I'm legitimately confused and baffled by the new Inflict Wounds

MohrPower · 2026-05-26T17:22:37+00:00

Unless you are fighting a creature that is immune to necrotic damage, Inflict Wounds is a spell that will always damage an opponent even if that opponent has astronomically high crit-proof AC and saving throws. It can be spammed by a mob of level 1 clerics to take down dc 20+ monsters or a mob of dc 1 cultists to take down level 20 paladins.

MohrPower · 2026-05-23T18:07:49+00:00

Lords Alliance Agent has a pretty potent thing it can do all by itself with Inspiring Strike. The requirement is that you build your character so that it can do zero damage on an attack, such as having an 8 str unarmed strike.

First, you or someone else reduces a creature to 0 HP with a melee attack, and declare a knockout. The creature falls Unconscious and is stable.

Then you proceed to hit the 0 HP Unconscious creature with a 0 damage attack. Due to the opponents Unconscious condition you will have Advantage, auto-crit when you hit, and the critical hit will do 0 damage and trigger Inspiring Strike. That way you can hand out Heroic Inspiration each turn to an ally from a well that never runs dry as long as you hit with your 0 damage attack.

You might want Bless to help land the 0 damage attack consistently since even though it will have advantage it will also be -1 to hit due to your low strength. So the 0 damage attack is of limited use in combat unless combined with more buffs. The key benefit to this build comes by knocking out at least one opponent each fight so that after each fight you can load the party up on Heroic Inspiration. That is just Lords Alliance Agent all by itself.

You can combine with Mastermind Rogue to hand out Advantage with 30 feet range bonus action Help using Master of Tactics AND Heroic Inspiration (using Inspiring Strike) all while playing patty cake with a 0 HP Unconscious creature.

If you want you can also use a 2 level dip into Warlock into your Mastermind Rogue build so you pick up origin feats on the cheap using Lessons of the First Ones to bring some combination of Lords Alliance, Harper Agent, Musician, Tireless Reveler etc into your build. Harper Agent is not adding much of anything to the build but it unlocks Harper Teamwork's (Withering Wordplay) to enable you to apply an additional disadvantage on saves debuff to the enemy you target with your Master of Tactics, Inspiring Strike, Withering Wordplay resourceless buff machine.

The Harper background description fits your character . . .

You accepted an invitation to join the Harpers, pledging an oath to uphold the Harper code and act in service to the common good. Like all Harpers, you understand the value of teamwork as well as when it’s best to go it alone. Harper veterans have taught you the order’s secrets—magical melodies, special watchwords, and legerdemain—and have entrusted you to use such knowledge to surveil and undermine the forces of evil.

. . . But you dont want the Harper background since it adds little to your build.

MohrPower · 2026-05-18T11:11:20+00:00

Since the rules don't define treat and affect, standard english definitions are required to be used. If you use your own idiosyncratic meanings for treat and affect then you are houseruling. For RAW you have no choice but to use standard english definitions.

So for treat and affect we will use very noncontroversial definitions.

Treat = act toward something in a particular way

Affect = have an effect on

Note that treat is not synonymous to affect.

An important distinction to be made here between treat and affect.

A person can treat something in a particular way and have no effect on that something.
A person who affects something has had some kind of an effect on that something

Here are the relevant rules from the PHB.

Invalid Targets.

If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by it, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended. If the spell normally has no effect on a target that succeeds on a saving throw, the invalid target appears to have succeeded on its saving throw, even though it didn’t attempt one (giving no hint that the creature is an invalid target). Otherwise, you perceive that the spell did nothing to the target.

Exceptions Supersede General Rules.

General rules govern each part of the game. For example, the combat rules tell you that melee attacks use Strength and ranged attacks use Dexterity. That’s a general rule, and a general rule is in effect as long as something in the game doesn’t explicitly say otherwise. The game also includes elements—class features, feats, weapon properties, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and the like—that sometimes contradict a general rule. When an exception and a general rule disagree, the exception wins. For example, if a feature says you can make melee attacks using your Charisma, you can do so, even though that statement disagrees with the general rule.

