do Thunder Gauntlets count as "weapons with a value of 1 sp or greater" since they are automagically provided by Arcane Armor, but are still part of the base armor which does have a value of 1 sp or greater by definition?
Initiating combat while hidden, and the 'surprised' enemy wins initiative. Descriptively, what just happened there? Did they recognize a threat, something like a spidey sense? Or, should they carry on with their normal business unawares, yet are somehow prevented from doing so because of being surprised by... nothing, somehow, so mechanically cannot continue whatever course of action they were already on. Etc.
Also, lighting/vision/obscurement/cover just needs a full errata/rewrite.
Close the multi-class spellcaster knowing higher level spells loophole that we all collectively pretend isn't there.
Holding a focus and casting a spell with that same free hand for the somatic component.
What precisely is the target of a spell and how to differentiate it from the point of origin.
When moving while grappling a target how much control do you have over where they end up while 'moving with you'.
I can answer *most* of these point by point.
1. "OH SHOOT THERE'S A THREAT" and now they can only react after their initiative order happens. It's like that moment where a human just notices the jaguar hiding in the shadows, but not quick enough to move or get away, only react to defend.
2. ...okay, I can't really disagree with this one.
3. What multiclass spell loophole? The rules are pretty explicit that you may gain spell slots of a higher level, but you learn (or prepare) spells from your multiclasses as though you were a single level member of the class. Wizard 3/Sorc 5 can only learn and prepare 2nd level wizard spells, despite having 3rd level spell slots from Sorcerer.
4. It's actually pretty clear if you read the component rules in order - Somatic component comes first. "You MUST have a free hand-" cool. That's the General rule: Somatic components require a free hand. Now Material component rules come up: "If your spell has a material component, you must have a free hand--or a hand using a focus--to get the material. This can be the same hand as Somatic components." This is more specific: If a spell has a material component, the focus serves as your component and thus, that same hand can do somatic components per the *specific* rule of Material components. It's pretty clear (if irritating).
5. The target of the spell is simultaneously "something targeted" such as firebolt, or something "affected" by an AoE such as Fireball. ...yes, this could use some clarification cause it's a pain in the neck to explain this.
6. This one I'll concede, it would be nice to have confirmation on whether you can choose where a target ends up as you move them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
If so that'd be great. I think you can link out of DnDbeyond here.
But I'm fairly sure that there has to be more nuance than "these rules are the general rules and these rules are the specific ones. Specific ones beat the general ones."
Well as an update, I found the video where he talks about the importance of specific vs general along with several other rules in the preface of the PHB, but it doesn’t actually go into detail about its relevance per chapter in that video. He talks about that in another video that I haven’t been able to find. I’m still working on it.
do Thunder Gauntlets count as "weapons with a value of 1 sp or greater" since they are automagically provided by Arcane Armor, but are still part of the base armor which does have a value of 1 sp or greater by definition?
This will be determined by DMs currently, the same way they must define any such unlisted weapon's value. Is a shadowblade worth 1sp? If it saves your life its probably worth a hellova lot more than 1sp. Spellcasting services alone suggest a 2nd level spell casting is value far above 1sp. Whatabout improvised weapons that are similar to other normal weapons? Wht if that normal weapon is more than 1sp but the object being used as a weapon itself isn't? What about natural weapons? I can promise I'd value my hand at more than 1sp, but can you unarmed strike with booming blade? There is no definitive answers to any of these types of questions.
Initiating combat while hidden, and the 'surprised' enemy wins initiative. Descriptively, what just happened there? Did they recognize a threat, something like a spidey sense? Or, should they carry on with their normal business unawares, yet are somehow prevented from doing so because of being surprised by... nothing, somehow, so mechanically cannot continue whatever course of action they were already on. Etc.
Also, lighting/vision/obscurement/cover just needs a full errata/rewrite.
Close the multi-class spellcaster knowing higher level spells loophole that we all collectively pretend isn't there.
Holding a focus and casting a spell with that same free hand for the somatic component.
What precisely is the target of a spell and how to differentiate it from the point of origin.
When moving while grappling a target how much control do you have over where they end up while 'moving with you'.
I can answer *most* of these point by point.
1. "OH SHOOT THERE'S A THREAT" and now they can only react after their initiative order happens. It's like that moment where a human just notices the jaguar hiding in the shadows, but not quick enough to move or get away, only react to defend.
The potential attacker hasn't revealed their position yet. On their turn they could just not attack, thus remaining hidden.
Narrative-wise what if anything has the ambush-ee seen? they haven't seen the would-be-assassin since the rules state they're still hidden. So what exactly, if anything, do they detect.
Is it spidey sense? is that something every single last creature has in 5e? it should be clarified.
3. What multiclass spell loophole? The rules are pretty explicit that you may gain spell slots of a higher level, but you learn (or prepare) spells from your multiclasses as though you were a single level member of the class. Wizard 3/Sorc 5 can only learn and prepare 2nd level wizard spells, despite having 3rd level spell slots from Sorcerer.
"we all collectively pretend it isn't there" Keep up the ruse comrade!
(Kidding. The real answer: The multiclass rules split know "spellcasting" and "spell slots" into two different rules. This is important. For some classes, the known spells state you can learn spells of a level which you have slots. The multiclass spells known entry says to treat yourself as single class. But, unfortunately, the multiclass slots entry makes no such clarification that these slots are not to be used for that. Since they're separate ability modification entries the "pretend" you're single class only applies for using your know spellcasting function not for the slots one. Everyone ignores this loophole because a few reasons, 1. its broken and obviously so. 2. the examples clarify the intention that it shouldn't work this way but stop just shy of saying it definitively doesn't work like that. 3. bringing it up on forums/tables will get you some serious but unjustified flak for being a rulelawer, munchkin, etc. people just don't like this loophole being brought up and go aggro at it, so people stay quiet)
4. It's actually pretty clear if you read the component rules in order - Somatic component comes first. "You MUST have a free hand-" cool. That's the General rule: Somatic components require a free hand. Now Material component rules come up: "If your spell has a material component, you must have a free hand--or a hand using a focus--to get the material. This can be the same hand as Somatic components." This is more specific: If a spell has a material component, the focus serves as your component and thus, that same hand can do somatic components per the *specific* rule of Material components. It's pretty clear (if irritating).
A few things,
a "free hand" isn't ever defined. Does that mean empty? And if so, can it wear a ring? 2? a glove? gauntlet? And, if that isn't what it means, does it instead mean not actively doing something? Like wielding something, such as a weapon or whatever? Every DM will have to decide what they believe it means, since it isn't specified.
your "rules quote" isn't actually a real quote. You've edited it. This isn't great to do. If you aim to present a rules quote, as a quote, you shouldn't alter it.
You said: "If your spell has a material component, you must have a free hand--or a hand using a focus--to get the material. This can be the same hand as Somatic components."
Rules said: "A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell’s material components — or to hold a spellcasting focus — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."
The reason the actual phrasing matter is because it means this is a true statement: 'A spellcaster must have a hand free to ... hold a spellcasting focus but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.'
Speaking of that, though, the rules suggest you can always use a foci for your spells, even if it isn't strictly required. And, while doing so, you can use the same hand that is holding it for its somatic components. See the item description of the foci, Eg: "A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus, as described in chapter 10. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield." This item says you "can" use it. Then it points you to the spellcasting rules, which invoke them for this use-case. Meaning these rules are all valid, and the rule states using the same hand for holding the foci is good for somatic too. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.
Any/all of this could be easily clarified since it comes up... a lot.
5. The target of the spell is simultaneously "something targeted" such as firebolt, or something "affected" by an AoE such as Fireball. ...yes, this could use some clarification cause it's a pain in the neck to explain this.
The authors are also on record having both dissenting and agreeing positions on the issue. And have given wildly different reasoning at times. Needs errata.
6. This one I'll concede, it would be nice to have confirmation on whether you can choose where a target ends up as you move them.
That's 3 of 6 agreed with out the gate. And the remaining 3 still not answered.
A couple of things that have come up recently that I'd like to see addressed are:
Does a spell need have to have material components in order to "use" a spellcasting focus to cast it? Many people say yes, but really there are no rules for a spellcasting focus beyond its name, the mention in the material components section is just part of the material components rules. This definitely needs clarifying for the College of Spirits Bard's Spiritual Focus feature, and a few similar cases. Plus it's silly to think that a wizard with a staff or wandwouldn't be using it to help focus their spells, even if there's normally no mechanical benefit to doing so.
We need clarification of a previous Sage Advice ruling on animate dead and dispel magic/antimagic field. The ruling in question states that the spell itself cannot be dispelled/nullified because it's instantaneous (which is fair enough) but also that it has no effect on the zombie(s) created by it, but doesn't explain why. This creates more issues than it solves, as it seems to imply that being undead is different to being summoned/magically created (which an antimagic field would normally cause to disappear) but it fails to clarify this. This causes issues for find familiar for example, as people try to argue that the familiar is unaffected by an antimagic field because the spell that created it is instantaneous, but I don't believe that to be the case (while the spell is unaffected, the familiar should be).
Multiple clarifications on Armorer; as Neutralista says, do Thunder Gauntlets count as a weapon worth at least 1 sp? They really should as they essentially are the armor they belong, and if it has a cost then so should they. There are also other unclear rules for the Armorer, such as how infusing different parts of a set of arcane armor works if the base armor is already magical, i.e- can you still infuse the helm, boots and weapon separately?
On which note, magic item rules in particular could do with more clarification; if a set of magic armor includes boots, can you still swap them for different boots or are you prevented from doing so? The rules on these is incredibly brief and unhelpful. Clarifying this could potentially solve the Armorer infusion issue as well, as if it's intended that a player can wear magical [Tooltip Not Found] combined with a magical helm, boots and gauntlets, then the same should be the case for Arcane Armor, but neither set of rules is clear.
We need clarification of a previous Sage Advice ruling on animate dead and dispel magic/antimagic field. The ruling in question states that the spell itself cannot be dispelled/nullified because it's instantaneous (which is fair enough) but also that it has no effect on the zombie(s) created by it, but doesn't explain why. This creates more issues than it solves, as it seems to imply that being undead is different to being summoned/magically created (which an antimagic field would normally cause to disappear) but it fails to clarify this. This causes issues for find familiar for example, as people try to argue that the familiar is unaffected by an antimagic field because the spell that created it is instantaneous, but I don't believe that to be the case (while the spell is unaffected, the familiar should be).
On which note, magic item rules in particular could do with more clarification; if a set of magic armor includes boots, can you still swap them for different boots or are you prevented from doing so? The rules on these is incredibly brief and unhelpful. Clarifying this could potentially solve the Armorer infusion issue as well, as if it's intended that a player can wear magical [Tooltip Not Found] combined with a magical helm, boots and gauntlets, then the same should be the case for Arcane Armor, but neither set of rules is clear.
1) The spell is instantaneous, so the undead are no longer being animated by the magic of the spell. The rules for what count as magic don't apply to either an undead creature or a familiar.
2) The DMG at https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/treasure#MultipleItemsoftheSameKind says "A character can’t normally wear more than one pair of footwear, one pair of gloves or gauntlets, one pair of bracers, one suit of armor, one item of headwear, and one cloak." This makes it clear that you wear magical armor as well as a pair of magical footwear.
1) The spell is instantaneous, so the undead are no longer being animated by the magic of the spell. The rules for what count as magic don't apply to either an undead creature or a familiar.
It shouldn't matter that the spell has ended however, as antimagic field specifically affects magically created or summoned creatures:
Creatures and Objects. A creature or object summoned or created by magic temporarily winks out of existence in the sphere. Such a creature instantly reappears once the space the creature occupied is no longer within the sphere.
This means that it should definitely affect a familiar, as it cannot be argued that it is not a magically created or summoned creature (as it exists in no form prior to the spell). The question mark is why the Sage Advice answer makes the exception for a zombie, which could be the fact that the corpse from which it is animated is neither magically created or summoned, it has simply been given unlife.
There is why a reason why I raised this as the sage advice answer is not giving us enough information to fully understand what is (or is not) being said, and actually makes the interaction more confusing not less. 😝
2) The DMG at https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/treasure#MultipleItemsoftheSameKind says "A character can’t normally wear more than one pair of footwear, one pair of gloves or gauntlets, one pair of bracers, one suit of armor, one item of headwear, and one cloak." This makes it clear that you wear magical armor as well as a pair of magical footwear.
Magical plate armour includes boots, greaves, gauntlets etc., which is the problem; for a breastplate there's no issue (though there is still a complication in Arcane Armor, since it extends to cover your body). Since magical armour in both of those cases (plate or Arcane Armor) covers your entire body, it raises the issue of whether you can swap the boots for another pair or not; again, the rules don't have enough information to cover this.
The rule you're referring to is simply clarifying that you can't wear multiple sets of boots over each other, it gives us no guidance about swapping one pair of boots for another. I know how I think it's supposed to work (swap as you please as long as the bulk of the armour is still there) but the rules don't support it, as in RAW plate armour is a onesie you put on as a single piece. 😂
• How does dispel magic interact with spell effects that happen after a spell has ended? For example, blindness from wall of light, lethargy from haste.
• Is dispel magic cast with a 3rd level slot supposed to be able to dispel the effects of spells? Currently as written it doesn't.
• How do counterspell and dispel magic interact with the new way of dealing with spellcasting monsters?
• The difference between magical darkness and normal darkness.
• Stealth, particularly hearing. For example, if an archer is in darkness 120ft away, do they need to make a Stealth check or are they automatically hidden?
• How do "builtin" weapons (natural weapons, added items like thunder gauntlets) interact with smiting and with weapon spells.
Initiating combat while hidden, and the 'surprised' enemy wins initiative. Descriptively, what just happened there? Did they recognize a threat, something like a spidey sense? Or, should they carry on with their normal business unawares, yet are somehow prevented from doing so because of being surprised by... nothing, somehow, so mechanically cannot continue whatever course of action they were already on. Etc.
I can answer *most* of these point by point.
1. "OH SHOOT THERE'S A THREAT" and now they can only react after their initiative order happens. It's like that moment where a human just notices the jaguar hiding in the shadows, but not quick enough to move or get away, only react to defend.
The potential attacker hasn't revealed their position yet. On their turn they could just not attack, thus remaining hidden.
Narrative-wise what if anything has the ambush-ee seen? they haven't seen the would-be-assassin since the rules state they're still hidden. So what exactly, if anything, do they detect.
Is it spidey sense? is that something every single last creature has in 5e? it should be clarified.
My understanding of how it works is this:
1) Going to initiative assumes that the hidden threat has committed to attack. They do not know in advance how the potential target(s) will react or whether they will be fast enough to strike first or not. The would be assassin, being committed to an act which would break cover cannot simply stay hidden. Their cover is broken. If the DM assumes that they had surprise, any target(s) who would otherwise be acting before them would not get to actually act on their first initiative, but would get to use reactions and the attacker would no longer have surprise. However, saying 'I attack them!' and then when you realize your targets are ready for attacks is like stepping off a cliff and complaining that you thought there was an invisible bridge there. After you commit, it is too late to change your mind.
Okay but that's how it should work in theory. but in practice the would be attacker is still hidden, because he succeeded on his stealth check. So is undetected. On his turn, he can attack or simply choose not to. If he does choose not to you have a paradox on your hands. Because they could just end combat right then and there if they wanted, just abandon the assault altogether, and try again to ambush the surprised/not-surprised target again with whole new initiatives.
The ambushed target got surprised by an attacking enemy, but was able to gain the initiative in the situation to recover to that danger quickly. Except the danger never did attack, or reveal itself. What is happening here?
Saying "I attack" and having initiatives rolled doesn't commit you to ever actually attacking on your turn, you get to react to the things people do on higher initiative counts than you. So you get to basically cheese the system, and ambush but not commit until they simply roll lower initiative than you?
A RAW answer to what happens in this situation is needed. This situation only seems like an edge case until you DM for a assassin rogue.
Initiating combat while hidden, and the 'surprised' enemy wins initiative. Descriptively, what just happened there? Did they recognize a threat, something like a spidey sense? Or, should they carry on with their normal business unawares, yet are somehow prevented from doing so because of being surprised by... nothing, somehow, so mechanically cannot continue whatever course of action they were already on. Etc.
I can answer *most* of these point by point.
1. "OH SHOOT THERE'S A THREAT" and now they can only react after their initiative order happens. It's like that moment where a human just notices the jaguar hiding in the shadows, but not quick enough to move or get away, only react to defend.
The potential attacker hasn't revealed their position yet. On their turn they could just not attack, thus remaining hidden.
Narrative-wise what if anything has the ambush-ee seen? they haven't seen the would-be-assassin since the rules state they're still hidden. So what exactly, if anything, do they detect.
Is it spidey sense? is that something every single last creature has in 5e? it should be clarified.
My understanding of how it works is this:
1) Going to initiative assumes that the hidden threat has committed to attack. They do not know in advance how the potential target(s) will react or whether they will be fast enough to strike first or not. The would be assassin, being committed to an act which would break cover cannot simply stay hidden. Their cover is broken. If the DM assumes that they had surprise, any target(s) who would otherwise be acting before them would not get to actually act on their first initiative, but would get to use reactions and the attacker would no longer have surprise. However, saying 'I attack them!' and then when you realize your targets are ready for attacks is like stepping off a cliff and complaining that you thought there was an invisible bridge there. After you commit, it is too late to change your mind.
Okay but that's how it should work in theory. but in practice the would be attacker is still hidden, because he succeeded on his stealth check. So is undetected. On his turn, he can attack or simply choose not to. If he does choose not to you have a paradox on your hands. Because they could just end combat right then and there if they wanted, just abandon the assault altogether, and try again to ambush the surprised/not-surprised target again with whole new initiatives.
The ambushed target got surprised by an attacking enemy, but was able to gain the initiative in the situation to recover to that danger quickly. Except the danger never did attack, or reveal itself. What is happening here?
Saying "I attack" and having initiatives rolled doesn't commit you to ever actually attacking on your turn, you get to react to the things people do on higher initiative counts than you. So you get to basically cheese the system, and ambush but not commit until they simply roll lower initiative than you?
A RAW answer to what happens in this situation is needed. This situation only seems like an edge case until you DM for a assassin rogue.
Again, if he chose not to, there is no initiative roll. The only way there is an initiative roll is if some enemy makes a perception check and sees him or if he declares he is attacking. We are discussing the latter case. You want to be able to commit to an attack, then change your mind if some unforeseen factor (such as the enemy having better reflexes than you expected) suddenly makes the attack no longer ideal.
If the DM is going to mess the player around, they simply will, no matter the rule. However in most cases, the rogue would be expected to have better dex and thus better initiative.
I don't think I've explained the scenario clearly... if this is your reply. This is the steps for starting combat:
Assassin creeps up on a target, wins stealth check. Says he attacks.So we are now entering combat.
Steps:
The target is surprised.
The DM determines where the two are, though this is just carried over from whatever narrative was being discussed imediately prior to the start of combat.
Initiative is rolled. Assassin gets a 10, target gets a 15.
The target goes first, doing nothing on his turn because of surprise, ends his turn, and is no longer surprised. The assassin goes now and.... does nothing. Instead of attacking he remains hidden, and waits for combat to end.
The combat either ends here, or the target gets to take a turn in which he... is aware of a threat? What threat? There are no seen or heard enemies. Do we end combat here? And, if we do end combat here, can the assassin immediately say "I attack the target" and restart a new combat, forcing new initiative rolls until he succeeds and goes first?
If you want to discuss these questions, make new threads.
As DxJxC stated above, this thread is to discuss what one would like to see Sage Advice address, not individual arguments on pieces & parts. Create different threads for those topics or take the discussion to Private Message.
Please return to the topic and consider this the warning.
Does moving into the first single square at the edge of spike growth trigger damage or not, since part of that movement presumable was in your starting square and part was in the destination square, and damage only triggers after 5 full feet within the area. (Ie does moving from a square to another square count as moving within your starting square, your destination square, or some amount/mix of the two?)
it starts about 25 minutes in after some camera difficulties. Mr Crawford goes over what he identifies as being general rules as well as specific rules
about 43 minutes he goes over a little if specific vs specific, which is basically we tried to not let that happen but Good luck DM.
For REAL! Why hasn't that abomination that is the Way of the Four Elements Monk been updated with a proper spell list and spell slots?
And my big one: When is an Unarmed Strike a weapon attack, and when is it not? ACK!
An unarmed strike is always a weapon attack (by virtue of not being a spell attack), it's just not always an attack with a weapon.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
For REAL! Why hasn't that abomination that is the Way of the Four Elements Monk been updated with a proper spell list and spell slots?
And my big one: When is an Unarmed Strike a weapon attack, and when is it not? ACK!
Franky I think 4 elements isn't that bad if you balance out your elements and keep the zero cost feature it actually has it nice.
but "Why wotc hates monks" will never be answered because its a unhelpful and most likely untrue question.
That being said wotc has avoided talking about ranger clarifications in every sage advice, panel, dragon talk or other offical capacity. when it has the most varied in interpretation of so many of its features, spells, and standard rules out of every printed class.
For REAL! Why hasn't that abomination that is the Way of the Four Elements Monk been updated with a proper spell list and spell slots?
And my big one: When is an Unarmed Strike a weapon attack, and when is it not? ACK!
An unarmed strike is always a weapon attack (by virtue of not being a spell attack), it's just not always an attack with a weapon.
That’s not true, though that may be changing with future releases and printing.
there is supposedly a difference between a melee weapon attack and weapon attack. It’s been clarified that a melee weapon attack is basically any melee attack done with or without a weapon. A weapon attack requires a weapon to be used. An unarmed attack only counts as a weapon if it’s specified as a natural weapon or in some other way.
sage advice compendium:
[NEW] Can a paladin use Divine Smite when they hit using an unarmed strike? No. Divine Smite isn’t intended to work with unarmed strikes. Divine Smite does work with a melee weapon attack, and an unarmed strike can be used to make such an attack. But the text of Divine Smite also refers to the “weapon’s damage,” and an unarmed strike isn’t a weapon. If a DM decides to override this rule, no imbalance is created. Tying Divine Smite to weapons was a thematic choice on our part—paladins being traditionally associated with weapons. It was not a game balance choice.
For REAL! Why hasn't that abomination that is the Way of the Four Elements Monk been updated with a proper spell list and spell slots?
And my big one: When is an Unarmed Strike a weapon attack, and when is it not? ACK!
An unarmed strike is always a weapon attack (by virtue of not being a spell attack), it's just not always an attack with a weapon.
That’s not true, though that may be changing with future releases and printing.
there is supposedly a difference between a melee weapon attack and weapon attack. It’s been clarified that a melee weapon attack is basically any melee attack done with or without a weapon. A weapon attack requires a weapon to be used. An unarmed attack only counts as a weapon if it’s specified as a natural weapon or in some other way.
sage advice compendium:
[NEW] Can a paladin use Divine Smite when they hit using an unarmed strike? No. Divine Smite isn’t intended to work with unarmed strikes. Divine Smite does work with a melee weapon attack, and an unarmed strike can be used to make such an attack. But the text of Divine Smite also refers to the “weapon’s damage,” and an unarmed strike isn’t a weapon. If a DM decides to override this rule, no imbalance is created. Tying Divine Smite to weapons was a thematic choice on our part—paladins being traditionally associated with weapons. It was not a game balance choice.
Like naturalists said, unarmed strikes are always weapon attacks, just not attacks with a weapon (yes, we know that is confusing). The sage advice you quoted even refers to that: "divine smite does work with melee weapon attacks, and unarmed strike can be used to make such an attack."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
do Thunder Gauntlets count as "weapons with a value of 1 sp or greater" since they are automagically provided by Arcane Armor, but are still part of the base armor which does have a value of 1 sp or greater by definition?
I can answer *most* of these point by point.
1. "OH SHOOT THERE'S A THREAT" and now they can only react after their initiative order happens. It's like that moment where a human just notices the jaguar hiding in the shadows, but not quick enough to move or get away, only react to defend.
2. ...okay, I can't really disagree with this one.
3. What multiclass spell loophole? The rules are pretty explicit that you may gain spell slots of a higher level, but you learn (or prepare) spells from your multiclasses as though you were a single level member of the class. Wizard 3/Sorc 5 can only learn and prepare 2nd level wizard spells, despite having 3rd level spell slots from Sorcerer.
4. It's actually pretty clear if you read the component rules in order - Somatic component comes first. "You MUST have a free hand-" cool. That's the General rule: Somatic components require a free hand. Now Material component rules come up: "If your spell has a material component, you must have a free hand--or a hand using a focus--to get the material. This can be the same hand as Somatic components." This is more specific: If a spell has a material component, the focus serves as your component and thus, that same hand can do somatic components per the *specific* rule of Material components. It's pretty clear (if irritating).
5. The target of the spell is simultaneously "something targeted" such as firebolt, or something "affected" by an AoE such as Fireball. ...yes, this could use some clarification cause it's a pain in the neck to explain this.
6. This one I'll concede, it would be nice to have confirmation on whether you can choose where a target ends up as you move them.
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
Well as an update, I found the video where he talks about the importance of specific vs general along with several other rules in the preface of the PHB, but it doesn’t actually go into detail about its relevance per chapter in that video. He talks about that in another video that I haven’t been able to find. I’m still working on it.
This will be determined by DMs currently, the same way they must define any such unlisted weapon's value. Is a shadowblade worth 1sp? If it saves your life its probably worth a hellova lot more than 1sp. Spellcasting services alone suggest a 2nd level spell casting is value far above 1sp. Whatabout improvised weapons that are similar to other normal weapons? Wht if that normal weapon is more than 1sp but the object being used as a weapon itself isn't? What about natural weapons? I can promise I'd value my hand at more than 1sp, but can you unarmed strike with booming blade? There is no definitive answers to any of these types of questions.
The potential attacker hasn't revealed their position yet. On their turn they could just not attack, thus remaining hidden.
Narrative-wise what if anything has the ambush-ee seen? they haven't seen the would-be-assassin since the rules state they're still hidden. So what exactly, if anything, do they detect.
Is it spidey sense? is that something every single last creature has in 5e? it should be clarified.
"we all collectively pretend it isn't there" Keep up the ruse comrade!
(Kidding. The real answer: The multiclass rules split know "spellcasting" and "spell slots" into two different rules. This is important. For some classes, the known spells state you can learn spells of a level which you have slots. The multiclass spells known entry says to treat yourself as single class. But, unfortunately, the multiclass slots entry makes no such clarification that these slots are not to be used for that. Since they're separate ability modification entries the "pretend" you're single class only applies for using your know spellcasting function not for the slots one. Everyone ignores this loophole because a few reasons, 1. its broken and obviously so. 2. the examples clarify the intention that it shouldn't work this way but stop just shy of saying it definitively doesn't work like that. 3. bringing it up on forums/tables will get you some serious but unjustified flak for being a rulelawer, munchkin, etc. people just don't like this loophole being brought up and go aggro at it, so people stay quiet)
A few things,
The authors are also on record having both dissenting and agreeing positions on the issue. And have given wildly different reasoning at times. Needs errata.
That's 3 of 6 agreed with out the gate. And the remaining 3 still not answered.
I got quotes!
A couple of things that have come up recently that I'd like to see addressed are:
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
It is pretty interesting to me to see suggestions of some relatively well understood questions in this thread.
1) The spell is instantaneous, so the undead are no longer being animated by the magic of the spell. The rules for what count as magic don't apply to either an undead creature or a familiar.
2) The DMG at https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/treasure#MultipleItemsoftheSameKind says "A character can’t normally wear more than one pair of footwear, one pair of gloves or gauntlets, one pair of bracers, one suit of armor, one item of headwear, and one cloak." This makes it clear that you wear magical armor as well as a pair of magical footwear.
It shouldn't matter that the spell has ended however, as antimagic field specifically affects magically created or summoned creatures:
This means that it should definitely affect a familiar, as it cannot be argued that it is not a magically created or summoned creature (as it exists in no form prior to the spell). The question mark is why the Sage Advice answer makes the exception for a zombie, which could be the fact that the corpse from which it is animated is neither magically created or summoned, it has simply been given unlife.
There is why a reason why I raised this as the sage advice answer is not giving us enough information to fully understand what is (or is not) being said, and actually makes the interaction more confusing not less. 😝
Magical plate armour includes boots, greaves, gauntlets etc., which is the problem; for a breastplate there's no issue (though there is still a complication in Arcane Armor, since it extends to cover your body). Since magical armour in both of those cases (plate or Arcane Armor) covers your entire body, it raises the issue of whether you can swap the boots for another pair or not; again, the rules don't have enough information to cover this.
The rule you're referring to is simply clarifying that you can't wear multiple sets of boots over each other, it gives us no guidance about swapping one pair of boots for another. I know how I think it's supposed to work (swap as you please as long as the bulk of the armour is still there) but the rules don't support it, as in RAW plate armour is a onesie you put on as a single piece. 😂
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
If you want to discuss these questions, make new threads.
I want to see clarification of:
• How does dispel magic interact with spell effects that happen after a spell has ended? For example, blindness from wall of light, lethargy from haste.
• Is dispel magic cast with a 3rd level slot supposed to be able to dispel the effects of spells? Currently as written it doesn't.
• How do counterspell and dispel magic interact with the new way of dealing with spellcasting monsters?
• The difference between magical darkness and normal darkness.
• Stealth, particularly hearing. For example, if an archer is in darkness 120ft away, do they need to make a Stealth check or are they automatically hidden?
• How do "builtin" weapons (natural weapons, added items like thunder gauntlets) interact with smiting and with weapon spells.
Okay but that's how it should work in theory. but in practice the would be attacker is still hidden, because he succeeded on his stealth check. So is undetected. On his turn, he can attack or simply choose not to. If he does choose not to you have a paradox on your hands. Because they could just end combat right then and there if they wanted, just abandon the assault altogether, and try again to ambush the surprised/not-surprised target again with whole new initiatives.
The ambushed target got surprised by an attacking enemy, but was able to gain the initiative in the situation to recover to that danger quickly. Except the danger never did attack, or reveal itself. What is happening here?
Saying "I attack" and having initiatives rolled doesn't commit you to ever actually attacking on your turn, you get to react to the things people do on higher initiative counts than you. So you get to basically cheese the system, and ambush but not commit until they simply roll lower initiative than you?
A RAW answer to what happens in this situation is needed. This situation only seems like an edge case until you DM for a assassin rogue.
I got quotes!
Can we get clarification on why WotC hates monks?
I don't think I've explained the scenario clearly... if this is your reply. This is the steps for starting combat:
Assassin creeps up on a target, wins stealth check. Says he attacks.So we are now entering combat.
Steps:
I got quotes!
As DxJxC stated above, this thread is to discuss what one would like to see Sage Advice address, not individual arguments on pieces & parts. Create different threads for those topics or take the discussion to Private Message.
Please return to the topic and consider this the warning.
[ Site Rules & Guidelines ] --- [ Homebrew Rules & Guidelines ]
Send me a message with any questions or concerns
I wish Sage Advice would explicitly clarify if booming blade and green-flame blade work with the War Caster feat or not.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
Does moving into the first single square at the edge of spike growth trigger damage or not, since part of that movement presumable was in your starting square and part was in the destination square, and damage only triggers after 5 full feet within the area. (Ie does moving from a square to another square count as moving within your starting square, your destination square, or some amount/mix of the two?)
I got quotes!
Took way too long, but I found the other video I was talking to you about whilst looking for another bit of info on other rules on sage advice.
https://youtu.be/EkRCfmK8L3Y
it starts about 25 minutes in after some camera difficulties. Mr Crawford goes over what he identifies as being general rules as well as specific rules
about 43 minutes he goes over a little if specific vs specific, which is basically we tried to not let that happen but Good luck DM.
An unarmed strike is always a weapon attack (by virtue of not being a spell attack), it's just not always an attack with a weapon.
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
Franky I think 4 elements isn't that bad if you balance out your elements and keep the zero cost feature it actually has it nice.
but "Why wotc hates monks" will never be answered because its a unhelpful and most likely untrue question.
That being said wotc has avoided talking about ranger clarifications in every sage advice, panel, dragon talk or other offical capacity. when it has the most varied in interpretation of so many of its features, spells, and standard rules out of every printed class.
There's a ranger specific version of this thread as well. https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/class-forums/ranger/106544-ranger-sage-advice-requests
That’s not true, though that may be changing with future releases and printing.
there is supposedly a difference between a melee weapon attack and weapon attack. It’s been clarified that a melee weapon attack is basically any melee attack done with or without a weapon. A weapon attack requires a weapon to be used. An unarmed attack only counts as a weapon if it’s specified as a natural weapon or in some other way.
sage advice compendium:
[NEW] Can a paladin use Divine Smite when they hit using an unarmed strike? No. Divine Smite isn’t intended to work with unarmed strikes.
Divine Smite does work with a melee weapon attack, and an unarmed strike can be used to make such an attack. But the text of Divine Smite also refers to the “weapon’s damage,” and an unarmed strike isn’t a weapon.
If a DM decides to override this rule, no imbalance is created. Tying Divine Smite to weapons was a thematic choice on our part—paladins being traditionally associated with weapons. It was not a game balance choice.
Like naturalists said, unarmed strikes are always weapon attacks, just not attacks with a weapon (yes, we know that is confusing). The sage advice you quoted even refers to that: "divine smite does work with melee weapon attacks, and unarmed strike can be used to make such an attack."