- Mike mearls awnsering some questions
- from twitter and compiled by Enworld.
- Will the DMG have suplementary material on how to handle Inspiration and how to better tie BIFTS between PCs and to a setting? it does go into more depth on inspiration, believe it does talk about BIFTS and how to use them
- Question does is there any details on Ability damage and recovering from it we should know for stuff like the Int Devourer. Greater restoration restores it.
- 10% of profits from the mine...any kind of rough estimate of what that turns into, gold wise? It's up to the DM, depending on the campaign, but I'd place it at 500 gp per month or so. Remember, it's profits rather than income.
- Will you guys be doing DMG previews like you have been doing MM previews? yes
- Hoard had little to no 4e-specific FR stuff. Does that go for part 2 too? IOW, would using it with 3e FR book require work? no, should work fine. we used FR, but tried to avoid making it something that required outside sources.
- Clarification:can u use the same hex spell after an encounter at the next encounter with concentration all day? you'd need to find a new target for it between encounters, otherwise it ends.
- any chance L&L from now on could include a "here's where the DMG table of contents is at" bit? please? good idea - we'll probably do something like that closer to the release date
- Is the martial arts ability for the monk equivalent to finesse for the purposes of feats like Defensive Duelist? I'd rule yes
- Do Polearm Master and War Caster combine to allow a magic user to make a spell opportunity attack when they enter reach? No - polearm master applies only if you use the weapons it lists to make the attack
- Are the Monster Manual and Dungeon Master's Guide releasing early at WPN stores like the Player's Handbook? yes
- What are thieves tools good for if a rogue is already proficient in Sleight of Hands? thieves tools are used for picking locks and removing traps - sleight of hands applies to palming objects, picking pockets
- And how does a bard benefit from an instrument's proficiency bonus if he's already proficient with the Performance skill? impressing a crowd = performance. playing a difficult piece = instrument. it is blurry, but the instrumnt covers technical skill
- Confused. "Trance. After resting in this way, you gain the same benefit that human does from 8 hours of sleep"? you can gain the benefits of an extended rest without sleeping.
- Hi... I found THAC0 on the new PHB (GREAT book!) index, but nowhere else! Hidden easter egg or typo? easter egg
- Does the "you learn that spell" language in the Magic Initiate feat mean you can cast it with existing spell slots? I'd say yes, but featspecifies can't cast it after using it. Official answer might differ, but it doesn't break anything
- Just wondering, is crossbow expert working on ranged spell attacks rules as intended? yes - feat does not specific crossbow or weapon attacks
- Any chance to see in DMG a(purer)summoner focused class(w summonings from low lvls)? not in there - summoning is pretty tricky to balance at lower levels
- how does one access all the insider content for 4th edition? i have a subscription but i keep getting back to the sign-up page. check with customer service - the tools and content should all be up and accessible
- is the barbarian Rage dmg the same type as weapon(subj to resistance) , or its own thing? same as weapon damage
- Sentinel feat. when does the reaction attack happen? before the enemy attacks ally, or after? before
- [Re. Adventurer's League] It's debilitating having to figure scheduling, then deal with space issues because: 'Wednesday'. it's definitely something we've heard feedback on and are talking about
- hiding has been causing us a lot of grief & arguments. If I'm hidden & have to peek out or step out to shoot do I retain adv? DM judgment - would peeking reveal you or not? Probably not, unless target is looking right where you are
- Is the downside of primal pathr age (exhaustion level 1) really intended to be *that* nasty? Yes - meant to be a finisher, since ability can tilt a battle way into the party's favor
- Are there any rules to give NPC's class levels in the MM? (basically can I make a lvl 20 human fighter as a "monster") those will be in the DMG
- Is Padded armor really meant to give disadvantage to stealth rolls? yes - padded and ring are bad, cheap armors meant for militia, poorly equipped warriors, not really aimed at PCs.
- Have you had a bunch of feedback about the Circle of the Moon druid & the power levels of the wild shape beasts? We've heard of issues with druids, but we'll be looking at them in our feedback surveys starting in early 2015
The Hex ruling will simply lead to a "Bag of Rats" issue.
The adjudication to Polearm Mastery seems very odd. It wasn't overpowered relative to a number of other things that have been kept in the game despite errata questions. IIRC there is even a possible build that would still be able to perform this stunt as well (I thought I saw a subclass feature or Feat somewhere that allows for a weapon to be used for somatic gesturing, making it an attack using the weapon).
These feel like very off the cuff, not thought out answers to somewhat important questions.
