I think another great question to add in some of these scenarios is "Would the players regret the idea if enemies could do this too?" Using your example, some tables would be absolutely fuming if they could get fireballed on the other side of a door, while some would understand and look forward to the increased difficulty of the game. This is usually my 2nd go to question (1st being is it awesome/rule of cool), as there have been many things over my 7 years of DM'ing that I've never thought of/imagined being possible. I personally ask the table as well when I'm stuck on this question in my head just by going "You know that's a good point and an awesome idea, I'm cool with it but would you be okay for future enemies to potentially do this as well?" and my current table has said both yes and no in certain scenarios.
This is one of my DM's favorite takes. "If you can do something, so can your enemies." That single sentence being used makes the players aware that if they start trying to find loopholes or propose wildly spectacular ideas and "hack" the game in their favor, they're basically giving their enemies permission to do the same. As a result, arguments over plans that stretch what is realistically possible have been popping up less and less.
Give all the monster character classes. Make those players regret playing with you, especially when you interrupt their turn so the enemies can start rolling death saves
The fireball question is answered in the PHB, page 204, under A Clear Path to the Target. So this fireball would explode centered on the door, on the character's side of the door. Of course, it would certainly damage the door as well as the villain, and I would personally rule that any damage left after the door is destroyed would continue on to the other side.
It's one of those all-too -common occurrences in the rule books where the most obvious place to look does not convey all the information needed and there's no cross-reference to point you in the right direction.
@@malcolmrowe9003 I dunno, man, it was in the first place I looked. ;) If a specific rule (like a spell) is a little vague, my first assumption is always that the designers are saving space because it falls under a general rule. In this case, where are the general rules for spellcasting, like targeting and areas of effect? Oh look, there it is. Besides, in this particular case I would assume the same thing just based on the fluff text of the spell. It says a mote of fire shoots out to the detonation point. I don't see why anyone would think that coud travel through a solid object. Hmm, maybe the designers should have put one more general rule in the book. "Unless explicitly contradicted by a specific rule, assume normal laws of physics apply." That would stop a lot of internet arguments cold. :)
@@DocEonChannel yeah. It's not as obscure as some instances but, depending on how familiar you are with the rules, a player might not think to look back there. They might just look to a spell description and think that that's it. Regarding the fluff description, yes you'd think normal laws of physics might prevail but then it's possible for people to argue 'but it's magic'. I can see it would be to clunky to have the general rule on targets and areas of effect (or a Cross-reference) in each spell description but it might be useful to have a cross-reference at the bottom of each page in the section where the spells are described.
Nice! I always try to find rules like that, but even after playing for 2 years and solidly dming for 1, I still don’t know all the navigations of the book like that that I should. Thanks!
I like the idea of telling the players “I like this idea and I’m willing to bend this rule for you; but if that’s the case remember that it will work that way for potential enemies throughout this campaign. Is everyone ok with that?” If everyone agrees that yeah breaking this rule is fun and cool then go for it just don’t forget to turn those tables on the party later on
I had a DM do this in a past campaign with a vorpal sword. They emphasized how rare and powerful the magic was and the sword was destroyed by the party during the combat with the enemy. However, one of the players realized they could repair the vorpal sword and wanted to. The DM warned that if we were to restore the sword, it would potentially bring the knowledge of that magic ability back to the world, giving more enemies the potential to carry a vorpal sword. We debated for a few minutes until we realized that we didn't want that to be a thing that started coming up more often from enemies so, we decided to leave it broken. Edit: grammar
I think the inverse can work, too. "You can do this now, but from here on out we'll go by my interpretation of the rules. "Unless a player built their character around one interpretation of the rules, chances are they're more interested in doing a cool thing now than they are in abusing an imbalance from here on out.
"Show of hands, who wants enemy spellcasters to be able to drop AoE's past doors, walls and barriers? Keep in mind, I will give disadvantage on dex saves if it catches you out of combat.'
There's another useful question to ask: are your players okay with the ruling being applied *to them*? Because if they can lob a fireball without being able to see the impact point, so can their opposition.
You actually got me to realize how thunderwave is supposed to work, I am one of those people who assumed it originated from you in all directions, but after hearing what you said and re-reading it and the rules concerning cubes I realize it doesn't actually target the space you are in, it targets a space you designate originating from you but not actually targeting the space you are in
In the Basic Rules, in Chapter 10: Spellcasting, there is a section on Targets - specifically A Clear Path to the Target: "To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover. If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction." The door would act as total cover for the guards against targeted spells, and act as an obstruction against area of effect spells, making the player's side of the door the point of origin.
It seems daunting at first, just do it, get through the first session and figure out what worked and what didn't. Then just take that knowledge into the next session and so on. I take notes right after a session that I post for my players and then make notes that are only for me, what worked, what peaked their interest, what pain points did I run into, etc. I reference those while planning for the next game. I hope you take a dive being the screen and if you do I hope you find it as much fun as I have 😁
I think any disagreement should first be addressed as a negotiation. "OH, I didn't know that is how you would interpret the spell that way" could easily be a discussion that leads to a fun future use or the chance for them to change their spell selection on the fly. Everything should be situational
For the fireball situation, the description says a streak originates from your pointed finger and travels to the center point of the spell before exploding, the fireball doesn't just materialize out of the air at the center point, so line of sight is implied by the description even though it's not explicitly stated. I think that would fall under your "have them read the description and discover why their idea isn't feasible" category. For me, I'd be more persuaded by a player who had a good argument for how their idea could work as described or intended than sticking strictly to the rules. So if the fireball caster was a sorcerer and said they were casting the fireball with distant spell and argued that since it allows touch spells to be cast up to 30 feet away, it would mean they could move the point of origin of the streak for the fireball 30 feet away from their fingertip, and therefore, through the wall, I would be all about it. Probably still wouldn't go for the additional exploding door damage, though. I'd say the door would ignite on the far side and would start burning down, but it won't instantly incinerate or blast away. Let them do something creative and cool, but don't just grant unprecedented bonus effects.
This is a great way to describe line of effect vs line of sight. I believe 4e describes it well. Line of sight can be blocked by a creature, a spell (darkness), or even being blinded. However, line of effect means you have a straight line from you to your intended location, without being blocked by a physical object. Otherwise, a fog cloud, darkness, or pocket sand can render any caster unable to function, even on spells that don't have a hit roll.
