# 3PP Release New 3PP Release: Manual of Adventurous Resources: Battlemages!



## timespike

Well, here is, my most recent Level Up release and hopefully not my last!

This is actually the volume out of the full set I am most proud of, design-wise. I'm so glad that Cutting Omen combat tradition and the Martialist warlock are _finally_ going to see the light of day.

Grab it while you can, because nobody but WotC's legal department knows how long that'll be!













						Manual of Adventurous Resources: Battlemages (A5E) - Purple Martin Games | DriveThruRPG.com
					

Manual of Adventurous Resources: Battlemages (A5E) - The popular Manual of Adventurous Resources series returns with Volume 4: Battlemages MoAR Battlemages gives you what wi




					www.drivethrurpg.com


----------



## Micah Sweet

Got it!  I'm not wasting any time!


----------



## Pedantic

Oh boy, we are in a bad place, and I sincerely hope we get some better news about the OGL. 

Thanks for pushing this out. I completely understand we're dealing with a rushed layout given the circumstances, but that background sigil is rough behind text. I'll persevere because this is an incredibly exciting area of rules development, but I really hope an updated layout is ultimately in the cards.


----------



## timespike

Pedantic said:


> Oh boy, we are in a bad place, and I sincerely hope we get some better news about the OGL.
> 
> Thanks for pushing this out. I completely understand we're dealing with a rushed layout given the circumstances, but that background sigil is rough behind text. I'll persevere because this is an incredibly exciting area of rules development, but I really hope an updated layout is ultimately in the cards.



I can try and make that a bit less in-your-face tomorrow. That's a relatively simple fix that I can tinker with now that the product itself is out. If it comes down to it, I can just delete it, but I'll probably try some other tricks first.


----------



## Pedantic

timespike said:


> I can try and make that a bit less in-your-face tomorrow. That's a relatively simple fix that I can tinker with now that the product itself is out. If it comes down to it, I can just delete it, but I'll probably try some other tricks first.



I appreciate it, I think it just needs to be a little higher transparency so it doesn't draw the eye.


----------



## Pedantic

Immediate thing that jumped out at me. Should wrathburners be making concentration checks in reaction to the psychic damage they take for concentrating on spells? As written, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't, but I can't tell if that's an intended risk of the class.


----------



## Steampunkette

I mean.... did you question whether or not I would buy it? 'Cause you shouldn't have.


----------



## timespike

So I've got the opacity all the way down at 5% for the sigil and I've tried moving it around behinf other layers. No dice. I'm still getting the same output from the PDF export, which is deeply frustrating. It's supposed to be a subtle watermark, not an in-your-face graphic. In the interest of legibility, I've deleted the sigil. It adds a little bit of visual interest, but it's more important to be able to actually read what you've purchased. The new file is uploading now and should be available soon.

The Arcane Showoff was somehow missing a feature (Warrior-Mage Style) that gave it access to 5 Fighter multiclass spells, so that's back in. I also fixed some missing page numbers.

And to answer your mechanical question: yes, Wrathburners should be making concentration checks. They'll rarely fail, but it's part of the whole "unstable" feel to impose that on them.


----------



## timespike

Also: I've still got the layout program open, so if you find any issues in the new version, please let me know and I'll get those fixed, too.


----------



## JerichoPenumbra

For the Cutting Omen's Martial Caster Stance, is it supposed to be for spells cast as an action that are higher level than a cantrip? Cause I started scouring the rules as soon as I saw that and only restriction I found regarding casting multiple spells in a round with bonus action spells is that the one cast as an action needs to be a cantrip.

As a side question, for the Martialist Warlock (which I love), is there any intent for them to be able to utilize their Eldritch Blast with their maneuvers, similar to the Dread Knight from GPG? Since it occupies the nebulous region of "not a weapon attack" and despite using a spell attack modifier it's "not cast as a spell". Just seems like it would have appropriate to have a clause to be treated a weaponry cantrip for the warlock for interacting with other abilities or something.


----------



## timespike

JerichoPenumbra said:


> For the Cutting Omen's Martial Caster Stance, is it supposed to be for spells cast as an action that are higher level than a cantrip? Cause I started scouring the rules as soon as I saw that and only restriction I found regarding casting multiple spells in a round with bonus action spells is that the one cast as an action needs to be a cantrip.
> 
> As a side question, for the Martialist Warlock (which I love), is there any intent for them to be able to utilize their Eldritch Blast with their maneuvers, similar to the Dread Knight from GPG? Since it occupies the nebulous region of "not a weapon attack" and despite using a spell attack modifier it's "not cast as a spell". Just seems like it would have appropriate to have a clause to be treated a weaponry cantrip for the warlock for interacting with other abilities or something.



