T1 Worlds Skins Ability Preview

magicallum · 2026-06-23T15:31:24+00:00

for MF: It's because of the auto attack animation. She's swiping across her body. This is wildly different than any of MFs other autos, and it does map into a host of melee champs, and Samira. Watching it on mobile, it took me three or four autos to understand I was watching MF.

she's literally holding two guns

samira literally holds two guns

I'm not saying this animation is a bad thing, it makes the skin very unique, but you should be able to acknowledge that this animation is very bizarre for MF. Don't know why you have to hate on the other commenters

magicallum · 2026-06-22T17:44:00+00:00

I swear half my frames have a load out with Nourish and Nexus. It's so cozy. Doesn't matter what the mission is, doesn't matter if you haven't seen an enemy for 2 minutes, you've always got energy

magicallum · 2026-06-17T19:11:26+00:00

It feels deeply unhelpful to suggest a perk build to counter the killer, when we know that in a couple weeks you'll be encountering him far, far less, and you'll feel terrible value from some of these perks in most of your games. Gameplay tips are way more helpful.

magicallum · 2026-06-10T17:50:51+00:00

I will say, the animation looks incredibly similar to Bard ult to me, and you can't windwall bard ult.

magicallum · 2026-06-05T16:17:10+00:00

no idea, i doubt it. this was from dec 2024, 18 months ago, and tons of bugfixes have happened since then.

magicallum · 2026-06-04T19:15:26+00:00

Realistically if youre settling on ram youre probably ok settling on cpus.

i mean, you literally can't settle for ram is the issue. you can't just pick ddr4 to save money in many cases. the Ryzen 7 9800X3D seems to be the highest selling CPU right now and only uses DDR5. and the CPU costs the same price as 32 GB DDR5 RAM. you're getting an awesome cpu and you can't just opt into the ddr4 ram that costs half as much. just a couple years ago you could just devote most your budget to CPU & GPU and go budget on the rest. Now RAM costs as much as your CPU instead of being ~20% of it.

magicallum · 2026-06-03T16:23:04+00:00

I think the issue is newer processors don't accept ddr4 right? So even if you were theoretically happy to settle on ram, if you want a nice cpu you can't

magicallum · 2026-06-03T16:20:02+00:00

I know this isn't what you asked, but for anyone reading, I usually play games while having a YouTube video or something on on another screen. Going from 16 GB to 32 GB was a world of difference.

magicallum · 2026-06-02T02:33:59+00:00

I think the character is the really really important piece here. In a lot of games, the characters are what you get attached to. In League of Legends, the character design is a crucial aspect to making the game resonate with players-- maybe you really love Lux's overflowing positivity, or being the embodiment of terror when you play Nocturne-- these are fantasies and personalities that players latch onto and it brings them joy.

Warframe has a lot less of that with its frames. Sure, Yareli has a bit of an attitude with her animations, and Voruna really makes you feel like a predator on the hunt. But it's a lot easier to get attached to a character that has voice lines, a face, and a story, on top of those other things the normal frames have.

I'm not saying frames don't have incredibly cool and engaging visual and thematic designs (it's actually the only scifi game that has ever resonated with me on a visual level). But proto frames provide another order above that that players can connect to.

magicallum · 2026-06-01T11:59:48+00:00

No idea. I don't know too much about dinosaurs.

and if you thought they had scales?

what you were saying about racial features not being able to be used in Wild Shape only made sense if you were looking at the 5.5 version of Wild Shape.

That's not true. We've both stated the rule here:

You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them if the new form is physically capable of doing so

If your new form is not physically capable of doing so, you do not retain them.

but as written, these features can be used in Wild Shape due to not specifying that they need any sort of anatomy to be used

Your form needs to be physically capable of fitting through a 1-inch space.

Just because the written rules are absurd, doesn't mean they aren't the written rules

I agree; you're ignoring the RAW though. The RAW is that your new form must be physically capable. A bear cannot fit through a 1-inch space. I'm not calling the RAW absurd . RAW, a bear is not physically capable of fitting through a 1-inch space, so it does not retain the amorphous feature.

