Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

[PhoenixPhyre]

Q352:

Character A is approaching Character B. Character B hides in a bush and rolls Stealth(20). Character A, in responce, rolls Perception(15). Is Character B now completelly invisible for character A? Can Character A in any way detect character B? How, mechanically?

I'm interested in "the status" of B vs. all creatures, which have failed their Perception vs B's Stealth. Are all creatures deemed to have Blinded status vs. B? Or do other creatures know the square, B is in, but have only disatvantage for attacks vs. B?

thanks

A352

B is Hidden from A and all others similarly situated. This means that they
* cannot target him with attacks without guessing the location
* cannot use any form of effect that requires sight
* do not know his position, or even his presence[1].

B will be detected if any of the following occur:
* A moves around the concealment so as to have a clear line of sight or if B moves out of concealment (no check necessary)
* B does something that ends the Hidden condition, such as making an attack or a loud noise (definition subject to DM's discretion)
* A takes the Search action to make another Wisdom (Perception) check and beats the Dexterity (Stealth) check originally rolled by B.
* A gains some form of extra-visual perception, such as Tremorsense and B is within range of that sense.

[1] assuming they didn't know he was there initially. If they had been in contact with him, they may assume he's still around, but can't be sure.

[Millstone85]

A352 I saw PhoenixPhyre's post appear while I was typing this, and I agree with it, but I will hit that "submit reply" button anyway.

Edit: Didn't notice Chronos had already answered too. Oh well.

Is Character B now completelly invisible for character A?

Yes.

If the bush is dense foliage, providing heavy obscurement, then B is invisible to A regardless of their Dexterity (Stealth) and Wisdom (Perception) checks, which are only about making B inaudible to A. If perception wins over stealth, then A knows the square B is in but has disadvantage on attacks against B.

If the bush is moderate foliage, providing light obscurement, and the DM judges this enough, then the successful Dexterity (Stealth) check makes B both invisible and inaudible (i.e. hidden) to A.

Can Character A in any way detect character B? How, mechanically?

That was the purpose of the Wisdom (Perception) check.

Now, if A saw B go into the bush, and the bush occupies a single square, then A is still aware of B's presence and can very easily deduce where B is.

And if A othervise suspects B's presence somewhere in the area ("He can't have left the courtyard! Look behind every statue! Stake all the bushes and straw wagons!") then B isn't out of trouble.

[Pinjata]

A 352:

Creatures who fail their perception check against B do not perceive B, and therefore do not know he's there. There are very few situations where such a creature would even attempt to attack or otherwise affect B, so the question of disadvantage on those attacks is moot. In the rare case that they do have reason to suspect B's presence without perceiving it (for instance, they have met the party before, and knows that the people they do perceive are usually in the company of a stealthy rogue), they might attempt to guess various likely hiding places and attack them, but those are pure guesses, and would still involve disadvantage even if they did guess correctly.

The way, mechanically, for creatures to detect B is to roll Perception checks, and that's already failed. They might have more chances to do so, depending on subsequent actions and events.

Thanks. What if B attacks, mvoes, sucesfully Stealths, then rinses and repeats? I mean ... with sucesfull Stalth rolls, this sounds pretty brootal. Thatswhy I'm asking.

[Nagog]

Q353: Can Bladesingers use two-weapon fighting with their Bladesong? The specific line that has me confused is "It ends early if you [...] use two hands to make an attack with a weapon". Does this refer to just using 2 handed weapons like Greatswords and such, or would TWF also be ousted by this rule?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Thanks. What if B attacks, mvoes, sucesfully Stealths, then rinses and repeats? I mean ... with sucesfull Stalth rolls, this sounds pretty brootal. Thatswhy I'm asking.

Note that as soon as B moves out of cover to come attack, they lose the hidden state. So this really only works while ranged and rogue (or goblin) because otherwise it's an action to Hide.

And yes, if there's lots of cover around and you're facing a rogue, he's going to get his Sneak Attack every turn. Which is...about normal. You can take cover yourself, ready an action to blast them when they pop out, etc.

A353 Yes. They can TWF just fine. They can't use two-handed weapons, but when you TWF you're not "using two hands to make an attack with a weapon"--you're using one hand, then the other hand to make two separate attacks with two separate weapons.

[HMS Invincible]

Q. 354 Can you cast spells under lava if you are immune to fire(say a liche?)

[Chronos]

352 addendum:

* A gains some form of extra-visual perception, such as Tremorsense and B is within range of that sense.

Neither Stealth nor Perception specifies any particular sense. You can, in principle, hide from any sort of sense at all. But what counts as "concealment" against Tremorsense is likely to be different from what counts as "concealment" vs. sight.

A 354:

Being under lava (even if you're not immune to it) does not, in itself, hinder spellcasting. But lava is opaque, so if your eyes are under, you won't be able to see any targets, and most spells require you to see your target, so your spellcasting would be indirectly limited in that way.

[Millstone85]

A 354: Being under lava (even if you're not immune to it) does not, in itself, hinder spellcasting. But lava is opaque, so if your eyes are under, you won't be able to see any targets, and most spells require you to see your target, so your spellcasting would be indirectly limited in that way.

Lava is also viscous, which would hinder somatic and verbal* components. I am no volcanologist, even less so when it comes to para-elemental magma, but I think it would be like being buried in boiling mud.

* Okay, maybe not for a lich.

[Dalebert]

Lava is also viscous, which would hinder somatic and verbal* components. I am no volcanologist, even less so when it comes to para-elemental magma, but I think it would be like being buried in boiling mud.

* Okay, maybe not for a lich.

Okay but you're getting into what would be a DM call now and this is the RAW thread.

[Millstone85]

Okay but you're getting into what would be a DM call now and this is the RAW thread.

Is there any RAW on lava to begin with?

[Dalebert]

Is there any RAW on lava to begin with?

Exactly, and there's no RAW about viscous fluids interfering with verbal and somatic components.

[Millstone85]

Exactly, and there's no RAW about viscous fluids interfering with verbal and somatic components.

Okay, you are right. Every DM would agree that lava is opaque, and there are rules for that, whereas lava being no more viscous than water is a common fantasy trope, and there are no rules for viscosity.

[Chronos]

If we're getting into magma's real-world properties, it'd be very difficult to immerse an organic creature in it at all. Flesh, or even bone, is much less dense than magma, so you'd just float at the surface.

[Edwin Briar]

Q. 355
If one would multiclass into Kensei-Monk and Swords-Bard, would the AC-bonuses of Agile Parry and Defensive Flourish stack if the requirements for both (burned a BI-dice for the flourish and performed 1 unarmed attack as part of the attack action) would be fulfilled?

[Galithar]

Q. 355
If one would multiclass into Kensei-Monk and Swords-Bard, would the AC-bonuses of Agile Parry and Defensive Flourish stack if the requirements for both (burned a BI-dice for the flourish and performed 1 unarmed attack as part of the attack action) would be fulfilled?

A355
Yes. As they do not set your AC to a specific number, but add a bonus to AC, if you can satisfy the conditions of both abilities you can activate them both. Since they are not the same ability there is nothing preventing them from stacking.

[Psyren]

Q14: Is there guidance for how loud/noticeable a verbal component is?

[Dualswinger]

Q. 356
An opportunity attack takes place immediately before the triggering movement, that is, a creature is still considered to be in range of a non-reach weapon when moving outside of the threatened area.

A warlock with pole arm master and warcaster is equipped with a quarter staff. An enemy declares a movement that will place the enemy adjacent to the warlock.

If the warlock used eb, would he have disadvantage on the attack roll(s) for the target being within 5ft?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Q. 356
An opportunity attack takes place immediately before the triggering movement, that is, a creature is still considered to be in range of a non-reach weapon when moving outside of the threatened area.

A warlock with pole arm master and warcaster is equipped with a quarter staff. An enemy declares a movement that will place the enemy adjacent to the warlock.

If the warlock used eb, would he have disadvantage on the attack roll(s) for the target being within 5ft?

A 356
Two cases:

Standard OA (creature leaving reach): Yes. The creature is still within 5 feet, so disadvantage on ranged attacks (via Warcaster).

PAM OA (creature entering reach): Assuming that you can combo those two feats[1], then the creature is at 10 feet and so the caster does not have disadvantage.

[1] There is an argument that the PAM-triggered OA must be taken with the PAM-qualified weapon. DMs may vary on how well this works. I, for one, would rule this way (that you can't combo Warcaster and PAM to cast EB when the PAM-OA triggers). But YMMV.

[Dualswinger]

Q. 356b

Tangentially related but while I’ve got you...

Our warlock has shape changed into a marilith but retained a pam weapon. She therefore has infinite reactions. A creature attempts to move out of the mari-locks threatened space, triggering an oa(1).

With the first eb, use repelling blast, then with the second, use grasp of hafar to drag them close. They enter the threatened space. If they continue to try and leave the space, would oa(2) trigger? And could this happen indefinitely?

[ThePolarBear]

Q. 356b

Our warlock has shape changed into a marilith but retained a pam weapon. She therefore has infinite reactions. A creature attempts to move out of the mari-locks threatened space, triggering an oa(1).

With the first eb, use repelling blast, then with the second, use grasp of hafar to drag them close. They enter the threatened space. If they continue to try and leave the space, would oa(2) trigger? And could this happen indefinitely?

A356b
A list of various problems, in an arbitrary order of importance:

Marilith do not have infinite reactions. Mariliths are limited to one reaction each turn instead of one each round like most other creatures. So, even if a creature were to leave and re enter willingly during their own turn,and Mariliths were able to cast spells, the demon would be able to only cast a single EB. This shuts down the synergy you are asking for for any combination of class and spells that manages to reach it.

Warlocks get True Polymorph but a Marilith can't cast spells. This means you can't cast spells while being polymorphed as a Marilith. Also, you lose access to any and all class features, so no PAM.

Warlocks do not get Shapechange as a spell.

Marilith do not come with weapons pre equipped. You morph into a creature, not into the equipment of said creature. The Warlock would need to provide their own large version of the appropriate weapon.

In regards to "entering", it's debatable whether the "forced movement" clause of AoOs does apply or not to PAM's. It is not directly changed, so i think it should apply, but PAM specifies "entering" instead of moving, so an argument could be made.

[VoxRationis]

Q. 357

How does dismissing a spell work? Is there a default way to dismiss active spells that don't require concentration? I though there was a rule saying you could automatically dismiss your own spells, but I couldn't find it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Q. 357

How does dismissing a spell work? Is there a default way to dismiss active spells that don't require concentration? I though there was a rule saying you could automatically dismiss your own spells, but I couldn't find it.

A 357 Only spells that require concentration are dismissable (by ending concentration as a non-action). Anything else? dispel magic or wait out the duration.

[Dalebert]

A 357 Some non-concentration spells say you can end them, usually with an action. Ex: Disguise Self.
Otherwise the previous answer is correct.

[Pinjata]

Q. 357
Adventurers are clearing a dungeon with rooms A, B and C, they are connected via corridors. Adventurers have cleared A and B and are now advancing toward C, containing a Bugbear with Surprise attack ability. Bugbear rolled Stealth(20) to hide vs Adventurers perception (highest is 15), with a goal of using Surprise attack ability.

If I'm reading rules correctly, Bugbear is unable to apply his Surprise attack in this situation, since Adventurers are alert and can not be surprised?

[Galithar]

Q. 357
Adventurers are clearing a dungeon with rooms A, B and C, they are connected via corridors. Adventurers have cleared A and B and are now advancing toward C, containing a Bugbear with Surprise attack ability. Bugbear rolled Stealth(20) to hide vs Adventurers perception (highest is 15), with a goal of using Surprise attack ability.

If I'm reading rules correctly, Bugbear is unable to apply his Surprise attack in this situation, since Adventurers are alert and can not be surprised?

A357
The adventurers can be surprised. They may be "alert" for danger, but that doesn't mean they automatically notice it. They have a perception of 15 versus the bugbears stealth of 20. That means that the adventurers don't notice the bugbear and when conflict initiates they will be affected by the surprised condition.

The only time an adventurer 'can't be surprised' is if they have a feature that says as much, such as the Alert feat.

[Armisael]

Q358: Alex casts Dominate Person on Bob and takes 'total and precise control' of him. Chris casts Charm Person on Bob (but not Alex), inflicting the charmed condition which states that the charmed creature cannot attack the charmer. If Alex orders Bob to attack Chris, will it happen? Why?

More generally, how does the charmed condition interact with effects that allow a third party to take total control of another creature?

[leogobsin]

Q358: Alex casts Dominate Person on Bob and takes 'total and precise control' of him. Chris casts Charm Person on Bob (but not Alex), inflicting the charmed condition which states that the charmed creature cannot attack the charmer. If Alex orders Bob to attack Chris, will it happen? Why?

More generally, how does the charmed condition interact with effects that allow a third party to take total control of another creature?

A358 As far as I can tell, Bob can't attack Chris. Alex has control, but still has to abide by what Bob is capable of doing. Alex couldn't have Bob move while Grappled, or take an action while Stunned, so the restrictions on attacking from Charmed wouldn't be any different.

[svipdagr77]

A 356
Two cases:

Standard OA (creature leaving reach): Yes. The creature is still within 5 feet, so disadvantage on ranged attacks (via Warcaster).

PAM OA (creature entering reach): Assuming that you can combo those two feats[1], then the creature is at 10 feet and so the caster does not have disadvantage.

[1] There is an argument that the PAM-triggered OA must be taken with the PAM-qualified weapon. DMs may vary on how well this works. I, for one, would rule this way (that you can't combo Warcaster and PAM to cast EB when the PAM-OA triggers). But YMMV.

Not to derail, but the original question was about a warlock wielding a quarterstaff and quarterstaves don't have reach, so the PAM OA would trigger when the opponent was within 5' and disadvantage would apply. PhoenixPhyre's answer is correct for glaives, halberds, or pikes.

[Pinjata]

Q358 Invisibility is cast upon creature A. Creature A walks to a table and grabs a bottle. Does bottle become invisible too? (please with page references to rulebooks)

[Chronos]

Re: 358:

The only guidance I can find in the rules is the text of the Invisibility spell: "Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible as long as it is on the target's person". The debate would then be whether that means the things the target was wearing or carrying at the time the spell was cast, or anything that the target ever wears or carries.

The only place I know of that talks about invisibility in general is the condition summary, which doesn't say anything about equipment.