10
\$\begingroup\$

The latest unearthed arcana has two invocations of similar features. The Curse Bringer and the Mace of Dispater, the latter dealing force damage instead of slashing and knocking the target prone instead of reducing the speed. I am not sure whether you have to use the spellslot if you want to reduce the speed of your target.

When you hit a creature with this weapon, you can expend a spell slot to deal an additional 2d8 slashing damage to the target per spell level, and you can reduce the creatures speed to 0 feet until the end of your next turn.

You have to use the spellslot for the damage, but it seems that the reduction in speed is completely independent from this requirement, which would be very powerful without saving throw.

Improve this question
\$\endgroup\$
1

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
9
\$\begingroup\$

You must use the spell slot to trigger the ability.

Let's break it down.

When you hit a creature with this weapon:

  • You can expend a spell slot:

    • to deal an additional 2d8 slashing damage to the target per spell level
    • and you can reduce the creatures speed to 0 feet until the end of your next turn.

The second clause of the invocation, "and you can reduce the creature's speed to 0 feet" is not an independent clause. It is dependent on the first part of the sentence, which says "you can expend a spell slot [to do the following]." The second "you can" indicates that reducing the target's speed to 0 is optional when you spend the spell slot, not that it is separate from spending a spell slot.

Unfortunately, the copy for this ability has some poorly placed commas which creates a bit of ambiguity. I would hope the wording for these abilities would be clarified were they to be printed in an official source.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
4
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Let us continue this discussion in chat. \$\endgroup\$
    – Patta
    Feb 14, 2017 at 16:52
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Something bugs me about this answer. We all recognize the two different interpretations and the underlying syntactical structures. This answer only explains the structure supporting one interpretation, but makes no attempt at explaining why that is the correct one, like a good answer to this kind of question should. \$\endgroup\$
    – ammut
    Feb 15, 2017 at 9:08
  • \$\begingroup\$ @lord_sembor What do you suggest I add? \$\endgroup\$
    – LegendaryDude
    Feb 15, 2017 at 18:42
  • \$\begingroup\$ @LegendaryDude you say The second "you can" indicates that reducing the target's speed to 0 is optional when you spend the spell slot, not that it is separate from spending a spell slot., as if it was obvious. But to me it is more logical to interpret the second "you can" as an alternative to the first, i.e. refering to "When you hit a creature with this weapon". Add an explanation why your interpretation is correct. \$\endgroup\$
    – ammut
    Feb 16, 2017 at 13:27
7
\$\begingroup\$

Grammatically, I think that the speed reduction does not require a spell slot.

This is heavily discussed in other answers, but I feel that if a spell slot were required, there would not have been a second "you can" in the text.

This is reasonable in the context of other rules

Because Unearthed Arcana is playtesting material and not polished, I'm going to shift the focus of the question slightly: how should a DM rule on this in a game? After all, that is the end point of these rules, and the best we can do here.

In the absence of a grammatical consensus, we can look to other rules to see what's reasonable.

  • Reducing speed to zero and knocking enemies prone don't require spell slots in other cases. Part of the Sentinel feat allows characters to reduce speed to zero upon hitting with an attack of opportunity, and the Wolf Totemic Attunement allows barbarians to knock enemies prone on hit as well. These abilities, while they have an opportunity cost, don't require spell slots to be spent, which we can use as a precedent.
  • Other invocations have no-save on-hit effects. Repelling Blast, Frost Lance, and Grasp of Hadar all have special effects when you hit with your Eldritch Blast without granting a save. The effects are a bit weaker than the melee invocations, but I think that's a trade-off with the higher risk of being in melee range.
  • It's not as strong as you might think. While reducing speed to zero is undoubtedly useful, you still have to hit with your weapon for it to work. Without multiattack, a warlock can only attempt it once per turn. Moreover, the warlock is quite squishy compared to a fighter or a paladin--locking an enemy within melee range of yourself (the greatsword doesn't have reach) might be quite dangerous for a warlock. A halfling warlock that traps a Storm Giant next to him is going to have a bad time next round.

