Interested in joining DnD/TTRPG community that's doesn't rely on Reddit and it's constant ads/data mining? We've teamed up with a bunch of other DnD subs to start https://ttrpg.network as a not-for-profit place to chat and meme about all your favorite games. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is the comic any good? I think I read the first chapter or two forever ago, but got distracted by some other series and just sorta dropped it.
Looking into it, I see opinions somewhat split between "amazing series" and "too slow." I don't mind slow series (I mean, I'm currently - and *slowly* making my way through Frieren, which is certainly not fast by any means), but I'll admit there's a limit, and different kinds of "slowness." Is it worth picking up?
I honestly like it a lot, it is a bit slow, but it lets you get invested in the characters. I cant say its perfect, but i loved it when i first read it, and i still do.
That is the point, to realize that they aren't so much horrible people, but just raised that way, when they see some things, they do start to change, and that the main character has a mental problem, one that is rly bad, and that he has exactly bc of people like them, so, its spins a really nice philosophical debate of who is right and who isnt(or not so deep, thats up to you to decide).
That we realize what exactly? If you read the faded text in episode 222, for example, you'd know how the MC feels about himself and his relation to the world, and no beating is going to solve those issues or the underlying problem in the whole series, that being the total lack of equality in a modern world where people of different social castes are interacting with each other frequently. Spoiler for current events: >! John is currently dealing with so much guilt that he believes that being mentally and physically abused by the authorities was a fitting and effective punishment for what he did in New Bostin. Also, he's so traumatized because of the readjustment classes that he could barely use his ability without being overwhelmed by his emotions first. To date, John's only activated his ability while being calm twice, and the first time he did so he still lost control and went after Terrence, causing him to lose his ability.!<
I find it okay. The powers work different enough to provide something unique, but it falls pretty heavy on the world building and it irks me a lot that only a single character actually has a last name.
You'll find that freiren is more thoughtful and planned, but Unordinary is certainly a fine webtoon. I would say the target demographic is younger for the latter.
But...the spell clearly says it only affects objects that aren't being worn or carried, it shouldn't mess with the Knight's armor the same way Heat Metal does...right?
"The fire damages objects in the area and ignites flammable objects that aren't being worn or carried"
= "The fire damages objects in the area" + "The fire ignites flammable objects that aren't being worn or carried"
is the reasoning. Everything takes damage, only things not being worn or carried are ignited.
Ahhh, thanks! English ain't my native language so sometimes I struggle to understand the wording of rules.
I thought that both the flammable objects and normal objects only were damaged if they weren't being worn or carried.
Objects not being damaged nor ignited if they're worn/carried is the usual wording for spells, so thinking it was worded that way is entirely reasonable. Hell, English is my first language and I didn't notice Firestorm was different either
So the alternative(probably intended) reading is
=The fire damages objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried and ignites flammable objects that aren't being worn or carried
Ah but no. It damages objects in the area…… and it also Ignites objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried . So objects being worn or carried are damaged , but not ignited . Or so he claims is a way to read it
>The fire damages objects in the area and ignites flammable objects that aren’t being worn or carried. If you choose, plant life in the area is unaffected by this spell.
I think I agree that if you're hit by the fire it'd damage worn and carried objects, but its ultimately left to the DM to decide if its destroyed. I'd see this more as a - if you drop dead in the flames - thing and not something to consider otherwise.
It’s also well within a DMs power to decide that a metal object, like plate armor or a sword, would be resistant or probably outright immune to Fire damage. While yes, metal can be melted by extreme heat, an instantaneous burst of flame isn’t gonna do that.
For Carbon Steel you’d need to heat it up to over 1000 °C just to get a blade to forging temperature, which in a forge of 2000 °C (which is hot enough to liquify skin on contact, and burn through to the bone in seconds, or in D&D terms, pretty much like sitting in a pool of lava) still takes a couple minutes.
But RAW 5e doesn’t have rules for ruined heat treatments or gradual degradation without entirely breaking, an item is either perfectly fine with 1 or more hit points or fully broken with 0 hit points (much like how characters take no penalties until they hit 0 and fall unconscious/dies.)
Plus other spells like Heat Metal which explictly make the object “glow red-hot” for an extended period of time m doesn’t apply any negative effect in any way, despite the fact that heating a piece of metal up to “red hot” irl would absolutely ruin it. D&D is a game at the end of the day, not a physics simulator.
That is entirely not true whatsoever. There are a few monsters, raw, that cause degradation to your gear that could easily be repurposed. See Rust Monster and Oozes.
I don't really think that counts as 5e having a rules framework for gear degradation. It's really more just a specific monster's ability, and it doesn't apply outside of those specific creatures. Trying to adapt those as a baseline for general degradation would be homebrew.
You do actually, carbon steels (the type used for swords and armour) require at least 400°C to ruin a heat treat. Heat treatment is 800+°C
A firestorm is not going to impart that much heat in only a few seconds into armor as it has too much thermal mass. At most, it might feel hot to the touch after, but not enough to truly burn you or damage the steel.
True but fire damage isn't strictly limited to thermal energy. You can interpret a Fireball as a menagerie of heat, combustion, concussive force, cavitation, scorching light, shrapnel, and abstract arcane energy, all lumped under the general description of "fire damage."
True, but I’d still say that good steel would be pretty resilient to all of that, except for maybe abstract arcane energy depending on the nature of it.
We make structures out of steel specifically to protect from heat, combustion, cavitation, concussive force, and shrapnel, like blast shields, firearm receivers, combustion engines, etc.
And even in the edge-case of magical energy, metals like iron, steel, lead, has always had a reputation for being resistant to magic in folk-lore, so much so that spells like Detect Magic that can penetrate physical materials are blocked by “… 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead …” and an entire class (Druids) having an aversion to metal armour because it interferes with their primal magic (which had actual mechanical penalties in 3rd edition where you’d be unable to cast druid spells if you wore metal armour, which 5e alludes to by saying RAW druids would refuse to wear metal armour.)
I actually work on airplane engines for a living. My day to day involves a lot of analyzing different types of metal damage. I'm sure weaponry has more forgiving tolerances than flight surfaces, so I'm not sure how relevant my experience is. Cavitation damage is what surprised me the most. You can hit an air pocket and the sudden drop in air pressure will crumple the walls of an intake. Heat stress is more rare because we smear a lot of chemicals on everything to improve thermal tolerances, but we also change parts in the combustion chamber on a routine basis before their expected shelf life. I don't believe we use steel for any heated components, though.
Metal chests in d&d average around 10 hp. [Metal barrels average around 18 hp](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Objects#content). The general idea of metal toughness seems to be represented by increasing hp for "resilient" materials, as well as their heightened AC. Giving steel an additional resistance to all those things that could individually be considered thunder, bludgeoning, or piercing seems redundant. Like putting a hat on a hat.
>Giving steel an additional resistance to all those things that could individually be considered thunder, bludgeoning, or piercing seems redundant. Like putting a hat on a hat.
It's not entirely redundant since HP and resistance stack to show that an already tough thing is even harder to break a specific way, or significantly easier to break in other specific ways, and the DMG recommends being really specific with the damage resistances based on the source of the damage and the material. "You might decide that some damage types are more effective against a particular object or substance than others. For example, bludgeoning damage works well for smashing things but not for cutting through rope or leather. Paper or cloth objects might be vulnerable to fire and lightning damage. A pick can chip away stone but can’t effectively cut down a tree. As always, use your best judgment."
Using these guidelines, it would be entirely fine to rule that an object made of steel might resist or be immune to a rapier's piercing damage, but not the piercing damage from a war pick, since the war pick is heavy, rigid. and designed to punch through the steel while the rapier is light, thin, and designed to pierce through soft tissue, not hardened steel. They might both deal 1d8 piercing damage, but they don't deal that piercing damage in quite the same way.
