Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

[Erys]

'Only the first round (when you cast the spell) is covered by RAW'
No, it isn't. There is no mention of it affecting only for the first round, or subsequent rounds. My issue with your answer stems from your insistence that it specifically affects the first round, but then is non specific: this is untrue, it is non specific completely.

If YOU wish to debate this create a new thread.

RAW says "when you cast the spell" so absolutely the first round when you cast the spell is covered by the Rules As Written.

There are no Written Rules past "when you cast the spell" though... so anything past that is up the DM.

This is actually very straight forward... what is your disconnect here?

[qube]

@Erys
consider the example where the wizard casts the spell with the fighter (who has lower init) in the area.
the fighter takes hist turn, and ends it's turn (which is still in the same round as the spell was cast) in the effect.
As you can see, to quote "the pockets- by RAW- would only apply to that first round", isn't entirely a

A170: Sculpt spell says

Beginning at 2nd level, you can create pockets of relative safety within the effects of your Evocation Spells.

When you cast an Evocation spell that affects other creatures that you can see, you can choose a number of them equal to 1 + the spell’s level.

The chosen creatures automatically succeed on their Saving Throws against the spell, and they take no damage if they would normally take half damage on a successful save.

Syntacticly it doesn't makes sense to me that that blue part would effect the third sentence. And while I'm not native english (and thus my oppinion might very well be wrong), Interestingly , Sage advice notes

Evo. wiz casts Storm Sphere and uses Sculpt Spell on ally in effect. Ally succeed on future saves while remaining in sphere?
-- Jun 12, 2017

Sculpt Spells is used the turn you cast a spell and is intended to affect only saves made that turn. But RAW, it works on all the saves
-- Jeremy Crawford

We've got both confirmation what RAW says, and that RAW is wrong ...

Edit appendum: so interesting, spells that allow you to use an action for extra damage (akin* to call lighting), used in combination with action surge (ergo, creating the effect again, but during the same turn it was cast) would, by sage advice fall under the sculpting rule

*akin, as call lightning isn't evocation, and thus it doesn't

[Erys]

Evo. wiz casts Storm Sphere and uses Sculpt Spell on ally in effect. Ally succeed on future saves while remaining in sphere?
-- Jun 12, 2017

Sculpt Spells is used the turn you cast a spell and is intended to affect only saves made that turn. But RAW, it works on all the saves
-- Jeremy Crawford

I appreciate you finding this Sage Advicem qube --> it shows I am correct (well, mostly). I don't readily agree the RAW states the pockets can last for the whole duration of a spell and think it should be DM discretion... but JC is the final arbiter on the matter and I concede.

So for completion:

Q170 Can my evocation wizard sculpt a Storm Sphere spell so that my allies can fight in it?

A170: Yes!

((Also, next question is 172.))

[Erys]

Edit appendum: so interesting, spells that allow you to use an action for extra damage (akin* to call lighting), used in combination with action surge (ergo, creating the effect again, but during the same turn it was cast) would, by sage advice fall under the sculpting rule

Are you sure here?

I am afb, but I think you have to use a bonus action to use the extra damage option of Storm Sphere (and other, similar spells)- and you don't get additional bonus actions through Action Surge.

[qube]

Are you sure here?

I am afb, but I think you have to use a bonus action to use the extra damage option of Storm Sphere (and other, similar spells)- and you don't get additional bonus actions through Action Surge.

Storm Sphere, yes, that's a bonus action. But other spells (like call lightning or witchbolt) are actions.

[Yora]

Q172: Which version of the psionic Mystic is the most up to date?

The most recent UA file I found was from 2017, apparently version 3. Is there a newer one that superceeds it?

[Millstone85]

A172: Short answer, no there isn't. However, one of the designers has a series on Youtube, called The Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour, where you can, among other things, follow his thoughts on bringing psionics to 5e.

[E’Tallitnics]

R172: They’ve previously stated that the next release of the Mystic will be via the DM’s Guild for play testing that will also be Adventurers League legal. Stay tuned…

[animewatcha]

Q173 Was it ever clarified as to if a Kensai Monk could do his unarmed strike as his "kensei weapon". Essentially allowing class abilities like spending up to 3 ki for bonus to hit and damage and other abilities to work with unarmed strikes?

[Arkhios]

Q173 Was it ever clarified as to if a Kensai Monk could do his unarmed strike as his "kensei weapon". Essentially allowing class abilities like spending up to 3 ki for bonus to hit and damage and other abilities to work with unarmed strikes?

Tentative A173
I'm not aware of any other RAW statement regarding if this would be possible, but since the errata (can't remember the year, but very soon after 5th edition's release), Unarmed Strike is NOT a weapon, despite that it initially did appear in the hardcover Player's Handbook weapons table. This has been stated as a mistake, and has been rectified afterwards in later prints.

So, in other words, by RAW, you can't choose unarmed strike as your kensei weapon.

[Kadesh]

A173
An Unarmed Strike is not a weapon, so ineligible to be taken as a Kensei Weapon which requires you to select a weapon.

[Petrocorus]

Q 174
Just to be sure. I haven't performed to find an explicit SA on this.

The rules state that if you cast a spell (no level specified, which hence means also a cantrip) as a bonus action, you can only cast a cantrip with your action, one with a casting time of one action.

So, you can cast a level 1+ spell with your bonus action and a cantrip with your action, but the contrary isn't true.
Which means you can cast Spiritual Weapon and Word of Radiance in one turn, but you cannot cast Shillelagh and Faerie Fire in one turn.
Am i correct?

[LtPowers]

So, you can cast a level 1+ spell with your bonus action and a cantrip with your action, but the contrary isn't true.

A174 This statement is true, though I didn't look up the specific spells you referenced.


Powers &8^]

[E’Tallitnics]

A173
An Unarmed Strike is not a weapon, so ineligible to be taken as a Kensei Weapon which requires you to select a weapon.

A173 That appears to be true.

[Galithar]

Q174

Is it possible to gain the +2 AC from a shield you are wielding at the same time your are gaining the +2 AC bonus from an Animated Shield that has been activated, via it's command word, to protect you?

[Kadesh]

A174 'Carried in one hand, a shield is made from wood or metal. Using them adds to your total AC, but you can only gain the benefits of one shield at a time.'
No. There is no provision made if you are not holding holding the Shield.

[Rub]

Q175

Part 1: Does the spell Tidal Wave have to be cast on the ground or can it be cast in the air?
Part 2: If you can cast it in the air, what would happen if it was cast above a flying creature?

[Eriol]

Q175

Part 1: Does the spell Tidal Wave have to be cast on the ground or can it be cast in the air?
Part 2: If you can cast it in the air, what would happen if it was cast above a flying creature?

A175
P1. RAW the spell says "on an area within range." But then later it says "The water then spreads out across the ground". The first suggests that as long as it is within 120 feet, you are fine to target wherever you wish. The second implies that it's from the ground to start with, but a valid interpretation would be that the effect happens after the water crashes down to the ground.

IMO the RAW is slightly ambiguous. RAI says ground-only IMO.

P2. Assuming you take the "in the air OK" interpretation above the spell RAW says "on a failed save, a creature takes 4d8 bludgeoning damage and is knocked prone" There's the key. If they are magically flying, they stay flying if prone. If "mechanically" flying, then they fall. But either way, on RAW, you only have "crashes down on" to go on. It may just be a nice shower for those not exactly in its effect volume, not "and also affects everything below it."



In the end, my RAI is that it is ground-only. But if I allowed in-the-air, it would still only "bad effect" those in its DIRECT volume affected how I said above (prone takes out of the sky only if they're non-magical fliers). All that would happen to those below would be their non-magical torches going out (as per RAW), not any combat effects.

[Kadesh]

RAI is irrelevant. Please do not bring it up.

a175
What the rules states is that creatures within a 30ftx10ftx10ft area within range of the Caster takes damage and is potnetially knocked prone based on the result of the Dex Save, and that the water spreads across the ground in all directions, extinguing flames in the area and within 30ft of that area before vanishing. If there is no ground to spread along, then that rule has no effect.

If it were cast above flying creature, unless the creature was within the area of effect, it would be unaffected. An unprotected flame the creature carried would be extinguished of it was within 30ft of that area.

If the creature was within the area, it would take a dexterity save, taking bludgeoning damage and potentially being knocked prone should it fail the save. The rules on flying explicitly state that you fall if you're knocked prone, unless you're hovering or being held aloft by magic.

[Yora]

Q176: Is there anything that confirms that you can have a mount move, have the rider make an action, and then have the mount use its Dash action to continue moving on the same turn?
It does say that mount and rider have matching initiative, which I assume means that you can do this, but I find it somewhat unclear.

[Erys]

Q176: Is there anything that confirms that you can have a mount move, have the rider make an action, and then have the mount use its Dash action to continue moving on the same turn?
It does say that mount and rider have matching initiative, which I assume means that you can do this, but I find it somewhat unclear.

A176: No.

Unfortunately, even though the mounts initiative changes to match the rider- it still has its own initiative and therefore you have to choose whether your mount, or you, go first. Because it has its own independent turn you cannot move (its turn), Attack (your turn), then have it Dash (its turn again). You can however Ready an Action so that when your mount gets in range you can make a single attack and then your mount continues its move away from the enemy. Subpar to what you want to do for sure, but better than nothing.