Chakravant wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
At first I was a bit miffed over the Hex thing (not having it every round) but then I realized that if you did have it every round, you'd effectively have a d16 damage almost every combat round (d10+d6) and that that is a bit silly.
Although...could someone ask him if it is intentional that Warlocks don't have Detect Magic on their spell list? I noted it in the Errata thread wondering if anyone knew. They're the only class that doesn't have it. Sure, they can access it as an invocation, but that's a highly precious resource.
"At first I was a bit miffed over the Hex thing (not having it every round) but then I realized that if you did have it every round, you'd effectively have a d16 damage almost every combat round (d10+d6) and that that is a bit silly."
You could have it every round. You just need to cast it fresh in every encounter, rather than continuing to use the one you cast in the last encounter (less than an hour ago).
Slyck314 wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
In respect to the Hex ruling - I think his answer was bogus. What is the point with having a spell with a 1hr (or 8hr) duration, if it ends at the end of combat. They should have simply given it a duration of 5min, or even 1min and be done with it.
Few combats last more than 10rounds, so a 1min duration is more than sufficient to achieve the desired goals. 5min is extraordinarily long for the purpose of this spell, if it is intended to end at (or near) the end of the encounter. While possible, it is unlikely/infrequent that the characters will have two combat encounters within a 5min interval, even in a dungeon hack. If the duration was 1min, it is almost certain that the spell would only remain relevant for a single encounter.
This seems like a backpeddle answer to me. The spell was designed to be used most of the time. In fact, the duration seems deliberately designed to save the Warlock from wasting their precious spell slots on recasting the spell every encounter. This ruling only harms single-class warlocks. It does little to fix the perceived problem caused by the multiclass warlock with polearm master+war caster.
Such characters place little value on their warlock pact slots, and would have no problem recasting Hex at the start of each combat. All this ruling does to them, is prevent them from using the polearm master attack (1d4+STR) during their first turn.
It does however, minimize the combo with Shillelagh, which can be interpreted as granting a 1d8+CHA secondary attack, or as a 1d4+STR/CHA secondary attack (depending on whether you treat the spell or the feat as being general/specific). The secondary interpretation (1d4+STR/CHA) is the more logical one, as your feat is "always on", while the spell is "sometimes on", making the feat slightly more generic than the spell+feat combined.
Ultimately however, I see this as a backhand slap to the single-class warlock, and further encourages level-dipping warlock for its goodies (as if people were not already inclined to do so). Level-dipping warlock circumvents the spell-slot issue, as you are not choosing the class for its spells - but for its cantrips, invocations, Hex and perhaps its L3 pact abilities.
You have two spell slots for a long time, it's true - levels 2 to 11 I think, don't have my PHB with me - but you do eventually get three and then four.
Warlocks are, IMO, the class most dependent on short rests. Monks and Fighters probably the next most. Whether the party wants to stop depends heavily on it's composition.
Chiisai_Usagi wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
You DO need a new target for Hex. Same with Hunter's Mark. The entire spell is about the target - how could you walk around with no target for them? Just assign it to a fellow PC or animal companion, and switch when the next encounter starts.
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
The thing with the warlock though the class seems very marginal and dependent on the short rest mechanic. To get more spells is why people are multiclassing it with sorcerer and using the Sorcerer slots to cast the spells.
If they nerf hex and/or eldritch blast they more or less gut the warlock as a viable class. They give up a lot in return for better at will abilities. If they don't nerf it then they have a catch 22 situation where you can abuse it via multiclassing.
I'm more or less going to ignore Mearls on this one, I like his answer on the Polearm Master+Warcaster combo as that is a bit of a silly combo.
FFSAA wrote:
^That seems to be a common trend regarding his answers about 5e mechanics.
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Excuse my ignorance on the topic of Eldritch Blast and Hex, but how exactly would you compute the damage for this combo when it is used by a 20th level Warlock with a Charsima of 20 assuming that all 4 beams hit the same target? Would it be 4 * (1d10 + 1d6 + 5)? I've got a new player who coincidentally just asked me about this combo, and I have to admit that I'm not up to speed on Warlocks as much as I am on some of the other classes. I want to better understand the implications of this combo before I decide what to do with Mearls' ruling. Thanks in advance.
Leugren wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Leugren wrote:
Most people are complaining because the warlock's AB deals comparable damage to an Archer Fighters longbow (incidentilly, the longbow does slightly more damage due to the +10% accuracy boost). They complain even more once Hex is brought into the equation, as if Action Surge didn't exist, and the fighter didn't have the option of Sharpshooter for even more damage themselves.
A lot of people have been complaining about a highly situational combo involving war caster, polearm master, and AB.... In these arguments, they seem to assume they will gain access to OAs on a regular basis, when there is no justifiable reason why this would be the case, when most enemies would most likely close with their intended target and thereafter remain until dead.
