on top of whatever other stats you want, but it also grants you whatever value picks you might want from the level 1 patron bonuses and eldritch invocations.

[Kagus]

So our campaign had another session last night, and right beforehand we confirmed that another one of the players is stepping out of the group. That brings us down to three players. These are The Bard (the stereotype, not the Shakespeare), an arcane trickster rogue who doesn't really follow the thread very well but who is READY to DO THE THING (whatever "the thing" may or may not be), and myself.

Technical difficulties aside, with people suddenly no longer getting audio from the call and Skype spontaneously deciding to log me out for no reason, it was an interesting session. The Bard was in full form, berating us for not coordinating our attacks better because he was going to use Dissonant Whispers and we had used other debilitating spells first which didn't really synergize with his casting Dissonant Whispers. Then when he got downed, he asked me (the Wizard) if I had Healing Word prepared. I said no. He then commented "stupid wizards" and lamented how he was the only one with Healing Word and therefore the *one* character who should not be allowed to get downed during a fight.

The best part for me, though, was when a friendly NPC tried attacking the monster and then running out of reach; and The Bard grumpily told the DM that he wasn't using the NPC optimally because they should've stayed put to get an opportunity attack off. Had to silently giggle to myself on that one.


Also, more gimmicks... I just realized that taking Shadow Touched as a Warlock would let you cast Inflict Wounds using pact magic. Which is nifty. Especially if you've got a sprite/imp/quasit familiar around to apply it invisibly.

[Loud Whispers]

So one of my players is saying you can swap out racial feats for ANY feat. They're citing Tasha's where I know you can swap racial ABIs for any equal ABI (e.g. an elf could put their +2 racial DEX to +2 STR instead or something) or a proficiency for a proficiency (e.g. Dwarven proficency in warhammers swapped for proficiency in animal handling or sea vehicles). What they've done is swap Drow Weapon proficiency for Eldritch Adept.
Is this haram or halal? My gut says haram. I'm of the opinion that if your character needs some feat to RP better I'll give it to you for free; it's silly if your Halfling Chef doesn't know how to cook because it doesn't have an ABI yet. But this player in particular is a min-maxer whose mind is full of videogame meta and yet to learn how to RP. We have only just managed to get him to actually be able to answer who his character is rather than how many dice his character can roll and by Armok willing we will make an RPG player of him yet.

But I digress; surely this feat blending is ultraharam? Do I need to issue a fatwa or not?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

imagine playing dnd with feats

[MrRoboto75]

Imagine playing dnd

[Loud Whispers]

Imagine

[Persus13]

So one of my players is saying you can swap out racial feats for ANY feat. They're citing Tasha's where I know you can swap racial ABIs for any equal ABI (e.g. an elf could put their +2 racial DEX to +2 STR instead or something) or a proficiency for a proficiency (e.g. Dwarven proficency in warhammers swapped for proficiency in animal handling or sea vehicles). What they've done is swap Drow Weapon proficiency for Eldritch Adept.
Is this haram or halal? My gut says haram. I'm of the opinion that if your character needs some feat to RP better I'll give it to you for free; it's silly if your Halfling Chef doesn't know how to cook because it doesn't have an ABI yet. But this player in particular is a min-maxer whose mind is full of videogame meta and yet to learn how to RP. We have only just managed to get him to actually be able to answer who his character is rather than how many dice his character can roll and by Armok willing we will make an RPG player of him yet.

But I digress; surely this feat blending is ultraharam? Do I need to issue a fatwa or not?

That's 100% not how it works in Tasha's yeah. Going by Tasha's they can swap out Drow Weapon Proficiency for proficiency in different weapons or tools.

[scriver]

Yeah I definitely say forboten. Proficiency for proficiency at least keeps on the same level, kinda sorta. Proficiency for any feat is ridiculous.

[Kagus]

Yeah, that... No. Custom Lineage is one thing, swapping a proficiency for a proficiency is another thing, swapping an ASI for another equivalent ASI is also a thing, but swapping a proficiency for an ASI or a friggin' whole-ass feat is something entirely different and a frankly impressive leap of munchkinry.


In other news, the Grappling Strike battle maneuver specifies "melee attack", not "melee weapon attack" as its condition for usage, meaning that shoving a creature counts!

...unfortunately, the condition is that you have to hit with the melee attack, and since shoves don't involve an attack roll, it cannot technically "hit". So it doesn't count.


But this brings me to another, somewhat odd interaction/question. If you have that maneuver, a familiar, and a touch attack spell... When routing a spell through a familiar, is it *you* hitting with the attack, or is it the *familiar* hitting with the attack?

Finally, when you cast a spell with a range of touch, your familiar can deliver the spell as if it had cast the spell. Your familiar must be within 100 feet of you, and it must use its reaction to deliver the spell when you cast it. If the spell requires an attack roll, you use your attack modifier for the roll.

From the wording of "you cast [the spell]", it would make sense that all related rolls and conditions/effects would relate to you, but you're just casting it from the familiar's space.

But "your familiar can deliver the spell as if it had cast the spell", followed by the clarification/qualification of "If the spell requires an attack roll, you use your attack modifier for the roll" makes it seem as though it's the familiar who is making the attack, just with your attack modifier. Just like if you'd handed some pebbles from Magic Stone to someone else. They're making the attack, but they're using your ability modifiers for it.

So is the familiar making the attack, or are you making the attack from the familiar's space? If you're making the attack from the familiar's space, then you could technically cast Shocking Grasp and attack through the familiar's space, and then qualify for making a bonus action grapple on them via Grappling Strike (which admittedly would fail unless you're already within reach of the target that the familiar's zapping, as the maneuver just directs you to the rules on grappling).


It's... An odd interaction. And probably not very useful unless you're for some reason not capable of making attacks, or your familiar has some bonus to its making attacks. Or you're using flanking rules.

[Egan_BW]

Since familiars are generally incapable of attacking, I'd lean on that and say that it's you who's making the attack.

[Kagus]

Since familiars are generally incapable of attacking, I'd lean on that and say that it's you who's making the attack.

But that's even worse! Then you can cast touch spells (such as Inflict Wounds) through an invisible imp/quasit and they won't break invisibility! Sure, unless you are also hidden from the target then you won't get advantage (since only the familiar would benefit from its own invisibility), but since the familiar isn't making an attack it doesn't break their invis!

[Egan_BW]

Sounds like a convoluted way to avoid using Distant Spell metamagic.