New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 40 of 51 FirstFirst ... 15303132333435363738394041424344454647484950 ... LastLast
Results 1,171 to 1,200 of 1521
  1. - Top - End - #1171
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RogueGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2019

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    406:
    Thanks.

    For clarity, the breath weapon is not an "attack" per RAW because it did not come about by taking the attack action, so is it a spell?

    But, some spells are attacks (because you roll d20 vs AC to determine a hit, like eldrige blast) but anything with a saving throw isn't an attack, its something else?

  2. - Top - End - #1172
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Prime Material Plane

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by da newt View Post
    406:
    Thanks.

    For clarity, the breath weapon is not an "attack" per RAW because it did not come about by taking the attack action, so is it a spell?

    But, some spells are attacks (because you roll d20 vs AC to determine a hit, like eldrige blast) but anything with a saving throw isn't an attack, its something else?
    R406: No. Monsters work a little differently than a Player Character in combat. Monsters have a Stat Block (Bandit Captain: https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/bandit-captain) that define what they can do. Monsters can take all normal Actions in Combat that a PC can take, plus those listed under "Actions" in their stat block. (Many things listed in the stat block will overlap the Actions in Combat, but some like a breath weapon do not.)

  3. - Top - End - #1173
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Millstone85's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Paris, France
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    R406
    Quote Originally Posted by da newt View Post
    406:
    Thanks.

    For clarity, the breath weapon is not an "attack" per RAW because it did not come about by taking the attack action, so is it a spell?

    But, some spells are attacks (because you roll d20 vs AC to determine a hit, like eldrige blast) but anything with a saving throw isn't an attack, its something else?
    It is not about the Attack action. It is, as you then said, about whether an attack roll was made against an armor class.

    Quote Originally Posted by E’Tallitnics View Post
    R406: No. Monsters work a little differently than a Player Character in combat. Monsters have a Stat Block (Bandit Captain: https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/bandit-captain) that define what they can do. Monsters can take all normal Actions in Combat that a PC can take, plus those listed under "Actions" in their stat block. (Many things listed in the stat block will overlap the Actions in Combat, but some like a breath weapon do not.)
    Well, PCs aren't limited to Actions in Combat either. Many class features, for example Lay on Hands, do not fall under any of these.
    Last edited by Millstone85; 2019-10-23 at 04:55 PM.

  4. - Top - End - #1174
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RogueGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2019

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    406 more

    So an attack is anything that you roll a D20 for and compare to AC - Some spells are attacks, but some use saving throws - anything with a saving throw isn't an attack it's a ------ (please fill in the blank)

    Thanks again. I'm just jumping back into D&D - last time I played was in the 80s.
    Last edited by da newt; 2019-10-23 at 05:54 PM.

  5. - Top - End - #1175
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Millstone85's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Paris, France
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by da newt View Post
    anything with a saving throw isn't an attack it's a ------ (please fill in the blank)
    R406 It is an effect that allows a saving throw.

  6. - Top - End - #1176
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RogueGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2019

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Q407: magic staffs

    If a magic staff allows you to "use an action to expend one or more of the staff's charges to cast ..." Are you casting a spell or is the staff causing an effect? In other words, can you do it while raging?

    If the staff's description doesn't include "can be wielded as a magic quarterstaff that grants +X bonus to attack and damage rolls" can you still wack bad guys with it like a standard quarterstaff, is it useless as a melee weapon, or is it an improvised weapon (like a tree branch)? Assuming you can bash with it, does the magic staff overcome Immunity or Resistance from non-magical attacks?

    Thanks

  7. - Top - End - #1177
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2019

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Q408 Does Giant's Bane require two Attunement slots or three?

    Hammer of Thunderbolts, the maul, is a +1 weapon by itself requiring no attunement, but then it says Giant's Bane and lists two attunement items but also says Giant's Bane requires attunement. it is unclear whether the attunement it requires is simply the gauntlets and belt, or the giant's bane is a separate attunement.
    Last edited by dolamoth; 2019-10-25 at 10:22 AM.

  8. - Top - End - #1178
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Land of Cleves
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    A 407:
    Some magical staves might be usable as quarterstaves, and some might not, on a case-by-case basis decided by your DM. Even if it is not a quarterstaff, however, it can still be used as an improvised weapon, because anything handheld can be used as an improvised weapon, and it is probably similar enough to a quarterstaff to do quarterstaff damage. In such a case, nobody would be proficient with its use as a weapon unless they have the Tavern Brawler feat, but it is still a magical item, and so would bypass resistance or immunity to nonmagical weapons.
    Time travels in divers paces with divers persons.
    As You Like It, III:ii:328

    Chronos's Unalliterative Skillmonkey Guide
    Current Homebrew: 5th edition psionics

  9. - Top - End - #1179
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Mar 2017

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by da newt View Post
    Q407: magic staffs
    A407 Yes, you are casting the spell. The staff allows you to spend an action to spend charges. Spending charges allows you to "cast a spell", so you can do exactly that. If it allowed you to have the effect of a spell without casting it, it would say so in a general or specific rule. No, can't do while raging.

