A Heavily Obscured area—such as an area with Darkness, heavy fog, or dense foliage—is opaque. You have the Blinded condition (see the rules glossary) when trying to see something there.
This is such a stupid rule. That last sentence should not exist and no condition should be involved. It should instead say something like "It blocks sight into, out of, within and through its area." Also it needs to be divided into two rules, one for darkness and a different one for fog or foliage (or other physical impediments).
Not to mention that, under the most literal (and nonsensical) interpretation, simply trying to look into a heavily obscured area gives everyone advantage to attack you. So standing in a brightly lit room and staring into a cave makes you blind to your own surroundings? [...]
I think we should play the game with at least a minimum of common sense. It's not the same to just look your surrounding as it is to focus on something because you need to target it.
Yes, I agree we should. I guess the implication I'm making is that as the Rules have become more "codified" and resemble something more like "Magic:TG" rules, the more the gaps between RAW and RAI (or common sense) seem to widen (or at least the kinds of minds who look for exploits in video game code are more tempted to read these rules that way).
Yeah... sometimes less text isn't good, I totally agree.
This is off-topic, but for example, I miss having more details and descriptions for species, classes, and subclasses in the 2024 PHB. They're not rules, true, but they help provide a better understanding of the backgrounds and lore for each species or class.
As a side note: there is a difference between "you effectively suffer ..." and "you have". The first actually makes it clearer that the effects are circumstantial. But that said, I think the 2014 rules were still less clear than the 4e rules on vision, LOS, and LOE. To my mind, leaning into the "gamification" of the rules made them clearer than the half-natural-language-half-code approach they used for 5e (which I, somewhat cynically, believe was to appease the 4e-haters). That doesn't make them terrible rules, mind you, just that there are some places that they became "clunky" like this. Also, my recollection of 4e is many years old now, and I'm obviously forgetting some of the most egregious holes in them too :) (Stealth has always been wonky in D&D, for example, and I don't recall it being better in 4e)
Not to mention that, under the most literal (and nonsensical) interpretation, simply trying to look into a heavily obscured area gives everyone advantage to attack you. So standing in a brightly lit room and staring into a cave makes you blind to your own surroundings? I guess when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back :)
No, that's not a correct interpretation. The rule in question is this:
You have the Blinded condition while trying to see something in a Heavily Obscured space.
This does not mean, for example, that you would end your turn in a state where you are perpetually staring directly into a Heavily Obscured space until your next turn rolls around on the next round of combat.
Instead, it means that while trying to see something [there], you have the Blinded condition, which works just fine mechanically. So, to use your example, a creature would only look into that cave for a moment while it's that creature's turn. It's unlikely that you'll be attacked by anything at that exact moment. Otherwise, you would generally see the rest of your surroundings just fine. If you are in a well-lit space and you are attacked by something that is also in that well-lit space while it is that enemy's turn, the fact that you may have looked into the cave for a moment when it was your turn would be irrelevant.
Now, theoretically I suppose that technically there could be some "Ready action" shenanigans where the enemy could delay their attack to be triggered "when the creature looks into the cave", but how would he know that you will look into the cave on your next turn? In fact, if you are already in combat, you might be pretty unlikely to do that on your turn. He would often be wasting his action attempting to do this. Although that scenario doesn't fully make sense, it could easily be explained away narratively as a situation where the creature is temporarily distracted by (trying to look at) something that requires his full attention.
I find the wording of the Glossary entry for "Unarmed Strike" a bit confusing:
Whenever you use your Unarmed Strike, choose one of the following options for its effect.
Damage. You make an attack roll against the target. Your bonus to the roll equals your Strength modifier plus your Proficiency Bonus. On a hit, the target takes Bludgeoning damage equal to 1 plus your Strength modifier.
Grapple. The target must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (it chooses which), or it has the Grappled condition. The DC for the saving throw and any escape attempts equals 8 plus your Strength modifier and Proficiency Bonus. This grapple is possible only if the target is no more than one size larger than you and if you have a hand free to grab it.
