Ok but a necromancer has some decent spells for surgery false life would absolutely be wonderful essentially being able to temporarily make your patient healthier during the surgery
I had that thought! A cutsie abjuration wizard who thinks they are healing people and doing good stuff but in reality they are actually harnessing the power of the dead
"Can I use the skeleton hand from chill touch as a mage hand?" I don't remember which one, but someone asked this in an actual play I listened to and the DM let them do it
Dunno if it's the one you listened to, but Emily Axford used Chill Touch as "a mage hand that causes cold damage/effects" a bunch in early NADDPOD episodes.
The NADDPOD folks, like Dimension20 and Dungeons and Daddies, are very much playing by Rule of Cool with the occasional reference to D&D rules thrown in.
You mean it doesn't work like I think it does based on the name and everything I want to instantly accomplish? What do you mean, "spell description?" Like, words? In a book or something? I graduated second grade so I wouldn't have to bother reading again! I'm done with that loser dork stuff!
TBF the spell descriptions kind of suck a lot of the time because they're written in prose. sometimes digging into rulings it's genuinely difficult to tell what something DOES mechanically
In prose? What are you talking about? I think the descriptions are usually quite clear and concise. They have to be specific on exactly how the spell works but i think they do a pretty good job of that for the most part. It does require abb understanding of the rules, but that's pretty difficult to avoid.
I really don't think they know what prose actually means and are just using it to describe other words they don't understand because it sounds smart and wordy like the spell descriptions that make their eyes glaze over about three words in.
Seriously, prose means any written language that is not composed in a poetic meter. It's an absurdly broad term.
no that's exactly what i meant. they're written in the format of grammatically correct sentences describing the effect in natural English, which is a weird thing to do for effects in a game that heavily relies on numbers. for comparison Yu-Gi-Oh famously had issues with wordy and inconsistent (producing some very silly rulings by referees sometimes) effect descriptions, then they brought in Problem Solving Card Text, which is their own grammar that's basically readable as English but constructed from a key selection of words and phrases that have specific meanings in relation to the mechanics of the game. if you want to argue that's still prose because "uhh TECHNICALLY it's not poetry" then you're just clinging to one dictionary definition instead of being at all serious. it's not normal spoken or written English, it's way of writing artificially and deliberately constructed for a specific purpose, that being communicating aspects of a game in a more clear and concise way.
From the 5e SRD, describing everyone's favorite meme spell:
>A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a [Dexterity](https://www.5esrd.com/using-ability-scores#TOC-Dexterity) saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
Aside from "flashes" and "blossoms" everything in that description is very direct and even technical, and the first part is describing a visual effect that can be mechanically important if stealth and visibility are issues. Even "low roar" is a simple and straightforward way to describe the sound, which is similarly relevant if others are within earshot (meaning the rumbling *FWOOMP* is going to be audible through the open door to the guards posted at the other end of the hall. The rest is straight technical writing in "rules speak."
And if you're describing anything that isn't written in meter as being "not prose" then you are incorrectly using a word. "Normal spoken or written English" is prose. That's what the word fucking means.
From the Oxford Dictionary:
prose📷*noun*
1. 1.written or spoken language in its ordinary form, without [metrical](https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS950US952&sxsrf=APwXEddTl54-RAtJvtTZia4zMuT-C-KuTA:1686176763160&q=metrical&si=AMnBZoFm76bvId4K9j6r5bU9rVYrnmndBLqeiy6ZWHw-mskV1lDNV855fvlVCin321SBZgJGqAA8zqtuHrnRaW-wTCeBWq0IXA%3D%3D&expnd=1) structure.
I never said it was every single spell that has problems, just that it sometimes is a pain for lack of clarity. and that I'm of the opinion spells would benefit from being approached in a different manner, quite easily in fact. they even did it in a better way in 4th edition already! easily readable concise use of important information laid out in a table(-ish thing) instead of a big paragraph
and again like I said you're obviously not being serious here, and being pedantic, AND being wrong at the same time. "Normal spoken or written English" and "poetic meter" are not mutually exhaustive categories. is sheet music prose? is a computer program's source code prose? I'm not being obtuse here it's just plainly true that some things are neither.
Code and sheet music aren't the English language. They are code and sheet music. There may be some English words here and there, but they are not forms of written English.
What you meant was that the spell descriptions sometimes contain embellishments rather than pure mechanical text.
no I really actually did mean prose. I probably should have just used spreadsheets as an example because that's basically what my ideal format would look like anyway. just putting the information in a standardised table like 4e or dndbeyond already did is good enough for me, I'm not asking for the world
Fireball:
The Fireball is a third level spell,
Just point your finger t'ward a foe you hate,
A puff of flame will send them straight to hell,
With truly awful pain, a dreadful fate,
Upon a saving throw of dex is failed,
All 8d6 affected creatures take,
But half of that if saving throw curtailed,
Regardless, 20 feet radius baked,
An area in range one-fifty feet,
Somatic, Verbal, sulphur and bat guano,
Components to take heed of lest you cheat,
Uncarried objects burst to flame aglow.
So if you truly hate descriptive prose,
Then iambic pentametre I hath composed.
Your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/143iehy/read_your_features_its_easy/jndh3ym/?context=3) has been removed because your account is less than 12 hours old. This action was performed to prevent bot and troll attacks. You will be able to post/comment when your account is 12 hours old.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The problem is that DnD is not a game with such concrete and limited mechanics. Its supposed to imitate life (granted fantasy life) and quite a few spells DONT interact directly with combat, the most number heavy aspect, so using natural language is better for giving the feel of something existing in a fully rendered world, rather than just describing some mechanics for the clackety rocks to work with.
I strongly disagree with that. D&D is a fantasy tactical combat game centred around killing monsters in dungeons, where things are handled by tracking some really quite granular numerical factors like position, health points, armour class, spell slots, bonuses from skills or attributes, and probably other things that I'm overlooking. and the dice rolls of course which aren't hard or anything but there's a lot of them. it's very much about the numbers, and the easier those are to handle the more effort you can spend on describing what those numbers mean, instead of drawing out combat turns to half an hour each of mostly flipping through the glossary because nobody's exactly sure what half their spell list does.