    Some general rules for staves can be found on page 140 DMG. Unless specifically prohibited, you can use a staff as a quarterstaff. It is a magic item and a magic weapon.
    If it is called out as being unable to be used as a quarterstaff it falls under the rules for improvised weapons - resistance to magical sources of physical damage is bound, for the most part, by a "magical attack". As MM p8 a "magical attack is an attack delivered by a spell, a magic item, or another magical source". Even a magic item that is not a magic weapon would count as "enough" to bypass the resistance, since it is a magic item and the attack is (supposedly) delivered through it.

    Quote Originally Posted by dolamoth View Post
    Q408 Does Giant's Bane require two Attunement slots or three?

    Hammer of Thunderbolts, the maul, is a +1 weapon by itself requiring no attunement, but then it says Giant's Bane and lists two attunement items but also says Giant's Bane requires attunement. it is unclear whether the attunement it requires is simply the gauntlets and belt, or the giant's bane is a separate attunement.
    A408

    Giant's Bane only needs one attunement slot - you just need to be wearing the other items.

  10. - Top - End - #1180
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Prime Material Plane

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by da newt View Post
    Q407: magic staffs

    If a magic staff allows you to "use an action to expend one or more of the staff's charges to cast ..." Are you casting a spell or is the staff causing an effect? In other words, can you do it while raging?

    If the staff's description doesn't include "can be wielded as a magic quarterstaff that grants +X bonus to attack and damage rolls" can you still wack bad guys with it like a standard quarterstaff, is it useless as a melee weapon, or is it an improvised weapon (like a tree branch)? Assuming you can bash with it, does the magic staff overcome Immunity or Resistance from non-magical attacks?

    Thanks
    A407: From the D&D Beyond* Dungeon Master's Guide (the underlining in my emphasis):

    Staffs
    [...]

    Unless a staff’s description says otherwise, a staff can be used as a quarterstaff.

    Spells
    Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item, often by expending charges from it. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell and caster level, doesn’t expend any of the user’s spell slots, and requires no components unless the item’s description says otherwise. The spell uses its normal casting time, range, and duration, and the user of the item must concentrate if the spell requires concentration. Certain items make exceptions to these rules, changing the casting time, duration, or other parts of a spell.

    [...]


    * The most up-to-date rules reference.

  11. - Top - End - #1181
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Prime Material Plane

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by dolamoth View Post
    Q408 Does Giant's Bane require two Attunement slots or three?

    Hammer of Thunderbolts, the maul, is a +1 weapon by itself requiring no attunement, but then it says Giant's Bane and lists two attunement items but also says Giant's Bane requires attunement. it is unclear whether the attunement it requires is simply the gauntlets and belt, or the giant's bane is a separate attunement.
    A408: The Hammer of Thunderbolts itself requires attunement: https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-item...f-thunderbolts. When the description says, "Weapon (maul), legendary (requires attunement)" that refers to the item itself.

    Then to activate Giant's Bane you have to attune to all three items, which is why that subparagraph reads, "(requires attunement)". So it's there as a reminder that all three items must be worn and attuned to gain its benefit of outright killing a giant that fails the DC17 CON save on a critical hit.

  12. - Top - End - #1182
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Mar 2017

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by E’Tallitnics View Post
    A408: The Hammer of Thunderbolts itself requires attunement: https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-item...f-thunderbolts. When the description says, "Weapon (maul), legendary (requires attunement)" that refers to the item itself.

    Then to activate Giant's Bane you have to attune to all three items, which is why that subparagraph reads, "(requires attunement)". So it's there as a reminder that all three items must be worn and attuned to gain its benefit of outright killing a giant that fails the DC17 CON save on a critical hit.
    The Hammer of Thunderbolts on D&D Beyond is inconsistent with itself. In this page it doesn't require attunement, same as it doesn't in the DMG (and again it could be simply something that is missing from the errata document. Again.Can someone with a "recent" version of the DMG chime in?)

    However, the reference page for the Hammer that you linked points at the description being taken from the Basic Rules, page 173. There's no description of any kind of magical item in the Basic Rules, at all. Not even the SRD version does have attunement listed (page 224, btw).
    I think it is either a bug due to how they need to use attumenent internally to make things work or simply a mistake.

    This D&D Beyond dichotomy is getting VERY annoying, however. I don't know what to trust.

  13. - Top - End - #1183
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    BloodSnake'sCha's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by da newt View Post
    406 more

    So an attack is anything that you roll a D20 for and compare to AC - Some spells are attacks, but some use saving throws - anything with a saving throw isn't an attack it's a ------ (please fill in the blank)

    Thanks again. I'm just jumping back into D&D - last time I played was in the 80s.
    There are actually two attacks that don't use an attack roll bit an ability check.
    Grapple and shove.

    Grappling
    When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple. If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.
    Shoving a Creature
    Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you. If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.
    This is from the PHB. Chapter 9: Combat

  14. - Top - End - #1184
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2013

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Q409

    Is it correct that Wizards cannot add Cantrips to their spellbooks? You're stuck with the ones you choose initially (at creation or level up)?

  15. - Top - End - #1185
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Prime Material Plane

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Adventurer View Post
    Q409

    Is it correct that Wizards cannot add Cantrips to their spellbooks? You're stuck with the ones you choose initially (at creation or level up)?
    A409: Yes, that is correct. Even if you find one on a scroll it still cannot be added to a spellbook.

  16. - Top - End - #1186
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    RedKnightGirl

    Join Date
    May 2017

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Q410
    Do the +1d4 to saves from a Bless spell and the Ceremony dedication spell stack?

  17. - Top - End - #1187
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Prime Material Plane

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Bitters View Post
    Q410
    Do the +1d4 to saves from a Bless spell and the Ceremony dedication spell stack?
    AQ410: They do! Only mechanics, like spells, that have the same name don’t stack.

  18. - Top - End - #1188
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2013

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by E’Tallitnics View Post
    A409: Yes, that is correct. Even if you find one on a scroll it still cannot be added to a spellbook.
    Q411

    Does this mean that if I find a spellbook with cantrips in it, they are useless to me? There's no use to which they can be put?

    Should cantrips even appear in spellbooks?

    (Disclaimer: my DM has given us an enemy spellbook that does have cantrips in it, so it's not just theoretical for me.)

  19. - Top - End - #1189
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2005

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    A411

    Cantrips are not written in spellbooks. Read the Spellbook feature:

    Your spellbook is the repository of the wizard spells you know, except your cantrips, which are fixed in your mind.
    RAW, there is no way to write a cantrip into a spellbook. And even if there was (or if you acquire a cantrip scroll, which do exist), there's no way to take a written cantrip and learn it.


    Powers &8^]

  20. - Top - End - #1190
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Prime Material Plane

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Adventurer View Post
    Q411

    Does this mean that if I find a spellbook with cantrips in it, they are useless to me? There's no use to which they can be put?

    Should cantrips even appear in spellbooks?

    (Disclaimer: my DM has given us an enemy spellbook that does have cantrips in it, so it's not just theoretical for me.)
    R411: RAW:

    • Cantrips should not appear in spellbooks. Only spells of 1st level or higher may be added. (PH-p.114 [green sidebar])
    • You can create a spell scroll of a cantrip, but it must be prepared or from known spells. (XGtE-p.133)


    Since your DM is the final arbiter of the rules please them about their reasoning for giving you a spellbook with cantrips. They may be unaware of the RAW, or are aware and have something else in mind.
    Last edited by E’Tallitnics; 2019-10-31 at 03:10 PM. Reason: Ninja'd by Lt.Powers

  21. - Top - End - #1191
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2013

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Thanks very much all for the stuff about Cantrips and spellbooks. I'll talk to the DM.

  22. - Top - End - #1192
    Titan in the Playground
     
    TaiLiu's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Gender
    Intersex

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Q412

    Can the Crossbow Expert feat and a spell like booming blade be used in conjunction? More specifically, I'm interested if this aspect can be invoked:
    Quote Originally Posted by C.E.
    When you use the Attack action and attack with a one-handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a hand crossbow you are holding.
    I'm guessing the answer is no. Booming blade states that "you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range," but my understanding is that the Attack action is distinct from just any melee attack. But I just figured I would check in.

  23. - Top - End - #1193
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    GnomeWizardGuy

    Join Date
    May 2005

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by TaiLiu View Post
    Q412

    Can the Crossbow Expert feat and a spell like booming blade be used in conjunction? More specifically, I'm interested if this aspect can be invoked:

    I'm guessing the answer is no. Booming blade states that "you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range," but my understanding is that the Attack action is distinct from just any melee attack. But I just figured I would check in.
    A412
    You're right, the answer is "no". The "Cast a spell" action is being used to cast booming blade, which as part of it allows you to also make the melee attack, but you're definitely not using the "Attack action" as Crossbow Expert specifies. Notably however, this section of CBE "Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls" does apply to ranged spells with attack rolls.

  24. - Top - End - #1194
    Titan in the Playground
     
    TaiLiu's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Gender
    Intersex

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by Eriol View Post
    A412
    You're right, the answer is "no". The "Cast a spell" action is being used to cast booming blade, which as part of it allows you to also make the melee attack, but you're definitely not using the "Attack action" as Crossbow Expert specifies. Notably however, this section of CBE "Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls" does apply to ranged spells with attack rolls.
    Got it. Thanks for the quick answer, Eriol.

  25. - Top - End - #1195
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2013

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Q413

    When a Warlock invocation says you can cast a spell at will, without expending a spell slot - do you still need to have the spell as a spell known? If no, is there somewhere that this is made explicit?

  26. - Top - End - #1196
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2011

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Adventurer View Post
    Q413

    When a Warlock invocation says you can cast a spell at will, without expending a spell slot - do you still need to have the spell as a spell known?
    No, you don't.

    Class feature says you can cast it at will without expending a spell slot. Ergo you can freely cast it at will without using a spell slot, because it's exactly what it says. You are only subject to general restrictions on spellcasting (components needed, action requirement, etc.) and any specific restrictions within the spell description itself (if any).

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Adventurer View Post
    If no, is there somewhere that this is made explicit?
    It doesn't need to make it explicit because it already says you are allowed to do so. The rules don't need to call out everything.

    Plus, ruling otherwise is patently ludicrous as it would mean most of the invocations that grant spells (Armor of Shadows, Ascendant Step, Beast Speech, etc.) are useless and a complete waste of the space they are printed on, because a decent chunk of them grant spells that don't even occur on the Warlock list.
    Last edited by NNescio; 2019-11-05 at 03:44 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by kardar233 View Post
    GitP: The only place where D&D and Cantorian Set Theory combine. Also a place of madness, and small fairy cakes.

  27. - Top - End - #1197
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2013

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by NNescio View Post
    No, you don't.

    Class feature says you can cast it at will without expending a spell slot. Ergo you can freely cast it at will without using a spell slot, because it's exactly what it says. You are only subject to general restrictions on spellcasting (components needed, action requirement, etc.) and any specific restrictions within the spell description itself (if any).



    It doesn't need to make it explicit because it already says you are allowed to do so. The rules don't need to call out everything.

    Plus, ruling otherwise is patently ludicrous as it would mean most of the invocations that grant spells (Armor of Shadows, Ascendant Step, Beast Speech, etc.) are useless and a complete waste of the space they are printed on, because a decent chunk of them grant spells that don't even occur on the Warlock list.
    I get what you are saying - but the part where it specifies it takes no spell slot is what tripped me up. Why specify that it takes no spell slot if you can just cast it at will (as you say)? So I wasn't clear if there was a good reason for that that might also mean there were other restrictions. Hence my question. I hadn't compared the invocations to the Warlock spell list. Your answer is what I thought it would (and should) be.

  28. - Top - End - #1198
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Land of Cleves
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    They probably specified that because there are other warlock invocations that do require you to use a spell slot.
    Time travels in divers paces with divers persons.
    As You Like It, III:ii:328

    Chronos's Unalliterative Skillmonkey Guide
    Current Homebrew: 5th edition psionics

  29. - Top - End - #1199
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Millstone85's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Paris, France
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    It is also a restriction, in that it forbids you to upcast the spell.

  30. - Top - End - #1200
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2019

    Default Re: Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

    Q414 Is it possible for a character with both the Dueling and Two-Weapon Fighting fighting styles (for instance, a level 10 Champion Fighter) to benefit from both in the same turn by attacking with a one-handed light weapon while not holding any other weapons, and then drawing another light weapon and attacking with it?

    As a corollary, would that character be able to repeat this process every turn by dropping the second weapon at the start of the next turn, and either picking up the dropped weapon on the next turn or drawing a new one? (Imagine a Fighter wearing a belt with ten daggers in it.)

    Relevant sections of relevant rules (no page numbers because I'm using SRD):
    • Dueling: When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon.
    • Two-Weapon Fighting (combat mechanic): When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
    • Two-Weapon Fighting (fighting style): When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack.

    This has probably already been asked before, and I have my own idea of how it should work, but it recently came to my attention again in the process of designing a little homebrew somethin'-somethin'.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •