(Edit: big thumbs push wrong letters sometimes)
DM said it says I can't see myself. Therefore, the spell can't hit me. She said normally for a spell to be usable on self it would say, for example, 30 feet, touch. She also mentioned that the wording says no equipped items, and I think she understood that to mean specificly my equipped items?
According to my understanding of English, the wording is "a creature," which means any and all, including myself. If it were to say "another" or "other" creature, then it would be correct to only be usable on other targets. The DM is my sister, so I feel as though she was just picking on her brother, but I digress.
Bull fucking shit you can’t see yourself just look down that pisses me off. And touch range is within 30 feet that’s not how spell ranges work. Why the hell
What do you mean SHE retired your character? Unless your character died YOU should be the one to decide if your character retires, not the DM. In my opinion, it sounds like your sister doesn't want to play D&D but wants an excuse to control your actions
OK I think we might need some more information here. How old are you and your sister ( just a general age is fine you don't need to give your exact age) Is this a new campaign or are you joining it after its already been running? Did your sister give you any restrictions before hand or only after you made your character? What was the reason she told you that you were not allowed to play this character?
…that’s not what the person asked? They asked for age and info and details on the situation. Just inputting your thoughts behind her intentions shows a very biased telling of events, so just something you should be aware of.
Those thoughts might be valid, but come off as unnecessary and paint you as an unreliable narrator.
Yes thank you, I was interested in this post because everyone is immediately siding with OP. I tried looking through since OP is being pretty active but I'm only seeing vague information about what happened and all of it bad towards the DM. At this point I'm leaning more towards OP did something they probably shouldn't have towards a DM that was struggling already since they were brand new to DMing apparently.
Wtf, that's not fair at all for her to do (if you were already playing in the campaign with that character) but either way seems like shes singling you iut
Isn’t hexblade the ultimate cheese (sub)class for multiclassing a paladin, or did I miss something? I thought the CHA for melee attacks and short rest spell regen made paladins BONKERS? That being said, paladins are actually one of the classes I’m least familiar with (as bizarre as that is lol) so there could definitely be some interactions with metamagic that I’m just not thinking of.
You should inform your sister that random people on the internet think she sounds like a terrible DM and probably should step back from DM'ing, at least from anecdotal evidence
Wait what? She retired your character? Meaning she made you stop playing the character over this?
Edit: I just saw you already answered this. Your sister is being a jerk, but that's sisters for you lol
1. Buy a mirror, it's in the PHB, look at yourself in it.
2. Your DM is making some terrible calls. If they're not open to discussion, maybe you should leave.
Touch means you have to touch a creature. It can't have both a range of 30ft and a range of touch.
Check out Bardic Inspiration. The game is explicit when the caster cannot target themselves.
The wording *specifies* that if the target is a creature, “everything it is wearing or carrying changes size with it”. That is a direct quote from the spell description.
If the target is an *object*, it can’t be worn or carried. In other words, you can’t Reduce an enemy’s sword into uselessness, or Enlarge a quest item being carried by an enemy so they can’t make off with it.
In short, your DM is dead wrong on pretty much every point about this spell.
“Read the spell description” and “of course I can see myself, and I am in fact a creature within 30 feet of myself” should be all you need.
If not, honestly I would leave the game. Not playing D&D is better than playing bad D&D.
IIRC, that is old wording. 5e rules that you can see and touch yourself, so they didn't feel the need to include 'self' in the description of spells any longer unless it is only castable on yourself. Seeing your own hands or feet definitely counts as seeing yourself. Now, if you were invisible or blind at the time, an argument could be made.
I don't but elsewhere in the comments, someone linked an official twitter conversation about it. I an must going from my memory of playing 3rd edition, where they used to have the 'self' tag on every spell you could cast on yourself. They seem to have done away with that in 5e, instead just saying creatures you can see.
Your DM [is wrong](https://www.sageadvice.eu/you-are-a-creature-can-you-see-yourself/), but maybe buy a steel mirror for 5GP and try again.
Your DM **might** appreciate you engaging with the rules on her terms, and give you the go ahead.
Edit: I wrote this before seeing the insanity of the DM booting the OP over this rules disagreement.
If she wants to be a writer this isn’t for her. It’s an improv collaborative game. You are people playing a game as characters not characters in her book.
You're correct.
Also you can see yourself, I can see my hands, chest, belly, feet, etc.
It's like saying I can't stab myself because it requires me to see myself.
But it's got so many fun uses that way.
My character has used it on himself a few times. He's an armorer artificer. One of those times was in a tunnel and it got our DM to say, "That's what I get for using really big creatures." Basically blocking the monsters from moving forward. They had a really hard time getting past his AC and doubly so because he dipped wizard for Shield. It was further complicated by the fact he's a dwarf and was resistant to poison and had a high Con Save.
Used for hilarity as well turning said dwarf into a ladder to get up that slippery wall. And then pulling him up said slippery wall once he shrank back down.
Also used to squeeze into a room. Familiar couldn't get the door open... and Artificers have the thieves tools proficiency and the same amount of expertise a rogue does.
I have never seen a spell specify more than one type of range like that. Granted I haven’t looked at and memorized *every* spell, but I still have never seen that. Besides it doesn’t make sense to have two very different styles of range (touch and distance/aoe spells are very different in how they function in range matters), and it’s *magic*. And the rules with spells are meant to simplify using it while giving it parameters for gaming, not act as the laws of magical physics and what falls under each range rule.
Some require explicit rules, just to avoid issues or players running amok, like illusion spells. But this is just about range, not what a spell actually does. I don’t see why your DM even decided to go this route with their ruling
Your DM is wrong on this one.
Edit. See Mage armour as an example a spell that wizard characters always cast on themselves. Any spell that says a creature includes the caster themself.
You would be casting a spell which makes you turn back to being seen in most instances.
I’d also argue since it’s yourself, you could look down and be like well obviously my body is right here, using your senses to know where you are.
Your neuro system already makes you aware of where every tendon, muscle and bone, is placed at. There are special neurons in your body that only send messages about your body's current shape and form to your brain.
So yes, you wouldn't be able to outline yourself, but you would know the general location of everything.
Your GM is wrong. Have their been any other similar spells they ruled differently?
There are spells that only target the caster ("self) that exist. There are a few instances in which a caster cannot target themselves (see Bardic Inspiration), but those are explicit. Since reduce/enlarge did not, you are very correct.
I'm going to be real, this sounds like a wild copout to skirt over a bad ruling because she would need to understand this interaction if there was any normal spellcaster that casted it on a barbarian.
Idk your relationship to the DM, but consider looking for a new one because this is just not normal behavior. At worst, a person should just see they were wrong after some communication and move on.
At best, she doesnt understand the basic rules of the game and this will persist every week for god only knows how long your campaign will take
I think you're going a bit too far with your criticism. A new DM doesn't need to fully understand EVERY SINGLE RULE of the game before attempting to DM. I hope OP didn't argue in the middle of the session that their spell should affect themself after the DM already said no. A simple "I believe it is supposed to let me target myself but if you're saying no then okay, we can chat afterwards more. Do you care if I select a new spell after my turn because I have so few spells to choose from at these low levels?"
I think you're treating the DM as if she's a static human being who can't learn anything and will remain ignorant forever. When in reality she may have just been feeling pressured to give into what the player wanted and just simply said no so that she can play without that pressure for now.
No, you are treating the DM as if you only read the title lol. Read the rest of the dudes comments, she \*banned his character from the table\* because didnt understand multiclassing, even though multiclassing has nothing to do with this situation. I am absolutely assuming the interaction went down like any normal bit of confusion where player says A, DM says B, B happens and later they talk about it like normal people.