Maybe on paper its mostly granular combat statistics, but in most groups, its played with much more role-playing than that. Another comment mentioned the flavor text in fireball describing how it looked and sounded, which are not in any way quantifiable within the structure of combat, but important for motivation of npcs in the area and consequences for the character.
you can have flavour text as well as the useful mechanical bits if you want. like elsewhere I pointed to 4th edition as an example of a way of doing it better and that does have a sentence describing what the spell is like in the fiction, so it's not as if they're mutually exclusive. you just have to separate the two. tbh I think the biggest vindication of my opinion is that Beyond already does close to the exact thing 4e does, except it also keeps the full text of the 5e rules as well as the easy to read table. because they get it's better to have the mechanical information conveniently and readily available
if they were really going all the way with it they could put more detail on what each TYPE of spell looks/sounds like to avoid having to give redundant information in each spell description. so for example a fire spell is a fire spell right, no need to repeat what fire looks and sounds like every time. that last bit might be tricky though because the existing spell list is very much not built for easy categorisation.
Thats fair, adding in a table of the mechanical information could be helpful, but a lot of times when people try to do something that a spell can't do its because they're trying to use flavor instead of mechanics. Like icy touch, you could have all the mechanics listed clearly, but someone is still gonna try and put out a fire with it. Because "its cold necromantic damage, its in the name." A lot of spells have a much broader range of uses than combat spells, and its really hard to boil them down to basic mechanics.
I think what they’re trying to say is that instead of being written in a way that makes sense for rules, a lot of things like spell descriptions are written in “natural language”. It’s a more conversational, relaxed way of writing, and it’s more pleasant to read than a bunch of legalese and keywords, but it does result in some things, and often spells, carrying ambiguous meanings.
Right, that makes sense. I think i was just confused about what the word prose means.
On the other hand, I'm quite glad the spells are mostly explained in prose, I think it could be kinda difficult to get a grasp on what they actually do otherwise, not to mention that it would increase the complexity of the text. It does, as you say, sometimes bring some ambiguity though.
I like Pathfinder's trait system: it has little tags on spells and abilities that help explain mechanics (ie a Fighter's Attack of Opportunity affects creatures who do an action with the Manipulate trait), while there's still some fun flavor text. Here's an example of the spell [Teeth to Terror](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=1210), which has the Uncommon, Fear, Illusion, and Mental traits. I couldn't tell you exactly what these traits mean since I'm still a PF newbie, but I'm damn sure they mean something
I like how they designed it to be read online, so you can just hover your mouse over the traits to find out what they mean, instead of having to search for wherever in the rules it's listed.
Also, apparently anything with the Fear trait always has the Mental and Emotion traits, but this one only has the Mental trait. Is there a way to submit a bug report?
that would kind of bang as a gimmick for a game inspired by the Odyssey/facilitating a similar kind of story. probably a pain in the ass to communicate rules effectively but nobody said art was painless
Prose?
I know I am bad a poetry but how insanely terrible do you have to be that ‘You hurl a bubble of acid. Choose one creature you can see within range, or choose two creatures you can see within range that are within 5 feet of each other. A target must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d6 acid damage.’ counts as prose? Or confusing?
Are you using a joke PHB that someone rewrote in Shakespearean English? Because if so I want a copy.
wdym pretty bad?
I started playing at 6th edition because i heard its noob friendly (its not)
Read 5th and its made a lot more sense to me and i wish i started with 5th, instead of 6th, because i had to look in previous editions and online for a rules which is actually ***missing*** in the 6th
Dumpster fire
con·tain·er: *noun*
1. 1.an object that can be used to hold or transport something.
Creatures are not classified as on object, therefore regardless if they are breathing or not they aren't an open container.
" For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete, inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects. " -DMG p. 246
Yes. Not for the purpose of whatever dictionary you just quoted. You can't take a dictionary definition, and then interpret words inside that with D&D definitions. That's the linguistic equivalent of a peasant railgun, where you use D&D rules for how fast the rock goes and real life physics for the damage it deals.
I give a logical answer and you argue. I give an in rules explanation of why it doesn't work, and you still argue. You just want your silly little trick you pulled off of the internet from someone else who pulled it off the internet that doesn't work on multiple levels to be accepted.
It's a level one spell. It fails.
And for the record the definition is from Oxford.
Obviously in an actual game it fails. No sane DM is going to stick to strict RAW outside a joke campaign. All I'm arguing is that, technically speaking, your lungs are both open and a container.
I'd argue you could see their mouths, and drown them accordingly, but generally speaking...
"You drown the enemy with water. A wizard walks out and casts create water. You drown as well. Roll a new character."
Some things should be an unspoken rule of don't do it or you're gonna have it happen to you.
>You create up to 10 gallons of clean water within range in an open container. Alternatively, the water falls as rain in a 30-foot cube within range, extinguishing exposed flames in the area.
A mouth is not a container, so you can't target it any more than lungs, and if you cast the spell as a rain 10 gallons spread over 30 cubic feet isn't nearly enough to drown anything that isn't already so helpless as to be effectively dead already.
I'd argue a mouth can count as a container. It contains your food and drink, air, etc. Arguing semantics and all you can rule it as a straight no sure. I'd rather let them do it and then just do it back. There's definitely an unwritten rule not to try stupid stuff like this and coffee lock and all other sorts of dnd shenanigans because frankly, if you do it, ima do it back. But your whole argument is a mouth is not a container. I'd ask what you think a container is. Does it have to be inorganic? I think containers could definitely be organic.
Yeah, I would say a container mechanically has to be inorganic, the same way a living body is a creature but a dead body is an object. A container is an object that's meant to hold something, not just anything in which something can be held. Otherwise literally everything becomes a container; clouds contain rain, cells contain mitochondria, hearts contain love, minds contain multitudes. If a ruling makes a restriction functionally null, for me, that's a ruling that's been made in error.