Again, without clarifications or revisions to the UA material, I think that this interpretation is a reasonable one to use ingame.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
9
  • \$\begingroup\$ I find the first bullet a bit weak. The Sentinel feat is a martial feat to begin with, not magical in nature at all. And the Barbarian as a class doesn't usually get spell slots, so forcing them to use one for a class feature would make as much sense as having a feature for vanilla monks that spends sorcery points. As such, I don't think it's appropriate to use those as examples of precedent here. \$\endgroup\$
    – Adam
    Feb 14, 2017 at 16:33
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Adam - The point of the first bullet was that this is already an effect that can be achieved without resource expenditure by other means. By extension, it's not necessarily overpowered to have it achieved without resources by the warlock. The fact that the warlock has resources they can spend shouldn't necessarily mean that things suddenly cost more for them. \$\endgroup\$
    – Ben Barden
    Feb 14, 2017 at 16:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ @BenBarden But these features aren't resource-free. Sentinel requires you to give up both an ASI and a reaction, and the totem barbarian requires you to use a rage and a bonus action to knock prone. \$\endgroup\$
    – Adam
    Feb 14, 2017 at 16:53
  • \$\begingroup\$ I don't think it's fair to compare published rules to UA rules. UA rules are effectively playtest rules and by definition have not been balanced; the purpose of UA is for players to test the new rules and provide feedback to the developers for future considerations. \$\endgroup\$
    – LegendaryDude
    Feb 14, 2017 at 17:02
  • \$\begingroup\$ Sentinel costs an ASI, yes - and this warlock ability costs an invocation. Sentinel only works on an opportunity attack, but it is an added effect on opportunity attacks (doesn't reduce the damage the opportunity attack does). The invocation does do other things, but so does Sentinel. \$\endgroup\$
    – Ben Barden
    Feb 14, 2017 at 17:03
1
\$\begingroup\$

Grammatically, I think the text given supports your reading.

When (you hit a creature with this weapon), (you can expend a spell slot to deal an additional 2d8 slashing damage to the target per spell level), and (you can reduce the creatures speed to 0 feet until the end of your next turn).

If it had been the other way, it would be something like the following:

When (you hit a creature with this weapon), you can (expend a spell slot to deal an additional 2d8 slashing damage to the target per spell level), and (reduce the creatures speed to 0 feet until the end of your next turn).

Pretty sure the second "you can" is the kicker there.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
9
  • \$\begingroup\$ It's not comma placement. It's the second "you can". Grammatically, when using conjunctions like "and" or "or", if you have a repeated phrase, that phrase indicates the base of the conjunction. "You can do this, and you can do that." It has very little to do with comma placement. Where are you getting "comma placement" from as a thing? \$\endgroup\$
    – Ben Barden
    Feb 14, 2017 at 15:06
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ The second "you can" makes me think it's an optional addition, but requires the spell slot. When you use the spell slot you always get 2d8, but if you wish you can reduce their speed as well, but you don't have to. \$\endgroup\$
    – John Grabanski
    Feb 14, 2017 at 15:26
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ When you break down a sentence with a conjunction, you should be able to remove either clause and have it remain a valid sentence. In this case, if you were correct, removing the first clause of the and would result in "When you hit a creature with this weapon, you can expend a spell slot to you can reduce the creatures speed to 0 feet until the end of your next turn." That's poor English, and has nothing to do with comma placement. Now, if you want to assert that the authors were using bad grammar, that's a different thing, but you have no evidence for it. \$\endgroup\$
    – Ben Barden
    Feb 14, 2017 at 15:41
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @BenBarden Comments are for improving questions and answers, not for discussion or to sway readers. Every point/counterpoint you think contributes to your answer should be in the body of your answer. As for your answer, I'm not convinced that the grammar works the way you say it does, and I have provided an alternate interpretation in my own answer. \$\endgroup\$
    – LegendaryDude
    Feb 14, 2017 at 16:33
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ The rules should be written in a programming language, so that it would be clear how AND and OR interact. :) \$\endgroup\$
    – András
    Feb 14, 2017 at 16:33
0
\$\begingroup\$

I'm going to agree with everyone, and say you have to expend a spell slot to use the effect.

BUT, gramatically, you are in the clear. That comma changes the sentence meaning. Its a standard compound sentence, with the first half beginning with a preposition. "When you hit a creature with this weapon, you can expend a spell slot to deal an additional 2d8 slashing damage to the target per spell level" is one action. "you can reduce the creatures speed to 0 feet until the end of your next turn." is a second action, gramatically.

But that's splitting hairs. You need to expend the spell slot. The reason I would make that assumption is that there is no verbage governing when or how often this second action can occur. So the context tells us it probably occurs when you hit the creature.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .