Divine favor is for weapon attacks and fizban dragonborn (chromatic/etc) Says attack action can be replaced with a breath weapon.
I would say no but hey if it does work it could be so wild aoe damage for divine favor. Another thing to add. Two weapon fighting requires. Light weapon attack to use the bonus action to attack with another light weapon. Unless you have the feat which allows martial weapons that are not heavy.
No, if you replace a weapon attack with something that is not a weapon attack, it no longer qualifies for features that require weapon attacks, because it's not a weapon attack.
Divine favor is for weapon attacks and fizban dragonborn (chromatic/etc) Says attack action can be replaced with a breath weapon.
I would say no but hey if it does work it could be so wild aoe damage for divine favor. Another thing to add. Two weapon fighting requires. Light weapon attack to use the bonus action to attack with another light weapon. Unless you have the feat which allows martial weapons that are not heavy.
No, if you replace a weapon attack with something that is not a weapon attack, it no longer qualifies for features that require weapon attacks, because it's not a weapon attack.
Ah oops I didn’t see this message, I suppose I didn’t need to reply. Sorry!
oh no, so much necromancy, don’t you know that’s outlawed in this ‘ere town.
To the point however. No.
The interesting thing is that the "this 'ere town" is one of the places where thread necromancy is approved :). There are no restrictions on Thread necromancy in the site guidelines and the rules on thread "bumping" are:
"It is not permitted to “bump” threads for the sake of increasing post visibility, raising thread priority, or alerting subscribed members of a thread. Threads may be replied to if they contain a significant update or contribution to the discussion."
In many cases, it might make more sense to start a new thread if the context has changed enough but when discussing related or evolving content, there is no rule against replying to an older related topic - and honestly, it happens quite a lot on these forums.
oh no, so much necromancy, don’t you know that’s outlawed in this ‘ere town.
To the point however. No.
The interesting thing is that the "this 'ere town" is one of the places where thread necromancy is approved :). There are no restrictions on Thread necromancy in the site guidelines and the rules on thread "bumping" are:
"It is not permitted to “bump” threads for the sake of increasing post visibility, raising thread priority, or alerting subscribed members of a thread. Threads may be replied to if they contain a significant update or contribution to the discussion."
In many cases, it might make more sense to start a new thread if the context has changed enough but when discussing related or evolving content, there is no rule against replying to an older related topic - and honestly, it happens quite a lot on these forums.
Huh.
I always just assumed it was rude, but I suppose the site rules don’t actually say that necromancy isn’t allowed.
oh no, so much necromancy, don’t you know that’s outlawed in this ‘ere town.
To the point however. No.
The interesting thing is that the "this 'ere town" is one of the places where thread necromancy is approved :). There are no restrictions on Thread necromancy in the site guidelines and the rules on thread "bumping" are:
"It is not permitted to “bump” threads for the sake of increasing post visibility, raising thread priority, or alerting subscribed members of a thread. Threads may be replied to if they contain a significant update or contribution to the discussion."
In many cases, it might make more sense to start a new thread if the context has changed enough but when discussing related or evolving content, there is no rule against replying to an older related topic - and honestly, it happens quite a lot on these forums.
Huh.
I always just assumed it was rude, but I suppose the site rules don’t actually say that necromancy isn’t allowed.
Is it considered rude by the general public?
It used to be against the rules. They changed the rules and I haven’t seen anyone on the forums happy about it.
oh no, so much necromancy, don’t you know that’s outlawed in this ‘ere town.
To the point however. No.
The interesting thing is that the "this 'ere town" is one of the places where thread necromancy is approved :). There are no restrictions on Thread necromancy in the site guidelines and the rules on thread "bumping" are:
"It is not permitted to “bump” threads for the sake of increasing post visibility, raising thread priority, or alerting subscribed members of a thread. Threads may be replied to if they contain a significant update or contribution to the discussion."
In many cases, it might make more sense to start a new thread if the context has changed enough but when discussing related or evolving content, there is no rule against replying to an older related topic - and honestly, it happens quite a lot on these forums.
Huh.
I always just assumed it was rude, but I suppose the site rules don’t actually say that necromancy isn’t allowed.
Is it considered rude by the general public?
It used to be against the rules. They changed the rules and I haven’t seen anyone on the forums happy about it.
It certainly bothers me. And it’s often for very silly things, like: “I’ll definitely be using this in future!”
For clarification, the thread necromancy rule was removed because it was redundant; if someone replies to a thread that's been long inactive with a meaningful, worthwhile, or otherwise constructive contribution, that's fine. If someone replies with something that is non-productive or revives the thread for no good reason, that's Non-Constructive Posting. A specific rule for thread necromancy wasn't needed and was only serving to discourage valid re-activation of inactive threads in some circumstances.
No, if you replace a weapon attack with something that is not a weapon attack, it no longer qualifies for features that require weapon attacks, because it's not a weapon attack.
oh no, so much necromancy, don’t you know that’s outlawed in this ‘ere town.
To the point however. No.
Ah oops I didn’t see this message, I suppose I didn’t need to reply. Sorry!
The interesting thing is that the "this 'ere town" is one of the places where thread necromancy is approved :). There are no restrictions on Thread necromancy in the site guidelines and the rules on thread "bumping" are:
"It is not permitted to “bump” threads for the sake of increasing post visibility, raising thread priority, or alerting subscribed members of a thread. Threads may be replied to if they contain a significant update or contribution to the discussion."
In many cases, it might make more sense to start a new thread if the context has changed enough but when discussing related or evolving content, there is no rule against replying to an older related topic - and honestly, it happens quite a lot on these forums.
Huh.
I always just assumed it was rude, but I suppose the site rules don’t actually say that necromancy isn’t allowed.
Is it considered rude by the general public?
It used to be against the rules. They changed the rules and I haven’t seen anyone on the forums happy about it.
It certainly bothers me. And it’s often for very silly things, like: “I’ll definitely be using this in future!”
For clarification, the thread necromancy rule was removed because it was redundant; if someone replies to a thread that's been long inactive with a meaningful, worthwhile, or otherwise constructive contribution, that's fine. If someone replies with something that is non-productive or revives the thread for no good reason, that's Non-Constructive Posting. A specific rule for thread necromancy wasn't needed and was only serving to discourage valid re-activation of inactive threads in some circumstances.
Now back on topic
Find my D&D Beyond articles here