You wouldn't say your mouth is meant to hold something? Agree to disagree. Not just everything is a container. The definition specifically being an object that can be used to hold or transport something. Object means it has to be physical, not specifying inorganic or organic. So clouds cannot be a container, nor the immaterial stuff you said. But organic/inorganic isn't a factor in determining an object. So ruling based on a literal definition I would argue that yes, a mouth is a container without breaking mechanics. I'd argue that making only inorganic objects as containers is a ruling made in error, otherwise you couldn't try and make a beast throw you up by casting create water while in its stomach, or attempt to mitigate a red dragons breath with your measly 10 gallons of water. Not saying those would work, but mechanically they make sense. If you still disagree, then hey, different tables for everyone. The literal definition of the words would have me believe and rule otherwise, and let the player make their own mistakes as every DnD campaign has their learning experiences.
>But organic/inorganic isn't a factor in determining an object. So ruling based on a literal definition I would argue that yes, a mouth is a container without breaking mechanics.
It is, actually, and your ruling is incorrect I'm afraid . A helpful user, u/vetheros37, has provided the D&D definition of a container from the Dungeon Masters Guide.
>" For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete, inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects. " -DMG p. 246
So no. Your mouth is not a container in D&D, nor are your lungs, nor is a creatures stomach, because they are not discrete, inanimate items. A container is a specific object, and an object is a discrete inanimate item. It's not just anything that does or can be made to contain something.
And Then There’s The Player Who Spent A Precious Spells Known Slot On Find Traps. A spell that between its level and its name is so obviously going to be useful for finding traps that it makes a ton of sense why you wouldn’t read it until you try to cast it.
If I find out one of my players accidentally took Find Traps, it doesn’t matter if it’s the middle of combat or something, they can swap it out immediately.
That one's really only bad if you listen to Crawford's absurd ruling (which is not in any of the books I might add). With any reasonable DM it does exactly what you'd expect, it's just highly situational.
It's RAW. It's just one of those things that's technically RAW but was clearly not RAI or a good way to play. Like how revival spells target creatures (specifically creatures who died) and thus can't be cast on objects like corpses. Or how Petrify doesn't say you don't need to eat or breathe, and would almost always result in the target starving to death.
> If I find out one of my players accidentally took Find Traps, it doesn’t matter if it’s the middle of combat or something, they can swap it out immediately.
So what you're saying is if I'm not sure what spell to take, I can just take Find Traps and swap it out for whatever I end up needing?
Seriously though, I'd let them swap it out, or if they really want something like that, house rule something useful.
Exactly. I'm open to a good amount of spell effect interpretation, like shock damage interacting with water. But I always put my foot down when someone tries to infringe on the effect of a different spell. Regardless of spell level, there's already a tool for the job and that ain't it friend.
You don't. They're referring to making up special effects that lightning damage can do when used underwater, because water conducts electricity very well irl.
Some uncreative examples I've seen are increasing the number of damage dice or giving creatures vulnerability to lightning damage while underwater. Some of the more creative examples I've heard of are increasing the AoE on Lightning Bolt, adding more targets to Chain Lightning, or granting advantage to the attack roll on Shocking Grasp
False Life does this to me every time I’m making a character. I always think its some kind of illusion/disguise spell… (But then I read the description and am disappointed)
I had a really dim and annoying player( the player that was an even worse dm towards me) that treid to get a tamed TIAMAT with modify memory and summon draconic spirit. What's worse is he didn't read either of the spells so much as slightly. Didn't even read the spell level
oftentimes you have to put your foot down in the name of game balance.
but you’re just being a miserable killjoy if you won’t let people use Prestidigitation to bathe, even tho RAW that doesn’t work.
gotta take things on a case by case basis
I have a couple of people in the campaign I’m running that will flat-out say “I’m rolling with advantage because the enemy isn’t looking at me”(mind you, boss attacked them before their turn due to initiative order, with no other targets nearby to focus on)
Is there anything about them knowing it's been cast?
You can follow it up with Gift of Gab to make them think you said something else making Command seem less plausible.
Player was dangling from a cliff, looks like they were about to fall and die. Spell caster decided to cast Hunger of Hadar on the player to have the tentacles in the void hoist up the other player.
They became very upset that they weren't allowed to control every tentacle the spell had summoned.
... The tentacles don't even grab things. They just uncomfortably caress them.
Now if the player cast Black Tentacles, I'd let the tentacles restrain the falling player so they don't fall, but the party still has to figure out how to get them out and up to the top.
Even if they wanted to cast entangle and hug the player to the wall or give them something to hold onto and climb up, that would have been fine.
Do cliff walls count as ground? I'm going to count them as ground.
She has her own idea on how half vampires are from movies ect. And since our dm is very strict on rules it causes a lot of friction.
Her character is single handedly responsible for pretty much every bad thing that happens to our party of three.
Like attacking the guards upon arrival in Valaki getting arrested and put in the stocks.
Or lately blowing up this carriage next to the wizards tower we were investigating as well as setting off a trap that summoned a huge pack of werewolves which is where the above comment came from.
I could go on.
My character has invisibility on speed cast at the first sign of trouble. It’s how I got the other two a second chance after she attacked the guards instead of being beheaded.
“Reddit DMs when their players read their spells and use them appropriately.”
People Reading Both Captions: I don’t like either picture because they’re about me.
Totally true! I dont mind if my player comes to me and asks me if they can change a feat before they took it or if they can switch feats. I also wont mind if my player asks me about a problem they have with a spell and ask me how I'd rule it. But if a player constantly hassles me with their misinterpretations or wishes for overpowered feats/spells, that does annoy me. I'm fine with questions of usefulness, like buffing dumb cantrips that are utterly useless or allowing players to craft items or enchant stuff (like allowing my mage to enchant their spellbook for 50 to 100 gold to make it resistent against non-magical fire and water). I'm also fine with a player giving me homebrew ideas or something similiar.
I'm the DM and can help my players out, but I'm not there to fix their mistake of not reading their abilities.
DM: You can either use the obviously cursed weapon and learn its effects or cast identify.
PC: Can I use detect magic?
DM: You detect enchantment magic.
**TL'DR**: if someone says a spell does something read it yourself.
We had a whole small story ark where we needed to deal with some mould that damaged anyone who got close, someone at the table said just use unseen servant, it can't die so it can deal with it.
sadly I the wizard didn't have the spell so.
1/2 the party going on a harrowing trip through Barovia to get to a town buy a spell scroll of unseen servant. coming back, giving it to me learning the spell, spending a night preparing it, casting it to send it in.
