Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Clutchbone Jun 10, 2015 14:59:29	WoTC finally posted the official errata for the PHB. I imagine this will settle many an argument, and possibly start a few new ones.   Some quick notes:   Monk's Water Whip is now an action, not a bonus action. Smite can be used with non-paladin spell slots. Small changes to beast companions Elemental Affinity and Empowered Evocation only work on one damage roll, not multiple Overchannel doesn't benefit cantrips Loading requires a free hand Two-handed weapons don't require two hands to merely hold Unarmed Strike: everyone's proficient, it's not a "weapon", 9 or lower strength means you do zero damage. Some of these have been clarified via Twitter already, but some of these are brand new. Thoughts?   http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/ph_errata
#2 GladiusLegis Jun 10, 2015 16:06:51	The Bestial Fury Multiattack part of the Beast Companion is technically a nerf. Giant Badger is pretty much pointless. The other part, on the other hand, is a small buff. Still wouldn't exactly call it useful, though. Weird is actually functional now. Still not worth a 9th-level slot, though. It'd be an OK 5th-level spell, maybe. (Phantasmal Killer at 4th got the same fix, but it's still not worth a 4th-level slot, either.) Yay for two-hander Paladins and somatic components! Magic Initiate basically lets you cast the spell you gain with 1st-level spell slots if you have them, in addition to the casting the feat gives you. That's great.
#3 FatherLiir Jun 10, 2015 15:42:22	-Immeditaly Reads Warlock List-   Okay so i don't have my PHB nearby but a few things jump out at me right away   1) Pact of the Chain - When you let your familiar attack, it does so with its Reaction   Q) I thought it attacked using YOUR Action, not its own. In that it could Help, Disengage and Dash but it couldn't attack on its own turn; only allowing for attacks using your own attack during the round.     2) Pact of the Tome - Any cantrip you cast with this feature is considered a warlock Cantrip for you   Q) So this means that I can use Shilelegh on a Quarterstaff and use my CHA modifier, instead of the Druid's WIS modfier       Other than that, i'm happy to have this. Although that Etra at the very end that says "MM creature's Stat Block is Authoritative" tells me that you CAN use the Varient Rules for Pact of the Chain familiars that do have Magic Resistance.
#4 GladiusLegis Jun 10, 2015 16:07:26	Also, no more killer Scorching Ray novas from Evokers and Gold/Red Dragon Sorcerers ... yet Agonizing Blast was untouched. Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh.
#5 GladiusLegis Jun 10, 2015 16:25:01	Oooooooh, big one: Since unarmed strikes no longer count as weapons, that REALLY messes up Monks, who now need a weapon to use Stunning Strike. Ouch.   Battle Master maneuvers and Paladin's smites/smite spells don't work with unarmed attacks anymore, either.
(Reply to #5) Leugren	GladiusLegis wrote:
#7 GladiusLegis Jun 10, 2015 16:38:06	I'm pretty sure it is. At least it's an easy fix, just add "or unarmed strike" to it where it says "melee weapon attack" and it's fine.   On the other hand, unarmed Battle Masters and Paladins look like they'll stay crying.
#8 guachi Jun 10, 2015 16:38:13	Can't use a single Goodberry to trigger Song of Rest healing.
#9 FallingIcicle Jun 10, 2015 16:43:46	Interesting. Most of these changes were expected, but the change to unarmed strikes surprised me. Was having unarmed strikes count as weapons actually causing problems?   Overall, I'm pleased. This is the kind of errata I like. It fixes typos and minor errors, but doesn't try to rewrite the entire rulebook. I just hope they release a printer-friendly version.
(Reply to #9) Macv12	FallingIcicle wrote:
#11 Greenstone.Walker Jun 10, 2015 16:56:54	I quite like the idea of unarmed being a simple weapon for the purposes of proficiency. I like it that Wizards are not proficient in fisitcuffs.
#12 GladiusLegis Jun 10, 2015 17:02:13	@JeremyECrawford to the rescue!   Addressing a nuance in the PH errata: the rule lets melee weapon attacks use unarmed strikes, despite those strikes not being weapons.