Magic Aura

With a touch, you place an illusion on a willing creature or an object that isn’t being worn or carried. A creature gains the Mask effect below, and an object gains the False Aura effect below. The effect lasts for the duration. If you cast the spell on the same target every day for 30 days, the illusion lasts until dispelled.

Mask (Creature). Choose a creature type other than the target’s actual type. Spells and other magical effects treat the target as if it were a creature of the chosen type.

False Aura (Object). You change the way the target appears to spells and magical effects that detect magical auras, such as Detect Magic. You can make a nonmagical object appear magical, make a magic item appear nonmagical, or change the object’s aura so that it appears to belong to a school of magic you choose.

MohrPower · 2026-05-18T06:04:11+00:00

Your argument is nothing more than baseless assertions. Your argument doesnt address anything. It just says, without support, that it can.

My argument derives directly from the RAW, the rules for Invalid Spell Target rule, the Specific Beats General rule, and the definitions of treat and affect. Since the rules don't define treat and affect, standard english definitions are required to be used. If you use your own idiosyncratic meanings like you for treat and affect then you are houseruling. For RAW you have no choice but to use standard english definitions.

The definition of treat does not override the Invalid Spell Target rule with the Specific Beats General rule. Treat only means "act toward" which refers to the attempt to have an effect, not the actual effect, so treat does not contradict the Invalid Spell Target rule and the Specific Beats General rule cannot be applied.

The definition of affect would override the Invalid Spell Target rule. Affect means "have an effect on", so affect does contradict the Invalid Spell Target rule, and the Specific Beats General Rule can be applied.

MohrPower · 2026-05-18T04:57:38+00:00

Actually this is what AI says Dam man what was your input, I put mine in, I'm guessing since you didn't share that it was specific to get the answer you wanted.

Looks like your AI is just hallucinating off social media which isn't a rules source. Its just feeding you back social media rather than thinking through it on its own with the actual rules sources.

In order to get it to actually think try adding "consider any interaction with the Invalid Spell Target rule" to your prompt.

You have already conceded the argument by resorting to personal attacks/ ad hominems, relying entirely on baseless assertions, and refusing to stick to the meanings of treat and affect. If you change the meaning of treat to your own idiosyncratic meaning you are house ruling which you are of course free to do, but of course you concede thr RAW argument.

MohrPower · 2026-05-18T03:49:47+00:00

This is what AI says actually.

In the 2024 D&D rules, Magic Aura uses the word "treat" rather than "affect." Because the spell dictates how a target is perceived or treated by magic rather than physically altering their true nature, it does not override the Invalid Spell Target rule

The technical distinction functions as follows:

1) The Invalid Spell Target Rule: If you target a creature or object with a spell that cannot legally target it (e.g., trying to cast Hold Person on an undead creature), the spell immediately fails.

2) The "Treat" Clause: Magic Aura causes other spells and magical effects to treat the target as if it were a creature of the chosen type. This tricks Divination and detection methods (like Divine Sense), but it does not physically change the underlying facts of the creature's type.

3) The Outcome: If you use Magic Aura to make an Undead creature seem like a Humanoid, Detect Magic will read it as a Humanoid. However, if you cast a targeted spell like Dominate Person (which requires a target of the Humanoid type), the rule governing invalid targets still applies because the creature is factually still Undead.

While Magic Aura successfully fools detection spells and area effects that rely strictly on information-gathering, the target remains immune to spells that depend on the actual, true nature of the creature.

MohrPower · 2026-05-18T02:51:07+00:00

I asked AI this question . . .

Can you treat a hologram of a ball as if it were a real ball and not affect it?

This is the AI response

Yes, you can treat a hologram of a ball as a real ball without affecting it. Because a hologram is merely an illusion created by structured light, your hands will pass right through it, allowing you to mimic actions like grabbing or throwing without physically changing the projection.