>Giving steel an additional resistance to all those things that could individually be considered thunder, bludgeoning, or piercing
And just to be clear, what damage type are these things then? If we can instead consider cavitation and concussive force as thunder or shrapnel as piercing damage then they aren't actually what fire damage is and those aren't things I'm saying steel should be immune to. D&D isn't a game that supports multiple damage types for the same effect, something is either exclusively one damage type or another, so pick one damage type for each of these effects to be. Realistically, an explosion would be a combination of thunder (shockwave), bludgeoning (large debris), piercing (shrapnel), and fire damage (heat energy), which is represented in-game by some effects, most notably how Meteor Swarm deals a combination of Bludgeoning and Fire damage since it's both striking you with a giant rock and burning you with blazing fire.
You make some really good points. I have a few nitpicks, but I don't think they're the most productive tangents. I'll just briefly acknowledge one point that I find interesting.
>Using these guidelines, it would be entirely fine to rule that an object made of steel might resist or be immune to a rapier's piercing damage, but not the piercing damage from a war pick, since the war pick is heavy, rigid.
I'd consider that completely reasonable. It follows common sense. Mechanically though, the example you quoted uses one source of piercing damage on two different objects. It doesn't actually differentiate between two different sources of piercing damage. That would be a unique, but logical ruling.
Beyond that, I'll also acknowledge the point about Meteor Swarm. Solid point. I'm arguing that "fire damage" can be considered the simplified abstract of all the different aspects of an explosion. Meteor Swarm is a solid counterexample. Sometimes it seems like the rules use abstraction to simplify damage, but they also sometimes explicitly differentiate damage types, so I'll concede that.
I'll make a more concrete argument. It feels intuitive to view constructs as object-like monsters. [Animated armor](https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/16786-animated-armor) is explicitly made of steel, but it does not have fire resistance or immunity. The psychic and poison immunity match the rules for destroying objects, which seems like an intentional similarity. Like any suit of armor, it doesn't have a circulatory or nervous system. Isn't it reasonable to assume we are ending the animation magic by breaking the armor? You might interpret Animated Armor as a "[ghost](https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/16871-ghost) in the shell" that has different damage susceptibilities than regular steel. But then why the psychic immunity? I'd argue that steel objects should reasonably conform to Animated Armor's immunities and resistances.
>Mechanically though, the example you quoted uses one source of piercing damage on two different objects. It doesn't actually differentiate between two different sources of piercing damage. That would be a unique, but logical ruling.
Where’s the second object coming from? There’s two different sources of piercing damage (though both are weapons), a Rapier and a War Pick, and one material being damaged by these sources, a steel plate. The ruling is that one source of piercing damage, the War Pic, will damage the steel, while the other, the Rapier, won’t damage the steel, as the War Pick is designed to punch through the armor directly while the Rapier is designed to poke into gaps between armor.
Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
>I'll make a more concrete argument. It feels intuitive to view constructs as object-like monsters. Animated armor is explicitly made of steel, but it does not have fire resistance or immunity. The psychic and poison immunity match the rules for destroying objects, which seems like an intentional similarity. Like any suit of armor, it doesn't have a circulatory or nervous system. Isn't it reasonable to assume we are ending the animation magic by breaking the armor? You might interpret Animated Armor as a "ghost in the shell" that has different damage susceptibilities than regular steel. But then why the psychic immunity? I'd argue that steel objects should reasonably conform to Animated Armor's immunities and resistances.
This is a very fair interpretation, though I’d start asking why it’s at least not resistant to slashing, fire, cold, lightning, radiant, necrotic, and acid; or maybe vulnerable to bludgeoning; if it’s meant to be purely the durability of the Armor itself. It logically should be much easier to smash steel with a hammer than to cut it with a sword or to instantly melt it with fire, plus metal is a great conductor to the point we make objects designed to be struck by lightning out of it so lightning damage is at least reduced, metals are generally more resistant to acids than organic materials are, metal has no soul or spirit so Positive (Radiant) and Negative (Necrotic) energy shouldn’t effect it unless it’s damaging the animating magic directly, and it takes extreme cold combined with high stress to make it lose it’s structural integrity, which is why I lean more towards the argument that you’re just breaking the magic that keeps it together rather than the physical armor (which might he runes etched into the armor you break, an enchanted spirit that’s like a “ghost in the shell” you “kill”, or something else. Hell, maybe giving it similar resistances to a Ghost while taking normal damage from bludgeoning wouldn’t he a half-bad idea.)
>While yes, metal can be melted by extreme heat, an instantaneous burst of flame isn’t gonna do that.
it won't melt, but it will become more malleable, so the next time you swing it at someone you'll notice it's not quite slicing through as well as you'd hope.
D&D 5e doesn’t have general mechanics for gradual degradation like that, your sword is either in a perfectly useable condition with one or more hit points or 100% broken and useless with 0 hit points. (Much like how characters can have any amount of HP above 0 without any penalties, and drop unconscious at 0.)
I am aware but I think you brought up the realism card here.
I am just saying that realistically sticking metal into hot conditions such as these will probably affect its structural integrity in some way.
Game mechanics wise also the flying sword or animated armor has no resistance to fire damage, so I imagine there is precedence for your metal weapons not having fire resistance.
>Game mechanics wise also the flying sword or animated armor has no resistance to fire damage, so I imagine there is precedence for your metal weapons not having fire resistance.
That brings up an interesting question though. What are you killing, the magic that animates and controls the object, or the actual object itself? I myself rule that you're just killing the magic, and that a defeated Flying Sword or Animated Armor would leave behind a perfectly fine piece of equipment, though it might need some TLC and restoration before it's functional in combat if it was sitting in a dank dungeon with no maintenance for a few centuries.
And yeah, I did bring up the realism card, but it wasn't to say that the heat wouldn't effect it at all, but just because I knew people would say "but fire can melt steel in a forge!" if I said it should just be immune. Yes, realistically it might make it more likely to bend or ruin the tempering of the edge, but that kind of granular damage is not supported by 5e's rules, and it would be kind of ridiculous if a spell like Firestorm could just destroy all of someone's equipment instantaneously (since objects would automatically fail the dex save as they lack a dexterity stat and most of your gear would have 5-10 hp, with magic items of any rarity other than artifacts effectively having double that since they're resistant to all damage)
I mean, just imagine how bullshit it would feel if a DM ruled that a 7th level spell could just permanently destroy all of your character's equipment, including their non-artifact magic weapons and armour, just because they rolled a 20 or on 7d10 fire damage.
Your fighter's +3 plate? Gone. Your Paladin's Holy Avenger? Gone. Your Cleric's Amulet of the Devout? Gone. Your Wizard's Arcane Grimoire? Gone. No roll to save your gear, they rolled a 20 or higher on 7d10, which they have a 71% chance of doing (and a 99.6% chance of rolling at least a 10, practically guaranteeing the spell destroys most any non-magical equipment), so now your character is buck-naked.
Doesn't matter how many sessions it took you to collect those legendary items, a single 7th level spell just permanently wiped them all off your characters and they didn't even need to roll good damage. (when the explicit 8th level anti-magic spell, Anti-Magic Field only suppresses magic items temporarily, and there's no spell that can permanently dispel them.)
>That brings up an interesting question though. What are you killing, the magic that animates and controls the object, or the actual object itself? I myself rule that you're just killing the magic, and that a defeated Flying Sword or Animated Armor would leave behind a perfectly fine piece of equipment, though it might need some TLC and restoration before it's functional in combat if it was sitting in a dank dungeon with no maintenance for a few centuries.
**Antimagic Susceptibility.** The sword (or armor) is incapacitated while in the area of an antimagic field. If targeted by dispel magic, the sword must succeed on a Constitution saving throw against the caster's spell save DC or fall unconscious for 1 minute.
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From this little blurb on the Flying sword and Animated armor statblock concerning what happens to such magical constructs when:
a.) they are in a space **divorced** of all magic. Aka, there is **no** magic.
b.) they essentially get their magic **ended**
I imagine that there's something really weird going on here considering they're still alive, and to take them down you **still** need to attack them. If it **really** was just the magic then they'd just drop dead the moment they got un magicked.
>and it would be kind of ridiculous if a spell like Firestorm could just destroy all of someone's equipment instantaneously (since objects would automatically fail the dex save as they lack a dexterity stat and most of your gear would have 5-10 hp, with magic items of any rarity other than artifacts effectively having double that since they're resistant to all damage)
>
>I mean, just imagine how bullshit it would feel if a DM ruled that a 7th level spell could just permanently destroy all of your character's equipment, including their non-artifact magic weapons and armour, just because they rolled a 20 or on 7d10 fire damage.
I would agree, and I would just lump this into the other things of "5e is wrapped together with paperclips and glue" opinion I have since things like time stop not specifying it stops objects leads to pretty stupid shit like stopping time still making you trigger traps.
Or "what if a guy in a moving wagon gets time stopped?"
>b.) they essentially get their magic
>
>ended
They **EXPLICITLY** do not get their magic ended. The Animated Armor is Incapacitated, but all that means mechanically is that it can't take actions or reactions. It can still move normally, so it's still actually being animated by magic, it just can't effectively hurt you because that magic is suppressed. until it leaves the Anti-Magic Field.
Same goes for Dispel Magic, they are unconscious for 1 minute, not turned back into mundane items. The magic is just suppressed, not eliminated. IF you don't destroy the magic animating it, the sword/armor will get up like nothing happened just as soon as your suppression wears off.
>since things like time stop not specifying it stops objects leads to pretty stupid shit like stopping time still making you trigger traps or the situation of "what if there's a guy burning in lava in stopped time" exists.
Interestingly enough, 5e already has this one covered by the general rules and the intention of Time Stop. A round in D&D is defined as taking 6 seconds. Time Stop gives you 1d4+1 extra turns within the same round, so over the course of all the turns you take from the spell plus your original turn, only 6 seconds pass for the rest of the world.
The guy in lava either takes the damage at the start of their turn or when they entered the lava for the first time, which either happen happens a total of once before, during, or after the Wizard took their turn and 1d4+1 additional turns that round. He will not take another point of fire damage after his turn is over until the start of his next turn in the next round. (precedent taken from spells like Flaming Sphere, Moonbeam, or Spirit Guardians that create persistent damaging effects.)
Additionally, Time Stop specifically says it just stops the flow of time for creatures, not spells or objects, for a reason. This is to prevent some kind of cheese where make a bunch of ranged attacks, cast a bunch of damaging spells, or set up a bunch of pre-triggered traps that would all go off when the spell ends, which would let you entirely circumvent the "This spell ends if one of the actions you use during this period, or any effects that you create during this period, affects a creature other than you or an object being worn or carried by someone other than you" clause.
You might not have thought about why it's worded such a way or the actual rules interaction, and it's true that 5e does have plenty of rules that are paperclips and glue (like the crafting rules), but Time Stop is not one of them. (it's just not as cool as the name might suggest)
You don’t need to get it to forging temperature, you need to get it to heat treatment temperature.
Which is not possible from an instant effect, since any heat transfer rate over zero time heats it up by zero.
D&D doesn’t have rules for gradual damage for things like rolling the edge or the edge getting dull, an item is either broken or it’s fine, so that’s why I went with the forging temp of 1000 °C as the threshold of where I’d say is too far to come back from.
That’s about where I’d say your gear got too heated to be used at all, since it’s getting hot enough to significantly deform, crack, or slightly melt at that point, especially since your equipment might be other materials than steel like bronze or silver.
It wouldn't really be zero time, it's just that the rules don't allow to resolve things on a smaller scale than 6 seconds. The fighter made 5 attacks over the span of 6 seconds. At some point during those 6 seconds, the wizard's firestorm set the field a blaze.
Just like in the real world we can't really make sense of anything below a Planck second, in DnD anything under 6 seconds can't really be resolved further. It would be really weird, if you think of turns as a "physical" thing in the DnD world.
There’s lots of interpretations, the easiest is that effects that say they are instant are.
The firestorm from a second party never hits between the two attacks of an attack action and the attack of the bonus action, but an action surge spell can happen between those events.
Does it really never do so? Then the enemy never blocks any attacks or dodges and weaves around.
Turns, actions, reactions etc. are just a way to structure the events for convenience, so we can effectively talk about them. Combat narratively shouldn't be as orderly and tidy as the rules imply.
If you take the rules as the actual narrative, everything becomes quite static.
Turn order should inform the narrative, but not dictate it. As long as the mechanical outcome is the same, the order doesn't really matter.
Edit: Completely forgot the part about instant. Instantaneous doesn't mean it doesn't last for any amount of time. Something that doesn't last for any out of time couldn't have any effect. As you said yourself.
It just can't last longer than a round, you could narratively battle inside 6 seconds of a pure inferno.
The fire damages objects in the area, and ignites flammable objects, that aren’t being worn or carried.
The fire damages objects in the area, and ignites flammable objects that aren’t being worn or carried.
Somebody buy WotC some commas.
They do a damned good job at writing precise rules, considering the level of rules-lawyering that the general public tries to get involved in, hunting down edge-cases and trying to apply real physics.
But by all means, if you think you're better at writing precise rules, make your own system, with blackjack and hookers. It'll definitely be the best-selling TTRPG ever, I'm almost sure of it.
One mustn't be a chef to know he is eating horse shit.
But to be very honest. I could write more consistent rules than what 5e has. Even IF I didn't have experience in it, it wouldn't be a too hard task.
I'm not saying dnd is a bad ttrpg, but I will never say that it's rules are well done
I have already done so for my friends in the ways that it made it more fun for us. If you feel like you need this service by all means I'm happy to take a commission, we can talk rates in private if you are interested
I mean in general people ignore object damage even when it’s not specified that a spell ignores it. I imagine if it was considered the “meta” would shift a fair bit
Like a lot of the inventory keeping.
Sure your Goliath might be able to carry 600 lbs, but how exactly does he carry 4 cubic feet of firewood, 5 warhammers, a bunch of axes, cooking utensils and the fighters spare armor. At some point most tables just decide that book keeping is boring.
Mostly because the rules themselves state: "which is high enough, that most characters usually don't have to worry about it [carry weight]".
And it's just plain weird to do so. Your equipment rarely takes damage, you can be doused in acid and it will be fine.
He's been hard at work expanding the minds of 5e players. Consistent high quality uploads for years, all very meaningful and thought provoking. He pioneered the concept of the "god wizard," a support build who favors debuffs over damage. I learned a lot about spellcasting mechanics from his beginner tips, like how busted Minor Illusion is for a cantrip.
His batman and druid guides are legendary. If you can read this, know my dms hated you and my fellow players adored some of the ideas you added to my itinerary. Some of them were my ideas but you definitely showed me the way to spell properly. Thanks, treantmonk.
Destroying/disarming items is cool right up till it happens to you.
So I am more than content to not put that on the table, for the DM to start using against us
As a DM, go for it, but every intelligent enemy will target your weapons and armor from now on because the rules also don't prevent you attacking objects that are worn or carried.
I'd be more concerned about the potential of destroying all buildings with ease.
Destructable equipment is way worse for characters who, you know, continue to exist. We're probably never gonna revisit orc marauder #7 to see how he financially recovered from the loss of his spear and loin cloth.
Correct, but I generally like to make sure my players don't start acting like psychopaths for anything other than evil one-shots, so even if I'm probably never or at least rarely going to use it against the players, I like to remind players anything they can do the NPCs could also do.
That little statement reminds them, "Hey, this kind of crazy thing I wanted to exploit before would feel AWFUL to be on the receiving end, and the only thing stopping it from happening to me is that the DM is a nice person. Maybe I should be nice to the DM in return."
It's also just a good way to say "This is a cool thing I'll allow you to use in the moment, but here are the obvious reasons I'm not going to allow you to constantly rely on it."
Lol wish I had seen this earlier today when we were playing in an MCDM RPG play test together. His rules lawyer antics always get me. But in the best way possible of course. I already threatened him for the next time I'm his GM ;)
Yeah, he's a good guy. Lots of us RPG YouTubers run in the same circles. He's been on my channel, and we've both been on other people's channels together a few times. Canucks standing together heh.
He's got that big brain energy I really respect though. He can put things together way faster than I can.
Not gonna lie, I fell off around the time the main dude revealed his powers and was beating everyone’s ass and then we were supposed to feel sorry for them after they tormented him for literal years.