Good questions!

For the former, the idea is you can cast a cantrip, a bonus action (leveled) spell, and then something like Counterspell or Shield after you do while in the stance. Normally, casting a bonus action spell would lock that reaction spell down (though obviously you could use your reaction for other things like an attack of opportunity without needing the stance.) 

Re: the Martialist: nope, the idea is that they get maneuvers and can use them normally with weapons (provided you select that option instead of the curse at level 1) but not that they use them with Eldritch Blast. If the specific maneuver provides for casting a spell (Battle Mage Stance, for example), then obviously that's an exception.


----------



## JerichoPenumbra

timespike said:


> Good questions!
> 
> For the former, the idea is you can cast a cantrip, a bonus action (leveled) spell, and then something like Counterspell or Shield after you do while in the stance. Normally, casting a bonus action spell would lock that reaction spell down (though obviously you could use your reaction for other things like an attack of opportunity without needing the stance.) Or a bonus action cantrip, leveled spell, and then a reaction spell.
> 
> Re: the Martialist: nope, the idea is that they get maneuvers and can use them normally with weapons (provided you select that option instead of the curse at level 1) but not that they use them with Eldritch Blast. If the specific maneuver provides for casting a spell (Battle Mage Stance, for example), then obviously that's an exception.




Huh, my only follow up question for that first part is where is the lock down clause? Cause I'm not finding it on the tools site. That does sound reminiscent of the swift and immediate actions from 3.5/PF but I was unaware of that clause for A/5e.

Understood. Was just a bit curious, and I figure any other gripes I have about EB in general would be better directed to Josh.


----------



## Pedantic

JerichoPenumbra said:


> Huh, my only follow up question for that first part is where is the lock down clause? Cause I'm not finding it on the tools site. That does sound reminiscent of the swift and immediate actions from 3.5/PF but I was unaware of that clause for A/5e.



I also don't believe this is the case. The rules here seem to be specifically about casting bonus action and one action spells in the same turn.



> Some spells are cast with a bonus action. A spellcaster can’t cast a spell as a bonus action on the same turn that they cast another spell, unless the second spell is a cantrip with a casting time of one action.
> 
> Other spells use a reaction. This type of spell will describe the trigger that allows the spell to be cast. For instance, a wizard may cast shield when hit by an attack or targeted by a magic missile.



Weirdly, if you did cast a reaction spell on your turn (pretty rare, as those are generally more impactful on other turns), it looks like that would prohibit casting a bonus action spell.


----------



## timespike

Here's the specific language from the tool site: 

*Some spells are cast with a bonus action. A spellcaster can’t cast a spell as a bonus action on the same turn that they cast another spell, unless the second spell is a cantrip with a casting time of one action.*

A spell with a casting time of a reaction cast on the same turn would be another spell that is not a cantrip with a one-action casting time, and therefore prohibited. I should make one small apology, though: the "bonus action cantrip/action spell" variant is a house rule of mine that I conflated for official RAW. I've cut it from the initial post, but want to avoid confusion.


----------



## Pedantic

I think the confusion we're getting into now is around what constitutes a turn. The combat rules make it pretty clear that each creature acting has a separate turn, so your reaction is always going to fall outside of the same turn you used a bonus action and a single action spell, unless you're in the rare situation you're so using a reaction on your turn directly.

I think that can only happen in A5E if you're taking a reaction in response to an attack of opportunity you've triggered on your turn, or if you fall off something and cast feather fall on your turn.


----------



## Steampunkette

I think the big issue of the "Two spells per turn" rule is, and has ever been, Counterspell.

"I cast Fireball." 
"I Counterspell it."
"I Counterspell your Counterspell with my reaction on my turn the same turn I cast Fireball!"

And to a lesser extent, Hellish Rebuke and Shield.

"I cast Bless!"
"I use my readied action to hit you and force a concentration check."
"I use my reaction to cast Shield on the same turn as Bless!"

Maybe it's not -intended- to cover reactions... but it kind of feels like it should? Because otherwise Counterspell doesn't -protect- you from spells you counter, it just costs you and the enemy an extra spell slot.


----------



## timespike

Steampunkette said:


> I think the big issue of the "Two spells per turn" rule is, and has ever been, Counterspell.
> 
> "I cast Fireball."
> "I Counterspell it."
> "I Counterspell your Counterspell with my reaction on my turn the same turn I cast Fireball!"
> 
> And to a lesser extent, Hellish Rebuke and Shield.
> 
> "I cast Bless!"
> "I use my readied action to hit you and force a concentration check."
> "I use my reaction to cast Shield on the same turn as Bless!"
> 
> Maybe it's not -intended- to cover reactions... but it kind of feels like it should? Because otherwise Counterspell doesn't -protect- you from spells you counter, it just costs you and the enemy an extra spell slot.



THIS.

I could not have put it better myself.


----------



## JerichoPenumbra

I see your point, though I don't quite agree completely. Yes, it would suck to attempt do something only to have it fizzle out, however chunk of groups I've played with would still consider the above examples technically net positives since you're forcing the enemy to expend more resources to accomplish what they want. Ideally of course you prevent them from doing it, but if you can't stop them then make it more difficult. Though I will point out that those theoreticals aren't necessarily bad when they happen every now and again, but it they're happening all the time, it sounds more like an issue with encounter design/ Player(s) vs. GM. And that fact that _counterspells _can still potentially fail, just like how _shield _may not always protect you either.

But to restate things: rules as written it is entirely possible to in effect cast 3 spells in a round. A cantrip as an action and a bonus action spell (in either order) during your turn, and potentially a reaction spell between the top and bottom of the round, during a point in time that is not your turn. 

I've interpreted casting multiple spells in a round as being more limited by the total actions you have to take, and usually we can at most have 3 in bas. For example, with core Level Up it's possible to make an anti-mage battlemage that can _Counterspell _potentially 4 times in a round, 5 (in technical scope) if they have help from a buddy to set up. High Martial 8 to get Heightened Reflexes from Mirror's Glint and then a Caster that gets _counterspell _the rest of the way. When the build first really comes on at 13th level they'll only be able to toss two counters in a given combat (and for the day unless they're a warlock), but their capability to say "Hell no" to magic increases as their level goes up. The extra potential from a buddy is by being subjected to the Back to Back maneuver from Sanguine Knot and using the extra martial reaction for a Tempered Iron reaction like Defy Magic or Break Spell. The material in MoAR Vol 4 just makes this possible to do single classed and provides an alternative reaction maneuver through Dissipating Counter.

Also as a sidenote for you Timespike if you weren't aware: page 19 the formatting for the Stranger than Fiction side table and the paragraphs for lantern Shield seems to have spazzed out.


----------



## JerichoPenumbra

Also minor thing I noticed, A5e Counterspell has a clause that the person who was counter spelled can spend reaction to weave the frayed magic together and cast a new spell (at half original level) using that energy. So counterspells aren't the absolute no's they used to be in O5e.

"I cast Fireball."
"I Counterspell it."
"I weave the frayed magic with my reaction to Magic Missile your face."


----------



## W'rkncacnter

JerichoPenumbra said:


> Also minor thing I noticed, A5e Counterspell has a clause that the person who was counter spelled can spend reaction to weave the frayed magic together and cast a new spell (at half original level) using that energy. So counterspells aren't the absolute no's they used to be in O5e.
> 
> "I cast Fireball."
> "I Counterspell it."
> "I weave the frayed magic with my reaction to Magic Missile your face."



of course, if there's a second caster with counterspell, then...
"I cast Fireball."
"Counterspell."
"I weave the frayed magic into a Magic Missile."
"Counterspell."
"GOD--"


----------



## Micah Sweet

W'rkncacnter said:


> of course, if there's a second caster with counterspell, then...
> "I cast Fireball."
> "Counterspell."
> "I weave the frayed magic into a Magic Missile."
> "Counterspell."
> "GOD--"



Yeah, this is why I don't allow counterspell to be counterspelled.  That, and the timing makes no sense.


----------



## W'rkncacnter

Micah Sweet said:


> Yeah, this is why I don't allow counterspell to be counterspelled.  That, and the timing makes no sense.



it's not counterspell being counterspelled, it's the result of a counterspell being counterspelled.

not that i think my example would happen often anyway, i just thought it was funny.


----------

