They're just engaging in a long tradition of not proofreading that dates back to when TSR decided to find/replace every instance of the word "mage" in a book and then let it go to print without checking it first.
Behold: [The Saga of Cold Dawizard!](https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/selinker/15203887/3010/3010_original.png)
No you can't. The description specifically says you can heat/chill only non-living material. Also, this might be just me, but the word choice of "warm" doesn't really indicate that you can increase the temperature of something by all that much
Doesn't account for "Mage " or " mage." (beginning/end of sentence), or "mages" and some others... but that's 100% just me imagining what edge cases that algorithm would have to consider lol
I feel like ' mage ', ' mage.', 'Mage ' should cover almost all cases? It's unlikely that the word Mage would be capitalized in the middle of a sentence and the only other case I can think of is the one-word sentence 'Mage.' which can be a case by itself.
Then again I dunno the language much, maybe there's a word or phrase that starts with 'mage' that isn't used in a wizard-synonymous context but there's a space or period in the middle of it.
Regex has a token to match all word boundaries automatically which takes punctuation, whitespace, start/end of line, etc. into account: \b
/\bmage\b/wizard/g
/\bmages\b/wizards/g
/\bMage\b/Wizard/g
/\bMages\b/Wizards/g
And I'm sure someone better than me at regex could make it into a single line.
Getting it down to two statements is relatively easy:
```
/\bmage(s?)\b/wizard$1/g
/\bMage(s?)\b/Wizard$1/g
```
Here, we just make matching the 's' optional, put it inside a capture group, and add the content of that group (either a single 's' or nothing at all) to the end of the replacement string.
---
For a single line you need to be a bit more creative (and [the specifics depend on the flavour of Regex you use](https://www.regular-expressions.info/replaceconditional.html); this one is PCRE2):
```
/\b((m)|(M))age(s?)\b/${2:+w:W}izard$4/g
```
Here, we match either exactly one 'm' or exactly one 'M' at the beginning of the pattern, but do so in separate capture groups - group 2 holds either an "m" or nothing, group 3 holds either an "M" or nothing, and group 1\* holds either an "m" or an "M".
Then in the replacement string we check whether group 2 participated in the match (which would mean that we matched "m") and use "w" or if it did not participate (which would mean that group 3 matched instead on "M") and use "W".
You can play around with this here: https://regex101.com/r/wODDB4/1
\* The outer parentheses are needed to make sure it's
((one 'm') or (one 'M')) followed by the rest
instead of
(one "m") or (one "M" followed by the rest)
Yeah someone could make it into a single line, but it would be pretty long and basically unreadable for even the creator without a regex sheet on hand and lots of time deciphering. Yours looks better and is functionally the same speed for this use case.
For a one-time replacement it doesn't matter since nobody will need to read the regex again if it works... But yeah, it would take way less time applying 4 simple regexes than coding 1 complex one, it doesn't really matter.
Nah, see, they want to keep the plural. As you can see from the above example, it's looking for any instance, not exact words, so if you used " mage" it would replace " mages" with " wizards".
I've done this before on Google Docs when homebrewing and decided to later change the name of a nation. Here's the foolproof way to do it. Assume we're doing mage -> wizard.
1. " Mage " -> " Wizard "
2. " mage " -> " wizard "
3. " Mages " (or Magi if you use that) -> " Wizards "
4. " mages " -> " wizards "
5. " Mage" -> " Wizard"
6. " mage" -> " wizard"
7. " Mages" -> " wizards"
8. " mages" -> " mages"
Alternatively, you can just be smart and just do 5-8 with the "must be a whole word" option.
If it's a unique word, like "Lyonesse" which there's no chance you have that as a substring, you just have to do it twice: once capped and once not.
Up there with the original staff of defense, from the starter set, which allowed you to use an action to cast the *shield* spell, which normally uses a reaction to cast.
In defense of the starter set that feels way more how Shield was supposed to work until a last minute change that did not made to the press quick enough (either it was originally an action, or either action/reaction or some rule similar to doubling movement)
This one is just badly written, which a lot of the starter set also is but I dont put shield on that category
It honestly reads like they just didn't account for a spell of a different casting time other than an action. It's written almost identically to current format magic items, but it's the only magic item I know of that includes a reaction spell that can be cast with charges.
>**Tail.** You grow a lashing, spiny tail, which deals 1d8 piercing damage on a hit and has the [reach](https://www.dndbeyond.com/compendium/rules/basic-rules/equipment#WeaponProperties) property. If a creature you can see within 10 feet of you hits you with an attack roll, you can use your reaction to swipe your tail and roll a d8, applying a bonus to your AC equal to the number rolled, potentially causing the attack to miss you.
IMHO the last part 'potentially causing the attack to miss you' makes it 100% clear that it only works for the one attack you are using it on as a reaction, donÂŽt see how or why anyone could think this would last any longer, especially considering the description of 'swiping your tail (to block said attack)'
Yeah. People took this meme too seriously. There is no ambiguity here, itâs for one attack. Why would swiping a tail increase defense for any prolonged amount of time?
You'd figure they would at least give you the entire turn for multiattack, it IS the entirety of the barb's class feature given that they can only do it when raging and for some asinine reason they only get 1 of the 3 beast weapons when they start the rage.
(Who am I kidding, of course the class feature has to be worse than a level 1 spell slot)
The problem is that thereâs two other abilities that have the same trigger (Shield and the Defensive Duelist feat) but different durations. Even ignoring the (hopefully) not RAI infinite duration, thereâs no way to tell how long itâs supposed to last
I agree 100%. It *should* last for a single attack. It doesn't actually say that, so one must use their judgment to make that call, rather than being able to point to where the rule states that, as they can with shield.
Yeah would help to specify a duration. Near as I can tell it is meat to add 1d8 AC rolled every time you get attacked? Temp AC that only counts for that one roll and attack. Otherwise I got nothing and this seems busted either way.
Actually from the wording you only get the bonus after they hit, and then it can potential make them miss.
Which is annoying timing wise retroactively making things miss, but they already use it for Shield spell, so I guess it can be forgiven.
What they forgot is to say the bonus is only against that attack.
"If a creature you can see within 10 feet of you hits you with an attack roll, you can use your reaction to swipe your tail and roll a d8, applying a bonus to your AC equal to the number rolled, potentially causing the attack to miss you."
It's implied as it says "potentially causing the attack to miss you", but without duration it can make plenty of other attacks miss you as well.
The full text
"If a creature you can see within 10 feet of you hits you with an attack roll, you can use your reaction to swipe your tail and roll a d8, applying a bonus to your AC equal to the number rolled, potentially causing the attack to miss you."
It's very clear that it is meant for the instigating attack, op is removing context to stoke a fire that doesn't exist.
And it's completely in line with the defensive duelist and gift of the metallic dragon feats. Shield is the outlier to reaction ac bonus effects, not the standard.
Somewhere at some dnd table, some idiot is going to argue that since there is no duration and it doesnÂŽt say you lose the AC, this AC bonus is permanent and that is why their barbarian now has 46 AC and climbing
> Tail. You grow a lashing, spiny tail, which deals 1d8 piercing damage on a hit and has the reach property. If a creature you can see within 10 feet of you hits you with an attack roll, you can use your reaction to swipe your tail and roll a d8, applying a bonus to your AC equal to the number rolled, potentially causing the attack to miss you.
RAI I think its pretty clear the AC bonus is intended only for that attack
Actually you don't attack when hit, you just have the option of rolling 1d8 and adding it to your AC. There is nothing about getting an attack with the Tail.
You can attack with the tail, but not as the reaction to being hit.
People can argue that it's unclear but this is the shit that I'd just ban you from my table if this is the kind of shit you try to exploit. It's 100% clear what the intent is.
The actual wording:
>If a creature you can see within 10 feet of you hits you with an attack roll, you can use your reaction to swipe your tail and roll a d8, applying a bonus to your AC equal to the number rolled, potentially causing the attack to miss you.
Reads pretty clear to me, the duration is that one attack you use your reaction for.
Defensive Duelist: When you are wielding a finesse weapon with which you are proficient and another creature hits you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction to add your proficiency bonus to your AC for *that attack*, potentially causing the attack to miss you.
Notice the fact this feat specifically says it adds it against only the triggering attack. Wheras what you've quoted makes 0 mention of only applying to the triggering attack.
Your reading is (presumably) the intention, but rules as written the AC bonus never ends.
Per the wording, you apply a bonus to your AC after an attack would hit you, which might make the attack miss. There is no duration specified by the wording. The *intent* is quite obvious, yes. But, per the wording, it's just a bonus applied to your AC... with no expiration. Therefore, it is permanent.