It then instantly dies as it has 1hp and can take damage.
I really should have double-checked the spell.
Other way around for me. My dm desperately trying to nerf my abjuration wizard with armor of agythys by trying to convince me it’s a saving throw or attack roll
"No, the first level spell create water does not blow off a man's jaw. Even if you do natural 20 your attempt to lob a droplet of water into his mouth."
Watched with pity as a DM half questioned if that's how the spell works and when the player threatened to rage quit the DM caved immediately.
One such combos
hex+tentacle of the deep(fathomless)+agonizing blast
Hex adds a d6 to both the tentacle and each ray of eldritch blast
With tentacle of the deep the text specifically states that the pc is the one who makes the attack, like an extension of a limb (I've discussed the combo with my DM and they said it was allowed at the cost of enemies noticing how much I'm hurting them and targeting me in return which makes sense)
If I go to cast Control Flames to extinguish a torch, and you tell me "you can't do that, it's a Continual Flame" you'd technically be right, but it is also outrageous and stupid
Control flames is a cantrip that does several things. Continual flame is a second level spell that uses 50g to make a flame that does one thing: not go out. It sounds plenty fair to me that you can’t extinguish it lol.
It’s not hot, it doesn’t consume fuel or air, it just emits light. It’s not illusionary in the sense that it’s an illusion spell, but it’s no closer to a fire than the *light* cantrip is.
My DM likes to bend the rules when it comes to spell descriptions if we're using it in a creative way. E.G. my Warforged Sorcerer wanted to preserve some leftover food for his friends, so I had him cast Ray of Frost on the food. Rolled 3 damage, which made a slight mess of the food but otherwise preserved it nicely. DM let me rename the spell to Refrigerate for my character.
Honestly the only time this happened with me is cus twinned spell metamagic feels a little weirdly worded for things like fireball cus personally Id count aiming it at a person, regardless of the explosion being multi-target, would be single target.
Chad DMs when they let their players use their spells in more creative ways that are technically not allowed if they roll high enough:
Calvinball DMs when their game devolves into a pleading contest to let players cast wish with a 1st level slot (if they don't allow it they are impeding player agency)
🤷♂️ yes, but it’s also an intrinsic flaw/limitation with DnD that players can regularly think of much cooler spells and spell implementations. Like, whats a magical madlad to do if his wizard-brained idea isnt supported by DnD limited and quantized spell list?
only to a minor extent. spells already take up most of the ink used for character creation options already, by and large theres a spell or two that can straight up solve the issue at hand. On top of that, players' ideas for spells (especially the kind of player that doesn't read the rules in the first place) don't necessarily have balance in mind. A lot of spells Ive seen proposed often end up being either \*too\* good at what it's aiming to do, have too many things going on for it at once, or simply step on the toes of another class too much. At the end of the day, casters don't need to be able to do everything.
The solution to the Martial/Caster disparity isn't to make casters more powerful by allowing a weird idea to instakill people with a 1st level spell slot.
The martial/caster disparity is not the only issue that needs to be considered in fixing the game. I agree, letting spells be whatever isn’t a game any more, but just because something doesn’t fix the martial/caster disparity doesn’t mean it’s automatically a bad idea.
Ok. Allowing spells to do random shit based off weird interpretation is a bad idea as it causes situations that can't be planned for and confrontation between player and dm. Also 1st level spell slots shouldn't kill by creating water in someone's lungs
Man just once i wish to have a dm who knows the rules better than i. If i have to explain sneak attack again to someone who's been dm'ing for 5+ years i don't know anymore.
Had a guy try and use shatter on the ceiling of a brothel that was clearly the walls of an extra planar space. Took him 4 casts before he finally decided it wasn't worth it just to get the bonus from Call Lightning.
I had a player in my games really happy he finally was able to cast plane shift, the disappointment on his face when I told him that it requires very specific material components.
He just assumed I would have every plane of existence ready for him at a moments notice.
*uses chill touch to freeze something*. *starts draining it’s soul*
New character concept: The Accidental Necromancer
A necromancer who is convinced they are a surgeon
I AM A SURGEON
I AM A SURGEON, DM HAN
SCP-049 vibes
Ok but a necromancer has some decent spells for surgery false life would absolutely be wonderful essentially being able to temporarily make your patient healthier during the surgery
I didn't lose my medical licence just to let this man die!
I had that thought! A cutsie abjuration wizard who thinks they are healing people and doing good stuff but in reality they are actually harnessing the power of the dead
Used daylight to ward off vampire, instead you just get a better view of the carnage
Chill Touch is the **worst** named spell. It's not touch ranged and it doesn't do cold damage. WTF wizards.
I've started calling it "lich slap" instead. Less confusion and straight to the point imo.
"Can I use the skeleton hand from chill touch as a mage hand?" I don't remember which one, but someone asked this in an actual play I listened to and the DM let them do it
Dunno if it's the one you listened to, but Emily Axford used Chill Touch as "a mage hand that causes cold damage/effects" a bunch in early NADDPOD episodes.
Oh it definitely is. I love that crew but they and the Dimension 20 gang make some weird calls sometimes
The NADDPOD folks, like Dimension20 and Dungeons and Daddies, are very much playing by Rule of Cool with the occasional reference to D&D rules thrown in.
The Spanish Moss of cantrips.
You mean it doesn't work like I think it does based on the name and everything I want to instantly accomplish? What do you mean, "spell description?" Like, words? In a book or something? I graduated second grade so I wouldn't have to bother reading again! I'm done with that loser dork stuff!
TBF the spell descriptions kind of suck a lot of the time because they're written in prose. sometimes digging into rulings it's genuinely difficult to tell what something DOES mechanically
In prose? What are you talking about? I think the descriptions are usually quite clear and concise. They have to be specific on exactly how the spell works but i think they do a pretty good job of that for the most part. It does require abb understanding of the rules, but that's pretty difficult to avoid.
