Combat Is for Enemies. Some rules apply only during combat or while a character is acting in Initiative order. Don’t let players attack each other or helpless creatures to activate those rules.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yes, it does, DM fiat is not a rules citation. And considering that they changed the language of the feat and of attacks of opportunity to allow this, and the emphasis on intentionality in phrasing that has defined 5E for its entire run, I don't see any reason to think this was not intentional on the designers part. You can say you wouldn't allow it anyway, but that doesn't make you any less incorrect in asserting that the rules don't allow this.
From the PHB:
Making an Opportunity Attack. You can make an Opportunity Attack when a creature that you can see leaves your reach. To make the attack, take a Reaction to make one melee attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike against that creature. The attack occurs right before it leaves your reach.
Reactive Spell. When a creature provokes an Opportunity Attack from you by leaving your reach, you can take a Reaction to cast a spell at the creature rather than making an Opportunity Attack. The spell must have a casting time of one action and must target only that creature.
Yes, it does, DM fiat is not a rules citation. And considering that they changed the language of the feat and of attacks of opportunity to allow this, and the emphasis on intentionality in phrasing that has defined 5E for its entire run, I don't see any reason to think this was not intentional on the designers part. You can say you wouldn't allow it anyway, but that doesn't make you any less incorrect in asserting that the rules don't allow this.
From the PHB:
Making an Opportunity Attack. You can make an Opportunity Attack when a creature that you can see leaves your reach. To make the attack, take a Reaction to make one melee attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike against that creature. The attack occurs right before it leaves your reach.
Reactive Spell. When a creature provokes anOpportunityAttack from you by leaving your reach, you can take a Reaction to cast a spell at the creature rather than making an Opportunity Attack. The spell must have a casting time of one action and must target only that creature.
Don’t let players attack each other or helpless creatures to activate those rules.
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Opportunity Attacks: Combatants watch for enemies to drop their guard. If you move heedlessly past your foes, you put yourself in danger by provoking an Opportunity Attack.
Opportunity Attacks: Combatants watch for enemies to drop their guard. If you move heedlessly past your foes, you put yourself in danger by provoking an Opportunity Attack.
That is completely for flavor
It really, really isn't
"Combat" is not an abstract concept. If there are no enemies or foes, there's no combat, and combat rules like Opportunity Attacks do not apply
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Opportunity Attacks: Combatants watch for enemies to drop their guard. If you move heedlessly past your foes, you put yourself in danger by provoking an Opportunity Attack.
That is completely for flavor
It really, really isn't
"Combat" is not an abstract concept. If there are no enemies or foes, there's no combat, and combat rules like Opportunity Attacks do not apply
Correct, but that does not stop you from making a helpful Opportunity Attack in Combat
The sentence you just typed is complete word salad. "Helpful attack"? The rules do not work like that
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
"While holding this rod, you gain a +3 bonus to spell attack to the saving throw DCs of you Warlock spell.
In ADDITION, you can regain ONE spell slot as a Magic action while HOLDING the rod. You CAN'T USE this property again unti you finish Long Rest."
and this description on PHB
"You can be attuned to no more than three magic items at a time. Any attempt to attune to a fourth item fails; you must end your Attunement to an item first. Additionally, you can't attune to more than one copy of an item. For example, you can't attune to more than one Ring of Protection at a time."
Even if you bend the rules to a attunement with three Rods you need one free hand to launch the spell, and you need to hold the rod, so you can ony use one rod, not three
More on that, t you can only use the Rod property one time, doesn't matter if come from other Rods
Opportunity Attacks: Combatants watch for enemies to drop their guard. If you move heedlessly past your foes, you put yourself in danger by provoking an Opportunity Attack.
That is completely for flavor
It really, really isn't
"Combat" is not an abstract concept. If there are no enemies or foes, there's no combat, and combat rules like Opportunity Attacks do not apply
Correct, but that does not stop you from making a helpful Opportunity Attack in Combat
The sentence you just typed is complete word salad. "Helpful attack"? The rules do not work like that
Why?
Combat Is for Enemies. Some rules apply only during combat or while a character is acting in Initiative order. Don’t let players attack each other or helpless creatures to activate those rules.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
And the important question is how did he have that many 9th level slots? Because I see nothing in the rules that allow that.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
It does not
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yes, it does, DM fiat is not a rules citation. And considering that they changed the language of the feat and of attacks of opportunity to allow this, and the emphasis on intentionality in phrasing that has defined 5E for its entire run, I don't see any reason to think this was not intentional on the designers part. You can say you wouldn't allow it anyway, but that doesn't make you any less incorrect in asserting that the rules don't allow this.
From the PHB:
Making an Opportunity Attack. You can make an Opportunity Attack when a creature that you can see leaves your reach. To make the attack, take a Reaction to make one melee attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike against that creature. The attack occurs right before it leaves your reach.
Reactive Spell. When a creature provokes an Opportunity Attack from you by leaving your reach, you can take a Reaction to cast a spell at the creature rather than making an Opportunity Attack. The spell must have a casting time of one action and must target only that creature.
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The Opportunity Attack tells us its meant for enemies or foes.
It really, really isn't
"Combat" is not an abstract concept. If there are no enemies or foes, there's no combat, and combat rules like Opportunity Attacks do not apply
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Even then he would had only 2 9th spell slot
The sentence you just typed is complete word salad. "Helpful attack"? The rules do not work like that
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
That really seems like it violates the spirit of the rule about not attuning to more than one copy of the same item at the same time.
pronouns: he/she/they
No, here the description:
"While holding this rod, you gain a +3 bonus to spell attack to the saving throw DCs of you Warlock spell.
In ADDITION, you can regain ONE spell slot as a Magic action while HOLDING the rod. You CAN'T USE this property again unti you finish Long Rest."
and this description on PHB
"You can be attuned to no more than three magic items at a time. Any attempt to attune to a fourth item fails; you must end your Attunement to an item first. Additionally, you can't attune to more than one copy of an item. For example, you can't attune to more than one Ring of Protection at a time."
Even if you bend the rules to a attunement with three Rods you need one free hand to launch the spell, and you need to hold the rod, so you can ony use one rod, not three
More on that, t you can only use the Rod property one time, doesn't matter if come from other Rods
And, finally, HOW he has 3 very rare rods?
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)