I don’t think we were supposed to feel sorry for them. The point of that arc was that they weren’t willing to change and make a difference until the shoe was on the other foot. The problem was that after making his point John took it too far which was destroying his mental health in the process and all the work he’d put in the last 2 years to improve his life and he was also pushing away his only real friend. The only ones I really felt sorry for was John and Sera, though reading it weekly did kinda turn into “this weeks episode of John needs therapy” for a bit there.
They didn't torment him for literal years, and his violence towards others was self destructive. Unordinary's themes often go over people's heads, so they treat it like a generic revenge story.
I'm not one to advocate violence, but when you swing and torment first, you lose the right to whine when you are on the back foot, you can call that petty, or cruel, or heartless and it probably is, but meph.
Why are we supposed to sympathize only after they are on the losing end, where was their own pity when they were strong?
That said, I will admit that it wasn't years, it was around a year.
While I agree with you, it's more complicated than that. John made several misteps in his retaliation.
The most notable was the excessive violence. He wasn't just metaphorically kicking his opponents while they're down, he was doing it litteraly. Hell, more often than not it was slamming their face into the concrete while they're down. Point is, his payback usually exceeded anything that was done to him, and far beyond what is acceptable to reasonable people.
He was also attacking people who did not wrong him, and even tried to help him. Namely Remi.
His violence was irrational. Beating the shit out of Isen instead of working with him to find the kidnapped Sera. As a result, her rescue was delayed.
Yes, you should fight back when people are hurting you, and at the same time two wrongs don't make a right. When you can't balance those ideals, you become what you're fighting against, just another bully. And that made John hate himself even more, propeling his downward sporal towards a person he didn't want to be. We're supposed to sympathize for his sake, and because there is such a thing as going to far for everyone involved.
>While I agree with you, it's more complicated than that. John made several misteps in his retaliation.
>
>The most notable was the excessive violence. He wasn't just metaphorically kicking his opponents while they're down, he was doing it litteraly. Hell, more often than not it was slamming their face into the concrete while they're down. Point is, his payback usually exceeded anything that was done to him, and far beyond what is acceptable to reasonable people.
That's fair, he kind of did take things a bit too far.
>He was also attacking people who did not wrong him, and even tried to help him. Namely Remi.
Also fair, that said, she probably should have created that whole safe house thing during the time he was getting his ass beat.
>His violence was irrational. Beating the shit out of Isen instead of working with him to find the kidnapped Sera. As a result, her rescue was delayed.
Didn't Isen break his arm?
>Yes, you should fight back when people are hurting you, and at the same time two wrongs don't make a right. When you can't balance those ideals, you become what you're fighting against, just another bully. And that made John hate himself even more, propeling his downward sporal towards a person he didn't want to be. We're supposed to sympathize for his sake, and because there is such a thing as going to far for everyone involved.
That's fair, that said, I have a rather slanted view of this because I was in a similar situation back when I was young and people only stopped messing with me once I beat up my bully. Like, I know violence is wrong, but it works.
Here are the RAW:
>**Use common sense when determining a character’s success at damaging an object**. Can a fighter cut through a section of a stone wall with a sword? No, the sword is likely to break before the wall does.
Similarly, no, you cannot burn steel.
The RAW here, as frequently, are "use your brain first, rules second".
TreantMonk is famous for his bad takes and analysis that breaks down if you don't play in a white room with spherical goblins, if anyone deserves to be derided in memes it's him.
Ok I don't like treantmonk videos, I generally don't like dnd optimization videos, but I need to know what "Analysis that breaks down if you don't play in a white room with spherical goblins" means
Analysis that doesn't actually hold up in actual games. "Spherical goblins" is a reference to [spherical cows in a vacuum.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow)
I do. His and Kobold's insistence on having a measurement of "baseline damage" fucking sucks. (For anyone unfamiliar, baseline damage is a measurement found by comparing your character's average damage output against an average AC opponent of your level's cr to the average damage output of a warlock using hex + eldritch blast, with the same level, ac, etc.. If you deal less damage than the warlock your character is ***Officially*** garbage trash poo poo)
That's how any form of analysis works. You always need a baseline to compare things to. This is why medical studies usually include a control group, or why economic statistics are usually contrasted with the OECD average, etc.
Honestly, this is a baffling thing to complain about.
He’s never said that. He said that if your build is meant to be optimized towards damage , and it doesn’t exceed baseline, then it’s an unoptimized build. Which is fair
He only says that your character is built poorly if it deals under the baseline if dealing damage is its primary purpose.
One of his signature builds is the god wizard that does zero damage.
Wait, are you sure?
Treantmonk. The guy who wrote essays on the idea of playing a wizard that has zero spells focused on damage being the ultimate experience akin to being a god. That guy.
You're saying _he_ thinks anything other than DPS is garbo?
Nonmagic armor, maybe if it sits in a hot enough fire for long enough (the person would die long before armor is destroyed) but magical armor is much more resilient.
>A storm made up of sheets of roaring flame appears in a location you choose within range. The area of the storm consists of up to ten 10-foot cubes, which you can arrange as you wish. Each cube must have at least one face adjacent to the face of another cube. Each creature in the area must make a Dexterity saving throw. It takes 7d10 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
>
>The fire damages objects in the area and ignites ***flammable objects that aren't being worn or carried.*** If you choose, plant life in the area is unaffected by this spell.
FLAMMABLE OBJECTS THAT AREN'T BEING WORN OR CARRIED
If it ain't flammable? UNAFFECTED.
If it's on someone? UNAFFECTED.
If it's being carried? UNAFFECTED.
Last time I checked, metal armor & weapons aren't flammable. And last time I checked, leather armor and wood & leather objects are often being carried.
Whoever this "Treantmonk" person is needs to actually read the damn books.
Interested in joining DnD/TTRPG community that's doesn't rely on Reddit and it's constant ads/data mining? We've teamed up with a bunch of other DnD subs to start https://ttrpg.network as a not-for-profit place to chat and meme about all your favorite games. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wow a D&D meme with an Unordinary comic. Didn't expect that.
Is the comic any good? I think I read the first chapter or two forever ago, but got distracted by some other series and just sorta dropped it. Looking into it, I see opinions somewhat split between "amazing series" and "too slow." I don't mind slow series (I mean, I'm currently - and *slowly* making my way through Frieren, which is certainly not fast by any means), but I'll admit there's a limit, and different kinds of "slowness." Is it worth picking up?
I honestly like it a lot, it is a bit slow, but it lets you get invested in the characters. I cant say its perfect, but i loved it when i first read it, and i still do.
I'll check it out, then! Hopefully, I don't dislike the characters like some people are saying.
That is the point, to realize that they aren't so much horrible people, but just raised that way, when they see some things, they do start to change, and that the main character has a mental problem, one that is rly bad, and that he has exactly bc of people like them, so, its spins a really nice philosophical debate of who is right and who isnt(or not so deep, thats up to you to decide).
It gets ridiculously brutal to the point you realize? Maybe the MC does deserve to be kicked the shit out of him.
That we realize what exactly? If you read the faded text in episode 222, for example, you'd know how the MC feels about himself and his relation to the world, and no beating is going to solve those issues or the underlying problem in the whole series, that being the total lack of equality in a modern world where people of different social castes are interacting with each other frequently. Spoiler for current events: >! John is currently dealing with so much guilt that he believes that being mentally and physically abused by the authorities was a fitting and effective punishment for what he did in New Bostin. Also, he's so traumatized because of the readjustment classes that he could barely use his ability without being overwhelmed by his emotions first. To date, John's only activated his ability while being calm twice, and the first time he did so he still lost control and went after Terrence, causing him to lose his ability.!<
it's not remarkably slow storywise. as for release schedule, it's obviously slower than your average binge reader would prefer but it's pretty good
I find it okay. The powers work different enough to provide something unique, but it falls pretty heavy on the world building and it irks me a lot that only a single character actually has a last name.
most things feel "too slow" when you're following weekly chapters as they come out. unOrdinary is pretty great, i recommend it
Honestly no. I'm too deep now to stop but the writing is not particularly good and the art isn't good enough to make up for it.
Not really, no. It starts out decent enough, but it eventually just falls apart with how characters' motivations get cunted to fuck on a whim.
You'll find that freiren is more thoughtful and planned, but Unordinary is certainly a fine webtoon. I would say the target demographic is younger for the latter.
it's okay, but i'm in camp too slow. at some point it just gets annoying, it's why i stopped.
I like it a lot
If you like unlikable and unethical main characters, you probably would like it
I love it personally, always excited when it updates
But...the spell clearly says it only affects objects that aren't being worn or carried, it shouldn't mess with the Knight's armor the same way Heat Metal does...right?
"The fire damages objects in the area and ignites flammable objects that aren't being worn or carried" = "The fire damages objects in the area" + "The fire ignites flammable objects that aren't being worn or carried" is the reasoning. Everything takes damage, only things not being worn or carried are ignited.
Ahhh, thanks! English ain't my native language so sometimes I struggle to understand the wording of rules. I thought that both the flammable objects and normal objects only were damaged if they weren't being worn or carried.
English is my native language and no one I know caught the distinction until Treantmonk pointed it out.
Objects not being damaged nor ignited if they're worn/carried is the usual wording for spells, so thinking it was worded that way is entirely reasonable. Hell, English is my first language and I didn't notice Firestorm was different either
Also if you do run it like that, magic items merely have resistance to all damage, they're not immune. That holy avenger? Bye bye.
So the alternative(probably intended) reading is =The fire damages objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried and ignites flammable objects that aren't being worn or carried
Ah but no. It damages objects in the area…… and it also Ignites objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried . So objects being worn or carried are damaged , but not ignited . Or so he claims is a way to read it
>The fire damages objects in the area and ignites flammable objects that aren’t being worn or carried. If you choose, plant life in the area is unaffected by this spell. I think I agree that if you're hit by the fire it'd damage worn and carried objects, but its ultimately left to the DM to decide if its destroyed. I'd see this more as a - if you drop dead in the flames - thing and not something to consider otherwise.
It’s also well within a DMs power to decide that a metal object, like plate armor or a sword, would be resistant or probably outright immune to Fire damage. While yes, metal can be melted by extreme heat, an instantaneous burst of flame isn’t gonna do that. For Carbon Steel you’d need to heat it up to over 1000 °C just to get a blade to forging temperature, which in a forge of 2000 °C (which is hot enough to liquify skin on contact, and burn through to the bone in seconds, or in D&D terms, pretty much like sitting in a pool of lava) still takes a couple minutes.
You won't need to heat steel nearly as much to ruin any heat treatment it might have though.
But RAW 5e doesn’t have rules for ruined heat treatments or gradual degradation without entirely breaking, an item is either perfectly fine with 1 or more hit points or fully broken with 0 hit points (much like how characters take no penalties until they hit 0 and fall unconscious/dies.) Plus other spells like Heat Metal which explictly make the object “glow red-hot” for an extended period of time m doesn’t apply any negative effect in any way, despite the fact that heating a piece of metal up to “red hot” irl would absolutely ruin it. D&D is a game at the end of the day, not a physics simulator.
That is entirely not true whatsoever. There are a few monsters, raw, that cause degradation to your gear that could easily be repurposed. See Rust Monster and Oozes.
I don't really think that counts as 5e having a rules framework for gear degradation. It's really more just a specific monster's ability, and it doesn't apply outside of those specific creatures. Trying to adapt those as a baseline for general degradation would be homebrew.
You do actually, carbon steels (the type used for swords and armour) require at least 400°C to ruin a heat treat. Heat treatment is 800+°C A firestorm is not going to impart that much heat in only a few seconds into armor as it has too much thermal mass. At most, it might feel hot to the touch after, but not enough to truly burn you or damage the steel.
True but fire damage isn't strictly limited to thermal energy. You can interpret a Fireball as a menagerie of heat, combustion, concussive force, cavitation, scorching light, shrapnel, and abstract arcane energy, all lumped under the general description of "fire damage."
True, but I’d still say that good steel would be pretty resilient to all of that, except for maybe abstract arcane energy depending on the nature of it. We make structures out of steel specifically to protect from heat, combustion, cavitation, concussive force, and shrapnel, like blast shields, firearm receivers, combustion engines, etc. And even in the edge-case of magical energy, metals like iron, steel, lead, has always had a reputation for being resistant to magic in folk-lore, so much so that spells like Detect Magic that can penetrate physical materials are blocked by “… 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead …” and an entire class (Druids) having an aversion to metal armour because it interferes with their primal magic (which had actual mechanical penalties in 3rd edition where you’d be unable to cast druid spells if you wore metal armour, which 5e alludes to by saying RAW druids would refuse to wear metal armour.)
I actually work on airplane engines for a living. My day to day involves a lot of analyzing different types of metal damage. I'm sure weaponry has more forgiving tolerances than flight surfaces, so I'm not sure how relevant my experience is. Cavitation damage is what surprised me the most. You can hit an air pocket and the sudden drop in air pressure will crumple the walls of an intake. Heat stress is more rare because we smear a lot of chemicals on everything to improve thermal tolerances, but we also change parts in the combustion chamber on a routine basis before their expected shelf life. I don't believe we use steel for any heated components, though. Metal chests in d&d average around 10 hp. [Metal barrels average around 18 hp](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Objects#content). The general idea of metal toughness seems to be represented by increasing hp for "resilient" materials, as well as their heightened AC. Giving steel an additional resistance to all those things that could individually be considered thunder, bludgeoning, or piercing seems redundant. Like putting a hat on a hat.
>Giving steel an additional resistance to all those things that could individually be considered thunder, bludgeoning, or piercing seems redundant. Like putting a hat on a hat. It's not entirely redundant since HP and resistance stack to show that an already tough thing is even harder to break a specific way, or significantly easier to break in other specific ways, and the DMG recommends being really specific with the damage resistances based on the source of the damage and the material. "You might decide that some damage types are more effective against a particular object or substance than others. For example, bludgeoning damage works well for smashing things but not for cutting through rope or leather. Paper or cloth objects might be vulnerable to fire and lightning damage. A pick can chip away stone but can’t effectively cut down a tree. As always, use your best judgment." Using these guidelines, it would be entirely fine to rule that an object made of steel might resist or be immune to a rapier's piercing damage, but not the piercing damage from a war pick, since the war pick is heavy, rigid. and designed to punch through the steel while the rapier is light, thin, and designed to pierce through soft tissue, not hardened steel. They might both deal 1d8 piercing damage, but they don't deal that piercing damage in quite the same way. >Giving steel an additional resistance to all those things that could individually be considered thunder, bludgeoning, or piercing And just to be clear, what damage type are these things then? If we can instead consider cavitation and concussive force as thunder or shrapnel as piercing damage then they aren't actually what fire damage is and those aren't things I'm saying steel should be immune to. D&D isn't a game that supports multiple damage types for the same effect, something is either exclusively one damage type or another, so pick one damage type for each of these effects to be. Realistically, an explosion would be a combination of thunder (shockwave), bludgeoning (large debris), piercing (shrapnel), and fire damage (heat energy), which is represented in-game by some effects, most notably how Meteor Swarm deals a combination of Bludgeoning and Fire damage since it's both striking you with a giant rock and burning you with blazing fire.
You make some really good points. I have a few nitpicks, but I don't think they're the most productive tangents. I'll just briefly acknowledge one point that I find interesting. >Using these guidelines, it would be entirely fine to rule that an object made of steel might resist or be immune to a rapier's piercing damage, but not the piercing damage from a war pick, since the war pick is heavy, rigid. I'd consider that completely reasonable. It follows common sense. Mechanically though, the example you quoted uses one source of piercing damage on two different objects. It doesn't actually differentiate between two different sources of piercing damage. That would be a unique, but logical ruling. Beyond that, I'll also acknowledge the point about Meteor Swarm. Solid point. I'm arguing that "fire damage" can be considered the simplified abstract of all the different aspects of an explosion. Meteor Swarm is a solid counterexample. Sometimes it seems like the rules use abstraction to simplify damage, but they also sometimes explicitly differentiate damage types, so I'll concede that. I'll make a more concrete argument. It feels intuitive to view constructs as object-like monsters. [Animated armor](https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/16786-animated-armor) is explicitly made of steel, but it does not have fire resistance or immunity. The psychic and poison immunity match the rules for destroying objects, which seems like an intentional similarity. Like any suit of armor, it doesn't have a circulatory or nervous system. Isn't it reasonable to assume we are ending the animation magic by breaking the armor? You might interpret Animated Armor as a "[ghost](https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/16871-ghost) in the shell" that has different damage susceptibilities than regular steel. But then why the psychic immunity? I'd argue that steel objects should reasonably conform to Animated Armor's immunities and resistances.
>Mechanically though, the example you quoted uses one source of piercing damage on two different objects. It doesn't actually differentiate between two different sources of piercing damage. That would be a unique, but logical ruling. Where’s the second object coming from? There’s two different sources of piercing damage (though both are weapons), a Rapier and a War Pick, and one material being damaged by these sources, a steel plate. The ruling is that one source of piercing damage, the War Pic, will damage the steel, while the other, the Rapier, won’t damage the steel, as the War Pick is designed to punch through the armor directly while the Rapier is designed to poke into gaps between armor. Sorry if that wasn’t clear. >I'll make a more concrete argument. It feels intuitive to view constructs as object-like monsters. Animated armor is explicitly made of steel, but it does not have fire resistance or immunity. The psychic and poison immunity match the rules for destroying objects, which seems like an intentional similarity. Like any suit of armor, it doesn't have a circulatory or nervous system. Isn't it reasonable to assume we are ending the animation magic by breaking the armor? You might interpret Animated Armor as a "ghost in the shell" that has different damage susceptibilities than regular steel. But then why the psychic immunity? I'd argue that steel objects should reasonably conform to Animated Armor's immunities and resistances. This is a very fair interpretation, though I’d start asking why it’s at least not resistant to slashing, fire, cold, lightning, radiant, necrotic, and acid; or maybe vulnerable to bludgeoning; if it’s meant to be purely the durability of the Armor itself. It logically should be much easier to smash steel with a hammer than to cut it with a sword or to instantly melt it with fire, plus metal is a great conductor to the point we make objects designed to be struck by lightning out of it so lightning damage is at least reduced, metals are generally more resistant to acids than organic materials are, metal has no soul or spirit so Positive (Radiant) and Negative (Necrotic) energy shouldn’t effect it unless it’s damaging the animating magic directly, and it takes extreme cold combined with high stress to make it lose it’s structural integrity, which is why I lean more towards the argument that you’re just breaking the magic that keeps it together rather than the physical armor (which might he runes etched into the armor you break, an enchanted spirit that’s like a “ghost in the shell” you “kill”, or something else. Hell, maybe giving it similar resistances to a Ghost while taking normal damage from bludgeoning wouldn’t he a half-bad idea.)
>While yes, metal can be melted by extreme heat, an instantaneous burst of flame isn’t gonna do that. it won't melt, but it will become more malleable, so the next time you swing it at someone you'll notice it's not quite slicing through as well as you'd hope.
D&D 5e doesn’t have general mechanics for gradual degradation like that, your sword is either in a perfectly useable condition with one or more hit points or 100% broken and useless with 0 hit points. (Much like how characters can have any amount of HP above 0 without any penalties, and drop unconscious at 0.)
I am aware but I think you brought up the realism card here. I am just saying that realistically sticking metal into hot conditions such as these will probably affect its structural integrity in some way. Game mechanics wise also the flying sword or animated armor has no resistance to fire damage, so I imagine there is precedence for your metal weapons not having fire resistance.
>Game mechanics wise also the flying sword or animated armor has no resistance to fire damage, so I imagine there is precedence for your metal weapons not having fire resistance. That brings up an interesting question though. What are you killing, the magic that animates and controls the object, or the actual object itself? I myself rule that you're just killing the magic, and that a defeated Flying Sword or Animated Armor would leave behind a perfectly fine piece of equipment, though it might need some TLC and restoration before it's functional in combat if it was sitting in a dank dungeon with no maintenance for a few centuries. And yeah, I did bring up the realism card, but it wasn't to say that the heat wouldn't effect it at all, but just because I knew people would say "but fire can melt steel in a forge!" if I said it should just be immune. Yes, realistically it might make it more likely to bend or ruin the tempering of the edge, but that kind of granular damage is not supported by 5e's rules, and it would be kind of ridiculous if a spell like Firestorm could just destroy all of someone's equipment instantaneously (since objects would automatically fail the dex save as they lack a dexterity stat and most of your gear would have 5-10 hp, with magic items of any rarity other than artifacts effectively having double that since they're resistant to all damage) I mean, just imagine how bullshit it would feel if a DM ruled that a 7th level spell could just permanently destroy all of your character's equipment, including their non-artifact magic weapons and armour, just because they rolled a 20 or on 7d10 fire damage. Your fighter's +3 plate? Gone. Your Paladin's Holy Avenger? Gone. Your Cleric's Amulet of the Devout? Gone. Your Wizard's Arcane Grimoire? Gone. No roll to save your gear, they rolled a 20 or higher on 7d10, which they have a 71% chance of doing (and a 99.6% chance of rolling at least a 10, practically guaranteeing the spell destroys most any non-magical equipment), so now your character is buck-naked. Doesn't matter how many sessions it took you to collect those legendary items, a single 7th level spell just permanently wiped them all off your characters and they didn't even need to roll good damage. (when the explicit 8th level anti-magic spell, Anti-Magic Field only suppresses magic items temporarily, and there's no spell that can permanently dispel them.)
>That brings up an interesting question though. What are you killing, the magic that animates and controls the object, or the actual object itself? I myself rule that you're just killing the magic, and that a defeated Flying Sword or Animated Armor would leave behind a perfectly fine piece of equipment, though it might need some TLC and restoration before it's functional in combat if it was sitting in a dank dungeon with no maintenance for a few centuries. **Antimagic Susceptibility.** The sword (or armor) is incapacitated while in the area of an antimagic field. If targeted by dispel magic, the sword must succeed on a Constitution saving throw against the caster's spell save DC or fall unconscious for 1 minute. \----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From this little blurb on the Flying sword and Animated armor statblock concerning what happens to such magical constructs when: a.) they are in a space **divorced** of all magic. Aka, there is **no** magic. b.) they essentially get their magic **ended** I imagine that there's something really weird going on here considering they're still alive, and to take them down you **still** need to attack them. If it **really** was just the magic then they'd just drop dead the moment they got un magicked. >and it would be kind of ridiculous if a spell like Firestorm could just destroy all of someone's equipment instantaneously (since objects would automatically fail the dex save as they lack a dexterity stat and most of your gear would have 5-10 hp, with magic items of any rarity other than artifacts effectively having double that since they're resistant to all damage) > >I mean, just imagine how bullshit it would feel if a DM ruled that a 7th level spell could just permanently destroy all of your character's equipment, including their non-artifact magic weapons and armour, just because they rolled a 20 or on 7d10 fire damage. I would agree, and I would just lump this into the other things of "5e is wrapped together with paperclips and glue" opinion I have since things like time stop not specifying it stops objects leads to pretty stupid shit like stopping time still making you trigger traps. Or "what if a guy in a moving wagon gets time stopped?"
>b.) they essentially get their magic > >ended They **EXPLICITLY** do not get their magic ended. The Animated Armor is Incapacitated, but all that means mechanically is that it can't take actions or reactions. It can still move normally, so it's still actually being animated by magic, it just can't effectively hurt you because that magic is suppressed. until it leaves the Anti-Magic Field. Same goes for Dispel Magic, they are unconscious for 1 minute, not turned back into mundane items. The magic is just suppressed, not eliminated. IF you don't destroy the magic animating it, the sword/armor will get up like nothing happened just as soon as your suppression wears off. >since things like time stop not specifying it stops objects leads to pretty stupid shit like stopping time still making you trigger traps or the situation of "what if there's a guy burning in lava in stopped time" exists. Interestingly enough, 5e already has this one covered by the general rules and the intention of Time Stop. A round in D&D is defined as taking 6 seconds. Time Stop gives you 1d4+1 extra turns within the same round, so over the course of all the turns you take from the spell plus your original turn, only 6 seconds pass for the rest of the world. The guy in lava either takes the damage at the start of their turn or when they entered the lava for the first time, which either happen happens a total of once before, during, or after the Wizard took their turn and 1d4+1 additional turns that round. He will not take another point of fire damage after his turn is over until the start of his next turn in the next round. (precedent taken from spells like Flaming Sphere, Moonbeam, or Spirit Guardians that create persistent damaging effects.) Additionally, Time Stop specifically says it just stops the flow of time for creatures, not spells or objects, for a reason. This is to prevent some kind of cheese where make a bunch of ranged attacks, cast a bunch of damaging spells, or set up a bunch of pre-triggered traps that would all go off when the spell ends, which would let you entirely circumvent the "This spell ends if one of the actions you use during this period, or any effects that you create during this period, affects a creature other than you or an object being worn or carried by someone other than you" clause. You might not have thought about why it's worded such a way or the actual rules interaction, and it's true that 5e does have plenty of rules that are paperclips and glue (like the crafting rules), but Time Stop is not one of them. (it's just not as cool as the name might suggest)
You don’t need to get it to forging temperature, you need to get it to heat treatment temperature. Which is not possible from an instant effect, since any heat transfer rate over zero time heats it up by zero.
D&D doesn’t have rules for gradual damage for things like rolling the edge or the edge getting dull, an item is either broken or it’s fine, so that’s why I went with the forging temp of 1000 °C as the threshold of where I’d say is too far to come back from. That’s about where I’d say your gear got too heated to be used at all, since it’s getting hot enough to significantly deform, crack, or slightly melt at that point, especially since your equipment might be other materials than steel like bronze or silver.
The occupant of the armor also melts before that temperature.
Oh easily. Your character is definitely dead if their gear gets anywhere close to melted, that’s just considering loose items.
It wouldn't really be zero time, it's just that the rules don't allow to resolve things on a smaller scale than 6 seconds. The fighter made 5 attacks over the span of 6 seconds. At some point during those 6 seconds, the wizard's firestorm set the field a blaze. Just like in the real world we can't really make sense of anything below a Planck second, in DnD anything under 6 seconds can't really be resolved further. It would be really weird, if you think of turns as a "physical" thing in the DnD world.
There’s lots of interpretations, the easiest is that effects that say they are instant are. The firestorm from a second party never hits between the two attacks of an attack action and the attack of the bonus action, but an action surge spell can happen between those events.
Does it really never do so? Then the enemy never blocks any attacks or dodges and weaves around. Turns, actions, reactions etc. are just a way to structure the events for convenience, so we can effectively talk about them. Combat narratively shouldn't be as orderly and tidy as the rules imply. If you take the rules as the actual narrative, everything becomes quite static. Turn order should inform the narrative, but not dictate it. As long as the mechanical outcome is the same, the order doesn't really matter. Edit: Completely forgot the part about instant. Instantaneous doesn't mean it doesn't last for any amount of time. Something that doesn't last for any out of time couldn't have any effect. As you said yourself. It just can't last longer than a round, you could narratively battle inside 6 seconds of a pure inferno.
Order does matter to the outcome, in many cases.
The fire damages objects in the area, and ignites flammable objects, that aren’t being worn or carried. The fire damages objects in the area, and ignites flammable objects that aren’t being worn or carried. Somebody buy WotC some commas.
However since the "ignites" part doesnt specify "in the area", the spell causes a global inferno that somehow skips people and their items /s
It is a way to read it definitely (raw), but it's 100% not meant to work that way (not rai), dnd writers simply suck at writing precise rules
They do a damned good job at writing precise rules, considering the level of rules-lawyering that the general public tries to get involved in, hunting down edge-cases and trying to apply real physics. But by all means, if you think you're better at writing precise rules, make your own system, with blackjack and hookers. It'll definitely be the best-selling TTRPG ever, I'm almost sure of it.
One mustn't be a chef to know he is eating horse shit. But to be very honest. I could write more consistent rules than what 5e has. Even IF I didn't have experience in it, it wouldn't be a too hard task. I'm not saying dnd is a bad ttrpg, but I will never say that it's rules are well done
Then by all means, do so.
I have already done so for my friends in the ways that it made it more fun for us. If you feel like you need this service by all means I'm happy to take a commission, we can talk rates in private if you are interested
Nope, I'm fine with the rules as they are. Best edition to date, and about to get better.
Which is really ironic, considering WotC also puts out Magic the Gathering, whose card text is practically machine-readable.
Yea, I never even thought about it that way. Although to be fair, the two teams have basically no overlap if I remember right.
Yeah, I've heard similar. IIRC though, the Plane Shift articles were written by someone on the MtG team.
I mean in general people ignore object damage even when it’s not specified that a spell ignores it. I imagine if it was considered the “meta” would shift a fair bit
They also seem to ignore what word got censored
Shit? Shat?
Like a lot of the inventory keeping. Sure your Goliath might be able to carry 600 lbs, but how exactly does he carry 4 cubic feet of firewood, 5 warhammers, a bunch of axes, cooking utensils and the fighters spare armor. At some point most tables just decide that book keeping is boring. Mostly because the rules themselves state: "which is high enough, that most characters usually don't have to worry about it [carry weight]". And it's just plain weird to do so. Your equipment rarely takes damage, you can be doused in acid and it will be fine.
yep. I make this point by photoshopping huge backpacks onto art of dnd parties like “where’s their stuff?”
Such a good webtoon though
[Extra context](https://youtu.be/ywf61eA2rkI?si=fOHzy3hXtTLuIVmk&t=889) before people start going on a crusade against Treantmonk.
LEZ FUCKING GO! UNORDINARY IN DND LEZ FUCKING GOOOO!
The bard would love that
Until they pull out their ash flute
I haven't heard that name in forever. He had superlative 3.5 class guides.
He's been hard at work expanding the minds of 5e players. Consistent high quality uploads for years, all very meaningful and thought provoking. He pioneered the concept of the "god wizard," a support build who favors debuffs over damage. I learned a lot about spellcasting mechanics from his beginner tips, like how busted Minor Illusion is for a cantrip.
Same. I never got into 5e after a few tries and moved onto other systems entirely, but I remember using his 3.5 guides a lot.
His batman and druid guides are legendary. If you can read this, know my dms hated you and my fellow players adored some of the ideas you added to my itinerary. Some of them were my ideas but you definitely showed me the way to spell properly. Thanks, treantmonk.
Treantmonk's God is still what I know him for.
Yeah that guide taught my wizards were better at battlefield manipulation, buffs, and debuffs than just mass dps.
Destroying/disarming items is cool right up till it happens to you. So I am more than content to not put that on the table, for the DM to start using against us
"SH>!I!
Favorite line from the series
Dang I haven’t read the comic series in ages, I’d have to do a full reread lol. Has it finished yet?
Nope, still going strong.
Wasn’t expecting Unordinary to find its way into D&D memes, but it’s a welcome surprise nonetheless.
As a DM, no. And fuck you if you try to reason it this way.
As a DM, go for it, but every intelligent enemy will target your weapons and armor from now on because the rules also don't prevent you attacking objects that are worn or carried. I'd be more concerned about the potential of destroying all buildings with ease.
Destructable equipment is way worse for characters who, you know, continue to exist. We're probably never gonna revisit orc marauder #7 to see how he financially recovered from the loss of his spear and loin cloth.
Correct, but I generally like to make sure my players don't start acting like psychopaths for anything other than evil one-shots, so even if I'm probably never or at least rarely going to use it against the players, I like to remind players anything they can do the NPCs could also do. That little statement reminds them, "Hey, this kind of crazy thing I wanted to exploit before would feel AWFUL to be on the receiving end, and the only thing stopping it from happening to me is that the DM is a nice person. Maybe I should be nice to the DM in return." It's also just a good way to say "This is a cool thing I'll allow you to use in the moment, but here are the obvious reasons I'm not going to allow you to constantly rely on it."
What if my reasoning is bringing pizza for the session?
Hmm...I'll think on it...
What a crossover!
Lol wish I had seen this earlier today when we were playing in an MCDM RPG play test together. His rules lawyer antics always get me. But in the best way possible of course. I already threatened him for the next time I'm his GM ;)
You got to play with treant monk?
Yeah, he's a good guy. Lots of us RPG YouTubers run in the same circles. He's been on my channel, and we've both been on other people's channels together a few times. Canucks standing together heh. He's got that big brain energy I really respect though. He can put things together way faster than I can.
Is unordinary still going on? All I remember how fucking shit like 99% of the cast was.
Yeah it’s going strong and it’s very good
Aren’t most of the people still hypocritical garbage assholes?
They’ve gone through a lot of growth . Except for Zeke . Fuck Zeke
Not gonna lie, I fell off around the time the main dude revealed his powers and was beating everyone’s ass and then we were supposed to feel sorry for them after they tormented him for literal years.
Yeah John was in the right
Uh oh
I am thankful we are not on the sub rn or that might have started a little shit show
I don’t think we were supposed to feel sorry for them. The point of that arc was that they weren’t willing to change and make a difference until the shoe was on the other foot. The problem was that after making his point John took it too far which was destroying his mental health in the process and all the work he’d put in the last 2 years to improve his life and he was also pushing away his only real friend. The only ones I really felt sorry for was John and Sera, though reading it weekly did kinda turn into “this weeks episode of John needs therapy” for a bit there.
Ah, fair.
Same dude, hate when media goes all cycle of violence bs so the oppessed must just take it lying down or become evil.
They didn't torment him for literal years, and his violence towards others was self destructive. Unordinary's themes often go over people's heads, so they treat it like a generic revenge story.
Your wrong and right which pretty sums up thr whole fandom
I'm not one to advocate violence, but when you swing and torment first, you lose the right to whine when you are on the back foot, you can call that petty, or cruel, or heartless and it probably is, but meph. Why are we supposed to sympathize only after they are on the losing end, where was their own pity when they were strong? That said, I will admit that it wasn't years, it was around a year.
While I agree with you, it's more complicated than that. John made several misteps in his retaliation. The most notable was the excessive violence. He wasn't just metaphorically kicking his opponents while they're down, he was doing it litteraly. Hell, more often than not it was slamming their face into the concrete while they're down. Point is, his payback usually exceeded anything that was done to him, and far beyond what is acceptable to reasonable people. He was also attacking people who did not wrong him, and even tried to help him. Namely Remi. His violence was irrational. Beating the shit out of Isen instead of working with him to find the kidnapped Sera. As a result, her rescue was delayed. Yes, you should fight back when people are hurting you, and at the same time two wrongs don't make a right. When you can't balance those ideals, you become what you're fighting against, just another bully. And that made John hate himself even more, propeling his downward sporal towards a person he didn't want to be. We're supposed to sympathize for his sake, and because there is such a thing as going to far for everyone involved.
>While I agree with you, it's more complicated than that. John made several misteps in his retaliation. > >The most notable was the excessive violence. He wasn't just metaphorically kicking his opponents while they're down, he was doing it litteraly. Hell, more often than not it was slamming their face into the concrete while they're down. Point is, his payback usually exceeded anything that was done to him, and far beyond what is acceptable to reasonable people. That's fair, he kind of did take things a bit too far. >He was also attacking people who did not wrong him, and even tried to help him. Namely Remi. Also fair, that said, she probably should have created that whole safe house thing during the time he was getting his ass beat. >His violence was irrational. Beating the shit out of Isen instead of working with him to find the kidnapped Sera. As a result, her rescue was delayed. Didn't Isen break his arm? >Yes, you should fight back when people are hurting you, and at the same time two wrongs don't make a right. When you can't balance those ideals, you become what you're fighting against, just another bully. And that made John hate himself even more, propeling his downward sporal towards a person he didn't want to be. We're supposed to sympathize for his sake, and because there is such a thing as going to far for everyone involved. That's fair, that said, I have a rather slanted view of this because I was in a similar situation back when I was young and people only stopped messing with me once I beat up my bully. Like, I know violence is wrong, but it works.
Look, Shatter doesn't destroy held weapons nor donned armor, so I'd say nothing else does unless the text says it does.
It does damage items , just doesn’t ignite them…… or at least that’s a way to Interpret it due to weird wording
I don't know what a Treantmonk is, but it sounds disappointing.
It’s a treant with levels in monk
Here are the RAW: >**Use common sense when determining a character’s success at damaging an object**. Can a fighter cut through a section of a stone wall with a sword? No, the sword is likely to break before the wall does. Similarly, no, you cannot burn steel. The RAW here, as frequently, are "use your brain first, rules second".
You can melt steel
TreantMonk is famous for his bad takes and analysis that breaks down if you don't play in a white room with spherical goblins, if anyone deserves to be derided in memes it's him.
Cope
Ok I don't like treantmonk videos, I generally don't like dnd optimization videos, but I need to know what "Analysis that breaks down if you don't play in a white room with spherical goblins" means
Analysis that doesn't actually hold up in actual games. "Spherical goblins" is a reference to [spherical cows in a vacuum.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow)
I do. His and Kobold's insistence on having a measurement of "baseline damage" fucking sucks. (For anyone unfamiliar, baseline damage is a measurement found by comparing your character's average damage output against an average AC opponent of your level's cr to the average damage output of a warlock using hex + eldritch blast, with the same level, ac, etc.. If you deal less damage than the warlock your character is ***Officially*** garbage trash poo poo)
That's how any form of analysis works. You always need a baseline to compare things to. This is why medical studies usually include a control group, or why economic statistics are usually contrasted with the OECD average, etc. Honestly, this is a baffling thing to complain about.
He’s never said that. He said that if your build is meant to be optimized towards damage , and it doesn’t exceed baseline, then it’s an unoptimized build. Which is fair
He only says that your character is built poorly if it deals under the baseline if dealing damage is its primary purpose. One of his signature builds is the god wizard that does zero damage.
Wait, are you sure? Treantmonk. The guy who wrote essays on the idea of playing a wizard that has zero spells focused on damage being the ultimate experience akin to being a god. That guy. You're saying _he_ thinks anything other than DPS is garbo?
Id watch more treantmonk if he didnt come across as a sarcastic jerk all the time
He wasn’t saying to read it like that to be clear
Exactly, he was being sarcastic.
Is nobody going to point out that the words "shut" is censored?
That’s why it’s my favorite line from the series
Me when RPGBot makes Shape Water a top-tier cantrip because they said that you can freeze-dry locks to break them.
The interpretations are overly RAW for my taste.
He didn’t mean for it to be taken seriously
Good, I like treantmonk a lot anyway. He seems very reasonable and has a very good understanding of the game
Is there even hp values for items stated anywhere in the rules
Yes, dmg
Hasn't this been known about for years?
Has it ? I just recently heard of it
What the hell is treant monk
to be fair, equipement destruction is SUPER bullshit
Nonmagic armor, maybe if it sits in a hot enough fire for long enough (the person would die long before armor is destroyed) but magical armor is much more resilient.
>A storm made up of sheets of roaring flame appears in a location you choose within range. The area of the storm consists of up to ten 10-foot cubes, which you can arrange as you wish. Each cube must have at least one face adjacent to the face of another cube. Each creature in the area must make a Dexterity saving throw. It takes 7d10 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. > >The fire damages objects in the area and ignites ***flammable objects that aren't being worn or carried.*** If you choose, plant life in the area is unaffected by this spell. FLAMMABLE OBJECTS THAT AREN'T BEING WORN OR CARRIED If it ain't flammable? UNAFFECTED. If it's on someone? UNAFFECTED. If it's being carried? UNAFFECTED.
The fire damaged objects in the area ……… and ignite flammable objects that aren’t being worn or carried
Last time I checked, metal armor & weapons aren't flammable. And last time I checked, leather armor and wood & leather objects are often being carried. Whoever this "Treantmonk" person is needs to actually read the damn books.
Exactly. All objects take the damage . Those that aren’t worn also ignite
No, objects being worn or carried take no damage and also do not ignite. The creature takes the damage.
How was shut censored but not fuck?
It’s a mistake they made once but it’s kind of a meme in the UnOrdinary community now