Great video, Mike. I actually had an experience like this in one of the few times recently that I was a player. I was playing an Artificer, and we were fighting a hag who’d barricaded herself in her warded hut. I wanted to cast Continual Flame on the branches around the base of the hut to smoke her out. The problem: Continual Flame doesn’t produce heat. The source I was using had a paraphrased version of the spell that didn’t state that. When my DM explained that to me, I was really frustrated at first, but instead of getting mad at her for being correct, I asked if I could pick a different spell to have prepared instead since, if I’d realized what the spell really did, I wouldn’t have picked it. She agreed and I did something else with my turn and picked out a different spell once my turn was over and we were all good! I’ve also had the reverse happen where I used the Ring of Animal Influence to cast fear on some owlbears attacking us. After a few turns, I realized that owlbears aren’t beasts, they’re monstrosities. I made sure to let her know I’d made a mistake, and she ruled that for whatever reason, this time it worked, and we’d both know better in the future.
Great general rules argument video, will mention there is actually a rule for the fireball conundrum in the rules for Spellcasting. Spells require a clear path to the target. if a barrier or wall or something obstructs it, then it detonates on the closer side of said obstruction. In case of the fireball example it would hit the door hitting the 20 ft radius would start at that door and probably hit the party and if you decide to rule of cool the door into destruction, then 20 feet to the other side spreading around the corners and hitting the enemies as well. Or do what is cool for you and your players at the table, ;-)
I got called "problem player" for debating the 5e handbook rules for the warlock spell Mystic Arcanum (page 108). At 17th level, the spell's text describes one gets four total spells: one at each 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th level per long rest. The dungeon master was debating that I get only one total spell up to 9th level. It's frustrating when I know I'm reading the players' handbook one as written.
As others have noted, the "if it works for players, it will work the same for enemies, are you all okay with that?' is an important fourth question. Otherwise, you've got a solid list of considerations and that third one is particularly important (and can be easy to forget in the moment!)
This was really helpful! These are all things I've thought about before during these situations, but I've never heard it put in such clear language before. This is why your channel has quickly become my favorite D&D channel!
That last rule you mention hits a nerve with me. There's a related issue of "if I change the rules in this player's favour, am I making them more powerful in a way that is unfair for other players?" I'm playing in a game at the moment where our DM has allowed the party Bard to inspire his own character (in direct contravention to the PHB). The first time he did it, I noticed, but I didn't want to tread on the DM's toes and let it slide. Soon after it happened again, and that time I did politely mention it, but the player immediately said "it was allowed before!" and the DM aquiesced. I'm not pushing it. But it does annoy me. The bard in question is always using inspiration as a matter of course for his rolls (we're in a situation where it's several days per session, with only a few important rolls each day) and consistently scoring very high on skill checks. It also doesn't help that the guy is a bit of a twerp, making fun of others for not being as successful as him. Even without that, though, the DM has essentially given one player a large permanent boost over the rest of us that he now feels entitled to. I'm usually a DM myself and am averse to getting in the way of how other DMs do things. But it illustrates how cautious we need to be in bending rules for players.
I have a method for this actually. I generally allow one off extensions to an ability if the player makes an appropriate skill check. For spells it's usually arcana but in the instance in the video id go perception. Find a sliver of room to peek through the door with to land the fire ball
I love your calm, and very collected style of video. I want to see some more RUclipsrs find some inspiration from your videos! And I hope you get tons of subscribers so this style can become more prominent. Your videos really assist me phenominally with explaining certain views in dnd that I agree with you in your videos. Please keep them coming!
I love encouraging creative use! Basically, I try to understand what they’re saying and what they want. Once that’s figured out, I explain where I’m coming from if the player explanation didn’t clear things up. If THAT doesn’t clear things up, I’ll generally offer some ruling for only this specific situation that’s a compromise or the way the player wants it and say that I’ll need to think about it further. If it’s completely against the expectations that we set for the campaign, I’ll say “I’m sorry, we’re going to do it this way this time. I’ll think about it more for next session.” Also, other players, if you have input into the situation, please don’t offer it unless you have a specific page or are asked if you know the rules for the situation… Also, now I want to have a fireball that can go through walls…
The only time I've had an argument with a DM was over how the totem bear barbarian is resistant to all damage except psychic when raging, he wasn't aware of this (or didn't realise I was totem of the bear) and thought I was referring to the normal range resistance. We cleared it up and carried on but I felt crappy for having an argument and even said "If you'd rather it not work like that it's fine, but I'd ask to change how I levelled up before our next session" he didn't take me up on that since he was happy to let me go with it but it definitely changed how he approached combat for that character imo (not a negative btw, DMs should take players' abilities into account)
It's also important to set the expectations early. I always started campaigns by saying hey just so you know I'm a RAW guy BUT if you wanna do something cool that bends the rules a bit I will try to work with you within reason.
Whenever I've had an issue with how certain things work, after we tried clearing up wording and the like, I would always remind my players that what they can do, others can do. So if we are agreeing that the spells works that way, it might come back to bite them in the butt, which leads to everyone coming to agreement of how it will work and accepting that enemies in the future might be able to do the thing. It does mean that they try to prepare for it if they figure that an enemy might have the same ability but I don't mind that at all. I rather they use strategy and be reminded that their choices do matter and we are creating this world together.
Love the ruling for the fireball at the end! Rule of cool often does more harm than good when left to the impulsive whims of the players. When balanced in a way that makes sense for the situation the player can still do their awesome idea without breaking the game. That “hell yeah!” at the end is the perfect feedback for any DM to know they nailed it on the ruling. Balancing the players idea actually made it even more cool!
I love this video. I would, however, generally take a look at prior editions of the rules, and since I normally DM 1e, I went straight there in this case. In 1e, this fireball would simply fail when it hit the door. 1e specifies that "a streak flashes from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body prior to attaining the prescribed range, flowers into the fireball". There is no further explanation in the DMG of the spell, so my interpretation would always be that the streak hit the door and failed to flower into the fireball. At best, the streak would do some minimal damage to the door. 5e has similar language but the proviso about impacting a material body has been lost, to me it implies the same. WRT players claiming they wouldn't have chosen a particular spell if they knew that was the rule, I try to remember to tell players, and always tell them if they ask, about any spell's abilities in advance, that their character is only as experienced with the spell as they have in game experience with the spell. If it isn't absolutely clear from the rule books, and they haven't used it before this way in combat or some form of practice, or at least seen someone else use it this way, in the present game, then they will find out when the time comes whether it works this way. I would also, consider their level versus the level of the spell. So, for example, a fourth or fifth level (depending on edition) character, using fireball will have only just learned it recently, they are unlikely to be able to do anything fancy with it. A 10th level character is another matter. In such cases, I would either apply the ideas in this video or something similar, or just have them roll percentile dice to see whether they are capable of making it do this unusual thing. Though, again, I would rule that this particular use of fireball is impossible. I would probably clarify what they know about the spell, and ask them if they still want to try it, if they did, I would rule that the streak came out of their index finger, hit the door, and did nothing.
Another way to do the "It could kill the boss that is tied specifically to this player and detract from *their* moment." Is to just pull a small string. Yes the blast worked, yes it went through the door and yes it blasted Corvus. However. The door blows open, but nullifies enough of the damage that it throws Corvus forward and to the ground. He's too injured to get to his feet properly. And now that Fighter can march up and have their moment, while still being aided by the rest of the party and the wizard gets their call fireball moment too.
if the fireball on the other side of the door can blast through the next door to get the villian, it can blow the door between the party and the troops, blasting the group with the same level of attack that the villian would get.
As I've seen others post, I make rulings along the lines of "if you can do it, so can the NPCs". This, I think, allows awesome stuff for the players while keeping them from trying anything they can think of with fewer arguments. In my main system there are three levels of NPCs (Troop, Elite and Nemesis) that ranges from background/cannon fodder to full fledged characters with the same level of detail as a PC (if you want to, that is).
I sometimes use nocebo effect to justify how sometimes I need to rectify a blunder, especially if it works against the players - I'll say "You remember you did this thing a certain way in the past, and it worked, because you didn't know it was impossible. But you double checked that spell after the fact, and now you know how it's supposed to operate - so, try as you want, but the knowledge has taken roots in your brain, and even while going through the familiar words and gestures, you know deep i side that it won't work that way anymore." (Fun fact: it's a real thing too!). 😉
If we have a rules disagreement i usually wing it, if we're unsure about something important, i ask my players if they know, and if we don't we figure something out on the spot. we basically never check rulebooks while playing. only rules text we ever read is spell effects
Great advice. And as one who has only been a DM, I would encourage any DM to be open to being wrong and listening to the players side and I would encourage players to ask if you think something is wrong, because DMs aren't perfect, even though we try to be. I am also a big fan of letting the player roll to try something, within reason, or trying to allow the creativity to play out. I definitely agree with trying to err on the side of the player. Several times I have allowed something with the caveat that it would only work this one time, and any future instances would be up to me checking afterwards. It has allowed for some really fun and creative moments that have been talked about for years at this point, even if it was technically against the rules and couldn't be done again
Thanks a lot for your advice, Mike! As always, it's super useful. I didn't know about all that when I had my first "argument" with my players (a small one) but I am quite happy to say I kinda followed your steps instinctively.
great video!! my partner and I watch your videos every time they come out and they are fun and informative every time! i liked the sketch in this one and how it formed the structure of the video
This is some really good advice. I've found that it's sometimes hard to strike a balance, and it's been more or less of a challenge depending on the group I'm running for. Keeping that voice in the back of your head that tells you to consider how a ruling will affect other parties is invaluable. My current group, luckily, is pretty easy. They're either pretty strict with the rules (without going overboard and fighting my rulings), or are eager to learn their classes better. Makes it easy to ask people to read the ability and have everyone interested to hear the ability and my ruling on it. Feels like I won the lottery sometimes haha
I do think that when 6th edition comes out, eye contact should become a spell component, just like verbal, somatic, and material components. Something as concrete as saying, "this spell has the eyesight component, so you need to see your target", rather than debating about spell descriptions, would make debates like this easier to deal with.
i have them make an arcana check (or other check that makes sense) to see if they can manipulate the magic well enough to alter the effects of the spell.
I just played a session where my party was observing a potentially hostile village of Derro. Our party had already killed a member of that society shortly before this without letting anyone from the village know because another member of our party had a personal vendetta against the people as they used to live in the village. Our party was observing the village and I asked the DM how many Derro he could see and think there were. My DM said to roll and Investigation check, and I challenged it, arguing that since we are looking from a distance and not close up, shouldn't it be Perception? He said that since my character is trying to count the amount of Derro it would be Investigation. I decided to not continue arguing as our sessions tend to be quite short and I wanted the story to continue, so I let it go. I ended up rolling really as my Investigation was lower than my Perception. My DM concluded that my character just sees a bunch of Derro without giving a vague number (dozens, scores, hundreds). I felt this was a poor decision on the part of the DM as I believed that Investigation was for up close observations and inspections (say the size of a room) and Perception was for a distance. Did the both of us handle this situation the right way? Or was one of us in the wrong?
I would rule went either way. Investigation to do a good count and not over count. But perception would work too. Now if you burn a in game hour etc, I would gave you more information.
Nice video. I make a ruling and move on. And unless I have a dead pc at the end of the session, it doesn't matter if I rolled 12d20 for the fireball instead of 8d6. On things which are slightly cheesy, like bouncing the fireball through the gap, I will allow it but the monsters can use the same tactic. Now if it something really cheesy, like summoning a flock of seagulls by one pc above the head of bad guys, and the next wizard mass polymorph them into whales. That would be a flat no.
assuming i didn't have the mage roll, i think i'd say "You attempt to cast the fireball through the bottom of the door. Focusing precisely on the path of the thing, you can just barely squeeze it through the door at full speed. Then it hits the floor and explodes. You can hear screams and the door catching fire, but at this angle, it doesn't fall over. Roll damage for the guards."
this video is great and it's filled with awesome information, however I NEED the backstory of Dr. Wittlebittle, the halfling fighter! what is their field of study? where did they go to get their doctorate? did they get their degree and then decide they wanted a life of adventure and decided to get yolked? or did they start out as a fighter and then decide to get a doctorate before going back to adventuring? I NEED to know more about Dr. Wittlebittle!!
He was a professor of giant studies in Waterdeep, which led him to learning how giant runes worked and putting them to use in battle, which he engaged in reluctantly but very effectively. (Until the ill-fated fight with some frost giants on a boat… and then we all had to roll up some bards.) He had a wife, Jadyn Tevanne, a goliath who also studied giant runes. (Until she pulled the Void card and wound up with her soul trapped in a gem hanging from the neck of a dragon.) They were very much modeled after Ant-Man and the Wasp, particularly in the “Earth’s Mightiest Heroes” cartoon. He also had a rival, a tortle inventor named Dr. Derrigible Von Cross.
I am on a road trip with no books to hand. I would have had the player make a spell attack against the targets AC to see if they got the fireball through the door before it closed.
Hi Mike, I've been watching and liking your videos for a while, this is my first time commenting and I'm afraid it's a long one ^^. Thanks for the many pieces of advice you give, I'm really excited when I see a new video pop up 🙏maybe this comment could inspire a future video. I've been DMing for about a year now and some challenges I'm experiencing are different from the ones in the beginning. Our group has recently lost 2 players out of 4 because one realised he had different expectations about the game, and some frustrations had built up about how the other player would always show up at the last minute to confirm he could play the next day...basically these 2 departures were not easy is all I'm saying. What advice would you give me and my group to recover from that kind of event? I'm feeling a lot of guilt as a DM when it comes to confronting a player, having a very tense conversation and asking them to leave or seeing them walk out. The remaining players are nice and they say I took the right decision, even though they never really voiced their opinion openly before about the behavior of their former team member. Also, what to do with the characters of the leaving players? What about the plot points that revolved around their characters? I find it really challenging and somewhat not fair to have to rethink a big chunk of my campaign because these two left. Kinda makes me want to base plots on the most reliable players, but it doesn't feel fair^^ I know I'll manage in the end, but do you have any tips? 😊
I think you skipped a question: Does it make sense in this world? Obviously "realistic" isn't so important with dragons demons and guys throwing around fireballs. However, internal consistency is a different matter and helps significantly with the suspension of disbelief necessary to invest in the game world. With your door fireball example, if your world views mages as almost super human with mysterious and powerful abilities, yes it would make sense. On the other end, if you're world's magic is considered little more than party tricks it might not as a display of power like that would necessarily invalidate that view and you'd be left with the question of why people think that way when it's obviously and demonstrably untrue.
Intention is important. If a player wants to bend the rules but is in spirit of the game, no problem. If a player wants to bend the rules to bypass/disrupt the game, no thanks.
I had a bit of a rules argument with one of the party members concerning ANOTHER party member's abilities. It was with the Rogue's Sneak Attack, especially pertaining to the rogue activating another sneak attack on his reaction after already doing one. We quickly checked and it was true, but I ruled it to be once a round not a turn solely because...well, to me that makes more sense and it would make the rogue more busted than he should, and it sounded like it would be less fun for the other players, especially if the rogue got all the kills. The rogue was ok with this ruling but the paladin was not. It was weird, but I think I made at least a reasonable call on it. The Rogue can have a sneak attack on his reactions so long as he didn't use it already that round.
Fireball's targeting is another casualty of 5e's streamlining. I was pretty shocked to hear you use it as an example, so I had to look it up and man... For a system that's meant to be simpler it sure does make things hard to judge sometimes. Targeting Fireball in 5e: "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." Targeting Fireball in 3.5e: "You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. (An early impact results in an early detonation.) If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely." Yeah, 3.5e has a lot more text but it's specific and clearly states how the spell is meant to work.
Not true this is covered on page 204 of the Player's Handbook. A Clear Path to the Target To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover. If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.
@@spatha08 Good to know, but I think most people just read spell descriptions rather than the actual chapter on how the magic works, so 3.5e being more specific in how Fireball is targeted is still a benefit here, as it clears up any confusion. It's not just Fireball that's like this, it's most of the system.
@@WandererEris 5e is written different than 3.5. In 5e you can't just go by a spell description as there are general rules such as A clear Path to the Target and if a spell or ability alters this than the exception will be mentioned in that description. In 5e you must read the rules and not just descriptions of spells or abilities or else you are playing with only half the knowledge needed. IMO most arguments stem from this people not reading the rules and deciding based on a description that things work how they want.
@@spatha08 3.5e is written like that too, with an entire chapter dedicated to how the magic works. It just acknowledges that players aren't going to read everything and makes things as precise as possible in the spell descriptions themselves.
@@WandererEris I played 3.5 and IMO 5e does it better less wasted space repeating the same thing over and over. Much better to have the core rule(which both have) and unless a description gives a reason to override it you follow the rule not keep restating it. Simpler and more streamlined.
What would you do if 1 player pushed the limits more often then not, and you had been in the past lenient but had to start putting limits on how things worked? I had a player call me bias cause I always told them no (towards the latter half of them playing) but they were the only person at the table to put forward cause for a decision such that it ended in no. All the other players at my table tended to agree with my decisions, and I always made them aware I would consider the ruling after the game
you're not supposed to lose at D&D, but when you get enough finger wagging and being told nah, that's too cool and I didn't think of it, so no you can't do it. I'm pretty sure I'm losing. When you don't have fun. you lose. I don't even argue any more, or try to change my dm's mind. I rage quit once about 2 months ago, first time I've ever done that in my life. I'm not that guy. Now I'm only there cause I have friends there and I have nothing else to do on Tuesdays.
Fireball says you point to a point within range. Casting this on something you can't see behind a door/wall shouldn't work because you don't know what's behind there so how can you point to it? you would be pointing at the wall or door.
It’s not the best example but my hope is that it still works to show you the steps needed to have this same thought process when resolving rules debates in your own games ☺️
OK, but - It's a fantasy game, not hard sci-fi. "The sun blinks out of existence" sounds like one _hell_ of a plot hook either at the start of a campaign or to kickstart the next arc. Just... Skip the part where that inevitably means all life would end. The lifeblood of the gods and that gives a deadline for finding the sun, or whatever. Eventually, the gods will die due to life now directly draining them.
fireball doesn't work like that. it's a projectile. it's a bullet that blows up. rule of cool is a frivolous point. you should read the spells "A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger". no is a good answer. some of the most fun i've ever had with this game is taking all the character sheets away and only playing with 1 d20 per person. i'm off topic. someone i'm sure said players would get pissed if the villians could use the same tricks. irrelevant. explain the setting before the game. is magic broken? harry potter game. is it situational? lord of the rings. don't tell your players they can wear plate mail and cast spells then drop them in dark sun where there is almost no metal and the land has been literally raped by spell casters and the whole world hates them. if magic doesn't work through glass, even though you can see, that is a barrier. tell them first. original dnd, old school brown box dnd, said have a session zero so everybody is in agreement with what is happening. you just sound inexperienced.
I think another great question to add in some of these scenarios is "Would the players regret the idea if enemies could do this too?"
Using your example, some tables would be absolutely fuming if they could get fireballed on the other side of a door, while some would understand and look forward to the increased difficulty of the game.
This is usually my 2nd go to question (1st being is it awesome/rule of cool), as there have been many things over my 7 years of DM'ing that I've never thought of/imagined being possible. I personally ask the table as well when I'm stuck on this question in my head just by going "You know that's a good point and an awesome idea, I'm cool with it but would you be okay for future enemies to potentially do this as well?" and my current table has said both yes and no in certain scenarios.
That specific question has caused my players to reconsider a *lot* of stuff that they have wanted to do that aren't within the scope of the game.
This is one of my DM's favorite takes. "If you can do something, so can your enemies." That single sentence being used makes the players aware that if they start trying to find loopholes or propose wildly spectacular ideas and "hack" the game in their favor, they're basically giving their enemies permission to do the same. As a result, arguments over plans that stretch what is realistically possible have been popping up less and less.
That's a really great additional question
This is such a great question!
Give all the monster character classes. Make those players regret playing with you, especially when you interrupt their turn so the enemies can start rolling death saves
The fireball question is answered in the PHB, page 204, under A Clear Path to the Target.
So this fireball would explode centered on the door, on the character's side of the door.
Of course, it would certainly damage the door as well as the villain, and I would personally rule that any damage left after the door is destroyed would continue on to the other side.
It's one of those all-too -common occurrences in the rule books where the most obvious place to look does not convey all the information needed and there's no cross-reference to point you in the right direction.
@@malcolmrowe9003 I dunno, man, it was in the first place I looked. ;)
If a specific rule (like a spell) is a little vague, my first assumption is always that the designers are saving space because it falls under a general rule.
In this case, where are the general rules for spellcasting, like targeting and areas of effect? Oh look, there it is.
Besides, in this particular case I would assume the same thing just based on the fluff text of the spell. It says a mote of fire shoots out to the detonation point. I don't see why anyone would think that coud travel through a solid object.
Hmm, maybe the designers should have put one more general rule in the book. "Unless explicitly contradicted by a specific rule, assume normal laws of physics apply." That would stop a lot of internet arguments cold. :)
@@DocEonChannel yeah. It's not as obscure as some instances but, depending on how familiar you are with the rules, a player might not think to look back there. They might just look to a spell description and think that that's it.
Regarding the fluff description, yes you'd think normal laws of physics might prevail but then it's possible for people to argue 'but it's magic'.
I can see it would be to clunky to have the general rule on targets and areas of effect (or a Cross-reference) in each spell description but it might be useful to have a cross-reference at the bottom of each page in the section where the spells are described.
this was all I could think of during this whole video lol
Nice! I always try to find rules like that, but even after playing for 2 years and solidly dming for 1, I still don’t know all the navigations of the book like that that I should. Thanks!
I like the idea of telling the players “I like this idea and I’m willing to bend this rule for you; but if that’s the case remember that it will work that way for potential enemies throughout this campaign. Is everyone ok with that?” If everyone agrees that yeah breaking this rule is fun and cool then go for it just don’t forget to turn those tables on the party later on
I had a DM do this in a past campaign with a vorpal sword. They emphasized how rare and powerful the magic was and the sword was destroyed by the party during the combat with the enemy. However, one of the players realized they could repair the vorpal sword and wanted to. The DM warned that if we were to restore the sword, it would potentially bring the knowledge of that magic ability back to the world, giving more enemies the potential to carry a vorpal sword. We debated for a few minutes until we realized that we didn't want that to be a thing that started coming up more often from enemies so, we decided to leave it broken.
Edit: grammar
I think the inverse can work, too. "You can do this now, but from here on out we'll go by my interpretation of the rules. "Unless a player built their character around one interpretation of the rules, chances are they're more interested in doing a cool thing now than they are in abusing an imbalance from here on out.
The skit at the beginning is golden! I love the little ways each "player" acts out little quirks.
Yeah, too accurate 😂
"Show of hands, who wants enemy spellcasters to be able to drop AoE's past doors, walls and barriers? Keep in mind, I will give disadvantage on dex saves if it catches you out of combat.'
There's another useful question to ask: are your players okay with the ruling being applied *to them*?
Because if they can lob a fireball without being able to see the impact point, so can their opposition.
You actually got me to realize how thunderwave is supposed to work, I am one of those people who assumed it originated from you in all directions, but after hearing what you said and re-reading it and the rules concerning cubes I realize it doesn't actually target the space you are in, it targets a space you designate originating from you but not actually targeting the space you are in
It took us years to figure that out 😂
In the Basic Rules, in Chapter 10: Spellcasting, there is a section on Targets - specifically A Clear Path to the Target: "To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover. If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction."
The door would act as total cover for the guards against targeted spells, and act as an obstruction against area of effect spells, making the player's side of the door the point of origin.
"I didn't bring dice" That made me laugh.
Thanks Mike! I have only ever been a player and am scared to DM/GM but you're making it look less terrifying with all your great advice!
It seems daunting at first, just do it, get through the first session and figure out what worked and what didn't. Then just take that knowledge into the next session and so on. I take notes right after a session that I post for my players and then make notes that are only for me, what worked, what peaked their interest, what pain points did I run into, etc. I reference those while planning for the next game.
I hope you take a dive being the screen and if you do I hope you find it as much fun as I have 😁
I think any disagreement should first be addressed as a negotiation.
"OH, I didn't know that is how you would interpret the spell that way" could easily be a discussion that leads to a fun future use or the chance for them to change their spell selection on the fly. Everything should be situational
For the fireball situation, the description says a streak originates from your pointed finger and travels to the center point of the spell before exploding, the fireball doesn't just materialize out of the air at the center point, so line of sight is implied by the description even though it's not explicitly stated. I think that would fall under your "have them read the description and discover why their idea isn't feasible" category.
For me, I'd be more persuaded by a player who had a good argument for how their idea could work as described or intended than sticking strictly to the rules. So if the fireball caster was a sorcerer and said they were casting the fireball with distant spell and argued that since it allows touch spells to be cast up to 30 feet away, it would mean they could move the point of origin of the streak for the fireball 30 feet away from their fingertip, and therefore, through the wall, I would be all about it. Probably still wouldn't go for the additional exploding door damage, though. I'd say the door would ignite on the far side and would start burning down, but it won't instantly incinerate or blast away. Let them do something creative and cool, but don't just grant unprecedented bonus effects.
This is a great way to describe line of effect vs line of sight. I believe 4e describes it well. Line of sight can be blocked by a creature, a spell (darkness), or even being blinded. However, line of effect means you have a straight line from you to your intended location, without being blocked by a physical object. Otherwise, a fog cloud, darkness, or pocket sand can render any caster unable to function, even on spells that don't have a hit roll.
Great video, Mike. I actually had an experience like this in one of the few times recently that I was a player.
I was playing an Artificer, and we were fighting a hag who’d barricaded herself in her warded hut. I wanted to cast Continual Flame on the branches around the base of the hut to smoke her out. The problem: Continual Flame doesn’t produce heat. The source I was using had a paraphrased version of the spell that didn’t state that. When my DM explained that to me, I was really frustrated at first, but instead of getting mad at her for being correct, I asked if I could pick a different spell to have prepared instead since, if I’d realized what the spell really did, I wouldn’t have picked it. She agreed and I did something else with my turn and picked out a different spell once my turn was over and we were all good!
I’ve also had the reverse happen where I used the Ring of Animal Influence to cast fear on some owlbears attacking us. After a few turns, I realized that owlbears aren’t beasts, they’re monstrosities. I made sure to let her know I’d made a mistake, and she ruled that for whatever reason, this time it worked, and we’d both know better in the future.
Great general rules argument video, will mention there is actually a rule for the fireball conundrum in the rules for Spellcasting. Spells require a clear path to the target. if a barrier or wall or something obstructs it, then it detonates on the closer side of said obstruction. In case of the fireball example it would hit the door hitting the 20 ft radius would start at that door and probably hit the party and if you decide to rule of cool the door into destruction, then 20 feet to the other side spreading around the corners and hitting the enemies as well.
Or do what is cool for you and your players at the table, ;-)
I got called "problem player" for debating the 5e handbook rules for the warlock spell Mystic Arcanum (page 108). At 17th level, the spell's text describes one gets four total spells: one at each 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th level per long rest. The dungeon master was debating that I get only one total spell up to 9th level. It's frustrating when I know I'm reading the players' handbook one as written.
As others have noted, the "if it works for players, it will work the same for enemies, are you all okay with that?' is an important fourth question. Otherwise, you've got a solid list of considerations and that third one is particularly important (and can be easy to forget in the moment!)
This was really helpful! These are all things I've thought about before during these situations, but I've never heard it put in such clear language before. This is why your channel has quickly become my favorite D&D channel!
That last rule you mention hits a nerve with me. There's a related issue of "if I change the rules in this player's favour, am I making them more powerful in a way that is unfair for other players?"
I'm playing in a game at the moment where our DM has allowed the party Bard to inspire his own character (in direct contravention to the PHB). The first time he did it, I noticed, but I didn't want to tread on the DM's toes and let it slide.
Soon after it happened again, and that time I did politely mention it, but the player immediately said "it was allowed before!" and the DM aquiesced. I'm not pushing it.
But it does annoy me. The bard in question is always using inspiration as a matter of course for his rolls (we're in a situation where it's several days per session, with only a few important rolls each day) and consistently scoring very high on skill checks. It also doesn't help that the guy is a bit of a twerp, making fun of others for not being as successful as him. Even without that, though, the DM has essentially given one player a large permanent boost over the rest of us that he now feels entitled to.
I'm usually a DM myself and am averse to getting in the way of how other DMs do things. But it illustrates how cautious we need to be in bending rules for players.
I have a method for this actually. I generally allow one off extensions to an ability if the player makes an appropriate skill check. For spells it's usually arcana but in the instance in the video id go perception. Find a sliver of room to peek through the door with to land the fire ball
I love your calm, and very collected style of video. I want to see some more RUclipsrs find some inspiration from your videos! And I hope you get tons of subscribers so this style can become more prominent. Your videos really assist me phenominally with explaining certain views in dnd that I agree with you in your videos. Please keep them coming!
I love encouraging creative use! Basically, I try to understand what they’re saying and what they want. Once that’s figured out, I explain where I’m coming from if the player explanation didn’t clear things up. If THAT doesn’t clear things up, I’ll generally offer some ruling for only this specific situation that’s a compromise or the way the player wants it and say that I’ll need to think about it further. If it’s completely against the expectations that we set for the campaign, I’ll say “I’m sorry, we’re going to do it this way this time. I’ll think about it more for next session.”
Also, other players, if you have input into the situation, please don’t offer it unless you have a specific page or are asked if you know the rules for the situation…
Also, now I want to have a fireball that can go through walls…
The only time I've had an argument with a DM was over how the totem bear barbarian is resistant to all damage except psychic when raging, he wasn't aware of this (or didn't realise I was totem of the bear) and thought I was referring to the normal range resistance. We cleared it up and carried on but I felt crappy for having an argument and even said "If you'd rather it not work like that it's fine, but I'd ask to change how I levelled up before our next session" he didn't take me up on that since he was happy to let me go with it but it definitely changed how he approached combat for that character imo (not a negative btw, DMs should take players' abilities into account)
It's also important to set the expectations early. I always started campaigns by saying hey just so you know I'm a RAW guy BUT if you wanna do something cool that bends the rules a bit I will try to work with you within reason.
Whenever I've had an issue with how certain things work, after we tried clearing up wording and the like, I would always remind my players that what they can do, others can do. So if we are agreeing that the spells works that way, it might come back to bite them in the butt, which leads to everyone coming to agreement of how it will work and accepting that enemies in the future might be able to do the thing. It does mean that they try to prepare for it if they figure that an enemy might have the same ability but I don't mind that at all. I rather they use strategy and be reminded that their choices do matter and we are creating this world together.
Love the ruling for the fireball at the end! Rule of cool often does more harm than good when left to the impulsive whims of the players. When balanced in a way that makes sense for the situation the player can still do their awesome idea without breaking the game. That “hell yeah!” at the end is the perfect feedback for any DM to know they nailed it on the ruling. Balancing the players idea actually made it even more cool!
I love this video.
I would, however, generally take a look at prior editions of the rules, and since I normally DM 1e, I went straight there in this case. In 1e, this fireball would simply fail when it hit the door. 1e specifies that "a streak flashes from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body prior to attaining the prescribed range, flowers into the fireball". There is no further explanation in the DMG of the spell, so my interpretation would always be that the streak hit the door and failed to flower into the fireball. At best, the streak would do some minimal damage to the door. 5e has similar language but the proviso about impacting a material body has been lost, to me it implies the same.
WRT players claiming they wouldn't have chosen a particular spell if they knew that was the rule, I try to remember to tell players, and always tell them if they ask, about any spell's abilities in advance, that their character is only as experienced with the spell as they have in game experience with the spell. If it isn't absolutely clear from the rule books, and they haven't used it before this way in combat or some form of practice, or at least seen someone else use it this way, in the present game, then they will find out when the time comes whether it works this way. I would also, consider their level versus the level of the spell. So, for example, a fourth or fifth level (depending on edition) character, using fireball will have only just learned it recently, they are unlikely to be able to do anything fancy with it. A 10th level character is another matter. In such cases, I would either apply the ideas in this video or something similar, or just have them roll percentile dice to see whether they are capable of making it do this unusual thing. Though, again, I would rule that this particular use of fireball is impossible. I would probably clarify what they know about the spell, and ask them if they still want to try it, if they did, I would rule that the streak came out of their index finger, hit the door, and did nothing.
Another way to do the "It could kill the boss that is tied specifically to this player and detract from *their* moment." Is to just pull a small string.
Yes the blast worked, yes it went through the door and yes it blasted Corvus. However. The door blows open, but nullifies enough of the damage that it throws Corvus forward and to the ground. He's too injured to get to his feet properly.
And now that Fighter can march up and have their moment, while still being aided by the rest of the party and the wizard gets their call fireball moment too.
if the fireball on the other side of the door can blast through the next door to get the villian, it can blow the door between the party and the troops, blasting the group with the same level of attack that the villian would get.
As I've seen others post, I make rulings along the lines of "if you can do it, so can the NPCs". This, I think, allows awesome stuff for the players while keeping them from trying anything they can think of with fewer arguments. In my main system there are three levels of NPCs (Troop, Elite and Nemesis) that ranges from background/cannon fodder to full fledged characters with the same level of detail as a PC (if you want to, that is).
I sometimes use nocebo effect to justify how sometimes I need to rectify a blunder, especially if it works against the players - I'll say "You remember you did this thing a certain way in the past, and it worked, because you didn't know it was impossible. But you double checked that spell after the fact, and now you know how it's supposed to operate - so, try as you want, but the knowledge has taken roots in your brain, and even while going through the familiar words and gestures, you know deep i side that it won't work that way anymore."
(Fun fact: it's a real thing too!). 😉
If we have a rules disagreement i usually wing it, if we're unsure about something important, i ask my players if they know, and if we don't we figure something out on the spot. we basically never check rulebooks while playing. only rules text we ever read is spell effects
I really needed this video. One of my players constantly fights me on rulings. Thanks 👍.
Great advice. And as one who has only been a DM, I would encourage any DM to be open to being wrong and listening to the players side and I would encourage players to ask if you think something is wrong, because DMs aren't perfect, even though we try to be.
I am also a big fan of letting the player roll to try something, within reason, or trying to allow the creativity to play out. I definitely agree with trying to err on the side of the player. Several times I have allowed something with the caveat that it would only work this one time, and any future instances would be up to me checking afterwards. It has allowed for some really fun and creative moments that have been talked about for years at this point, even if it was technically against the rules and couldn't be done again
Thanks a lot for your advice, Mike! As always, it's super useful. I didn't know about all that when I had my first "argument" with my players (a small one) but I am quite happy to say I kinda followed your steps instinctively.
great video!! my partner and I watch your videos every time they come out and they are fun and informative every time! i liked the sketch in this one and how it formed the structure of the video
I like the sketches, it's a fun way to show an example of it while keeping things light and fun :)
This is some really good advice. I've found that it's sometimes hard to strike a balance, and it's been more or less of a challenge depending on the group I'm running for. Keeping that voice in the back of your head that tells you to consider how a ruling will affect other parties is invaluable.
My current group, luckily, is pretty easy. They're either pretty strict with the rules (without going overboard and fighting my rulings), or are eager to learn their classes better. Makes it easy to ask people to read the ability and have everyone interested to hear the ability and my ruling on it. Feels like I won the lottery sometimes haha
I do think that when 6th edition comes out, eye contact should become a spell component, just like verbal, somatic, and material components. Something as concrete as saying, "this spell has the eyesight component, so you need to see your target", rather than debating about spell descriptions, would make debates like this easier to deal with.
It's usually listed near the top. The target is usually "a space within range" or "a creature you can see within range", or something like that.
@@pedrogarcia8706 True, but being able to sort by eye contact would be useful for certain situations.
It took way too long to realize that all those cameras were you lol
i have them make an arcana check (or other check that makes sense) to see if they can manipulate the magic well enough to alter the effects of the spell.
I just played a session where my party was observing a potentially hostile village of Derro. Our party had already killed a member of that society shortly before this without letting anyone from the village know because another member of our party had a personal vendetta against the people as they used to live in the village. Our party was observing the village and I asked the DM how many Derro he could see and think there were. My DM said to roll and Investigation check, and I challenged it, arguing that since we are looking from a distance and not close up, shouldn't it be Perception? He said that since my character is trying to count the amount of Derro it would be Investigation. I decided to not continue arguing as our sessions tend to be quite short and I wanted the story to continue, so I let it go. I ended up rolling really as my Investigation was lower than my Perception. My DM concluded that my character just sees a bunch of Derro without giving a vague number (dozens, scores, hundreds). I felt this was a poor decision on the part of the DM as I believed that Investigation was for up close observations and inspections (say the size of a room) and Perception was for a distance. Did the both of us handle this situation the right way? Or was one of us in the wrong?
I would rule went either way. Investigation to do a good count and not over count. But perception would work too. Now if you burn a in game hour etc, I would gave you more information.
I'm so happy I've found your channel. Every video I see you post is great content, I'm so excited to see you grow as a creator :D
The Goliath player just chilling outside playing DND. Living the dream
Nice video. I make a ruling and move on. And unless I have a dead pc at the end of the session, it doesn't matter if I rolled 12d20 for the fireball instead of 8d6. On things which are slightly cheesy, like bouncing the fireball through the gap, I will allow it but the monsters can use the same tactic. Now if it something really cheesy, like summoning a flock of seagulls by one pc above the head of bad guys, and the next wizard mass polymorph them into whales. That would be a flat no.
assuming i didn't have the mage roll, i think i'd say "You attempt to cast the fireball through the bottom of the door. Focusing precisely on the path of the thing, you can just barely squeeze it through the door at full speed. Then it hits the floor and explodes. You can hear screams and the door catching fire, but at this angle, it doesn't fall over. Roll damage for the guards."
this video is great and it's filled with awesome information, however I NEED the backstory of Dr. Wittlebittle, the halfling fighter! what is their field of study? where did they go to get their doctorate? did they get their degree and then decide they wanted a life of adventure and decided to get yolked? or did they start out as a fighter and then decide to get a doctorate before going back to adventuring? I NEED to know more about Dr. Wittlebittle!!
He was a professor of giant studies in Waterdeep, which led him to learning how giant runes worked and putting them to use in battle, which he engaged in reluctantly but very effectively. (Until the ill-fated fight with some frost giants on a boat… and then we all had to roll up some bards.) He had a wife, Jadyn Tevanne, a goliath who also studied giant runes. (Until she pulled the Void card and wound up with her soul trapped in a gem hanging from the neck of a dragon.) They were very much modeled after Ant-Man and the Wasp, particularly in the “Earth’s Mightiest Heroes” cartoon.
He also had a rival, a tortle inventor named Dr. Derrigible Von Cross.
8:17 "air on the side of the players"
lol, the word you're looking for is "err"
Good catch! Fixed :)
I am on a road trip with no books to hand. I would have had the player make a spell attack against the targets AC to see if they got the fireball through the door before it closed.
Hi Mike, I've been watching and liking your videos for a while, this is my first time commenting and I'm afraid it's a long one ^^. Thanks for the many pieces of advice you give, I'm really excited when I see a new video pop up 🙏maybe this comment could inspire a future video. I've been DMing for about a year now and some challenges I'm experiencing are different from the ones in the beginning. Our group has recently lost 2 players out of 4 because one realised he had different expectations about the game, and some frustrations had built up about how the other player would always show up at the last minute to confirm he could play the next day...basically these 2 departures were not easy is all I'm saying. What advice would you give me and my group to recover from that kind of event? I'm feeling a lot of guilt as a DM when it comes to confronting a player, having a very tense conversation and asking them to leave or seeing them walk out. The remaining players are nice and they say I took the right decision, even though they never really voiced their opinion openly before about the behavior of their former team member. Also, what to do with the characters of the leaving players? What about the plot points that revolved around their characters? I find it really challenging and somewhat not fair to have to rethink a big chunk of my campaign because these two left. Kinda makes me want to base plots on the most reliable players, but it doesn't feel fair^^ I know I'll manage in the end, but do you have any tips? 😊
I think you skipped a question:
Does it make sense in this world?
Obviously "realistic" isn't so important with dragons demons and guys throwing around fireballs. However, internal consistency is a different matter and helps significantly with the suspension of disbelief necessary to invest in the game world.
With your door fireball example, if your world views mages as almost super human with mysterious and powerful abilities, yes it would make sense. On the other end, if you're world's magic is considered little more than party tricks it might not as a display of power like that would necessarily invalidate that view and you'd be left with the question of why people think that way when it's obviously and demonstrably untrue.
Your wisdom is always helpful.
I'd love to see the adventures of Noice, the Goliath Bard.
These are all real characters I’ve played; Noice got to kill a blue dragon, I might have to tell that story someday… :)
It helps for sure. I appreciate your videos.
Intention is important.
If a player wants to bend the rules but is in spirit of the game, no problem. If a player wants to bend the rules to bypass/disrupt the game, no thanks.
I think my favorite advice I've heard is, "Make them roll so that if it fails it still get the satisfaction of a chance".
I had a bit of a rules argument with one of the party members concerning ANOTHER party member's abilities. It was with the Rogue's Sneak Attack, especially pertaining to the rogue activating another sneak attack on his reaction after already doing one.
We quickly checked and it was true, but I ruled it to be once a round not a turn solely because...well, to me that makes more sense and it would make the rogue more busted than he should, and it sounded like it would be less fun for the other players, especially if the rogue got all the kills. The rogue was ok with this ruling but the paladin was not.
It was weird, but I think I made at least a reasonable call on it. The Rogue can have a sneak attack on his reactions so long as he didn't use it already that round.
Fireball's targeting is another casualty of 5e's streamlining. I was pretty shocked to hear you use it as an example, so I had to look it up and man... For a system that's meant to be simpler it sure does make things hard to judge sometimes.
Targeting Fireball in 5e: "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."
Targeting Fireball in 3.5e: "You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. (An early impact results in an early detonation.) If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely."
Yeah, 3.5e has a lot more text but it's specific and clearly states how the spell is meant to work.
Not true this is covered on page 204 of the Player's Handbook.
A Clear Path to the Target
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover. If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.
@@spatha08 Good to know, but I think most people just read spell descriptions rather than the actual chapter on how the magic works, so 3.5e being more specific in how Fireball is targeted is still a benefit here, as it clears up any confusion. It's not just Fireball that's like this, it's most of the system.
@@WandererEris 5e is written different than 3.5. In 5e you can't just go by a spell description as there are general rules such as A clear Path to the Target and if a spell or ability alters this than the exception will be mentioned in that description. In 5e you must read the rules and not just descriptions of spells or abilities or else you are playing with only half the knowledge needed. IMO most arguments stem from this people not reading the rules and deciding based on a description that things work how they want.
@@spatha08 3.5e is written like that too, with an entire chapter dedicated to how the magic works. It just acknowledges that players aren't going to read everything and makes things as precise as possible in the spell descriptions themselves.
@@WandererEris I played 3.5 and IMO 5e does it better less wasted space repeating the same thing over and over. Much better to have the core rule(which both have) and unless a description gives a reason to override it you follow the rule not keep restating it. Simpler and more streamlined.
Maaaaan Super Geek Mike been real quiet sonce Doc Eon came out.
What would you do if 1 player pushed the limits more often then not, and you had been in the past lenient but had to start putting limits on how things worked?
I had a player call me bias cause I always told them no (towards the latter half of them playing) but they were the only person at the table to put forward cause for a decision such that it ended in no. All the other players at my table tended to agree with my decisions, and I always made them aware I would consider the ruling after the game
My next character will definitely be Noice the goliath bard. Perfect combo.
:D
Omg I have a player who will do everything you mentioned at 1:00
Wasn't expecting an episode of Super Geek Sentai Mikeranger at the start there
Cool video. I think this will help DMs and players alike.
you're not supposed to lose at D&D, but when you get enough finger wagging and being told nah, that's too cool and I didn't think of it, so no you can't do it. I'm pretty sure I'm losing. When you don't have fun. you lose. I don't even argue any more, or try to change my dm's mind. I rage quit once about 2 months ago, first time I've ever done that in my life. I'm not that guy. Now I'm only there cause I have friends there and I have nothing else to do on Tuesdays.
This was great. 🤣
Fireball says you point to a point within range. Casting this on something you can't see behind a door/wall shouldn't work because you don't know what's behind there so how can you point to it? you would be pointing at the wall or door.
It’s not the best example but my hope is that it still works to show you the steps needed to have this same thought process when resolving rules debates in your own games ☺️
Hello puppy!!
all these videos about how to find players for your game when you could just run D&D for four different versions of yourself :V
OK, but - It's a fantasy game, not hard sci-fi. "The sun blinks out of existence" sounds like one _hell_ of a plot hook either at the start of a campaign or to kickstart the next arc. Just... Skip the part where that inevitably means all life would end. The lifeblood of the gods and that gives a deadline for finding the sun, or whatever. Eventually, the gods will die due to life now directly draining them.
fireball doesn't work like that. it's a projectile. it's a bullet that blows up. rule of cool is a frivolous point. you should read the spells "A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger". no is a good answer. some of the most fun i've ever had with this game is taking all the character sheets away and only playing with 1 d20 per person. i'm off topic. someone i'm sure said players would get pissed if the villians could use the same tricks. irrelevant. explain the setting before the game. is magic broken? harry potter game. is it situational? lord of the rings. don't tell your players they can wear plate mail and cast spells then drop them in dark sun where there is almost no metal and the land has been literally raped by spell casters and the whole world hates them. if magic doesn't work through glass, even though you can see, that is a barrier. tell them first. original dnd, old school brown box dnd, said have a session zero so everybody is in agreement with what is happening. you just sound inexperienced.
.why would'nt u ask the others what they would think . If u r not Shure