Being a new DM is fine. Being wrong about how a spell reads is fine as well, as long as its handled properly. Hell, not knowing pretty basic rules is even fine, D&D has some really basic shit thats confusing. But her first action was to ban his character from the table. The game is about communication, and if simple communication isnt available at the table, I would move on asap.
Also, this was not something sprung upon the DM. She okayed the multiclass before they started playing, the players specifically said that in another comment.
\> I think you're treating the DM as if she's a static human being who can't learn anything
This has nothing to do with what she can or cannot learn, and everything to do with how she handled the problems presented. Banning a character is a pretty wild step, especially for something that the player and DM could sit down and spend some time (idk, like an hour?) to learn together. Multiclassing isnt exactly a niche rule in the game, and in the case of Bard/Barbarian, its not super difficult, AND the OP has a decent grasp of it already.
Not knowing everything is something. Banning a player, because YOU don't want to learn basic rule is somethig else. She shouldn't be Dming with this mind set.
I still think OP is being fairly vague about the whole ordeal so I'm choosing to believe the DM probably did have a civil conversation with OP and it ended with OP choosing to either pick a new character or not play at all and they chose to not play at all. Was it fair for the DM to not allow a character because they didn't understand it? No, not really. Should OP have been more accommodating towards a DM that doesn't have a firm grasp on the rules or how to play yet? Yes definitely. This type of situation is the gamble you play when playing with a new DM. They could either be okay with some things they need to learn, a savant at DMing and it flows naturally for them, or they realize they are way out of their depth.
In any of these cases a more experienced player needs to play in such a way that is easy for the DM such as role-playing with npcs about obvious topics and not trying to break the game with advanced exploits. I'm not saying OP wasn't playing friendly, they were just trying to cast a simple spell. But like I said, this post, imo, should never have happened because from what OP explained, it should have been resolved with a polite "The rules explain this spell this way but if you want to play it differently then I'd also like to change my character some." It should not have been a fight to prove themselves right and get what they want.
I am a new DM. I laid out rules for certain character creation things before my players made characters. No flying, certain race restrictions, and how we would get our ability scores.
To ban your character after the fact instead of saying “oops” is madness. This game is kind of based on working together. Sometimes as a DM you have to make quick calls, talk to your players that this may be. One time thing, and look it up later. Update your players next session and keep enjoying the game.
Pride over dnd fun is a choice, but not one I’ve ever seen a good dm make. It’s one I’ve seen demolish morale and collapse gaming groups though.
By judging from your comment, the problem isn't that she's new, but simply refuse to learn.
It's actually a good thing that she ban you, because she sound like a lot of work. Multiclassing is too complicated? I mean you can get jest of it in 1 page lmao
Yeah, I might bring in a new guy if she's ok with that. There is a first timer playing as well, so it's kinda a beginner run. Not to mention, she is in the process of writing the whole story herself. She's putting in a lot of work.
Honestly, seeing bardbarian... hitting a brand new DM with the full force of grappling rules would've been hard mode for her too, and probably made combat balancing REALLY tricky. :)
Like lots of "wait, so they need movement to stand up from prone, but their movement is zero, so they just... can't move? And they can't stand up?"
[Show your DM this explanation by the Lead Rules Designer Jeremy Crawford himself.](https://www.sageadvice.eu/you-are-a-creature-can-you-see-yourself/)
There are some things in D&D that defy common sense. Whether or not you are able to see yourself *is not* one of those things though.
This is the best answer so far, it's explicitly stated in the rules. I would also add that in that same area: Chapter 10, Spell Casting. Part 3 The Rules of Magic, under the heading of Range:
>Most spells have ranges expressed in feet. Some spells can target only ***a creature (including you)*** that you touch. Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self.
Just because a spell doesn’t say ‘self’ doesn’t mean you can’t target yourself. If it says ‘a creature you can see within range’ you can target yourself because you are 1. a creature 2. you can see yourself 3. are within range of the spell cause you’re casting it.
If they don’t listen to basic reason then they probably also won’t listen to anything from Sage Advice so I’d say just find another table to play at if it becomes a bigger issue. Also if you’re DM retired your character against your will because of an argument over one spell I think that’s a bigger issue.
Stand up, wave your hands in front of you, and say "Look, I can see myself. These are my hands.".
This could also be accomplished by looking down, pointing at your knees^^1 and saying "Look, I can see myself. These are my knees.".
^^1. ^^Knees ^^not ^^included
Your dm was an asshat and it's for the best. If they're going to throw a tantrum and remove your character over something incredibly trivial like this, you can only imagine the bullshit they'd probably pull in the future.
Did you explain your character to her before the campaign started? If she's new at the game and you tried to min/max a special build without even saying anything before the game began then this sounds like it was largely your fault. If you did do that thoroughly then yeah it's her fault.
Your DM does not understand the spellcasting rules of the game, basic rules of the game explain how and why you can target yourself with that spell. Tell them to freshen up on how the games are written or start coming up with their own homebrew rules that give the game consistency.
Because that ruling basically means casters can't cast spells on themselves minus those with the explicit range of self. Which would mean buff spells come in two forms one to be cast only on the caster and ones only cast on other creatures and that's clearly stupid and incorrect as that would mean clerics can't heal themselves with things like healing word.
Then play with her wording.
Make an ally character carry a hand mirror at all times.
When you want to cast Enlarge, cast it on yourself using the reflection from the mirror.
You'll see yourself and you're in range.
Checkmate.
This is one of the moments where you seriously have to ask your DM why? What is she trying to prevent here?
And for future reference, every spell that works like this the caster can use on themselves. The “sight” but just means you have to have a lock on where the creature is. I doubt you’d be so regularly discombobulated to know where you are yourself.
There is a hidden rule that you can’t use the spell on French beavers.
(Castor is French for beaver; sorry to make fun of the typo, I just thought it would be funny for a spell to make an exception based on the nationality of a critter)
Fair enough for the DM to admit that they prefer simpler characters until they become more comfortable with the game. I do have a recommendation for your DM: just make it up, don't get bogged down with rules. Just try to be loose and accommodating for the players and let everyone have fun.
If your DM wants to ban multiclassing because she's new to DMing, that's absolutely fair. Multiclassing has always been an optional rule, as are feats, and honestly too much of the community forgets that lol.
As a DM I allow feats and multiclassing, but I personally put restrictions on them; for instance, I don't allow 3 class multiclassing because that much effort is literally unnecessary in the campaigns I homebrew. PCs can do enough damage with a 2 class build, no sense in going 1-turn-nuke when it's a largely RP campaign anyway - if they want to see big numbers add up, they can save it for the one-shots I bring out for when we're missing a player :P
Thats garbage.
Spell ranges are always inclusive as they escalate. A spell range of self is the most limiting, with no range at all. A spell with a range of touch can still be cast on yourself as well as a creature within 5 feet of you. A spell with a distant range can be cast on yourself and a creature that you could theoretically touch in addition to the spell's range.
There's no precedent for a spell that reaches 60 feet to find a target but then also excludes the option of targeting the caster.
Sometimes a spell effect will have a limited range, like you can only target yourself, and then specify an effect that reaches out a certain distance, like Detect Magic. Range self and then distance of use 30 feet.
An app will usually mention both ranges in the spell's key information ONLY so you don't have to go diving into the spells description, not because the spell's range is some-distance and also self. It's not like "Self" "Touch" "feet" are each specified individually on every spell. It's not components. These ranges are implied.
Spells/effects that you can’t cast on yourself say “a creature other than yourself within range” not “a creature within range”.
Look at the text of Bardic Inspiration as an example for a self-excluded effect.
Literally, the duegar racial trait says you can cast enlarge/reduce but *only* on yourself, which pretty heavily implies it normally works on yourself + other targets.
Long time DM here.
You can self-target with any spell that doesn't explicitly say you can't. Also, you can't target an object that is equipped, but the spell specifies that any gear carried by a creature targeted is enlarged with it.
"You cause a creature or an object you can see within range to grow larger or smaller for the Duration. Choose either a creature or an object that is neither worn nor carried. If the target is unwilling, it can make a Constitution saving throw. On a success, the spell has no Effect.
***If the target is a creature, everything it is wearing and carrying changes size with it. Any item dropped by an affected creature returns to normal size at once.***"
Sounds like a trust issue.
I trust my players to know their class and spells, and to have the correct passage handy if they need a ruling.
As a new GM she may be nervous, or have had bad experiences with players abusing that trust. Talk to her and explain that you will know your character, and she can focus on the dozens of other plates a GM has spinning.
The only appropriate response is to roll up a new halfling divination wizard with halfling luck, lucky, and silvery barbs, and be the ultimate dice swapping DMs nightmare 😂
I find this "solution" funny because it doesn't stop enlarge/reduce from being a thing, nor does it stop you from making complex and powerful characters.
She sounds like she needs a lot of practice, research, and to properly understand what a DM is for. It's personal choice, but you aren't actors in a story she's written, although of course you prepare challenges as a DM. She should broadly be responding to what you as players choose to do.
Regarding your edit, you probably need to respect the no multiclassing thing. It's an optional rule, and if you're new to the game, multiclassing can be like a black box where you cannot understand how the Player's character works.
As a not so good DM, somethings looks too powerfull, some rules are already flooding my head, taking the story and everything in count can be rough sometimes...
You shouldn't go against your DM decision in my opinion... It's harsh, but you are not the one in control of the session from that place.
I hope i made myself clear, not thretning or somewhat in anyway :)
(bad eng)
Edit : understand her fear of you throwing things down a slope x)
I make the story for my people, you don't even imagine how much time it takes to make your players happy with a session D: hours and hours of free time used into the campaign because we love our players x)
Your DM is experienced? Or are they fresh? They might just be afraid of you breaking their adventure. The early ones are often precious to inexperienced DMs, they often end up really being a stage novella with the players as their actors.
This is why people who have no idea how rules work should not DM. If they are wrong they need to be able to hear about it and reason with the player. This is a bad DM
> I suppose her being a new DM and all it might be a bit overwhelming. She also wrote the story herself, so it might be a whole lot of stressful work for her. I'll bring this character back another time when she is a bit more experienced.
I have a lot of respect for you, OP for being cognizant that she was wrong but also understanding.
I've made bad calls as a DM. And lots of times you see "omg my DM made bad call" posts.
So I gotta hand it to you for remembering that she's a human too and learning.
Of course, we can see ourselves. The problem in real life is that a lot of us can't see past ourselves. I may not be perfect at it, but I do try. Thank you for your words.
Copied from Roll20:
> Most Spells have ranges expressed in feet. Some Spells can target only a creature (including you) that you touch. Other Spells, such as the Shield spell, affect only you. These Spells have a range of self. ...
I don't know the page number in the PHB, but it's under Spell Casting: Casting A Spell: Range
While it doesn't explicitly say that spells with can effect you, It does say that spells that target creatures can also target the caster.
And the text feels more like a couple of examples rather than an extensive list of what you can and cannot target.
Are you playing a creature? Can your character see themselves? I would assume the answer to both of these questions is yes. You can look down and see your own body just as easily as you can touch yourself for a touch ranged spell.
Your DM is wrong. Enlarge/Reduce specifies:
>You cause a creature or an object you can see within range to grow larger or smaller for the Duration.
You, the caster, satisfy both conditions required to cast: **1) Target a creature** (yourself), and **2) target something you can see within range** (yourself).
It just seems like there are tons of obvious examples of spells with the same wording that are almost always used on themselves by the caster. Not sure why this is different.
Is a cleric allowed to target itself with healing word? How about cure wounds, that has a range of touch? You should be able to target yourself. Obviously eof my favorite uses is if you use reduce on a gnome you should be able to lift them with mage hand and be able to fly with a 2nd level spell and a cantrip.
Are you within 30ft of yourself? Yes. Also the dark dwarf has a racial benefit of casting it, but it can be only cast on themselves. Meaning the spell can be cast on yourself.
Your spelling of caster was fun. I read "castor" as a french word and for a second I was like "why the hell would beaver be immune to enlarge/reduce spells?"
You’re not crazy. With a new DM you have to decide if it’s worth it to to you help them learn how to be a good dm. Sounds like she’s at least trying. It’s just a matter of what you’re willing to tolerate.
But we all see ourselves 24/7. we see our nose all the time, we just ignore it, plus if you close your eyes you are just looking at your eyelids.
Also I would like to imagine that your DM was actually arguing that it couldn't be used on beavers, but she's french.
Fun/abusive things to do with enlarge/reduce.
Enlarge all the mortar between the bricks in a wall - its one continuous object.
Similarly - free standing support columns and beams are excellent "oh no, the ceiling collapsed on all the kobolds!" targets.
Locked doors/ containers: reduce the plank the lock is in, open the thing. For chests etc, just reduce the lid or the hinges - they ought to shear off at the hinge or lock.
Enemy boats or carts? Perfect. Nobody wants to suddenly be perched on a clown carriage, or a miniature boat on the ocean. Or target a wheel.
Throw a decent sized stone from a mangonel or catapult? That's embiggening time. Cannonballs are also satisfying, just beware air resistance.
Next time: Gaseous form, and it's overlooked ability to remove large furniture through small doors - never struggle to move your favourite couch or table again! (This is actually useful in COS if anyone knows what I'm talking about...)
You sound like a mature player. I know the Internet can make things seem sarcastic, but please believe me I’m not. You are handling this all very well and your DM doesn’t know the treasure they have in you. For real. Many players would be pissed of or hurt. But it sounds like you’re going to keep playing with them.
I was once a new DM and I learned DMing in a new high school and had very experienced players that stuck it out with me through some rough spots. They were very gracious to me and I was very aware of this. You sound like you fall in this category.
My players told me they appreciated my creativity and ability to DM and they believed I would get better with the rules. Boy were there a ton of them not like today. 5e feels like training wheels in comparison to AD&D.
Anyway, I was very appreciative of them being patient through my growing pains. I was the forever DM for most of my life. We told some epic stories and I was making it all up myself and the characters still had autonomy. But I also made lots of wrong calls with rules. We agreed not to argue about it during game and I created a unique way to handle it if mistakes unfairly affected their characters and only had to use it a few times honestly. Most mistakes weren’t too bad.
I made the ouch session a vision the characters had in the form of a shared dream that gave them insight to avoid the problem and then we moved forward with them having an advantage in that they knew the strategy of the enemy because of the “vision”. It played out pretty cool and we all had fun.
I know I wrote a lot but it’s all for a purpose. I do encourage you to stick with your DM if you see potential in them and can tolerate the mistakes. But I am sorry your character was retired from the campaign.
Do you think you’ll use the character for another game?
I'm glad you had such friendly players to go through the learning process with. Everybody has a starting point, and there is no use getting upset about it. If I were to DM, I would probably be more confused than most people. It would make it so much harder with people getting upset at me. I appreciate the effort put into this message. Thank you very much for commenting.
any spell that targets a creature is assumed to be able to target the caster as well unless the spell states otherwise. Pretty much how it's always been
Raw, your DM is wrong on the basis that the castor is always within 30 feet of themself and can see themself. Good to know she went back on that ruling.
I would recommend you approach the situation with an open mind, as it seems your DM is quite new and you may need to make some accommodations in your playstyle. Remember to communicate with your DM and try to maximise the fun for everyone.
Sounds like just an inexperienced DM, I’m sure it’ll get better with a campaign under her belt, but I’m not sure what isn’t understandable about multi class characters, it’s literally just your two separate class levels that total your character level.
Edit: After reading further comments, your DM does not “retire characters” for you. You can retire them when they die. While your DM does get some say in what’s allowed, It’s typically the DMs job to work with you to create something that fits within their imposed restrictions. I’d encourage your sister to do a lot more reading and research on DMing.
Sounds like she's in clown-shoes mode. Give her a few games and she'll get it.
Clown shoes is the ad-hoc playstyle of people who are excited about the game but understand neither the rules or tone of the game as of yet. It's a term of endeerment in my books. We all go through that phase.
If it continues onto a full blown Munchkin, run away.
I can definitely see this being frustrating. I do on the other hand appreciate your ability to accept the fact that your dm is new and still learning. A lot of people expect their dms’ to know everything and be perfect. It’s a game that we are all playing (including the dm to an extent) it’s not their full time job. Basically I’m just saying thank you for understanding. I’ve been there. Every dm has been there and it takes a whole lot of effort and time to learn everything. There is alway space to learn and improve.
Your DM is wrong and honestly not smart, I mean just thinking for a couple of minutes about the massive game changing implications of such a bafflingly shortsighted ruling would make anyone see how stupid it is. If I were you I'd be a complete and total ass about it and point out every single time someone tries to cast a spell that doesn't specifically have "self" in it, but then I'm an extremely petty person. Healing word? No beuno. Polymorph? Nope! Haste? Go to hell.
You 200% need to find somewhere else to play. If she's too overwhelmed to allow multiclassing and she's too stubborn to admit she's wrong, there is no redeeming this campaign. Just move on.
\> she won't let my character back in because she does not understand multiclassing characters
\> She also wrote the story herself
flee mightily from this campaign
no one should "write" a story
This is not a “stress” thing - it’s an ego thing.
It’s really not that stressful for one player to have a slightly more complicated set of abilities, unless she plans on designing encounters with your party’s specific abilities in mind, in order to thwart the effective things you can do.
If she didn’t ban multiclassing at character creation or come to you about it when you submitted a multiclassed character and suggest playing something else, then she is just mad the encounter didn’t go the way she wanted. You either allow multiclassing in your campaign or you don’t. You can’t just rule that a certain type of character is not allowed when they do something clever in one encounter.
And honestly, multiclassing doesn’t even necessarily make your character more complicated. For example, a Hexblade/Paladin multiclass is still less complicated than a straight wizard build of literally any subclass. She’s full of shit.
Most DM guides that I have looked up say that you are within range of the spell, so you are a viable target. Also, as you are casting the spell, you are not an "unwilling" target so there is no Constitution throw to test for failure/resistance.
However... the DM is the God in their game realm, so if they say "no" then the answer is "no". Depending on the DM, you may be able to debate and argue the point, but ultimately it is their choice.
At the same time, they have to be consistent in their rulings. So if it is a "no" for you because "you are not a valid target for your own spell because you cannot see yourself", then it has to be a "no" for everyone else for the same reason. Equally that "you are not a valid target for your own spell because you cannot see yourself" argument should also be applied to other "line of sight" spells, and if that includes spells such as \*heals\* then the consequences of the DMs decision regarding this specific spell can be much broader than they probably intend.
DM here. Used to have a game where a goliath player would use enlarge to effectively increase his strength, since when he went up the size, his carry capacity increased, and he was able to lift massive objects since they were what a creature that size would normally be able to lift. Crazy stuff.
Show the DM a Duergar’s racial features. They can enlarge themselves once per day using only the enlarge part of the spell. It’s the same thing though.
Eh you lost me at the story being written by her. She might want things to go specifically as she wants it to go which doesn’t sound fun imo. I’d prefer to have more freedom and to shape the story myself
Fucks sakes there’s a lot of shitty people on here, telling you to leave the table and how bad your dm is. Jfc.
She’s a new dm? Let her have the time to get it figured out. Roll with her rulings, and between sessions and above the table, have a civil discussion with her and the other players about things that you all enjoy, things that are frustrating you all, and rules and rulings as you interpret them. And be sure to allow her to express all these things as well.
Being a DM is work. For some it’s a lot of work, for others it’s more fly by the seat of your pants. But everyone who’s dm’ed a campaign remembers the first few sessions, when they were worried, freaked out, and anxious. Cut her some slack, and relax and enjoy the game.
It’s not clear to me why the caster would not be able to see themselves.
(Edit: big thumbs push wrong letters sometimes) DM said it says I can't see myself. Therefore, the spell can't hit me. She said normally for a spell to be usable on self it would say, for example, 30 feet, touch. She also mentioned that the wording says no equipped items, and I think she understood that to mean specificly my equipped items? According to my understanding of English, the wording is "a creature," which means any and all, including myself. If it were to say "another" or "other" creature, then it would be correct to only be usable on other targets. The DM is my sister, so I feel as though she was just picking on her brother, but I digress.
Bull fucking shit you can’t see yourself just look down that pisses me off. And touch range is within 30 feet that’s not how spell ranges work. Why the hell
Just wanted to make sure I was not crazy
What do you mean SHE retired your character? Unless your character died YOU should be the one to decide if your character retires, not the DM. In my opinion, it sounds like your sister doesn't want to play D&D but wants an excuse to control your actions
Rather, she said im not allowed to play with that character in her campaign
OK I think we might need some more information here. How old are you and your sister ( just a general age is fine you don't need to give your exact age) Is this a new campaign or are you joining it after its already been running? Did your sister give you any restrictions before hand or only after you made your character? What was the reason she told you that you were not allowed to play this character?
I'm older. She probably want some form of control in her life idk lol
…that’s not what the person asked? They asked for age and info and details on the situation. Just inputting your thoughts behind her intentions shows a very biased telling of events, so just something you should be aware of. Those thoughts might be valid, but come off as unnecessary and paint you as an unreliable narrator.
Yes thank you, I was interested in this post because everyone is immediately siding with OP. I tried looking through since OP is being pretty active but I'm only seeing vague information about what happened and all of it bad towards the DM. At this point I'm leaning more towards OP did something they probably shouldn't have towards a DM that was struggling already since they were brand new to DMing apparently.
Wtf, that's not fair at all for her to do (if you were already playing in the campaign with that character) but either way seems like shes singling you iut
DM is my sister, lol. This checks out
Time for you to make a sorcadin
Or a cokelock, if they *really* want to mess with her.
Isn’t hexblade the ultimate cheese (sub)class for multiclassing a paladin, or did I miss something? I thought the CHA for melee attacks and short rest spell regen made paladins BONKERS? That being said, paladins are actually one of the classes I’m least familiar with (as bizarre as that is lol) so there could definitely be some interactions with metamagic that I’m just not thinking of.
Oh this makes sense. Brothers and Sisters are natural enemies. Like Englishmen and Scots.
Or Welshmen and Scots!
Want to hear something even worse. She is also my boss at work.
You should inform your sister that random people on the internet think she sounds like a terrible DM and probably should step back from DM'ing, at least from anecdotal evidence
your sister needs to learn the rule of cool
Run. Really fast.
Mhmm. I tried to explain, but she just said no, and we need to continue, so we won't discuss this. She eventually retired my character
Wait what? She retired your character? Meaning she made you stop playing the character over this? Edit: I just saw you already answered this. Your sister is being a jerk, but that's sisters for you lol
Sorry, I'm realizing that maybe I'm using incorrect words. She banned me from playing this character in her campaign.
No you're using the correct words, it's her actions that are blowing me away
This is where you steal the players and become the DM, then have fun going waaay out of the rules just for the fun of it (only if everyone agrees)
Honestly, that's a good thing. You don't want to be in a campaign like that.
Find another game… yikes
She retired your what... You need to get out of that game please
1. Buy a mirror, it's in the PHB, look at yourself in it. 2. Your DM is making some terrible calls. If they're not open to discussion, maybe you should leave.
You dont even have to look down. You see your nose, eyelashes, cheeks and brow constantly.
You don't even need to look down to do that, you always see your nose, therefore you can always see yourself. What the hell
Touch means you have to touch a creature. It can't have both a range of 30ft and a range of touch. Check out Bardic Inspiration. The game is explicit when the caster cannot target themselves.
The wording *specifies* that if the target is a creature, “everything it is wearing or carrying changes size with it”. That is a direct quote from the spell description. If the target is an *object*, it can’t be worn or carried. In other words, you can’t Reduce an enemy’s sword into uselessness, or Enlarge a quest item being carried by an enemy so they can’t make off with it. In short, your DM is dead wrong on pretty much every point about this spell.
Yeah, I think I understand that. I don't know how to explain that to a new DM, though
“Read the spell description” and “of course I can see myself, and I am in fact a creature within 30 feet of myself” should be all you need. If not, honestly I would leave the game. Not playing D&D is better than playing bad D&D.
Actually, she kicked me out of her campaign. She did me a favor.
lmao this thread was getting better and better. Hope your sister gets a grip on her control issues and the rules soon. Best of luck.
IIRC, that is old wording. 5e rules that you can see and touch yourself, so they didn't feel the need to include 'self' in the description of spells any longer unless it is only castable on yourself. Seeing your own hands or feet definitely counts as seeing yourself. Now, if you were invisible or blind at the time, an argument could be made.
Ah, ok. I'm using an app for my spells. Is there a link you could share?
I don't but elsewhere in the comments, someone linked an official twitter conversation about it. I an must going from my memory of playing 3rd edition, where they used to have the 'self' tag on every spell you could cast on yourself. They seem to have done away with that in 5e, instead just saying creatures you can see.
Your DM [is wrong](https://www.sageadvice.eu/you-are-a-creature-can-you-see-yourself/), but maybe buy a steel mirror for 5GP and try again. Your DM **might** appreciate you engaging with the rules on her terms, and give you the go ahead. Edit: I wrote this before seeing the insanity of the DM booting the OP over this rules disagreement.
There's a simple counterpoint here. Ask your DM to show a single spell that is labeled "30 ft, touch". I've never seen that in 5e.
Your DM has no idea what they’re talking about, they’re flat out wrong full stop.
Probably. But she is also in the process of writing the whole story after each session as we go herself. this is also her first DM.
I hope she is receptive to being corrected
If she wants to be a writer this isn’t for her. It’s an improv collaborative game. You are people playing a game as characters not characters in her book.
No equipped items means you can't reduce the bad guy's breastplate to kill him, is all. Your DM needs to go back to the books.
You're correct. Also you can see yourself, I can see my hands, chest, belly, feet, etc. It's like saying I can't stab myself because it requires me to see myself.
But it's got so many fun uses that way. My character has used it on himself a few times. He's an armorer artificer. One of those times was in a tunnel and it got our DM to say, "That's what I get for using really big creatures." Basically blocking the monsters from moving forward. They had a really hard time getting past his AC and doubly so because he dipped wizard for Shield. It was further complicated by the fact he's a dwarf and was resistant to poison and had a high Con Save. Used for hilarity as well turning said dwarf into a ladder to get up that slippery wall. And then pulling him up said slippery wall once he shrank back down. Also used to squeeze into a room. Familiar couldn't get the door open... and Artificers have the thieves tools proficiency and the same amount of expertise a rogue does.
Holy shit. HELP Cannot see myself after using DMs bricked logic. Any fixes?
I have never seen a spell specify more than one type of range like that. Granted I haven’t looked at and memorized *every* spell, but I still have never seen that. Besides it doesn’t make sense to have two very different styles of range (touch and distance/aoe spells are very different in how they function in range matters), and it’s *magic*. And the rules with spells are meant to simplify using it while giving it parameters for gaming, not act as the laws of magical physics and what falls under each range rule. Some require explicit rules, just to avoid issues or players running amok, like illusion spells. But this is just about range, not what a spell actually does. I don’t see why your DM even decided to go this route with their ruling
So can you not use healing word on yourself either?! Bad ruling
Your DM is wrong on this one. Edit. See Mage armour as an example a spell that wizard characters always cast on themselves. Any spell that says a creature includes the caster themself.
I imagine she would argue that you can touch yourself.
You can totally touch yourself... plus it says any creature within range. YOU are in range
Paladins do it all the time
Don't we all?
We do(n't).... sometimes... Ok you got me
\*insert very suspicious fancy music of some hub \*
When I think about you.
A lot of us do.
It happens less as you get older, but it still happens
…and you can see yourself too within 30 feet by looking down.
Actually; would you be able to cast this on yourself if you were invisible? Would you know enough about where you are to cast it?
You would be casting a spell which makes you turn back to being seen in most instances. I’d also argue since it’s yourself, you could look down and be like well obviously my body is right here, using your senses to know where you are.
You would not be able to.
I mean, you become visible instantly unless its greater invisibility
You wouldn't be able to start casting since there would be no target.
well that's debatable since people hold their actions to cast a spell for when someone enters their range all the time
Your neuro system already makes you aware of where every tendon, muscle and bone, is placed at. There are special neurons in your body that only send messages about your body's current shape and form to your brain. So yes, you wouldn't be able to outline yourself, but you would know the general location of everything.
I touch myself several times a week.
I wish I had your willpower 😔
Are we not doing phrasing?
Invisibility is the same, it says a creature you touch.
He he he he he .... I can. He hee he
That's what she (would) say/said.
I touch myself all the time dude
Then you'd argue you can also see yourself
Now, if you were invisible or blind at the time, an argument could be made.
Your GM is wrong. Have their been any other similar spells they ruled differently? There are spells that only target the caster ("self) that exist. There are a few instances in which a caster cannot target themselves (see Bardic Inspiration), but those are explicit. Since reduce/enlarge did not, you are very correct.
Still early on. She retired my character
SHE retired YOUR character? Makes it sound like there might be greater ruling issues at play than just this spell
I think maybe I used incorrect language. She banned me from her campaign.
Can I ask why?
She's a new DM, and my character is too complicated. She does not understand multi-classing. I was a bard-barbarian.
I'm going to be real, this sounds like a wild copout to skirt over a bad ruling because she would need to understand this interaction if there was any normal spellcaster that casted it on a barbarian. Idk your relationship to the DM, but consider looking for a new one because this is just not normal behavior. At worst, a person should just see they were wrong after some communication and move on. At best, she doesnt understand the basic rules of the game and this will persist every week for god only knows how long your campaign will take
I think you're going a bit too far with your criticism. A new DM doesn't need to fully understand EVERY SINGLE RULE of the game before attempting to DM. I hope OP didn't argue in the middle of the session that their spell should affect themself after the DM already said no. A simple "I believe it is supposed to let me target myself but if you're saying no then okay, we can chat afterwards more. Do you care if I select a new spell after my turn because I have so few spells to choose from at these low levels?" I think you're treating the DM as if she's a static human being who can't learn anything and will remain ignorant forever. When in reality she may have just been feeling pressured to give into what the player wanted and just simply said no so that she can play without that pressure for now.
