this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2023
358 points (94.1% liked)

RPGMemes

9744 readers
830 users here now

Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Since my polymorph meme has only garnered three downvotes so far I thought I'd offer a bit more controversial take, and see if I can manage to stir the pot a bit with this one.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

That's flavour text.

The touch of your shadow-wreathed hand can siphon life force from others to heal your wounds. Make a melee spell attack against a creature within your reach. On a hit, the target takes 3d6 necrotic damage, and you regain hit points equal to half the amount of necrotic damage dealt. Until the spell ends, you can make the attack again on each of your turns as an action.

You are, in fact, a creature within your reach.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You're a valid target for the spell, but the heal doesn't trigger cause the target isn't someone other than yourself.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

But it doesn't say, "only from others."

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

The mere act of including "from others" is all the proof required.

If Self was valid for the Siphon effect they wouldn't have had to mention it at all, since Self is automatically included as a valid target unless otherwise stated.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If we're going strict RAW, the "from others" clause only affects life force, not HP. Spells don't do more than what they say, after all. So you can take HP from others, but not life force.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago

Thanks to our natural language rules we can easily interpret Life Force as a synonym for HP

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

I think that’s kind of a stretch. The range of the spell is explicitly “Self”, and the heal triggers off a hit dealing damage to the target.

If this kind of cherry-picking clauses worked, the Paladin “Breaking your Oath” sidebar would be meaningless. All an impenitent Paladin player needs to do is point to the first sentence of the Sacred Oath feature that says “[…] you swear the oath that binds you as a paladin forever.”

Also the fact that a redundant statement is included is not proof of anything. I’ve fielded similar arguments with someone who thought the “Casting the spell doesn’t remove it from your list of prepared spells.” clause in the Spellcasting feature of prepared casters was proof that all other methods of spellcaster deleted the spell after it was cast. Trying to explain that “A spell is a discrete magical effect, a single shaping of the magical energies” is not the same as one-time use only, the same way a sword being a discrete object doesn’t mean swinging the sword is a one time thing, is exhausting.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

And it doesn't say "you cannot fly", yet it doesn't make you capable of flying. This means nothing: The spell does only what it says it does and it quite clearly says "you can siphon life force from others".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

If it were quite clear to ignore some text over other text when there might be interactions, OP's funny post wouldn't exist. I'm glad to have game groups with DMs who shy away from pedantry and bend/break rules when it improves the fun and adventure of the party experience.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

That’s flavour text.

There is no concept of "flavour text" in 5e. If you believe there is, quote a part of the rules that says as such. In 5e, all of the spell description are rules and this has been debated many a times with the very same conclusion.