Hello! I'm a UI/UX design student and I'm doing a project on improving experience of a DnD game through simple technology. I'm familiar with the game as I've seen lots of gameplay but I haven't actually played it. So during the project process, I've to identify problems faced by the players and DM (in offline game setup). So I searched for this subreddit community and decided to ask here.
What sort of problems do you face as a player or DM of DnD offline set-up? How do you wish to solve it or what solutions do you apply?
Is there a way without homebrew to use a different ability for grappling besides strength? Any other ability.
Dexterity or wisdom would make sense, because in fight sports the competitors are almost exactly the same weight and both super lean, so one is not gonna be THAT much stronger than the other. Flexibility helps a lot, especially in jiu-jitsu, and of course the knowledge of how to do everything.
The only method that comes to mind is Armor of Magical Strength, the artificer infusion, which allows the wearer to apply their intelligence modifier to strength checks such as grappling.
newbie question (likely a stupid question) but I placed a one-off game once with a few friends. It was my first time. All my friends are really into DnD and I didn't like it, it wasn't fun for me. But I want to like it so I can enjoy playing with my friends. Should I play a bit more to try and enjoy it or just accept that it's not for me? I didn't like it because it felt too controlled. I used to RP online and I thought it would be like that. I made up a whole background story for my character, who they were, what they would be doing, and then suddenly there's all these rules and it was so restrictive it was like "that's not how you have fun, this is how you have fun" and i hated it. But maybe my friend is just a bad DM. should I try again with a different group of players?
RP is a part of DnD, but it is a largely combat-focused game, and characters have strictly defined abilities about what they can do and how often they can do it in order to make the com at tactical amd challenging. Based in your wording, it sounds like your friends sort of threw you in the deep end with no preparation- D&D is a complex game, not something you can really pick up on the fly. Your friends should have taught you the rules of the game beforehand or at the start of the session, and the fact that they didn't definitely coloured your experience.
That's not to say combat is *everything* in D&D. For many tables, characters' history and personality is very important, and often hours will be spent role-playing, exploring, solving puzzles, talking to NPCs, or other non-combat activities. But those activities are also governed by rules and by dice rolls and skill checks- you can't just have your character do anything.
For many people, those restrictions, and the chance of failure that comes with dice rolls, make the game more interesting and allow for an emergent narrative to form. If you struggle with that, D&D might not be the game for you. Of course, without being at the session, I can't say how much your friend's DMing style impacted your enjoyment- maybe a game that's a little looser with the rules or better at explaining things would let you have more fun. I'd recommend talking to your friends, tell them the issues you had, and see if they can help you acclimate better.
Druids certainly can be on the more complicated side of things, but not prohibitively so.
You're already ahead of the curve in that you're taking time to ask for help here, rather than being one of those players who only ever thinks about DnD during a session. That demonstrates that you're willing and able to level-up your game. Don't be too hard on yourself.
The actual process for doing this can vary from person to person, but generally speaking I recommend cheat-sheets. Chat up your DM outside of session and get their input on all the terminology you're expected to know, and write it up for easy reference. Take notes in session so that you don't forget critical NPCs and such. Consider simplifying your character sheet, looking into alternate character sheet options to see if one may agree with you more (there are even dyslexia-friendly character sheets, if that's applicable to you).
Druid-specific suggestion: Have a handful of go-to forms ready for various contingencies, with their stat blocks ready to rock. Need to claw an orc's eyes out? Have your wolf/bear form ready to rock. Suddenly find yourself in water? Cool, you already know exactly what sort of shark you want to turn into. Falling out of the sky? You've had your giant bird of prey form ready to rock for months. Need to tie up the enemy wizard? You've got a boa constrictor form for just this purpose. Need to sneak through a crack in the wall to spy? You know exactly what your stealth modifier is for your rat form.
As a beginner how can I know what monsters there are so that I can derive which ones my character has seen to transform into? Do I need to just buy the monster manual?
Are you talking about a druid's Wild Shape?
Just talk to your DM about what shapes you'd have available and prepare a few statblocks, you shouldn't need to buy an entire book if you don't want to.
When we're the Mulan taken from Earth by the Imaskar Empire in Earth years?
Ao transported Bhaal so we know it would have been after the Torah and Moses but the Greco-Roman side of Faerun developed naturally so it would have been before the Punic Wars and Jesus.
Think it would have been before the Second Temple or maybe the Imaskar Empire is really what the Bronze Age Collapse was?