Furthermore, such complaints ignore multiple factors:
- If using PM with a quarterstaff, the character has disadvantage to attack with their Eldritch Blast.
- If using a reach weapon, the enemy can dance circles around them to strike at nearby allies within 10ft.
- Smart opponents (INT 12+) could accurately predict that approaching a polearm wielder invites an OA especially if they have military or combat experience themselves, and would therefore wait for the PC to close distance, thereby avoiding the OA. Such characters would act as if all polearm wielders had the PM feat, until proven otherwise. They would not assume the OA would be replaced with an EB however.
- Not all enemies will approach the heavily armed creatures. Some may wish to kite, avoid melee entirely, or focus their efforts on the squishies.
- Enemies with reach themselves can easily counter this strategy, esp. if they have superior reach.
- This combo involves two feats, and cannot be accomplished prior to 4th level (human pactblade warlock), 6th level (mc warlock/fighter) or 8th level (other races). By that point, I would expect the DM to provide more challenging encounters than white-room monsters which do exactly what the PCs want.
- If they wish to include Sentinel in the combo, they must wait until 6th, 8th, or 12th level respectively. Not insurmountable, but a factor which is ignored in L20 whiteroom comparisons.
For the most part, it has been whiteroom theorycrafting complaints which are easily shot down by applying even the smallest amount of detail to the scenario.
Kalani wrote:
Thanks, @Polaris and @Kalani. I think its pretty safe to ignore Mearls' post. My player is also not intending to dip the Warlock class just to pick up a scaling Eldritch Blast.
yakuba wrote:
I think it's great that MM is answering some questions and communicating with us players, giving us his take on things that might be confusing.
I think we should also bear in mind that if you dont like his answers/suggestions, make your own rulings instead (eg the hex spell, I'd rule it lasts as long as you have concentration). No biggie.
I very much like the peekaboo answer, btw.
Kalani wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Leugren wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Just wanted to say thank you to those who continued to parse that Hex out. Your reading makes good sense and I'm not very good at reading RAW more often than not for little technicalities like that, so it really helped. 
My character will thank you even more!
OTOH, you might want to keep an eye out behind you for odd-looking people wearing the Viking Hat of Disapproval. DM's, you know how they can be...
Mistwell wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Leugren wrote:
I think it was a mistake to allow cantrips to scale with character level rather than class level. It also makes no logical sense to me why it should.
ioticus wrote:
ioticus wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Chiisai_Usagi wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
wills2009 wrote:
If a DM requires a target to "hold" the Hex between encounters, then the answer is simple and only requires you to be a cold-hearted bastard (easy to be, as a warlock); keep a prisoner from your last fight alive, holding the Hex until the next encounter, and then kill them after you roll initiative. Won't work for some monsters, obviously, but it should work often enough. Provided, of course, that the rest of your party is OK with you executing prisoners and the DM doesn't smite you. 
edwin_su wrote:
Welcome to sub-system-o-topia and what a tangled web that is wieved.
Sailing_Pirate_Ryan wrote:
Mind_Flayer_Monk wrote:
One of the back grounds gives you a mouse as a pet.
Polaris wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
I don't have a problem with my half-orc fighter/warlock carrying around a sack of rats and taunting his enemies at the beginning of a fight by yanking one out and bellowing, "I will crush you, just like THIS!" 
That idea is hilarious. First time I've read about a bag of rats.
Stylistically if I were playing any other warlock I would transfer my hex to a slug in a tin, it's just a vessel to hold my patron's hex. I imagine the warlock would mutter eldritch curses over the slug before impaling it with his sharpened finger nail then hexing his enemies.
GladiusLegis wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Polaris wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Polaris wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Leugren wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
"
Anyone else here have an opinion on how the warcaster feat works with a Pike for example or reach weapons in general?"
Short answer, it doesn't.
Reach does not work like in previous editions, it only extends your reach when attacking, so you OA area is not any larger if you are holding a polearm or your bare fists. So you don't get any benefit with war caster for holding a pike or other reach weapon.
This is where the polearm master cheese comes in to play, and this is where I agree with brock_lander.
Zardnaar wrote:
In thinking it over and reading this once again overly pedantic thread of know-it-alls I have come to the conclusion that Hex is a spell that has dual uses and the unfortunate wording of the spell allows abuse by those so inclined to overlook good manners and RAI.
