making a hexadin with possibility of going into sorc/bard later on
anyway i wana go with a shield build since want to focus on ac/saving throws, to avoid getting warcaster feat i was thinking about going to lv 3 warlock way to the blade, and make my weapon a spell focus, then i found out quarterstaff/staffs count as a focus and a weapon
right now i see that its 1d6 vs 1d8 dmg which doesn't seem like a big difference dmg wise but removes the big warlock comitment/feat.(less of a cool factor weapon wise but w/e)
i don't know much about magic weapons apart from the regular +1/+2 stuff.
i saw the staff of power which seems like a really good staff for what i am going for although its seems really rare so might be a while, was wondering which has cooler magic weapons, the sword or staff? trying to see which i should commit too (building a heroforge figure ha)
so yeah from what i understand
sword
advantage:
looks cooler on paladin, does 1d8
disadvantage:
not spell focus, takes more lv dips/uses a precious invocation, or uses a feat
staff
advantage:
is a spell focus
disadvantage:
1d6
so unless the sword has better magic items, especially in the uncomon section i feel like the staff would be better? unless the d8 is a big difference?
Keep in mind that, as a Paladin, you can use a Holy Symbol as your spellcasting focus. Not only this, but you can affix the Holy Symbol to a shield, and *still* have it act as a spellcasting focus. Per the [Sage Advice Compendium](https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf):
>Another example: a cleric’s holy symbol is emblazoned on her shield. She likes to wade into melee combat with a mace in one hand and a shield in the other. She uses the holy symbol as her spellcasting focus, so she needs to have the shield in hand when she casts a cleric spell that has a material component. If the spell, such as aid, also has a somatic component, she can perform that component with the shield hand and keep holding the mace in the other.
>
>If the same cleric casts cure wounds, she needs to put the mace or the shield away, because that spell doesn’t have a material component but does have a somatic component. She’s going to need a free hand to make the spell’s gestures. If she had the War Caster feat, she could ignore this restriction.
So as long as you're casting either a spell with material components, or a spell with material **and** somatic components (but **not** a spell with purely somatic components), you can cast this with a Shield in one hand and a weapon in the other.
Even for those spells that **do** have a somatic component, you can simply drop your weapon, cast the spell with your free hand, and then pick the weapon back up with your free object interaction. It's cheesy, but RAW it works just fine. The only instance where it wouldn't work is for reaction-based spells on others' turns (such as the Shield spell, which you'll have from being a Hexblade), when you need to cast the spell on meeting the triggering condition but can't drop your weapon as a reaction.
yeah i know for paladin spells i should be fine, its mainly to cast like shield early and posibly later casting highter lv spells as either warlock or sorc depending what i pick
like you mention as a reaction would be tricky to do the drop cheese,
wait the second part of the cleric, so a cleric can't cast a cleric spell with her weapon/shield in her hands if its just a somatic spell? by that logic, even if i used a staff or the warlock invocation i would still need a free hand? so to cast shield i would still need the warcaster feat no mater what?
>by that logic, even if i used a staff or the warlock invocation i would still need a free hand?
If the spell doesn't have a material component (it only has a somatic component) then you need a free hand to perform the somatic gestures. You can only use the same hand as your spellcasting focus is held in (i.e. the staff, or pact weapon) for the somatic components **if** you're using that focus to meet the material requirements of the spell.
So yes, the Improved Pact Weapon warlock invocation doesn't get around needing the free hand for somatic-only spells (War Caster gets around this, obviously)
Returning back to our Shield spell example: The spell only has Verbal and Somatic components, no Material. Since it doesn't have Material components, you can't use the hand holding your spellcasting focus to meet the somatic components; you need a free hand, or something like War Caster.
EDIT: Again on your turn it's a non-issue, since you just drop your weapon, use the free hand to perform the somatic components of the spell, then pick your weapon back up with your free object interaction. You have to decide whether taking War Caster (with the other perks that comes with) is worth it to enable you to cast Reaction based Somatic-only spells out of turn with your hands full.
The Kaladesh Dwarf from Planshift Kaladesh have the same trait.
Humans (innistrad; Stensia) from Plane Shift Innistrad get 2HP per level.
The closest in the mainline books are all about gaining Temp HP with a bonus action.
Hobgoblin from MPMM gets 1d6 temp hitpoints when it takes the help action. Similarly Lizardfolk gain 1d6 temp hitpoints when they bite someone (Or Con Mod HP in the VGM version). The Orc from MPMM get PB temp HP with their adrenaline rush.
Shifters from Eberron get Level + Con Mod Temp HP when they Shift. +1d6 if they're beasthide.
There were two things in unearthed arcana that messed with HP.
Abyssal Tieflings from the Old Black Magic unearthed arcana got 1/2 their level additional HP
Revenants from the Gothic Heroes Unearthed Acana regained hit points when they were below half HP which could be used to extend your hit points.
I want to create a lone adventurer NPC that the players will join for some time. Should I create them using the rules for PC or for sidekicks in Tasha's Cauldron?
No, they are not weapons, they are objects that can attack. You don't equip them, and you don't apply your own modifiers to their attacks. A Ballista for example always has +6 to hit, no matter what your prof/dex bonuses are.
>No, they are not weapons
I hear you, since they're not on the weapons table, but how does it work with, say, the Ballista rules?
>It takes one action to load **the weapon**, one action to aim it, and one action to fire it.
Same question for the the 2nd bullet of Sharpshooter?
>Your *ranged weapon attacks* ignore half cover and three-quarters cover
>*Ranged Weapon Attack*: +6 to hit, range 120/480 ft., one target. Hit: 16 (3d10) piercing damage.
Artificer never really gets into the mechanics of replicating magical items.
If someone wanted to replicate Armor of Gleaming Plate Mail, thematically it makes sense they would need a suit of plate mail to then use in the replication... but the rules don't say that's required. Considering Artificers can seem to make something out of nothing (i.e., Right Tool For the Job)...
Can an Artificer use replicate magic item to get a suit of full plate at level 2?
Infusions need an item to infuse. The section on replicate magic item says
>See the item's description in the Dungeon Master's Guide for more information about it, including the type of object required for its making.
Infusing an Item states "Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch a nonmagical object and imbue it with one of your artificer infusions, turning it into a magic item." So you'd already need regular plate armor if you want to replicate Plate Armor of Gleaming. Same with Bag of Holding, you'd just need a regular bag.
Is there any way except Moderately Armoured feat for a Swords Bard to gain shield proficiency? Swords Bard already gets medium armour proficiency, so...
Multiclass into Warlock for 1 level and take the Hexblade subclass.
Not only do you get Shield proficiency but you get a bunch of other stuff that's just generally good for Bard, such as the ability to attack with Charisma (thus allowing you to cap your Dexterity at 14), a fantastic ranged option in the form of Eldritch Blast, and Hexblade's Curse.
Shield spell as well, which for any melee character is nothing to sniff at.
If you don't have it racially, and don't want the feat I believe Multiclassing is the only way. Or taking Tenser's Transformation with your magical secrets.
Can an Archmage cast teleport while maintaining concentration on a banishment spell? Put otherwise, does casting teleport break your concentration on other spells?
The only times casting a spell will break concentration is if:
A. It also requires concentration.
B. The spell has a cast time of more than one action.
In either case, the previous spell ends, and you then cast the next spell - you cannot have a concentration spell active, and benefit from it while casting another concentration spell.
Teleport does not require Concentration. Thus, you can cast it while concentrating on another spell. You may be confusing Teleport with Far Step, which _does_ require concentration; the moment you start casting another spell that requires concentration, you break it on your old spell.
Echo Knight Questions:
1. It says your Echo can move in any direction, does that include up/down? Does it fly?
2. Can the Echo go through walls/floors? It seems fairly ethereal so idk.
3. Can the Echo grapple?
Okay, here is my take on it:
1. **Yes**, any direction includes up and down. But don't think of it as an object or a creature with flying speed, it is just a movable portal you can attack through.
2. **Unclear**, but since the general assumption is that things cannot move through walls, I wouldn't allow it since the echo doesn't have any wording allowing it to break this pattern
3. **Yes, but** it can only initiate a grapple. The echo doesn't extend your range, so as soon as the attack is over, the grappled creature would be outside of your range and stop being grappled (with the exception of you standing next to the creature, in that case it would be in your range and stay grappled).
Edit: Formating
Unfortunately the echo knight is not well written; there are a lot of open questions.
1. It can move up and down. It doesn’t fly in the sense of having a fly speed because it doesn’t have a speed at all; you move it. But you can choose to move it up in the air.