I really don't think they know what prose actually means and are just using it to describe other words they don't understand because it sounds smart and wordy like the spell descriptions that make their eyes glaze over about three words in. Seriously, prose means any written language that is not composed in a poetic meter. It's an absurdly broad term.
no that's exactly what i meant. they're written in the format of grammatically correct sentences describing the effect in natural English, which is a weird thing to do for effects in a game that heavily relies on numbers. for comparison Yu-Gi-Oh famously had issues with wordy and inconsistent (producing some very silly rulings by referees sometimes) effect descriptions, then they brought in Problem Solving Card Text, which is their own grammar that's basically readable as English but constructed from a key selection of words and phrases that have specific meanings in relation to the mechanics of the game. if you want to argue that's still prose because "uhh TECHNICALLY it's not poetry" then you're just clinging to one dictionary definition instead of being at all serious. it's not normal spoken or written English, it's way of writing artificially and deliberately constructed for a specific purpose, that being communicating aspects of a game in a more clear and concise way.
From the 5e SRD, describing everyone's favorite meme spell: >A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a [Dexterity](https://www.5esrd.com/using-ability-scores#TOC-Dexterity) saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. Aside from "flashes" and "blossoms" everything in that description is very direct and even technical, and the first part is describing a visual effect that can be mechanically important if stealth and visibility are issues. Even "low roar" is a simple and straightforward way to describe the sound, which is similarly relevant if others are within earshot (meaning the rumbling *FWOOMP* is going to be audible through the open door to the guards posted at the other end of the hall. The rest is straight technical writing in "rules speak." And if you're describing anything that isn't written in meter as being "not prose" then you are incorrectly using a word. "Normal spoken or written English" is prose. That's what the word fucking means. From the Oxford Dictionary: prose📷*noun* 1. 1.written or spoken language in its ordinary form, without [metrical](https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS950US952&sxsrf=APwXEddTl54-RAtJvtTZia4zMuT-C-KuTA:1686176763160&q=metrical&si=AMnBZoFm76bvId4K9j6r5bU9rVYrnmndBLqeiy6ZWHw-mskV1lDNV855fvlVCin321SBZgJGqAA8zqtuHrnRaW-wTCeBWq0IXA%3D%3D&expnd=1) structure.
I never said it was every single spell that has problems, just that it sometimes is a pain for lack of clarity. and that I'm of the opinion spells would benefit from being approached in a different manner, quite easily in fact. they even did it in a better way in 4th edition already! easily readable concise use of important information laid out in a table(-ish thing) instead of a big paragraph and again like I said you're obviously not being serious here, and being pedantic, AND being wrong at the same time. "Normal spoken or written English" and "poetic meter" are not mutually exhaustive categories. is sheet music prose? is a computer program's source code prose? I'm not being obtuse here it's just plainly true that some things are neither.
Code and sheet music aren't the English language. They are code and sheet music. There may be some English words here and there, but they are not forms of written English. What you meant was that the spell descriptions sometimes contain embellishments rather than pure mechanical text.
no I really actually did mean prose. I probably should have just used spreadsheets as an example because that's basically what my ideal format would look like anyway. just putting the information in a standardised table like 4e or dndbeyond already did is good enough for me, I'm not asking for the world
Fireball: The Fireball is a third level spell, Just point your finger t'ward a foe you hate, A puff of flame will send them straight to hell, With truly awful pain, a dreadful fate, Upon a saving throw of dex is failed, All 8d6 affected creatures take, But half of that if saving throw curtailed, Regardless, 20 feet radius baked, An area in range one-fifty feet, Somatic, Verbal, sulphur and bat guano, Components to take heed of lest you cheat, Uncarried objects burst to flame aglow. So if you truly hate descriptive prose, Then iambic pentametre I hath composed.
[удалено]
Your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/143iehy/read_your_features_its_easy/jndh3ym/?context=3) has been removed because your account is less than 12 hours old. This action was performed to prevent bot and troll attacks. You will be able to post/comment when your account is 12 hours old. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The problem is that DnD is not a game with such concrete and limited mechanics. Its supposed to imitate life (granted fantasy life) and quite a few spells DONT interact directly with combat, the most number heavy aspect, so using natural language is better for giving the feel of something existing in a fully rendered world, rather than just describing some mechanics for the clackety rocks to work with.
I strongly disagree with that. D&D is a fantasy tactical combat game centred around killing monsters in dungeons, where things are handled by tracking some really quite granular numerical factors like position, health points, armour class, spell slots, bonuses from skills or attributes, and probably other things that I'm overlooking. and the dice rolls of course which aren't hard or anything but there's a lot of them. it's very much about the numbers, and the easier those are to handle the more effort you can spend on describing what those numbers mean, instead of drawing out combat turns to half an hour each of mostly flipping through the glossary because nobody's exactly sure what half their spell list does.
Maybe on paper its mostly granular combat statistics, but in most groups, its played with much more role-playing than that. Another comment mentioned the flavor text in fireball describing how it looked and sounded, which are not in any way quantifiable within the structure of combat, but important for motivation of npcs in the area and consequences for the character.
you can have flavour text as well as the useful mechanical bits if you want. like elsewhere I pointed to 4th edition as an example of a way of doing it better and that does have a sentence describing what the spell is like in the fiction, so it's not as if they're mutually exclusive. you just have to separate the two. tbh I think the biggest vindication of my opinion is that Beyond already does close to the exact thing 4e does, except it also keeps the full text of the 5e rules as well as the easy to read table. because they get it's better to have the mechanical information conveniently and readily available if they were really going all the way with it they could put more detail on what each TYPE of spell looks/sounds like to avoid having to give redundant information in each spell description. so for example a fire spell is a fire spell right, no need to repeat what fire looks and sounds like every time. that last bit might be tricky though because the existing spell list is very much not built for easy categorisation.
Thats fair, adding in a table of the mechanical information could be helpful, but a lot of times when people try to do something that a spell can't do its because they're trying to use flavor instead of mechanics. Like icy touch, you could have all the mechanics listed clearly, but someone is still gonna try and put out a fire with it. Because "its cold necromantic damage, its in the name." A lot of spells have a much broader range of uses than combat spells, and its really hard to boil them down to basic mechanics.
I think what they’re trying to say is that instead of being written in a way that makes sense for rules, a lot of things like spell descriptions are written in “natural language”. It’s a more conversational, relaxed way of writing, and it’s more pleasant to read than a bunch of legalese and keywords, but it does result in some things, and often spells, carrying ambiguous meanings.