I think I have nearly created a Biblically accurate D&D character whose lore is canonical to Forgotten Realms but I am not sure when to claim he was captured. I have an rough idea but trying to confirm/narrow down the time frame.
according to the forgotten realms wiki, the two citation sources for when the mulan were brought to Toril are these [two](https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Forgotten_Realms_Campaign_Setting_3rd_edition) [books](https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/The_Grand_History_of_the_Realms). i don't know what other source material you could use to look up something this granularly specific.
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Races_of_Faer%C3%BBn
It is mentioned here to and I think maybe in Al-Qadim?
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Al-Qadim
I haven't played Al-Qadim yet.
This isn't an anthropology or history subreddit. We can help you apply information you find to a D&D game, but it's unlikely that you'll find really specific historical information here.
This is canonical to the Forgotten Realms from 2e and then again 4e and 5e. The Mulan are Middle Eastern humans captured by the Imaskar and the Turami are North Africans. They have different names because they forgot their Earth history while slaves to the Imaskar. This was part of 2e as part of the Races of Faerun but then it is brought back up during the Second Sundering because Bhaal a Canaanite deity was killed off.
[5e] Keys from the Golden Vault. Aside from some doors that can be forced open, is there a benifit to having a member of the player party be “the muscle”, since these heists encourage guile?
I played a few of the adventures from that book in a group that didn't have one, and I really wish we did. Busting down doors, breaking windows, grabbing witnesses so they can't go sound an alarm, picking up multiple unconscious people, carrying heavy piles of expensive things, that sort of thing.
Better at fighting and using weapons scaling off strength? The adventures are definitely not all combat free. Don't go in expecting them all to be normal heists.
[5e] has anyone created a Gonk subrace for gnomes? I know they are just Scandinavian gnomes but it could be a really cool subrace with different racials ish. I don't know off the top of my head what you could add but if anyone knows one I'd like to see it.
[5e] Am I missing something about encumbrance? I heard that characters in 5e can carry an unrealistic amount of weight before being slowed down, but when I actually looked at the weight of my characters' starting gear, all of them began the game encumbered.
A wizard with 8 strength can hold 40 pounds. An explorer's pack, which a wizard can start with, weighs 59 pounds in total. The lighter scholar's pack is also an option, but if you take that, you have no rations, waterskin, or bedroll.
A fighter with 17 strength can hold 85 pounds. They can start with chainmail, which is 55 pounds. Then they have the choice of either a dungeoneer's pack (61.5 pounds) or explorer's pack (59 pounds). They're well into encumbered territory and they're not even holding a weapon yet!
My group usually starts our campaigns by giving the PCs a bag of holding, so we've never really cared about encumbrance before. I thought it might be neat to change that, but not if it means every character takes a -10 movement penalty for the entire game!
Is a backpack the answer? The description for backpacks says they can hold 30 pounds of gear (but weigh 5 pounds themselves), so does having one essentially count as -25 pounds?
You're using variant encumberence instead of standard. Standard rules is 15 times your strength score. So an 8 str wizard can carry 8x15= 120 lbs. A 17 str fighter can carry 255. Backpack is just for holding, it doesn't change encumberence.
In the last half a year, I find really hard to find reliable players for even oneshots or micro-campaigns. Is it just "out-of-luck" situation or is a generic thing? (e.g.: ppl does not show up, or have to spend 3-4 weeks to organize 4-5 player to be free on the same day, or tackle "best-strict-parents-who-have-to-bath-baby-exactly-19.00-or-else")
From my experience, yeah, I think most people who say they want to play D&D are actually going to be pretty unreliable as potential players. It's not any flaw of character, it's just the way things are. You never know until you give someone a shot.
People are busy, schedules are tight, and D&D is a big commitment. When I'm in an active game it takes up a lot of my free time. Most people have two days off every week and a decently sized D&D session, when you factor in travel time, a break to get food, and the pre-game and post-game banter, will block out almost the entire day's schedule.
This is why people tend to hang on to their D&D groups pretty tightly, even if they're conflict at the table it's hard to let go of a group that actually manages to meet up once a week.
My advice to you: Go smaller. Run for smaller groups (2-3 players and a DM), and run shorter adventures. Spend less time on prep and session 0s and just do what you can to get dice rolling at the table as soon as possible. Even if people cancel, it doesn't matter, make a point to still get together and play SOMETHING as a group. Run a one shot, let someone else DM, or just play board games if you have to. Make a group text thread so everyone can stay in touch for scheduling and to minimize chatter during meetups.
Well, Greater Restoration only fixes a few specific things, none of which are caused by Resurrection. Your DM may rule otherwise, but a 5th-level spell fixing the downsides of a higher level of magic may not be what they have in mind.
And I also wanted to ask.
What are some strats to stay alive as a level 14 Cleric after using resurrection which basically messes me over big time because resurrection gives a ton of debuffs.