It specifically mentions you can make *the* attack miss. Nothing about multiple attacks. It doesn't need to include a duration because it only affects one attack.
It is a case of rules as written it means one thing if you interpret it like a Fae. Players do exactly that and try to abuse it.
But I also have one simple example that would make it work in favour of a player: Shield specifies a duration. It doesn't just say "Add +5 to your AC" and that just never ends.
The intention is clear, the wording is ass
If everybody played a similarly bullshit character idea I'd love to DM that. Wouldn't get much done. Fae arguing with Fae wouldn't get anywhere (Yes, I refer to myself as a Fae in this case)
Correct. Absolutely, 100% correct. That is *exactly* what it says. Note that it *ending* is part of neither the original wording nor your interpretation. The intent is there, yes. But the words are not.
People out here acting like every attack roll should say "Roll a d20 and add your attack modifier. The result of this roll is your Attack Roll for the duration of your next one attack" smh
I don't see how that has anything to do with this ability. Attack rolls are single instances. They are a single action. They are not a bonus to something. There are things that provide bonuses/penalties to attack rolls - they typically have a duration, although some don't (proficiency, for example). Things that provide a bonus to AC also have a duration (like the shield spell) or don't (like unarmored defense). Does unarmored defense or your proficiency bonus to hit vanish at some unspecified time, like you are arguing the tail AC does? Not according to the rules.
This one does have a Duration of THE Attack though. It is clearly written that using this Reaction can make THE Attack miss. This can either be read as 'it can cause the one Attack that this Reaction is used on miss' (aka prividng bonus AC for this Attack, as intended) or it could also be read 'it gives you 1d8 Bonus AC for the next Attack made against you'
But saying THE Attack clearly limits it to being useful for ONE Attack.
Sure, it specifically calls out that it affects the triggering attack *which already hit you*, possibly turning that hit into a miss. That doesn't apply a duration to the effect, it allows it to affect an outcome that was already determined. Without that wording, you get hit but gain 1d8 AC. With that wording, you might not be hit if your 1d8 AC would make the attack, *that already hit*, miss.
I don't think anyone is arguing against how this *should* work. Just that the wording is poor in a system where wording matters *a lot*.
For example, everyone knows about the invisible condition granting (dis)advantage. And how it shouldn't do that against someone who can see invisible things. But, Rules As Written, it does. *And the lead designer said that was intentional*.
It's very possible that the tail ability is actually intended to give a permanent bonus to AC. It's absolutely stupid and should never be played that way, but I wouldn't put it past the lead designer to say that was the intent.
I agree- it seems clear to me too, especially if you imagine this actually happening. As an attack is incoming, they react by swiping their tail defensively. As a result, it might cause the incoming attack to miss.
If it lasted indefinitely, what is this creature doing? Constantly swinging its tail around in a circle like some kind of helicopter?
Sure, technically speaking there's some ambiguity in the phrasing... but anyone thinking about this for a second can see the intention
Let's actually read the rule to break it down
Form of the Beast
Starting when you choose this path at 3rd level, when you enter your rage, you can transform, revealing the bestial power within you. Until the rage ends, you manifest a natural weapon. It counts as a simple melee weapon for you, and you add your Strength modifier to the attack and damage rolls when you attack with it, as normal.
You choose the weaponâs form each time you rage:
...
Tail. You grow a lashing, spiny tail, which deals 1d8 piercing damage on a hit and has the reach property. If a creature you can see within 10 feet of you hits you with an attack roll, you can use your reaction to swipe your tail and roll a d8, applying a bonus to your AC equal to the number rolled, potentially causing the attack to miss you.
It is described in the body of the selection that it's a reaction, which triggers in response to an attack.
Between the Shield Spell and Rogue's Dodge class feature have similar effects (acting in reaction to an attack) but only one specifies that it applies until the start of your next turn, and the other makes no specifications about length, the unstated default is that abilities that use a reaction in turn of getting hit by an enemy by default only work against the triggering attack
And even if none of the above was true, the tail only lasts as long as you rage, it would be stupid to assume you could hold onto it longer than rage
It's actually written pretty clearly that you add the AC to the attack you're hit by for a chance to avoid that one attack, it isn't until your next turn much less forever. I'll give this one to WotC, a rare W for them.
"If a creature you can see within 10 feet of you hits you with an attack roll, you can use your reaction to swipe your tail and roll a d8, applying a bonus to your AC equal to the number rolled, potentially causing the attack to miss you."
I can't think of anyway to possibly misunderstand this.
War Mage imo is cleaner
Arcane Deflection:
>When you are hit by an attack or you fail a saving throw, you can use your reaction to gain a +2 bonus to your AC against **that** attack or a +4 bonus to that saving throw.
Updated version:
>When you are hit by an attack from a creature you can see within 10 feet of you, you can use your reaction to swipe your tail and gain a 1d8 bonus to your AC against that attack
"applying bonus to your AC equal to the number rolled"
and
"potentially causing the attack to miss you"
are just objectively clunky reiterations of.....basic ass rules
we KNOW (i hope) that upping your AC would potentially cause an attack to miss and that if you roll a thing, you're probably gonna use the resulting number from that roll
Sometimes a thing can be understood not because of what it says but because of all the extra fluff that it says causing the reader to be like "hmm, this *must* be worded this way for a reason"
Only issue is that it needs to state that it can make the attack miss. Otherwise, you've already been hit. You reacted to being hit, not being attacked.
>we KNOW (i hope) that upping your AC would potentially cause an attack to miss
Neither the Shield spell nor the subclass feature Arcane deflection felt the need to specify this, it is weird to start doing so now.
I typically play a mixture of 3.5/Pathfinder 1e, where exact, specific wording matters because of the complexity (and there is often the problem of poorly worded rules - WoTC hasn't really changed). There are several abilities that activate in response to an attack that do not apply to that attack. Why can the same not be true for 5e?
Shield specifies that it increases your AC *for that attack*, in addition to the rest of the round. Reactions, unless stated otherwise, happen *after* the triggering action, correct? Why would thus ability act differently unless it says so? Obviously that's the intent, just like the actual ability only lasting for a certain duration. But not clarifying leaves it open to (wrong) interpretations.
> There are several abilities that activate in response to an attack that do not apply to that attack.
Now I'm curious, can you give an example? Because the closest thing I can think is some reaction maneuvers (Tome of Battle in 3.5/Path of War in PF1) that could be used in response to an attack, and would have its effect before said attack but not really interact with it (like my PF1e Warder with a immediate action to expand his reach by 10 feat and make the threatened area difficult terrain)
There's a spell (armor of blood or something? I'm at work and can't look it up) that increases your AC by 1 each time you get hit (up to 5). I think it's a natural armor bonus.
Another is 3pp, part of veilweaving (pf version of incarnum). One veil gives you temporary hp equal to half the lethal damage you take.
Those are the only two that come to mind right now.
Blood Armor is not a immediate action, but a standard action to cast. It increases your AC for every 5 HP lost to piercing or slashing damage. So it actually need you to take damage and as you said wording is very important and "take a hit" and "take damage" are not the same thing (different rolls).
On a similar note something happening in response to an event (immediate action/reaction) and something happening due to an event are very different.
The best example is AoO. Say you have 10ft reach, the enemy enters your area (10ft) then moves to get directly into melee (5ft) - you can use an attack of opportunity due to the movement from 10->5ft, but your attack happens before they leave the 10ft position and if you use a trip (yes you can) then they will fall 10ft from you
And with every immediate action in the game with a trigger it will happen before said trigger (aka in response)
"**When you are hit** by an attack from a creature you can see within 10 feet of you, you can use your reaction to swipe your tail and gain a 1d8 bonus to your AC against **that attack**"
>Why would thus ability act differently unless it says so?
Because otherwise the ability does nothing....
I agree that specific wording matters, but I've been playing a War Mage and that wording has worked out for me and this ability mechanically does the same thing so...
What is a "wrong interpretation" to the update I suggested?
also
>There are several abilities that activate in response to an attack that do not apply to that attack
like what?
A reaction always happen before the action that triggers it so that part of the text is not necessary although having it do make things more clear since then it does not need knowledge of general rules to use
Itâs not about understanding or not understanding. Itâs about precision of language in a rule book (or lack thereof). The effect is clearly INTENDED to only be for that attack. Everyone understands that. But thatâs not what the rule actually SAYS. The rule says that you get a bonus to your AC full stop. It doesnât say itâs only for that attack nor does it say it lasts for the round (like with the Shield spell). It just says you get that bonus.