In combat you can hex a target giving yourself an extra 1d6 necrotic damage AND give the target disad on certain checks. This use really doesnt need the extended duration out to 8 or 24 hours (or even 1 hour IMHO). Out of combat, you Hex someone and send them on their way with disad to certain checks and either follow the target or not. Nowehere does it say the target must remain in sight.
Also, as far as subsequent means, rereading the spell I find this sentence informing "If the target drops to 0 hit points before the spell ends, you CAN use a bonus action on a subsequent turn of yours to curse a new creature" Since it says CAN and not MUST, I am of the opinion that not only does subsequent not mean next but also that since it is on a bonus action, as long as you declare you are maintaining concentration on Hex up until the duration is over or you lose concentration, or give up concentration, you can apply the hex to another target as long as the original target is at 0 HP or dead. No bag of rats is needed even RAW, by my reading of the spell.
Before someone points out the range is 90 feet so the target always has to be within 90 feet, thats hogwash, the range only means a new target must be within 90 feet to be targeted.
Thats my 2 cents.
You're welcome.
Keendk wrote:
Hmm, so one could conceivably Hex a bandit, disadd his Dex, let him get away, and follow the rather obvious trail he leaves for the next hour back to the bandit camp?
That actually sounds like a reasonable usage.
arderkrag wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Interesting side note: Given that the wording for the Hunter's Mark spell is almost identical to that of Hex, I think we can presume that Rangers will be forced to carry around a bag of rats as well!
EDIT: Perhaps the Warlock and the Ranger could just share a bag of rats, shifting Hex and Hunter's Mark to the same rat each time. That way, only one of them would have to waste an action killing the rat at the beginning of the next combat, though they'd better pray the party Druid is not an active member of PETA.
Polaris wrote:
Slyck314 wrote:
What's a vpn store?
_Satyesu_ wrote:
Personally, I'd be more inclined to agree with Mistwell and Mearls if the spell said "on THE subsequent turn" and not "on A subsequent turn"
*insert kermit sipping tea*
But that's none of my business...
I don't know if people are just kidding with the whole "bag of rats" idea (Im a cynic, thus, I have no clue), but the whole concept behind "bag of rats" is that things of that nature should be prohibited; "bag of rats" = the chessiest of cheese.
MykeSchultz wrote:
arderkrag wrote:
eleran wrote:
Grifford wrote:
If hex wasn't designed to carry over to subsequent encounters, then why, if you cast it in higher level slots, does the duration increase up until it lasts 24 hours. I am shocked that any rational human being would think Mearls was correct.
pedro2112 wrote:
"If hex wasn't designed to carry over to subsequent encounters, then why, if you cast it in higher level slots, does the duration increase up until it lasts 24 hours."
So you can keep it on one target you want to screw with, but not necessarily kill, and you don't plan on getting into another encounter that day.
It's probably more of an NPC thing to do.
Keendk wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
belowyn wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Grifford wrote:
belowyn wrote:
Just in case anyone missed it, Jeremy Crawford just sent a tweet saying something along the lines of: "me and MM have recently been making rulings on twitter, but remember DMs, it's your game and the rules serve you".
So, yeah, seems to me your table should adopt the rules interpretations y'all like best, with the DM having the final say if agreement cant be reached.
Lawolf wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
On the older topic of potential balancing points for Warlocks, I feel many of the actual crunchy numerical issues would be solved simply by basing Eldritch Blast on caster level as opposed to character or Warlock level. This allows for some power retention for dedicated casters, makes it an interesting side tool for Gishes, and completely destroys Warlock 1/2 dipping by otherwise completely martial builds.
Semi-crunch related issues like Hex/Bag or Rats it doesn't so much help. All it really does it cut the very top off of the DPR of the most aggregious offenders of this cheese. I feel most balancing should be done with a very precise scalpel rather than a tetsubo, and feel this achieves that.
MykeSchultz wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
arderkrag wrote:
Just an FYI the bag of rats thing for those of you who do not know dates from a thread predating 3.5 on these forums and is from around 2002 IIRC and 3.0. It refers to carrying a bag of rats to abuse with the great cleave feat. Its one of those things that seems to hang around for years in the collective memory of the forums even for people who never saw that thread.
Did anyone else catch that Crossbow Expert works with spells that require attack rolls? Blade Pact Warlocks (to pick on Warlocks more) are pointless it seems.
- Just wondering, is crossbow expert working on ranged spell attacks rules as intended? yes - feat does not specific crossbow or weapon attacks
Chiisai_Usagi wrote:
Elk512 wrote:
I have removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Zardnaar wrote:
arderkrag wrote:
Personally I see Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford's tweets as opinions of other fellow DMs with an insight on rules intentions and find myself sometimes agreeing or disagreeing with them. But since the opinion of the devs is greatly valued, i pass them along whenever i can even if i don't always agree with them.
@JeremyECrawford @mikemearls and I have been answering #dnd rules questions, but remember, DMs, it's your game. The rules serve you.
On a side note an official FAQ is on the way!
@JeremyECrawford An official FAQ is in the works!
FFSAA wrote:
Take for example an excerpt in the 4ed dm's guide:
"Legitimate Targets
When a power has an effect that occurs upon hitting a target—or reducing a target to 0 hit points—the power functions only when the target in question is a meaningful threat. Characters can gain no benefit from carrying a sack of rats in hopes of healing their allies by hitting the rats."
There's the passage I was looking for. Thank you MykeShultz!
Adding something like that passage to the 5E DMs guide would be constructive.
DemoMonkey wrote:
"Can we call it "Common Sense" in this edition?"
We could. But then we would have blood feuds over the definition of the words "common" and "sense".
There would be no survivors.
Tydanosaurus wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
spelley wrote:
thehobb wrote:
I asked Mearls for clarification on Hex again. Will report his reply when it comes in.
DemoMonkey wrote:
Which would be why I think that passage is necessary. You may define a bag of rats as creatures; I doubt very much you would define them as "a meaningful threat".
Unless your character was "Europe in the middle ages", "Egyption Granary Man", or "A being entirely composed of cheese and electrical insulation".
FFSAA wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Orethalion
Did you read the rules passage from 4E that was quoted above, that I am suggesting should be in the 5E DMG?
It solves this problem. That, and every interaction like this, is why I think it would be a good inclusion.
Orethalion wrote:
eleran wrote:
eleran wrote:
belowyn wrote:
arderkrag wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Does anyone else besides me find the "DM's choice/perogative" answers to be extremely unhelpful?
"DM's should use their best judgment."
"I'm asking the question because I don't have any metric by which to make a judgment. What's the metric?"
"Use your best judgment to create a metric."
"GWWAAARRRRGGHHHH!"
Foxface wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
OK I asked Mike Mearls on Twitter for confirmation, and here is his reply (he changed his mind, had mis-read it):
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
I am still of the opinion its a two way spell. The longer duration is for the curse to one stat and the extra damage is for in combat. If people were just less cheese prone this would not be an issue. People should stop looking to exploit every little thing.
eleran wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Foxface wrote:
eleran wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Rats have more common sense than to sit in a sack waiting to be killed.
pauln6 wrote:
eleran wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Tydanosaurus wrote:
Chiisai_Usagi wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
UngeheuerLich wrote:
1. Why's everybody gotta dis the bladelock? Start with a level of fighter and you're awesome. Heck, it's even good roleplaying - the guy who's gonna sell his soul for a badass sword probably has some prior experience with swords, wouldn't you say?
2. Also, do people really consider it broken to "steal" amped-up eldritch blast by taking two levels of warlock? You can "steal" Action Surge and Cunning Action just as easily, and I'd say a fighter's short-rest nova damage and a rogue's enhanced mobility and expertise are just as class-defining as a warlock's slightly superior cantrip damage. Thing is, you're giving up specialization in your "main" class for that extra splash of something else.
Thanks for these OP. It would be helpful if the questions and answers were differently formatted.
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
A Fighter 18/Warlock 2 has most of the survivability of a Fighter 20.
I agree Hex isn't an issue. I don't even think Polearm Mastery+Warcaster was an issue. My only power concern regarding Warlocks and EB is the ability for martial classes to get top tier ranged magic damage with a 2 level dip and a Feat or two. Everything else is balanced close enough that I'd think long and hard before nerfing it (mostly because nerfing EB/AB/RB/Hex would make a Warlock a sub-optimal class choice). But adding this one word to the game for me eliminates some of the most aggregious balance offenses I can see.
Chakravant wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
MAD isn't nearly the problem it once was, what with BA and a stat cap of 20.
DemoMonkey wrote:
Sword_of_Spirit wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Tydanosaurus wrote:
I think this is more an issue of theorycraft and not real play. by the time characters are 17th or higher tere will be so many coller things to do than EB. It will be more of a fallback at that point.
Veleria wrote:
Veleria wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Polaris wrote:
mellored wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Veleria wrote:
Tydanosaurus wrote:
I completely disagree with the hex ruling. If it ends between encounters what is the purpose of it having an extendable duration up to 24 hours with concentration? It just doesn't make sense to me. How much time can go by between choosing new targets, The fact that it takes up your concentration should be enough as it prevents you from using spells like Invis, Fly, Levitate, and others.
Kalani wrote:
Mistwell wrote: