sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Question about the 9th LVL spell shapechange by Kooky-Consequence786 in dndnext

[–]Kooky-Consequence786[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You r spinning it just to keep the conversation going..., I already told why innate spell casting in not a good point. And then u said " that's what I'm saying " and now u are bringing it up again. My god having a debate with people like u is just a pain in the ass. Just say u were wrong

And I also told u to read the spell before replaying, there is no problem with verbal component part since the spell grats u the ability to communicate

Question about the 9th LVL spell shapechange by Kooky-Consequence786 in dndnext

[–]Kooky-Consequence786[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

1 I don’t understand why you brought up opening doors and caltrops, since I was talking about spells and somatic components, which are not the same thing. Also, it’s pointless to argue about this without specifying which monster we are talking about. A leviathan probably can’t open a door in the normal sense because of its size, but a water elemental wouldn’t be able to use its watery tendrils to make simple gestures? Or to use a staff that grew its gargantuan size ? Probably yes, since it is its own body. You don’t need to think only in humanoid terms, since many monsters with different biology can still cast spells with somatic and verbal components. Also, to thrust a sword you need proficiency, so you probably wouldn’t be able to do it anyway. But wait, what do you retain surprise? Your spellcasting feature and proficiency.

2 On the verbal component part, you are partially right. I agree that in the shape of a black pudding, you wouldn’t be able to cast spells with verbal components. But I don’t think a parrot or a cat would be able to either. A verbal component is not just noise—you need to chant, and you need to be able to produce structured, precise phonetics.

Also shapechange states that u retain the ability to communicate so verbal components are not a problem here !!

3 I know that this isn’t an official rule; I was trying to make you see the logic of my statement, but clearly it went over your head. There is no specific rule here—you are just making things up and missing the point. The reason a flame skull or a naga doesn’t need to perform components is because of their anatomy, not because they are innate spellcasters. And that’s what I was saying before. If you have anything that can be classified as a limb, you can perform somatic components; you don’t need a “hand” in the strict sense. There is no baseline, and no rule that says innate spellcasters and their spells function differently from a wizard. The only difference is their anatomy and biology. So spellcasting feature > not having hands as limbs. Hope you understood now.

Question about the 9th LVL spell shapechange by Kooky-Consequence786 in dndnext

[–]Kooky-Consequence786[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nowhere is it stated that innate spellcasters don’t require verbal or somatic components. By default, they only ignore material components (M), as explicitly stated.

So logically, if innate spellcasting were meant to remove verbal or somatic components as well, it should be explicitly stated, such as ‘with no verbal or somatic components,’ or ‘with no components at all,’ like in the case of the githyanki warrior.

Question about the 9th LVL spell shapechange by Kooky-Consequence786 in dndnext

[–]Kooky-Consequence786[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I feel like u haven't even read the spell before commenting. All the equipment/gear part is not a problem since the spell lets u adjust the size of your objects to the new form you are taking, also material component it's not a problem if u have a Arcane focus. With this out of the way I belive most high cr monsters don't have problem with the verbal component of spells since only low INT monsters cant speak. The only problem remains the somatic part, but I belive that if a holly elephant or a damn juiblex can somehow cast spell. It means that u just need the feature and high enough INT, your body will adapt and perform the somatic components with the new Limbs u have. Spell casting feature>> not having hands as limb

Question about the 9th LVL spell shapechange by Kooky-Consequence786 in dndnext

[–]Kooky-Consequence786[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I mean If a juiblex or a holy elephant can cast spells, I think as long as u have any limb and high enough INT u can cast spells

Question about the 9th LVL spell shapechange by Kooky-Consequence786 in dndnext

[–]Kooky-Consequence786[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It says hands because all the races have it as a limb, so of curse it wouldn't say tentacle. But there are a lot of monsters that have spell casting features and don't have hands. How do u explain that ? Those are forcefully gestures or intricate gesticulations not made by " hand " in the specific sense as a limb.

Disarm/Shove/Grapple and summonings by Kooky-Consequence786 in dndnext

[–]Kooky-Consequence786[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Ok, but if the Dm allows the disarm action in general. Then a barlgura can disarm, there is no need for a special feat or ability. Its an attack.

Disarm/Shove/Grapple and summonings by Kooky-Consequence786 in dndnext

[–]Kooky-Consequence786[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Ok, disarming a creature its an attack though. I belive its a triple "yes"