What is this referencing?
There were just enough pixels in the first panel that I was able to find the video. I haven’t watched it myself.
Ah, thanks.
For anyone coming later, the first half of the video is superfluous to the meme, start at 3:18. I agree with the video’s interpretation of the first ruling, that that would be a reasonable use of a ready action.
Otherwise, yeah, the meme is spot on.
Hiding the spell and the action it takes are kind of superfluous to the jumping rule that says “[…] each foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement.”
As I said elsewhere, casting a spell and holding it uses visible components the hobgoblin could react to.
That isn’t how I interpret the ready action.And yeah, there should be a save of some sort even if it isn’t RAW, but I think I’d allow it out at my table, it’s creative and fun.Edit: I reread the rule, there is language for precasting the spell. I stil thinkl it’d be more fun to find a way to hide it, like a stealth check or similar.
Either way, the fact that casting a spell is an action isn’t really a problem here
Far as I think about it, if one wants to hide a spell, they should pick up the subtle spell-metamagic. Making every caster able to do what is supposed to be a special ability (on par with doubling the range/duration of a spell) cheapens the ability and makes casters even stronger than they already are.
¯\(ツ)/¯
Well, the title of the video is “Weird Spell Rulings” after all…
I assumed it to be about weird interpretations/effects of spell that are either Raw but stupid (like find traps finding intentional clauses in legal documents) or common sense interpretations that still lead to weird outcomes (using bead of force+levitate+thunderwave to blast the BBEG into orbit). Because why make a video about people misinterpreting spells without making clear that this is unintended?
find traps finding intentional clauses in legal documents
Rogues always read the Terms and Conditions before accepting them.
Clerics have a more elegant way to do that.
Outside of the immunity to Charm it was still a decent use of an action/ready action.
I think you could rule either way on if the zombies/lich would jump off a cliff after the gem, since the spell mentions that they specifically stare at and approach you (not the gem).
So you better jump off and cast feather fall.
Casting a spell and holding it uses visible components the hobgoblin could react to.
Incite greed also explicitly says that the creature avoids obvious harm while approaching you and does nothing beyond approaching you. If the would always run after the gem (forsaking personal safety to do so), this would be noted in the description.
Casting a spell and holding it uses visible components the hobgoblin could react to.
I’d think it’d take at least an arcana check to know that the spell you’re holding is Jump. So yeah, he could react, but would he necessarily be able to react in time to stop you from casting the spell? Not to mention, if he reacts just barely not in time and jumps haphazardly, one could argue the Wizard jumped farther and therefore wins.
If he doesn’t know what spell you’re casting, that means that he’s even more likely to assume that you are trying to cast an harmful spell, making him attack you. And casting a spell takes an action, basically a third of your turn if you want, so the hobgoblin has at least 2 seconds to react, if not more. And thats plenty of time to stop himself from jumping.
I’m assuming that even though the DM pretends to be annoyed, he actually thinks all these shenanigans are awesome and is bending the rules to let them work.
I think the weird part of Gate Seal was just its duration and casting time(seriously why does it take a minute it’s a 4th level spell). And as for Incite Greed - is that misinterpretation not reasonable? The charm is that they stare at the gem greedily but it…makes no mention of what happens to the gem, or what happens if the gem leaves your person.
