deleted by creator
I’ve never liked arbitrary spell targeting restrictions. I say if you want to fire blindly around cover or into a fog cloud you should be able to. It doesn’t come up very often and because it’s easy for players to understand that they’ll have a very high chance of missing and losing the spell slot.
deleted by creator
Funnily enough, Shatter actually has a very easy solution: Objects just take the damage and that’s it.
deleted by creator
It’s the Rock-Solo.
I actually think it’s a fair restriction for spells that require sight. It imposes a somewhat interesting limit on casters, especially since a lot of spells still do something on a miss.
Oh definitely. I assume that RAI this is the intention.
In a pedantic thread re: RAW, you misspell “definitely”. More than once. 🤌🏼
Oh gosh that’s wild. Whoops.
I thought it was funny, to be fair 🤣
I actually think it’s funny too.
The humble cone of cold:
Yeah I thought of that one as well. It’s one of those weird cases of imprecise wording.
D&D’s invisibility rules are goofy. At least in 5e (2014 edition, groan) you always get advantage if you’re invisible and attacking someone. Even if they can see you. The invisibility condition is worded like “you get advantage on attacks” instead of “Since you’re hidden, remember you get advantage on attacks”.
Exactly. Same line of stupidity imo.
