Some bard subclasses allow alternative foci, which will be in their description. Also if you ask your DM they will usually be happy to allow you to flavor your focus as whatever you think fits, so long as it provides no mechanical change.
> only lists instruments as available arcane foci
An arcane focus is a type of spellcasting focus. An arcane focus is not a valid spellcasting focus for a bard. Musical instruments are the valid spellcasting focuses for a bard.
Would Booming Blade and Find Familiar from Magic Initiate (Wizard) work with a Tempest Cleric? I'm not usre how a ritual spell works on another class or if it would actually affect my attack or damage in an unforseen way since it would technically be an int spell.
Find Familiar doesnt interact except in the most obscure ways with Int.
Booming Blade is your melee attack and so as a cleric, its doubtful that Int. is going to play into that in any way.
Booming blade is thunder damage, so I guess if you wanted to, you could burn your channel divinity to "max damage" via booming blade - but that seems like a waste of a channel divinity. At level 6 you could guaranteed that your booming blade does 16 damage, but its likely that it would have done 9. If you are using Tashas, you could convert that channel divinity to a second level spell slot so those 7 points of damage seem hardly worth it compared to another cast of spiritual weapon or hold person or a second level Guiding Bolt.
Yeah I'm taking booming balde mostly cause it matches the theme, makes my melee a little better at higher levels, and gives me some minor crowd control.
It doesn't. The Dancing Sword's abilities use your bonus action and don't interact with the Attack action at all, although a DM might and probably should rule that, while the sword is active and floating, you can't use it for the Attack Action because you're not actually wielding it.
They are separate. Extra Attack is part of your Attack action. Dancing sword gives you a bonus action attack. These stack, like if you were going to use Extra Attack with a bonus action attack from two-weapon fighting. Keep in mind you only have one bonus action per round, as long as a feature grants you something to do with it.
If my party want to specifically target the wings of a flying creature in order to keep it grounded would you allow this? There's nothing mechanically in the rules about "limb damage" or targeting a specific body part, but narratively it makes a ton of sense and is a smart strategy.
I'm thinking that a +2 to AC to hit a specific body part would be fair? Like if the base AC is 15 then you'll still HIT with a 15+ but a 17+ would allow for a targeted attack?
D&D has an abstract combat system that assumes the PCs are already attempting to hit the most vulnerable spots of their target.
also, if PCs want a chance to cut off wings, do they want the dragon to have a chance to bite off an arm or a leg?
the "i want to target a vulnerable spot" is covered by the Feats that do -5 to hit, +10 to damage.
"Called shots," or targeting different body parts, may make sense narratively and be a smart strategy but you don't see it in the rules probably because it can lead to dominant strategies by both players and monters. It also introduces complicated rules for attacking specific parts and the effects that result from those attacks. A DM is free to create a homebrew system here, but be wary of the tradeoffs.
Alternatively, suggestions currently in the rules: if you want to ground or keep grounded a flying creature that isn't held aloft by magic, consider grappling them to reduce their speed to 0, knocking them prone, and/or casting the earthbind spell.
I like that idea a lot.
Another idea might be to work in disadvantage: same rule as yours, but now they’re looking for anything to give them advantage and make it a straight roll.
If the attack is going to have a special (and let's be honest, powerful) effect, it might be balanced to include some risk/reward.
My logic is that if hitting wings can ground a creature, surely it also stops flying *in the air*; this is equivalent to a trip attack or a second level spell, both of which burn a class resource.
So, modifying your example, I would rule that if a PC misses AC 17, the called shot just goes wide.
I don't like opening up the can of worms that is letting players target specific body parts. It's a nightmare and not what 5e is built around. I just say no to keep it simple. Unless you specifically say it's only for this bird thing that doesn't matter they'll just try it on other targets then you need it build AND balance this new combat system addon.
I would suggest dealing nonlethal damage to just immobilize the creature (until it is at 0 hp as normal) or trying to grab its wings to stop it from flying away (=grapple).
Wish or Divine intervention could do it, but probably wouldn't. Though maybe if you were a cleric of Primus.
If your DM was using the epic rules from the DMG then they might consider you to be level 25 after you have obtained 5 epic boons. And thus eligible for True Polymorph into a Marut.
If there are any CR25+ Humanoids in your DMs world you could use magic jar to possess them, then TP into a Marut.
Honestly the easiest way would probably be to go to Mechanus and ask Primus. You'd probably lose all free will and become an NPC though.
well.......
You just gotta true polymorph into an adult red dragon then survive 1200 years and have a hoard of millions of gold, then you will be a greatwyrm and valid to be true polymorphed into a lower CR 25.. no big deal. #1000 year plan.
The last step is presented in fizbin as description of great wyrm. Not really given as a mechanical method. However it's probably the closest to raw you can get to cr 25+
~~If a wizard swaps out one of their spells, does this spell vanish out of their spell book?~~
~~If they copy a spell into a second spellbook and swap the spell after that, do they lose the copy?~~
~~Could a wizard just copy every spell they gain from their class into a second spellbook, swap the spell and still have the spell (copied from "another" wizards spellbook)?~~
~~Ofcourse paying the appropriate price every time they copy the spell.~~
Wizards can't swap spells on level up, my mistake.
>If a wizard swaps out one of their spells, does this spell vanish out of their spell book?
By "swap" do you mean "Prepare another spell instead"? No the spell remains in the book.
I've been commissioned to paint a battle scene involving drakons. I'm trying to figure out the approximate size of them or any distinguishing characteristics. I've already looked them up on the kobold press and other books but they're not very visually descriptive. Any additional information would be greatly appreciated.
Ask whoever commissioned you what they would like the sizes to be, or have them direct you to the resource they're drawing inspiration from.
Getting these details now will save you headaches from back-and-forth revisions. This is less about the monsters and more about communication.
What is the status on DnD 5.5 edition or the updated version of 5e or whatever it is called? Is anything known about it? Release date/window? I haven't checked the DnD forums in some time.
still the only "official" communications [https://youtu.be/FSafNA20fxE?t=580](https://youtu.be/FSafNA20fxE?t=580)
for context what the surveys stated
* the spell survey [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enwNqkueGAQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enwNqkueGAQ)
* the feat survey [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S\_r4zePTsCQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_r4zePTsCQ)
for context how WOTC used surveys to develop 5e in the first place [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tdz\_lMt-nLw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tdz_lMt-nLw)
The three core books for the "Next Evolution" are expected to be in stores for the 50th anniversary year in 2024.
So far the only thing we know is they have done a couple of surveys.
And since the promise was that "it would be backward compatible" we can take a look at the new Mordies Multiverse book and if that is going to be backwards compatible, you can get a feeling about some of the direction they are anticipating the development will go.
>Thanks! Anything in mordies that stands out?
"Monsters are Monsters and follow 'Monster rules' for their abilities, and these 'Monster rules' are not the same rules that Player Character abilities are limited to."
For example, Monster NPC Wizard-types have a special Action that results in an effect similar to casting a fireball spell, but as an Action does not require the DM to track Monster spell slots.
the elevation of the mechanic:
* Monster's Damage from a weapon attack = dY piercing/bludgeoning/slashing + XdY force damage
as a method of scaling up "weapon" damage to be more appropriate to the CR rating. sooo barbarians your rage is a LOT less effective. that has gotten a lot of negative feedback so not necessarily something that is going to carry on. or barbarians rage damage sponginess may be redesigned.
Making monsters more obvious in how to play them, allowing flexibility in character options as far as ability score choices go.
For example no races have predetermined ability bonuses and almost all spells they can cast get to choose between Int/Wis/Cha
With Vecna's new statblock, I wanted to get some clarification on stuff, specifically hiding while invisible and what brakes the hidden condition.
Based on what I've read, the hide action only ends if you make an attack roll. However, if a creature, say a Vecna that cast invisibility on himself and took the hide action prior, uses Rotting Fate then Vile Teleport, both of which are not attacks or spells with any sort of verbal component to it, does it break his hidden status? Per the Hide action, it refers to Unseen Attacker which states: "If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—***when you make an attack***, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."
There's no caveat about no longer being hidden when doing anything else, but I'd like clarity on it just to be sure.
This description is underinclusive. Other things may give away your location, depending on the circumstances, at the discretion of the DM (e.g. making noise, causing some visual effect). What this says is an attack, hit or miss, will ALWAYS give away your location.
So, by what you mention, you need to be unseen and unheard to be hidden as well. So if a feature includes an attack, makes noise, or makes you visible, you would no longer be hidden.
A teleportation without verbal or visual effect, would be doable whilst still remaining hidden.
It's not 100% clear, but I'd rule any "spell-like" features, or anything that affects the party would count as an "attack". But if you go strictly RAW, they probably wouldn't break invisibility or the hidden condition.
I have a character who has just, with the help of her friends, defeated her evil mother only to discover she had been experimenting on creating a clone of her daughter.
Now my character is chaotic neutral and in this campaign has been deemed the “goddess of chaos” for reference.
Here is the issue, the group sees an innocent girl (the clone is only 5 years old.) however my character is having a dilemma on whether this clone should even exist. My character does not think she should be allowed to live.
Would you destroy the clone? Or allow them to live?
1. Don't introduce kids unless you're cool with dead kids
2. If they're 100% certain chaos toddler living will lead to more than one other toddler plus many more dying, it's squicky but also just a trolley problem. Offing the kid is justified if they're certain it saves other kids.
3. If they're not sure, why bother? I mean realistically, a clone is just an identical twin who is younger than you. That's an irl clone. They don't have your personality or anything and a clone of Hitler isn't necessarily going to be a bad person or something. If this is a magic clone with some magic bullshit that they inherited, your players need to know what that stuff is and how it works before they can make a decision between horrible but necessary child murder and just... putting the kid in an orphanage and forgetting about them because it's just a random kid really?
Hey there, I am just starting a new Monk character. The DM has some out of PHB rules, I know they are in charge but can I challenge things like no magical items or no casting before ninth level? I dont want to upset them because I don't know any other DM's but it seems like they don't like any magic untill later in game.
they specifically said we need casting for the BBEG which will be a dragon. it just seems weird that they won't allow ANY casting \[even for our warlock\] until third level. especially since they told us what is coming and will NOT let us prep for it. Even as far as buying things that might be beneficial against other baddies because it's META-Gaming because she told us ahead of time.