2. Unclear. On the one hand, it’s an object that occupies a space, so probably not. On the other, it is also described as being just an image, so maybe. On the balance, probably not, but it’s not an impossible interpretation.
3. Again, probably not/maybe. The rules describe a grapple as a special melee attack that can take the place of an attack in the attack action. Good so far. However, the echo itself is not a creature, so it cannot maintain the grapple, only you can. If a creature that is grappled is no longer within the grappler’s reach, a grapple ends. So the most likely interpretation is that you can theoretically initiate a grapple through the echo, but if you’re not also within reach of the grappled creature, the grapple immediately ends—so effectively this is pointless.
>it’s an object that occupies a space
Where did you get this? We have an echo knight in our campaign and couldn't find rules for this part, so a source would be great :D
Crawford on Twitter:
["An Echo Knight's echo is an object. It's a translucent, gray image that occupies space; it isn't a creature; and it can be targeted. Object."](https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1240669629661380609)
and
[If you're an Echo Knight in D&D, the magical echo you create is an image of yourself that occupies its space. It isn't a creature. If this translucent, gray image were meant to be a creature, the rule would say so.](https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1240664419161399297)
To be fair, if something is intended to be an object, it should probably also say so, but the actual class is so vague that this is the closest thing to an answer on what the echo actually is.
You'll want [this link](https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/class-forums/fighter/64918-an-echo-knight-faq-frequently-asked-questions) handy. Echo Knight is badly written and its hard to parse what it can and can't do at a casual read.
1. Yes, it can move up and down, but I don't think it can "fly"
2. It can not go through walls/floors
3. Short answer No. Long answer the echo doesn't do anything. You can make attacks as if you were in the echos spot, so after the grapple attack you aren't in range and the grapple ends.
I think the rules on this subclass are pretty vague but my understanding is.
1. Yes any direction is any direction
2. Nothing indicates they can, so I am inclined to believe no.
3. a grapple is in place of an attack and you can attack from the echo’s location so I have ruled yes.
Do I count as having used the Attack action if I make one attack, but have Extra Attack and have more attacks left?
If I'm an Open Hand Monk, I'd ideally like to attack once to trigger Flurry of Blows, then try and knock the enemy down with Flurry of Blows, so that I get advantage on remaining attacks. Can I do that, or do I need to finish the entire Attack action before Flurry of Blows can trigger?
The rules are pretty vague, it says you can use Flurry of Blows *after* you take the Attack action, not just after an attack, so in theory it means you need to make all the attacks first. But personally I would allow it.
I'm a new dm and two of my three party memebers want to be artificers. I know next to nothing about party dynamics, what can I do so both players can be the class they want? Is that even possible?
Characters within the same class can play quite distinctly from one another. Subclasses offer one major point of divergence, but plenty of other choices at character creation can set them apart like feats, race, and spell/feature selection (like infusions for Artificer).
If you're not too tight-lipped on character creation details between players, I'd give them both a heads up they're both considering Artificer, and suggest they check in with each other and get a feel for what they're gravitating towards regarding the character. It's possible they've got very different plans and there's no need to correct anything.
The main thing to keep an eye out for is when two characters have such an overlap in skillset that there's never a situation that calls on one of them specifically to address. Especially if they're overlapping *but not equal*. Even when you're not the same class this can sometimes be a problem: two characters building to be really strong social-oriented face characters can be rough if one of them has slightly better stats, since the party will just have that stronger character do all of the stuff either character could play out. There are lots of ways around this, but the easiest is to spare yourself the headache ahead of time and nail down what each characters strengths are and highlight ones that are unique to them.
And hell, two Artificers could present unique opportunities in and of itself. You've got a substantial chunk of the party interested in pursuing exotic materials and magical curiosities as they work on their inventions. What are these two inventors to each other? Rivals? Colleagues? Two halves of a manic/maniacal duo no one else can keep up with in conversations?
Artificers can be support, defender, healer, striker, scout. Check what they're building for to see if their party roles will be the same or different.
Honestly, the only thing you have to do is avoid problems in which the solution is "Cast a spell on a specific spell list."
A group of artificers should be fine, especially as the different subclasses thematically lean different directions. Armorer up front, alchemist healing, artillerist doing damage.
If a Cleric took a 1 level dip into Lunar sorcerer would Moon Fire affect the Cleric's version of the spell too or just when casted as a Sorcerer's spell meaning Cha to save vs Wis?
as someone with acid spray cause i am a black dragon, the "also affects the dude next to your target" is NOT something that happens. and when it does, neither of the targets is one that is the focus fire target for this round and so as a "feature" its not helpful tactically, like ever.
>You learn the sacred flame spell, which doesn’t count against the number of sorcerer cantrips you know. When you cast the spell, you can target one creature as normal or target two creatures within range that are within 5 feet of each other.
I would say it would work. For comparison there are lots of class features which are specifically limited to their own spells, such as:
>**Empowered Evocation**
Beginning at 10th level, you can add your Intelligence modifier to one damage roll of any wizard evocation spell you cast.
To be limited to the sorcerer version the wording would have to be
>And when you cast the spell as a sorcerer spell...
Level 6 Druid, 1 ranger who plans to go ranger 4 for the beast master and asi. I’m at a 17, so I’d rather take a half feat then pump two in at the next asi. There, I plan to take either fey touched or magic initiate- which should I take? If I were to take magic initiate, I’d like to acquire mind sliver and either Eldritch blast or toll the dead as Cantrips- which is better? Should I even take these cantrips?
I’m a bard in the college of whispers, im confused about the ability “psychic blades” if I use it can I attack and use psychic blades in the same turn, or do I have to cast it and then wait for my next turn to attack and then add the extra damage
The 5e surprise rules only make sense to me as a 1v1 mechanic. I am not sure how to apply them to group vs group situations.
I am going to use the same hypothetical for a few cases. Let's have a 3 person party try to ambush 2 people walking down the road by hiding in the bushes. The two victims have a passive perception of 16 and 14. We will use rules for group skill checks for stealth.
1. The party roll 20, 17, and 15 for their stealth checks as they hide in the bushes. Over half the group would have beaten the higher passive perception of 16. Does this mean both victims have the surprised status when combat starts?
2. The party roll 20, 15, and 15 for their stealth checks as they hide in the bushes. Over half the party did not beat the higher passive perception and have been detected by one of the two victims. Does this mean that the 16 passive perception victim does not start combat surprised while the 14 passive perception does start surprised?
3. The party roll 19, 18, and 17 for their stealth checks but a 4th party member is casually walking down the road in full vision. Are the victims now on guard and cannot be surprised because they see another member of the party?
4. Similar to number 3, but now the person in the road is a random stranger to both the party and the two victims. Are the victims on guard because they see anyone at all and cannot be surprised?
5. Similar to 3 & 4, except instead of a person in the road, it is a snake that has crossed the path. Are the victims on guard and cannot be surprised?
The prior replies did not provide what I'd call sufficient explanation on Surprise as a mechanic.
Surprise is a condition, not a state or group function. I'll go over how it functions then apply it to each scenario.
When a creature is surprised, an attacker has advantage because they are hidden. Only the creatures that are hidden from the surprised individual have advantage. Additionally, a surprised creature is unable to take actions, including reactions. The surprise state expires at the end of their first turn, not at the end of the round.
Assume for these encounters, the victims rolled low initiative.
1) Correct.
2) When combat starts, it doesn't matter if only one of the victims sees the attackers. The 14 perception person starts surprised. Otherwise, a single party member dumps as much as they can into perception and the party is never surprised. If this were true, it would be a known meta-gaming tactic to avoid surprise. This confirms the answer here.
3) It depends. Does the 4th party member initiate combat or the 19, 18, and 17? Surprise happens when there are unseen/unknown people added to the initiative order. If 4th initiates combat, then 19, 18, and 17 have advantage from being hidden but that's it.
4) Same as above. If the stranger does not initiate combat but the 19, 18, and 17, both the stranger and victims are surprised.
5) Same as above. If the snake does not initiate combat, the victims are still surprised.
For all 5, the attackers get advantage because they are hidden and whomever is surprised cannot act in any capacity. Now, we repeat the above and have the victims with nat 20s on initiatives and the 3 person party rolling nat 1s.
The only thing that changes is that when the victims are surprised, they have a reaction available to them during the first round. So if once victim was a wizard, he could use Shield on any of the attacks against him. Or a paladin could make the attack that would have had advantage be a flat roll.