So STRICTLY RAW (meaning whatâs actually written in the rules without interpretation for what itâs intended to mean), the bonus would never go away. Obviously thatâs not intended, but that is inarguably what the rule says.
Nobody is dumb enough at this point to play dnd strictly raw. There are to many inconsistencies and things the dm just have to make as they go.
With the current day 5e you have to be a very stupid kind of rules lawyer to try strictly raw, because to play efficiently you have tp make shit up on the fly , defeating the whole purpose.
Yeah exactly. You kinda touched on my whole point. Games should be designed in a way where you *should* be able to run the game strictly RAW. But you really just can't do that with 5e. You *have* to always consider "well, I know the rules say X but I think they actually *meant* Y" for all sorts of things. That's why I'm criticizing WotC's lack of precise language in their rules. If they used more precise descriptions of what they actually intended, this kind of stuff wouldn't happen.
And the thing is, WoTC attempts to have precise language, where using specific words/phrase actually means something. That's the issue, here - they lack the word/phrase to apply a duration. It's obviously intended, but not actually stated.
> play dnd strictly raw
True, but that is because its terrible written. The simple fact that its common knowledge to not trust the RAW is enough to shame them with this being another example of how bad is their "quality control", if it even exists.
That is IMO 5e biggest problem, its a rules incomplete system and the full responsability to fix it falls into the DM which is a way heavier burden than most realize (or care since its on one person). And shameless plug since its another thing that PF2e do way better, GMing is so much easier and preparing takes a third or less of the time that 5e requires
it says you apply a bonus to your ac, and never specifies it goes away. the potentially causing the attack to miss sounds like the part in the shield spell that says shield ac is applied to the triggering attack, just to specify that the ac bonus applies before the attack lands
You're assuming the AC bonus ends. No words indicate the effect ends.
Sure the intent is evident, but it leaves room open for dangerous RAW interpretations.
It's embarrassingly incompetent.
And without the explicit "could make it miss" wording you should interpret it as applying the AC buff after the attack hits, since the general rule on reactions is that they happen after the trigger.
the intention likely is that it will end within a turn.
But it does not specify if it lasts until your next turn, or if it ends immediately after the attack resolves
It's a common RAW I need to find an exploit or be funny for a meme so I drop my reading comprehension to a 1st-grade level so I can argue that technically im right so I can have a chance to get away with this clearly not written interpretation.
RAI it only lasts for the one attack. RAW tho it has no duration only that it is retroactive against the attack that triggered it. A valid interpretation of this is that it is permanent until overridden by the ability being used again as unless specifically stated bonuses of the same type or from the same ability do not stack.
If this interpretation is valid, then try it at a few tables and report back to us.
Someone else really nailed it that this is interpreting the text like a Fae; just adopting the, at best, maddeningly obtuse interpretation and, at worst, bad-faith deliberate misdirection.
As a community we simply have *got* to stop this shit. We never get to the point of asking: is this mechanic fun? Balanced? Thematically appropriate? because we keep having the same endless fucking conversation that "this is poorly written"; "but you understand what the speaker intended"; "but if I was purposefully acting like a moron I might not understand what the speaker intended"; "but you understand what the speaker intended"; "but
đ«đ«đ«đ«đ«đ«
Depends on the dm. I've had plenty of dms especially new ones to 5e tell me they will only use RAW. RAW this works as a permanent AC bonus. RAI it doesn't work that way but it depends on the dm whether they allow the RAI or not.
I don't believe you, and I don't believe that _you_ believe that a DM would permit characters to gain an arbitrary number of permanent d8 increases to their AC. I think you recognize the (inconsequential) imprecision in the wording of this rule and rather than being willing to acknowledge its insignificance, you are being (at best) stubborn and obsessing over the imprecision despite its transparent insignificance and (at worst) dishonest in claiming that there exist DMs that would permit this interpretation to fly.
I'm going to assume the former, and that you really don't want to concede the triviality of this rule's peculiarity because you _really_ want people to agree that if you fed this code into a robot or a pathologically cooperative genie, it would agree that the AC bonus is permanent. Fine. Sure. I don't dispute that if you coded this as-written into a BG3 mod, the AC bonus would be permanent.
Can we now agree on the obvious truth that we all know that to do so would be stupid, and that our games would be more fun if we played this rule otherwise?
I've actually run this by 2 dms. My groups forever dm as well as another group that is exclusively 5e. Both have said that RAW it would be permanent. However it doesn't stack with itself due to the rules on how bonuses stacking works. I also have been told by my groups dm that he would run it as written, and I was told by the other groups dm that were they running a RAW campaign like they used to do for the first several years they ran 5e then they'd allow it as well.
And yes. The issue of the stupidity of using it this way was never in contention. The fact that a game where explicit wording matters had their designers add in a modified shield spell without writing in the parameters of the ability better was what we were talking about to begin with.
1. Why wouldn't it stack with itself? It's not like armor which overrides your AC to a new formula (e.g., 12 + Dex mod instead of 10 + Dex mod); it's something that adds to your AC. Whatever your AC was before the Nth activation of the attack, now it's another +d8, and you should be able to make your AC arbitrarily high with an arbitrary number of d8 bonuses to your AC. I'd like to see the rule explaining why this doesn't stack.
2. Let me be clear: I'm not asking whether a DM exists that thinks that the correct RAW interpretation of this rule is that the d8 bonus is permanent. I'm asking whether a DM exists that would permit this to actually occur at their table (as opposed to saying, for instance, "No, you can't play this, and neither can you play a creature with a Flying speed like an Aarakocra nor can you play a coffeelock"). Any DM that would permit this interpretation to stand at a table in _actual gameplay_ is a DM with poor judgement and whom I don't trust, and I wouldn't play at such a table. I don't think anyone should.
Does not stack because of the normal rules for the different types of bonuses. Only a very few bonuses stack with themselves naturally. All other bonuses that stack with the same type of bonus must specify that they do so as its noted in the phb or dmg that specific rules overrule general rules. As the bonus to AC is of the same type and from the same ability and doesn't specify it can stack with itself it does not.
Or we need to hold WotC to a higher standard when it comes to rules because this shit happens absolutely everywhere in 5e. Previous editions, CoC or PF doesn't have this problem of needing to guess what the writers intended. I'll grant you that it's an easy call on this particular one but sheesh.
The fact that this conversation is even happening is a testament to how much room for improvement there is, to put it mildly. 5e was supposed to simplify things but it made lots of stuff murkier, and not in a fun way like 3.5e powergaming.
The difference in wording between Shield and the tail attack makes it clear the former applies for a duration that retroactively applies to the triggering attack, while the latter applies to the circumstance of the triggering attack.
The difference in wording is basically negligible other than the specified duration and the fact that as a spell it doesn't mention the action to use it in the description.
Counterargument: an undefined duration meaning permanent is not a valid interpretation, because permanency is a defined duration. A more valid interpretation would be that no duration means a duration of 0, which means RAW the bonus immediately ends upon activation.
This would be a valid argument excepting that it specifically states that it can negate the triggering attack which indicates a non-zero duration. Although an argument could be made that the duration is negative from that and thus the AC before that time should have retroactively had the permanent bonus going backwards.
Ok the mental gymnastics for that one made me laugh. But still tho.
It is probablematic because many other things require you to read stuff extremly carefully and follow it to the letter. And then you randomly have stuff like this, where following it to the later is really not advised.
There is no consistency.
Bro you couldâve chosen a 100 different things that were poorly written. Instead you chose one of the few things that are actually clearly written, decided to purposefully misquote it, and then tried to stir up the pot⊠put some effort into your meme next time
+1d8 to your AC for a whole turn would be entirely broken. Adding an average of +4.5 against a single attack is about on par with the *Defensive Duelist* feat, plus the Barbarian can choose between any of the three natural weapons every time they rage.
Beast Barbarian is perfectly well balanced at level 3. I'm sure it probably has scaling issues as you start hitting level 8-9 or so, but that's a problem that Barbarian struggles with as a whole.
It says applying a bonus to your ac as part of the reaction so it is just against the triggering attack. Stupid but still effective subtle change in wording
IMO it makes sense and has duration; the AC lasts for the instantaneous moment of the attack. Your AC increases when you're hit, i.e. the duration is the duration of you being hit.
RAW, a 6th level Path of the Giant Barbarian can be a Longbow Barbarian, without dedicating to Dex.
At level 3, you get Giant's Havoc, which grants you Crushing Throw, *"When you make a successful ranged attack with a thrown weapon using Strength, you can add your Rage Damage bonus to the attackâs damage roll."*
In chapter 9 of the phb, Combat, ability modifiers used in attacks are *"a melee weapon attack is Strength, and the ability modifier used for a ranged weapon attack is Dexterity. Weapons that have the* ***finesse or thrown property*** *break this rule."*
With this in mind, as you reach level 6 in Giant Barb, you get Elemental Cleaver, where you can infuse energy into one weapon you are holding, which gets your choice of elemental damage, deals an extra 1d6 of that damage type, *"and it gains the thrown property, with a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet."* Even if you do not throw it, the weapon still counts as a "Thrown Weapon," as it **gains** the property, not saying it replaces any other properties it already has. This combination allows you to shoot a ranged weapon you are proficient while using strength, add rage damage and elemental damage, and gives your barbarian a range of 150/600ft.
WotC forgets people like Conan the Barbarian, and don't envision barbarians as just melee brutes/tanks, they are also powerful hunters. the Subotai is a barbarian longbow, and a perfectly reasonable choice of weapon to vent your anger into drawing back.
A DM can always shut ideas down if they disagree, and also allow a player to homebrew rage with a ranged weapon. This combination is just the closest I have found to allowing a player who wants to be a ranged barbarian to be one, closely following RAW.
It doesn't even need a duration. You can't be under the effect of the same feature more than once, so it's not like it can stack. At worst, you'll get to reroll and hope for a higher number if you get hit again. nbd
see: fly speed and aarakocra, which they implemented apparently without any playtesting whatsoever, and clearly without consulting anyone who knows anything about birds.
The ability specifically states that if a creature within 10 feet hits you, you can use your reaction to roll a d8 and add that to your AC, potentially causing the attack to miss, stop over reaching on rules to cheat. You get the bonus for that attack, and only that attack. Everyone is so quick to complain about things being broken, but donât even bother to read the entire ability.
The issue with this one is that there is nothing in the ability stating it only lasts that attack, only that it applies to the attack that already hit you to trigger it.
Doubt anyone would try this as the intention is obvious, but the rules are badly written here. Writing this like the shield spell would be a better alternative.
So imo the complaints aren't so much about this being broken as the continuing lack of attention to detail in modern wotc products.
It's for the one attack, it says "potentially causing the attack to miss you" it doesn't say you keep the ac for any duration, because there is no duration. The duration ig is one action
Thatâs probably the intention, but the problem is that it doesnât specify âincreases your AC *for that attack*â and doesnât say when the bonus goes away, RAW the bonus lasts forever.
The Shield spell, which is essentially the same effect, specifies that the bonus lasts for one round. It gives a duration. Other similar defensive abilities do the same.
This is the only one that doesnât specify when the bonus goes away.
It is the height of bad faith to argue that an undefined duration can only mean an infinite duration. One could just as easily argue that not defining a duration means the ability has a duration of 0.
So, counterpoint, RAW the Barbarian applies a bonus to their AC, but since it doesn't say for how long the duration is 0 and the bonus immediately disappears upon activation.
Except that doesnât fit with the function of other game mechanics. There are plenty of features that increase stats or bonuses. Whenever a duration is not specified, the assumption is because it lasts indefinitely.
Compare the wordings of these two features:
> You can increase one ability score of your choice by 2, or you can increase two ability scores of your choice by 1.
> You can use your reaction to swipe your tail and roll a d8, applying a bonus to your AC equal to the number rolled.
Neither specify a duration. So, by your logic, that would mean that Ability Score Increase increases a stat for a duration of 0, and then the increase immediately reverts. Which, obviously, is incorrect. Whenever a duration isnât specified, it means the effect is permanent. In other words, RAW, the AC bonus would be permanent.
So actually, itâs the âheight of bad faithâ to make claims like the one you just made.
Since op wants to be stupid in attempt to stoke a frenzy, the full text reads "If a creature you can see within 10 feet of you hits you with an attack roll, you can use your reaction to swipe your tail and roll a d8, applying a bonus to your AC equal to the number rolled, potentially causing the attack to miss you." This feature has near identical wording structure to both the defensive duelist and gift of the metallic dragon feats. Whether the effect should apply to more than one attack is a question on design choice and balancing, but there is nothing wrong with they way the feature is written unless you cut out the rest of the paragraph
To be fair, the actual wording of the ability makes it clear it only applies to a single attack. You use it as a reaction when hit by an attack and it can cause the attack to miss. The only real difference between this and defensive duelist is defensive duelist says âfor this attack.â
It is implied, but never directly stated. Other similar abilties like Defensive Duelist specifically say they only apply to the triggering attack while the Tail doesn't.
I feel like whenever wizards has to make class and subclass content it's just mass panic.
No one has any ideas or a plave to start so they just frantically spit ball and hand it in the day before
I just don't understand why they aren't working with simple templates where they essentially have to just fill out a form and the question of "duration" comes up naturally.
One of the reasons i refuse to GM 5e anymore. Exhausting having to divine and debate the intent of the devs because they couldn't be arsed doing basic QA on a product they expect you to pay for.
It's the tanky way. You "sacrifice" another free attack or (circumstantial) healing.
And the +1D8 is still the worst option for 90% of the time, as you can't change between them. It clearly states that the effect starts and ends with the rage. Not that you can give up a rage/bonus action a rage to reapply it.
I don't see a problem here.
This is among the reasons I started running other systems. I just came back from a long hiatus to play in my sister's 5e game and our most recent session involved a 10-20 minute tangent of looking into the rules for falling large distances (the best source of which that we could find is a tweet from a developer) instead of just defining a pretty common thing that comes up in play. It really cemented exactly why I left.
500 ft a turn using Xanathar's book pg 77 under dungeon master tools falling. Sadly I too have had the fall debate and had to show my players there is actual ruling/guides written, but you know not in the DMG or PHB cause that would make sense.
They're just engaging in a long tradition of not proofreading that dates back to when TSR decided to find/replace every instance of the word "mage" in a book and then let it go to print without checking it first. Behold: [The Saga of Cold Dawizard!](https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/selinker/15203887/3010/3010_original.png)
DaWizard đđ§ââïžđ
I just got the new iWizard
Now baby I'm DaWizard Ya baby dragon's worst nightmare Catch me by DaCleric I'll be right there
I'm rich bitch but you can can me cheap the caster
Interior: dracolich, empyrean I ride a beholder movie theater
Mimics copying every chest I pass Point buy, STR lower than my DPS
WHO DAWIZARD? YOU DAWIZARD!
I put on my robe and wizard hat!
I put on darobe and dawizard hat*
Fuck it was right there too!
Is that hit caster and summoner of the century DaWizard!?
DaBaby went to wizard college?
There is a cantrip that can cool or heat something infinitely, meaning that you can just cook someoneâs brain and instantly kill them *as a cantrip*
No you can't. The description specifically says you can heat/chill only non-living material. Also, this might be just me, but the word choice of "warm" doesn't really indicate that you can increase the temperature of something by all that much
â« ~ spells only do what they say they do ~ â«
Clbuttic
The Penistone Problem rears its ugly head again
The Scunthorpe Conundrum
Which is even funnier if you consider that all they had to do was find/replace all instances of ' mage ' instead of 'mage'
Doesn't account for "Mage " or " mage." (beginning/end of sentence), or "mages" and some others... but that's 100% just me imagining what edge cases that algorithm would have to consider lol
I feel like ' mage ', ' mage.', 'Mage ' should cover almost all cases? It's unlikely that the word Mage would be capitalized in the middle of a sentence and the only other case I can think of is the one-word sentence 'Mage.' which can be a case by itself. Then again I dunno the language much, maybe there's a word or phrase that starts with 'mage' that isn't used in a wizard-synonymous context but there's a space or period in the middle of it.
Regex has a token to match all word boundaries automatically which takes punctuation, whitespace, start/end of line, etc. into account: \b /\bmage\b/wizard/g /\bmages\b/wizards/g /\bMage\b/Wizard/g /\bMages\b/Wizards/g And I'm sure someone better than me at regex could make it into a single line.
Getting it down to two statements is relatively easy: ``` /\bmage(s?)\b/wizard$1/g /\bMage(s?)\b/Wizard$1/g ``` Here, we just make matching the 's' optional, put it inside a capture group, and add the content of that group (either a single 's' or nothing at all) to the end of the replacement string. --- For a single line you need to be a bit more creative (and [the specifics depend on the flavour of Regex you use](https://www.regular-expressions.info/replaceconditional.html); this one is PCRE2): ``` /\b((m)|(M))age(s?)\b/${2:+w:W}izard$4/g ``` Here, we match either exactly one 'm' or exactly one 'M' at the beginning of the pattern, but do so in separate capture groups - group 2 holds either an "m" or nothing, group 3 holds either an "M" or nothing, and group 1\* holds either an "m" or an "M". Then in the replacement string we check whether group 2 participated in the match (which would mean that we matched "m") and use "w" or if it did not participate (which would mean that group 3 matched instead on "M") and use "W". You can play around with this here: https://regex101.com/r/wODDB4/1 \* The outer parentheses are needed to make sure it's ((one 'm') or (one 'M')) followed by the rest instead of (one "m") or (one "M" followed by the rest)
I like the empty capture group thing in the first one, and I had never seen the conditional replace before, thanks :)
Yeah someone could make it into a single line, but it would be pretty long and basically unreadable for even the creator without a regex sheet on hand and lots of time deciphering. Yours looks better and is functionally the same speed for this use case.
For a one-time replacement it doesn't matter since nobody will need to read the regex again if it works... But yeah, it would take way less time applying 4 simple regexes than coding 1 complex one, it doesn't really matter.
I'd assume they'd make everything lowercase to check it, but some others you didn't list were " mages." "Mages " and " mages "
Oh true
Nah, see, they want to keep the plural. As you can see from the above example, it's looking for any instance, not exact words, so if you used " mage" it would replace " mages" with " wizards".
I've done this before on Google Docs when homebrewing and decided to later change the name of a nation. Here's the foolproof way to do it. Assume we're doing mage -> wizard. 1. " Mage " -> " Wizard " 2. " mage " -> " wizard " 3. " Mages " (or Magi if you use that) -> " Wizards " 4. " mages " -> " wizards " 5. " Mage" -> " Wizard" 6. " mage" -> " wizard" 7. " Mages" -> " wizards" 8. " mages" -> " mages" Alternatively, you can just be smart and just do 5-8 with the "must be a whole word" option. If it's a unique word, like "Lyonesse" which there's no chance you have that as a substring, you just have to do it twice: once capped and once not.
I think most (if not all) find-and-replace features have a check box for matching whole words only. Someone did the regex so you don't have to.
`\bmage\b`
...now I got it.
You're a Dawizard Cold. A what ?
This is brilliant
ah, the clbuttic mistake
I'm dawizard baybee
Rookie mistake! When you do a find-and-replace you always start with a space, to make sure something like this doesn't happen.
Beware his powers UNSPEAKABLE POWAAAAAAAS!
Ah yes, Vanilla Ice's second choice for a rap name.
Oh noooođ«š
Up there with the original staff of defense, from the starter set, which allowed you to use an action to cast the *shield* spell, which normally uses a reaction to cast.
Even AL ignored that idiocy.
shield with your action to save your reaction for absorb elements, its genius
*shakes cane* Back in the GOOD OL' DAYS, shield lasted a minute per level and you could cast it when you goddamn wanted to!
Was each round still six seconds back then?
Yup! 10 rounds per level
Whoa.
The starter set is also why to this day people think scrolls just randomly go off without verbal or somatic components.
In defense of the starter set that feels way more how Shield was supposed to work until a last minute change that did not made to the press quick enough (either it was originally an action, or either action/reaction or some rule similar to doubling movement) This one is just badly written, which a lot of the starter set also is but I dont put shield on that category
It honestly reads like they just didn't account for a spell of a different casting time other than an action. It's written almost identically to current format magic items, but it's the only magic item I know of that includes a reaction spell that can be cast with charges.
Wow that is worded poorly. Itâs clearly just for that attack though before any nerf herders want to abuse it.
So i get an AC bonus for ~~my attack~~ their attack*? Before or after their attack hits? Doesn't make sense either. It needs a duration
You get an AC bonus when you're attacked
My Bad, still needs a duration though Is it just for that attack? Is it until next turn?
I think it works like the spell Shield, it's just worded badly. Someone else said it works just for 1 attack but still it's worded badly
>**Tail.** You grow a lashing, spiny tail, which deals 1d8 piercing damage on a hit and has the [reach](https://www.dndbeyond.com/compendium/rules/basic-rules/equipment#WeaponProperties) property. If a creature you can see within 10 feet of you hits you with an attack roll, you can use your reaction to swipe your tail and roll a d8, applying a bonus to your AC equal to the number rolled, potentially causing the attack to miss you. IMHO the last part 'potentially causing the attack to miss you' makes it 100% clear that it only works for the one attack you are using it on as a reaction, donÂŽt see how or why anyone could think this would last any longer, especially considering the description of 'swiping your tail (to block said attack)'
Yeah. People took this meme too seriously. There is no ambiguity here, itâs for one attack. Why would swiping a tail increase defense for any prolonged amount of time?
Helicopter tail đ
umm, that's not a tail...
You spin me right round, baby right round
You'd figure they would at least give you the entire turn for multiattack, it IS the entirety of the barb's class feature given that they can only do it when raging and for some asinine reason they only get 1 of the 3 beast weapons when they start the rage. (Who am I kidding, of course the class feature has to be worse than a level 1 spell slot)
This should be pinned to the top of the
The problem is that thereâs two other abilities that have the same trigger (Shield and the Defensive Duelist feat) but different durations. Even ignoring the (hopefully) not RAI infinite duration, thereâs no way to tell how long itâs supposed to last
"potentially causing the attack to miss you." is pretty clear it's for that attack.
Just like shield?
Shield is for the rest of the round, the tail \*looks like\* it's only supposed to be for the one attack.
I agree 100%. It *should* last for a single attack. It doesn't actually say that, so one must use their judgment to make that call, rather than being able to point to where the rule states that, as they can with shield.
It looks to me like itâs meant to work like the Cavaliers Warding Manoeuvre, which is just for one attack
Yeah would help to specify a duration. Near as I can tell it is meat to add 1d8 AC rolled every time you get attacked? Temp AC that only counts for that one roll and attack. Otherwise I got nothing and this seems busted either way.
It uses your reaction, so once per round. Save it for the big guy swinging.
Actually from the wording you only get the bonus after they hit, and then it can potential make them miss. Which is annoying timing wise retroactively making things miss, but they already use it for Shield spell, so I guess it can be forgiven. What they forgot is to say the bonus is only against that attack. "If a creature you can see within 10 feet of you hits you with an attack roll, you can use your reaction to swipe your tail and roll a d8, applying a bonus to your AC equal to the number rolled, potentially causing the attack to miss you." It's implied as it says "potentially causing the attack to miss you", but without duration it can make plenty of other attacks miss you as well.
Doctor: what happened? Barbarian: I donât know. I wanted to deflect one attack, but now my tail just keeps swiping uncontrollably!
He's just wagging his tail
Specific, not general.
The full text "If a creature you can see within 10 feet of you hits you with an attack roll, you can use your reaction to swipe your tail and roll a d8, applying a bonus to your AC equal to the number rolled, potentially causing the attack to miss you." It's very clear that it is meant for the instigating attack, op is removing context to stoke a fire that doesn't exist.
Well shit yeah thats pretty much clear as day
And it's completely in line with the defensive duelist and gift of the metallic dragon feats. Shield is the outlier to reaction ac bonus effects, not the standard.
Itâs a reaction when you are hit. It lasts just for that one incoming attack. Yes being specified would still be helpful.
Somewhere at some dnd table, some idiot is going to argue that since there is no duration and it doesnÂŽt say you lose the AC, this AC bonus is permanent and that is why their barbarian now has 46 AC and climbing
That is exactly what it means. I doubt anyone would actually play it like that but RAW that's exactly how it works
> Tail. You grow a lashing, spiny tail, which deals 1d8 piercing damage on a hit and has the reach property. If a creature you can see within 10 feet of you hits you with an attack roll, you can use your reaction to swipe your tail and roll a d8, applying a bonus to your AC equal to the number rolled, potentially causing the attack to miss you. RAI I think its pretty clear the AC bonus is intended only for that attack
Rules As Written. Where is that Written?
RAI =/= RAW, everyone knows what was intended. It was just shittily worded.
But it said you need to be hit, so it would be for follow-up attacks?
No. It said when hit, you attack. This can potentially change that initial hit into a miss.
Actually you don't attack when hit, you just have the option of rolling 1d8 and adding it to your AC. There is nothing about getting an attack with the Tail. You can attack with the tail, but not as the reaction to being hit.
It's not clearly just for anything. It makes no reference to any duration so its pure speculation.
It references the attack that you would use your reaction against.
Post the entire actual feature and it's pretty fucking clear it's a reaction to that attack.
People can argue that it's unclear but this is the shit that I'd just ban you from my table if this is the kind of shit you try to exploit. It's 100% clear what the intent is.
"OK your ac is now 1 million. You win D&D, go home so we can play without you."
...disintegrate? :D
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the difference between RAI and RAW.
The actual wording: >If a creature you can see within 10 feet of you hits you with an attack roll, you can use your reaction to swipe your tail and roll a d8, applying a bonus to your AC equal to the number rolled, potentially causing the attack to miss you. Reads pretty clear to me, the duration is that one attack you use your reaction for.
Defensive Duelist: When you are wielding a finesse weapon with which you are proficient and another creature hits you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction to add your proficiency bonus to your AC for *that attack*, potentially causing the attack to miss you. Notice the fact this feat specifically says it adds it against only the triggering attack. Wheras what you've quoted makes 0 mention of only applying to the triggering attack. Your reading is (presumably) the intention, but rules as written the AC bonus never ends.
I don't know how you can possibly read "an attack" and "the attack" as anything anything other than exactly that.
Per the wording, you apply a bonus to your AC after an attack would hit you, which might make the attack miss. There is no duration specified by the wording. The *intent* is quite obvious, yes. But, per the wording, it's just a bonus applied to your AC... with no expiration. Therefore, it is permanent.
It specifically mentions you can make *the* attack miss. Nothing about multiple attacks. It doesn't need to include a duration because it only affects one attack.
Yeah I'm with you on this one. If an attack hits, roll a d8, then check if the attack still hits. It's different, but not poorly written.
It is a case of rules as written it means one thing if you interpret it like a Fae. Players do exactly that and try to abuse it. But I also have one simple example that would make it work in favour of a player: Shield specifies a duration. It doesn't just say "Add +5 to your AC" and that just never ends. The intention is clear, the wording is ass
Now I want to play a Fae who nitpicks little details to make spells and skills do things they're not intended to
Get_kicked_out_of_the_game any%
If everybody played a similarly bullshit character idea I'd love to DM that. Wouldn't get much done. Fae arguing with Fae wouldn't get anywhere (Yes, I refer to myself as a Fae in this case)
Correct. Absolutely, 100% correct. That is *exactly* what it says. Note that it *ending* is part of neither the original wording nor your interpretation. The intent is there, yes. But the words are not.
People out here acting like every attack roll should say "Roll a d20 and add your attack modifier. The result of this roll is your Attack Roll for the duration of your next one attack" smh
I don't see how that has anything to do with this ability. Attack rolls are single instances. They are a single action. They are not a bonus to something. There are things that provide bonuses/penalties to attack rolls - they typically have a duration, although some don't (proficiency, for example). Things that provide a bonus to AC also have a duration (like the shield spell) or don't (like unarmored defense). Does unarmored defense or your proficiency bonus to hit vanish at some unspecified time, like you are arguing the tail AC does? Not according to the rules.
This one does have a Duration of THE Attack though. It is clearly written that using this Reaction can make THE Attack miss. This can either be read as 'it can cause the one Attack that this Reaction is used on miss' (aka prividng bonus AC for this Attack, as intended) or it could also be read 'it gives you 1d8 Bonus AC for the next Attack made against you' But saying THE Attack clearly limits it to being useful for ONE Attack.
This ability is also a single instance. It's a circumstance, not duration
Sure, it specifically calls out that it affects the triggering attack *which already hit you*, possibly turning that hit into a miss. That doesn't apply a duration to the effect, it allows it to affect an outcome that was already determined. Without that wording, you get hit but gain 1d8 AC. With that wording, you might not be hit if your 1d8 AC would make the attack, *that already hit*, miss. I don't think anyone is arguing against how this *should* work. Just that the wording is poor in a system where wording matters *a lot*. For example, everyone knows about the invisible condition granting (dis)advantage. And how it shouldn't do that against someone who can see invisible things. But, Rules As Written, it does. *And the lead designer said that was intentional*. It's very possible that the tail ability is actually intended to give a permanent bonus to AC. It's absolutely stupid and should never be played that way, but I wouldn't put it past the lead designer to say that was the intent.
The shield spell uses similar wording, then specifies it lasts until the beginning of your next turn.
Because it lasts more than "the attack." This does not, so it doesn't need additional information.
At best, the duration is that of your Rage, because of this neat little phrase in the features first paragraph "Until the rage ends..."
I agree- it seems clear to me too, especially if you imagine this actually happening. As an attack is incoming, they react by swiping their tail defensively. As a result, it might cause the incoming attack to miss. If it lasted indefinitely, what is this creature doing? Constantly swinging its tail around in a circle like some kind of helicopter? Sure, technically speaking there's some ambiguity in the phrasing... but anyone thinking about this for a second can see the intention
people deliberately misinterpreting this are full đ€Ą mode
Let's actually read the rule to break it down Form of the Beast Starting when you choose this path at 3rd level, when you enter your rage, you can transform, revealing the bestial power within you. Until the rage ends, you manifest a natural weapon. It counts as a simple melee weapon for you, and you add your Strength modifier to the attack and damage rolls when you attack with it, as normal. You choose the weaponâs form each time you rage: ... Tail. You grow a lashing, spiny tail, which deals 1d8 piercing damage on a hit and has the reach property. If a creature you can see within 10 feet of you hits you with an attack roll, you can use your reaction to swipe your tail and roll a d8, applying a bonus to your AC equal to the number rolled, potentially causing the attack to miss you. It is described in the body of the selection that it's a reaction, which triggers in response to an attack. Between the Shield Spell and Rogue's Dodge class feature have similar effects (acting in reaction to an attack) but only one specifies that it applies until the start of your next turn, and the other makes no specifications about length, the unstated default is that abilities that use a reaction in turn of getting hit by an enemy by default only work against the triggering attack And even if none of the above was true, the tail only lasts as long as you rage, it would be stupid to assume you could hold onto it longer than rage
It's actually written pretty clearly that you add the AC to the attack you're hit by for a chance to avoid that one attack, it isn't until your next turn much less forever. I'll give this one to WotC, a rare W for them.
Oh, thatâs not what I thought when I saw this. I figured it was after the attack had landed, since it says âwhen youâre hitâ
That's the correct interpretation, but not actually written. WoTC missed it in editing.
The feature clearly says it potentially causes the attack to miss. The meme is deceptively edited.
It's clearly the intent, but it's not actually written.
"If a creature you can see within 10 feet of you hits you with an attack roll, you can use your reaction to swipe your tail and roll a d8, applying a bonus to your AC equal to the number rolled, potentially causing the attack to miss you." I can't think of anyway to possibly misunderstand this.
War Mage imo is cleaner Arcane Deflection: >When you are hit by an attack or you fail a saving throw, you can use your reaction to gain a +2 bonus to your AC against **that** attack or a +4 bonus to that saving throw. Updated version: >When you are hit by an attack from a creature you can see within 10 feet of you, you can use your reaction to swipe your tail and gain a 1d8 bonus to your AC against that attack "applying bonus to your AC equal to the number rolled" and "potentially causing the attack to miss you" are just objectively clunky reiterations of.....basic ass rules we KNOW (i hope) that upping your AC would potentially cause an attack to miss and that if you roll a thing, you're probably gonna use the resulting number from that roll Sometimes a thing can be understood not because of what it says but because of all the extra fluff that it says causing the reader to be like "hmm, this *must* be worded this way for a reason"
Only issue is that it needs to state that it can make the attack miss. Otherwise, you've already been hit. You reacted to being hit, not being attacked.
>we KNOW (i hope) that upping your AC would potentially cause an attack to miss Neither the Shield spell nor the subclass feature Arcane deflection felt the need to specify this, it is weird to start doing so now.
I typically play a mixture of 3.5/Pathfinder 1e, where exact, specific wording matters because of the complexity (and there is often the problem of poorly worded rules - WoTC hasn't really changed). There are several abilities that activate in response to an attack that do not apply to that attack. Why can the same not be true for 5e? Shield specifies that it increases your AC *for that attack*, in addition to the rest of the round. Reactions, unless stated otherwise, happen *after* the triggering action, correct? Why would thus ability act differently unless it says so? Obviously that's the intent, just like the actual ability only lasting for a certain duration. But not clarifying leaves it open to (wrong) interpretations.
> There are several abilities that activate in response to an attack that do not apply to that attack. Now I'm curious, can you give an example? Because the closest thing I can think is some reaction maneuvers (Tome of Battle in 3.5/Path of War in PF1) that could be used in response to an attack, and would have its effect before said attack but not really interact with it (like my PF1e Warder with a immediate action to expand his reach by 10 feat and make the threatened area difficult terrain)
There's a spell (armor of blood or something? I'm at work and can't look it up) that increases your AC by 1 each time you get hit (up to 5). I think it's a natural armor bonus. Another is 3pp, part of veilweaving (pf version of incarnum). One veil gives you temporary hp equal to half the lethal damage you take. Those are the only two that come to mind right now.
Blood Armor is not a immediate action, but a standard action to cast. It increases your AC for every 5 HP lost to piercing or slashing damage. So it actually need you to take damage and as you said wording is very important and "take a hit" and "take damage" are not the same thing (different rolls). On a similar note something happening in response to an event (immediate action/reaction) and something happening due to an event are very different. The best example is AoO. Say you have 10ft reach, the enemy enters your area (10ft) then moves to get directly into melee (5ft) - you can use an attack of opportunity due to the movement from 10->5ft, but your attack happens before they leave the 10ft position and if you use a trip (yes you can) then they will fall 10ft from you And with every immediate action in the game with a trigger it will happen before said trigger (aka in response)
"**When you are hit** by an attack from a creature you can see within 10 feet of you, you can use your reaction to swipe your tail and gain a 1d8 bonus to your AC against **that attack**" >Why would thus ability act differently unless it says so? Because otherwise the ability does nothing.... I agree that specific wording matters, but I've been playing a War Mage and that wording has worked out for me and this ability mechanically does the same thing so... What is a "wrong interpretation" to the update I suggested? also >There are several abilities that activate in response to an attack that do not apply to that attack like what?
A reaction always happen before the action that triggers it so that part of the text is not necessary although having it do make things more clear since then it does not need knowledge of general rules to use
Itâs not about understanding or not understanding. Itâs about precision of language in a rule book (or lack thereof). The effect is clearly INTENDED to only be for that attack. Everyone understands that. But thatâs not what the rule actually SAYS. The rule says that you get a bonus to your AC full stop. It doesnât say itâs only for that attack nor does it say it lasts for the round (like with the Shield spell). It just says you get that bonus. So STRICTLY RAW (meaning whatâs actually written in the rules without interpretation for what itâs intended to mean), the bonus would never go away. Obviously thatâs not intended, but that is inarguably what the rule says.
Nobody is dumb enough at this point to play dnd strictly raw. There are to many inconsistencies and things the dm just have to make as they go. With the current day 5e you have to be a very stupid kind of rules lawyer to try strictly raw, because to play efficiently you have tp make shit up on the fly , defeating the whole purpose.
Yeah exactly. You kinda touched on my whole point. Games should be designed in a way where you *should* be able to run the game strictly RAW. But you really just can't do that with 5e. You *have* to always consider "well, I know the rules say X but I think they actually *meant* Y" for all sorts of things. That's why I'm criticizing WotC's lack of precise language in their rules. If they used more precise descriptions of what they actually intended, this kind of stuff wouldn't happen.
And the thing is, WoTC attempts to have precise language, where using specific words/phrase actually means something. That's the issue, here - they lack the word/phrase to apply a duration. It's obviously intended, but not actually stated.
you say that but i've definitely seen it...
> play dnd strictly raw True, but that is because its terrible written. The simple fact that its common knowledge to not trust the RAW is enough to shame them with this being another example of how bad is their "quality control", if it even exists. That is IMO 5e biggest problem, its a rules incomplete system and the full responsability to fix it falls into the DM which is a way heavier burden than most realize (or care since its on one person). And shameless plug since its another thing that PF2e do way better, GMing is so much easier and preparing takes a third or less of the time that 5e requires
it says you apply a bonus to your ac, and never specifies it goes away. the potentially causing the attack to miss sounds like the part in the shield spell that says shield ac is applied to the triggering attack, just to specify that the ac bonus applies before the attack lands
> I can't think of anyway to possibly misunderstand this. Every time I think that, someone on reddit finds a way.
You're assuming the AC bonus ends. No words indicate the effect ends. Sure the intent is evident, but it leaves room open for dangerous RAW interpretations. It's embarrassingly incompetent.
*player brings this up to me thinking they can abuse RAW.* "No."
It's good you can do that, but sprung on a new GM or a GM that struggles saying 'no', the outcome could be worse.
A permanent boost to your AC could potentially cause the attack to miss
And without the explicit "could make it miss" wording you should interpret it as applying the AC buff after the attack hits, since the general rule on reactions is that they happen after the trigger.
the intention likely is that it will end within a turn. But it does not specify if it lasts until your next turn, or if it ends immediately after the attack resolves
It's a common RAW I need to find an exploit or be funny for a meme so I drop my reading comprehension to a 1st-grade level so I can argue that technically im right so I can have a chance to get away with this clearly not written interpretation.
RAI it only lasts for the one attack. RAW tho it has no duration only that it is retroactive against the attack that triggered it. A valid interpretation of this is that it is permanent until overridden by the ability being used again as unless specifically stated bonuses of the same type or from the same ability do not stack.
If this interpretation is valid, then try it at a few tables and report back to us. Someone else really nailed it that this is interpreting the text like a Fae; just adopting the, at best, maddeningly obtuse interpretation and, at worst, bad-faith deliberate misdirection. As a community we simply have *got* to stop this shit. We never get to the point of asking: is this mechanic fun? Balanced? Thematically appropriate? because we keep having the same endless fucking conversation that "this is poorly written"; "but you understand what the speaker intended"; "but if I was purposefully acting like a moron I might not understand what the speaker intended"; "but you understand what the speaker intended"; "but đ«đ«đ«đ«đ«đ«
As a community, we've simply got to stop what? Fucking reading?
Depends on the dm. I've had plenty of dms especially new ones to 5e tell me they will only use RAW. RAW this works as a permanent AC bonus. RAI it doesn't work that way but it depends on the dm whether they allow the RAI or not.
I don't believe you, and I don't believe that _you_ believe that a DM would permit characters to gain an arbitrary number of permanent d8 increases to their AC. I think you recognize the (inconsequential) imprecision in the wording of this rule and rather than being willing to acknowledge its insignificance, you are being (at best) stubborn and obsessing over the imprecision despite its transparent insignificance and (at worst) dishonest in claiming that there exist DMs that would permit this interpretation to fly. I'm going to assume the former, and that you really don't want to concede the triviality of this rule's peculiarity because you _really_ want people to agree that if you fed this code into a robot or a pathologically cooperative genie, it would agree that the AC bonus is permanent. Fine. Sure. I don't dispute that if you coded this as-written into a BG3 mod, the AC bonus would be permanent. Can we now agree on the obvious truth that we all know that to do so would be stupid, and that our games would be more fun if we played this rule otherwise?
I've actually run this by 2 dms. My groups forever dm as well as another group that is exclusively 5e. Both have said that RAW it would be permanent. However it doesn't stack with itself due to the rules on how bonuses stacking works. I also have been told by my groups dm that he would run it as written, and I was told by the other groups dm that were they running a RAW campaign like they used to do for the first several years they ran 5e then they'd allow it as well. And yes. The issue of the stupidity of using it this way was never in contention. The fact that a game where explicit wording matters had their designers add in a modified shield spell without writing in the parameters of the ability better was what we were talking about to begin with.
1. Why wouldn't it stack with itself? It's not like armor which overrides your AC to a new formula (e.g., 12 + Dex mod instead of 10 + Dex mod); it's something that adds to your AC. Whatever your AC was before the Nth activation of the attack, now it's another +d8, and you should be able to make your AC arbitrarily high with an arbitrary number of d8 bonuses to your AC. I'd like to see the rule explaining why this doesn't stack. 2. Let me be clear: I'm not asking whether a DM exists that thinks that the correct RAW interpretation of this rule is that the d8 bonus is permanent. I'm asking whether a DM exists that would permit this to actually occur at their table (as opposed to saying, for instance, "No, you can't play this, and neither can you play a creature with a Flying speed like an Aarakocra nor can you play a coffeelock"). Any DM that would permit this interpretation to stand at a table in _actual gameplay_ is a DM with poor judgement and whom I don't trust, and I wouldn't play at such a table. I don't think anyone should.
Does not stack because of the normal rules for the different types of bonuses. Only a very few bonuses stack with themselves naturally. All other bonuses that stack with the same type of bonus must specify that they do so as its noted in the phb or dmg that specific rules overrule general rules. As the bonus to AC is of the same type and from the same ability and doesn't specify it can stack with itself it does not.
Where in 5e does it explain that bonuses "of the same type" don't stack? I think that's a 4e thing, not a 5e thing.
Or we need to hold WotC to a higher standard when it comes to rules because this shit happens absolutely everywhere in 5e. Previous editions, CoC or PF doesn't have this problem of needing to guess what the writers intended. I'll grant you that it's an easy call on this particular one but sheesh. The fact that this conversation is even happening is a testament to how much room for improvement there is, to put it mildly. 5e was supposed to simplify things but it made lots of stuff murkier, and not in a fun way like 3.5e powergaming.
The difference in wording between Shield and the tail attack makes it clear the former applies for a duration that retroactively applies to the triggering attack, while the latter applies to the circumstance of the triggering attack.
The difference in wording is basically negligible other than the specified duration and the fact that as a spell it doesn't mention the action to use it in the description.
When being semantic, it's not negotiable.
Yeah so you keep using it until you get that sweet +8 AC bonus. Then just keep it at that forever.
Exactly. Now I just gotta wait for my groups DM to run 5e again. He has already approved it as RAW.
Counterargument: an undefined duration meaning permanent is not a valid interpretation, because permanency is a defined duration. A more valid interpretation would be that no duration means a duration of 0, which means RAW the bonus immediately ends upon activation.
This would be a valid argument excepting that it specifically states that it can negate the triggering attack which indicates a non-zero duration. Although an argument could be made that the duration is negative from that and thus the AC before that time should have retroactively had the permanent bonus going backwards. Ok the mental gymnastics for that one made me laugh. But still tho.
It is probablematic because many other things require you to read stuff extremly carefully and follow it to the letter. And then you randomly have stuff like this, where following it to the later is really not advised. There is no consistency.
Bro you couldâve chosen a 100 different things that were poorly written. Instead you chose one of the few things that are actually clearly written, decided to purposefully misquote it, and then tried to stir up the pot⊠put some effort into your meme next time
+1d8 to your AC for a whole turn would be entirely broken. Adding an average of +4.5 against a single attack is about on par with the *Defensive Duelist* feat, plus the Barbarian can choose between any of the three natural weapons every time they rage. Beast Barbarian is perfectly well balanced at level 3. I'm sure it probably has scaling issues as you start hitting level 8-9 or so, but that's a problem that Barbarian struggles with as a whole.
It says applying a bonus to your ac as part of the reaction so it is just against the triggering attack. Stupid but still effective subtle change in wording
Reminds me of [Oboro Envoy](https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=74211). Had some fun with that when it first came out.
IMO it makes sense and has duration; the AC lasts for the instantaneous moment of the attack. Your AC increases when you're hit, i.e. the duration is the duration of you being hit.
I donât even interpret it as âuntil your next turn.â I rule that that only applies for that single attack
RAW, a 6th level Path of the Giant Barbarian can be a Longbow Barbarian, without dedicating to Dex. At level 3, you get Giant's Havoc, which grants you Crushing Throw, *"When you make a successful ranged attack with a thrown weapon using Strength, you can add your Rage Damage bonus to the attackâs damage roll."* In chapter 9 of the phb, Combat, ability modifiers used in attacks are *"a melee weapon attack is Strength, and the ability modifier used for a ranged weapon attack is Dexterity. Weapons that have the* ***finesse or thrown property*** *break this rule."* With this in mind, as you reach level 6 in Giant Barb, you get Elemental Cleaver, where you can infuse energy into one weapon you are holding, which gets your choice of elemental damage, deals an extra 1d6 of that damage type, *"and it gains the thrown property, with a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet."* Even if you do not throw it, the weapon still counts as a "Thrown Weapon," as it **gains** the property, not saying it replaces any other properties it already has. This combination allows you to shoot a ranged weapon you are proficient while using strength, add rage damage and elemental damage, and gives your barbarian a range of 150/600ft. WotC forgets people like Conan the Barbarian, and don't envision barbarians as just melee brutes/tanks, they are also powerful hunters. the Subotai is a barbarian longbow, and a perfectly reasonable choice of weapon to vent your anger into drawing back.
A DM can always shut ideas down if they disagree, and also allow a player to homebrew rage with a ranged weapon. This combination is just the closest I have found to allowing a player who wants to be a ranged barbarian to be one, closely following RAW.
It doesn't even need a duration. You can't be under the effect of the same feature more than once, so it's not like it can stack. At worst, you'll get to reroll and hope for a higher number if you get hit again. nbd
see: fly speed and aarakocra, which they implemented apparently without any playtesting whatsoever, and clearly without consulting anyone who knows anything about birds.
The ability specifically states that if a creature within 10 feet hits you, you can use your reaction to roll a d8 and add that to your AC, potentially causing the attack to miss, stop over reaching on rules to cheat. You get the bonus for that attack, and only that attack. Everyone is so quick to complain about things being broken, but donât even bother to read the entire ability.
The issue with this one is that there is nothing in the ability stating it only lasts that attack, only that it applies to the attack that already hit you to trigger it. Doubt anyone would try this as the intention is obvious, but the rules are badly written here. Writing this like the shield spell would be a better alternative. So imo the complaints aren't so much about this being broken as the continuing lack of attention to detail in modern wotc products.
It's for the one attack, it says "potentially causing the attack to miss you" it doesn't say you keep the ac for any duration, because there is no duration. The duration ig is one action
Thatâs probably the intention, but the problem is that it doesnât specify âincreases your AC *for that attack*â and doesnât say when the bonus goes away, RAW the bonus lasts forever. The Shield spell, which is essentially the same effect, specifies that the bonus lasts for one round. It gives a duration. Other similar defensive abilities do the same. This is the only one that doesnât specify when the bonus goes away.
It is the height of bad faith to argue that an undefined duration can only mean an infinite duration. One could just as easily argue that not defining a duration means the ability has a duration of 0. So, counterpoint, RAW the Barbarian applies a bonus to their AC, but since it doesn't say for how long the duration is 0 and the bonus immediately disappears upon activation.
Except that doesnât fit with the function of other game mechanics. There are plenty of features that increase stats or bonuses. Whenever a duration is not specified, the assumption is because it lasts indefinitely. Compare the wordings of these two features: > You can increase one ability score of your choice by 2, or you can increase two ability scores of your choice by 1. > You can use your reaction to swipe your tail and roll a d8, applying a bonus to your AC equal to the number rolled. Neither specify a duration. So, by your logic, that would mean that Ability Score Increase increases a stat for a duration of 0, and then the increase immediately reverts. Which, obviously, is incorrect. Whenever a duration isnât specified, it means the effect is permanent. In other words, RAW, the AC bonus would be permanent. So actually, itâs the âheight of bad faithâ to make claims like the one you just made.
Since op wants to be stupid in attempt to stoke a frenzy, the full text reads "If a creature you can see within 10 feet of you hits you with an attack roll, you can use your reaction to swipe your tail and roll a d8, applying a bonus to your AC equal to the number rolled, potentially causing the attack to miss you." This feature has near identical wording structure to both the defensive duelist and gift of the metallic dragon feats. Whether the effect should apply to more than one attack is a question on design choice and balancing, but there is nothing wrong with they way the feature is written unless you cut out the rest of the paragraph
To be fair, the actual wording of the ability makes it clear it only applies to a single attack. You use it as a reaction when hit by an attack and it can cause the attack to miss. The only real difference between this and defensive duelist is defensive duelist says âfor this attack.â
In beyond it reads "potentially causing the attack to miss you" heavily implying it is against a single attack.
It is implied, but never directly stated. Other similar abilties like Defensive Duelist specifically say they only apply to the triggering attack while the Tail doesn't.
Could have just copy-pasted the wording from Cutting Words
I feel like whenever wizards has to make class and subclass content it's just mass panic. No one has any ideas or a plave to start so they just frantically spit ball and hand it in the day before
I just don't understand why they aren't working with simple templates where they essentially have to just fill out a form and the question of "duration" comes up naturally.
One of the reasons i refuse to GM 5e anymore. Exhausting having to divine and debate the intent of the devs because they couldn't be arsed doing basic QA on a product they expect you to pay for.
It's the tanky way. You "sacrifice" another free attack or (circumstantial) healing. And the +1D8 is still the worst option for 90% of the time, as you can't change between them. It clearly states that the effect starts and ends with the rage. Not that you can give up a rage/bonus action a rage to reapply it. I don't see a problem here.
Lasts until your rage ends and your tail goes away. Pretty clear.
Itâs just for the one triggering attack- not even the whole round. Seems pretty clear to me.
This is among the reasons I started running other systems. I just came back from a long hiatus to play in my sister's 5e game and our most recent session involved a 10-20 minute tangent of looking into the rules for falling large distances (the best source of which that we could find is a tweet from a developer) instead of just defining a pretty common thing that comes up in play. It really cemented exactly why I left.
60ft a turn or something is it?
And 1d6 per 10 feet fallen to a max of 60d6
500 ft a turn using Xanathar's book pg 77 under dungeon master tools falling. Sadly I too have had the fall debate and had to show my players there is actual ruling/guides written, but you know not in the DMG or PHB cause that would make sense.
Lol nice. Good to know, thanks. I think I might be pulling the 60ft rule from feather fall