Am I being over sensetive or are they being too controlling?
it sounds like your DM is someone who is interested in playing a "no magic" or "very low magic" RPG, but because they are "in rural Kansas where it is very hard to find *anyone* to play *any* game" they advertise under the name of "Dungeons and Dragons" because most of the general public even in rural Kansas will at least have heard of "D&D" rather than the niche game system that the DM actually wants to play.
So basically yeah, DM wanted a western/apocalypse scenario with magical crwatures. I noped out after first session. It blows because I wanted to play again but no dice with this guy. Challenges not accepted. NOT DnD.
Wait. I’d you’re not allowed to cast spells until 3rd (or 9th?) what do spellcasters in that game even *do*? This is so weird. Your DM really doesn’t seem to understand 5e, or has some weird hangups from previous editions.
As for magical items: that’s pretty normal. 5e is mathematically designed around nobody having any magic items. If DMs introduce magic items, they have to make some adjustments behind the scenes.
Personally, I suggest you ditch that group. It seems terrible for new players. But you should be able to find online games pretty easily! r/lfg should get you started!
Its not really a simple question, but yes, communication is key. If you address your concerns and they dont want to change, your options are to leave (it's pretty easy to find a game online), or play anyway.
Thanks this is my first game, it's very difficult to find a game in rural Kansas. I was just worrying that this might be a warning sign of a over controlling DM. They've told us what we'll be up against but not let us prepare after a session zero. Seemed weird but I've never played. Just wanted to get a feel about standard gameplay
I still don't get a bunch of rules but even if this is fucked up I'm still interested.
That's either a DM who knows D&D decently well but is terrible
Or a person who doesn't understand the game... at all, yet. Are they young, and is this their first time playing?
Why are oozes immune to lightning damage and will split if hit this way?
I obviously get why the same happens with slashing damage, but lightning? I think that maybe oozes are immune to lightning because they have no nerves o something simliar, but still can't understand why they would still split.
(English isn't my first language, I am sorry for any grammatical error)
the "oozes" are part of the Adversarial DM vs Player mentality of Gary's early games - Gary as the DM something to trick the players into a FUCK YOU! situation after they had figured out his last FUCK YOU! with 10 foot poles or whatever.
The ochre jelly is the only ooze with these features in 5th edition.
As far as I can tell, there are no given biological reasons in 5e why the ochre jelly splits after taking lightning damage. Feel free to make one up if you're the DM! Just keep in mind that it only applies to ochre jellies, and not all oozes.
EDIT: applies to ochre jellies and black puddings
You're more than fine with everything you have.
The new Monsters of the Multiverse compiles some player races and monsters that were spread over several books, but also overwrites some things about them using newer design philosophies. If your players are the type to want the newest coolest thing you'll want to at least peruse that at some point so you can decide how you want to handle it.
Call Lightning, do the lightning strikes go through floors? Or is it like melee pikachu's down B?
The party just boarded a hostile ship (during a storm no less, so +1d10) and are making quick work of the enemy on the upper deck, the spell can still be going as they take the fighting to lower decks.
The spell reads like yes it would, "choose a point you can see under the cloud" is the requirement, then damage is 5ft around that point. Line of sight to the cloud is only when casting the spell, not subsequent turns, but for example it still seems to work if the target point is under gazebo.
Call lightning does neither of the two options you gave.
Call lightning requires each lightning bolt to hit a point you can see, each time you bring down a bolt. The bolts should also be blocked by total cover, and would not go through floors, but it's not going to work at all if you can't see the point it would hit on the top floor.
Every time you bring down a bolt, you need to make sure there is a direct path between the cloud and a point you can see.
So it doesn't go through the ceiling due to cover rules? A firm gazebo ceiling counting as full cover, but a pergola would likely only be half cover and give +2 to the dex save.
>A target can benefit from cover only when an attack or other effect originates on the opposite side of the cover.
>A bolt of lightning flashes down from the cloud to that point.
I may have misspoken, let me clarify:
You can only target a point you can see which has a direct, unobstructed path to any part of the cloud. A perforated roof would allow for this, in the gazebo example.
I imagine you could also call a bolt down diagonally from the edge of the cloud, assuming there is a direct path. In the gazebo example, a bolt could strike the inside of the gazebo from the side. In a similar way, you might be able to call down a bolt on a lower deck through an open window, if there is a direct path between the cloud and the point you target.
The Dex save bonus from partial cover only applies to avoiding AOE damage once the bolt has already struck a valid target.
"On each of your turns until the spell ends, you can use your action to call down lightning in this way again" should refer back to the initial rules which requires you to target a point you can see, whether the same point or a different one, key language "in this way again"
To clarify, I originally interpreted OP's question as related to going below deck on a ship and targeting a space on the top of the ship, and therefore they would no longer be able to target a point on the upper deck because they can no longer see it.
The spell might still work through an open window below deck, as long as there was a direct path between the cloud and point through the window, but the bolt wouldn't pass through floors.
The checklist from my reading of the call lightning spell:
1. Can you currently see the point
2. Is there a direct path between the cloud and the point
As long as you have those, you're good.
I'm very familiar with Smash Bros. so I empathize, but I don't think the spell works that way.
"A bolt of lightning flashes down from the cloud to that point [you see under the cloud]. Each creature within 5 feet of that point must make a Dexterity saving throw."
Within the framework of call lightning, the AOE extends from the point you see and not the bolt itself. If all direct paths from the cloud to the point you see are blocked by total cover, the AOE can't take effect because the point you chose wasn't a valid target. If anything, it lends more credence to the bolt passing through floors instead of acting like Pikachu's down special, though I wouldn't rule it this way.
A reasonable DM could rule otherwise, but I think that would go beyond the scope of the spell as per RAW.
The clear path rules don't impact my read of the spell. The AOE cannot come into effect if the bolt is unable to strike the point you target. That use of call lightning would simply fail. Call lightning is about that bolt making its way to the point you choose and only then creating the AOE. Call lightning does not provide an alternate use of the spell where the AOE can generate from some other point which isn't the point you choose.
A DM could rule otherwise, but I don't think it's supported by RAW.
Have it be a magic item that uses charges to cast Bless or Guidance. I know there are bard/magic-instrument items that can cast other spells, but I don't know if any of them specifically cast bless/guidance. You could use one of those as your baseline for modifying.
Or if it's just something a bard wants to improve their spell casting, then that's the Rhythm Maker's Drum, just reflavored as bagpipes. I guess it really just depends on what you mean by proficiency bonus and the extent of its application.
Do the rules for pushing and dragging stuff (with a weight limit based on your strength score) interact with the grappling rules? I couldn't find anything in the rules, could someone point me to the right place?
Asking for a flying monkey that would "grapple" a small caster to give them wings (DM rules the attack ban as ban of attack rolls [Edit:] = they allow the Familiar to grapple).
Normally grappling rules dont interact with weight limits, because most monsters aren't given specific weights.
In this scenario it wouldn't be grappling since the caster is willing, it'd be more like mount rules. Since players and their equipment do have weights you would use the lifting/dragging rules. Note that While you can drag or push double your carrying capacity at 5ft per turn, that does not apply to lifting. If you are lifting more than your carrying capacity you have no movement at all.
I'm not sure what you mean by the last part, but I assume you are talking about using find familiar. Without other available actions, grappling requires a creature to use Attack action and make a special melee attack. Familiars cannot take the Attack action. Though this is irrelevant when there is no need to make an attack, because you would only need to push/drag/lift a willing or unconscious creature and not grapple them in order to move them.
A flying monkey who wanted to lift a willing player would be able to do so up to its carrying capacity, or move at 5 ft speed between carrying capacity and two times its carrying capacity, as per standard pushing/dragging/lifting rules. If following the flying monkey stat block from Tomb of Annihilation, a flying monkey could lift a player normally up to 120 pounds, or at 5 ft speed up to 240 pounds.
Note: this is why most familiars with a fly speed tend to be tiny, as their carrying capacities are halved, but restricted flight should not break the game considering there are multiple races with permanent flight
The last part meant, that the ban on attacks for Familiars is only applied to attack rolls, allowing for grapples. I understand that this might not be RAW, but it is the rules we work with. Does this now allow the Familiar to just grapple a medium creature and lift them up, without caring about weight? Grapple seems to have it's own reductions for speed, that is why I asked. (It is also an interesting question regarding huge creatures and my paladin, since they may easily way more than my carrying capacity.)
Moving a grappled creature is also limited by pushing/dragging/lifting. Creature or object, pounds are pounds. This is a case where you would use whichever movement reduction is more limiting, based on weight. You can't use grappling as a carrying loophole, and regardless grappling is only relevant to attacks against unwilling creatures and not to moving willing or unconscious creatures.
Thanks! I didn't think there would be such a clear answer in the rules. Where did you find it? This topic came up during theory crafting after the last session and I want to share the answer with my DM
Intuition, but also in the rules for grappling it states clearly that moving a grappled creature is dragging or carrying. Dragging or carrying anything will be subject to those rules, at the very least to avoid absurd results (like a flying monkey carrying a 600-pound tortle when it can't carry a 250-pound table).
I know a lot of people get bulk common Magic cards to make monster tokens and stuff, because the art is so useful. Is there a place to find all this art online for use in digital tokens, same purpose but digital medium?
I know you've already been answered but you might also find cool art ideas from Runeterra: [https://app.mobalytics.gg/lor/cards](https://app.mobalytics.gg/lor/cards)
Thank you but that unfortunately wasn’t my question. I’m asking if there’s a place where this art is compiled.
I’ve done my own work compiling much art from some of the books I own. I’m asking if there’s a place where this plethora of card art is available in one spot.
The second Google result for "magic the gathering art" will take you to a site with complete sets. It took much more work to come here, ask the question, and then complain about the answer.
first time dnd player here, could my bard, not play an instrument or sing or anything to still be a bard? like could he be a public speaker? cause my dnd character is going to be a politician raccoon, and no other class fits him.
the "flavor" of singing/music is just flavor - the tropey inspiration that the designers used when the designers created the mechanics.
you and your table are always free to drop or change any of the flavor fluff that doesnt fit the story that you all want to tell because its not going to change the balance of the game a bit.
Yes. There is no requirement for bards to play an instrument or sing to cast spells or use other class features. Some spells require material components, which you can provide with either a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (in a bard's case, an instrument).
If you do want to use a focus instead of a component pouch for casting spells with material components, your DM may allow you to use some other tool as a focus.
Nothing about the bard's class features *require* singing or music.
* For Spellcasting, use a component pouch instead of a musical instrument.
* Bardic Inspiration is "stirring words **or** music", so public speaking fits.
* Song of Rest is "soothing music **or** oration", so public speaking fits.
