Improved War Magic doesn't allow two leveled spells with spell slots, even with Action Surge. The spellcasting rule still prevents casting two spells with spell slots on the same turn, regardless of which action it's part of. It simply uses the Magic action as an example (it explicitly calls it an example, not a rule) in the followup after that, because that is normally how a spell is cast.
I mean, if the “specific beats general” rule still applies then it absolutely works. Fair to say that there’s still some confusion :P. In any case, this is such a niche scenario it’s not really all that impactful.
Uh, the feature would literally be half useless to say you can cast two spells instead of an attack if that was the case. Specific rules override the basic rules.
Mm, my thought is the intention was they can use multiple castings of the blade cantrips, (booming blade, green flame blade etc) Since the rule for not casting more than one leveled spell using a spell slot seems unbreakable with it's language and the designer's direction.
The funny thing is that the 2014 rule isn't super difficult to understand. The problem has ALWAYS been that in the early days people started short handing the rule to "You can only cast one levelled spell in a turn" which is literally not how the rule works. And people heard it so often that they didnt bother to read the rule. Thats it. That's the core of the problem. It's simply an issue of people mis-quoting the rule, and not checking it to ensure they remembered it right.
Its amazing that a starting feat (magic initiate) allows you to cast a spell WITHOUT using a spell slot. So if you grab cleric and healing word - you can use your magic initiates "free casting" to cast healing word as a bonus action AND cast a leveled spell on the same turn.
You can use Healer Feat on the creature, then MA Cure Wounds, followed by a lv1 Spell Cast Cure Wounds. Healing up to 3 creatures in one turn or 1 creature 3 times from 0 HP. It kind of makes Tough useless when you can triple heal in one turn at lv1 Human Cleric.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615Not sure how you think Healer fits in here. To use Healer, you use the Utilize Action. So you can't stack it with Cure Wounds, let alone TWO castings of Cure Wounds in the same turn. Healer does have a passive that works all the time though, which lets you reroll 1's when you heal. The Magic Action is just categorizing the *Type* of Action. You still need to use your Action to cast it, regardless of whether or not you need to spend a spell slot to cast it. And you certainly still need to use your Action to use the Healers kit. You cant magically somehow get away with using three Actions on your turn when you only have 1. However, this does mean you can use Magic Initiate to get Cure Wounds or Healing Word. Then, once per Long Rest, you could use your Action and Bonus to heal a creature(s) with Cure Wounds and Healing Word, all in one turn.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 put Tough on the cleric so you have a priest who can smack the shit out of the enemy alongside the fighter without having to worry about keeping themselves up. Won't need healing when the enemy is dead.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 healer feat uses an action, so no, you cannot use that because it takes away your action (only exception is thief subclass who can use it as a bonus action, still no 3 healings) You still have 1 action and 1 bonus action only Magic action is an action, is like taking the attack action or Utilize object action, all of those are uses of your ACTION
@FarothFuin Provided that Cure Wounds is a Bonus Action. As you follow the Spell Rules. If Cure Wounds is an Action Cast, not BA (or by other features), then true.
Quickened spell was generally always good for just 3 things: - if you really needed to take an action like the dash or Dodge action but wanted to still cast a spell - if you had a spell like moon beam that required your action to move or use it again, since that isn't "casting a spell" - take advantage of spells like sun beam which let you use them again as an action but fail to say "on subsequent turns" so you can use it twice on the turn you cast it
On some builds (for example, Sorcadin of the "2 in Paladin, Sorc rest" variety), Quickened Spell Booming Blade was also a fun and quite a useful combat tool, allowing you to emulate Extra Attack while adding the booming energy to your Smite-bearing strikes.
Something I haven’t seen people talk about is the Thief Rogue’s ability to use the magic action as a bonus action to use a magic item. So a 3 level dip allows you to fireball with a wand of fireball as a bonus action, then do it again as an action or cast your own spell. With that, plus cunning action being a solid feature for any class, Thief Rogue suddenly becomes something to consider (though 3 levels is a fairly big dip).
I really like the changes to Verbal Spell Components, which states the voice is at normal volume. Which means the casting of Message, is at a normal voice level, followed by the spell effect's whispering.
I like the new counterspell - its not obscenely powerful. I think both players and monsters (DM) enjoy doing the action that they intend do to - so making something that prevents this a little less powerful is good for all parties.
Agreed. Changing Counterspell to a Con save risked making it useless against creatures with pretty much auto Con save success, but since it looks like most creatures won’t be casting spells but rather using intrinsic magic, that’s not really an issue. What DMs need to remember now is to properly scale NPC spellcasters’ Con save bonuses so that there is a reasonable window for them to cast spells successfully while making it possible for PCs to have a chance to Counterspell them.
With divine smite being a spell and taking a bonus action. The only way to smite with 2 attacks would be to take 5 levels of warlock and at least 1 level of paladin. Take eldritch smite (which takes no action and isnt a spell) and whatever paladin smite you want. Looks like bladelock/paladins are still on the menu, and you dont have to go hexblade, so it opens up the paladin to other warlock subclasses as well.
I wish Paladin's Smite and Faithful Steed weren't bad features with these spellcasting rules. With Paladin's Smite, you could maybe cheese something if auto-upcasted to your highest Paladin Spell slot (but no, no, no, just level 1). With Faithful Steed you've this other feature that similarly doesn't upcast Find Steed to your highest Paladin spell slot (which, with a permanent duration, makes using it after you get access to spell-slots above level 2 a near useless benefit). Similarly the change from the playtest where Faithful Steed turned Find Steed into an action to cast is gone, meaning Fullcasters can not only use Wish to conjure an 8th level, permanent, Find Steed, but do so as an action (so the Paladin "exclusive" spell is better on a Wizard, Bard and Cleric, which is just a "wtf" kinda design choice). But then Mounted Combat Rules come into play preventing your Find Steed as a *Controlled Mount* from using those unique new features (dodge, disengage and dash only) unless the Paladin is unconscious. The only interesting interactions I can think of with the Paladin smite spells come in the form of the origin feat Savage Attacker and the Cleave Weapon property allowing you to, on hit, roll to hit a 2nd target with your attack (which should allow you to double dip with Smite effects on 2 targets), with Savage Attacker being able to reroll the damage dice for a slightly higher damage output on the 2 targets from the single attack. Though some folks think the Smite spell extra damage isn't a part of your weapon damage die, but if that was the case, you wouldn't be able to crit with the Smite spells at all.