Shove. The target must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (it chooses which), or you either push it 5 feet away or cause it to have the Prone condition. The DC for the saving throw equals 8 plus your Strength modifier and Proficiency Bonus. This shove is possible only if the target is no more than one size larger than you.
The damage option mentions making an attack roll, but the other two do not. Nevertheless, you must succeed with an Unarmed Strike attack roll to force the target to make the saving throw vs. Grappled or Prone, right?
I find the wording of the Glossary entry for "Unarmed Strike" a bit confusing:
Whenever you use your Unarmed Strike, choose one of the following options for its effect.
Damage. You make an attack roll against the target. Your bonus to the roll equals your Strength modifier plus your Proficiency Bonus. On a hit, the target takes Bludgeoning damage equal to 1 plus your Strength modifier.
Grapple. The target must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (it chooses which), or it has the Grappled condition. The DC for the saving throw and any escape attempts equals 8 plus your Strength modifier and Proficiency Bonus. This grapple is possible only if the target is no more than one size larger than you and if you have a hand free to grab it.
Shove. The target must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (it chooses which), or you either push it 5 feet away or cause it to have the Prone condition. The DC for the saving throw equals 8 plus your Strength modifier and Proficiency Bonus. This shove is possible only if the target is no more than one size larger than you.
The damage option mentions making an attack roll, but the other two do not. Nevertheless, you must succeed with an Unarmed Strike attack roll to force the target to make the saving throw vs. Grappled or Prone, right?
No, the attack roll is only for the first option (Damage). Grapple and Shove are only saving throws.
I find the wording of the Glossary entry for "Unarmed Strike" a bit confusing:
Whenever you use your Unarmed Strike, choose one of the following options for its effect.
Damage. You make an attack roll against the target. Your bonus to the roll equals your Strength modifier plus your Proficiency Bonus. On a hit, the target takes Bludgeoning damage equal to 1 plus your Strength modifier.
Grapple. The target must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (it chooses which), or it has the Grappled condition. The DC for the saving throw and any escape attempts equals 8 plus your Strength modifier and Proficiency Bonus. This grapple is possible only if the target is no more than one size larger than you and if you have a hand free to grab it.
Shove. The target must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (it chooses which), or you either push it 5 feet away or cause it to have the Prone condition. The DC for the saving throw equals 8 plus your Strength modifier and Proficiency Bonus. This shove is possible only if the target is no more than one size larger than you.
The damage option mentions making an attack roll, but the other two do not. Nevertheless, you must succeed with an Unarmed Strike attack roll to force the target to make the saving throw vs. Grappled or Prone, right?
No. You choose to use unarmed strike as part of your attack action (or whatever), you then choose which mode to operate in. They're all linked in other ways, such as getting extra reach from elemental monk's main thing.
So defensive spells like Blade Ward, Blur, Mirror Image, Shield, Shield of Faith, etc provide no protection against being grappled or knocked down by an unarmed attack.
So defensive spells like Blade Ward, Blur, Mirror Image, Shield, Shield of Faith, etc provide no protection against being grappled or knocked down by an unarmed attack.
That is the case. (2014 mirror image would, but 2024 does not.)
I find the wording of the Glossary entry for "Unarmed Strike" a bit confusing:
Whenever you use your Unarmed Strike, choose one of the following options for its effect.
Damage. You make an attack roll against the target. Your bonus to the roll equals your Strength modifier plus your Proficiency Bonus. On a hit, the target takes Bludgeoning damage equal to 1 plus your Strength modifier.
Grapple. The target must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (it chooses which), or it has the Grappled condition. The DC for the saving throw and any escape attempts equals 8 plus your Strength modifier and Proficiency Bonus. This grapple is possible only if the target is no more than one size larger than you and if you have a hand free to grab it.
Shove. The target must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (it chooses which), or you either push it 5 feet away or cause it to have the Prone condition. The DC for the saving throw equals 8 plus your Strength modifier and Proficiency Bonus. This shove is possible only if the target is no more than one size larger than you.
The damage option mentions making an attack roll, but the other two do not. Nevertheless, you must succeed with an Unarmed Strike attack roll to force the target to make the saving throw vs. Grappled or Prone, right?
So they streamlined the grapple and shove rules, but the attacker is essentially assumed to have rolled... an 8? Pardon? Also, I see Tavern Brawler no longer affects grapples... and only affects shoves by allowing you to effectively shove while doing a bit of damage. Hmmm...
And yes, not the best wording. The effect is ... if choosing damage, you make a check (attack roll), if choosing one of the other two, the target makes the check (save, for which the target also now *always* is considered proficient??) then... an effect for the effect?
Edit: And everyone is considered proficient in all unarmed combat, now...
So they streamlined the grapple and shove rules, but the attacker is essentially assumed to have rolled... an 8? Pardon? Also, I see Tavern Brawler no longer affects grapples... and only affects shoves by allowing you to effectively shove while doing a bit of damage. Hmmm...
And yes, not the best wording. The effect is ... if choosing damage, you make a check (attack roll), if choosing one of the other two, the target makes the check (save, for which the target also now *always* is considered proficient??) then... an effect for the effect?
Edit: And everyone is considered proficient in all unarmed combat, now...
No, they don't roll an 8. There is no attack roll for the Shove or Grapple mechanics. The 8 is part of a formula for setting a DC that is very similar to what a spellcaster uses when casting a spell that requires a save.
The end result is similar mathematically to how it worked in the old rules where an ability score contest was used. The concept of contests has been removed, and a similar bell curve of possible results can be similarly achieved with the saving throw mechanic. Depending on your ability score and the enemy ability score you might have a situation where you are unlikely to succeed or another situation where you are likely to succeed. The actual variance and percentages may have changed slightly but it's a similar idea.
You were always considered to be proficient with your unarmed strikes.
The target is not always proficient with their save. They must choose to make either a STR or DEX save and must actually be proficient in that save to be proficient in the save. The proficiency bonus mentioned in the description is YOUR proficiency bonus, which is part of the formula for setting the DC. So, if you have a high modifier and a high proficiency bonus you are setting a high DC which makes it more likely that you'll be successful. Whatever total modifier the enemy gets for this particular type of saving throw will also factor in to how successful you will be with this activity.
So they streamlined the grapple and shove rules, but the attacker is essentially assumed to have rolled... an 8? Pardon? Also, I see Tavern Brawler no longer affects grapples... and only affects shoves by allowing you to effectively shove while doing a bit of damage. Hmmm...
And yes, not the best wording. The effect is ... if choosing damage, you make a check (attack roll), if choosing one of the other two, the target makes the check (save, for which the target also now *always* is considered proficient??) then... an effect for the effect?
Edit: And everyone is considered proficient in all unarmed combat, now...
No, they don't roll an 8. There is no attack roll for the Shove or Grapple mechanics. The 8 is part of a formula for setting a DC that is very similar to what a spellcaster uses when casting a spell that requires a save.
The end result is similar mathematically to how it worked in the old rules where an ability score contest was used. The concept of contests has been removed, and a similar bell curve of possible results can be similarly achieved with the saving throw mechanic. Depending on your ability score and the enemy ability score you might have a situation where you are unlikely to succeed or another situation where you are likely to succeed. The actual variance and percentages may have changed slightly but it's a similar idea.
You were always considered to be proficient with your unarmed strikes.
The target is not always proficient with their save. They must choose to make either a STR or DEX save and must actually be proficient in that save to be proficient in the save. The proficiency bonus mentioned in the description is YOUR proficiency bonus, which is part of the formula for setting the DC. So, if you have a high modifier and a high proficiency bonus you are setting a high DC which makes it more likely that you'll be successful. Whatever total modifier the enemy gets for this particular type of saving throw will also factor in to how successful you will be with this activity.
There is no mathematical difference between always rolling an 8 and always using a fixed value of 8. I even said 'essentially assumed to have rolled an 8' rather than 'rolls an 8.'
"Mathematically similar to an ability score contest" is only similar in that there are numbers compared. In using that analogy, you are suggesting that it is equivalent to every attacker having only an 8 strength in such a contest.
I stand corrected on save proficiency on this, but that means that everyone is proficient on attack for grapples and shoves, but not everyone is proficient on defense. That still seems inconsistent.
There is no mathematical difference between always rolling an 8 and always using a fixed value of 8. I even said 'essentially assumed to have rolled an 8' rather than 'rolls an 8.'
"Mathematically similar to an ability score contest" is only similar in that there are numbers compared. In using that analogy, you are suggesting that it is equivalent to every attacker having only an 8 strength in such a contest.
I stand corrected on save proficiency on this, but that means that everyone is proficient on attack for grapples and shoves, but not everyone is proficient on defense. That still seems inconsistent.
Feel free to take this to its own thread as this one is really meant to be a collection of obvious errata, but this deserves a quick response now as it's pretty clear that you are misinterpreting how all of these mechanics actually work as I tried to explain previously.
"There is no mathematical difference between always rolling an 8 and always using a fixed value of 8."
That statement has no real meaning as it's a comparison of apples and oranges. When you cause an effect that requires a saving throw, you don't make a roll. You are the one that is setting the DC. There is no roll involved. It's not "essentially assumed to have rolled" anything in particular -- there is simply no roll involved for that mechanic.
Referring to the attacker having 8 strength is getting even farther away from what is actually going on here -- that idea has absolutely no correlation at all to anything. I'm not even sure how you even came up with that, but there is definitely no rules support for that at all.
----------
The purpose of rolling any D20 Test, including an attack roll, is to establish a distribution of all possible results that can occur when "the outcome of an action is uncertain". It's a method of creating randomness when determining if the effort to overcome a particular challenge is successful or not, and there is always a certain probability or percentage chance for success as established by a target number that represents the difficulty of that challenge. That target number is a set number depending on the difficulty involved. When you roll your D20, the whole purpose of that roll is to compare that result to that set number, which is the DC or the AC, depending on what you are attempting.
For example, if you were rolling a straight D20 with 0 modifiers and the DC that you are trying to hit is 11, then you have exactly a 50% chance of succeeding on whatever it is that you were attempting. The exact value of your roll doesn't matter for anything other than special rules such as critical hits and so on. If you roll a 3 or you roll a 6, there is no difference. They both just correspond to a portion of that percentage that represents failing that task.
Now, for every step that you improve your modifier, your percentage chance for success improves by exactly 5%. So, if you now roll a D20 + 1 and the DC is still 11, you now have a 55% chance of success instead of a 50% chance. Similarly, if we go back to rolling a straight D20 with 0 modifiers, but we reduce the DC to 10, you also have exactly a 55% chance of success in that case as well. So both types of modifiers matter -- the modifier to the roll and the "modifier" to the DC. For every 1 point, the percentage chance for success changes by exactly 5%.
So, going back to the Grappling and Shoving mechanics -- if we say, "assumed to have rolled an 8" . . . rolled an 8 in comparison to WHAT exactly? That doesn't make any sense. There is no DC. There would be no purpose to such a roll. A D20 roll only has meaning when the result is used in comparison to a DC or an AC. The AC of the target creature is not used for anything when it comes to these mechanics -- their armor does not help or hurt them in any way. The AC is not used as any sort of target for a roll at all. So again, rolled an 8 in comparison to what?
No. Instead, the value of "8" is just used as a baseline for the formula that determines the strength of the effect that you are creating, just like how that works for spellcasters when they attempt to cast a spell that requires a saving throw. You are setting the DC, not trying to overcome a DC. The formula sets the DC for your opponent. If you have good modifiers, you automatically set a higher DC. In this game, the DC is the thing that has a set value with no randomness. The roll to attempt to overcome this DC is where the randomness comes into play. So, when a creature is required to make a saving throw, it's THAT roll that creates the randomness -- and the percentage chance for THAT roll to be successful is SET by you, the creator of the effect.
Within this system, the set percentage chance for success can vary pretty widely -- if your modifier and proficiency bonus is poor and your enemy has a very strong saving throw modifier, then the enemy is much more likely to resist your effect. On the flip side, if your modifier and proficiency bonus is excellent and your enemy has a very poor saving throw modifier, then that enemy is much more likely to fail in their effort to resist your effect. In that sense, as I explained before, mathematically a similar model is created by this saving throw mechanic compared to the one that existed previously with the ability score contest mechanic.
Not to mention that, under the most literal (and nonsensical) interpretation, simply trying to look into a heavily obscured area gives everyone advantage to attack you. So standing in a brightly lit room and staring into a cave makes you blind to your own surroundings? I guess when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back :)
No, that's not a correct interpretation. The rule in question is this:
You have the Blinded condition while trying to see something in a Heavily Obscured space.
This does not mean, for example, that you would end your turn in a state where you are perpetually staring directly into a Heavily Obscured space until your next turn rolls around on the next round of combat.
Instead, it means that while trying to see something [there], you have the Blinded condition, [snip]
I did mention it was a nonsensical, literal interpretation, right? I completely understand what they meant to do, but the wording is clunky.
To my mind, this comes down to taking a general condition applied to the viewer (blinded -- which gives everyone advantage to attack you while you have it) and then limiting it to a temporal circumstance (only during the time that you're looking into the obscured area -- the word "while" refers to a duration) -- instead of a target-based circumstance. It's just clunky wording. If they'd said something like "You have the effects of the Blinded condition against targets in a Heavily Obscured area", it would have been clearer (wordier, but more accurate).
IIRC, previous editions had the target-based circumstance baked in -- A target was Unseen or not. In 2014, this had the opposite problem of not specifying (completely) that this is a relationship between each viewer and each target. And by shifting this onto to the viewer (i.e. giving the viewer the blinded condition) they've only moved the problem, not solved it. In an attempt to simplify, they've overshot. It is now less clear. One might argue, the intent has become obscured. ;-)
One final thought : Suddenly becoming blinded (even temporarily) would have far more impact on a persons ability to navigate the world than the D&D condition imposes. Automatically failing skill checks needing sight? Pshaw. Try just walking across the room without bumping into stuff and falling over. Imagine being in combat and then suddenly not being able to see anything at all! D&D's Blinded condition is pretty tame by comparison, so, while using it as the base condition for "you can't see something" might be ok from a mechanical perspective, you can hardly fault a reader who interprets it to be closer to IRL blindness. It is, after all, in the name. To me, that was a mistake.
Expertise is only for skill proficiencies. It is not relevant to tools. See Expertise in the rules glossary.
There is no RAW provision for swapping tool proficiencies.
If you want my personal opinion, Wayfarer is best suited to a "rogue-lite" character who wants to be able to pick locks and the like without being a member of the Rogue class. Wayfarer isn't a great choice for a Rogue from an ability score standpoint anyway; you want something to boost Dex and Int.
In any case, the presence of sub-optimal combinations doesn't constitute a mistake needing errata.
That would be a significant change, since in the 2014 rules, Rogues can choose their Thieves' Tools as one of their expertise choices. Note that lockpicking and trap disarming, at least per the 2024 thieves' tools tooltip, seem to be straight dex checks, so there is no actual relevant skill. Knowing the tool proficiency does not give them advantage in such tasks (as it would if there was a relevant skill) but it seems they can never be experts at using them, either.
Artificers are similar at 6th level but there at least the wording is 'double proficiency with all checks involving tools that involve your proficiency'
the rules on lockpicking have changed, its a slight of hand check now, if you are proficient with thieves tools you roll at advantage.
Do you have a reference for that?
Page 14 of the 2024 PHB under Equipment Proficiency Tools:
"If you have proficiency with a tool, you can add your Proficiency Bonus to any ability check you make that uses the tool. If you have proficiency in the skill that's also used with the check, you have Advantage on the check."
Also Page 14, in the table of Skills:
"Sleight of Hand, Dexterity, Pick a pocket, conceal a handheld object, or perform legerdemain*"
Note that picking locks and disarming traps are not listed.
* Legerdemain is listed so you can use Sleight of Hand to perform Sleight of Hand.
Page 221, under Thieves' Tools:
"Utilize: Pick a lock (DC 15), or disarm a trap (DC 15)"
Page 226, under Lock:
"...a creature can use Thieves' Tools to pick this Lock with a successful DC 15 Dexterity (Sleight of Hand)."
Picking a lock utilizes thieves' tools and you gain an extra benefit (advantage) if you are also proficient in Sleight of Hand, but it's a thieves' tools check.
Fishing tackle is no longer in the equipment section for the new PHB 2024. I half expected to see this in the "Tools" section with proficiency giving you some sort of added bonus, but alas it's just been omitted completely.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yeah... sometimes less text isn't good, I totally agree.
This is off-topic, but for example, I miss having more details and descriptions for species, classes, and subclasses in the 2024 PHB. They're not rules, true, but they help provide a better understanding of the backgrounds and lore for each species or class.
You see... we agree on a lot of things, mate 😅
No, that's not a correct interpretation. The rule in question is this:
This does not mean, for example, that you would end your turn in a state where you are perpetually staring directly into a Heavily Obscured space until your next turn rolls around on the next round of combat.
Instead, it means that while trying to see something [there], you have the Blinded condition, which works just fine mechanically. So, to use your example, a creature would only look into that cave for a moment while it's that creature's turn. It's unlikely that you'll be attacked by anything at that exact moment. Otherwise, you would generally see the rest of your surroundings just fine. If you are in a well-lit space and you are attacked by something that is also in that well-lit space while it is that enemy's turn, the fact that you may have looked into the cave for a moment when it was your turn would be irrelevant.
Now, theoretically I suppose that technically there could be some "Ready action" shenanigans where the enemy could delay their attack to be triggered "when the creature looks into the cave", but how would he know that you will look into the cave on your next turn? In fact, if you are already in combat, you might be pretty unlikely to do that on your turn. He would often be wasting his action attempting to do this. Although that scenario doesn't fully make sense, it could easily be explained away narratively as a situation where the creature is temporarily distracted by (trying to look at) something that requires his full attention.
I find the wording of the Glossary entry for "Unarmed Strike" a bit confusing:
The damage option mentions making an attack roll, but the other two do not. Nevertheless, you must succeed with an Unarmed Strike attack roll to force the target to make the saving throw vs. Grappled or Prone, right?
No, the attack roll is only for the first option (Damage). Grapple and Shove are only saving throws.
No. You choose to use unarmed strike as part of your attack action (or whatever), you then choose which mode to operate in. They're all linked in other ways, such as getting extra reach from elemental monk's main thing.
Interesting.
So defensive spells like Blade Ward, Blur, Mirror Image, Shield, Shield of Faith, etc provide no protection against being grappled or knocked down by an unarmed attack.
That is the case. (2014 mirror image would, but 2024 does not.)
So they streamlined the grapple and shove rules, but the attacker is essentially assumed to have rolled... an 8? Pardon? Also, I see Tavern Brawler no longer affects grapples... and only affects shoves by allowing you to effectively shove while doing a bit of damage. Hmmm...
And yes, not the best wording. The effect is ... if choosing damage, you make a check (attack roll), if choosing one of the other two, the target makes the check (save, for which the target also now *always* is considered proficient??) then... an effect for the effect?
Edit: And everyone is considered proficient in all unarmed combat, now...
No, they don't roll an 8. There is no attack roll for the Shove or Grapple mechanics. The 8 is part of a formula for setting a DC that is very similar to what a spellcaster uses when casting a spell that requires a save.
The end result is similar mathematically to how it worked in the old rules where an ability score contest was used. The concept of contests has been removed, and a similar bell curve of possible results can be similarly achieved with the saving throw mechanic. Depending on your ability score and the enemy ability score you might have a situation where you are unlikely to succeed or another situation where you are likely to succeed. The actual variance and percentages may have changed slightly but it's a similar idea.
You were always considered to be proficient with your unarmed strikes.
The target is not always proficient with their save. They must choose to make either a STR or DEX save and must actually be proficient in that save to be proficient in the save. The proficiency bonus mentioned in the description is YOUR proficiency bonus, which is part of the formula for setting the DC. So, if you have a high modifier and a high proficiency bonus you are setting a high DC which makes it more likely that you'll be successful. Whatever total modifier the enemy gets for this particular type of saving throw will also factor in to how successful you will be with this activity.
There is no mathematical difference between always rolling an 8 and always using a fixed value of 8. I even said 'essentially assumed to have rolled an 8' rather than 'rolls an 8.'
"Mathematically similar to an ability score contest" is only similar in that there are numbers compared. In using that analogy, you are suggesting that it is equivalent to every attacker having only an 8 strength in such a contest.
I stand corrected on save proficiency on this, but that means that everyone is proficient on attack for grapples and shoves, but not everyone is proficient on defense. That still seems inconsistent.
Feel free to take this to its own thread as this one is really meant to be a collection of obvious errata, but this deserves a quick response now as it's pretty clear that you are misinterpreting how all of these mechanics actually work as I tried to explain previously.
"There is no mathematical difference between always rolling an 8 and always using a fixed value of 8."
That statement has no real meaning as it's a comparison of apples and oranges. When you cause an effect that requires a saving throw, you don't make a roll. You are the one that is setting the DC. There is no roll involved. It's not "essentially assumed to have rolled" anything in particular -- there is simply no roll involved for that mechanic.
Referring to the attacker having 8 strength is getting even farther away from what is actually going on here -- that idea has absolutely no correlation at all to anything. I'm not even sure how you even came up with that, but there is definitely no rules support for that at all.
----------
The purpose of rolling any D20 Test, including an attack roll, is to establish a distribution of all possible results that can occur when "the outcome of an action is uncertain". It's a method of creating randomness when determining if the effort to overcome a particular challenge is successful or not, and there is always a certain probability or percentage chance for success as established by a target number that represents the difficulty of that challenge. That target number is a set number depending on the difficulty involved. When you roll your D20, the whole purpose of that roll is to compare that result to that set number, which is the DC or the AC, depending on what you are attempting.
For example, if you were rolling a straight D20 with 0 modifiers and the DC that you are trying to hit is 11, then you have exactly a 50% chance of succeeding on whatever it is that you were attempting. The exact value of your roll doesn't matter for anything other than special rules such as critical hits and so on. If you roll a 3 or you roll a 6, there is no difference. They both just correspond to a portion of that percentage that represents failing that task.
Now, for every step that you improve your modifier, your percentage chance for success improves by exactly 5%. So, if you now roll a D20 + 1 and the DC is still 11, you now have a 55% chance of success instead of a 50% chance. Similarly, if we go back to rolling a straight D20 with 0 modifiers, but we reduce the DC to 10, you also have exactly a 55% chance of success in that case as well. So both types of modifiers matter -- the modifier to the roll and the "modifier" to the DC. For every 1 point, the percentage chance for success changes by exactly 5%.
So, going back to the Grappling and Shoving mechanics -- if we say, "assumed to have rolled an 8" . . . rolled an 8 in comparison to WHAT exactly? That doesn't make any sense. There is no DC. There would be no purpose to such a roll. A D20 roll only has meaning when the result is used in comparison to a DC or an AC. The AC of the target creature is not used for anything when it comes to these mechanics -- their armor does not help or hurt them in any way. The AC is not used as any sort of target for a roll at all. So again, rolled an 8 in comparison to what?
No. Instead, the value of "8" is just used as a baseline for the formula that determines the strength of the effect that you are creating, just like how that works for spellcasters when they attempt to cast a spell that requires a saving throw. You are setting the DC, not trying to overcome a DC. The formula sets the DC for your opponent. If you have good modifiers, you automatically set a higher DC. In this game, the DC is the thing that has a set value with no randomness. The roll to attempt to overcome this DC is where the randomness comes into play. So, when a creature is required to make a saving throw, it's THAT roll that creates the randomness -- and the percentage chance for THAT roll to be successful is SET by you, the creator of the effect.
Within this system, the set percentage chance for success can vary pretty widely -- if your modifier and proficiency bonus is poor and your enemy has a very strong saving throw modifier, then the enemy is much more likely to resist your effect. On the flip side, if your modifier and proficiency bonus is excellent and your enemy has a very poor saving throw modifier, then that enemy is much more likely to fail in their effort to resist your effect. In that sense, as I explained before, mathematically a similar model is created by this saving throw mechanic compared to the one that existed previously with the ability score contest mechanic.
I did mention it was a nonsensical, literal interpretation, right? I completely understand what they meant to do, but the wording is clunky.
To my mind, this comes down to taking a general condition applied to the viewer (blinded -- which gives everyone advantage to attack you while you have it) and then limiting it to a temporal circumstance (only during the time that you're looking into the obscured area -- the word "while" refers to a duration) -- instead of a target-based circumstance. It's just clunky wording. If they'd said something like "You have the effects of the Blinded condition against targets in a Heavily Obscured area", it would have been clearer (wordier, but more accurate).
IIRC, previous editions had the target-based circumstance baked in -- A target was Unseen or not. In 2014, this had the opposite problem of not specifying (completely) that this is a relationship between each viewer and each target. And by shifting this onto to the viewer (i.e. giving the viewer the blinded condition) they've only moved the problem, not solved it. In an attempt to simplify, they've overshot. It is now less clear. One might argue, the intent has become obscured. ;-)
One final thought : Suddenly becoming blinded (even temporarily) would have far more impact on a persons ability to navigate the world than the D&D condition imposes. Automatically failing skill checks needing sight? Pshaw. Try just walking across the room without bumping into stuff and falling over. Imagine being in combat and then suddenly not being able to see anything at all! D&D's Blinded condition is pretty tame by comparison, so, while using it as the base condition for "you can't see something" might be ok from a mechanical perspective, you can hardly fault a reader who interprets it to be closer to IRL blindness. It is, after all, in the name. To me, that was a mistake.
So, while rebuilding my Warlock spells, I noticed that there might be a typo on the Spider Climb spell in the upcasting line:
I'm pretty sure the "about" is supposed to be "above" instead. This is present in both the printed and the digital rules (free and full)
Do you have a reference for that?
Page 14 of the 2024 PHB under Equipment Proficiency Tools:
"If you have proficiency with a tool, you can add your Proficiency Bonus to any ability check you make that uses the tool. If you have proficiency in the skill that's also used with the check, you have Advantage on the check."
Also Page 14, in the table of Skills:
"Sleight of Hand, Dexterity, Pick a pocket, conceal a handheld object, or perform legerdemain*"
Note that picking locks and disarming traps are not listed.
* Legerdemain is listed so you can use Sleight of Hand to perform Sleight of Hand.
Page 221, under Thieves' Tools:
"Utilize: Pick a lock (DC 15), or disarm a trap (DC 15)"
Page 226, under Lock:
"...a creature can use Thieves' Tools to pick this Lock with a successful DC 15 Dexterity (Sleight of Hand)."
Picking a lock utilizes thieves' tools and you gain an extra benefit (advantage) if you are also proficient in Sleight of Hand, but it's a thieves' tools check.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
I wonder how long before they release the 2nd printing of the PHB with all these corrections in them?
Fishing tackle is no longer in the equipment section for the new PHB 2024. I half expected to see this in the "Tools" section with proficiency giving you some sort of added bonus, but alas it's just been omitted completely.