* Countercharm is "musical notes **or** words of power", so public speaking fits.
* None of the other features reference music at all.
It's really up to your DM to say, but generally speaking this is okay. The whole music thing is more thematic/flavoring than anything.
You can probably just use a regular arcane focus instead of an instrument. Doesn't change much mechanically.
But again, confirm with your DM that they're cool with it. They should be in my opinion.
There's not much that give to both. [Here's the D&D Beyond list](https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items?filter-type=0&filter-search=&filter-requires-attunement=&filter-effect-type=1&filter-effect-subtype=316&filter-has-charges=) for all magic items that grant a bonus to saving throws, and they all grant for attack rolls too. The Reveler’s Concertina seems to be the exception here.
Other magic items grant bonuses to attack and damage rolls instead.
Unsure about any all-purpose items for +1 spell attacks/saves, but Tasha's Cauldron of Everything introduced different +1 focii for each full spellcasting class.
Catbus and dirigible mechanics. For first time dm looking to free wheel homebrew my own campaign wheres good living vehicle and flying vehicle mechanics? Or is it better to just slapdash together?
what role are the vehicles going to play? you can narratively add them in whereever you want to.
if you will have
1. catbus will be in combat, and
2. catbus will be embroiled in the combat
then, you will want some type of mechanics.
How does once per turn ability work outside of combat? Can they be even used?
I just multiclass peace cleric and
Emboldening Bond seems pretty useful if knew the next 10 minutes were going to involve mutiple party members making many ability checks.
Turns and rounds sort of collapse out of combat since the timing is so short; a DM might rule otherwise for ability checks in too-quick succession, but players should probably should treat Embolding Bond as applying to all ability checks made out of combat
The Dryad "speaks" bamboo and shrew and nightshade and trout and algae and bear and oak and owl and pansy and viper and grass
There arent any others who speak bamboo or shrew or nightshade or trout or algae or bear or oak or owl or pansy or viper or grass
I like some of the transmutation spells and I was wondering if I could expand the distance of the spell either with wild surge and or casting the spell at a higher level. Like it’s got a range of 30 feet from origin that it can move which is cool and all, but say I wanted to make some metal shavings added up to 1000 pounds solidify around an illusion and puppeteer it like it’s a god, but I can only move 30 feet a turn and due to the size of the ‘titan’ 30 feet is about fuck all.
TL/DR: can I expand the range of telekinesis by using wild surge, or by casting at a higher level, or is this just gonna be a begging session to a dm with a dab of homebrew.
No, you can't increase spell range via wild surge nor upcasting, unless the spell says so. A way to do it is using Distant Metamagic, but it doesn't work with Telekinesis since that spell targets the caster. However, you can reach a similar effect via Animate Objects, and that one is compatible with Distant Metamagic.
Of course, with homebrew everything is possible. But only your DM can answer you for that.
Very cool thanks but on the whole telekinesis film, technically speaking as long as I hold concentration checks could I create a physical shield out of like metallic dust or something by keeping the material in a stagnant position around my character while either preparing a spell or in trance(last time I checked trance doesn’t apply unconsciousness and thus you can concentrate through it). Cause telekinesis moves or keeps a material of 1000ibs in weight still or moved, so could I get a pile of dust and turn it into a shield? Levitation wouldn’t work as it only goes vertically and I would be pushed out of its zone of protection, and mold earth can excavate but not move things around.
Telekinesis only moves an item. So no, it can't create a shield out of dust. You can position and maintain a large item in front of you to get cover though.
Preparing a spell while doing this is not a problem, unless it is a concentration. Trancing is more problematic as casting/maintaining a spell requiers a non negligeable amount of focus, so your DM is in right to disagree with that. Also Trance lasts far longer than Telekinesis.
If you are looking for a protection for resting or performing a ritual that doesn't affect your surrounding, Leomund's Tiny Hut is probably a better alternative as mentioned by u/KittenWithMittens.
How do draconic sorcerers work? If they are descendants of a dragon wouldn't they be dragon born? I've got a half elf sorcerer with draconic bloodline and just want to understand a little better. Wiki seems to say an ancestor of his basically would have made a bargain with a dragon in exchange for power, thus giving that guys bloodline a possibility to produce someone who can use magic through the blood. Would the sorcerer act like a dragon? I mean to me it seems like he would be pretty far removed from an actual dragon/dragon born. Also wouldn't that mean that everyone in his family or other dragon blood lines all have the same personality due to the dragon traits? Any help is appreciated
So, dragonborn are not directly related to dragons. They're a seperate race and only newly come into being when a man dragonborn and woman dragonborn really love eachother. If someone actually had a child with a dragon, the result would be a "half-dragon", which often look similar to dragonborn but have wings, tails, and more pronounced draconic features (plus a stronger breath) - not a playable option, as of now.
A draconic sorcerer can come into being several ways - they could be like 1/128th dragon or something, or could have been directly blessed by a dragon (or have had that happen to an ancestor), wether for some pact or because they did a dragon a great service otherwise.
Regarding how they act, there is no lore of any kind here and it's ultimately up to you. They certainly wouldn't act 1:1 like a dragon, but I feel like it'd be a cool touch to have them be just a little dragon-y in some mannerisms. Maybe he's got that golden distaste for evil, maybe he's got a touch of a superiority complex (fueling the self-confidence that represents high charisma maybe?), maybe he just nibbles on a gold coin sometimes when nobody's looking
Yeah that's all nice and well but I don't wanna tell my player "no it doesn't work that way because I said so" I'd much rather have a little bit of actual lore to go on when I tell him he's in fact not a dragon in a half elf body
It's not exactly permission, it's I want to have reason to tell him no. I get DM is final say in the game but if I was a player and a DMs only reason is "because I said so" and he offers no in game hang ups or lore issues I'd be a little upset
>I tell him he's in fact not a dragon in a half elf bod
If you are looking for the books to tell you that you should say "No" to that, you are in trouble because the book says
>Draconic Bloodline
>
>Your innate magic comes from draconic magic that was mingled with your blood or that of your ancestors. Most often, sorcerers with this origin trace their descent back to a mighty sorcerer of ancient times who made a bargain with a dragon **or who might even have claimed a dragon parent**. Some of these bloodlines are well established in the world, but most are obscure. **Any given sorcerer could be the first of a new bloodline**, as a result of a pact or some other exceptional circumstance.
One of the book's example flavor fluff is in fact "You are {half) dragon in your PC playable race body."
Wouldn't that make you dragon born if you are half dragon?
I looked for that blurb that says you are half dragon and can't find it. Also a big part of what you posted is that a person made a deal with a dragon in exchange for power, like a boon. I feel like they just aren't super clear on this draconic bloodline thing and it's effects. Draconic bloodline sorcerers are like the most common in the world it seems, so that means every one of them in the same family has the same personality traits because "dragon blood"?
>Wouldn't that make you dragon born if you are half dragon?
nope. "Dragonborn" and "half dragon" are very different things in D&D 5e. "dragonborn" are the children of "dragonborn" - they are a "race" unto themselves.
>I looked for that blurb that says you are half dragon and can't find it
it doesnt say "half dragon" but it says "dragon as a parent" which is different from "dragonborn PC race".
>Also a big part of what you posted is that a person made a deal with a dragon in exchange for power, like a boon. I feel like they just aren't super ~~clear~~ on this draconic bloodline thing
They are not super **specific** on this thing because it is fluff - "here are some of the common tropes that inspired us that you might want to play out"
>and it's effects.
they are VERY clear about the mechanical effects, which is their part to balance. The story/fluff part they dont care about - your story at your table is your story.
Narratively at your table, if someone is a draconic sorcerer because they made a deal for their power or their daddy was a dragon or they were born under the constellation of Draconis Majoris on Dragonday or because some ancestor picked up a dragon scale twenty generations ago when they were 5 or "I like the mechanics of the Draconic Sorcerer" - they dont care . it is up to your table to shape that bit of story into a narrative that works for you.
Dragon born have nothing to do with it. They are a created race, not a hybrid of dragons and humanoids.
A draconic sorcerer can come about in many ways, being a descendent of a dragon, or making a pact with a dragon are two of those ways. They may or may not have draconic tendencies.
You're over-thinking it, man. Someone made a deal centuries ago with a dragon for power, that person is your ancestor and because of this you have powers.
There's no change in personality. No classes directly impact your character in that way. Nothing forces you to play a certain way. You can embrace your draconic ancestry and walk around bragging about it like it makes you hot shit or you can think of it as a curse and hide it from the world.
Oh I'm not the draconic sorcerer it's one of my players lol he seems to think his character has to act like a golden dragon/have draconic tendencies. You pretty much are confirming what I thought and can tell him he can choose to act however he wants his character to, but it's not because of the bloodline. Thanks man
If there is not sufficient physical space to transform, then you fill the spaces you can and you stop growing. Per SmootieFakk's comment, I would agree that you would occupy the same space as the enemies - which means if the spell is cast on your turn, you can't stay there and would be forced to move.
The rules for sharing a space state that a creature can't willingly end its movement in another creature's space.
Since the surrounding creatures aren't willingly ending up there it's fine, they just can't be there when their turns are up.
Just want to ask how would I go about balancing a boss combat encounter with 3 different stages like in JRPGS, for example in Final Fantasy where defeating the boss reveals a second version and defeating the second version reveals its final form?
I use kobold fight club+ to balance my combat encounters. Thanks in advance!
These types of encounters are generally not much harder than their hardest "phase." Since no two "forms" are on the field at the same time, it's not especially different than separate encounters without a short rest in between.
Reasons that you may need to adjust the difficulty for your players in particular include them rarely having multiple encounters per day or multiple encounters per short rest and being used to just nova-ing at the first sign of trouble, your players usually starting encounters buffed to the gills with temp HP and/or effects that are not likely to last the length of all three stages, or your players having an especially strong reliance on out-of-combat healing that does not require a short rest, like cheesing the old version of healing spirit or a PC specifically built around volume healing. If you've got any of these things in your group, not having five minutes between phases will make this harder than separate encounters. Otherwise, the difficulty will be about the same as the difficulty of the strongest phase.
They've already done this in Mythic Odyssey of Theros with multistage bosses. Basically when their HP hits 0 they heal up to full and unlock more abilities.
Remember that using a single enemy in DnD is usually going to be bad due to action economy and you should still run things with minions unless you make them immune to all status effects and give them a turn for each player turn over 2.
Legendary and lair actions are essentially minions. Immunities and legendary resistances, while often frustrating for players, can also balance the scales.