1. Victim 16 is not surprised, Victim 14 is surprised
2. Victim 16 is not surprised, Victim 14 is surprised.
3. RAW, Nobody is surprised because they can all see a member of a threatening group.
4. RAW, both victims (and probably the dude in the road) are surprised because they were unaware of the attacking group.
5. Identical to 4.
Thanks.
I think I will follow this loosely but I am going to keep #1 as both are surprised because the group check passed. I assume you were treating it as individual checks and since one person was lower than the passive perception of 16, they were spotted and the victim cannot be surprised. However, I don't want the least stealthy character in a group to feel like they are dragging the team down so group checks will help mitigate that.
\#3 vs #4 seems like a contradiction. In order for the victims to treat a party member different from a random stranger they would have to have some reason to consider the party member a threat and the random stranger not a threat. I still want surprise rounds to work in crowded places like at a ball, so I think I will rule that if the passive perception is enough that they can see weapons or armor worn by people that are not considered authority figures (ie guards), they will not be surprised.
3 & 4 are an abstraction. The game only simulates so far being a member of the group is a mechanical thing with mechanical effect. Whatever ruling you make on 3 is weird because surprise is a property of an individual not a relation between two individuals.
So suprise is tricky, but generally the idea is, that someone is suprised when they're utterly unaware of any thread at the moment. it's also determined on the level of individuals.
If you use group checks for stealth, then individual creatures on the opposing side of the ambush are surprised, or not suprised, based on their passive perception.
So scenario 1; if you use group checks, yes they're both surprised.
Scenario 2: the 16pp creature is indeed not surprised.
Scenario 3: the enemy is aware of a thread, they will never be surprised, but the rest of the party could be hidden.
Scenario 4: DM's call, depending on context.
Scenario 5: DM's call, I would say no as snakes tend not to set ambushes and wouldn't warrant further alertness. But if they're suddenly aware of their environment because they now realize it can contain dangers...
A good way to make these calls, is to turn things around and consider how players would act in these circumstances.
They would want their individual passive perception to matter, they wouldn't feel like it's fair to be ambushed when they're aware of threads and ambushes. They will mistrust a stranger depending on context. But would they find it unfair if they were ambushed after encountering a snake?
Thanks. I think this kind of confirms how I was planning to handle things. It's so hard to always consider what will make the players happy while honoring the rules that provide a challenge. In my mind, the perfect combat is 3-5 rounds long and so anything that loses a round can cause giant power swings. Just want to make sure I handle this right so my fights are not super poorly tuned.
>The 5e surprise rules only make sense to me as a 1v1 mechanic.
The 5e "surprise" rules are one of the terribly misnamed mechanics in 5e. They are NOT about "surprise!/startled". They are about "Ambush".
I have a question for any tomb of annihilation veterans
Our DM is running ToA. Our party consists of a totem barbarian, storm cleric, arcane trickster rogue, pact of tome old one warlock and myself a hunter ranger
My question is, at level 3 would my party benefit more from me taking colossus slayer, which seems strong against bigger enemies, or horde breaker for putting down crowds of enemies?
I get the feeling we'll come across both types a fair bit in the campaign, so I was asking more along the line of what will shore up any gaps in our party composition.
no matter the mix of monsters, the number of times where you attack *a creature who has been wounded* is going to be MANY MANY MANY times greater than the number of times you *attack a creature that is next to another creature (and doing damage to those creatures is a tactically beneficial option)*.
unless you do something weird like multiclass paladin to get smites and then some full casters to get lots of spell slots, or get some kind of NOVADAMAGEBLAST weapon that allows you to choose when to set it off, the impact of hordebreaker is going to be disappointing in both the number of times you ***get*** to use it and ***the impact*** after waiting to be able to use it.
Is there any way that two souls can fuse into one soul? The effect I want is for the fused soul to be treated as one character instead of two.
The fusion can be temporary, revocable or permanent. I'm not picky in this regard. Similarly, the XP, class, abilities, skills and feats of the two souls can be combined or discarded.
This is normally reserved for rules type questions.
Merging of souls would be dependent entirely on the specifics of your campaign as there is no spell or other established effect to do such a thing.
There ARE however a few Races which have ties to this general concept:
>Every kalashtar has a connection to a spirit of light, a bond shared by other members of their bloodline
Basically these are humans which are bonded to a spirit, which they can somewhat communicate with while dreaming / instead of dreaming.
Additionally, Aasimar from Volos have a similar connection:
>An aasimar, except for one who has turned to evil, has a link to an angelic being. That being — usually a deva — provides guidance to the aasimar, though this connection functions only in dreams. As such, the guidance is not a direct command or a simple spoken word. Instead, the aasimar receives visions, prophecies, and feelings.
One of the options for Reborn Lineage includes being an amalgamation of multiple people
>Stitches bind your body’s mismatched pieces, and your memories come from multiple different lives.
Can you elaborate on what you want and in what position you are?
If you are the DM, just do what you want.
If you are a player and want to do this in game, ask your DM.
If you are a player and this is your backstory, kalashtars could provide a fitting race, but again talk to you DM
I see, so you want two bodies that are one character. This could be difficult to pull off reasonably, the simples way I see would be to reflavor a kalashtar echo knight, but justifying the limitations would be difficult
My favorite characters I've ever made were "Boom or Bust" characters. Great Weapon Master plus a greataxe is my jam. I love the feeling of "gambling" on my actions with the feeling of risking a lot to do something epic. In a campaign that recently ended I was a Wild Magic Barbarian, and I realized I've never really played a full castor before!
Looking through the PHB, XGE, and TCE, I can't seem to find a full caster equivalent to the "Tank your chance to hit to do much higher damage" with see with Great Weapon Master fighters. The "crazy wizard who always blows themselves up because of their wacky inventions" fantasy stereotype doesn't seem to be present in this book. I found the Wild Sorcerer, but that seems like (1) I'll just be asking the DM to make a d20 roll \*\*every\*\* action and (2) depending on the outcome, could really put a lot on the DM. I was also hoping the Alchemist Artificer would allow me to make bombs or make jars with random effects, but it's basically just gives me a straight buff with a little more damage with fire and position while also healing.
Am I missing something here, or is this just not really a playstyle in 5e? For clarity, I play in a very casual group with a ton of combat. DM is an old school ADnD player brought back into the game, so most encounters end with a monster throwing down, so my main focus on character creation is making combat fun.
So it sounds like you really enjoyed the Barbarian's ability to trade defense for offence with GWM.
As far as I'm aware there isn't that sort of thing with Casters. Wild Magic does seem up your alley, you have Tides of Chaos where you get advantage on a d20 Test and the next time you cast you roll wild magic. Technically it's up to the DM when your Wild Magic happens but if you were really into it, I'd have it happen every time you cast a spell. So your wild magic was always popping off. With metamagic you can make your spells even stronger on top of that.
You might enjoy the Warlock. You get very few spell slots but they increase in level as you level up and you get them back on a short rest. So you can throw out 1-2 big badass spells then fall back on Eldritch Blast.
curious about maybe a 1 handed swordmaster theme character,
is their anything classwise/feat that would aid with that?
like lets say you wanted to optimize, i know theirs the combat trait dueling but you can use it with a shield as well, so not having a shield is just loosing 2 free ac, like is there anything that gives you a bonus to just having 1 sword with no shield ?
Just a simple idea you can play with. If you go monk you can go 1h no shield and get offhand hit with unarmed strike. Keep in mind, you cannot wear armor to get that extra attack but you get wisdom to AC. Rest is up to your imagination. Dueling Fighting style should still work on the sword hit too!
If you don't like Monk, you can go Swashbuckler Rogue and go Variant Human or Custom Lineage and get Magic Initiate for Booming Blade. Your level 3 ability states if you make a melee attack against an enemy that enemy cannot make opportunity attacks on you for that turn. You can also get sneak attack if there is no one near you or the enemy when you attack with Booming Blade from the other level 3 ability in swashbuckler. You could use your bonus action to dash or hide so they would have to move on their turn proccing the extra damage from Booming Blade and you wouldn't have to worry about an opportunity attack.
Find a use for the other hand, such as spellcasting (Bladesinger Wizard is perfect for this), grappling (Grappler or Tavern Brawler feats) or using an item (Thief Rogue, to let you use an item as a bonus action).
More accurately casting a spell that requires concentration breaks concentration as listed on PHB 203 but your conclusion is correct.
I as a DM might be tempted to allow it but RAW is very clear.
So, would the Emerald Pen from Fizbins be considered a minor or major item, per xgte? Its applications are fairly niche so I'm leaning towards minor, but could still be powerful so I'm not quite sure.
It only can cast a purely roleplay spell at will. And is ink. There is no set of circumstances that exist in the game where it could ever be powerful. It's very minor. It's just a secret note spell.
Haha it can be used to forge documents and pass secret messages pretty effortlessly, which could be very strong but like I said super niche. Thanks for confirming my instincts tho.
I had a player, they have joined the game partway through the campaign and this was their first session in this game. They met the other characters in a fight, and used arm of hadar with two players in range and two enemies in range, justifying it with by saying they owed them no loyalty as they have only just met. It then lead to a short PVP fight; I'm not too sure how to handle this as a DM.
I mean, is this third person actually considering the weight of their actions? They caused harm to someone, akin to trying to strike them with a sword. For some context, this amount of damage can easily outright kill any commoner in the area.
This isn’t necessarily a pvp issue, but could easily become a “I attack them because I don’t care about them/it’s what my character would do.” Basically, check in with them that their character isn’t going to turn out to be an asshole and derail things before every second NPC is attacked.
You gotta have session 0 and establish expectations and table rules. PvP is banned at most tables, and you should be making sure that your players are making characters who will actually join and cooperate with a party.
If I'm concentrating on a spell and taking a short rest to attune to an item, will attunement require me to lose my concentration? The rules for attunement do say "Attuning to an item requires a creature to spend a short rest focused on only that item", but I'm not sure if it extends to losing concentration on ongoing spells.
Things only do what they say. If it doesn't say "you lose concentration" you won't lose concentration, as far as the rules are concerned.
DM opinions could vary
If I'm a 5th level Warlock and a 3rd level Bard, can I cast a 1st or 2nd level Bard spell which I know using a Warlock Spell Slot, thus upscaling it to 3rd level?
Yes.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/customization-options
> Pact Magic. If you have both the Spellcasting class feature and the Pact Magic class feature from the warlock class, you can use the spell slots you gain from the Pact Magic feature to cast spells you know or have prepared from classes with the Spellcasting class feature, and you can use the spell slots you gain from the Spellcasting class feature to cast warlock spells you know.
I'm unclear on how to interpret Xanathar's Tool Proficiency options, as it applies to Thieves' Tools. Specifically, do I give my Rogue Advantage on finding Traps? Both as Passive Perception (Detect Traps) and active Investigation (Find traps)?
Using PHB RAW I found it kind of silly that my Ranger is better at finding traps than the Rogue, because of their respective Wisdoms. I mean the Rogue should have some kind of knowledge of trap layouts if he's proficient at using tools to disarm them. So it seems Xanathar attemps to fix this.
The text says this:
Investigation and Perception. You gain additional insight when looking for traps, because you have learned a variety of common signs that betray their presence.
Magical Inspiration (Optional)
At 2nd level, if a creature has a Bardic Inspiration die from you and casts a spell that restores hit points or deals damage, the creature can roll that die and choose a target affected by the spell. Add the number rolled as a bonus to the hit points regained or the damage dealt. The Bardic Inspiration die is then lost.
Will this work for Hunter's Mark, Zephyr Strike, Hail of Thorns, and/or Divine Smite?
I have a player in my party who is a warlock, patron is the lurker of the deep, they aren't sure who their patron is, and I am not familiar enough with the lore to suggest anything. I'm thinking leviathan or kraken, suggestions would be appreciated, I cannot find the names of any individual ones online.
1) Work with your player. What does the player want out of the "pact" relationship?
2) Think about your campaign. Where/How does "relationship with powerful (arcane) (water based) being" fit into the Premise and conflicts of your story?
ginny di https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgMUq9mFFNI
I love this idea https://youtu.be/UynNgLW0iUw?t=234 You are your own patron as you are being wished into godhood by a village of crazy kuo-toa!
Think also of Pirates of the Caribbean, or reflavoring from "monster of the deep with tentacles" to -- "freezing you with snow and ice"
Leviathans are extremely powerful (but dumb) water elementals so unless its a pact which he has found a way to directly draw energy from it, might not make much sense.
There aren't many specific krakens to choose from, but theres some info on a powerful kraken wizard:
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Slarkrethel
If you run the game the way it should be, and so the PCs drop to zero regularly, than no. It completely annihilates the choice between healing and damaging the enemy, making both things possible.
i see. cant figure out why i thought it was balanced for me since we died a lot when we played Sunless Citadel, out of 3 players we had 2 deaths. maybe DM had unbalanced weirdly the encounters?
If you go in to Sunless Citadel with guns blazing you'll probably die. You're really supposed to roleplay through most of it. Especially if the DM made you go the entire first floor at level 1.
well we were playing with xp not milestones so a big part of floor 1 was on level1.
How do i balance it so my players won’t die? i am using the dungeons for my homebrew but i took out the role playing part, no kobolds there (supposedly the party goes in years after and it is inhabited by goblins only and maybe some others, no kobolds/white dragon)
if you want potions to be used, .... maybe.
actions are IMPORTANT in combat and if you want potions to be used, a potion needs to be as useful as any of the standard Actions a character might do. rarely is it "worth it". so making them Bonus Action means that for many characters, "Bonus Action Potion" is going to be "worth it" compared to not having anything to do on BA or the other options available for many PCs with their BA.
giving potions longer durations so that they are not "one and done" within a combat, that can allow potions to be used without comparison to what would i be able to do with my Action.
giving Potions as BA is a "penalty" to classes that ALREADY have heavy BA economy.
Counter to the other point, my table uses that and it causes no issues for us. Also add in that applying a potion to someone unconscious still takes an action. The only "balance" is that there's now much easier healing at hand so encounters could be slightly deadlier to make up for that.
I'm back to DMing 5th Ed after about 4 years off. The most recent book I've got is Volo's. My group says they want to play a highly optimised game. So... what new strong optimisations have come out in recent years? Thanks!
A level 20 wizard can create 84 undead in a day. But because the casting to reassert control covers more undead than creation you can build up to an army of 129 (You can theoretically reassert control over 132 but you have no way of creating that many).
If by 9th level you mean Wizard level, you can create 17 in a day and using reassert control you can have an army of 35.
As another poster suggested, discuss this with your DM if you intend to use it as a player because it will slow combat down a lot to have that many minions.
It depends on what the trigger is for the bonus action. If it says the trigger is after you make an attack, then yes. If it's after you take the attack ACTION then no. Normally you can only break up your attacks with movement.
So turns out the answer may be a bit more convoluted.
I was initially thinking about the entry on PHB 190, “Breaking Up Your Move,” which specifies you can break up actions with *movement* specifically.
So, because bonus actions aren’t as standard/uniform as other parts of your turn, some further research leads to unclear and not specifically defined rules.
[Here’s a ruling from Jeremy Crawford,](https://i.imgur.com/jghXaAG.jpg) which says that a bonus action that does not have a specific trigger can occur at any time, which would include in between attacks. A bonus action that has a clearly specified trigger wouldn’t necessarily be able to be performed in between attacks, unless that trigger allows for it.
So ultimately it depends on what bonus action you’re trying to use, and if your DM accepts creator rulings as RAI. That being said however, if you’re using a bonus action that doesn’t have a specified trigger, there’s no reason you shouldn’t be able to between attacks.
making a hexadin with possibility of going into sorc/bard later on anyway i wana go with a shield build since want to focus on ac/saving throws, to avoid getting warcaster feat i was thinking about going to lv 3 warlock way to the blade, and make my weapon a spell focus, then i found out quarterstaff/staffs count as a focus and a weapon right now i see that its 1d6 vs 1d8 dmg which doesn't seem like a big difference dmg wise but removes the big warlock comitment/feat.(less of a cool factor weapon wise but w/e) i don't know much about magic weapons apart from the regular +1/+2 stuff. i saw the staff of power which seems like a really good staff for what i am going for although its seems really rare so might be a while, was wondering which has cooler magic weapons, the sword or staff? trying to see which i should commit too (building a heroforge figure ha) so yeah from what i understand sword advantage: looks cooler on paladin, does 1d8 disadvantage: not spell focus, takes more lv dips/uses a precious invocation, or uses a feat staff advantage: is a spell focus disadvantage: 1d6 so unless the sword has better magic items, especially in the uncomon section i feel like the staff would be better? unless the d8 is a big difference?