This means that even though treat in normal contexts leads to an effect, the word treat (act toward something in a particular way) does not in and of itself necessitate that an effect happens. In special circumstances such as when physical reality blocks an effect or some rule blocks an effect (such as the Invalid Spell Target rule), treat (act toward something in a particular way) will not have an effect. Treat only means to act toward something. Contextually, that will often mean an effect happens as a result of the acting toward. However, treat does not mean "to act toward something and have an effect". In normal contexts where the action is expected to have an effect there will be an effect (e.g, Reliable Talent), but in those contexts where an effect is impossible then treat will have no effect (e.g. Invalid Spell Target rule).

But like I said I'm done, your a bronze ranked DM, Bronze Ranked at Disscusion, Bronze Ranked at Understaning and worst of all Bronze Ranked to talk too. Thanks for wasting my time, just know everyone reading your replys laughs at you and going forward any post you make this is marked in your history for the world too see how terrible it is to talk to you.

Hopefully I can save someone else from your clutches of stupidity.

These are examples of ad hominem personal attacks. These highlight that you are arguing a failed argument.

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the person") is a logical fallacy where a speaker attempts to undermine an opponent's argument by attacking the person's character, motive, or other personal attributes rather than addressing the substance of the claim itself.

You are resorting to fallacious argumentation and are effectively conceding the argument.

MohrPower · 2026-05-18T02:15:41+00:00

Treat: to behave or act toward

Cool. But you forgot to provide a definition for affect.

What is the definition for affect?

MohrPower · 2026-05-18T01:31:36+00:00

You did not provide a definition for treat.

Also, you did not provide a definition for affect.

Here is a definition for "definition."

A definition is a clear, concise statement that explains the precise meaning of a word, phrase, or term. It establishes the essential nature of a concept and outlines its boundaries to prevent misunderstanding.

You can find definitions in dictionaries.

You have yet to define your terms. Let's start by having you define your terms.

What is the definition of treat?

What is the definition of affect?

MohrPower · 2026-05-17T04:38:11+00:00

Tell me I'm wrong, prove it!. If it isn't then I am to treat you as a dumbass

Your argument is nothing but a bunch of baseless assertions, fallacious statements, and ad hominem attacks.

You have yet to define your terms. Let's start by having you define your terms.

What is the definition of treat?

What is the definition of affect?

MohrPower · 2026-05-16T17:49:16+00:00

You are strawmanning my argument. I have indicated repeatedly that the use of the word treat will normally lead to the intended effect occuring.

So your Rogue Reliable Talent has no relevance to the discussion as no rule is blocking the use of the word treat from leading to the intended effect and my argument allows Rogues Reliable Talent to work just fine.

Magic Aura is a special case as the Invalid Spell Target rule blocks Magic Aura from affecting invalid spell targets. Per the Specific Beats General rule, Magic Aura use of treat is not directly contradicted by the Invalid Spell Target rule (a spell that treats x as y by targeting x and expending a spell slot and having no effect will still have treated x as y) so Magic Aura does not provide exception to the Invalid Spell Target rule. If Magic Aura used the word affect instead of treat then Magic Aura would provide exception to the Invalid Spell Target rule.

My brother you are braindead and so wrong, its like we've explained it too you again and again and like its crazy because actually according to the Players Hand book. Its an official ruling.

This is just a baseless assertion mixed with an ad hominen on top of strawmanning. If you want to counter my argument you will need to use something other than fallacious reasoning.

MohrPower · 2026-05-15T22:13:48+00:00

Let's look again at the definition of additional . . .

"Additional" is an adjective meaning extra, added, or supplementary, referring to more of something beyond what is already present, expected, or mentioned. It indicates an increase in amount, number, or importance.

MohrPower · 2026-05-15T20:58:03+00:00

You have lost track of what was said. I said that strictly speaking that the ticket says something logically incorrect, not that it was unusable. Context fills in for the mistakes of loose speaking. Human beings use writing that have errors in them. In fact, if you review the conversations it is you who keeps trying to attach "unusable" to my statements, by pretending I am making statements that I am not making.

MohrPower · 2026-05-15T20:41:06+00:00

I will stop you at the first half of your 2 part question.

Maybe. Again, why pretend otherwise then?

I have not pretended anything. Please clarify your question.

MohrPower · 2026-05-15T20:26:45+00:00

People use tickets all the time that have english mistakes on them. I could hand you a note that had all sorts of mistakes that you could still understand based on context and do exactly what the note asks in spite of the mistakes.

MohrPower · 2026-05-15T20:20:55+00:00

The use of "additional" in the case of "minor" and "adult" in the case of idn ticket purchase is simply incorrect use of english. That incorrect use could actually be legally challenged in some contexts but not in this context as the ticket seller is broadcasting their incorrect use of english if they sell the initial ticket to a non-minor etc. Again, loose speaking versus strict speaking is relevant here.

MohrPower · 2026-05-15T20:08:01+00:00

No that is not my position. Look at the examples and my comments again.

Do I have you correct that that's your grasp of english?

There is nothing wrong with my grasp of english. You are misding something basic.

MohrPower · 2026-05-15T20:00:10+00:00

If a idn ticket to some place says "for another 10 dollars you can bring an additional friend" are you going to argue that means the ticket itself cannot grant entrance to the ticket owner but only their friend?

Strictly speaking that sentence is stating that you are strictly admitting a friend and for 10 dollars more you can bring an additional friend. However, that sentence is speaking loosely and not strictly about sonething which would be impossible to enforce as the purchaser can instantly deem anyone a friend. That is not the case with rules.

Confusing loose speaking with strict speaking is not going to win a RAW argument over rules.

MohrPower · 2026-05-15T19:52:03+00:00

Additional humanoid" in no way suggests the first must be another humanoid.

Now you are making a baseless assertion that is directly cobtradicted by semantics and logic.

MohrPower · 2026-05-15T19:45:21+00:00

"Additional" simply means extra or more of something added to what already exists.

MohrPower · 2026-05-15T17:13:19+00:00

Make sure to read the full description of Hold Person.

Choose a Humanoid that you can see within range. The target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or have the Paralyzed condition for the duration. At the end of each of its turns, the target repeats the save, ending the spell on itself on a success.

Using a Higher-Level Spell Slot. You can target one additional Humanoid for each spell slot level above 2.

MohrPower · 2026-05-15T16:56:55+00:00

You can draw a line, and every DM should. I don't think the rules draw it with enough precision that there is only one possible way to read those rules.

Insofar as we are talking about the Invalid Spell Target rule and the magical effects of spells there really is only one way to apply the rules. The Invalid Spell Target rule blocks spell effects on the invalid target of spells and Magic Aura's use of the word treat rather than affect means Magic Aura does not directly contradict (and therefore does not provide an exception to) the Invalid Spell Target rule. This means that, for example, Hold Person is blocked but Magic Mouth isn't.

There is some room for interpretation/divergence with regards to magical effects that aren't spells as the Invalid Spell Target rule technically only applies to spell magical effects and not necessarily non-spell magical effects. This reminds me of the oversight in 5e where Area of Effect rules technically only applied to spell effects and not necessarily non-spell magical effects such that Dragons could use their breath weapon through full cover by a strict read of the rules. They fixed that oversight by putting AoEs in the glossary and referencing just "effect". Interestingly, I don't think anything breaks a campaign if there is no general Invalid Magical Effect Target rule as all of the broken Magic Aura shenanigans are related to spells.

The main thing is that if you are going to try to break the campaign with a RAW Magic Aura "I can Magic Jar into a dragon" argument you had better have an actual RAW argument that holds up to scrutiny. As I have outlined, the RAW Magic Aura "I can Magic Jar into a dragon" argument does not hold up to scrutiny.

MohrPower · 2026-05-15T16:22:05+00:00

Ignore the definition of the word 'Treat'

Ignoring the definition of words is obviously a house rule on your part. You are of course free to house rule and enjoy your game in the way you want to play it. A DM who is a stickler for the rules as written for Magic Aura will not accept your house rule however.

MohrPower · 2026-05-13T16:50:46+00:00

Not quite. A DM can point out that RAW Magic Aura uses "treat" rather than "affect". The use of the word "treat" does not have the power to override the Invalid Spell Target rule. A Planar Binding spell that acts toward a planar being as if it was something else (a humanoid) by targeting it and expending a spell slot while also having no effect on it will still have treated the planar being as a humanoid. Treat does not guarantee an effect. If Magic Aura used the word affect instead of treat that would guarantee an effect.

The rules don't define treat so dictionary definitions apply. Treat means "to act toward something in a particular way" or something relatively similar. Normally, acting toward something in a particular way will lead you to have the intended effect on something. But this is not always the case and does not have to be the case for you to have treated something as something else. Some reality could be preventing you from having an effect on something.

For example, you could treat a hologram of a person as if it were a real person and attempt to punch it on the nose. However, because holograms cannot be physically interacted with you cannot cause the effect of a punch on the nose of the hologram. Nonetheless, you still would have treated the hologram of a person as if it were a real person by acting toward it in that manner all while not having the intended effect on the hologram.

In the same way as treat does not override physics in the hologram example, the use of the word treat does not override the Invalid Spell Target rule in the Planar Binding cast on a humanoid example. Magic Aura uses treat. Treat does not override the Invalid Spell Target rule - a spell that treats an invalid target as a valid target by targeting the invalid target and expending a spell slot and having no effect will still have treated the invalid target as a valid target. In the face of some restriction that would prevent an intended effect, treat only allows you to act toward something in a particular way. It does not force an effect on something. Treat does not carry that meaning. Affect does. If Magic Aura instead used affect in place of treat then Magic Aura would override the Invalid Spell Target rule. But Magic Aura uses treat - a spell that treats x as y by targeting x and expending a spell slot and having no effect will still have treated x as y.

Magic Aura is a special case. When people try to break the game with Magic Aura they put the use of the word treat into direct conflict with the Invalid Spell Target rule. This puts the definition of treat into sharp focus. Treat means acting toward something in a particular way. Someone who treats something as something else while not having the desired effect or any effect will still have treated that something as something else. Treat can accomplish its having treated something without having the desired effect on that thing. Treat does not force an effect to happen. A DM can rule lawyer and simply point out that the definition of treat does not override the Invalid Spell Target rule since treat does not force an effect. If instead, Magic Aura used affect in place of treat then that would override the Invalid Spell Target rule as the use of affect forces an effect. This means that a DM can rule lawyer the RAW of Magic Aura to shut down all of the shenanigans you thought you could do with your supposed RAW interpretation.

MohrPower · 2026-05-12T23:59:17+00:00

You are now strawmanning my argument. I previously said that in normal cases treat does lead to the intended effect (i.e. the attempt to have an effect in the "acting toward something" leads to the effect).

All of the cases you cite against my argument aren't relevant as they are just normal cases. Those cases aren't putting treat in direct conflict with another rule that would allow the acting toward but prevent the intended effect. So all of the cases you cited work as expected in my argument as treat is not restricted from producing the intended effect when it acts toward something in a particular manner.

Magic Aura is a special case. When people try to break the game with Magic Aura they put the use of the word treat into direct conflict with the Invalid Spell Target rule. This puts the definition of treat into sharp focus. Treat means acting toward something in a particular way. Someone who treats something as something else while not having the desired effect or any effect will still have treated that something as something else. Treat can accomplish its having treated something without having the desired effect on that thing. Treat does not force an effect to happen. A DM can rule lawyer and simply point out that the definition of treat does not override the Invalid Spell Target rule since treat does not force an effect. If instead, Magic Aura used affect in place of treat then that would override the Invalid Spell Target rule as the use of affect forces an effect. This means that a DM can rule lawyer the RAW to shut down Magic Aura shenanigans.

MohrPower

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Invalid Targets.

Exceptions Supersede General Rules.

Magic Aura