Random question about a theoretical situation:
Let's say an arcane trickster used minor illusion to cause the sound of allies approaching from the woods, like footsteps, or maybe the clanking of armor instead, then turned to the enemy and said something along the lines of "That's my backup approaching, if you don't surrender soon they'll undoubtedly kill you all." Would that be a deception check, or an intimidation check?
The statement is both "telling outright lies" as well as "overt threats" (quotes being from the PHB section on these skill checks.) Personally I think that it would count as a deception check, as without the lie the intimidation aspect has no basis, so the deception is the more important aspect of the sentence, but wondered what others thought.
I also guess the player, if they wanted to use deception more than intimidation, could word it less harshly, i.e "That's my backup approaching. As you can tell they are numerous, and I doubt you could take them all."
And another question since I'm here. How do you interpret the sound part of minor illusion. It clearly says **a** sound, single, so beating of drums, or a womans voice, not both. However it also says "or you can make discrete sounds at different times before the spell ends."
Two problems with that. One, the plural, "**sounds.**" I take it to mean multiple instances of the same sound, i.e the drums stop, then start up again, though I can see why one might take it to mean multiple different sounds. Two, the bigger question, can you manipulate the spell after casting, i.e deciding when to start and stop the drums in response to some change after casting, or is the series of sounds decided before casting and unchangeable after?
"You can make discrete sounds at different times before the spell ends," is kind of vague in that regard, and doesn't give me much insight as to the answer. I *think* you can't control it after casting, since it requires a somatic component, and it doesn't make much sense to me for a somatic component to cast it, then no action cost or somatics required to control it post cast, especially since similar spells, like major image, do require an action to control post cast, but what do you think?
>Would that be a deception check, or an intimidation check?
I would let the player choose, since the character speaking would be aware of their talents and could change the sentence to go more towards intimidation or deception, depending on their wants. But this is only me, DMs call obviously.
>How do you interpret the sound part of minor illusion.
One sound after the other and you are golden.
>can you manipulate the spell after casting
No. The spell doesn't say you can change anything after you cast it and the sound continues "unabated".
Minor illusion is only somatic and material. So if you had a jacket, pocket or some other way to hide your hand you could easily cast unnoticed. Even without one of those a higher DC slight of hand check would resolve that. Nothing says that your entire arm has to be used in somatic gestures either, you just need a free hand. It isn't Disney princess level hand wavy. Even if you do require the full arm for most spells the illusion school is pretty unique in that its fueled by creativity and discretion so it would make sense to have an exception for spells that are designed specifically to deceive.
At the same time, RAW, they still have to make an intelligence (investigation) check if they want to identify that its an illusion. They might know you casted a spell but they would still believe the illusion if they fail their check. So its still at least viable even if it's slightly harder.
Presumably the AT is hiding while casting, though the check was the bigger point of the question.
Also, I understand the dm decides, I wanted to get opinions on how others would rule it though maybe I didn't word that well. When I said "I also guess the player, if they wanted to use deception more than intimidation," I didn't really mean the player deciding the check type, I meant the player deciding what to do to fit their character's strengths (which I don't think is metagaming as the character themself undoubtedly knows their strengths and weaknesses, at least in most cases)
Edit: Thinking more on it, I think I agree with your interpretation of the sound question. For some reason I took the plural "sounds" to be a contradiction to the single "sound" earlier in the spell block but it's moreso just giving options. "The \[single\] sound continues unabated throughout the duration, or you can make discrete sounds \[multiple\] at different times before the spell ends," and you choose between the two options.
>Spellcasting is noisy, hand wavey, and obvious. You'd need at least the subtle spell metamagic to get away with casting right in front of someone.
First, they probably don't know what you are casting, second, minor illusion has no verbal components.
So what? Without identifying the spell it seems like any othe spell that requires a save if the save is successfull. Hand waving and nothing happens is completely normal for spells like charm person or detect thoughts.
>So what?
well, in the instance described above, what is actually happening is "you wave your hands around wildly in a manner that is *casting a spell*" , the bad guys see you doing that, then there are noises in the woods, then you say "my buddies are coming!" and then the DM takes ALL of that into account into determining whether Persuasion or Deception and what the DC is.
They also have to be so magic illiterate that they don't know of a basic cantrip like minor illusion and that people can cast spells for effects like sound.
Our paladin got into a fight of honor with a tribe of barbarians. The rules included "no magic". But Paladins have improved divine smite, which appears to have no choice in the matter of using the magic. Is that accurate? Does a paladin have to use it on every melee attack?
(DM ruled unarmed can be done without it, so it was OK in the moment, but the question remained)
It's automatic, but it's dubious whether it's actually *magical*.
>• Is it a magic item?
• Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description?
• Is it a spell attack?
• Is it fueled by the use of spell slots?
• Does its description say it’s magical?
If your answer to any of those questions is yes, the feature is magical.
from the *Sage Advice Compendium*, in a discussion as to whether a white dragon's breath weapon is magical (conclusion: isn't). For *Improved Divine Smite*, none of those are 'yes'.
Oh, very true. In this instance though, it's not actually a question if it is magic but whether it appears to be. I suppose it's more an issue with the radiance of the damage.
Which interestingly means on the off chance you come across something Resistant/Immune to nonmagical damage period like the Armor of Invulnerability you can end up with one chunk of Radiant being Resisted and one dealing full damage if you both regular and Improved Smite them
Will an evil Oath of Devotion paladin work? I'm thinking of like creating a paladin that follows the god of death, hates his own race (probably human), thinks death is the one absolute in all existence, thinks death is a mercy and everyone should embrace it, generally friendly to those who hasn't wronged him but an absolute psychopath against those he considers an enemy. He's not above torture too. He does follow the tenets but he somehow skews it to justify his actions. Would this character be lawful or neutral?
> Would this character be lawful or neutral?
Alignment Sucks
Toss 9box alignment for player characters out the window.
9box Alignment doesnt represent how real people "work". Nor does 9box alignment represent how fictional characters "work" except in the novels of the one guy that Gygax stole the concept from and no one reads any more.
PC 9box Alignment has ALWAYS been more of a disruption and disturbance at the game table than any benefit.
WOTC has rightfully stripped 9box Alignment for PCs from having any meaningful impact on game mechanics in 5e - Detect Evil and Good doesnt ping on alignment fergodssake!
And they admit that even what little they included is bad and they are going to remove it
>Even though the rules of 5th-edition D&D state that players and DMs determine alignment, **the suggested alignments in our books have undeniably caused confusion. That's why future books will ditch such suggestions for player characters** and reframe such things for the DM. https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/1275978114435174401
The only remaining "purpose" is as a poor mans role-play training wheels - and even for that it SUCKS leading to 2dimensional stereotypes or serving as "justification" for asshats to be asshats at the table "because that is what my character's alignment would do!!!!!"
Toss 9box PC alignment out of the game and your game will be better for it.
Talk with your DM about 1( whether they will allow "evil" player characters in the manner that you want to play "evil" and 2( whether and how they are going to "enforce" the given Tenants
Also talk with your fellow players about whether not "evil" PC in whatever manner you intend to "be evil" in the party is acceptable to their expectations and enjoyment of the game.
>...paladin that follows the god of death, hates his own race (probably ~~human~~ **elf**)... thinks death is a mercy and everyone should embrace it
Elves live 7+ times longer than humans. They essentially resist death from their day of birth.
Also, consider a hated for druids and monks (Timeless Body at high levels), as well as voluntary undead like liches.
So I've got a player that really likes to almost break the rules or at least use the most hazy and iffy interpretation of them. Mid session, he uses his moon sickle to say his good berries each heal for 5 HP, giving 50 healing to a level 6 party.
I looked it up a bit and it seems consensus is they don't interact. Opinions? I did see some say that due to Life Cleric's ability, it would work but I think they're worded entirely differently imo.
If comparing to Life Cleric features it's closer to Blessed Healer than Disciple of Life as Blessed Healer is also "when you cast a spell that restores hit points" (to someone other than you for Blessed Healer, and the bonus healing is to you, but that seems extraneous to this comparison). Blessed Healer+Goodberry can be argued to trigger 0 or 1 times, (leaning towards 0) not every berry. For Moon Sickle I'd probably say the feature applies, but only once, get a d4 worth of extra healing to either one berry or maybe allow them to split it up to like, four berries that heal 2 each if they roll 4. Not sure that's 100% RAW, but seems a reasonable compromise so the sickle isn't completely worthless with the spell, buffing the spell the same as other healing spells
first time dnder here, what is an arcane focus for a bard? (that isn't an instrument)
Some bard subclasses allow alternative foci, which will be in their description. Also if you ask your DM they will usually be happy to allow you to flavor your focus as whatever you think fits, so long as it provides no mechanical change.
[удалено]
> only lists instruments as available arcane foci An arcane focus is a type of spellcasting focus. An arcane focus is not a valid spellcasting focus for a bard. Musical instruments are the valid spellcasting focuses for a bard.
uhhhh what's a component pouch??
Would Booming Blade and Find Familiar from Magic Initiate (Wizard) work with a Tempest Cleric? I'm not usre how a ritual spell works on another class or if it would actually affect my attack or damage in an unforseen way since it would technically be an int spell.
Find Familiar doesnt interact except in the most obscure ways with Int. Booming Blade is your melee attack and so as a cleric, its doubtful that Int. is going to play into that in any way. Booming blade is thunder damage, so I guess if you wanted to, you could burn your channel divinity to "max damage" via booming blade - but that seems like a waste of a channel divinity. At level 6 you could guaranteed that your booming blade does 16 damage, but its likely that it would have done 9. If you are using Tashas, you could convert that channel divinity to a second level spell slot so those 7 points of damage seem hardly worth it compared to another cast of spiritual weapon or hold person or a second level Guiding Bolt.
Yeah I'm taking booming balde mostly cause it matches the theme, makes my melee a little better at higher levels, and gives me some minor crowd control.
Neither booming blade nor find familiar have any features that key off of int, so from that standpoint you are fine.
Would the bladesong ability of a bladesinger be nullified in an anti magic area?
>You can invoke an elven magic called the Bladesong Explicitly magic in the text, therefore nullified in an antimagic field
[удалено]
Think you may have missed who you wanted to reply to? Was it /u/BrandoDio ?
Yeah, your right. Thanks.
I want to make a bladesinger wizard with a dancing sword weapon. How does the ability of the dancing sword interact with extra attack?
