Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

[Man_Over_Game]

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.

Is there a list of the priority levels? I know that JC ruled that Shillelagh + Polearm Master doesn't increase the Quarterstaff bonus action attack to a 1d8 and maintains the 1d4 from Polearm Master, despite the 1d8 being implemented by a spell.

[E’Tallitnics]

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?

A179 If you use your Aberrant Dragonmark to boost the spells level to 6th Overchannel won’t work because Overchannel only specifies the level of the spell, not the slot you used to cast it from.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A179 If you use your Aberrant Dragonmark to boost the spells level to 6th Overchannel won’t work because Overchannel only specifies the level of the spell, not the slot you used to cast it from.

As far as I'm aware, spell slot used == spell level for all features that care about spell level. Magic missile cast from a 9th level slot is a 9th level spell.

[Kadesh]

As far as I'm aware, spell slot used == spell level for all features that care about spell level. Magic missile cast from a 9th level slot is a 9th level spell.

Do you have a page source for that, please?

[Man_Over_Game]

Do you have a page source for that, please?

"When a spellcaster casts a spell using a slot that is of a higher level than the spell, the spell assumes the higher level for that casting. (PHB p.201)"

Also, from Jeremy Crawford:

Q: Can I use Overchannel to cast 3rd level spell fireball using a 7th level slot? Seems to read that way.

A: It won't work, since that fireball is 7th level. The level of a spell matches the level of the slot used to cast it (PH, 201).

[Kadesh]

"When a spellcaster casts a spell using a slot that is of a higher level than the spell, the spell assumes the higher level for that casting. (PHB p.201)"

Also, from Jeremy Crawford:

Hmm, was hoping that would allow Warlocks to use upcast spells for their mystic arcanum; apparently not. Ah well.

[E’Tallitnics]

"When a spellcaster casts a spell using a slot that is of a higher level than the spell, the spell assumes the higher level for that casting. (PHB p.201)"

Also, from Jeremy Crawford:

Hey thanks for that! TIL…

[Petrocorus]

Q 180

For a spell that damage several targets at the same time, like Fireball, we only roll the damage once. But does this apply for spells which has several attack rolls, like Scorching Ray? Does the spell damages the targets "at the same time"?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Q 180

For a spell that damage several targets at the same time, like Fireball, we only roll the damage once. But does this apply for spells which has several attack rolls, like Scorching Ray? Does the spell damages the targets "at the same time"?

A 180 No. Each attack roll is a separate "beam" and a separate damage roll. Why? Dunno

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Q181
Lets say a Lore Bard with an Oath Bow ends up stealing Swift Quiver via magical secrets.

A. Is there any play in the "non-magical" ammunition part which would not allow the Oath Bow to get advantage and its extra 3D6 Piercing Damage against its daily sworn enemy if its used after you cast Swift Quiver?

B. When you cast Swift Quiver, as its a Bonus Action spell is it the next turn that you get your extra two Bonus Action attacks?


https://thebombzen.com/grimoire/spells/swift-quiver

https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Oathbow#content

[Kadesh]

A181
A - What are you asking here?

B - you normally only have 1 bonus action on your turn, so... Yes.

[Man_Over_Game]

Q181
Lets say a Lore Bard with an Oath Bow ends up stealing Swift Quiver via magical secrets.

A. Is there any play in the "non-magical" ammunition part which would not allow the Oath Bow to get advantage and its extra 3D6 Piercing Damage against its daily sworn enemy if its used after you cast Swift Quiver?

https://thebombzen.com/grimoire/spells/swift-quiver

https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Oathbow#content

A181
A - What are you asking here?

R181
The Oath Bow can effectively curse an enemy to be more easily slain by being attacked by the bow wielder, and the Swift Quiver spell states that "You transmute your quiver so it produces an endless supply of nonmagical ammunition".

However, the Oath Bow mentions nothing about special properties regarding the ammunition, nor any requirements for the ammunition. The bonuses on the attack are listed as properties of the attack, coming from the weapon, regardless of the ammunition used.

So there will be no problems utilizing the ammunition provided by Swift Quiver to use the Oath Bow. You shoot normal arrows that become enhanced by the bow and is magically replaced by the Swift Quiver, providing you with more normal arrows to shoot.

[Kadesh]

Yet another answer made by reading the book.

[AHF]

[b]Q182[\b]

With the ritual caster feat, is the requirement for a minimum of 13 INT or WIS simply a gate users must pass which then is irrelevant for the rest of the feat? In other words, it doesn’t matter which which stat you possess for purposes of which class of spells you can pick? So a character with a 13 wisdom and 8 intelligence can pick Wizard (or any other class) rituals? (Cha, Wis or Int would be used based on the spell list chosen, not based on which score passes the 13 threshold).

Since many of the rituals don’t rely on the casting stat, it seems like having a low stat is not very impactful.