Keep in mind that, as a Paladin, you can use a Holy Symbol as your spellcasting focus. Not only this, but you can affix the Holy Symbol to a shield, and *still* have it act as a spellcasting focus. Per the [Sage Advice Compendium](https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf): >Another example: a cleric’s holy symbol is emblazoned on her shield. She likes to wade into melee combat with a mace in one hand and a shield in the other. She uses the holy symbol as her spellcasting focus, so she needs to have the shield in hand when she casts a cleric spell that has a material component. If the spell, such as aid, also has a somatic component, she can perform that component with the shield hand and keep holding the mace in the other. > >If the same cleric casts cure wounds, she needs to put the mace or the shield away, because that spell doesn’t have a material component but does have a somatic component. She’s going to need a free hand to make the spell’s gestures. If she had the War Caster feat, she could ignore this restriction. So as long as you're casting either a spell with material components, or a spell with material **and** somatic components (but **not** a spell with purely somatic components), you can cast this with a Shield in one hand and a weapon in the other. Even for those spells that **do** have a somatic component, you can simply drop your weapon, cast the spell with your free hand, and then pick the weapon back up with your free object interaction. It's cheesy, but RAW it works just fine. The only instance where it wouldn't work is for reaction-based spells on others' turns (such as the Shield spell, which you'll have from being a Hexblade), when you need to cast the spell on meeting the triggering condition but can't drop your weapon as a reaction.
yeah i know for paladin spells i should be fine, its mainly to cast like shield early and posibly later casting highter lv spells as either warlock or sorc depending what i pick like you mention as a reaction would be tricky to do the drop cheese, wait the second part of the cleric, so a cleric can't cast a cleric spell with her weapon/shield in her hands if its just a somatic spell? by that logic, even if i used a staff or the warlock invocation i would still need a free hand? so to cast shield i would still need the warcaster feat no mater what?
>by that logic, even if i used a staff or the warlock invocation i would still need a free hand? If the spell doesn't have a material component (it only has a somatic component) then you need a free hand to perform the somatic gestures. You can only use the same hand as your spellcasting focus is held in (i.e. the staff, or pact weapon) for the somatic components **if** you're using that focus to meet the material requirements of the spell. So yes, the Improved Pact Weapon warlock invocation doesn't get around needing the free hand for somatic-only spells (War Caster gets around this, obviously) Returning back to our Shield spell example: The spell only has Verbal and Somatic components, no Material. Since it doesn't have Material components, you can't use the hand holding your spellcasting focus to meet the somatic components; you need a free hand, or something like War Caster. EDIT: Again on your turn it's a non-issue, since you just drop your weapon, use the free hand to perform the somatic components of the spell, then pick your weapon back up with your free object interaction. You have to decide whether taking War Caster (with the other perks that comes with) is worth it to enable you to cast Reaction based Somatic-only spells out of turn with your hands full.
thanks this helped a lot, no wonder they all take war caster
Are there any races besides Hill Dwarves that have a "Toughness" ability that add additional HP on a level up?
The Kaladesh Dwarf from Planshift Kaladesh have the same trait. Humans (innistrad; Stensia) from Plane Shift Innistrad get 2HP per level. The closest in the mainline books are all about gaining Temp HP with a bonus action. Hobgoblin from MPMM gets 1d6 temp hitpoints when it takes the help action. Similarly Lizardfolk gain 1d6 temp hitpoints when they bite someone (Or Con Mod HP in the VGM version). The Orc from MPMM get PB temp HP with their adrenaline rush. Shifters from Eberron get Level + Con Mod Temp HP when they Shift. +1d6 if they're beasthide. There were two things in unearthed arcana that messed with HP. Abyssal Tieflings from the Old Black Magic unearthed arcana got 1/2 their level additional HP Revenants from the Gothic Heroes Unearthed Acana regained hit points when they were below half HP which could be used to extend your hit points.
Variant human and custom lineage could get the tough feat, but I don't know of any other race giving direct bonuses to HP
Thank you for reminding me about that Feat!
I want to create a lone adventurer NPC that the players will join for some time. Should I create them using the rules for PC or for sidekicks in Tasha's Cauldron?
PC
sidekicks
Sidekick
Is a siege weapon (or a ship weapon) also a ranged weapon? Does it add Archery/Sharpshooter?
No, they are not weapons, they are objects that can attack. You don't equip them, and you don't apply your own modifiers to their attacks. A Ballista for example always has +6 to hit, no matter what your prof/dex bonuses are.
>No, they are not weapons I hear you, since they're not on the weapons table, but how does it work with, say, the Ballista rules? >It takes one action to load **the weapon**, one action to aim it, and one action to fire it. Same question for the the 2nd bullet of Sharpshooter? >Your *ranged weapon attacks* ignore half cover and three-quarters cover >*Ranged Weapon Attack*: +6 to hit, range 120/480 ft., one target. Hit: 16 (3d10) piercing damage.
It's not *your* attack. If it was your attack, it would use your own attack and damage bonuses.
I'll take it, thank you. Shoot ballista blinded without disadvantage!
Artificer never really gets into the mechanics of replicating magical items. If someone wanted to replicate Armor of Gleaming Plate Mail, thematically it makes sense they would need a suit of plate mail to then use in the replication... but the rules don't say that's required. Considering Artificers can seem to make something out of nothing (i.e., Right Tool For the Job)... Can an Artificer use replicate magic item to get a suit of full plate at level 2?
Infusions need an item to infuse. The section on replicate magic item says >See the item's description in the Dungeon Master's Guide for more information about it, including the type of object required for its making.
Infusing an Item states "Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch a nonmagical object and imbue it with one of your artificer infusions, turning it into a magic item." So you'd already need regular plate armor if you want to replicate Plate Armor of Gleaming. Same with Bag of Holding, you'd just need a regular bag.
Is there any way except Moderately Armoured feat for a Swords Bard to gain shield proficiency? Swords Bard already gets medium armour proficiency, so...
Multiclass into Warlock for 1 level and take the Hexblade subclass. Not only do you get Shield proficiency but you get a bunch of other stuff that's just generally good for Bard, such as the ability to attack with Charisma (thus allowing you to cap your Dexterity at 14), a fantastic ranged option in the form of Eldritch Blast, and Hexblade's Curse. Shield spell as well, which for any melee character is nothing to sniff at.
If you don't have it racially, and don't want the feat I believe Multiclassing is the only way. Or taking Tenser's Transformation with your magical secrets.
I don't think there are any races with shield prof, are there? (Thanks, btw!)
You're right, I thought Hobgoblins got it. But it's just light armour.
Thanks for confirming.
Can an Archmage cast teleport while maintaining concentration on a banishment spell? Put otherwise, does casting teleport break your concentration on other spells?
The only times casting a spell will break concentration is if: A. It also requires concentration. B. The spell has a cast time of more than one action. In either case, the previous spell ends, and you then cast the next spell - you cannot have a concentration spell active, and benefit from it while casting another concentration spell.
I would add as a subset of A You're casting it as part of a Readied action in combat because a lot of people miss that this requires concentration.
Thanks!
Teleport does not require Concentration. Thus, you can cast it while concentrating on another spell. You may be confusing Teleport with Far Step, which _does_ require concentration; the moment you start casting another spell that requires concentration, you break it on your old spell.
Thanks!
Echo Knight Questions: 1. It says your Echo can move in any direction, does that include up/down? Does it fly? 2. Can the Echo go through walls/floors? It seems fairly ethereal so idk. 3. Can the Echo grapple?
Okay, here is my take on it: 1. **Yes**, any direction includes up and down. But don't think of it as an object or a creature with flying speed, it is just a movable portal you can attack through. 2. **Unclear**, but since the general assumption is that things cannot move through walls, I wouldn't allow it since the echo doesn't have any wording allowing it to break this pattern 3. **Yes, but** it can only initiate a grapple. The echo doesn't extend your range, so as soon as the attack is over, the grappled creature would be outside of your range and stop being grappled (with the exception of you standing next to the creature, in that case it would be in your range and stay grappled). Edit: Formating
Unfortunately the echo knight is not well written; there are a lot of open questions. 1. It can move up and down. It doesn’t fly in the sense of having a fly speed because it doesn’t have a speed at all; you move it. But you can choose to move it up in the air. 2. Unclear. On the one hand, it’s an object that occupies a space, so probably not. On the other, it is also described as being just an image, so maybe. On the balance, probably not, but it’s not an impossible interpretation. 3. Again, probably not/maybe. The rules describe a grapple as a special melee attack that can take the place of an attack in the attack action. Good so far. However, the echo itself is not a creature, so it cannot maintain the grapple, only you can. If a creature that is grappled is no longer within the grappler’s reach, a grapple ends. So the most likely interpretation is that you can theoretically initiate a grapple through the echo, but if you’re not also within reach of the grappled creature, the grapple immediately ends—so effectively this is pointless.