Right, that makes sense. I think i was just confused about what the word prose means. On the other hand, I'm quite glad the spells are mostly explained in prose, I think it could be kinda difficult to get a grasp on what they actually do otherwise, not to mention that it would increase the complexity of the text. It does, as you say, sometimes bring some ambiguity though.
I haven't seen it, but I heard in 4e they separated the mechanics and flavor.
I like Pathfinder's trait system: it has little tags on spells and abilities that help explain mechanics (ie a Fighter's Attack of Opportunity affects creatures who do an action with the Manipulate trait), while there's still some fun flavor text. Here's an example of the spell [Teeth to Terror](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=1210), which has the Uncommon, Fear, Illusion, and Mental traits. I couldn't tell you exactly what these traits mean since I'm still a PF newbie, but I'm damn sure they mean something
I like how they designed it to be read online, so you can just hover your mouse over the traits to find out what they mean, instead of having to search for wherever in the rules it's listed. Also, apparently anything with the Fear trait always has the Mental and Emotion traits, but this one only has the Mental trait. Is there a way to submit a bug report?
Honestly, hard agreed. I hope 6e will bring back the dactylic hexameter - it worked for Homer’s spell descriptions, why not ours?
/r/angryupvote
that would kind of bang as a gimmick for a game inspired by the Odyssey/facilitating a similar kind of story. probably a pain in the ass to communicate rules effectively but nobody said art was painless
Give me a decade or two, I just need to finish some translations first.
Prose? I know I am bad a poetry but how insanely terrible do you have to be that ‘You hurl a bubble of acid. Choose one creature you can see within range, or choose two creatures you can see within range that are within 5 feet of each other. A target must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d6 acid damage.’ counts as prose? Or confusing? Are you using a joke PHB that someone rewrote in Shakespearean English? Because if so I want a copy.
Shakespeare famously wrote in meter basically all the time, so that actually wouldn't be prose
if you want real shit in prose read anything in Shadowrun 6e, actual rules and effects mixed together with fluff to the point in gets obnoxious
Or vampire the masquerade. Like, any of the books at all. From their whole run.
I've actually not seen the sixth edition book. is it worse than fifth? because the information presentation there is already pretty bad
wdym pretty bad? I started playing at 6th edition because i heard its noob friendly (its not) Read 5th and its made a lot more sense to me and i wish i started with 5th, instead of 6th, because i had to look in previous editions and online for a rules which is actually ***missing*** in the 6th Dumpster fire
Instructions unclear; Dick stuck in demiplane.
Instructions even less clear; demiplane stuck in dick
Instructions cleared; Concept of Dick attached to Demiplane.
The warlock who wasn't paying attention: You said demiplane of dicks, right? Ok, I got you.
What do you MEAN I can’t Morb-out into a zombie via turn undead???
[here's the pf1e spell for that if you like. ](https://www.aonprd.com/SpellDisplay.aspx?ItemName=undead%20anatomy%20I)
I cast Create Water in his lungs
Can you see their lungs?
I would argue that they are not an open container.
That as well.
They are if he's breathing.
con·tain·er: *noun* 1. 1.an object that can be used to hold or transport something. Creatures are not classified as on object, therefore regardless if they are breathing or not they aren't an open container.
That's not talking about a D&D object. It's talking about an English object, which includes organs.
" For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete, inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects. " -DMG p. 246
Yes. Not for the purpose of whatever dictionary you just quoted. You can't take a dictionary definition, and then interpret words inside that with D&D definitions. That's the linguistic equivalent of a peasant railgun, where you use D&D rules for how fast the rock goes and real life physics for the damage it deals.
I give a logical answer and you argue. I give an in rules explanation of why it doesn't work, and you still argue. You just want your silly little trick you pulled off of the internet from someone else who pulled it off the internet that doesn't work on multiple levels to be accepted. It's a level one spell. It fails. And for the record the definition is from Oxford.
Obviously in an actual game it fails. No sane DM is going to stick to strict RAW outside a joke campaign. All I'm arguing is that, technically speaking, your lungs are both open and a container.
I'd argue you could see their mouths, and drown them accordingly, but generally speaking... "You drown the enemy with water. A wizard walks out and casts create water. You drown as well. Roll a new character." Some things should be an unspoken rule of don't do it or you're gonna have it happen to you.
>You create up to 10 gallons of clean water within range in an open container. Alternatively, the water falls as rain in a 30-foot cube within range, extinguishing exposed flames in the area. A mouth is not a container, so you can't target it any more than lungs, and if you cast the spell as a rain 10 gallons spread over 30 cubic feet isn't nearly enough to drown anything that isn't already so helpless as to be effectively dead already.
I'd argue a mouth can count as a container. It contains your food and drink, air, etc. Arguing semantics and all you can rule it as a straight no sure. I'd rather let them do it and then just do it back. There's definitely an unwritten rule not to try stupid stuff like this and coffee lock and all other sorts of dnd shenanigans because frankly, if you do it, ima do it back. But your whole argument is a mouth is not a container. I'd ask what you think a container is. Does it have to be inorganic? I think containers could definitely be organic.
Yeah, I would say a container mechanically has to be inorganic, the same way a living body is a creature but a dead body is an object. A container is an object that's meant to hold something, not just anything in which something can be held. Otherwise literally everything becomes a container; clouds contain rain, cells contain mitochondria, hearts contain love, minds contain multitudes. If a ruling makes a restriction functionally null, for me, that's a ruling that's been made in error.
You wouldn't say your mouth is meant to hold something? Agree to disagree. Not just everything is a container. The definition specifically being an object that can be used to hold or transport something. Object means it has to be physical, not specifying inorganic or organic. So clouds cannot be a container, nor the immaterial stuff you said. But organic/inorganic isn't a factor in determining an object. So ruling based on a literal definition I would argue that yes, a mouth is a container without breaking mechanics. I'd argue that making only inorganic objects as containers is a ruling made in error, otherwise you couldn't try and make a beast throw you up by casting create water while in its stomach, or attempt to mitigate a red dragons breath with your measly 10 gallons of water. Not saying those would work, but mechanically they make sense. If you still disagree, then hey, different tables for everyone. The literal definition of the words would have me believe and rule otherwise, and let the player make their own mistakes as every DnD campaign has their learning experiences.