#13 ArialBlack Jun 10, 2015 17:25:50	In this game, there are 'weapon attacks' and 'spell attacks'. There are 'melee attacks' and 'ranged attacks'.   That leaves four kinds of attacks: melee weapon attacks, ranged weapon attacks, melee spell attacks, and ranged spell attacks.   Strange as it may seem, you don't need an actual, manufactured weapon in order to execute a 'weapon attack', whether melee or ranged. Animals make 'melee weapon attacks' with bite/claws/etc., and even a manticore's tail spikes are a 'ranged weapon attack'.   This is a separate thing to whether these things (claws/teeth/tail spikes/unarmed strikes) are actual 'weapons' that can be bought, sold, enchanted, enspelled, etc.
#14 Treantmonklvl20 Jun 10, 2015 17:29:27	I am very glad that Empowered Evocation has finally been officially clarified.  This will save me some headaches from "You rated magic missile too low because..."posts.
#15 miburo99 Jun 10, 2015 18:36:59	"Creature Statistics: If in doubt, the Monster Manual version of a creature’s stat block is authoritative."   This should help solve the question of familiar stats in PHB vs MM (specifically with regards to sharing magic resistance) and which is the correct one to use. The chainlock needed the buff anyways.
#16 AaronOfBarbaria Jun 10, 2015 20:08:10	The familiar sidebars are still not inherently applied to evyer familiar of that type, the clarification on which book is the authority where stat discrepancy occurs doesn't change that
#17 RCanine Jun 10, 2015 20:41:25	FatherLiir wrote:
(Reply to #2) Coredump00	GladiusLegis wrote:
(Reply to #16) Coredump00	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#20 RCanine Jun 10, 2015 20:55:29	Coredump00 wrote:
#21 transcendantviewer Jun 10, 2015 23:31:55	I'm disappointed in their decision to simply do away with the third bullet point from the Grappler Feat, rather than edit it. The way I was seeing it, that third point had the potential to really make the feat, like perhaps allowing the character to grapple things up to two size categories larger than they are, but no, now we've got a feat that is, quite literally, outclassed by a Fighter that knows how to make use of the generic grappling rules. The feat is now virtually useless.
#22 FrogReaver Jun 11, 2015 0:23:53	Very nice changes and clarifications.   The errata clears up 90% of what we have been arguing about on the forums for the last year or so.   The major arguments it solves:   1.  If a free hand is needed to reload a one handed weapon 2.  Warlock invocations being warlock level not class level 3.  Whether Unarmed Strikes count as melee weapons 4.  How far away a reach weapons opportunity attack occurs. 5.  Whether damage from sorceror and wizard features gets added to each damage roll of scorching ray and similar spells. 6.  Whether you can hold a two handed weapon in one hand     Any others?         Overall I'm very impressed with this errata.
(Reply to #20) Coredump00	RCanine wrote:
(Reply to #23) Yunru	Coredump00 wrote:
#25 Noctaem Jun 11, 2015 3:07:16	I'm happy that I can update the stealth/hiding guide.  This does bring up some weird stuff though.  If the question isn't "can I be seen?" but instead "can I be seen clearly?" does that mean that light obscurement now allows anyone to hide?  Isn't that what the skulker feat is designed to do?  What about half or 3/4 cover?  Both can be said to stop someone from seeing you clearly.  What does this errata actually mean in terms of changing how this works?
#26 jaappleton Jun 11, 2015 3:21:14	I recall mentioning my Twitter interaction with Jeremy Crawford and told people he said Water Whip was supposed to be an Action, not a Bonus Action. And people jumped down my throat about it.    Glad to see this official errata to clarify things.
#27 Psikerlord Jun 11, 2015 3:44:29	Noctaem wrote:
#28 Yunru Jun 11, 2015 5:40:01	GladiusLegis wrote:
#29 mellored Jun 11, 2015 5:47:16	Yunru wrote:
#30 TenaciousJ Jun 11, 2015 6:07:57	How is the change to Elemental Affinity and Empowered Evocation supposed to work for spells that work over multiple turns?  I can sort of see the rationale behind the nerf with regard to Scorching Ray, but that's a big blow to spells like the Investitures and Storm Sphere too.
#31 HermanTheWize Jun 11, 2015 6:17:42	Minute Metors only get one + dmg also, says per spell not per turn.
#32 Noctaem Jun 11, 2015 6:34:03	Psikerlord wrote:
#33 Clutchbone Jun 11, 2015 6:39:13	FYI, unarmed stikes can be used with melee weapon attacks. Monks and stunning strike are unaffected.   https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/608793946098008064
#34 Yunru Jun 11, 2015 6:38:27	Personally as DM I'd make 3/4 cover enough to hide. Or heavy obscurment. Don't know why 1/2 or light'd normally be enough. I mean, I can see half of you.
(Reply to #34) Clutchbone	Yunru wrote:
#36 Yunru Jun 11, 2015 6:45:45	Clutchbone wrote:
#37 Yunru Jun 11, 2015 6:51:52	I don't think they thought when knee-jerking Empowered and Elemental. For one it's uneccessary balance-wise, for two it doesn't make sense. I cast Scorching Ray, only one ray gets +5? Why? I cast Melf's Meteors, only one gets +5? Why? There's no rational, just knee-jerking.
(Reply to #37) HermanTheWize	Yunru wrote:
#39 mellored Jun 11, 2015 7:18:06	Yunru wrote:
#40 guachi Jun 11, 2015 7:19:18	FrogReaver wrote:
#41 Noctaem Jun 11, 2015 7:21:01	Yunru wrote:
#42 TenaciousJ Jun 11, 2015 7:22:24	HermanTheWize wrote:
(Reply to #25) ArialBlack	Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #43) posineg	Greetings,   With the clarify of Reach, does this now allow everything with a reach weapon to have old school "Threatening Reach"?     Reach (p. 147). This property also determines your reach for opportunity attacks with a reach weapon.
(Reply to #38) Yunru	HermanTheWize wrote:
#46 Cascade.rpga Jun 11, 2015 8:01:20	So reach weapons just got better for controlling areas even without the polearm mastery feat.   posineg wrote:
(Reply to #24) Coredump00	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #25) Coredump00	Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #45) Coredump00	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #47) Yunru	Coredump00 wrote:
(Reply to #49) Yunru	Coredump00 wrote:
#52 Noctaem Jun 11, 2015 8:55:29	ArialBlack wrote:
#53 Noctaem Jun 11, 2015 9:03:21	Coredump00 wrote:
(Reply to #46) Macv12	Cascade.rpga wrote:
(Reply to #51) Bloodscythe	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #24) FrogReaver	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #56) Yunru	FrogReaver wrote:
(Reply to #57) Bloodscythe	Yunru wrote:
#59 Yunru Jun 11, 2015 9:26:48	Yup, likewise with any X class taking Magic Initiate for a spell from Y class. Where X class has spell slots.
(Reply to #57) FrogReaver	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #22) CCS	FrogReaver wrote:
#62 Ironxxx Jun 11, 2015 11:00:05	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #61) FrogReaver	CCS wrote:
(Reply to #50) Coredump00	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #58) Coredump00	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #60) Coredump00	FrogReaver wrote:
#67 Mazzy Jun 11, 2015 13:09:33	Agonizing Blast was not listed in the errata, but it seems to run into the same problem as the empowered evocation errata.   I always played where each individual attack from Eldritch Blast gets to add the charisma mod seperately, and since it didn't get errata, I guess I was always right to do that. It just seems really inconsistent.
#68 Tempest_Stormwind Jun 11, 2015 13:27:24	Mazzy wrote:
(Reply to #65) ArialBlack	Coredump00 wrote:
(Reply to #65) Bloodscythe	Coredump00 wrote:
#71 Arithezoo Jun 11, 2015 14:53:06	mellored wrote:
#72 Ilse Jun 11, 2015 15:51:33	Arithezoo wrote:
#73 durntaur Jun 11, 2015 16:30:44	The clarification for the property "reach" is unnecessary as the language of opportunity attacks make it clear, however, it brings to light an assumption I've always made that is not correct by RAW; it affects the Sentinel errata as well.   Since a polearm has a reach of 10 feet, RAW would dictate that opportunity attacks are not triggered for creatures that merely move from within 5 feet to somewhere within less than 10 feet from a polearm wielder, thus adding a disadvantage (not the mechanic) to wielding a polearm. Technically, by RAW, the creature is not leaving the wielder's reach.   Does anyone else have a problem with this?
#74 GladiusLegis Jun 11, 2015 16:34:44	durntaur wrote:
(Reply to #69) Coredump00	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #70) Coredump00	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #73) Coredump00	durntaur wrote:
#78 Yunru Jun 11, 2015 18:15:31	Note that they didn't change the wording for Polearm Master, so PAM + Eldritch Blast is still technically legal. They dropped the ball there.