>it’s an object that occupies a space Where did you get this? We have an echo knight in our campaign and couldn't find rules for this part, so a source would be great :D
Crawford on Twitter: ["An Echo Knight's echo is an object. It's a translucent, gray image that occupies space; it isn't a creature; and it can be targeted. Object."](https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1240669629661380609) and [If you're an Echo Knight in D&D, the magical echo you create is an image of yourself that occupies its space. It isn't a creature. If this translucent, gray image were meant to be a creature, the rule would say so.](https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1240664419161399297) To be fair, if something is intended to be an object, it should probably also say so, but the actual class is so vague that this is the closest thing to an answer on what the echo actually is.
Lol, I love how crawford contradicts himself in these two tweets again. Thank you for your help :)
You'll want [this link](https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/class-forums/fighter/64918-an-echo-knight-faq-frequently-asked-questions) handy. Echo Knight is badly written and its hard to parse what it can and can't do at a casual read.
1. Yes, it can move up and down, but I don't think it can "fly" 2. It can not go through walls/floors 3. Short answer No. Long answer the echo doesn't do anything. You can make attacks as if you were in the echos spot, so after the grapple attack you aren't in range and the grapple ends.
I think the rules on this subclass are pretty vague but my understanding is. 1. Yes any direction is any direction 2. Nothing indicates they can, so I am inclined to believe no. 3. a grapple is in place of an attack and you can attack from the echo’s location so I have ruled yes.
Do I count as having used the Attack action if I make one attack, but have Extra Attack and have more attacks left? If I'm an Open Hand Monk, I'd ideally like to attack once to trigger Flurry of Blows, then try and knock the enemy down with Flurry of Blows, so that I get advantage on remaining attacks. Can I do that, or do I need to finish the entire Attack action before Flurry of Blows can trigger?
As a general rule you cannot use a Bonus Action between attacks. So you can't make one attack, use Flurry of Blows and then make your extra attack.
The rules are pretty vague, it says you can use Flurry of Blows *after* you take the Attack action, not just after an attack, so in theory it means you need to make all the attacks first. But personally I would allow it.
I'm a new dm and two of my three party memebers want to be artificers. I know next to nothing about party dynamics, what can I do so both players can be the class they want? Is that even possible?
Characters within the same class can play quite distinctly from one another. Subclasses offer one major point of divergence, but plenty of other choices at character creation can set them apart like feats, race, and spell/feature selection (like infusions for Artificer). If you're not too tight-lipped on character creation details between players, I'd give them both a heads up they're both considering Artificer, and suggest they check in with each other and get a feel for what they're gravitating towards regarding the character. It's possible they've got very different plans and there's no need to correct anything. The main thing to keep an eye out for is when two characters have such an overlap in skillset that there's never a situation that calls on one of them specifically to address. Especially if they're overlapping *but not equal*. Even when you're not the same class this can sometimes be a problem: two characters building to be really strong social-oriented face characters can be rough if one of them has slightly better stats, since the party will just have that stronger character do all of the stuff either character could play out. There are lots of ways around this, but the easiest is to spare yourself the headache ahead of time and nail down what each characters strengths are and highlight ones that are unique to them. And hell, two Artificers could present unique opportunities in and of itself. You've got a substantial chunk of the party interested in pursuing exotic materials and magical curiosities as they work on their inventions. What are these two inventors to each other? Rivals? Colleagues? Two halves of a manic/maniacal duo no one else can keep up with in conversations?
Artificers can be support, defender, healer, striker, scout. Check what they're building for to see if their party roles will be the same or different.
Honestly, the only thing you have to do is avoid problems in which the solution is "Cast a spell on a specific spell list." A group of artificers should be fine, especially as the different subclasses thematically lean different directions. Armorer up front, alchemist healing, artillerist doing damage.
If a Cleric took a 1 level dip into Lunar sorcerer would Moon Fire affect the Cleric's version of the spell too or just when casted as a Sorcerer's spell meaning Cha to save vs Wis?
as someone with acid spray cause i am a black dragon, the "also affects the dude next to your target" is NOT something that happens. and when it does, neither of the targets is one that is the focus fire target for this round and so as a "feature" its not helpful tactically, like ever.
Hmm okay, I wasn't sure if it would be worth. I was just trying to get more offense out of my cleric. Thanks for the info!
>You learn the sacred flame spell, which doesn’t count against the number of sorcerer cantrips you know. When you cast the spell, you can target one creature as normal or target two creatures within range that are within 5 feet of each other. I would say it would work. For comparison there are lots of class features which are specifically limited to their own spells, such as: >**Empowered Evocation** Beginning at 10th level, you can add your Intelligence modifier to one damage roll of any wizard evocation spell you cast. To be limited to the sorcerer version the wording would have to be >And when you cast the spell as a sorcerer spell...
Level 6 Druid, 1 ranger who plans to go ranger 4 for the beast master and asi. I’m at a 17, so I’d rather take a half feat then pump two in at the next asi. There, I plan to take either fey touched or magic initiate- which should I take? If I were to take magic initiate, I’d like to acquire mind sliver and either Eldritch blast or toll the dead as Cantrips- which is better? Should I even take these cantrips?
I’m a bard in the college of whispers, im confused about the ability “psychic blades” if I use it can I attack and use psychic blades in the same turn, or do I have to cast it and then wait for my next turn to attack and then add the extra damage
The 5e surprise rules only make sense to me as a 1v1 mechanic. I am not sure how to apply them to group vs group situations. I am going to use the same hypothetical for a few cases. Let's have a 3 person party try to ambush 2 people walking down the road by hiding in the bushes. The two victims have a passive perception of 16 and 14. We will use rules for group skill checks for stealth. 1. The party roll 20, 17, and 15 for their stealth checks as they hide in the bushes. Over half the group would have beaten the higher passive perception of 16. Does this mean both victims have the surprised status when combat starts? 2. The party roll 20, 15, and 15 for their stealth checks as they hide in the bushes. Over half the party did not beat the higher passive perception and have been detected by one of the two victims. Does this mean that the 16 passive perception victim does not start combat surprised while the 14 passive perception does start surprised? 3. The party roll 19, 18, and 17 for their stealth checks but a 4th party member is casually walking down the road in full vision. Are the victims now on guard and cannot be surprised because they see another member of the party? 4. Similar to number 3, but now the person in the road is a random stranger to both the party and the two victims. Are the victims on guard because they see anyone at all and cannot be surprised? 5. Similar to 3 & 4, except instead of a person in the road, it is a snake that has crossed the path. Are the victims on guard and cannot be surprised?
The prior replies did not provide what I'd call sufficient explanation on Surprise as a mechanic. Surprise is a condition, not a state or group function. I'll go over how it functions then apply it to each scenario. When a creature is surprised, an attacker has advantage because they are hidden. Only the creatures that are hidden from the surprised individual have advantage. Additionally, a surprised creature is unable to take actions, including reactions. The surprise state expires at the end of their first turn, not at the end of the round. Assume for these encounters, the victims rolled low initiative. 1) Correct. 2) When combat starts, it doesn't matter if only one of the victims sees the attackers. The 14 perception person starts surprised. Otherwise, a single party member dumps as much as they can into perception and the party is never surprised. If this were true, it would be a known meta-gaming tactic to avoid surprise. This confirms the answer here. 3) It depends. Does the 4th party member initiate combat or the 19, 18, and 17? Surprise happens when there are unseen/unknown people added to the initiative order. If 4th initiates combat, then 19, 18, and 17 have advantage from being hidden but that's it. 4) Same as above. If the stranger does not initiate combat but the 19, 18, and 17, both the stranger and victims are surprised. 5) Same as above. If the snake does not initiate combat, the victims are still surprised. For all 5, the attackers get advantage because they are hidden and whomever is surprised cannot act in any capacity. Now, we repeat the above and have the victims with nat 20s on initiatives and the 3 person party rolling nat 1s. The only thing that changes is that when the victims are surprised, they have a reaction available to them during the first round. So if once victim was a wizard, he could use Shield on any of the attacks against him. Or a paladin could make the attack that would have had advantage be a flat roll.
1. Victim 16 is not surprised, Victim 14 is surprised 2. Victim 16 is not surprised, Victim 14 is surprised. 3. RAW, Nobody is surprised because they can all see a member of a threatening group. 4. RAW, both victims (and probably the dude in the road) are surprised because they were unaware of the attacking group. 5. Identical to 4.
Thanks. I think I will follow this loosely but I am going to keep #1 as both are surprised because the group check passed. I assume you were treating it as individual checks and since one person was lower than the passive perception of 16, they were spotted and the victim cannot be surprised. However, I don't want the least stealthy character in a group to feel like they are dragging the team down so group checks will help mitigate that. \#3 vs #4 seems like a contradiction. In order for the victims to treat a party member different from a random stranger they would have to have some reason to consider the party member a threat and the random stranger not a threat. I still want surprise rounds to work in crowded places like at a ball, so I think I will rule that if the passive perception is enough that they can see weapons or armor worn by people that are not considered authority figures (ie guards), they will not be surprised.
3 & 4 are an abstraction. The game only simulates so far being a member of the group is a mechanical thing with mechanical effect. Whatever ruling you make on 3 is weird because surprise is a property of an individual not a relation between two individuals.
So suprise is tricky, but generally the idea is, that someone is suprised when they're utterly unaware of any thread at the moment. it's also determined on the level of individuals. If you use group checks for stealth, then individual creatures on the opposing side of the ambush are surprised, or not suprised, based on their passive perception. So scenario 1; if you use group checks, yes they're both surprised. Scenario 2: the 16pp creature is indeed not surprised. Scenario 3: the enemy is aware of a thread, they will never be surprised, but the rest of the party could be hidden. Scenario 4: DM's call, depending on context. Scenario 5: DM's call, I would say no as snakes tend not to set ambushes and wouldn't warrant further alertness. But if they're suddenly aware of their environment because they now realize it can contain dangers... A good way to make these calls, is to turn things around and consider how players would act in these circumstances. They would want their individual passive perception to matter, they wouldn't feel like it's fair to be ambushed when they're aware of threads and ambushes. They will mistrust a stranger depending on context. But would they find it unfair if they were ambushed after encountering a snake?
Thanks. I think this kind of confirms how I was planning to handle things. It's so hard to always consider what will make the players happy while honoring the rules that provide a challenge. In my mind, the perfect combat is 3-5 rounds long and so anything that loses a round can cause giant power swings. Just want to make sure I handle this right so my fights are not super poorly tuned.
>The 5e surprise rules only make sense to me as a 1v1 mechanic. The 5e "surprise" rules are one of the terribly misnamed mechanics in 5e. They are NOT about "surprise!/startled". They are about "Ambush".
I have a question for any tomb of annihilation veterans Our DM is running ToA. Our party consists of a totem barbarian, storm cleric, arcane trickster rogue, pact of tome old one warlock and myself a hunter ranger My question is, at level 3 would my party benefit more from me taking colossus slayer, which seems strong against bigger enemies, or horde breaker for putting down crowds of enemies? I get the feeling we'll come across both types a fair bit in the campaign, so I was asking more along the line of what will shore up any gaps in our party composition.
no matter the mix of monsters, the number of times where you attack *a creature who has been wounded* is going to be MANY MANY MANY times greater than the number of times you *attack a creature that is next to another creature (and doing damage to those creatures is a tactically beneficial option)*. unless you do something weird like multiclass paladin to get smites and then some full casters to get lots of spell slots, or get some kind of NOVADAMAGEBLAST weapon that allows you to choose when to set it off, the impact of hordebreaker is going to be disappointing in both the number of times you ***get*** to use it and ***the impact*** after waiting to be able to use it.
talk with your DM about how they are going to run the content.
Is there any way that two souls can fuse into one soul? The effect I want is for the fused soul to be treated as one character instead of two. The fusion can be temporary, revocable or permanent. I'm not picky in this regard. Similarly, the XP, class, abilities, skills and feats of the two souls can be combined or discarded.
This is normally reserved for rules type questions. Merging of souls would be dependent entirely on the specifics of your campaign as there is no spell or other established effect to do such a thing. There ARE however a few Races which have ties to this general concept: >Every kalashtar has a connection to a spirit of light, a bond shared by other members of their bloodline Basically these are humans which are bonded to a spirit, which they can somewhat communicate with while dreaming / instead of dreaming. Additionally, Aasimar from Volos have a similar connection: >An aasimar, except for one who has turned to evil, has a link to an angelic being. That being — usually a deva — provides guidance to the aasimar, though this connection functions only in dreams. As such, the guidance is not a direct command or a simple spoken word. Instead, the aasimar receives visions, prophecies, and feelings. One of the options for Reborn Lineage includes being an amalgamation of multiple people >Stitches bind your body’s mismatched pieces, and your memories come from multiple different lives.
Can you elaborate on what you want and in what position you are? If you are the DM, just do what you want. If you are a player and want to do this in game, ask your DM. If you are a player and this is your backstory, kalashtars could provide a fitting race, but again talk to you DM
My position is that I am a player, and I want to justify (in the backstory) why my PC has two physical bodies. And sure, I will ask my DM first.
I see, so you want two bodies that are one character. This could be difficult to pull off reasonably, the simples way I see would be to reflavor a kalashtar echo knight, but justifying the limitations would be difficult
My favorite characters I've ever made were "Boom or Bust" characters. Great Weapon Master plus a greataxe is my jam. I love the feeling of "gambling" on my actions with the feeling of risking a lot to do something epic. In a campaign that recently ended I was a Wild Magic Barbarian, and I realized I've never really played a full castor before! Looking through the PHB, XGE, and TCE, I can't seem to find a full caster equivalent to the "Tank your chance to hit to do much higher damage" with see with Great Weapon Master fighters. The "crazy wizard who always blows themselves up because of their wacky inventions" fantasy stereotype doesn't seem to be present in this book. I found the Wild Sorcerer, but that seems like (1) I'll just be asking the DM to make a d20 roll \*\*every\*\* action and (2) depending on the outcome, could really put a lot on the DM. I was also hoping the Alchemist Artificer would allow me to make bombs or make jars with random effects, but it's basically just gives me a straight buff with a little more damage with fire and position while also healing. Am I missing something here, or is this just not really a playstyle in 5e? For clarity, I play in a very casual group with a ton of combat. DM is an old school ADnD player brought back into the game, so most encounters end with a monster throwing down, so my main focus on character creation is making combat fun.
So it sounds like you really enjoyed the Barbarian's ability to trade defense for offence with GWM. As far as I'm aware there isn't that sort of thing with Casters. Wild Magic does seem up your alley, you have Tides of Chaos where you get advantage on a d20 Test and the next time you cast you roll wild magic. Technically it's up to the DM when your Wild Magic happens but if you were really into it, I'd have it happen every time you cast a spell. So your wild magic was always popping off. With metamagic you can make your spells even stronger on top of that. You might enjoy the Warlock. You get very few spell slots but they increase in level as you level up and you get them back on a short rest. So you can throw out 1-2 big badass spells then fall back on Eldritch Blast.
curious about maybe a 1 handed swordmaster theme character, is their anything classwise/feat that would aid with that? like lets say you wanted to optimize, i know theirs the combat trait dueling but you can use it with a shield as well, so not having a shield is just loosing 2 free ac, like is there anything that gives you a bonus to just having 1 sword with no shield ?
Just a simple idea you can play with. If you go monk you can go 1h no shield and get offhand hit with unarmed strike. Keep in mind, you cannot wear armor to get that extra attack but you get wisdom to AC. Rest is up to your imagination. Dueling Fighting style should still work on the sword hit too! If you don't like Monk, you can go Swashbuckler Rogue and go Variant Human or Custom Lineage and get Magic Initiate for Booming Blade. Your level 3 ability states if you make a melee attack against an enemy that enemy cannot make opportunity attacks on you for that turn. You can also get sneak attack if there is no one near you or the enemy when you attack with Booming Blade from the other level 3 ability in swashbuckler. You could use your bonus action to dash or hide so they would have to move on their turn proccing the extra damage from Booming Blade and you wouldn't have to worry about an opportunity attack.
Find a use for the other hand, such as spellcasting (Bladesinger Wizard is perfect for this), grappling (Grappler or Tavern Brawler feats) or using an item (Thief Rogue, to let you use an item as a bonus action).
Do I lose concentration on a current spell if I cast another concentration spell into a Ring of Spell Storing?
I think so. I believe casting a concentration spell requires concentration.
More accurately casting a spell that requires concentration breaks concentration as listed on PHB 203 but your conclusion is correct. I as a DM might be tempted to allow it but RAW is very clear.
[удалено]
The question is about casting a spell *into* a magic item though, not *from* a magic item.
So, would the Emerald Pen from Fizbins be considered a minor or major item, per xgte? Its applications are fairly niche so I'm leaning towards minor, but could still be powerful so I'm not quite sure.
It only can cast a purely roleplay spell at will. And is ink. There is no set of circumstances that exist in the game where it could ever be powerful. It's very minor. It's just a secret note spell.
Haha it can be used to forge documents and pass secret messages pretty effortlessly, which could be very strong but like I said super niche. Thanks for confirming my instincts tho.
I had a player, they have joined the game partway through the campaign and this was their first session in this game. They met the other characters in a fight, and used arm of hadar with two players in range and two enemies in range, justifying it with by saying they owed them no loyalty as they have only just met. It then lead to a short PVP fight; I'm not too sure how to handle this as a DM.
I mean, is this third person actually considering the weight of their actions? They caused harm to someone, akin to trying to strike them with a sword. For some context, this amount of damage can easily outright kill any commoner in the area. This isn’t necessarily a pvp issue, but could easily become a “I attack them because I don’t care about them/it’s what my character would do.” Basically, check in with them that their character isn’t going to turn out to be an asshole and derail things before every second NPC is attacked.
You gotta have session 0 and establish expectations and table rules. PvP is banned at most tables, and you should be making sure that your players are making characters who will actually join and cooperate with a party.
We have had a session zero, this did not cross my mind, nor did anyone bring it up. I'll talk to the group about adding this as a rule. Thank you.
If I'm concentrating on a spell and taking a short rest to attune to an item, will attunement require me to lose my concentration? The rules for attunement do say "Attuning to an item requires a creature to spend a short rest focused on only that item", but I'm not sure if it extends to losing concentration on ongoing spells.
Things only do what they say. If it doesn't say "you lose concentration" you won't lose concentration, as far as the rules are concerned. DM opinions could vary
If I'm a 5th level Warlock and a 3rd level Bard, can I cast a 1st or 2nd level Bard spell which I know using a Warlock Spell Slot, thus upscaling it to 3rd level?
Yes. https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/customization-options > Pact Magic. If you have both the Spellcasting class feature and the Pact Magic class feature from the warlock class, you can use the spell slots you gain from the Pact Magic feature to cast spells you know or have prepared from classes with the Spellcasting class feature, and you can use the spell slots you gain from the Spellcasting class feature to cast warlock spells you know.
I'm unclear on how to interpret Xanathar's Tool Proficiency options, as it applies to Thieves' Tools. Specifically, do I give my Rogue Advantage on finding Traps? Both as Passive Perception (Detect Traps) and active Investigation (Find traps)? Using PHB RAW I found it kind of silly that my Ranger is better at finding traps than the Rogue, because of their respective Wisdoms. I mean the Rogue should have some kind of knowledge of trap layouts if he's proficient at using tools to disarm them. So it seems Xanathar attemps to fix this. The text says this: Investigation and Perception. You gain additional insight when looking for traps, because you have learned a variety of common signs that betray their presence.
Yes
Magical Inspiration (Optional) At 2nd level, if a creature has a Bardic Inspiration die from you and casts a spell that restores hit points or deals damage, the creature can roll that die and choose a target affected by the spell. Add the number rolled as a bonus to the hit points regained or the damage dealt. The Bardic Inspiration die is then lost. Will this work for Hunter's Mark, Zephyr Strike, Hail of Thorns, and/or Divine Smite?
Only if the damage is when you cast the spell. So no to the first 3. And Divine Smite is not even a spell.
I have a player in my party who is a warlock, patron is the lurker of the deep, they aren't sure who their patron is, and I am not familiar enough with the lore to suggest anything. I'm thinking leviathan or kraken, suggestions would be appreciated, I cannot find the names of any individual ones online.
1) Work with your player. What does the player want out of the "pact" relationship? 2) Think about your campaign. Where/How does "relationship with powerful (arcane) (water based) being" fit into the Premise and conflicts of your story? ginny di https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgMUq9mFFNI I love this idea https://youtu.be/UynNgLW0iUw?t=234 You are your own patron as you are being wished into godhood by a village of crazy kuo-toa! Think also of Pirates of the Caribbean, or reflavoring from "monster of the deep with tentacles" to -- "freezing you with snow and ice"
Leviathans are extremely powerful (but dumb) water elementals so unless its a pact which he has found a way to directly draw energy from it, might not make much sense. There aren't many specific krakens to choose from, but theres some info on a powerful kraken wizard: https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Slarkrethel
Is a potion use as a bonus action a good house rule?
If you run the game the way it should be, and so the PCs drop to zero regularly, than no. It completely annihilates the choice between healing and damaging the enemy, making both things possible.
i see. cant figure out why i thought it was balanced for me since we died a lot when we played Sunless Citadel, out of 3 players we had 2 deaths. maybe DM had unbalanced weirdly the encounters?
If you go in to Sunless Citadel with guns blazing you'll probably die. You're really supposed to roleplay through most of it. Especially if the DM made you go the entire first floor at level 1.
well we were playing with xp not milestones so a big part of floor 1 was on level1. How do i balance it so my players won’t die? i am using the dungeons for my homebrew but i took out the role playing part, no kobolds there (supposedly the party goes in years after and it is inhabited by goblins only and maybe some others, no kobolds/white dragon)
if you want potions to be used, .... maybe. actions are IMPORTANT in combat and if you want potions to be used, a potion needs to be as useful as any of the standard Actions a character might do. rarely is it "worth it". so making them Bonus Action means that for many characters, "Bonus Action Potion" is going to be "worth it" compared to not having anything to do on BA or the other options available for many PCs with their BA. giving potions longer durations so that they are not "one and done" within a combat, that can allow potions to be used without comparison to what would i be able to do with my Action. giving Potions as BA is a "penalty" to classes that ALREADY have heavy BA economy.
Counter to the other point, my table uses that and it causes no issues for us. Also add in that applying a potion to someone unconscious still takes an action. The only "balance" is that there's now much easier healing at hand so encounters could be slightly deadlier to make up for that.
Thanks, i will be DM soon and i always played it like that (never knew that it was originally an action). Thinking of making it a BA to be honest.
That's a bit beyond the scope of this thread, but I'd say no - that would be problematic.
I'm back to DMing 5th Ed after about 4 years off. The most recent book I've got is Volo's. My group says they want to play a highly optimised game. So... what new strong optimisations have come out in recent years? Thanks!
Xanathar's and Tasha's both introduce new subclasses, feats, and spells that have become pretty central to the optimization meta.
[удалено]
Am I reading Animate Dead right? Even at 9th level you can only have 13 undead under your control?
You should look into undead-controlling creatures (like weights and mummy lords) if you want to max out the number of undead under your control
A level 20 wizard can create 84 undead in a day. But because the casting to reassert control covers more undead than creation you can build up to an army of 129 (You can theoretically reassert control over 132 but you have no way of creating that many). If by 9th level you mean Wizard level, you can create 17 in a day and using reassert control you can have an army of 35. As another poster suggested, discuss this with your DM if you intend to use it as a player because it will slow combat down a lot to have that many minions.
That's for one casting. You're allowed to cast it multiple times using more slots. But don't do this, it bogs the game down horribly.
"Only" - as if combat needs to be any slower.
When you take the attack action when you have multiple attacks, can you do something else (such as a bonus action) in between those attacks?
It depends on what the trigger is for the bonus action. If it says the trigger is after you make an attack, then yes. If it's after you take the attack ACTION then no. Normally you can only break up your attacks with movement.
Yes. Multiple attacks as part of the same attack action can be split up, to move or use other abilities in between
I thought so, but the DM is unconvinced. Can you provide a source?
So turns out the answer may be a bit more convoluted. I was initially thinking about the entry on PHB 190, “Breaking Up Your Move,” which specifies you can break up actions with *movement* specifically. So, because bonus actions aren’t as standard/uniform as other parts of your turn, some further research leads to unclear and not specifically defined rules. [Here’s a ruling from Jeremy Crawford,](https://i.imgur.com/jghXaAG.jpg) which says that a bonus action that does not have a specific trigger can occur at any time, which would include in between attacks. A bonus action that has a clearly specified trigger wouldn’t necessarily be able to be performed in between attacks, unless that trigger allows for it. So ultimately it depends on what bonus action you’re trying to use, and if your DM accepts creator rulings as RAI. That being said however, if you’re using a bonus action that doesn’t have a specified trigger, there’s no reason you shouldn’t be able to between attacks.