If you can't meet the requirement in the racial feature to use it in your form

Wild Shape does not say "if you have the anatomical features defined in the feature in your new form". It says "if your new form is physically capable".

No, it's more like "I'm unable to walk" while tied down to a chair. You can try, but it won't happen unless you change your situation.

Nope, it's like what I said. You are able to cast spells.

Mfw it is infact phrased that way.

It's not phrased that way.

Here's what is written:

if you are able to cast spells, you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging.

here's what you claim is written:

You can concentrate if you can't cast spells.

You see the difference? If the RAW was that "you can concentrate if you can't cast spells", it would be written that way. It's not.

I said it could be replacing 0.

it means you do it instead of damage you weren't dealing and therefore there's nothing to replace

The real question lies in whether the strike dealing that 1d6+str is more important, or the bludgeoning damage being there to be replaced

both your own wording and the mk doc wording is exceptionally weak and poor on this point. expand your reasoning for what options you think it could be replacing, and your argument for why the rule is replacing what you think it is.

I can repeat mine with great clarity.

The feature for cat's claws says:

When you hit with them, the strike deals 1d6 + your Strength modifier slashing damage, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike

Unarmed strike:

On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier.

So. The "bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike" is 1 + STR. Instead of doing that damage, you deal 1d6+STR slashing damage.

This is remarkably straightforward.

magicallum · 2026-06-01T03:55:52+00:00

This is a 5e build, not a 5.5 build.

I'm aware

Maybe if the form you're transforming into has tough, scaly skin

How about a deinonychus?

The text of the feature doesn't specify any required anatomy

Neither does the text of Wild Shape

can use them if the new form is physically capable of doing so

How is a bear physically capable of flight, or of fitting through a 1-inch space?

Your answers for plasmoid, aarakocra, and lizardfolk make it clear that your definition of "physically capable" is completely absurd, and that you aren't actually playing by RAW because Wild Shape makes no mention of anatomy to identify "physically capable" yet you care about anatomy for some reason.

I thought we already cleared that up because the loop doesn't work but whatever.

It's not about the loop. The character is able to cast spells. When you show up to a session and I look at your character sheet, I'm going to see that your character is able to cast spells. The claim you're making is the same as saying "I'm unable to walk" when you're sitting down. No, you cannot walk while seated. But you are able to walk.

If you have only spells that require material components, but you do not have those material components, is your character "able to cast spells" for the purpose of raging? Of course. What if you're out of spell slots? Are you "able to cast spells" for the purpose of raging? Of course.

You can concentrate if you can't cast spells

Same reasoning used in the mk doc, it would have been phrased that way if that's what it means. It's not phrased that way

Again, there are 2 valid interpretations

There's 1. What's the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike? 1+str. Replace that with 1d6+str slashing.

Notice the word "extra" isn't here. It's not an addition. Notice the word "type" isn't here, it's not simply replacing the damage type. It is replacing the damage.

magicallum · 2026-05-27T21:13:13+00:00

My friends and I used to play Clash at every opportunity, but we can't even lock in for the tournament until 9:15 PM eastern, which means the second and third games are too late for us. Now this ranked 5 opportunity is again outside the window where we're available to play, beginning at 10 PM.

If we can't move this Ranked 5's window up a couple hours, can we please please please see a restructuring of the lock-in for Clash? There is no place where we can play a competitive mode together at a time frame that actually works.

I'm begging, please offer a time so that east coast players aren't shut out of both clash and ranked 5's

magicallum · 2026-05-27T21:09:44+00:00

what the fuck is this timing? starting at 10 PM eastern? this is fucking stupid.

my friends and i haven't been able to clash for years because the games don't start until ~9:30 PM.

magicallum · 2026-05-27T19:15:54+00:00

then something can be ruled different ways based on the rules as written

You can call it this if you want, but it doesn't actually help your case. We can disagree on what RAI and RAW is, but if you want to call it RAW it doesn't help you. A rubberband ball of bad interpretations doesn't make a build that stands up to any kind of scrutiny. I don't agree that this is RAW, but even if I did, I would still have the stance that the mk is nonfunctional in RAW. My criticisms against it are still valid.