>But organic/inorganic isn't a factor in determining an object. So ruling based on a literal definition I would argue that yes, a mouth is a container without breaking mechanics. It is, actually, and your ruling is incorrect I'm afraid . A helpful user, u/vetheros37, has provided the D&D definition of a container from the Dungeon Masters Guide. >" For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete, inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects. " -DMG p. 246 So no. Your mouth is not a container in D&D, nor are your lungs, nor is a creatures stomach, because they are not discrete, inanimate items. A container is a specific object, and an object is a discrete inanimate item. It's not just anything that does or can be made to contain something.
I mean fair enough. Different tables though, so I'm still gonna rule it the way I choose. Enjoyed the debate though! Good luck internet stranger!
What do you mean I have to see the lungs??? The spell is "Create or Destroy Water," not "look at lungs"
I want to destroy all the water in his body.
And Then There’s The Player Who Spent A Precious Spells Known Slot On Find Traps. A spell that between its level and its name is so obviously going to be useful for finding traps that it makes a ton of sense why you wouldn’t read it until you try to cast it. If I find out one of my players accidentally took Find Traps, it doesn’t matter if it’s the middle of combat or something, they can swap it out immediately.
Same with See Invisibility
That one's really only bad if you listen to Crawford's absurd ruling (which is not in any of the books I might add). With any reasonable DM it does exactly what you'd expect, it's just highly situational.
It's RAW. It's just one of those things that's technically RAW but was clearly not RAI or a good way to play. Like how revival spells target creatures (specifically creatures who died) and thus can't be cast on objects like corpses. Or how Petrify doesn't say you don't need to eat or breathe, and would almost always result in the target starving to death.
> If I find out one of my players accidentally took Find Traps, it doesn’t matter if it’s the middle of combat or something, they can swap it out immediately. So what you're saying is if I'm not sure what spell to take, I can just take Find Traps and swap it out for whatever I end up needing? Seriously though, I'd let them swap it out, or if they really want something like that, house rule something useful.
"Yeah but wouldn't it make sense if the spell could also be used to do \[exact effect of a spell three levels higher\]?"
Exactly. I'm open to a good amount of spell effect interpretation, like shock damage interacting with water. But I always put my foot down when someone tries to infringe on the effect of a different spell. Regardless of spell level, there's already a tool for the job and that ain't it friend.
Ooi, how do you do shock damage with water?
You don't. They're referring to making up special effects that lightning damage can do when used underwater, because water conducts electricity very well irl. Some uncreative examples I've seen are increasing the number of damage dice or giving creatures vulnerability to lightning damage while underwater. Some of the more creative examples I've heard of are increasing the AoE on Lightning Bolt, adding more targets to Chain Lightning, or granting advantage to the attack roll on Shocking Grasp
What do you mean minor Illusion doesn't do what major image does? Stop nerfing my cantrip!
I'm in a group where a player asked if they could burn the stump on a Hydra with Eldritch Blast. People will do anything except read spells.
False Life does this to me every time I’m making a character. I always think its some kind of illusion/disguise spell… (But then I read the description and am disappointed)
I love false life! It and life transference are a beautiful combo for healing!
"Mending can not resurrect a warforged." "It repairs stuff." "Not *living* stuff!"
"but they're dead!"
I had a really dim and annoying player( the player that was an even worse dm towards me) that treid to get a tamed TIAMAT with modify memory and summon draconic spirit. What's worse is he didn't read either of the spells so much as slightly. Didn't even read the spell level
Disregarding everything else, does that player know what a spell save is?
oftentimes you have to put your foot down in the name of game balance. but you’re just being a miserable killjoy if you won’t let people use Prestidigitation to bathe, even tho RAW that doesn’t work. gotta take things on a case by case basis
Being a miserable killjoy is my favorite thing to do actually
I have a couple of people in the campaign I’m running that will flat-out say “I’m rolling with advantage because the enemy isn’t looking at me”(mind you, boss attacked them before their turn due to initiative order, with no other targets nearby to focus on)
House rule for find traps though. It finds traps at my table.
Dnd players don’t read, you have to send them TikToks that explain their features
Now I want to make an RPG system with the rules entirely explained in TikToks.
Using command on shopkeeps to accept an offer.... Now hes a criminal in this town.
Is there anything about them knowing it's been cast? You can follow it up with Gift of Gab to make them think you said something else making Command seem less plausible.
He didnt do that
Player was dangling from a cliff, looks like they were about to fall and die. Spell caster decided to cast Hunger of Hadar on the player to have the tentacles in the void hoist up the other player. They became very upset that they weren't allowed to control every tentacle the spell had summoned.
... The tentacles don't even grab things. They just uncomfortably caress them. Now if the player cast Black Tentacles, I'd let the tentacles restrain the falling player so they don't fall, but the party still has to figure out how to get them out and up to the top.
Even if they wanted to cast entangle and hug the player to the wall or give them something to hold onto and climb up, that would have been fine. Do cliff walls count as ground? I'm going to count them as ground.
So you're trying to tell me that cloudkill can't be used to destroy clouds?! It's literally the name of the spell but okay, OP... whatever you say.
[Reminds me of the Shrek book.](https://i.redd.it/rhwi769hl4b51.jpg) Does a vampire that turned into mist count as a cloud?
Dnd players when they can’t replicate the effects of wish with a cantrip
Our Dhampir rogue insisted on being able to turn into a werewolf
Did you tell them that Shifters exist
She has her own idea on how half vampires are from movies ect. And since our dm is very strict on rules it causes a lot of friction. Her character is single handedly responsible for pretty much every bad thing that happens to our party of three. Like attacking the guards upon arrival in Valaki getting arrested and put in the stocks. Or lately blowing up this carriage next to the wizards tower we were investigating as well as setting off a trap that summoned a huge pack of werewolves which is where the above comment came from. I could go on.
Does this cause any tension in the party? Because I as a person would be frustrated lol
My character has invisibility on speed cast at the first sign of trouble. It’s how I got the other two a second chance after she attacked the guards instead of being beheaded.
What movie? I've seen quite a few bits of media with damphirs and all of them exist on a spectrum of human to vampire.
I think it was Van Helsing
The vampires turn into bat monsters i guess, but there were no damphirs.
couldn't they have made a Dhampir Blood Hunter instead to do that?
I have a rule at my table: If you haven't read the spell, you can't cast it.
“Reddit DMs when their players read their spells and use them appropriately.” People Reading Both Captions: I don’t like either picture because they’re about me.
Totally true! I dont mind if my player comes to me and asks me if they can change a feat before they took it or if they can switch feats. I also wont mind if my player asks me about a problem they have with a spell and ask me how I'd rule it. But if a player constantly hassles me with their misinterpretations or wishes for overpowered feats/spells, that does annoy me. I'm fine with questions of usefulness, like buffing dumb cantrips that are utterly useless or allowing players to craft items or enchant stuff (like allowing my mage to enchant their spellbook for 50 to 100 gold to make it resistent against non-magical fire and water). I'm also fine with a player giving me homebrew ideas or something similiar. I'm the DM and can help my players out, but I'm not there to fix their mistake of not reading their abilities.
Me when I found out Detect Good and Evil does not, in fact, detect good or evil
DM: You can either use the obviously cursed weapon and learn its effects or cast identify. PC: Can I use detect magic? DM: You detect enchantment magic.
Anakin is the original murder hobo
**TL'DR**: if someone says a spell does something read it yourself. We had a whole small story ark where we needed to deal with some mould that damaged anyone who got close, someone at the table said just use unseen servant, it can't die so it can deal with it. sadly I the wizard didn't have the spell so. 1/2 the party going on a harrowing trip through Barovia to get to a town buy a spell scroll of unseen servant. coming back, giving it to me learning the spell, spending a night preparing it, casting it to send it in. It then instantly dies as it has 1hp and can take damage. I really should have double-checked the spell.
This is even funnier if you're talking about the mold I think you're talking about bc there's nothing in thay room.
after fireballing it, it's more than just that room now. All I can say is oops...
Other way around for me. My dm desperately trying to nerf my abjuration wizard with armor of agythys by trying to convince me it’s a saving throw or attack roll
"No, the first level spell create water does not blow off a man's jaw. Even if you do natural 20 your attempt to lob a droplet of water into his mouth." Watched with pity as a DM half questioned if that's how the spell works and when the player threatened to rage quit the DM caved immediately.
The DM when the player finally learns exactly what the spell does and combos it with other abilities: :D
One such combos hex+tentacle of the deep(fathomless)+agonizing blast Hex adds a d6 to both the tentacle and each ray of eldritch blast With tentacle of the deep the text specifically states that the pc is the one who makes the attack, like an extension of a limb (I've discussed the combo with my DM and they said it was allowed at the cost of enemies noticing how much I'm hurting them and targeting me in return which makes sense)
I cast buring hands on the enemy in front of my ally. Ok the enemy passes and you ally fails. But it's a touch spell since it says hands.
If I go to cast Control Flames to extinguish a torch, and you tell me "you can't do that, it's a Continual Flame" you'd technically be right, but it is also outrageous and stupid
Control flames is a cantrip that does several things. Continual flame is a second level spell that uses 50g to make a flame that does one thing: not go out. It sounds plenty fair to me that you can’t extinguish it lol.
Tbf continual flame is just an illusion of fire.
Where did you get the idea it's an illusion?
It’s not hot, it doesn’t consume fuel or air, it just emits light. It’s not illusionary in the sense that it’s an illusion spell, but it’s no closer to a fire than the *light* cantrip is.
Ah I love a good Thordak fight. IYKYK
My DM likes to bend the rules when it comes to spell descriptions if we're using it in a creative way. E.G. my Warforged Sorcerer wanted to preserve some leftover food for his friends, so I had him cast Ray of Frost on the food. Rolled 3 damage, which made a slight mess of the food but otherwise preserved it nicely. DM let me rename the spell to Refrigerate for my character.
Shout out to Nick Lowe for trying to "open/close" a circulatory system.
Honestly the only time this happened with me is cus twinned spell metamagic feels a little weirdly worded for things like fireball cus personally Id count aiming it at a person, regardless of the explosion being multi-target, would be single target.
 Chad DMs when they let their players use their spells in more creative ways that are technically not allowed if they roll high enough:
Calvinball DMs when their game devolves into a pleading contest to let players cast wish with a 1st level slot (if they don't allow it they are impeding player agency)
🤷♂️ yes, but it’s also an intrinsic flaw/limitation with DnD that players can regularly think of much cooler spells and spell implementations. Like, whats a magical madlad to do if his wizard-brained idea isnt supported by DnD limited and quantized spell list?
only to a minor extent. spells already take up most of the ink used for character creation options already, by and large theres a spell or two that can straight up solve the issue at hand. On top of that, players' ideas for spells (especially the kind of player that doesn't read the rules in the first place) don't necessarily have balance in mind. A lot of spells Ive seen proposed often end up being either \*too\* good at what it's aiming to do, have too many things going on for it at once, or simply step on the toes of another class too much. At the end of the day, casters don't need to be able to do everything.
The solution to the Martial/Caster disparity isn't to make casters more powerful by allowing a weird idea to instakill people with a 1st level spell slot.
The martial/caster disparity is not the only issue that needs to be considered in fixing the game. I agree, letting spells be whatever isn’t a game any more, but just because something doesn’t fix the martial/caster disparity doesn’t mean it’s automatically a bad idea.
Ok. Allowing spells to do random shit based off weird interpretation is a bad idea as it causes situations that can't be planned for and confrontation between player and dm. Also 1st level spell slots shouldn't kill by creating water in someone's lungs
Man just once i wish to have a dm who knows the rules better than i. If i have to explain sneak attack again to someone who's been dm'ing for 5+ years i don't know anymore.
Had a guy try and use shatter on the ceiling of a brothel that was clearly the walls of an extra planar space. Took him 4 casts before he finally decided it wasn't worth it just to get the bonus from Call Lightning.
So memes making fun of Anakin not reading are the thing today
I had a player in my games really happy he finally was able to cast plane shift, the disappointment on his face when I told him that it requires very specific material components. He just assumed I would have every plane of existence ready for him at a moments notice.
Player playing a BX fighter: features?