A rider and a controlled mount have separate turns, but they have the same initiative, which means you decide which one goes first.
cite

[Arial Black]

A176:Unfortunately, even though the mounts initiative changes to match the rider- it still has its own initiative and therefore you have to choose whether your mount, or you, go first. Because it has its own independent turn you cannot move (its turn), Attack (your turn), then have it Dash (its turn again). You can however Ready an Action so that when your mount gets in range you can make a single attack and then your mount continues its move away from the enemy. Subpar to what you want to do for sure, but better than nothing.

A smarter way is have the mount go first: mount moves, and Readies another move triggered by its rider finishing his two (or whatever) attacks.

Then the rider takes their turn, presumably attacking the (now adjacent) baddie as many times as their abilities allow, after which the mount's Readied move get's triggered.

[Erys]

A smarter way is have the mount go first: mount moves, and Readies another move triggered by its rider finishing his two (or whatever) attacks.

Then the rider takes their turn, presumably attacking the (now adjacent) baddie as many times as their abilities allow, after which the mount's Readied move get's triggered.

That's a little wonky, but it does work; technically the horse is Readying its Action to Dash after your Attack- meaning the horse would trigger an AoO...

But, thinking about it, the horse risks the AoO either way. So, rock on!

[Misterwhisper]

Q177

Setup:

Character has fighting style two weapon fighting and also dueling.
Character starts their turn holding a light melee weapon with thrown property and nothing else. Ex Dagger.
Character makes their attack action with the dagger applying dueling as normal, on their last attack of the attack action they throw the dagger.
They then use their object interaction to draw a second dagger, they are now holding a second light weapon, but no longer the first, so they make bonus attack using two weapon fighting rules, but also they are only holding one weapon so apply dueling.

Correct?

[Erys]

Q177

Setup:

Character has fighting style two weapon fighting and also dueling.
Character starts their turn holding a light melee weapon with thrown property and nothing else. Ex Dagger.
Character makes their attack action with the dagger applying dueling as normal, on their last attack of the attack action they throw the dagger.
They then use their object interaction to draw a second dagger, they are now holding a second light weapon, but no longer the first, so they make bonus attack using two weapon fighting rules, but also they are only holding one weapon so apply dueling.

Correct?

A177: The first part regarding Dueling is correct, and you would get the benefit for both the stab and throw.

The RAW for two weapon fighting is "When you engage in two weapon fighting...", and at no point in the scenario are you ever actually holding two weapons. So, no, by RAW you would not get the benefit from TWF.

[Misterwhisper]

A177: The first part regarding Dueling is correct, and you would get the benefit for both the stab and throw.

The RAW for two weapon fighting is "When you engage in two weapon fighting...", and at no point in the scenario are you ever actually holding two weapons. So, no, by RAW you would not get the benefit from TWF.

You are holding two different weapons, just not both at the same time, it only says you have to attack with a different weapon not holding them at the same time.

[Erys]

You are holding two different weapons, just not both at the same time, it only says you have to attack with a different weapon not holding them at the same time.

It doesn't even say that. It says "When you engage in two weapon fighting...".

I see no scenario where holding one weapon equals engaging in two weapon fighting.

Edit: I was re-reading your question and want to make a clarification (because I may have misinterpreted what you were asking): You would not gain the benefit from the Two Weapon Fighting Style. But your off hand bonus action Attack would still get the +2 damage from the Dueling Style since you are using one weapon and are holding no other weapon. When I first read it it seemed you were trying to double dip the two fighting styles- so, I do apologize if that was not your intention.

[Man_Over_Game]

Q178

I know I can fire a Magic Stone from a Sling for a Rogue's Sneak Attack, but can I replace the damage die of Magic Stone with my Martial Arts die if I have the Sling as a Kensei's Monk Weapon?

[E’Tallitnics]

Q178

I know I can fire a Magic Stone from a Sling for a Rogue's Sneak Attack, but can I replace the damage die of Magic Stone with my Martial Arts die if I have the Sling as a Kensei's Monk Weapon?

A178 No. 5e is a game of exceptions. That being the rule, “Specific Beats General,” and spells are always the Specific, or the Exception.

Therefore the damage done by a Kensei weapon is beaten by the specific damage done by Magic Stone.

[Dualswinger]

Q179

How does the feat Aberrant Dragonmark interact with the Evokers overchannel?

Would increasing the spells level to 6th prevent overchannels use, or would the fact I’m using a 5th level slot allow it?