I think there are a few errors in the video based on the text of the new rule. 1) EK will not be able to cast more than one spell in turn under the new rules because the word "cast" was used in the description and the limit of one level spell applies to anything cast in turn regardless of the type of action. 2) Reactions will be more powerful under the new rules because of the rules' use of the word "turn". Any spell cast as a reaction that occurs outside of your turn will no longer count towards your limit making them potentially unlimited so long as you can get more reactions. 3) I think this new rule makes magic items and class abilities that give you the ability to cast without expending a spell slot more powerful.
For point 1, the jury is out so who knows. As for point 2 though, off the top of my head there are no ways to obtain additional reactions but I could be forgetting something. In any case though, I wasn’t speaking about Reaction casting generally, but rather specifically the interaction of counterspelling a counterspell on your own turn. For point 3 this is literally what I said lol
12:16 one thing is already mentioned by wotc and jeremy crawfoed is that in the new monster manual and the npc's DONT use spell slots at all, they instead have a spellcasting feature with a "spells per day table", so they DONT use spellslots which means they dont follow the rule of "1 spell w spellslots per turn" But, it was also said that in RAW npcs with counterspell are counted with a hand or two, so there's that
re-Counterspell : *or* someone else in your party also has Counterspell prepared and can counterspell the counterspell. (Unless I'm missing something.)
Even if you cast a spell using a spell slot on your turn, you would still be able to cast counterspell because you're casting it as a reaction on someone else's turn. The limitation is 1 spell slot per turn not 1 spell slot per round.
Your example is true except that the video is talking about no longer able to protect your own Spell you've casted with a Spell Slot from (generally) an enemy Counterspell with your own Counterspell on your turn.
@@xiongray Shield Spell Reaction to avoid self damage by exploding barrels with Magic Bullet on my turn... Is one example. That won't be possible in 2024 since both spells are Leveled Spells.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 It's possible to learn Shield or Magic Missile through Magic Initiate: Wizard. In that way, you could cast it without a spell slot, no problem.
@xiongray True. But it still doesn't solve the issue that when your Reaction Lv Spells activate. If you casted a lv spell prior, you can not cast a Reaction Spell. It's rare to occur but not impossible. Maybe this will be explained RAI in future Sage Advice/Erratas. This is most common in cases when casting Shield to avoid an enemy Opportunity Attack. But then, taking the Magic Action is stuck with non Spell Slot casting.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615You're acting like there is 1. Something that needs to be explained. 2 Like there is an issue. There's nothing to be explained. If you spend a spell slot to cast a Reaction spell on Your turn. Then you can't cast another spell using a Spell Slot on that turn. Or vice versa with casting a spell with a spell slot as your action. That's the rule. It's not ambiguous. There is no issue with it because that is what was intended. It's a *choice* that you now need to make. If you're of the opinion that it's an issue, then that's not an issue with the rules being unlear.
11:11 I love this. It buffs any racial feature or feat that grants free spells. And it eliminates the counterspell battles (for the most part). They could be pretty cool the first couple times it happens but it gets (at least for me) kinda lame very fast. Another cool change is to rituals. Now its just a part of the spell itself.
upon first hearing the new rule, I thought it was an elegant clean up. But then I heard/saw/realized that Quicken spell has to have its own little awkward addition to prevent someone from using a feature that allows casting a spell without a spell slot , then a quickened fireball or some such. Not quite as elegant. I would say that the improved war magic feature does not override the general rule, as the general rule does not have anything to do with what action you are using to cast with a spell slot and Improved War Magic does not override that. Almost all the ways to cast a spell without a spell slot still require casting with a magic action, and there is no way to get additional magic actions on a turn, thereby limiting casting. Users of improved War Magic can still cast multiple leveled spells per turn, if they have a way to cast a spell without a spell slot and then action surge and replace two of their attacks with a 1st or second level spell.
Did we really need that addition to Quicken Spell? It still costs a valuable resource. Would it be totally broken to allow for a Quickened Fireball after another spell (that was cast without a spell slot)? I don't see it myself.
I wonder if there is or there is going to be a rules clarification for reactions as a whole that while they can occur during your turn, they are not apart of your turn and thus aren’t subject to any 1/turn limit
Yeah, I would expect that as an errata pretty quickly. Reactions aren’t a part of a character or NPC’s turn - they are an interruption of someone else’s turn. Counterspelling someone else’s Counterspell is an interruption of an interruption, not a part of that character or NPC’s turn. With the new way Counterspell is written, this is especially true, since it says the spell slot of the blocked spell isn’t consumed. Therefore, you’re not casting a second leveled spell in a turn, you’re casting the first leveled spell in a turn. OK, that quickly becomes a paradox, which makes it much cleaner to interpret things as above.
I don't understand what is so hard to understand about this. You get an action and bonus action. If you cast a spell with a bonus action, you can use you action for a cantrip and that's it. The new rules are just getting rid of the actuon surge bs. One spell slot per turn. Most if not all bonus action spells cost a slot, so it's still one bonus action and one action which is probably a cantrip. You don't get any "cheats" on other turns because they're not actions, just reactions, like before, which is basically ok as it was before.
3:26 wait, does that imply you could, say, Magic Stone and Misty Step in the same turn? Not broken, just weird. Edit: sorry, wait. Better example: second wind and then misty step.
There are many many ways to "break" the two level spells per turn. Warlock mystical arcanum, magic initiate, fey touched, cleric's divine intervention, scrolls/magic items (depends on how they're worded), etc. I feel like this might have been an oversight on WOTC's side. I think there should be some exceptions - but those should be accessible at higher levels.
You mean lv15+ on the level of Wish etc.???... It's not worth that restriction when the campaign will never reach lv15+. While WotC struggles with lv15+ Modules.
wild heart barb / celestial warlock with gift of ever living ones & life drinker.. gotta sacrifice 16 con for 14 to get a 16 cha so u get 3d6 (maximized) from the bonus action healing feature, add life drinker & ur lookin at 28 or 32 hp back on a turn & this is essentially doubled if your up against weapon or elemental damage, healing potions or ring of spell storing boost your resource pool further, on this build you’ll get 6th level spells at 14th but you can get tasha’s bubbling cauldron for potions of resist wen you know what typa enemy ur going up against, finally boom of recovery is amazing cuz it stacks with celestial capstone & u get an additional 10d10 (maximized) as a bonus action
Oh. There are quite a few changes I would make to the magic system. I would use mana instead of spell slots as a resource. I would organize classes and spells in four general categories. These categories are nature, arcane, occult and holy. I would reorganize magic schools in a way that makes a lot more sense. The biggest change is to classify healing spells as abjuration instead of evocation. Oh this video is about action economy as well. In that case, it is better to go the Pathfinder route. This video talks about how players are all confused about how many spells they can cast per turn. Oh. This be would be so much easier if each spell caused action points. It is possible for players to abuse the system and cast too much in one turn. In that case casting certain spells after the first one would come with a penalty. This video did get into passive class abilities. I can work with this. There are two classes that heavily focus on magic and spells. That is the wizard and sorcerer. I think they can have passive abilities that improve their actions economy. This allows them to cast additional spells, and these spells don't have penalty. This is fair, because it makes up for their terrible martial ability. A wizard can have an ability where it gets extra action points per turn. However these action points can only be used on spells. A sorcerer has a special ability where it casts spells without using action points at all. This ability has a cost of sorcery points.
This video does get into counter spell. Players of both DND and MTG ( Magic the Gathering) tend to complain about that a lot. I don't mind this personally. I think it is valid. Then again, I like using counter spells and blue in general in MTG. So I might be biased. The actions are tricky. MTG has counterspell cards with the instant feature. Therefore they can be cast at any time. So counterspells are just cast on the opponent's turn. Pathfinder gives one reaction point per turn. So players can react to whatever the opponent does. So a counterspells can just cost one reaction point. I did think of a way to nerf counterspells. That can help stop the complaints. However I was careful not to nerf too much. So the spell is still useful and significant. Counterspells have the effect of slowing down the opponent. The opponent can't cast the countered spell at all during their turn. They loose the short term resource the spell uses. This resource gets replenished every turn. However the opponent can cast the same spell later. They don't loose the long term resource the spell uses. Long term resources don't get automatically replenished over time. In an RPG like DND and Pathfinder, a countered spell has a loss of action points. However this spell does not loose any mana or spell slots. A successful version of the spell would use up both kinds of resources. In a TCG like MTG, a countered spell has a loss of mana. However the spell card returns to the players hand. From the hand, the card can be played on a later turn. The resource cards (lands) do remain tapped. So they are not usable until the next turn. They do remain on the resource area, so they are not discarded.
So let me get this straight. If you cast fireball and an enemy counterspells you, you cannot counterspell them as it is still your turn but anyone else could. Counterspelling counterspell got nerfed. Intriguing
apparently you can use any feature from 2014 that didn’t get replaced, so custom lineage for elven accuracy plus origin feat sounds fun, the new great old one gets a pseudo heavy obscurement typa ability that sounds fun, start pally for heavy armor? gift of the ever living ones should b available too so those cure wounds upcasts are gonna b lovely, 80 + cha mod for a 5th level pact slot, maybe i could get a ring of spell storing for my invisible imp that hides in my backpack so they can cast it on me in combat, 3 attacks with devouring blade + hex (disadvantage on saving throws) + gwm, gotta take new mage slayer, n omg boon of recovery would b insane, of and with create thrall i can modify the casting of summon aberration so my imp can have 1 & give it commands since imps can talk, & i can have 1 or maybe 2 out on the field
This works in both systems but I have been playing a Divene Soul in Dragonlance one of my most used moves is Quicken Spell Bane and Twin Spell Viscous mockery or Frostbite Depending on the DM. Another I have done is aginst a single Big Boss I have cast Mind Sliver and fallowed with quickened Tasha's Mind Whip or Synaptic Static. I am the first Debuff caster the DM has dealt with before and he is not liking it at all.
So correct me if I'm wrong I don't have access to the rules just yet but even if you have used a spell slot during your turn you can still use counter spell because reactions aren't tied to your turn they can be used during anyone's turn. The rule for spell casting is one spell slot per turn. Reactions happen outside of your turn. I might be wrong but that's how I'm reading it
No, you’re correct. The distinction I was making was to counterspell a counterspell that was cast during your turn. This was possible under 2014 rules without anything complicated happening. Under 2024 rules it can happen but you need to meet the right circumstances.
@@InsightCheck I think what I'm trying to say is reactions happen outside of your turn even if it's your turn. You can use a reaction once per round whenever but because it just so happens to land in your turn means it's part of it? If that was true you wouldn't be able to counter spell at all unless you didn't spend a spell slot in your turn.
custom lin elven accuracy + grappler mercy monk with gloom stalker dip? if a creature is grappled by you that’s eventually 5-6 attacks all with3 dice adv +1d6 from hunters mark & if u crit you can use hand of harm + that new gloom stalker feature, even if you don’t crit it’s still not bad damage + the control from grappling
@@X20Adam custom lin can be anything u want it to be, i love how u didn’t even give a reason why u can’t do it u just said “u can’t do it cuz u can’t do it” 🤣🤣 like tf
So did we fix the hole where wizard clerics get to learn all spells due to the rule saying they can prepare any spell due to spell slot, and not class level? The book implies there is a MC level restriction, but this only applies to all other classes RAR
That loophole doesn't exist in the new phb. The Spellcasting feature works in tandem with Multiclassing rules to ensure it doesn't. However if you're using any backwards compatability, the loophole still exists in the Cartomancer feat.
Don't magic items and spell scrolls require the use of the Magic action to activate? If so, then you can't use them to circumvent the new spell casting rule.
As far as Spell Scrolls go, they inherit the same casting time as the spell they were scribed from. So Shield, for example (depending on how your table runs holding/getting items) could be very useful. This does not take the Magic Action.
Nope. Not RAW. It uses the Free Action or the Item Use Action. Depending on the item. Magic Items and Scrolls do not consume a Spell Slot when you use it on your turn.
@@jasonhenry8067 Unless the EK has a feature specific effect to trump the general rule. Then yes... You can use the scroll. Provided that the Spell in the Scroll is of a Bonus Action, Free Action, Reaction, etc. As it doesn't use a Spell Slot. After or before using a scroll, you can cast your level spell using a spell slot. Cantrips, scrolls, Magic Item Charges, and anything explicit about not using Spell Slots, are all valid. Just be careful about trying to cast two Fire Balls with Action + Action. It doesn't work like that. Action Economy still exists. On the flip side... If you do use Spell Slot to cast a spell, Then, be careful not to cast a level spell as a reaction on your turn... It's jank like that, but it's RAW. Not RAI.
1 Massive thing that I'm scared of, is this magic change against bosses with legendary actions. Legendary actions are not an extra turn, they are "at the end of another players turn". This means casting fireball at a dragon, with absorb elements prepared doesn't matter. You cast a spell this turn. You're not casting another :/ (or legaction->counterspell) I know Legendary actions are becoming reaction abilities, but the same problem applies unless I'm just unable to find the ruling and would like to be disproved
From the preview of the green dragon that I saw I don't think it's an issue. The stat block had a few slots for higher level spells, but the spell tied to it's reaction was "at will". Therefore, when designing a creature there's always the option to make any reaction spell an "at will" ability with a specific trigger listed in the design. Secondly, as a GM I'd be okay with Monsters not having the same rule. They can have 8 arms and 8 reactions, walk through walls at will, and be immune to all weapons not named "sally". If a specific creature, say a Lich, needs to be able to cast multiple leveled spells in a round then make it happen.
So according to the rules if I cast a levelled spell like burning hands and then I move but someone is able to hit me with an opportunity attack, I cant cast shield as a reaction? I just want to be clear. What about if the next person in the round goes like then enemy tries to hit me. could I cast shield or counterspell then?
Twin spell now just lets you upcast a spell 1 level more than what you cast it at, if that spell is one that lets you target an additional creature when it is upcast. If you cast Tasha's mind whip at 2nd level, and use Twin Spell, then because the spell upcasts to target one additional creature per slot, you would target Two creatures with it.
If you are an Aberrant Mind Sorcerer you can cast spells directly from Sorcery Points, without converting them. However, at the time of writing I didn’t have the new PHB and turns out none of the spells on the list apply for Twinning and you can’t swap spells anymore from your Psionic list.
@@InsightCheckWeirdest change to abberant mind is that in Psionic Sorcery doesn't require material components "unless they are consumed by the spell *OR* have a cost specified in it." Which.... since they can no longer swap out spells, means the only spell from their Psionic Spells you can't use Psionic Sorcery with is Summon Aberration. Which is just a bit odd. Feels like a nerf that was added to tone down the subclass before the nerf to changing spells was implemented. Oh, you _could_ argue that it also couldnt be used on Detect Thoughts, since the material component is 1 Copper Piece. But that's mostly just joking
Hey Mr. Insight, I've been working on an Elden Ring RPG and also been thinking about a version of dnd where instead of an action and a bonus action, you have a right-hand action and a left-hand action. Wanna chip in? XD I'm just being cheeky - I love your work and I would love to know what your ideal version of dnd looks like. Do you think you'll ever make a video about that?
First, excellent point RE Aberrant mind Sorc. *** Second however, Why is NO ONE, including this vid, discussing the change to the thief rouge's fast Hands feature allowing the magic action now? Please comment on the build implications of this changs
This all seems sadly abuseable. If they'd stipulated "one levelled spell per turn" it would be clean and simple. Instead it looks rushed and awkward, with far too many ways of gaming the system
I will still run with the "Only one leveled Spell per turn" rule cause being able to cast a spell that you know without a spellslot is busted especially for Warlock, who has numerous Spells that they can either cast at will or without expensing a spellslot once, lets not even talk about the Mystic Arcanums which technically they dont use spellslots for either ☠️. Also unpopular opinion but the old Counterspell was not broken xd. Edit: I just realised that the new "caster" monsters no longer use spellslots, so does that mean they can cast an unlimited number of spells 😩.
I don't mind SOME ways to change this feature (divine intervention, warlock mystical arcanum), but scrolls and feats available on levels 1-4 are a tad... too much.
So to summarize, the magic “system” in D&D is so bodged together, so irrational and arbitrary, so much of a kludge that even though my character CAN cast a spell I would almost always rather just hit something (possibly my dm) over the head than try to do anything with magic. GREAT JOB, WOTC! You’ve created a fantasy setting where a primary fantasy element is LESS fun than almost any other option on your turn.
My advice: don’t pay for the rules. Just use free rules or homebrew your older version, if you like anything here. This is such an underwhelming revision. Expecting people to pay full price for three essentially identical books is pretty cheeky.
@@HorizonOfHope WotC doesn’t, but D&D does imo. Moreover, I don’t think of it like so and so doesn’t deserve it. I want the book, I’m gonna buy it 🤷🏼♂️ Also essentially identical? What book are you talking about?
I mean… to each their own. I see a lot of value in it if you’re someone getting into the game now, you’re essentially getting the benefit of 10 years of content for one $50 book. That’s great value. Whether players want to use Homebrew content is ultimately up to them or if they don’t see value in this.
Not exactly no. What it says is that if the spell is successfully countered, the countered spell does not consume a spell slot. It’s a bit convoluted though.
SUPPORT LONE COLOSSUS GAMES
www.lonecolossusgames.com/
Improved War Magic doesn't allow two leveled spells with spell slots, even with Action Surge. The spellcasting rule still prevents casting two spells with spell slots on the same turn, regardless of which action it's part of. It simply uses the Magic action as an example (it explicitly calls it an example, not a rule) in the followup after that, because that is normally how a spell is cast.
I mean, if the “specific beats general” rule still applies then it absolutely works. Fair to say that there’s still some confusion :P. In any case, this is such a niche scenario it’s not really all that impactful.
Uh, the feature would literally be half useless to say you can cast two spells instead of an attack if that was the case. Specific rules override the basic rules.
@zarekodynski9077 this was essentially my thought. The 18th level feature would feel very lacklustre if you couldn’t do it.
Mm, my thought is the intention was they can use multiple castings of the blade cantrips, (booming blade, green flame blade etc)
Since the rule for not casting more than one leveled spell using a spell slot seems unbreakable with it's language and the designer's direction.
@@deanstavru7138agree
The funny thing is that the 2014 rule isn't super difficult to understand. The problem has ALWAYS been that in the early days people started short handing the rule to "You can only cast one levelled spell in a turn" which is literally not how the rule works.
And people heard it so often that they didnt bother to read the rule. Thats it. That's the core of the problem.
It's simply an issue of people mis-quoting the rule, and not checking it to ensure they remembered it right.
Its amazing that a starting feat (magic initiate) allows you to cast a spell WITHOUT using a spell slot. So if you grab cleric and healing word - you can use your magic initiates "free casting" to cast healing word as a bonus action AND cast a leveled spell on the same turn.
You can use Healer Feat on the creature, then MA Cure Wounds, followed by a lv1 Spell Cast Cure Wounds.
Healing up to 3 creatures in one turn or 1 creature 3 times from 0 HP.
It kind of makes Tough useless when you can triple heal in one turn at lv1 Human Cleric.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615Not sure how you think Healer fits in here.
To use Healer, you use the Utilize Action. So you can't stack it with Cure Wounds, let alone TWO castings of Cure Wounds in the same turn.
Healer does have a passive that works all the time though, which lets you reroll 1's when you heal.
The Magic Action is just categorizing the *Type* of Action. You still need to use your Action to cast it, regardless of whether or not you need to spend a spell slot to cast it. And you certainly still need to use your Action to use the Healers kit.
You cant magically somehow get away with using three Actions on your turn when you only have 1.
However, this does mean you can use Magic Initiate to get Cure Wounds or Healing Word. Then, once per Long Rest, you could use your Action and Bonus to heal a creature(s) with Cure Wounds and Healing Word, all in one turn.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 put Tough on the cleric so you have a priest who can smack the shit out of the enemy alongside the fighter without having to worry about keeping themselves up. Won't need healing when the enemy is dead.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 healer feat uses an action, so no, you cannot use that because it takes away your action (only exception is thief subclass who can use it as a bonus action, still no 3 healings)
You still have 1 action and 1 bonus action only
Magic action is an action, is like taking the attack action or Utilize object action, all of those are uses of your ACTION
@FarothFuin
Provided that Cure Wounds is a Bonus Action. As you follow the Spell Rules. If Cure Wounds is an Action Cast, not BA (or by other features), then true.
Quickened spell was generally always good for just 3 things:
- if you really needed to take an action like the dash or Dodge action but wanted to still cast a spell
- if you had a spell like moon beam that required your action to move or use it again, since that isn't "casting a spell"
- take advantage of spells like sun beam which let you use them again as an action but fail to say "on subsequent turns" so you can use it twice on the turn you cast it
On some builds (for example, Sorcadin of the "2 in Paladin, Sorc rest" variety), Quickened Spell Booming Blade was also a fun and quite a useful combat tool, allowing you to emulate Extra Attack while adding the booming energy to your Smite-bearing strikes.
Something I haven’t seen people talk about is the Thief Rogue’s ability to use the magic action as a bonus action to use a magic item. So a 3 level dip allows you to fireball with a wand of fireball as a bonus action, then do it again as an action or cast your own spell. With that, plus cunning action being a solid feature for any class, Thief Rogue suddenly becomes something to consider (though 3 levels is a fairly big dip).
3 levels will be the dip for all subclasses now, so I don't think that's an issue.
I really like the changes to Verbal Spell Components, which states the voice is at normal volume. Which means the casting of Message, is at a normal voice level, followed by the spell effect's whispering.
I thought V was to scream out the spell like a typical magic Caster in anime. lol
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 Oh ho ho, you betcha. I'd actually prefer it that way too.
Message doesn't have a Verbal Component now :)
Exactly to make it usable with a whisper alone.
@@CantripN That's neat~
With the general direction of monster design, counterspell chaining will likely not be a concern.
I like the new counterspell - its not obscenely powerful. I think both players and monsters (DM) enjoy doing the action that they intend do to - so making something that prevents this a little less powerful is good for all parties.
Agreed. Changing Counterspell to a Con save risked making it useless against creatures with pretty much auto Con save success, but since it looks like most creatures won’t be casting spells but rather using intrinsic magic, that’s not really an issue. What DMs need to remember now is to properly scale NPC spellcasters’ Con save bonuses so that there is a reasonable window for them to cast spells successfully while making it possible for PCs to have a chance to Counterspell them.
With divine smite being a spell and taking a bonus action. The only way to smite with 2 attacks would be to take 5 levels of warlock and at least 1 level of paladin. Take eldritch smite (which takes no action and isnt a spell) and whatever paladin smite you want.
Looks like bladelock/paladins are still on the menu, and you dont have to go hexblade, so it opens up the paladin to other warlock subclasses as well.
That's actually kind of amazing and might be the inspiration for my first 2024 build...
Or just use the 2014 Paladin and limit Divine Smite to once per turn xd.
hexblade first feature looking pretty redundant after these blade pact buffs. i wonder what they'll change?
14:00 “massive but stealthy buff” bugbears be like
I wish Paladin's Smite and Faithful Steed weren't bad features with these spellcasting rules.
With Paladin's Smite, you could maybe cheese something if auto-upcasted to your highest Paladin Spell slot (but no, no, no, just level 1).
With Faithful Steed you've this other feature that similarly doesn't upcast Find Steed to your highest Paladin spell slot (which, with a permanent duration, makes using it after you get access to spell-slots above level 2 a near useless benefit).
Similarly the change from the playtest where Faithful Steed turned Find Steed into an action to cast is gone, meaning Fullcasters can not only use Wish to conjure an 8th level, permanent, Find Steed, but do so as an action (so the Paladin "exclusive" spell is better on a Wizard, Bard and Cleric, which is just a "wtf" kinda design choice).
But then Mounted Combat Rules come into play preventing your Find Steed as a *Controlled Mount* from using those unique new features (dodge, disengage and dash only) unless the Paladin is unconscious.
The only interesting interactions I can think of with the Paladin smite spells come in the form of the origin feat Savage Attacker and the Cleave Weapon property allowing you to, on hit, roll to hit a 2nd target with your attack (which should allow you to double dip with Smite effects on 2 targets), with Savage Attacker being able to reroll the damage dice for a slightly higher damage output on the 2 targets from the single attack.
Though some folks think the Smite spell extra damage isn't a part of your weapon damage die, but if that was the case, you wouldn't be able to crit with the Smite spells at all.
I think there are a few errors in the video based on the text of the new rule. 1) EK will not be able to cast more than one spell in turn under the new rules because the word "cast" was used in the description and the limit of one level spell applies to anything cast in turn regardless of the type of action. 2) Reactions will be more powerful under the new rules because of the rules' use of the word "turn". Any spell cast as a reaction that occurs outside of your turn will no longer count towards your limit making them potentially unlimited so long as you can get more reactions. 3) I think this new rule makes magic items and class abilities that give you the ability to cast without expending a spell slot more powerful.
For point 1, the jury is out so who knows. As for point 2 though, off the top of my head there are no ways to obtain additional reactions but I could be forgetting something. In any case though, I wasn’t speaking about Reaction casting generally, but rather specifically the interaction of counterspelling a counterspell on your own turn.
For point 3 this is literally what I said lol
12:16 one thing is already mentioned by wotc and jeremy crawfoed is that in the new monster manual and the npc's DONT use spell slots at all, they instead have a spellcasting feature with a "spells per day table", so they DONT use spellslots which means they dont follow the rule of "1 spell w spellslots per turn"
But, it was also said that in RAW npcs with counterspell are counted with a hand or two, so there's that
re-Counterspell : *or* someone else in your party also has Counterspell prepared and can counterspell the counterspell. (Unless I'm missing something.)
Yeah that would totally work, I was more thinking about doing it yourself but this is worth bringing up too!
Can always rely on your party
Even if you cast a spell using a spell slot on your turn, you would still be able to cast counterspell because you're casting it as a reaction on someone else's turn. The limitation is 1 spell slot per turn not 1 spell slot per round.
Your example is true except that the video is talking about no longer able to protect your own Spell you've casted with a Spell Slot from (generally) an enemy Counterspell with your own Counterspell on your turn.
@@xiongray
Shield Spell Reaction to avoid self damage by exploding barrels with Magic Bullet on my turn... Is one example.
That won't be possible in 2024 since both spells are Leveled Spells.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 It's possible to learn Shield or Magic Missile through Magic Initiate: Wizard. In that way, you could cast it without a spell slot, no problem.
@xiongray
True. But it still doesn't solve the issue that when your Reaction Lv Spells activate. If you casted a lv spell prior, you can not cast a Reaction Spell.
It's rare to occur but not impossible. Maybe this will be explained RAI in future Sage Advice/Erratas.
This is most common in cases when casting Shield to avoid an enemy Opportunity Attack. But then, taking the Magic Action is stuck with non Spell Slot casting.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615You're acting like there is 1. Something that needs to be explained. 2 Like there is an issue.
There's nothing to be explained. If you spend a spell slot to cast a Reaction spell on Your turn. Then you can't cast another spell using a Spell Slot on that turn. Or vice versa with casting a spell with a spell slot as your action.
That's the rule. It's not ambiguous. There is no issue with it because that is what was intended. It's a *choice* that you now need to make.
If you're of the opinion that it's an issue, then that's not an issue with the rules being unlear.
11:11 I love this. It buffs any racial feature or feat that grants free spells. And it eliminates the counterspell battles (for the most part). They could be pretty cool the first couple times it happens but it gets (at least for me) kinda lame very fast. Another cool change is to rituals. Now its just a part of the spell itself.
upon first hearing the new rule, I thought it was an elegant clean up. But then I heard/saw/realized that Quicken spell has to have its own little awkward addition to prevent someone from using a feature that allows casting a spell without a spell slot , then a quickened fireball or some such. Not quite as elegant.
I would say that the improved war magic feature does not override the general rule, as the general rule does not have anything to do with what action you are using to cast with a spell slot and Improved War Magic does not override that.
Almost all the ways to cast a spell without a spell slot still require casting with a magic action, and there is no way to get additional magic actions on a turn, thereby limiting casting.
Users of improved War Magic can still cast multiple leveled spells per turn, if they have a way to cast a spell without a spell slot and then action surge and replace two of their attacks with a 1st or second level spell.
Did we really need that addition to Quicken Spell? It still costs a valuable resource. Would it be totally broken to allow for a Quickened Fireball after another spell (that was cast without a spell slot)? I don't see it myself.
Awesome breakdown as always! I can't wait for you to hit 10k :)
Much appreciated! Thank you :)
I wonder if there is or there is going to be a rules clarification for reactions as a whole that while they can occur during your turn, they are not apart of your turn and thus aren’t subject to any 1/turn limit
Yeah, I would expect that as an errata pretty quickly. Reactions aren’t a part of a character or NPC’s turn - they are an interruption of someone else’s turn. Counterspelling someone else’s Counterspell is an interruption of an interruption, not a part of that character or NPC’s turn.
With the new way Counterspell is written, this is especially true, since it says the spell slot of the blocked spell isn’t consumed. Therefore, you’re not casting a second leveled spell in a turn, you’re casting the first leveled spell in a turn. OK, that quickly becomes a paradox, which makes it much cleaner to interpret things as above.
I don't understand what is so hard to understand about this.
You get an action and bonus action. If you cast a spell with a bonus action, you can use you action for a cantrip and that's it.
The new rules are just getting rid of the actuon surge bs. One spell slot per turn. Most if not all bonus action spells cost a slot, so it's still one bonus action and one action which is probably a cantrip.
You don't get any "cheats" on other turns because they're not actions, just reactions, like before, which is basically ok as it was before.
So excited for the new book! Hyped to play a knuckle fist fighter monk!
Spell scroll stonks just went through the roof 😅
3:26 wait, does that imply you could, say, Magic Stone and Misty Step in the same turn? Not broken, just weird. Edit: sorry, wait. Better example: second wind and then misty step.
The new rules make scrolls a lot more important
Glad to hear that you were able to get a copy. I picked up one from Gen Con as well. Pleasantly surprised to see how easy it was.
There are many many ways to "break" the two level spells per turn. Warlock mystical arcanum, magic initiate, fey touched, cleric's divine intervention, scrolls/magic items (depends on how they're worded), etc. I feel like this might have been an oversight on WOTC's side. I think there should be some exceptions - but those should be accessible at higher levels.
You mean lv15+ on the level of Wish etc.???... It's not worth that restriction when the campaign will never reach lv15+. While WotC struggles with lv15+ Modules.
The version of True Strike in the PDF just says Weapon, not if it's just melee or can thrown weapon be enchanted. Was it changed in the PHB
Clerics Divine Strike in the pdf also just says "an attack with a weapon". Ranged applies currently, unless it was changed in the official print
wild heart barb / celestial warlock with gift of ever living ones & life drinker.. gotta sacrifice 16 con for 14 to get a 16 cha so u get 3d6 (maximized) from the bonus action healing feature, add life drinker & ur lookin at 28 or 32 hp back on a turn & this is essentially doubled if your up against weapon or elemental damage, healing potions or ring of spell storing boost your resource pool further, on this build you’ll get 6th level spells at 14th but you can get tasha’s bubbling cauldron for potions of resist wen you know what typa enemy ur going up against, finally boom of recovery is amazing cuz it stacks with celestial capstone & u get an additional 10d10 (maximized) as a bonus action
Oh. There are quite a few changes I would make to the magic system. I would use mana instead of spell slots as a resource. I would organize classes and spells in four general categories. These categories are nature, arcane, occult and holy. I would reorganize magic schools in a way that makes a lot more sense. The biggest change is to classify healing spells as abjuration instead of evocation.
Oh this video is about action economy as well. In that case, it is better to go the Pathfinder route. This video talks about how players are all confused about how many spells they can cast per turn. Oh. This be would be so much easier if each spell caused action points. It is possible for players to abuse the system and cast too much in one turn. In that case casting certain spells after the first one would come with a penalty. This video did get into passive class abilities. I can work with this. There are two classes that heavily focus on magic and spells. That is the wizard and sorcerer. I think they can have passive abilities that improve their actions economy. This allows them to cast additional spells, and these spells don't have penalty. This is fair, because it makes up for their terrible martial ability. A wizard can have an ability where it gets extra action points per turn. However these action points can only be used on spells. A sorcerer has a special ability where it casts spells without using action points at all. This ability has a cost of sorcery points.
This video does get into counter spell. Players of both DND and MTG ( Magic the Gathering) tend to complain about that a lot. I don't mind this personally. I think it is valid. Then again, I like using counter spells and blue in general in MTG. So I might be biased. The actions are tricky. MTG has counterspell cards with the instant feature. Therefore they can be cast at any time. So counterspells are just cast on the opponent's turn. Pathfinder gives one reaction point per turn. So players can react to whatever the opponent does. So a counterspells can just cost one reaction point. I did think of a way to nerf counterspells. That can help stop the complaints. However I was careful not to nerf too much. So the spell is still useful and significant. Counterspells have the effect of slowing down the opponent. The opponent can't cast the countered spell at all during their turn. They loose the short term resource the spell uses. This resource gets replenished every turn. However the opponent can cast the same spell later. They don't loose the long term resource the spell uses. Long term resources don't get automatically replenished over time. In an RPG like DND and Pathfinder, a countered spell has a loss of action points. However this spell does not loose any mana or spell slots. A successful version of the spell would use up both kinds of resources. In a TCG like MTG, a countered spell has a loss of mana. However the spell card returns to the players hand. From the hand, the card can be played on a later turn. The resource cards (lands) do remain tapped. So they are not usable until the next turn. They do remain on the resource area, so they are not discarded.
So let me get this straight. If you cast fireball and an enemy counterspells you, you cannot counterspell them as it is still your turn but anyone else could. Counterspelling counterspell got nerfed. Intriguing
This is correct, unless you had some way of casting either Fireball or Counterspell without using a spell slot. In that cast, you could do both.
I find it weird that casting Misty Step through Fey Touched, for example, doesn't limit you in any way, while Quickening a spell does
Somehow they managed to make it even more confusing than beffore, wtf!
apparently you can use any feature from 2014 that didn’t get replaced, so custom lineage for elven accuracy plus origin feat sounds fun, the new great old one gets a pseudo heavy obscurement typa ability that sounds fun, start pally for heavy armor? gift of the ever living ones should b available too so those cure wounds upcasts are gonna b lovely, 80 + cha mod for a 5th level pact slot, maybe i could get a ring of spell storing for my invisible imp that hides in my backpack so they can cast it on me in combat, 3 attacks with devouring blade + hex (disadvantage on saving throws) + gwm, gotta take new mage slayer, n omg boon of recovery would b insane, of and with create thrall i can modify the casting of summon aberration so my imp can have 1 & give it commands since imps can talk, & i can have 1 or maybe 2 out on the field
This works in both systems but I have been playing a Divene Soul in Dragonlance one of my most used moves is Quicken Spell Bane and Twin Spell Viscous mockery or Frostbite Depending on the DM. Another I have done is aginst a single Big Boss I have cast Mind Sliver and fallowed with quickened Tasha's Mind Whip or Synaptic Static. I am the first Debuff caster the DM has dealt with before and he is not liking it at all.
So correct me if I'm wrong I don't have access to the rules just yet but even if you have used a spell slot during your turn you can still use counter spell because reactions aren't tied to your turn they can be used during anyone's turn. The rule for spell casting is one spell slot per turn. Reactions happen outside of your turn. I might be wrong but that's how I'm reading it
No, you’re correct. The distinction I was making was to counterspell a counterspell that was cast during your turn. This was possible under 2014 rules without anything complicated happening. Under 2024 rules it can happen but you need to meet the right circumstances.
@@InsightCheck I think what I'm trying to say is reactions happen outside of your turn even if it's your turn. You can use a reaction once per round whenever but because it just so happens to land in your turn means it's part of it? If that was true you wouldn't be able to counter spell at all unless you didn't spend a spell slot in your turn.
I’m happy with these changes. Always considered action surge violating RAI.
custom lin elven accuracy + grappler mercy monk with gloom stalker dip? if a creature is grappled by you that’s eventually 5-6 attacks all with3 dice adv +1d6 from hunters mark & if u crit you can use hand of harm + that new gloom stalker feature, even if you don’t crit it’s still not bad damage + the control from grappling
You can't take Eleven Accuracy if you're custom Lineage. You aren't an Elf.
@@X20Adam custom lin can be anything u want it to be, i love how u didn’t even give a reason why u can’t do it u just said “u can’t do it cuz u can’t do it” 🤣🤣 like tf
So did we fix the hole where wizard clerics get to learn all spells due to the rule saying they can prepare any spell due to spell slot, and not class level?
The book implies there is a MC level restriction, but this only applies to all other classes RAR
That loophole doesn't exist in the new phb. The Spellcasting feature works in tandem with Multiclassing rules to ensure it doesn't.
However if you're using any backwards compatability, the loophole still exists in the Cartomancer feat.
Don't magic items and spell scrolls require the use of the Magic action to activate? If so, then you can't use them to circumvent the new spell casting rule.
As far as Spell Scrolls go, they inherit the same casting time as the spell they were scribed from. So Shield, for example (depending on how your table runs holding/getting items) could be very useful. This does not take the Magic Action.
Nope. Not RAW. It uses the Free Action or the Item Use Action. Depending on the item.
Magic Items and Scrolls do not consume a Spell Slot when you use it on your turn.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615so my Eldritch Knight could still cast 2 spells on my turn if I use a spell slot and a spell scroll?
@@jasonhenry8067
Unless the EK has a feature specific effect to trump the general rule.
Then yes... You can use the scroll. Provided that the Spell in the Scroll is of a Bonus Action, Free Action, Reaction, etc. As it doesn't use a Spell Slot. After or before using a scroll, you can cast your level spell using a spell slot.
Cantrips, scrolls, Magic Item Charges, and anything explicit about not using Spell Slots, are all valid. Just be careful about trying to cast two Fire Balls with Action + Action. It doesn't work like that. Action Economy still exists.
On the flip side... If you do use Spell Slot to cast a spell, Then, be careful not to cast a level spell as a reaction on your turn... It's jank like that, but it's RAW. Not RAI.
1 Massive thing that I'm scared of, is this magic change against bosses with legendary actions. Legendary actions are not an extra turn, they are "at the end of another players turn". This means casting fireball at a dragon, with absorb elements prepared doesn't matter. You cast a spell this turn. You're not casting another :/ (or legaction->counterspell)
I know Legendary actions are becoming reaction abilities, but the same problem applies unless I'm just unable to find the ruling and would like to be disproved
From the preview of the green dragon that I saw I don't think it's an issue. The stat block had a few slots for higher level spells, but the spell tied to it's reaction was "at will". Therefore, when designing a creature there's always the option to make any reaction spell an "at will" ability with a specific trigger listed in the design.
Secondly, as a GM I'd be okay with Monsters not having the same rule. They can have 8 arms and 8 reactions, walk through walls at will, and be immune to all weapons not named "sally". If a specific creature, say a Lich, needs to be able to cast multiple leveled spells in a round then make it happen.
So according to the rules if I cast a levelled spell like burning hands and then I move but someone is able to hit me with an opportunity attack, I cant cast shield as a reaction? I just want to be clear. What about if the next person in the round goes like then enemy tries to hit me. could I cast shield or counterspell then?
You are 100% correct. This is how it works now as written.
Yes ! Love your videos!
Hidden Ace from the book of many things is the biggest winner I believe. Check it out
I think its pronounced Finni-she not Finniki. Like Chi-cago. LOL Great video by the way! - can't wait for all the broken combos.
How does twinning work now? I am variant human with meta feat warlock lv 2 and use 2 sorc points for fire bolt or eld blast hitting 3 enemies.
Twin spell now just lets you upcast a spell 1 level more than what you cast it at, if that spell is one that lets you target an additional creature when it is upcast.
If you cast Tasha's mind whip at 2nd level, and use Twin Spell, then because the spell upcasts to target one additional creature per slot, you would target Two creatures with it.
@@MrSeals1000 so they reversed the mechanics?
Old rule isnt complicated if u have anything abive room temp iq
Twinning a spell is still expending a spell slot just not at the effective level it's being used as.
If you are an Aberrant Mind Sorcerer you can cast spells directly from Sorcery Points, without converting them. However, at the time of writing I didn’t have the new PHB and turns out none of the spells on the list apply for Twinning and you can’t swap spells anymore from your Psionic list.
@@InsightCheck No swaping?! Ohh man that's so bad 😢
@@InsightCheckWeirdest change to abberant mind is that in Psionic Sorcery doesn't require material components "unless they are consumed by the spell *OR* have a cost specified in it."
Which.... since they can no longer swap out spells, means the only spell from their Psionic Spells you can't use Psionic Sorcery with is Summon Aberration.
Which is just a bit odd. Feels like a nerf that was added to tone down the subclass before the nerf to changing spells was implemented.
Oh, you _could_ argue that it also couldnt be used on Detect Thoughts, since the material component is 1 Copper Piece. But that's mostly just joking
Hey Mr. Insight, I've been working on an Elden Ring RPG and also been thinking about a version of dnd where instead of an action and a bonus action, you have a right-hand action and a left-hand action. Wanna chip in? XD
I'm just being cheeky - I love your work and I would love to know what your ideal version of dnd looks like. Do you think you'll ever make a video about that?
You cast whatever spell you want i dont care
Let your sorcerer be cool
First, excellent point RE Aberrant mind Sorc.
*** Second however, Why is NO ONE, including this vid, discussing the change to the thief rouge's fast Hands feature allowing the magic action now?
Please comment on the build implications of this changs
I’ve actually got an entire video planned discussing this :)
These are not PHB changes. THE GODDESS OF MAGIC DECLARED HER WILL!
Home stretch now to 10K of us!
Aslong doesnt use spell slot” oh boy warlocks now git a shit ton new combos since ut has a handful of use without spell slot abilities
Not being able to use action surge to cast another spellslot is NOT done for the best.
It for the worst.
Dobby is such a good elf and will be missed. Society for the promotion of elvish welfare
Oh boy!
❤❤❤
This all seems sadly abuseable. If they'd stipulated "one levelled spell per turn" it would be clean and simple. Instead it looks rushed and awkward, with far too many ways of gaming the system
I will still run with the "Only one leveled Spell per turn" rule cause being able to cast a spell that you know without a spellslot is busted especially for Warlock, who has numerous Spells that they can either cast at will or without expensing a spellslot once, lets not even talk about the Mystic Arcanums which technically they dont use spellslots for either ☠️.
Also unpopular opinion but the old Counterspell was not broken xd.
Edit: I just realised that the new "caster" monsters no longer use spellslots, so does that mean they can cast an unlimited number of spells 😩.
I don't mind SOME ways to change this feature (divine intervention, warlock mystical arcanum), but scrolls and feats available on levels 1-4 are a tad... too much.
@@JJV7243
I prefer evolution over a repackaged system.
It doesn't mean anything when a Goblin can TPK.
So to summarize, the magic “system” in D&D is so bodged together, so irrational and arbitrary, so much of a kludge that even though my character CAN cast a spell I would almost always rather just hit something (possibly my dm) over the head than try to do anything with magic. GREAT JOB, WOTC! You’ve created a fantasy setting where a primary fantasy element is LESS fun than almost any other option on your turn.
I don't know what you're on about lol. This rule is simple and tbh the older one was pretty easy to understand, it was just mis-quoted a lot.
My advice: don’t pay for the rules. Just use free rules or homebrew your older version, if you like anything here.
This is such an underwhelming revision. Expecting people to pay full price for three essentially identical books is pretty cheeky.
Really? I actually think there is a lot of value in the new Phb.
I’m gonna get it for easy reference to the new rules, and cause it’s pretty and the face of the gold dragon on the front looks like a lion’s face
Let's not forget WotC laying off all of the creative team just before Christmas, too. They don't deserve our cash.
@@HorizonOfHope WotC doesn’t, but D&D does imo. Moreover, I don’t think of it like so and so doesn’t deserve it. I want the book, I’m gonna buy it 🤷🏼♂️
Also essentially identical? What book are you talking about?
I mean… to each their own. I see a lot of value in it if you’re someone getting into the game now, you’re essentially getting the benefit of 10 years of content for one $50 book. That’s great value. Whether players want to use Homebrew content is ultimately up to them or if they don’t see value in this.
12:00 I'm not fully caught up on the changes - but doesn't counterspell in 2024 state that a countered spell doesn't use up a spell slot?
Not exactly no. What it says is that if the spell is successfully countered, the countered spell does not consume a spell slot. It’s a bit convoluted though.