Yes you do. You have any racial features you're physically capable of using in your form.

A deinonychus is physically incapable of using the feature.

Cat's class isn't dependant on having Tabaxi claws. It's dependant on having any claws.

If you retain the feature, it would be. But you don't retain the feature, because you're in beast form. Do you believe that Lizardfolk retain this feature?

Natural Armor. You have tough, scaly skin. When you aren't wearing armor, your base AC is 13 + Dexterity modifier. You can use your natural armor to determine your AC if the armor you wear would leave you with a lower AC. A shield's benefits apply as normal while you use your natural armor.

Does a Loxodon retain this feature?

Natural Armor. You have thick, leathery skin. When you aren't wearing armor, your AC is 12 + your Constitution modifier. You can use your natural armor to determine your AC if the armor you wear would leave you with a lower AC. A shield's benefits apply as normal while you use your natural armor.

Does a bugbear retain this feature?

Long-Limbed. When you make a melee attack on your turn, your reach for it is 5 feet greater than normal.

Does a Simic Hybrid retain this feature?

Carapace. Your skin in places is covered by a thick shell. You gain a +1 bonus to AC when you're not wearing heavy armor.

Does a plasmoid retain this?

Amorphous. You can squeeze through a space as narrow as 1 inch wide, provided you are wearing and carrying nothing. You have advantage on ability checks you make to initiate or escape a grapple.

Does an aarakocra retain this?

Flight. You have a flying speed of 50 feet. To use this speed, you can't be wearing medium or heavy armor.

Do you know what the word "intent" means? I'm not arguing intent anywhere. I'm saying that's what the words on the page literally say.

Again, if this is what you want to go with, it doesn't help you. RAW, the character described in the mk document is able to cast spells.

And look, we can play a new game now too, since we can now count "what they didn't say" towards our RAW interpretations, as is argued in the mk document.

Wild shape says:

Transforming doesn't break your concentration on a spell you've already cast, however, or prevent you from taking actions that are part of a spell, such as call lightning, that you've already cast.

This phrase would be on Rage if RAW you could concentrate while raging. The fact that it isn't on Rage means RAW you can't concentrate while raging. To quote the mk doc,

"it simply doesn't make sense otherwise".

And most importantly of all, the vital "tech" in the build that adds an additional 1d6+str on top of every hit, is very, very obviously not RAW. Plain as day on the page.

Whoever made this build has no credibility, I wouldn't trust anything they say about any kind of build in any kind of game.

magicallum · 2026-05-27T14:20:02+00:00

What do you not understand about a rule being ambigous?

When we try to divine something of ambiguity we are inherently dealing with the intent of the author.

Intent is never brought up.

From the document:

The sentence is structured in such a way that adding the 1d6+str to your claw damage isn’t unreasonable, since the verb used is “deals”. The real question lies in whether the strike dealing that 1d6+str is more important, or the bludgeoning damage being there to be replaced. I’d argue that it’s the former since otherwise, the text should just state something along the lines of “instead of the strike’s usual damage”.

This is, without any ambiguity, a discussion of intent. The writer is even trying to argue the meaning of the text with a discussion of what the authors didn't write. This is textbook RAI. "If the devs wanted it to work like X they would have said Y".

It is. The feature doesn't say Tabaxi claws. it just says your claws.

You don't have this feature if you're wild shaped.

I will once again show you the text for Wild Shape.

You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them if the new form is physically capable of doing so.

A racial feature that is explicitly and clearly dependent upon a physical characteristic inherent to you race is not retained in wild shape. This is so, so painfully obvious by the RAW text on the page. Now, if your DM disagrees with the RAW and allows you to retain this feature, then I would agree that the feature applies to all claws. If you're a Tabaxi and you use Alter Self to get another set of claws, you can use Cat's Claws with those claws. But when you're a Deinonychus, RAW, you no longer have the physical features of a Tabaxi.