(Reply to #75) FrogReaver	Coredump00 wrote:
#80 Kalani Jun 12, 2015 2:37:44	Guys I think you are overthinking things in respect to unarmed strikes. It is still a weapon, in the same way that all natural attacks (claws, bites, etc) are "melee weapon attacks". The only difference is that it is no longer listed on the weapon table.    There are only 4 kinds of attack in the game. Melee/ranged and Spell/weapon. All attacks are a combination of those two options.    The errata isn't a word-for-word document. It just states how it should work. The actual wording we will have to wait and see once someone gets a newer printing that has it.
#81 Cascade.rpga Jun 12, 2015 5:31:18	Macv12 wrote:
#82 mellored Jun 12, 2015 6:36:09	Arithezoo wrote:
(Reply to #78) Bloodscythe	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #79) Lucas_Blackstone	FrogReaver wrote:
(Reply to #84) Yunru	Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
#86 LordTwig Jun 12, 2015 10:28:07	The errata is in the BasicRules_Playerv3.4.pdf. It lacks an index though. Which is really annoying.   http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules
#87 Rya.Reisender Jun 12, 2015 10:43:41	It's a PDF so you can just use word search.
(Reply to #87) LordTwig	Rya.Reisender wrote:
#89 Rya.Reisender Jun 12, 2015 11:00:26	Dunno, I find it much easier finding information in a PDF than in a physical copy (that's why I usually use the basic rules to look something up).
(Reply to #84) FrogReaver	Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
#91 ArialBlack Jun 12, 2015 11:55:11	'Your slots' means any slots you have may be used to cast your sorcerer spells. It doesn't restrict those slots to only being used for sorcerer spells.   Your slots can be used to cast any spell you know. It doesn't say this in the sorcerer class description, but we shouldn't expect it to! It should not surprise us that it is telling us how to cast sorcerer spells in the dorcerer class description. But at no point does it mention, there or anywhere else, that the slots gained from sorcerer levels can only be used to cast sorcerer spells, it it mentions in plenty of places that your slots are just your slots, and can fuel your spells, no matter which list a spell is on.
(Reply to #91) FrogReaver	ArialBlack wrote:
#93 Gramkar Jun 12, 2015 13:05:41	Let's look at Wizard rather than Sorcerer. It has more specific wording due to how Wizards prepare their spells.   You prepare the list of wizard spells that are available for you to cast. To do so. choose a number of wizard spells from your spellbook equal to your Intelligence modifier + your wizard level (minimum of one spell). The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots.   Choose a number of Wizard spells from your spellbook.   As much as I would like the MI feat to give unlimited access to the learned spell, the above phrasing combined with the wording of the feat and the sage advice indicates that a Wizard could only use the MI spell with his normal slots if the spell came from the Wizard list.    The feat would of course work the same way for every caster class.   _   Looking at the Druid we see specific wording once again.   You prepare the list of druid spells that are available for you to cast, choosing from the druid spell list. When you do so, choose a number of druid spells equal to your Wisdom modifier + your druid level (minimum of one spell). The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots.   Choosing from the druid spell list. The same applies to the other Divine caster classes.    _   As previously mentioned the Sorcerer specifically states 'to cast one of these sorcerer spells' without explicitly banning the use of spells from other sources, but I believe that is because multiclassing and feats are both optional features in the first place. They don't (and shouldn't) interact directly with class descriptions. A single classed Sorcerer with no feats only has Sorcerer spells, so the class feature only mentions sorcerer spells.
(Reply to #92) ArialBlack	FrogReaver wrote:
#95 Gramkar Jun 12, 2015 13:17:13	ArialBlack wrote:
#96 ArialBlack Jun 12, 2015 13:43:19	The wizard description tells you how to prepare spells, and then you can use your slots to cast those spells. You can also use your slots to cast any other spells you know.   For the classes that prepare spells, this is a limit on which spells you know can be cast. For classes that can cast any spell they know without preparations, they don't have this restriction. This restriction is needed because if it were not there then wizards/clerics etc. would be able to cast from a very much larger pool of spells.   The spell you know from MI does not need to be prepared. It can be cast just because you know it, wizard spell or not. This is illustrated by the Eldritch Knight; they can cast any wizard spell they know, without preparation.   A wizard having to prepare spells is how you can cast those spells from your spellbook. This has no effect on spells that you know through a different mechanic.