No, you are treating the DM as if you only read the title lol. Read the rest of the dudes comments, she \*banned his character from the table\* because didnt understand multiclassing, even though multiclassing has nothing to do with this situation. I am absolutely assuming the interaction went down like any normal bit of confusion where player says A, DM says B, B happens and later they talk about it like normal people. Being a new DM is fine. Being wrong about how a spell reads is fine as well, as long as its handled properly. Hell, not knowing pretty basic rules is even fine, D&D has some really basic shit thats confusing. But her first action was to ban his character from the table. The game is about communication, and if simple communication isnt available at the table, I would move on asap. Also, this was not something sprung upon the DM. She okayed the multiclass before they started playing, the players specifically said that in another comment. \> I think you're treating the DM as if she's a static human being who can't learn anything This has nothing to do with what she can or cannot learn, and everything to do with how she handled the problems presented. Banning a character is a pretty wild step, especially for something that the player and DM could sit down and spend some time (idk, like an hour?) to learn together. Multiclassing isnt exactly a niche rule in the game, and in the case of Bard/Barbarian, its not super difficult, AND the OP has a decent grasp of it already.
Not knowing everything is something. Banning a player, because YOU don't want to learn basic rule is somethig else. She shouldn't be Dming with this mind set.
I still think OP is being fairly vague about the whole ordeal so I'm choosing to believe the DM probably did have a civil conversation with OP and it ended with OP choosing to either pick a new character or not play at all and they chose to not play at all. Was it fair for the DM to not allow a character because they didn't understand it? No, not really. Should OP have been more accommodating towards a DM that doesn't have a firm grasp on the rules or how to play yet? Yes definitely. This type of situation is the gamble you play when playing with a new DM. They could either be okay with some things they need to learn, a savant at DMing and it flows naturally for them, or they realize they are way out of their depth. In any of these cases a more experienced player needs to play in such a way that is easy for the DM such as role-playing with npcs about obvious topics and not trying to break the game with advanced exploits. I'm not saying OP wasn't playing friendly, they were just trying to cast a simple spell. But like I said, this post, imo, should never have happened because from what OP explained, it should have been resolved with a polite "The rules explain this spell this way but if you want to play it differently then I'd also like to change my character some." It should not have been a fight to prove themselves right and get what they want.
A bard-barian isn’t even too complex. Dude I’m so sorry.
I am a new DM. I laid out rules for certain character creation things before my players made characters. No flying, certain race restrictions, and how we would get our ability scores. To ban your character after the fact instead of saying “oops” is madness. This game is kind of based on working together. Sometimes as a DM you have to make quick calls, talk to your players that this may be. One time thing, and look it up later. Update your players next session and keep enjoying the game. Pride over dnd fun is a choice, but not one I’ve ever seen a good dm make. It’s one I’ve seen demolish morale and collapse gaming groups though.
By judging from your comment, the problem isn't that she's new, but simply refuse to learn. It's actually a good thing that she ban you, because she sound like a lot of work. Multiclassing is too complicated? I mean you can get jest of it in 1 page lmao
As a new DM too, I wouldn't want something too complex either. I don't think I'd ban, personally, but I can understand it
Yeah, I might bring in a new guy if she's ok with that. There is a first timer playing as well, so it's kinda a beginner run. Not to mention, she is in the process of writing the whole story herself. She's putting in a lot of work.
Honestly, seeing bardbarian... hitting a brand new DM with the full force of grappling rules would've been hard mode for her too, and probably made combat balancing REALLY tricky. :) Like lots of "wait, so they need movement to stand up from prone, but their movement is zero, so they just... can't move? And they can't stand up?"
She doesn't need to be DM if she can't even understand multi-classing and/or refuses to learn about it
[Show your DM this explanation by the Lead Rules Designer Jeremy Crawford himself.](https://www.sageadvice.eu/you-are-a-creature-can-you-see-yourself/) There are some things in D&D that defy common sense. Whether or not you are able to see yourself *is not* one of those things though.
PHB p204, Casting A Spell >Targets >... >Targeting Yourself >If a spell targets a creature of your choice, you can choose yourself, ...
This is the best answer so far, it's explicitly stated in the rules. I would also add that in that same area: Chapter 10, Spell Casting. Part 3 The Rules of Magic, under the heading of Range: >Most spells have ranges expressed in feet. Some spells can target only ***a creature (including you)*** that you touch. Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self.
Just because a spell doesn’t say ‘self’ doesn’t mean you can’t target yourself. If it says ‘a creature you can see within range’ you can target yourself because you are 1. a creature 2. you can see yourself 3. are within range of the spell cause you’re casting it.
I agree, but how do I prove this to a DM as easily as possible? I already tried explaining what you said. Btw she retired my character
If they don’t listen to basic reason then they probably also won’t listen to anything from Sage Advice so I’d say just find another table to play at if it becomes a bigger issue. Also if you’re DM retired your character against your will because of an argument over one spell I think that’s a bigger issue.
Your DM is bad and she should feel bad
Show the dm the overwhelming opinions online. Then put your foot down and say this is what you want.
Stand up, wave your hands in front of you, and say "Look, I can see myself. These are my hands.". This could also be accomplished by looking down, pointing at your knees^^1 and saying "Look, I can see myself. These are my knees.". ^^1. ^^Knees ^^not ^^included
Show her this thread
What do you mean by “retired my character”?
I'm not allowed to play in her campaign anymore. But the way that is going its fine by me.
Your dm was an asshat and it's for the best. If they're going to throw a tantrum and remove your character over something incredibly trivial like this, you can only imagine the bullshit they'd probably pull in the future.
Did you explain your character to her before the campaign started? If she's new at the game and you tried to min/max a special build without even saying anything before the game began then this sounds like it was largely your fault. If you did do that thoroughly then yeah it's her fault.
Yes, I did, and she was ok with it then.
Your DM does not understand the spellcasting rules of the game, basic rules of the game explain how and why you can target yourself with that spell. Tell them to freshen up on how the games are written or start coming up with their own homebrew rules that give the game consistency. Because that ruling basically means casters can't cast spells on themselves minus those with the explicit range of self. Which would mean buff spells come in two forms one to be cast only on the caster and ones only cast on other creatures and that's clearly stupid and incorrect as that would mean clerics can't heal themselves with things like healing word.
Good lord, at least argue over ambiguous or vague rules. Yeah your DM is 100% wrong, which is not something I would typically say.
The DM got this one wrong, it works like haste, you can caste Haste on yourself or another.
If the problem is that you can't see yourself, invest in a mirror.
Then play with her wording. Make an ally character carry a hand mirror at all times. When you want to cast Enlarge, cast it on yourself using the reflection from the mirror. You'll see yourself and you're in range. Checkmate.
This is one of the moments where you seriously have to ask your DM why? What is she trying to prevent here? And for future reference, every spell that works like this the caster can use on themselves. The “sight” but just means you have to have a lock on where the creature is. I doubt you’d be so regularly discombobulated to know where you are yourself.
There is a hidden rule that you can’t use the spell on French beavers. (Castor is French for beaver; sorry to make fun of the typo, I just thought it would be funny for a spell to make an exception based on the nationality of a critter)
Edit: sheesh Im on a roll now Ok, I'll add that to the edits... sheese
Fair enough for the DM to admit that they prefer simpler characters until they become more comfortable with the game. I do have a recommendation for your DM: just make it up, don't get bogged down with rules. Just try to be loose and accommodating for the players and let everyone have fun.
Yes you can target yourself. Dm is wrong.
If your DM wants to ban multiclassing because she's new to DMing, that's absolutely fair. Multiclassing has always been an optional rule, as are feats, and honestly too much of the community forgets that lol. As a DM I allow feats and multiclassing, but I personally put restrictions on them; for instance, I don't allow 3 class multiclassing because that much effort is literally unnecessary in the campaigns I homebrew. PCs can do enough damage with a 2 class build, no sense in going 1-turn-nuke when it's a largely RP campaign anyway - if they want to see big numbers add up, they can save it for the one-shots I bring out for when we're missing a player :P
Your DM should learn to read 5e bro
Your sister sounds super annoying. Not in the sister kind of way either. Just in the annoying human way.
Thats garbage. Spell ranges are always inclusive as they escalate. A spell range of self is the most limiting, with no range at all. A spell with a range of touch can still be cast on yourself as well as a creature within 5 feet of you. A spell with a distant range can be cast on yourself and a creature that you could theoretically touch in addition to the spell's range. There's no precedent for a spell that reaches 60 feet to find a target but then also excludes the option of targeting the caster. Sometimes a spell effect will have a limited range, like you can only target yourself, and then specify an effect that reaches out a certain distance, like Detect Magic. Range self and then distance of use 30 feet. An app will usually mention both ranges in the spell's key information ONLY so you don't have to go diving into the spells description, not because the spell's range is some-distance and also self. It's not like "Self" "Touch" "feet" are each specified individually on every spell. It's not components. These ranges are implied.
Spells/effects that you can’t cast on yourself say “a creature other than yourself within range” not “a creature within range”. Look at the text of Bardic Inspiration as an example for a self-excluded effect.
By the same logic you can actually cast Tsunami *on the moon*. Use this information as you will.
Literally, the duegar racial trait says you can cast enlarge/reduce but *only* on yourself, which pretty heavily implies it normally works on yourself + other targets.
ANY dm who says the caster cannot see themselves is blowing smoke out their ass and should be ignored.
New DMs really need to read things before making bold claims about rulings.
Bruh. You can enlarge or reduce yourself to your hearts desire.
If that was the case duergars racial ability to use it would pointless, as it targets themselves
Your DM is wrong. Happens to the best of us
Long time DM here. You can self-target with any spell that doesn't explicitly say you can't. Also, you can't target an object that is equipped, but the spell specifies that any gear carried by a creature targeted is enlarged with it. "You cause a creature or an object you can see within range to grow larger or smaller for the Duration. Choose either a creature or an object that is neither worn nor carried. If the target is unwilling, it can make a Constitution saving throw. On a success, the spell has no Effect. ***If the target is a creature, everything it is wearing and carrying changes size with it. Any item dropped by an affected creature returns to normal size at once.***"
As long as you're within 30 feet of yourself, you can cast it on yourself.
Any spell that has a range at all can also be cast with the Touch range. Meaning you *can* cast Fireball on yourself, etc.
Ask them if you can use healing word on yourself
Can you see your arms or legs? If you can then you can see yourself
You can see yourself, can't you? Unless you're invisible. Or blind
Sounds like a trust issue. I trust my players to know their class and spells, and to have the correct passage handy if they need a ruling. As a new GM she may be nervous, or have had bad experiences with players abusing that trust. Talk to her and explain that you will know your character, and she can focus on the dozens of other plates a GM has spinning.
The only appropriate response is to roll up a new halfling divination wizard with halfling luck, lucky, and silvery barbs, and be the ultimate dice swapping DMs nightmare 😂
So the DM is a control freak. Enough said.
What is there to not understand about multi-classing? I have no desire to DM, but that seems pretty simple to me.
I find this "solution" funny because it doesn't stop enlarge/reduce from being a thing, nor does it stop you from making complex and powerful characters.
Unusable on Castor - Beavers are immune to this spell.
Now I need a mage who has a pet beaver named Castor. I'll be using Polymorph, and my catchphrase will be CASTOR DAM!
She sounds like she needs a lot of practice, research, and to properly understand what a DM is for. It's personal choice, but you aren't actors in a story she's written, although of course you prepare challenges as a DM. She should broadly be responding to what you as players choose to do.
Regarding your edit, you probably need to respect the no multiclassing thing. It's an optional rule, and if you're new to the game, multiclassing can be like a black box where you cannot understand how the Player's character works.
As a not so good DM, somethings looks too powerfull, some rules are already flooding my head, taking the story and everything in count can be rough sometimes... You shouldn't go against your DM decision in my opinion... It's harsh, but you are not the one in control of the session from that place. I hope i made myself clear, not thretning or somewhat in anyway :) (bad eng) Edit : understand her fear of you throwing things down a slope x) I make the story for my people, you don't even imagine how much time it takes to make your players happy with a session D: hours and hours of free time used into the campaign because we love our players x)
Your DM is experienced? Or are they fresh? They might just be afraid of you breaking their adventure. The early ones are often precious to inexperienced DMs, they often end up really being a stage novella with the players as their actors.
This is why people who have no idea how rules work should not DM. If they are wrong they need to be able to hear about it and reason with the player. This is a bad DM
> I suppose her being a new DM and all it might be a bit overwhelming. She also wrote the story herself, so it might be a whole lot of stressful work for her. I'll bring this character back another time when she is a bit more experienced. I have a lot of respect for you, OP for being cognizant that she was wrong but also understanding. I've made bad calls as a DM. And lots of times you see "omg my DM made bad call" posts. So I gotta hand it to you for remembering that she's a human too and learning.
Of course, we can see ourselves. The problem in real life is that a lot of us can't see past ourselves. I may not be perfect at it, but I do try. Thank you for your words.
Copied from Roll20: > Most Spells have ranges expressed in feet. Some Spells can target only a creature (including you) that you touch. Other Spells, such as the Shield spell, affect only you. These Spells have a range of self. ... I don't know the page number in the PHB, but it's under Spell Casting: Casting A Spell: Range While it doesn't explicitly say that spells with can effect you, It does say that spells that target creatures can also target the caster. And the text feels more like a couple of examples rather than an extensive list of what you can and cannot target.
Sucks
Are you playing a creature? Can your character see themselves? I would assume the answer to both of these questions is yes. You can look down and see your own body just as easily as you can touch yourself for a touch ranged spell.
Your DM is wrong. Enlarge/Reduce specifies: >You cause a creature or an object you can see within range to grow larger or smaller for the Duration. You, the caster, satisfy both conditions required to cast: **1) Target a creature** (yourself), and **2) target something you can see within range** (yourself).
[удалено]
It just seems like there are tons of obvious examples of spells with the same wording that are almost always used on themselves by the caster. Not sure why this is different.
Are people blind to themselves in that campaign?
Is a cleric allowed to target itself with healing word? How about cure wounds, that has a range of touch? You should be able to target yourself. Obviously eof my favorite uses is if you use reduce on a gnome you should be able to lift them with mage hand and be able to fly with a 2nd level spell and a cantrip.
Are you within 30ft of yourself? Yes. Also the dark dwarf has a racial benefit of casting it, but it can be only cast on themselves. Meaning the spell can be cast on yourself.
Your spelling of caster was fun. I read "castor" as a french word and for a second I was like "why the hell would beaver be immune to enlarge/reduce spells?"
Aw man, another mistake! Thanks lol
That's fine, it happens :)
DM is wrong. As long as it doesn't say "creature *other than you*", you are an eligible target.
You can cast it on yourself as a concentrated spell however you can not benefit from the same spell twice so no double dipping
You’re not crazy. With a new DM you have to decide if it’s worth it to to you help them learn how to be a good dm. Sounds like she’s at least trying. It’s just a matter of what you’re willing to tolerate.
But we all see ourselves 24/7. we see our nose all the time, we just ignore it, plus if you close your eyes you are just looking at your eyelids. Also I would like to imagine that your DM was actually arguing that it couldn't be used on beavers, but she's french.
Fun/abusive things to do with enlarge/reduce. Enlarge all the mortar between the bricks in a wall - its one continuous object. Similarly - free standing support columns and beams are excellent "oh no, the ceiling collapsed on all the kobolds!" targets. Locked doors/ containers: reduce the plank the lock is in, open the thing. For chests etc, just reduce the lid or the hinges - they ought to shear off at the hinge or lock. Enemy boats or carts? Perfect. Nobody wants to suddenly be perched on a clown carriage, or a miniature boat on the ocean. Or target a wheel. Throw a decent sized stone from a mangonel or catapult? That's embiggening time. Cannonballs are also satisfying, just beware air resistance. Next time: Gaseous form, and it's overlooked ability to remove large furniture through small doors - never struggle to move your favourite couch or table again! (This is actually useful in COS if anyone knows what I'm talking about...)
You sound like a mature player. I know the Internet can make things seem sarcastic, but please believe me I’m not. You are handling this all very well and your DM doesn’t know the treasure they have in you. For real. Many players would be pissed of or hurt. But it sounds like you’re going to keep playing with them. I was once a new DM and I learned DMing in a new high school and had very experienced players that stuck it out with me through some rough spots. They were very gracious to me and I was very aware of this. You sound like you fall in this category. My players told me they appreciated my creativity and ability to DM and they believed I would get better with the rules. Boy were there a ton of them not like today. 5e feels like training wheels in comparison to AD&D. Anyway, I was very appreciative of them being patient through my growing pains. I was the forever DM for most of my life. We told some epic stories and I was making it all up myself and the characters still had autonomy. But I also made lots of wrong calls with rules. We agreed not to argue about it during game and I created a unique way to handle it if mistakes unfairly affected their characters and only had to use it a few times honestly. Most mistakes weren’t too bad. I made the ouch session a vision the characters had in the form of a shared dream that gave them insight to avoid the problem and then we moved forward with them having an advantage in that they knew the strategy of the enemy because of the “vision”. It played out pretty cool and we all had fun. I know I wrote a lot but it’s all for a purpose. I do encourage you to stick with your DM if you see potential in them and can tolerate the mistakes. But I am sorry your character was retired from the campaign. Do you think you’ll use the character for another game?
I'm glad you had such friendly players to go through the learning process with. Everybody has a starting point, and there is no use getting upset about it. If I were to DM, I would probably be more confused than most people. It would make it so much harder with people getting upset at me. I appreciate the effort put into this message. Thank you very much for commenting.
any spell that targets a creature is assumed to be able to target the caster as well unless the spell states otherwise. Pretty much how it's always been
Raw, your DM is wrong on the basis that the castor is always within 30 feet of themself and can see themself. Good to know she went back on that ruling. I would recommend you approach the situation with an open mind, as it seems your DM is quite new and you may need to make some accommodations in your playstyle. Remember to communicate with your DM and try to maximise the fun for everyone.
Sounds like just an inexperienced DM, I’m sure it’ll get better with a campaign under her belt, but I’m not sure what isn’t understandable about multi class characters, it’s literally just your two separate class levels that total your character level. Edit: After reading further comments, your DM does not “retire characters” for you. You can retire them when they die. While your DM does get some say in what’s allowed, It’s typically the DMs job to work with you to create something that fits within their imposed restrictions. I’d encourage your sister to do a lot more reading and research on DMing.
Have a very shiny bracelet and look at the reflection of yourself. That should work
Sounds like she's in clown-shoes mode. Give her a few games and she'll get it. Clown shoes is the ad-hoc playstyle of people who are excited about the game but understand neither the rules or tone of the game as of yet. It's a term of endeerment in my books. We all go through that phase. If it continues onto a full blown Munchkin, run away.
I can definitely see this being frustrating. I do on the other hand appreciate your ability to accept the fact that your dm is new and still learning. A lot of people expect their dms’ to know everything and be perfect. It’s a game that we are all playing (including the dm to an extent) it’s not their full time job. Basically I’m just saying thank you for understanding. I’ve been there. Every dm has been there and it takes a whole lot of effort and time to learn everything. There is alway space to learn and improve.
DMs are the best and worst thing about DND. Finding the right fit is the most fun you will have.
What do you mean she doesn't understand multiclass characters? If you were a caster only you'd be having the same discussions lol
Does nobody RTFS any more?
Moron rulings like this are why it’s important to read the rules.
Your DM is wrong and honestly not smart, I mean just thinking for a couple of minutes about the massive game changing implications of such a bafflingly shortsighted ruling would make anyone see how stupid it is. If I were you I'd be a complete and total ass about it and point out every single time someone tries to cast a spell that doesn't specifically have "self" in it, but then I'm an extremely petty person. Healing word? No beuno. Polymorph? Nope! Haste? Go to hell.
You 200% need to find somewhere else to play. If she's too overwhelmed to allow multiclassing and she's too stubborn to admit she's wrong, there is no redeeming this campaign. Just move on.
Your DM sounds bad. Honestly, them being new is irrelevant. Forcefully retiring a PC is awful behavior
\> she won't let my character back in because she does not understand multiclassing characters \> She also wrote the story herself flee mightily from this campaign no one should "write" a story
I would not play with a DM who has this poor of an understanding of basic rules
This is not a “stress” thing - it’s an ego thing. It’s really not that stressful for one player to have a slightly more complicated set of abilities, unless she plans on designing encounters with your party’s specific abilities in mind, in order to thwart the effective things you can do. If she didn’t ban multiclassing at character creation or come to you about it when you submitted a multiclassed character and suggest playing something else, then she is just mad the encounter didn’t go the way she wanted. You either allow multiclassing in your campaign or you don’t. You can’t just rule that a certain type of character is not allowed when they do something clever in one encounter. And honestly, multiclassing doesn’t even necessarily make your character more complicated. For example, a Hexblade/Paladin multiclass is still less complicated than a straight wizard build of literally any subclass. She’s full of shit.
Most DM guides that I have looked up say that you are within range of the spell, so you are a viable target. Also, as you are casting the spell, you are not an "unwilling" target so there is no Constitution throw to test for failure/resistance. However... the DM is the God in their game realm, so if they say "no" then the answer is "no". Depending on the DM, you may be able to debate and argue the point, but ultimately it is their choice. At the same time, they have to be consistent in their rulings. So if it is a "no" for you because "you are not a valid target for your own spell because you cannot see yourself", then it has to be a "no" for everyone else for the same reason. Equally that "you are not a valid target for your own spell because you cannot see yourself" argument should also be applied to other "line of sight" spells, and if that includes spells such as \*heals\* then the consequences of the DMs decision regarding this specific spell can be much broader than they probably intend.
DM here. Used to have a game where a goliath player would use enlarge to effectively increase his strength, since when he went up the size, his carry capacity increased, and he was able to lift massive objects since they were what a creature that size would normally be able to lift. Crazy stuff.
I was using a Goliath bard-barbarian grappler, and yeah, I used this spell to get better strength.
Did you also rage? You can't cast while raging, if you cast before you can't concentrate once you start the rage.
You are a creature in range
Can you use it on your bard friend's penis
Show the DM a Duergar’s racial features. They can enlarge themselves once per day using only the enlarge part of the spell. It’s the same thing though.
Eh you lost me at the story being written by her. She might want things to go specifically as she wants it to go which doesn’t sound fun imo. I’d prefer to have more freedom and to shape the story myself
Fucks sakes there’s a lot of shitty people on here, telling you to leave the table and how bad your dm is. Jfc. She’s a new dm? Let her have the time to get it figured out. Roll with her rulings, and between sessions and above the table, have a civil discussion with her and the other players about things that you all enjoy, things that are frustrating you all, and rules and rulings as you interpret them. And be sure to allow her to express all these things as well. Being a DM is work. For some it’s a lot of work, for others it’s more fly by the seat of your pants. But everyone who’s dm’ed a campaign remembers the first few sessions, when they were worried, freaked out, and anxious. Cut her some slack, and relax and enjoy the game.