[E’Tallitnics]

[b]Q182[\b]

With the ritual caster feat, is the requirement for a minimum of 13 INT or WIS simply a gate users must pass which then is irrelevant for the rest of the feat? In other words, it doesn’t matter which which stat you possess for purposes of which class of spells you can pick? So a character with a 13 wisdom and 8 intelligence can pick Wizard (or any other class) rituals?

Since many of the rituals don’t rely on the casting stat, it seems like having a low stat is not very impactful.

A182 RAW it doesn’t matter.

[AHF]

A182 RAW it doesn’t matter.

Thanks for the quick feedback!

[Dalebert]

[b]Q182[\b]
Since many of the rituals don’t rely on the casting stat, it seems like having a low stat is not very impactful.

It's not required but it will feel impactful when you have to roll to successfully scribe a Scroll into your ritual book.

[Kadesh]

It's not required but it will feel impactful when you have to roll to successfully scribe a Scroll into your ritual book.

There is no such thing as rolling to add a spell to your ritual book.

[Man_Over_Game]

There is no such thing as rolling to add a spell to your ritual book.

I think they're referring to the part in Spell Scrolls, in the DMG, p. 200:

A wizard spell on a spell scroll can be copied just as spells in spellbooks can be copied. When a spell is copied from a spell scroll, the copier must succeed on an Intelligence (Arcana) check with a DC equal to 10 + the spell's level. If the check succeeds, the spell is successfully copied. Whether the check succeeds or fails, the spell scroll is destroyed.

Unfortunately, I really think that they made the Spell Scroll portion first, before the playtest was finished, and released the DMG without really thinking about it, because it has created so much confusion and so many conflicted rulings with just that one addition alone. Because without the Spell Scroll, the rules state that anyone can cast any magical scroll, but WITH the spell scroll, only someone who has the spell on their spell list can even read or cast the scroll. And because you can't read it, you can't technically tell what it is.

Technically, RAW, a Warlock with the Book of Ancient Secrets can't read a spell scroll that's not a Warlock spell, but they can still copy it (but only if it's a Ritual).

[NecessaryWeevil]

Yet another answer made by reading the book.

That is literally the purpose of this thread, yes.

[Misterwhisper]

Q183

Minor Illusion spell says you create the illusion of "an object", but then in the same sentence it gives an example of muddy footprints.
It says it has to be inside a 5 ft cube.

The question is:

Can I create multiple small images inside the 5 ft cube if they are all the same thing?

Ex.

Opponent has his dagger on a table while he eats, and while hidden I use minor illusion to make it look like there are 15 daggers on the table so that he has major problems getting the right one, but still all in the same area.
Or
Can I make an illusion of a stack of gold, or just one gold coin?

It says object, but also muddy footprints, so iffy on this one.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Q183

Minor Illusion spell says you create the illusion of "an object", but then in the same sentence it gives an example of muddy footprints.
It says it has to be inside a 5 ft cube.

The question is:

Can I create multiple small images inside the 5 ft cube if they are all the same thing?

Ex.

Opponent has his dagger on a table while he eats, and while hidden I use minor illusion to make it look like there are 15 daggers on the table so that he has major problems getting the right one, but still all in the same area.
Or
Can I make an illusion of a stack of gold, or just one gold coin?

It says object, but also muddy footprints, so iffy on this one.

A 183 As with most (if not all) illusion questions, there is no clear RAW to the best of my knowledge. It's an "ask the DM" situation by design.

[E’Tallitnics]

Q183

Minor Illusion spell says you create the illusion of "an object", but then in the same sentence it gives an example of muddy footprints.
It says it has to be inside a 5 ft cube.

The question is:

Can I create multiple small images inside the 5 ft cube if they are all the same thing?

Ex.

Opponent has his dagger on a table while he eats, and while hidden I use minor illusion to make it look like there are 15 daggers on the table so that he has major problems getting the right one, but still all in the same area.
Or
Can I make an illusion of a stack of gold, or just one gold coin?

It says object, but also muddy footprints, so iffy on this one.

A183 As you pointed out the spell description clearly states that within the 5' cube you can make multiple objects.

Here’s an hour long discussion with Jeremy Crawford on how to adjudicate illusions in 5e: https://youtu.be/6l51s0GFflY

Note: He says “Minor Image” when he’s referring to “Minor Illusion”.

Renember: D&D is a game of exceptions. Spells are always an exception and are written to stand alone.

[Misterwhisper]

A183 As you pointed out the spell description clearly states that within the 5' cube you can make multiple objects.

Here’s an hour long discussion with Jeremy Crawford on how to adjudicate illusions in 5e: https://youtu.be/6l51s0GFflY

Note: He says “Minor Image” when he’s referring to “Minor Illusion”.

Renember: D&D is a game of exceptions. Spells are always an exception and are written to stand alone.

The issue is that in the same sentence they say an object but also muddy footprints as an example.

[Yora]

Q184: When darkvision lets you see dim light as bright light within a 60 ft. radius, does it also let you see darkness as dim light within the same 60 ft. radius or at unlimited range? (The sentence structure really is unhelpful here.)

[Eriol]

Q184: When darkvision lets you see dim light as bright light within a 60 ft. radius, does it also let you see darkness as dim light within the same 60 ft. radius or at unlimited range? (The sentence structure really is unhelpful here.)

A184: I would agree that the sentence structure is poor in the races section, but take a look at the later section of the book describing "Vision and Light" on page 183, and in particular the darkvision section at the end, going on to page 185. It is clearer that your racial ability is only effective to a limited range. It says exactly: "Within a specified range, a creature with darkvision can see in darkness as if the darkness were dim light, so areas of darkness are only lightly obscured as far as that creature is concerned." So while I agree that the RAW in the races section could be interpreted to mean what you said, it is clarified later so that no, you don't have infinite "dim" vision.

[Millstone85]

A184: I would agree that the sentence structure is poor in the races section, but take a look at the later section of the book describing "Vision and Light" on page 183, and in particular the darkvision section at the end, going on to page 185. It is clearer that your racial ability is only effective to a limited range. It says exactly: "Within a specified range, a creature with darkvision can see in darkness as if the darkness were dim light, so areas of darkness are only lightly obscured as far as that creature is concerned." So while I agree that the RAW in the races section could be interpreted to mean what you said, it is clarified later so that no, you don't have infinite "dim" vision.

It won't change your answer, but there was an important errata on that section.

It now reads: “Within a specified range, a creature with darkvision can see in dim light as if it were bright light and in darkness as if it were dim light, so areas of darkness are only lightly obscured as far as that creature is concerned.”

That was indeed missing.

[Wiggle__Room]

Q185A: Minor Illusion (PHB 260) states that when used to create an image, that image "can't create [...] light [...] or any other sensory effect".

So, if I, for example, cast Minor Illusion in a naturally pitch black room and try to create an image of a small, faintly glowing orb, I understand that (obviously) this image doesn't cast any light that could reveal anything else in the room to a creature without darkvision, i.e. Minor Illusion can't double as a light spell.

But, what would this hypothetical creature without darkvision see? Do they not see the illusion at all because they can't see anything in a dark room without light somehow being added? Or does the illusion influence their mind directly such that they think they see a small glowing orb even though there is no real light? Or can minor illusion simply never create an image of a "glowing" object because it can't create the sensory effect of light?

The schools of magic callout box on PHB 203 says "Illusion spells deceive the senses and minds of others. They cause people to see things that are not there," which sort of implies to me that one can indeed see a Minor Illusion in complete darkness, but it's not super clear IMO.

Q185B: does any of this change for an illusion spell like Major Image (PHB 258) that doesn't have a similar caveat about not creating light in its description?

I understand that this question could get way beyond RAW pretty fast, but mostly I'm wondering if there's some clarification about this sort of situation written somewhere that I haven't seen.
[edit: PHB 203 reference and splitting into 2 sub-questions]

[Lyracian]

Q186: Does Damage when at 0 hit points and Stable count as 0 or 1 failed Death Saves?

Stabilizing (PHB page 197-198):
A stable creature doesn't make death saving throws, even though it has 0 hit points, but it does remain unconscious. The creature stops being stable, and must start making death saving throws again, if it takes any damage.

Death Saves (PHB page 197):
If you take any damage while you have 0 hit points, you suffer a death saving throw failure. If the damage is from a critical hit, you suffer two failures instead.

This aspect does not say "while you are making death saves". It says "while you have 0 hit points".

To me this reads as: You get reduced to 0, you start making saves. Then you stabilize at 0 and failure count resets. When you take damage while still at 0, you suffer an automatic failure (or two on a crit) and start making saves again. One of my players thinks it just starts the death saves again but I cannot see any official ruling on it?

Essentially if the sneaky Goblins attack a stable character would it take 4 attacks or 3 to kill them?

[E’Tallitnics]

Q186: Does Damage when at 0 hit points and Stable count as 0 or 1 failed Death Saves?

Stabilizing (PHB page 197-198):
A stable creature doesn't make death saving throws, even though it has 0 hit points, but it does remain unconscious. The creature stops being stable, and must start making death saving throws again, if it takes any damage.

Death Saves (PHB page 197):
If you take any damage while you have 0 hit points, you suffer a death saving throw failure. If the damage is from a critical hit, you suffer two failures instead.

This aspect does not say "while you are making death saves". It says "while you have 0 hit points".

To me this reads as: You get reduced to 0, you start making saves. Then you stabilize at 0 and failure count resets. When you take damage while still at 0, you suffer an automatic failure (or two on a crit) and start making saves again. One of my players thinks it just starts the death saves again but I cannot see any official ruling on it?

Essentially if the sneaky Goblins attack a stable character would it take 4 attacks or 3 to kill them?

A186: Zero. (Or 4 Goblin attacks.)