#97 durntaur Jun 12, 2015 15:07:38	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #97) Bloodscythe	durntaur wrote:
#99 Gramkar Jun 12, 2015 16:16:00	ArialBlack wrote:
#100 OnionDruid Jun 12, 2015 17:52:07	People arguing over magic initiate... It was already explained a while ago. http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/sageadvice_feats
#101 ArialBlack Jun 12, 2015 18:00:03	As you say, the spells you can cast are a separate thing to what you can use your slots for.   Each has class tells you what spells they know/can prepare, and also tells you that you can use your slots to cast those spells.   They certainly can use their slots to cast those spells, but this does not mean that those slots are limited to being used to cast the spells provided by the rules for that class.   Slots can be used to cast any spell you know, provided that the slot is at least the same level as the spell.   The spells that you can cast are not limited to the ones gained by that class. If you know other spells from whatever source, they are available for you to cast with your slots.
(Reply to #94) FrogReaver	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #101) FrogReaver	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #102) ArialBlack	FrogReaver wrote:
#105 RCanine Jun 12, 2015 21:10:31	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #96) Coredump00	ArialBlack wrote:
#107 Coredump00 Jun 12, 2015 21:26:55	Do you guys really think the Official WotC published Sage Advice column is just lying to everyone?   Really??
(Reply to #107) Yunru	Coredump00 wrote:
#109 Gramkar Jun 13, 2015 4:26:15	Yunru wrote:
#110 Treantmonklvl20 Jun 13, 2015 4:29:13	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #109) Yunru	Gramkar wrote:
(Reply to #110) Yunru	Treantmonklvl20 wrote:
#113 Treantmonklvl20 Jun 13, 2015 4:58:15	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #105) OnionDruid	RCanine wrote:
(Reply to #105) ArialBlack	RCanine wrote:
(Reply to #104) FrogReaver	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #116) ArialBlack	FrogReaver wrote:
(Reply to #108) Coredump00	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #118) FrogReaver	Coredump00 wrote:
#120 bonethug0108 Jun 13, 2015 13:41:46	Again I see people taking pieces of a rule set and twisting the individual pieces into saying what they want it to say. You have to take the rules as a whole, not just read one line or part of one line and say that's what it is. That's the main reason for the errata in the first place: people not understanding what the rules say as a whole (and people lacking all common sense).
(Reply to #119) Coredump00	FrogReaver wrote:
#122 Kithas48 Jun 13, 2015 14:05:52	Bloodscythe wrote:
#123 Mewnine Jun 14, 2015 21:07:21	Hmm. As it specifically says that making your familiar attack takes it's reaction. Does that mean familiars can use reactions to make opportunity attacks? I always assumed they couldn't because the spell say they cannot attack.
#124 Clutchbone Jun 15, 2015 10:32:40	[spellslot debate]   *broken record*   [/spellslot debate]   I know that someone is *gasp* wrong on the internet, but how's about we call it a day on this point? Not that the debates over "you/your" usage haven't been insightful...
#125 Ravix Jun 15, 2015 12:20:04	Coredump00 wrote:
#126 Mewnine Jun 16, 2015 4:13:17	Ravix wrote:
#127 Polaris Jun 16, 2015 7:35:14	mellored wrote:
(Reply to #123) FatherLiir	Mewnine wrote:
#129 Mommy_was_an_Orc Jun 16, 2015 9:40:54	Polaris wrote:
#130 Kalani Jun 16, 2015 10:49:32	Polaris wrote:
#131 Polaris Jun 16, 2015 10:52:53	Kalani wrote:
#132 Tempest_Stormwind Jun 16, 2015 11:07:10	Polaris wrote:
#133 Kalani Jun 16, 2015 11:08:28	Perhaps, but in such case it should do something else. It its damage scales with class level, it means that Warlocks are shortchanged as the only class operating under the old MC system (while other classes are free to have their cantrips scale).   I could see a case for the following:   Eldritch Blast (Cantrip): Wording essentially identical to that of Firebolt except that it deals force damage and has EB range (1d10, 2d10, 3d10, 4d10 at the respective levels).   Warlock (feature): As you gain levels, you gain invocations which can modify your eldritch blast, or perform other effects..... One of these invocations could be    Split Ray (Warlock Level 5): Instead of a single blast, you create two smaller blasts which can be fired at separate targets. Each ray deals 1d10 damage. You gain a third ray at 11th level, and a 4th ray at 17th level.    This could work, as it would require an investment of at least 5 warlock levels to benefit from said.
#134 Polaris Jun 16, 2015 11:38:50	Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
#135 Polaris Jun 16, 2015 11:51:02	Kalani wrote:
#136 Kalani Jun 16, 2015 11:57:26	Polaris wrote:
#137 Polaris Jun 16, 2015 12:46:43	Kalani wrote:
#138 Kalani Jun 16, 2015 12:54:39	Um not that I am aware... You make a separate attack roll for each scorching ray... You target the same creature twice, that is two attack rolls.... I think you are getting SR confused with Magic Missile (which doesn't have an attack roll). The errata clarifies that a single spell can only benefit from Empowered Evocation or Elemental Affinity on the first attack. It does nothing to change the fact that SR is a spell with multiple attack rolls (even against a single target), some of which might miss.
#139 mellored Jun 16, 2015 13:00:36	Polaris wrote:
#140 Polaris Jun 16, 2015 13:30:10	Kalani wrote:
#141 Xhaosdaemon Jun 16, 2015 13:37:00	The invocation you can get at 5th level that allows you to actually become invisible if hiding in a dark area is pretty cool too, especially combined with Devil's Sight. It can be very handy for a Bladelock.
#142 Polaris Jun 16, 2015 13:45:32	mellored wrote:
#143 Xhaosdaemon Jun 16, 2015 13:53:10	Maybe they need to re-write the Warlock class then. There shouldn't be *any* class in the PHB that isn't interesting/viable through all the levels. Personally I am looking to try a bladelock that starts out with a level dip into Fighter or Rogue (and if Rogue eventually hitting level 3 for the Assassin options....potential autocrits with multiple EBs when opponent has not acted plus sneak attack bonus on 1). With a GM that allows short rests *as specified* it is a decent option IMO.
#144 Kalani Jun 16, 2015 14:04:45	Polaris wrote:
#145 mellored Jun 16, 2015 15:21:47	Eldric blast isn't great DPR.  Good, but not great Battlemaster with precision strike and sharpshooter is great DPR.   But even then, your have 15 rounds of combat  day, with 15 level 5 spell slots.  (or 15 slots above level 3 for other casters). So you rarely use EB at high level anyways.   Polaris wrote:
#146 mellored Jun 16, 2015 15:24:34	Kalani wrote:
#147 Treantmonklvl20 Jun 16, 2015 15:52:13	Polaris wrote:
#148 Polaris Jun 16, 2015 16:30:32	Treantmonklvl20 wrote:
#149 Yunru Jun 17, 2015 2:13:37	Treantmonklvl20 wrote:
#150 Treantmonklvl20 Jun 17, 2015 4:59:15	Yunru wrote:
#151 Xhaosdaemon Jun 17, 2015 5:45:10	Treantmonklvl20 wrote:
#152 Kalani Jun 17, 2015 9:08:36	According to the DMG, the game assumes an average of 2 short rests/day. Some days may have fewer, and other days may have more, but on average it should work out to about 2 short rests/day. These should occur roughly 1/3 and 2/3 the way through the adventuring day - with the final rest being a long rest.   We should be operating under that assumption for the purposes of warlock optimization, for the same reason we function under the assumption of average damage during ChaOp analysis, with one major caveat - unlike dice, the frequency of short rests is not determined by random, but by deliberate design intent of the DM and/or party.
#153 Mommy_was_an_Orc Jun 17, 2015 9:28:36	Xhaosdaemon wrote:
#154 SirCabbage Jun 17, 2015 11:40:37	I agree with most of what I see here.   What I don't agree with is   Monk Deflect Missile attack range (20/60ft) Adrian Gonzalez threw a baseball 280ft and he's not gaining the magical benefit of being a super powered Ki warrior.   Eternal Mountain Defense level availability being raised and Water Ship being a full action. This tradition is considered by most as the worst a Monk could take, and it's being 'nerfed' TWICE.
#155 durntaur Jun 17, 2015 15:54:26	I think Agonizing Blast should require warlock level 5 to acquire, that really solves the dipping problem. It's simple and it doesn't step on the natural scaling of dice for cantrips. Anyone taking 5 levels in warlock for that one invocation is sacrificing enough.   mellored wrote:
#156 ChrisCarlson Jun 17, 2015 16:23:25	Polaris wrote:
#157 Mommy_was_an_Orc Jun 17, 2015 19:27:01	durntaur wrote: