Quote from: Opaopajr;1111861It's one of those "Throw Spaghetti on the Wall and See What Sticks" UA designs formalized and compiled into published text.

Yes, although frankly I'm a bit surprised how little broken stuff made it into XGTE.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1111827You guys are forgetting something about darkvision.

It may be more that my DM is forgetting.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1111827You guys are forgetting something about darkvision.

In 5e, darkvision isn't "see in the dark as if it was daylight." It's just "see as if it was dim light," which would be like seeing dark silhouettes on a moonlit night while outside. You can't see that much that way. (Also you take -5 to passive perception.)



Now imagine that against a dark forest's backdrop...

That reminds me of another issue with 5e: light and vision.

The rules are a big mess... and I'm not sure the errata fixed everything, IIRC.

Cannot find the specifics. But it involves something like blind archers hitting each other, the moon being invisible beacuse darkness blocks light (or maybe that you can see throug mist but not isnide the mist - not sure), etc.

Of course, these are rules that you don't really need and are easily ignored, so not a great issue anyway.

I wrote a few thoughts on light and vision here:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2019/03/encounter-distance-light-vision-etc.html

Quote from: Eric Diaz;1111961That reminds me of another issue with 5e: light and vision.

The rules are a big mess... and I'm not sure the errata fixed everything, IIRC.

This gets even more screwy with the 5e "spells only do exactly what they say they do" which results in a wall of fire giving off no light and many other kinds of strangeness.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1111965This gets even more screwy with the 5e "spells only do exactly what they say they do" which results in a wall of fire giving off no light and many other kinds of strangeness.

I wouldn't interpret it like that to be honest. I would more so view it as the spells were left to be more vague for DM fiat and ruling, but I could be attributing genius where there is none.

I would say that if a spell creates 'fire' then it pretty precisely gives off lightt.

Quote from: S'mon;1111878Oh yeah, I remember I had to disallow that when running Stonehell Dungeon, since SD is based around traditional BX/LL Infravision, and I make Invisibility more powerful than RAW. I just gave the Gloomstalker advantage on Hide checks in darkness.

5e Invisibility by RAW is actually not too far off from pre-3e inviso powers. Problem is. The rest of the rules are squirreled away elsewhere. Attacking someone invisible has the listed spell effects. But also you flat out miss if you target the wrong space the invisible foe is in. Even on a critical hit you still miss because you critted thin air.

As for the Gloomstalker. Folk should re-read the entry. It says while in darkness you are invisible to creatures that use darkvision. It says nothing about the character gaining 'super darkvision' themselves and by the rules they are invisible even to another gloomstalker. They gain normal darkvision and if they allready had it, then the range is extended by 30ft. That is it. Even the gloomstalker is still blinded in magical darkness.

Instead look to the Warlock who can pick up a Devils Sight that allows them to see normally in darkness out to 120ft and see even in magical darkness.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1111965This gets even more screwy with the 5e "spells only do exactly what they say they do" which results in a wall of fire giving off no light and many other kinds of strangeness.

Or maybee they did not expect the players to need their hand not just held, but manacled and shackled for good measure because apparently they are that fucking literal minded? Really? Who the hell is that stupid? Oh... yeah... :rolleyes:

Quote from: Omega;1112061Or maybee they did not expect the players to need their hand not just held, but manacled and shackled for good measure because apparently they are that fucking literal minded? Really? Who the hell is that stupid? Oh... yeah... :rolleyes:

I would assume that was the original intent as well, but as the developers go on to answer customer service questions, you see that have quite different ideas now. The game has evolved--largely thanks to needing consistent rules for organized play--to requiring rules over rulings. This results in magical fires that give off no light because the rules do not say that they do. So the stupid is RAW and will be applied as law in their organized play, but hopefully it doesn't hit too many home games.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1111827You guys are forgetting something about darkvision.

In 5e, darkvision isn't "see in the dark as if it was daylight." It's just "see as if it was dim light," which would be like seeing dark silhouettes on a moonlit night while outside. You can't see that much that way. (Also you take -5 to passive perception.)



Now imagine that against a dark forest's backdrop...

There is Warlock Devil Sight that can see normally in darkness. There is also Gloomstalker ability where it is invisible to any creature with Darkvison. These are both abilities that are WAY too easy to obtain and they dramatically change the dynamic of an adventuring party (you can't play a human fighter with this group).

Yeah, there was quite a bit about the Warlock that I felt was a half-baked class. Very cobbled together and thrown onto the table to see who eats it up. That said, Devil's Sight was one of the lesser annoying of the troublesome Invocations, IMO. Still not wholly pleased with that class, even though I am assured it was thoroughly playtested (and then there's multi-classing. /cough "Sorlock" :rolleyes: )

Like some other spells and powers in 5e Devil Sight is very situational. Under the right circumstances it can be really usefull.Such as a campaign set mostly underground or in very dark or magically dark areas, or where you are facing foes that drop darkness alot. But elsewhere? Not so much as its essentially improved goggles of night. Same for the Gloomstalker, Goodberry, etc.

As for how much playtesting the Warlock and Sorcerer got. Hard to say really as they pulled both from public playtests early on. And even late game several classes changed notably from what had been playtested to what finally saw print. Same with the Artificer. Thats gone through a near total overhaul after feedback and so far has not seen print.

Remember my comment that PCs cant swim through lava?

Well in Tomb they can. No. Really. WTF???

Starting or ending a turn in molten lava or molten metal does 55(10d10) damage. Which means anything with enough movement can wade or swim through lava unharmed if they can make it across in one go. And anything with enough HP can swim in it for a round or two, or more...

Im pretty sure this contradicts info in the DMG and will have to look that up. And a quick glance through the environment section had no entry for lava.

Quote from: Omega;1112835Remember my comment that PCs cant swim through lava?

Well in Tomb they can. No. Really. WTF???

Starting or ending a turn in molten lava or molten metal does 55(10d10) damage. Which means anything with enough movement can wade or swim through lava unharmed if they can make it across in one go. And anything with enough HP can swim in it for a round or two, or more...

Im pretty sure this contradicts info in the DMG and will have to look that up. And a quick glance through the environment section had no entry for lava.

Are you sure? Usually it specifies something if they enter it during their turn too.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1112849Are you sure? Usually it specifies something if they enter it during their turn too.

Wall of Fire works the same way. You will take no damage if you can approach within inches of the "hot side" of the wall (without moving through it), move alongside it for most of your movement, and then end your move at least 10 feet away from it.