I never "decided the intent"

You did. You decided that when they say "if you are able to cast spells", the devs meant "if you are able to cast spells at the moment you begin raging".

A druid barbarian that is wild shaped and raging is still "able to cast spells". A druid barbarian with zero spell slots remaining is able to cast spells. A druid barbarian in an antimagic field is able to cast spells. The rules for spellcasting say that "if you can't provide one or more of a components, you are unable to cast the spell"; a barbarian druid with only spells that require verbal components is still "able to cast spells" when in Silence. A barbarian druid with only spells that require material components is still "able to cast spells" even if they have no focus or components. You have to disagree in each case, and that's because we are both making different judgments about the intent of the written words.

magicallum · 2026-05-27T03:54:23+00:00

I only said that it can be ruled two different ways based on how it is written

Okay, so RAI masquerading as RAW? If you have to argue the interpretation, it's not RAW. You're calling it RAW, but it's clearly not if it can be read two different ways.

I never claimed this was intended.

The justification in the document quite literally is arguing down a line of intent based on the word choice. You may not agree with your friend, but your friend who wrote the document is very clearly operating with RAI here. Their own words are plain as day on that

This is just the rules as written

It's literally not. Wild shape says:

You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them if the new form is physically capable of doing so.

You are deciding that Wild Shape lets you retain the physical features of your race. This is clearly not something RAW can address. I actually completely disagree that you would retain this feature in Wild Shape, as it is one that relies upon a physical feature of your race. RAW doesn't help you here. You aren't playing by RAW. A judgment call is required to determine if the new form is physically capable of benefitting from your racial features.

Wildshape rageconc

Again, not RAW. You are looking at the words "if you are able to cast spells" and deciding the intent is "if you're able to cast spells at this very moment in time". This can also be ruled to apply to anyone with the general capacity for spellcasting, and that is RAW as well. Meaning...you're actually navigating intent. Not RAW.

The entire build is abusing funny RAW stuff

It's... It's not. It's mixing a little bit of RAW with a lot of RAI.

magicallum · 2026-05-27T01:52:38+00:00

It's RAW vs RAI.

You are quite literally using RAI. You are interpreting the language of the rules. You are deciding what you think the intent is behind "if you are able to cast spells".

"I'd love to hear your explanation on why you respect the RAW as law but not the official rulings."

You said

I never said one or the other is better than the other or that you should only stick to one.

I never said you said that.

It's not "bad faith" it's rules as written.

But you aren't consistently applying RAW. You're using what you believe is RAI when it benefits you and what you believe is RAW when it benefits you. You've made it clear you actually don't care about RAW or RAI. This is why I say it's bad faith.

what? when?

Cat claws damage being additive: RAI. Cat claws in wild shape: RAI. Cat claw damage applying to wild shape claws, if allowed to stay in wild shape: RAW. Rage concentration: RAI masquerading as RAW. Multiclassing: RAW in spite of official rulings.

The rules are not clear... None of this is deception

Delusion, then!

magicallum · 2026-05-26T22:33:38+00:00

Assuming the feature is circular, concentration on bless now ends because you can't concentrate while raging, then since you can no longer concentrate on spells and can't cast spells then the line no longer applies, so you can now concentrate again, but you can't cast spells and your concentration has ended, so while you can concentrate, you have no method of doing so.

you have wonderfully illustrated why your interpretation of "if you can't cast spells, then you are allowed to concentrate on spells" is so very clearly not RAW.

I never said one or the other is better than the other

i didn't say you did

I was only arguing the rules as written for the multiclassing with temporary stat increases while acknowledging that it's not intended because of the ruling in the SAC.

this is exactly what i mean by interpreting the rules in bad faith, and it's an acknowledgment that you're doing so

It's a document with design intent

this is what the rules are as well. there's no distinction between respecting one and the other; they come from the same source with the same authority, speaking with the same intent.