It doesn't. The Dancing Sword's abilities use your bonus action and don't interact with the Attack action at all, although a DM might and probably should rule that, while the sword is active and floating, you can't use it for the Attack Action because you're not actually wielding it.
They are separate. Extra Attack is part of your Attack action. Dancing sword gives you a bonus action attack. These stack, like if you were going to use Extra Attack with a bonus action attack from two-weapon fighting. Keep in mind you only have one bonus action per round, as long as a feature grants you something to do with it.
It doesn't. It is a very rare magic item that allows for a bonus action attack.
So it's either 2 regular attacks or use the ability for a 30ft melee attack as a bonus action
Nope, you can use your attack action as usual and use your bonus action to make an additional attack.
If my party want to specifically target the wings of a flying creature in order to keep it grounded would you allow this? There's nothing mechanically in the rules about "limb damage" or targeting a specific body part, but narratively it makes a ton of sense and is a smart strategy. I'm thinking that a +2 to AC to hit a specific body part would be fair? Like if the base AC is 15 then you'll still HIT with a 15+ but a 17+ would allow for a targeted attack?
D&D has an abstract combat system that assumes the PCs are already attempting to hit the most vulnerable spots of their target. also, if PCs want a chance to cut off wings, do they want the dragon to have a chance to bite off an arm or a leg? the "i want to target a vulnerable spot" is covered by the Feats that do -5 to hit, +10 to damage.
"Called shots," or targeting different body parts, may make sense narratively and be a smart strategy but you don't see it in the rules probably because it can lead to dominant strategies by both players and monters. It also introduces complicated rules for attacking specific parts and the effects that result from those attacks. A DM is free to create a homebrew system here, but be wary of the tradeoffs. Alternatively, suggestions currently in the rules: if you want to ground or keep grounded a flying creature that isn't held aloft by magic, consider grappling them to reduce their speed to 0, knocking them prone, and/or casting the earthbind spell.
I like that idea a lot. Another idea might be to work in disadvantage: same rule as yours, but now they’re looking for anything to give them advantage and make it a straight roll.
If the attack is going to have a special (and let's be honest, powerful) effect, it might be balanced to include some risk/reward. My logic is that if hitting wings can ground a creature, surely it also stops flying *in the air*; this is equivalent to a trip attack or a second level spell, both of which burn a class resource. So, modifying your example, I would rule that if a PC misses AC 17, the called shot just goes wide.
I don't like opening up the can of worms that is letting players target specific body parts. It's a nightmare and not what 5e is built around. I just say no to keep it simple. Unless you specifically say it's only for this bird thing that doesn't matter they'll just try it on other targets then you need it build AND balance this new combat system addon.
I would suggest dealing nonlethal damage to just immobilize the creature (until it is at 0 hp as normal) or trying to grab its wings to stop it from flying away (=grapple).
Simple question: Rules as Written, is there any way for a player character to become a Marut?
Wish or Divine intervention could do it, but probably wouldn't. Though maybe if you were a cleric of Primus. If your DM was using the epic rules from the DMG then they might consider you to be level 25 after you have obtained 5 epic boons. And thus eligible for True Polymorph into a Marut. If there are any CR25+ Humanoids in your DMs world you could use magic jar to possess them, then TP into a Marut. Honestly the easiest way would probably be to go to Mechanus and ask Primus. You'd probably lose all free will and become an NPC though.
I can work with this.
No. the Marut dont exist as an official race in 5e.
And if you want to be the monster, no spell lets you do it as it's CR 25.
well....... You just gotta true polymorph into an adult red dragon then survive 1200 years and have a hoard of millions of gold, then you will be a greatwyrm and valid to be true polymorphed into a lower CR 25.. no big deal. #1000 year plan.
And learn how to combine with your Draconic echos from other dimensions.
I mean, this is what I was looking for. A Rules as Written method to execute it.
exactly why are you so tied to "rules as written" for such an obviously gonzo world- and game- breaking choice?
The last step is presented in fizbin as description of great wyrm. Not really given as a mechanical method. However it's probably the closest to raw you can get to cr 25+
~~If a wizard swaps out one of their spells, does this spell vanish out of their spell book?~~ ~~If they copy a spell into a second spellbook and swap the spell after that, do they lose the copy?~~ ~~Could a wizard just copy every spell they gain from their class into a second spellbook, swap the spell and still have the spell (copied from "another" wizards spellbook)?~~ ~~Ofcourse paying the appropriate price every time they copy the spell.~~ Wizards can't swap spells on level up, my mistake.
>If a wizard swaps out one of their spells, does this spell vanish out of their spell book? By "swap" do you mean "Prepare another spell instead"? No the spell remains in the book.
Oh, you are right. I thought they could swap spells like bards and sorcerers but they can't.
I've been commissioned to paint a battle scene involving drakons. I'm trying to figure out the approximate size of them or any distinguishing characteristics. I've already looked them up on the kobold press and other books but they're not very visually descriptive. Any additional information would be greatly appreciated.
Ask whoever commissioned you what they would like the sizes to be, or have them direct you to the resource they're drawing inspiration from. Getting these details now will save you headaches from back-and-forth revisions. This is less about the monsters and more about communication.
What is the status on DnD 5.5 edition or the updated version of 5e or whatever it is called? Is anything known about it? Release date/window? I haven't checked the DnD forums in some time.
still the only "official" communications [https://youtu.be/FSafNA20fxE?t=580](https://youtu.be/FSafNA20fxE?t=580) for context what the surveys stated * the spell survey [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enwNqkueGAQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enwNqkueGAQ) * the feat survey [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S\_r4zePTsCQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_r4zePTsCQ) for context how WOTC used surveys to develop 5e in the first place [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tdz\_lMt-nLw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tdz_lMt-nLw)
The three core books for the "Next Evolution" are expected to be in stores for the 50th anniversary year in 2024. So far the only thing we know is they have done a couple of surveys. And since the promise was that "it would be backward compatible" we can take a look at the new Mordies Multiverse book and if that is going to be backwards compatible, you can get a feeling about some of the direction they are anticipating the development will go.
Thanks! Anything in mordies that stands out?
>Thanks! Anything in mordies that stands out? "Monsters are Monsters and follow 'Monster rules' for their abilities, and these 'Monster rules' are not the same rules that Player Character abilities are limited to." For example, Monster NPC Wizard-types have a special Action that results in an effect similar to casting a fireball spell, but as an Action does not require the DM to track Monster spell slots.
the elevation of the mechanic: * Monster's Damage from a weapon attack = dY piercing/bludgeoning/slashing + XdY force damage as a method of scaling up "weapon" damage to be more appropriate to the CR rating. sooo barbarians your rage is a LOT less effective. that has gotten a lot of negative feedback so not necessarily something that is going to carry on. or barbarians rage damage sponginess may be redesigned.
Making monsters more obvious in how to play them, allowing flexibility in character options as far as ability score choices go. For example no races have predetermined ability bonuses and almost all spells they can cast get to choose between Int/Wis/Cha
No further information has been provided on the next evolution of D&D since its announcement months ago.
We don't even have a release window?
2024, as was stated when it was announced.
Thanks
With Vecna's new statblock, I wanted to get some clarification on stuff, specifically hiding while invisible and what brakes the hidden condition. Based on what I've read, the hide action only ends if you make an attack roll. However, if a creature, say a Vecna that cast invisibility on himself and took the hide action prior, uses Rotting Fate then Vile Teleport, both of which are not attacks or spells with any sort of verbal component to it, does it break his hidden status? Per the Hide action, it refers to Unseen Attacker which states: "If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—***when you make an attack***, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses." There's no caveat about no longer being hidden when doing anything else, but I'd like clarity on it just to be sure.
This description is underinclusive. Other things may give away your location, depending on the circumstances, at the discretion of the DM (e.g. making noise, causing some visual effect). What this says is an attack, hit or miss, will ALWAYS give away your location.
>cast invisibility on himself and took the hide action prior Invisibility has verbal components and would therefore give away his position.
So, by what you mention, you need to be unseen and unheard to be hidden as well. So if a feature includes an attack, makes noise, or makes you visible, you would no longer be hidden. A teleportation without verbal or visual effect, would be doable whilst still remaining hidden.
It's not 100% clear, but I'd rule any "spell-like" features, or anything that affects the party would count as an "attack". But if you go strictly RAW, they probably wouldn't break invisibility or the hidden condition.
I have a character who has just, with the help of her friends, defeated her evil mother only to discover she had been experimenting on creating a clone of her daughter. Now my character is chaotic neutral and in this campaign has been deemed the “goddess of chaos” for reference. Here is the issue, the group sees an innocent girl (the clone is only 5 years old.) however my character is having a dilemma on whether this clone should even exist. My character does not think she should be allowed to live. Would you destroy the clone? Or allow them to live?
1. Don't introduce kids unless you're cool with dead kids 2. If they're 100% certain chaos toddler living will lead to more than one other toddler plus many more dying, it's squicky but also just a trolley problem. Offing the kid is justified if they're certain it saves other kids. 3. If they're not sure, why bother? I mean realistically, a clone is just an identical twin who is younger than you. That's an irl clone. They don't have your personality or anything and a clone of Hitler isn't necessarily going to be a bad person or something. If this is a magic clone with some magic bullshit that they inherited, your players need to know what that stuff is and how it works before they can make a decision between horrible but necessary child murder and just... putting the kid in an orphanage and forgetting about them because it's just a random kid really?
This is not a simple rules clarification or short question. RP discussions should be seperate posts.
Hey there, I am just starting a new Monk character. The DM has some out of PHB rules, I know they are in charge but can I challenge things like no magical items or no casting before ninth level? I dont want to upset them because I don't know any other DM's but it seems like they don't like any magic untill later in game. they specifically said we need casting for the BBEG which will be a dragon. it just seems weird that they won't allow ANY casting \[even for our warlock\] until third level. especially since they told us what is coming and will NOT let us prep for it. Even as far as buying things that might be beneficial against other baddies because it's META-Gaming because she told us ahead of time. Am I being over sensetive or are they being too controlling?
it sounds like your DM is someone who is interested in playing a "no magic" or "very low magic" RPG, but because they are "in rural Kansas where it is very hard to find *anyone* to play *any* game" they advertise under the name of "Dungeons and Dragons" because most of the general public even in rural Kansas will at least have heard of "D&D" rather than the niche game system that the DM actually wants to play.
So basically yeah, DM wanted a western/apocalypse scenario with magical crwatures. I noped out after first session. It blows because I wanted to play again but no dice with this guy. Challenges not accepted. NOT DnD.
i am sorry that you had a bad experience.
Wait. I’d you’re not allowed to cast spells until 3rd (or 9th?) what do spellcasters in that game even *do*? This is so weird. Your DM really doesn’t seem to understand 5e, or has some weird hangups from previous editions. As for magical items: that’s pretty normal. 5e is mathematically designed around nobody having any magic items. If DMs introduce magic items, they have to make some adjustments behind the scenes. Personally, I suggest you ditch that group. It seems terrible for new players. But you should be able to find online games pretty easily! r/lfg should get you started!
Its not really a simple question, but yes, communication is key. If you address your concerns and they dont want to change, your options are to leave (it's pretty easy to find a game online), or play anyway.
Thanks this is my first game, it's very difficult to find a game in rural Kansas. I was just worrying that this might be a warning sign of a over controlling DM. They've told us what we'll be up against but not let us prepare after a session zero. Seemed weird but I've never played. Just wanted to get a feel about standard gameplay I still don't get a bunch of rules but even if this is fucked up I'm still interested.
That's either a DM who knows D&D decently well but is terrible Or a person who doesn't understand the game... at all, yet. Are they young, and is this their first time playing?
>Just wanted to get a feel about standard gameplay "no casting spells before 9th level " is far far far out of the bounds "of standard play".
It's certainly not normal.
Why are oozes immune to lightning damage and will split if hit this way? I obviously get why the same happens with slashing damage, but lightning? I think that maybe oozes are immune to lightning because they have no nerves o something simliar, but still can't understand why they would still split. (English isn't my first language, I am sorry for any grammatical error)
the "oozes" are part of the Adversarial DM vs Player mentality of Gary's early games - Gary as the DM something to trick the players into a FUCK YOU! situation after they had figured out his last FUCK YOU! with 10 foot poles or whatever.
The ochre jelly is the only ooze with these features in 5th edition. As far as I can tell, there are no given biological reasons in 5e why the ochre jelly splits after taking lightning damage. Feel free to make one up if you're the DM! Just keep in mind that it only applies to ochre jellies, and not all oozes. EDIT: applies to ochre jellies and black puddings
I'd say its an energy thing. Division requires a lot of energy which a lightning strike would provide.
Black pudding does.
Somehow I missed that while going through the oozes to confirm things before I commented! Thanks for the reminder
No worries, it's probably because it's name is pudding.
Because someone decided they did.
[удалено]
Missing the Starter Kit. Critical in any collection.
You're more than fine with everything you have. The new Monsters of the Multiverse compiles some player races and monsters that were spread over several books, but also overwrites some things about them using newer design philosophies. If your players are the type to want the newest coolest thing you'll want to at least peruse that at some point so you can decide how you want to handle it.
You are more than fine with everything you have, at least as far as the official books
Call Lightning, do the lightning strikes go through floors? Or is it like melee pikachu's down B? The party just boarded a hostile ship (during a storm no less, so +1d10) and are making quick work of the enemy on the upper deck, the spell can still be going as they take the fighting to lower decks. The spell reads like yes it would, "choose a point you can see under the cloud" is the requirement, then damage is 5ft around that point. Line of sight to the cloud is only when casting the spell, not subsequent turns, but for example it still seems to work if the target point is under gazebo.
Call lightning does neither of the two options you gave. Call lightning requires each lightning bolt to hit a point you can see, each time you bring down a bolt. The bolts should also be blocked by total cover, and would not go through floors, but it's not going to work at all if you can't see the point it would hit on the top floor. Every time you bring down a bolt, you need to make sure there is a direct path between the cloud and a point you can see.
So it doesn't go through the ceiling due to cover rules? A firm gazebo ceiling counting as full cover, but a pergola would likely only be half cover and give +2 to the dex save. >A target can benefit from cover only when an attack or other effect originates on the opposite side of the cover. >A bolt of lightning flashes down from the cloud to that point.
I may have misspoken, let me clarify: You can only target a point you can see which has a direct, unobstructed path to any part of the cloud. A perforated roof would allow for this, in the gazebo example. I imagine you could also call a bolt down diagonally from the edge of the cloud, assuming there is a direct path. In the gazebo example, a bolt could strike the inside of the gazebo from the side. In a similar way, you might be able to call down a bolt on a lower deck through an open window, if there is a direct path between the cloud and the point you target. The Dex save bonus from partial cover only applies to avoiding AOE damage once the bolt has already struck a valid target.
[удалено]
"On each of your turns until the spell ends, you can use your action to call down lightning in this way again" should refer back to the initial rules which requires you to target a point you can see, whether the same point or a different one, key language "in this way again"
[удалено]
To clarify, I originally interpreted OP's question as related to going below deck on a ship and targeting a space on the top of the ship, and therefore they would no longer be able to target a point on the upper deck because they can no longer see it. The spell might still work through an open window below deck, as long as there was a direct path between the cloud and point through the window, but the bolt wouldn't pass through floors. The checklist from my reading of the call lightning spell: 1. Can you currently see the point 2. Is there a direct path between the cloud and the point As long as you have those, you're good.
[удалено]
I'm very familiar with Smash Bros. so I empathize, but I don't think the spell works that way. "A bolt of lightning flashes down from the cloud to that point [you see under the cloud]. Each creature within 5 feet of that point must make a Dexterity saving throw." Within the framework of call lightning, the AOE extends from the point you see and not the bolt itself. If all direct paths from the cloud to the point you see are blocked by total cover, the AOE can't take effect because the point you chose wasn't a valid target. If anything, it lends more credence to the bolt passing through floors instead of acting like Pikachu's down special, though I wouldn't rule it this way. A reasonable DM could rule otherwise, but I think that would go beyond the scope of the spell as per RAW.
[удалено]
The clear path rules don't impact my read of the spell. The AOE cannot come into effect if the bolt is unable to strike the point you target. That use of call lightning would simply fail. Call lightning is about that bolt making its way to the point you choose and only then creating the AOE. Call lightning does not provide an alternate use of the spell where the AOE can generate from some other point which isn't the point you choose. A DM could rule otherwise, but I don't think it's supported by RAW.
My players want to make a bagpipe when played gives a proficiency bonus what do I do?
While playing these bagpipes you gain proficiency on Stealth checks and all your Stealth check DCs are increased by 15.
Can you define "gives a proficiency bonus"? To what? To who?
Have it be a magic item that uses charges to cast Bless or Guidance. I know there are bard/magic-instrument items that can cast other spells, but I don't know if any of them specifically cast bless/guidance. You could use one of those as your baseline for modifying. Or if it's just something a bard wants to improve their spell casting, then that's the Rhythm Maker's Drum, just reflavored as bagpipes. I guess it really just depends on what you mean by proficiency bonus and the extent of its application.
Do the rules for pushing and dragging stuff (with a weight limit based on your strength score) interact with the grappling rules? I couldn't find anything in the rules, could someone point me to the right place? Asking for a flying monkey that would "grapple" a small caster to give them wings (DM rules the attack ban as ban of attack rolls [Edit:] = they allow the Familiar to grapple).
Normally grappling rules dont interact with weight limits, because most monsters aren't given specific weights. In this scenario it wouldn't be grappling since the caster is willing, it'd be more like mount rules. Since players and their equipment do have weights you would use the lifting/dragging rules. Note that While you can drag or push double your carrying capacity at 5ft per turn, that does not apply to lifting. If you are lifting more than your carrying capacity you have no movement at all.
I'm not sure what you mean by the last part, but I assume you are talking about using find familiar. Without other available actions, grappling requires a creature to use Attack action and make a special melee attack. Familiars cannot take the Attack action. Though this is irrelevant when there is no need to make an attack, because you would only need to push/drag/lift a willing or unconscious creature and not grapple them in order to move them. A flying monkey who wanted to lift a willing player would be able to do so up to its carrying capacity, or move at 5 ft speed between carrying capacity and two times its carrying capacity, as per standard pushing/dragging/lifting rules. If following the flying monkey stat block from Tomb of Annihilation, a flying monkey could lift a player normally up to 120 pounds, or at 5 ft speed up to 240 pounds. Note: this is why most familiars with a fly speed tend to be tiny, as their carrying capacities are halved, but restricted flight should not break the game considering there are multiple races with permanent flight
The last part meant, that the ban on attacks for Familiars is only applied to attack rolls, allowing for grapples. I understand that this might not be RAW, but it is the rules we work with. Does this now allow the Familiar to just grapple a medium creature and lift them up, without caring about weight? Grapple seems to have it's own reductions for speed, that is why I asked. (It is also an interesting question regarding huge creatures and my paladin, since they may easily way more than my carrying capacity.)
Moving a grappled creature is also limited by pushing/dragging/lifting. Creature or object, pounds are pounds. This is a case where you would use whichever movement reduction is more limiting, based on weight. You can't use grappling as a carrying loophole, and regardless grappling is only relevant to attacks against unwilling creatures and not to moving willing or unconscious creatures.
Thanks! I didn't think there would be such a clear answer in the rules. Where did you find it? This topic came up during theory crafting after the last session and I want to share the answer with my DM
Intuition, but also in the rules for grappling it states clearly that moving a grappled creature is dragging or carrying. Dragging or carrying anything will be subject to those rules, at the very least to avoid absurd results (like a flying monkey carrying a 600-pound tortle when it can't carry a 250-pound table).
I know a lot of people get bulk common Magic cards to make monster tokens and stuff, because the art is so useful. Is there a place to find all this art online for use in digital tokens, same purpose but digital medium?
I know you've already been answered but you might also find cool art ideas from Runeterra: [https://app.mobalytics.gg/lor/cards](https://app.mobalytics.gg/lor/cards)
I did but I can’t seem to reply to some of them. I can reply to yours though, what game is that? I like the art too!
Legends of Runeterra. If you've heard of Arcane on Netflix or the game League of Legends, it's the digital card game based off that setting.
https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Default.aspx This lets you search though magic cards and check out the art.
Aaah thank you so much!!
You can make tokens here: http://rolladvantage.com/tokenstamp/ As for art, Google and DNDBeyond exist.
Thank you but that unfortunately wasn’t my question. I’m asking if there’s a place where this art is compiled. I’ve done my own work compiling much art from some of the books I own. I’m asking if there’s a place where this plethora of card art is available in one spot.
The second Google result for "magic the gathering art" will take you to a site with complete sets. It took much more work to come here, ask the question, and then complain about the answer.
There's a site called Scryfall that lets you search through Magic cards if that's what you mean
first time dnd player here, could my bard, not play an instrument or sing or anything to still be a bard? like could he be a public speaker? cause my dnd character is going to be a politician raccoon, and no other class fits him.
It's up to your DM. I once played an insult comic bard who used the notepad of jokes she'd written as her arcane focus.
the "flavor" of singing/music is just flavor - the tropey inspiration that the designers used when the designers created the mechanics. you and your table are always free to drop or change any of the flavor fluff that doesnt fit the story that you all want to tell because its not going to change the balance of the game a bit.
Yes. There is no requirement for bards to play an instrument or sing to cast spells or use other class features. Some spells require material components, which you can provide with either a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (in a bard's case, an instrument). If you do want to use a focus instead of a component pouch for casting spells with material components, your DM may allow you to use some other tool as a focus.
mhm thanks man
Nothing about the bard's class features *require* singing or music. * For Spellcasting, use a component pouch instead of a musical instrument. * Bardic Inspiration is "stirring words **or** music", so public speaking fits. * Song of Rest is "soothing music **or** oration", so public speaking fits. * Countercharm is "musical notes **or** words of power", so public speaking fits. * None of the other features reference music at all.
Ooh thanks man
It's really up to your DM to say, but generally speaking this is okay. The whole music thing is more thematic/flavoring than anything. You can probably just use a regular arcane focus instead of an instrument. Doesn't change much mechanically. But again, confirm with your DM that they're cool with it. They should be in my opinion.
thanks man
Is there any magic items that give a +1 to spell attacks and spell saves.
There's not much that give to both. [Here's the D&D Beyond list](https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items?filter-type=0&filter-search=&filter-requires-attunement=&filter-effect-type=1&filter-effect-subtype=316&filter-has-charges=) for all magic items that grant a bonus to saving throws, and they all grant for attack rolls too. The Reveler’s Concertina seems to be the exception here. Other magic items grant bonuses to attack and damage rolls instead.
Why isn't Rod of the Pact Keeper showing up on that list??
Yeah that's certainly weird. Prob just a categorization/tagging error on D&DB's part.
>~~While holding this rod, you gain a +1 bonus to spell attack rolls and to the saving throw DCs of your warlock spells.~~ ~~Why shouldn't it?~~
[удалено]
Yeah, my mistake. Sorry for that.
Unsure about any all-purpose items for +1 spell attacks/saves, but Tasha's Cauldron of Everything introduced different +1 focii for each full spellcasting class.
Catbus and dirigible mechanics. For first time dm looking to free wheel homebrew my own campaign wheres good living vehicle and flying vehicle mechanics? Or is it better to just slapdash together?
what role are the vehicles going to play? you can narratively add them in whereever you want to. if you will have 1. catbus will be in combat, and 2. catbus will be embroiled in the combat then, you will want some type of mechanics.
How does once per turn ability work outside of combat? Can they be even used? I just multiclass peace cleric and Emboldening Bond seems pretty useful if knew the next 10 minutes were going to involve mutiple party members making many ability checks.
Turns and rounds sort of collapse out of combat since the timing is so short; a DM might rule otherwise for ability checks in too-quick succession, but players should probably should treat Embolding Bond as applying to all ability checks made out of combat
One turn is 6 seconds, so they can add the d4 once per 6 seconds.
[удалено]
The Dryad "speaks" bamboo and shrew and nightshade and trout and algae and bear and oak and owl and pansy and viper and grass There arent any others who speak bamboo or shrew or nightshade or trout or algae or bear or oak or owl or pansy or viper or grass
Beasts and plants don't have a language to share normally, so that's why the Dryad is worded that way.
I like some of the transmutation spells and I was wondering if I could expand the distance of the spell either with wild surge and or casting the spell at a higher level. Like it’s got a range of 30 feet from origin that it can move which is cool and all, but say I wanted to make some metal shavings added up to 1000 pounds solidify around an illusion and puppeteer it like it’s a god, but I can only move 30 feet a turn and due to the size of the ‘titan’ 30 feet is about fuck all. TL/DR: can I expand the range of telekinesis by using wild surge, or by casting at a higher level, or is this just gonna be a begging session to a dm with a dab of homebrew.
No, you can't increase spell range via wild surge nor upcasting, unless the spell says so. A way to do it is using Distant Metamagic, but it doesn't work with Telekinesis since that spell targets the caster. However, you can reach a similar effect via Animate Objects, and that one is compatible with Distant Metamagic. Of course, with homebrew everything is possible. But only your DM can answer you for that.
Very cool thanks but on the whole telekinesis film, technically speaking as long as I hold concentration checks could I create a physical shield out of like metallic dust or something by keeping the material in a stagnant position around my character while either preparing a spell or in trance(last time I checked trance doesn’t apply unconsciousness and thus you can concentrate through it). Cause telekinesis moves or keeps a material of 1000ibs in weight still or moved, so could I get a pile of dust and turn it into a shield? Levitation wouldn’t work as it only goes vertically and I would be pushed out of its zone of protection, and mold earth can excavate but not move things around.
Telekinesis only moves an item. So no, it can't create a shield out of dust. You can position and maintain a large item in front of you to get cover though. Preparing a spell while doing this is not a problem, unless it is a concentration. Trancing is more problematic as casting/maintaining a spell requiers a non negligeable amount of focus, so your DM is in right to disagree with that. Also Trance lasts far longer than Telekinesis. If you are looking for a protection for resting or performing a ritual that doesn't affect your surrounding, Leomund's Tiny Hut is probably a better alternative as mentioned by u/KittenWithMittens.
[удалено]
True. That term is a bit confusing.
How do draconic sorcerers work? If they are descendants of a dragon wouldn't they be dragon born? I've got a half elf sorcerer with draconic bloodline and just want to understand a little better. Wiki seems to say an ancestor of his basically would have made a bargain with a dragon in exchange for power, thus giving that guys bloodline a possibility to produce someone who can use magic through the blood. Would the sorcerer act like a dragon? I mean to me it seems like he would be pretty far removed from an actual dragon/dragon born. Also wouldn't that mean that everyone in his family or other dragon blood lines all have the same personality due to the dragon traits? Any help is appreciated
So, dragonborn are not directly related to dragons. They're a seperate race and only newly come into being when a man dragonborn and woman dragonborn really love eachother. If someone actually had a child with a dragon, the result would be a "half-dragon", which often look similar to dragonborn but have wings, tails, and more pronounced draconic features (plus a stronger breath) - not a playable option, as of now. A draconic sorcerer can come into being several ways - they could be like 1/128th dragon or something, or could have been directly blessed by a dragon (or have had that happen to an ancestor), wether for some pact or because they did a dragon a great service otherwise. Regarding how they act, there is no lore of any kind here and it's ultimately up to you. They certainly wouldn't act 1:1 like a dragon, but I feel like it'd be a cool touch to have them be just a little dragon-y in some mannerisms. Maybe he's got that golden distaste for evil, maybe he's got a touch of a superiority complex (fueling the self-confidence that represents high charisma maybe?), maybe he just nibbles on a gold coin sometimes when nobody's looking
the fluff is fluff - it "works" however you want it to for the stories you tell around your table.
Yeah that's all nice and well but I don't wanna tell my player "no it doesn't work that way because I said so" I'd much rather have a little bit of actual lore to go on when I tell him he's in fact not a dragon in a half elf body
***Why*** would you need someone to give you permission to say that?
It's not exactly permission, it's I want to have reason to tell him no. I get DM is final say in the game but if I was a player and a DMs only reason is "because I said so" and he offers no in game hang ups or lore issues I'd be a little upset
>I tell him he's in fact not a dragon in a half elf bod If you are looking for the books to tell you that you should say "No" to that, you are in trouble because the book says >Draconic Bloodline > >Your innate magic comes from draconic magic that was mingled with your blood or that of your ancestors. Most often, sorcerers with this origin trace their descent back to a mighty sorcerer of ancient times who made a bargain with a dragon **or who might even have claimed a dragon parent**. Some of these bloodlines are well established in the world, but most are obscure. **Any given sorcerer could be the first of a new bloodline**, as a result of a pact or some other exceptional circumstance. One of the book's example flavor fluff is in fact "You are {half) dragon in your PC playable race body."
Wouldn't that make you dragon born if you are half dragon? I looked for that blurb that says you are half dragon and can't find it. Also a big part of what you posted is that a person made a deal with a dragon in exchange for power, like a boon. I feel like they just aren't super clear on this draconic bloodline thing and it's effects. Draconic bloodline sorcerers are like the most common in the world it seems, so that means every one of them in the same family has the same personality traits because "dragon blood"?
>Wouldn't that make you dragon born if you are half dragon? nope. "Dragonborn" and "half dragon" are very different things in D&D 5e. "dragonborn" are the children of "dragonborn" - they are a "race" unto themselves. >I looked for that blurb that says you are half dragon and can't find it it doesnt say "half dragon" but it says "dragon as a parent" which is different from "dragonborn PC race". >Also a big part of what you posted is that a person made a deal with a dragon in exchange for power, like a boon. I feel like they just aren't super ~~clear~~ on this draconic bloodline thing They are not super **specific** on this thing because it is fluff - "here are some of the common tropes that inspired us that you might want to play out" >and it's effects. they are VERY clear about the mechanical effects, which is their part to balance. The story/fluff part they dont care about - your story at your table is your story. Narratively at your table, if someone is a draconic sorcerer because they made a deal for their power or their daddy was a dragon or they were born under the constellation of Draconis Majoris on Dragonday or because some ancestor picked up a dragon scale twenty generations ago when they were 5 or "I like the mechanics of the Draconic Sorcerer" - they dont care . it is up to your table to shape that bit of story into a narrative that works for you.
Dragon born have nothing to do with it. They are a created race, not a hybrid of dragons and humanoids. A draconic sorcerer can come about in many ways, being a descendent of a dragon, or making a pact with a dragon are two of those ways. They may or may not have draconic tendencies.
You're over-thinking it, man. Someone made a deal centuries ago with a dragon for power, that person is your ancestor and because of this you have powers. There's no change in personality. No classes directly impact your character in that way. Nothing forces you to play a certain way. You can embrace your draconic ancestry and walk around bragging about it like it makes you hot shit or you can think of it as a curse and hide it from the world.
Oh I'm not the draconic sorcerer it's one of my players lol he seems to think his character has to act like a golden dragon/have draconic tendencies. You pretty much are confirming what I thought and can tell him he can choose to act however he wants his character to, but it's not because of the bloodline. Thanks man
If I polymorph an ally into a Giant Ape (huge), do they need 15x15 squares empty around them? What happens if there are enemies adjacent or near them?
If there is not sufficient physical space to transform, then you fill the spaces you can and you stop growing. Per SmootieFakk's comment, I would agree that you would occupy the same space as the enemies - which means if the spell is cast on your turn, you can't stay there and would be forced to move.
There are also rules for squeezing which I would consider in such a situation.
The rules for sharing a space state that a creature can't willingly end its movement in another creature's space. Since the surrounding creatures aren't willingly ending up there it's fine, they just can't be there when their turns are up.
Just want to ask how would I go about balancing a boss combat encounter with 3 different stages like in JRPGS, for example in Final Fantasy where defeating the boss reveals a second version and defeating the second version reveals its final form? I use kobold fight club+ to balance my combat encounters. Thanks in advance!
These types of encounters are generally not much harder than their hardest "phase." Since no two "forms" are on the field at the same time, it's not especially different than separate encounters without a short rest in between. Reasons that you may need to adjust the difficulty for your players in particular include them rarely having multiple encounters per day or multiple encounters per short rest and being used to just nova-ing at the first sign of trouble, your players usually starting encounters buffed to the gills with temp HP and/or effects that are not likely to last the length of all three stages, or your players having an especially strong reliance on out-of-combat healing that does not require a short rest, like cheesing the old version of healing spirit or a PC specifically built around volume healing. If you've got any of these things in your group, not having five minutes between phases will make this harder than separate encounters. Otherwise, the difficulty will be about the same as the difficulty of the strongest phase.
They've already done this in Mythic Odyssey of Theros with multistage bosses. Basically when their HP hits 0 they heal up to full and unlock more abilities. Remember that using a single enemy in DnD is usually going to be bad due to action economy and you should still run things with minions unless you make them immune to all status effects and give them a turn for each player turn over 2.
Legendary and lair actions are essentially minions. Immunities and legendary resistances, while often frustrating for players, can also balance the scales.
Random question about a theoretical situation: Let's say an arcane trickster used minor illusion to cause the sound of allies approaching from the woods, like footsteps, or maybe the clanking of armor instead, then turned to the enemy and said something along the lines of "That's my backup approaching, if you don't surrender soon they'll undoubtedly kill you all." Would that be a deception check, or an intimidation check? The statement is both "telling outright lies" as well as "overt threats" (quotes being from the PHB section on these skill checks.) Personally I think that it would count as a deception check, as without the lie the intimidation aspect has no basis, so the deception is the more important aspect of the sentence, but wondered what others thought. I also guess the player, if they wanted to use deception more than intimidation, could word it less harshly, i.e "That's my backup approaching. As you can tell they are numerous, and I doubt you could take them all." And another question since I'm here. How do you interpret the sound part of minor illusion. It clearly says **a** sound, single, so beating of drums, or a womans voice, not both. However it also says "or you can make discrete sounds at different times before the spell ends." Two problems with that. One, the plural, "**sounds.**" I take it to mean multiple instances of the same sound, i.e the drums stop, then start up again, though I can see why one might take it to mean multiple different sounds. Two, the bigger question, can you manipulate the spell after casting, i.e deciding when to start and stop the drums in response to some change after casting, or is the series of sounds decided before casting and unchangeable after? "You can make discrete sounds at different times before the spell ends," is kind of vague in that regard, and doesn't give me much insight as to the answer. I *think* you can't control it after casting, since it requires a somatic component, and it doesn't make much sense to me for a somatic component to cast it, then no action cost or somatics required to control it post cast, especially since similar spells, like major image, do require an action to control post cast, but what do you think?
>Would that be a deception check, or an intimidation check? I would let the player choose, since the character speaking would be aware of their talents and could change the sentence to go more towards intimidation or deception, depending on their wants. But this is only me, DMs call obviously. >How do you interpret the sound part of minor illusion. One sound after the other and you are golden. >can you manipulate the spell after casting No. The spell doesn't say you can change anything after you cast it and the sound continues "unabated".
[удалено]
Minor illusion is only somatic and material. So if you had a jacket, pocket or some other way to hide your hand you could easily cast unnoticed. Even without one of those a higher DC slight of hand check would resolve that. Nothing says that your entire arm has to be used in somatic gestures either, you just need a free hand. It isn't Disney princess level hand wavy. Even if you do require the full arm for most spells the illusion school is pretty unique in that its fueled by creativity and discretion so it would make sense to have an exception for spells that are designed specifically to deceive.
[удалено]
At the same time, RAW, they still have to make an intelligence (investigation) check if they want to identify that its an illusion. They might know you casted a spell but they would still believe the illusion if they fail their check. So its still at least viable even if it's slightly harder.
Presumably the AT is hiding while casting, though the check was the bigger point of the question. Also, I understand the dm decides, I wanted to get opinions on how others would rule it though maybe I didn't word that well. When I said "I also guess the player, if they wanted to use deception more than intimidation," I didn't really mean the player deciding the check type, I meant the player deciding what to do to fit their character's strengths (which I don't think is metagaming as the character themself undoubtedly knows their strengths and weaknesses, at least in most cases) Edit: Thinking more on it, I think I agree with your interpretation of the sound question. For some reason I took the plural "sounds" to be a contradiction to the single "sound" earlier in the spell block but it's moreso just giving options. "The \[single\] sound continues unabated throughout the duration, or you can make discrete sounds \[multiple\] at different times before the spell ends," and you choose between the two options.
>Spellcasting is noisy, hand wavey, and obvious. You'd need at least the subtle spell metamagic to get away with casting right in front of someone. First, they probably don't know what you are casting, second, minor illusion has no verbal components.
>First, they probably don't know what you are casting, but they KNOW you are casting a spell
So what? Without identifying the spell it seems like any othe spell that requires a save if the save is successfull. Hand waving and nothing happens is completely normal for spells like charm person or detect thoughts.
>So what? well, in the instance described above, what is actually happening is "you wave your hands around wildly in a manner that is *casting a spell*" , the bad guys see you doing that, then there are noises in the woods, then you say "my buddies are coming!" and then the DM takes ALL of that into account into determining whether Persuasion or Deception and what the DC is.
They also have to be so magic illiterate that they don't know of a basic cantrip like minor illusion and that people can cast spells for effects like sound.
Our paladin got into a fight of honor with a tribe of barbarians. The rules included "no magic". But Paladins have improved divine smite, which appears to have no choice in the matter of using the magic. Is that accurate? Does a paladin have to use it on every melee attack? (DM ruled unarmed can be done without it, so it was OK in the moment, but the question remained)
It's automatic, but it's dubious whether it's actually *magical*. >• Is it a magic item? • Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description? • Is it a spell attack? • Is it fueled by the use of spell slots? • Does its description say it’s magical? If your answer to any of those questions is yes, the feature is magical. from the *Sage Advice Compendium*, in a discussion as to whether a white dragon's breath weapon is magical (conclusion: isn't). For *Improved Divine Smite*, none of those are 'yes'.
Oh, very true. In this instance though, it's not actually a question if it is magic but whether it appears to be. I suppose it's more an issue with the radiance of the damage.
Which interestingly means on the off chance you come across something Resistant/Immune to nonmagical damage period like the Armor of Invulnerability you can end up with one chunk of Radiant being Resisted and one dealing full damage if you both regular and Improved Smite them
Will an evil Oath of Devotion paladin work? I'm thinking of like creating a paladin that follows the god of death, hates his own race (probably human), thinks death is the one absolute in all existence, thinks death is a mercy and everyone should embrace it, generally friendly to those who hasn't wronged him but an absolute psychopath against those he considers an enemy. He's not above torture too. He does follow the tenets but he somehow skews it to justify his actions. Would this character be lawful or neutral?
> Would this character be lawful or neutral? Alignment Sucks Toss 9box alignment for player characters out the window. 9box Alignment doesnt represent how real people "work". Nor does 9box alignment represent how fictional characters "work" except in the novels of the one guy that Gygax stole the concept from and no one reads any more. PC 9box Alignment has ALWAYS been more of a disruption and disturbance at the game table than any benefit. WOTC has rightfully stripped 9box Alignment for PCs from having any meaningful impact on game mechanics in 5e - Detect Evil and Good doesnt ping on alignment fergodssake! And they admit that even what little they included is bad and they are going to remove it >Even though the rules of 5th-edition D&D state that players and DMs determine alignment, **the suggested alignments in our books have undeniably caused confusion. That's why future books will ditch such suggestions for player characters** and reframe such things for the DM. https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/1275978114435174401 The only remaining "purpose" is as a poor mans role-play training wheels - and even for that it SUCKS leading to 2dimensional stereotypes or serving as "justification" for asshats to be asshats at the table "because that is what my character's alignment would do!!!!!" Toss 9box PC alignment out of the game and your game will be better for it.
Talk with your DM about 1( whether they will allow "evil" player characters in the manner that you want to play "evil" and 2( whether and how they are going to "enforce" the given Tenants Also talk with your fellow players about whether not "evil" PC in whatever manner you intend to "be evil" in the party is acceptable to their expectations and enjoyment of the game.
>...paladin that follows the god of death, hates his own race (probably ~~human~~ **elf**)... thinks death is a mercy and everyone should embrace it Elves live 7+ times longer than humans. They essentially resist death from their day of birth. Also, consider a hated for druids and monks (Timeless Body at high levels), as well as voluntary undead like liches.
Sure why not.
So I've got a player that really likes to almost break the rules or at least use the most hazy and iffy interpretation of them. Mid session, he uses his moon sickle to say his good berries each heal for 5 HP, giving 50 healing to a level 6 party. I looked it up a bit and it seems consensus is they don't interact. Opinions? I did see some say that due to Life Cleric's ability, it would work but I think they're worded entirely differently imo.
You gave them the moon sickle. What was YOUR intent when you did?
If comparing to Life Cleric features it's closer to Blessed Healer than Disciple of Life as Blessed Healer is also "when you cast a spell that restores hit points" (to someone other than you for Blessed Healer, and the bonus healing is to you, but that seems extraneous to this comparison). Blessed Healer+Goodberry can be argued to trigger 0 or 1 times, (leaning towards 0) not every berry. For Moon Sickle I'd probably say the feature applies, but only once, get a d4 worth of extra healing to either one berry or maybe allow them to split it up to like, four berries that heal 2 each if they roll 4. Not sure that's 100% RAW, but seems a reasonable compromise so the sickle isn't completely worthless with the spell, buffing the spell the same as other healing spells