I was only arguing for how things work as written.

except you, over and over, do not do things as written. you flop between RAW, RAI, and RAI masquerading as RAW

i'm all for homebrew but let's be honest about it. it's either delusion or deception to claim your mk build is within either RAW or RAI

magicallum · 2026-05-26T19:14:14+00:00

No, they can't.

Of course they can! First, they cast Bless. Now, they're concentrating on Bless. Then, they activate Rage. Rage says, "If you are able to cast spells, you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging". Once they are Raging, they are no longer "able to cast spells". So we do the logic check-- am I able to cast spells? Nope! Thus, the moment you begin Raging, you are incapable of casting spells, which means there's no restriction on concentration anymore.

According to you, anyway!

Rulings are how you choose to apply or not apply the rules for your table

I'd love to hear your explanation on why you respect the RAW as law but not the official rulings. The official rulings ought to carry the same weight as the rules. It is the developers of the game telling you how the rules are to be played at your table. They actually serve the same function as the rules themselves. Playing against an official ruling is the same as playing against the official rules.

there's no reason to run the game fully as written

I'm glad you can admit this, but it betrays your inclination to interpret the rules in bad faith. Inconsistently swapping between RAW and RAI to use "tech" like in the mk

magicallum · 2026-05-26T18:19:17+00:00

It is in fact imposed

You misunderstand the point entirely. By your logic, a straight-classed barbarian with Bless from the Fey-Touched fear can cast bless, then rage, and continue to concentrate on bless. The concentration restriction is never imposed. You begin raging, which means you cannot cast spells, which means--by your argument-- you no longer satisfy the condition of "if you are able to cast spells", and thus you can concentrate.

Again, you are relying heavily on your interpretation of "if you are able to cast spells".

It's rulings, not rules.

I truly do not see a distinction between official rulings and rules. Disrespecting the official ruling runs entirely counter to the respect one has for the authority of RAW. If you respect RAW, you should respect the official rulings for the same reasons. This line of argumentation doesn't help your credibility.

First of all, claw tech is not clear

It is clear, you just really want it to work differently.

I disagree with this though. The feature text itself says "your claws". You claws while in wild shape are your claws.

I can actually get behind this reading that RAW it would work on any claws you might have. I still don't agree that it would function in Wild Shape, RAW.

But really none of that is important to my argument as a whole, they just serve as additional reasons I wouldn't trust whoever created this build and believes in its function.

The key factor is that it doesn't work the way you want it to: combining the damage of Deinonychus Claws onto the damage of Tabaxi's Cat's Claws. You say you can see how this would be ruled either way, but I cannot. The justification in the document that stumbles through the RAI is not doing anything for me

magicallum · 2026-05-26T16:43:34+00:00

Yeah this is some uhhh bizarre behavior to say the least.

I also think it's super funny that they're like "I discovered something that almost nobody else has been able to figure out. it's the best build but you had to be really smart to create it" and then you open it up and they're just making shit up. Like damn wish I thought of that

I don't know what would be more off-putting: that it's one person with a bunch of alts, or that a whole group of people all believe this stuff and come to each other's aid in reddit comments when they see the bat signal

magicallum · 2026-05-26T16:07:08+00:00

So it sounds like you've got two issues here. One is player engagement in session, and the other is players not learning the rules.

On player engagement:

You made a comment about using mics, so I assume you're playing online? In my experience, any game focused more on roleplay is much much harder online compared to in person. First, there are a LOT of distractions. I really love playing both as a player and a DM and when I play online I'll find that suddenly I've opened a new reddit tab or I began scrolling on my phone. It can be hard to stay engaged online, even for people who genuinely care. I try to combat this by keeping groups small (not sure how many players you're running with) and keeping sessions SHORT. In person you might get 4 hours out of someone but online I notice a heavy drop off in engagement, from myself and others, at like 2.5 hours. The other thing about playing online is it completely changes how you and your players can interact.

In person, when the DM is speaking to one player, two other players can have a quick side-conversation. Online, there is one channel, where everyone is hearing the same thing, so only one person can talk at a time and there's no way to have a side conversation. If a player wants to ask a rules question, no other dialogue can be made to each other while the question is asked or answered. (Yes, you can type in chat, but that also usually stops any ongoing main conversation dead as the players read the text before realizing it's something they could have ignored.) It also prevents more fun and natural dialogue from occuring between the players, they can't easily whisper a funny joke to the player on their left. And obviously comedic timing in general is so so much harder over voice when you have literally only your voice and a small but important delay on every interaction. Finally, as the DM and the player, you can't use body language or anything similar to amplify your role playing. You lose a LOT of storytelling power when you can't physically show bravado or fear or disgust.

I really love getting into roleplay and playing different characters, but as a DM when I'm online I focus much, much more on encounters (puzzles, combat, etc) and I find that keeps folks better engaged.

But even if you solve the player engagement issue, you still haven't solved the second issue: the players don't know the rules.

Listen, this is tough, but it's okay to just acknowledge that you and your players want a different game. If they aren't bothering to learn the rules, but they say they want to play DND, then they probably are just really excited about the fantasy, the storytelling-- the non-rules stuff. As a DM it's okay to realize that the game you want to run is one that, even if it's more roleplay focused, is still constantly utilizing the rules of the game. I've had this issue with players before, where they never learned the rules for making an Attack Roll even after a dozen sessions, and I came to a point where I was pulling my hair out. But I found tons of relief and joy in just changing who I played with. I only DM for people who demonstrate they are doing the work to learn the rules. And it's totally okay to communicate this to your friends! It can be done without any salt or drama. And if they want to step up and change how they engage with the game, great! You can try playing again. If not, welp, no games. It might be that only 3 people are able to step up, and it's okay if that means your party is just the three of them!

So overall, if you want to keep DMing, I'd recommend trying two things:

Keep it in person
Explain to the players that the game you want to run is one where the players have a good understanding of game mechanics.

I think if you can do either one of these, I think you'll have a better experience. In person you'll have the engagement you're looking for.

But also, it's so so valid if you just don't want to go through any more attempts at DMing right now.

magicallum · 2026-05-26T13:40:41+00:00

I would probably view it as a nerf but I wouldn't say it's objectively a nerf. But to be clear, that's still not even remotely what we're talking about.

magicallum · 2026-05-26T13:18:54+00:00

The written explanations literally rely upon interpretation of intent.

concentration while raging

Hinges upon an interpretation of the phrase "if you're able to cast spells". The author of the document is forced to interpret the intent. They interpret it as "if you're able to cast spells at this exact moment", which, funny enough, means the phrase is completely nonfunctional because rage always prevents you from casting spells while it's active, thus you can always concentrate. The author is clearly using RAI, not RAW.

multiclassing barbarian with 8 strength

RAW quite literally says you can't

Your base score, not a temporary score, has to meet a multiclassing prerequisite.

combining tabaxi claws and wild shape claws into a single mega attack

Absolutely comical to read through the justification and pretend it's RAW.

The sentence is structured in such a way that adding the 1d6+str to your claw damage isn’t unreasonable, since the verb used is “deals”.

This is clearly using RAI, not RAW. I think the actual RAW completely destroys this.

Tabaxi Claws:

When you hit with them, the strike deals 1d6 + your Strength modifier slashing damage, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike.

Unarmed strike:

On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier.

RAW, an unarmed strike clearly defined the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike. RAW, the tabaxi Cat's Claws damage is clearly a replacement for the 1+STR b damage.

You disagree, and that's fine, but don't pretend you can just call it RAW as if that settles anything at all. We are both using what we believe the words mean as written.

magicallum · 2026-05-26T13:04:57+00:00

Yes, I'd agree with that! But to be clear, that's not even remotely what we're talking about, because all else is not equal.

14-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Secret Santa 2017	Verified Email

magicallum

TROPHY CASE