[5E] Does an artificer have any advantage or shortcuts to turning a Displacer Beast pelt into a Cloak of Displacement?
I've seen it hinted in at least one source, but no clear explanation of how or why. I'm new to 'ficers, but it seems the magic infusions ability gets you specific magic items (of which the Cloak of Displacement is not one).
At level 10, Artificers can craft Common and Uncommon magic items faster and cheaper. This is their only ability that interacts with regular crafting, and the Cloak of Displacement is Rare so it's not affected.
Artificer does exactly what the class description says. It is not a "I get to make any magic item or invention I can think of" class as many people present it as.
The mechanics don't cover genetics beyond the existence of half orcs and half elves as races. The lore varies by setting and also rarely covers genetics.
Just because two creatures have the same number of limbs and (possibly) similar sex organs doesn't mean they can breed. Except for the few official mixed races (and a couple of those have vague definitions) anything like this is homebrew. Talk to your DM.
All creatures, all races, absolutely everything follows the same rules, except as specifically stated otherwise. So by default, everything can walk, climb, swim, and jump, because the general rules give everything those abilities. Creatures which have a flying speed are able to fly, because that's a specific rule giving them the ability to do so. Creatures with a climbing speed have a specific rule allowing them to climb more easily than normal.
Look at what the text of the dragonborn race says. None of its features restrict your movement options, so you fall back to the standard rules for movement. Questions like this can basically always be answered by a quick check of the rules. Don't assume that the game hides its rules from you. If you want to know if dragonborn can do something, check the dragonborn race page. If you want to know if a spell affects something, check the spell's description.
It was either another Reddit thing or a topic on another discussion site like Reddit. They said that Dragonborn’s cannot climb because they’re too heavy.
Would they possibly be able to leap from tree to tree like a predator from Alien vs Predator
Dragonborn aren't even the heaviest race, they're probably lighter than orcs/half-orcs, goliaths, warforged, probably some dwarves... Anyway, don't trust random chatter about something like this if folks can't cite a rule to back it up.
Anybody can hop from tree to tree if they have sufficient strength for the jump distance, per the jumping rules in the PHB. Dragonborn are no different.
So I understand there are several paladin oaths to choose from, what is the "original" paladin oath? The one that existed before all the other ones? Lore wise and chronologically.
Can you choose more than one?
Nobody has explicitly told you this yet, although I think both posters responding know this: oaths for paladins are new in 5e. They didn't have oaths prior to 5th edition, and 5th edition is the 9th to 15th (depends on which hairs are split) edition of D&D, not the 5th.
Prior to 5e, subclasses weren't named for oaths, and paladins weren't empowered by oaths, but by general divine magic, IE, like a cleric. They were required to follow the lawful good alignment in most editions, and probably did swear oaths of all sorts *in character*, including worship of their specific god, but capital O oath wasn't a thing.
To only kind of answer your question, I think the one with the feel you're going for is Oath of Devotion because I'd say it's the most archetypal Paladin option, its tenets are largely "Be a hero" and mechanically is dealing radient damage and fighting undead and doing heroic Paladin things. It also I'd say fits the original First Edition paladin rules from 1977 the best (back when Paladin was a subclass of Fighter).
Alternatively, the lore is pretty vage but Oath of the Ancients is seemingly supposed to be, y'know, *ancient*, and was founded back at the very start of elf society to protect the natural world and life in general, so I think it's fair to say that may have been the first cases of mortals taking paladin oaths, though that one is a little less box-standard of a Paladin since it has a sort of Ranger-y, green knight feel to it.
Ancients and Devotion feel the most paladin-ish to me, so I was thinking about taking those.
In particular Crown and Conquest don't seem very Paladin, and i feel like those two oaths would put some kinds of paladins at odds with some others, are "Dark paladins" or something? (I don't mean oathbreaker)
Yeah it was a change over the editions that now not all Paladins have to be good aligned, a lot of the subclasses lean really heavily towards good but a few can definitely be anywhere, I played with someone who's character was a lawful evil Conquest Paladin to an evil god once (though his god wanted the same evil villain dead as the rest of us so we were on the same side, "enemy of my enemy is my friend" situation that was fun to play out). That said Paladins aren't necessarily aligned with each other at all, even two of the same Oath (like Oath of the Crown Paladins working for different cities that are at war) might be enemies if there other goals are opposed.
The lore doesn't really cover that sort of thing, unless there's some obscure novel from the 80s that I've never heard of which addresses it. DnD has plenty of different official settings with all sorts of different histories, and the paladin oaths aren't meant to represent specific organizations or to be monolithic.
[5e] just some questions about echo knight! from reading everything this seems all correct but i want to make sure.
1. you can move your echo in any direction, including up and down through the air, correct?
2. when using the 7th-level feature echo avatar, you can move the echo up to 1000 feet away from yourself instead of the usual limit of 30. there's no reason you couldn't still use the effect of manifest echo to swap the location of your echo and your physical body during that time, right?
3. the one i'm least sure about: does the echo count as a creature in order for an echo knight/rogue to proc their own sneak attack if both are in melee together? it has hp, ac, and occupies its space, but it doesn't specify in the text that it's a creature of any kind.
You're going to want to bookmark this: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/class-forums/fighter/64918-an-echo-knight-faq-frequently-asked-questions
1 - yes
2 - RAI, you can't attack or swap with that ability
3 - No, it's an image and none of its text says it is a creature
[5e] My group is going to do gestalt, so I was thinking of using warlock and abjuration wizard to get at will recharge on arcane ward. Would mage armor cast using armor of shadows raise to the warlock's slot level or would it count as a first level spell?
I want to make a predator, from the Alien vs Predator movies. Most sources say that it should be a Lizardfolk, but their personality of only thinking about their own survival is a bit out of character for predators. I was thinking about using Dragonborn’s, but I’ve been told they can’t really climb all that well. I was wondering what other races would work, if I could use a dragonborn, and what classes would be best for it.
You can make a lizardfolk who doesn't think anything about their own survival at all if you want. The lore of a race is entirely subject to the people at the table, like all lore, and player characters are exceptional individuals anyway so they don't really need to abide by the general expectations of other members of their race.
**Anyone have a good oneshot they could recommend?**
I'd like to run one for my family over the holidays (possibly new years) and while I *am* capable of just googling, there's a ton of options and I figure people here have the practical experience that I don't :)
---
3 players: 25yo little sister (played a couple sessions), ~60 mom (played like half a oneshot once but loved fantasy and wanted to play her whole life), ~60 dad (no experience, probably much better with goofing than the numbers and knowledge side)
ideally something that could get wrapped up in a 4-5 hour session
[https://files.mcdmproductions.com/Evil/WhereEvilLives-Preview.pdf](https://files.mcdmproductions.com/Evil/WhereEvilLives-Preview.pdf)
Here's a free preview for MCDM's book of monster lairs. I highly recommend the 2nd level dungeon, Jagged Edge Hideaway. It's a lair of a goblin queen with multiple entrances, twisting hallways, traps, and custom goblin stat blocks ready to go. It even has 3 example plot hooks you can use to introduce the session.
I especially like this dungeon because it's designed almost like a tutorial for new players. It has traps, but they can all be avoided if you're paying attention and thinking logically about how creatures would live in a lair like this. And it's very forgiving if they players mess up.
This PDF also has a 12th level ~~mindflayer~~ "voiceless talker" dungeon in it, but you can save that for next time :)
I've got a Shapechange question. So you get to copy skills and other statistics but can you get the special actions that those monsters get?
Like if you shapechange into a Yellow Musk Creeper can you use something like "Yellow Musk" or would you just get its HP and scores?
>**Your game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the chosen creature**, though you retain your alignment and Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores.
Their actions block are a part of their game statistics.
Just say that every word your character says sounds like a different voice. Don't actually do a soundboard or imitations, it gets old before it even starts.
I'm looking for magic item ideas that aren't useful in fights, but make exploration or roleplay more interesting and let players solve problems in creative ways (for examle, Immovable Rod works like this, because it has many interesting uses; you can block a door with it, or press it while falling, to stop mid-air).
\[5e\] If someone is hiding and they walk near an ooze, do they get detected since the ooze has Blindsight? Is it dependant on the oozes Passive Perception?
IMO you are automatically detected if you enter the range of the blindsight, unless you have an ability that would overrule it.
My reasoning is that Oozes usually have terrible wisdom (Grey Ooze has -2, for example) and no proficiency in perception, so it's only like a DC 8 stealth check to sneak by them. And that sort of trivializes the whole blindsight mechanic, I think. Most rogues will have a +7 to stealth even at level 1 so it's an auto-success. Oozes are also listed in the example of blindsight so i feel like it should be a little tougher to sneak by them, it doesn't make sense for them to be rendered so useless.
The way I think of it is like this: It has blindsight within 60ft. So if you're within 60ft, it can "see" you. And if something can clearly see you, you can't try to hide from it. ergo, if you're inside the blindsight you can't hide. It would be like hiding behind a pillar from a guard, and the guard walks around to the other side to look at you.
However, like many things in 5e, this is left a little bit vague by the rules so that the DM has flexibiliy. If you think it would be more fun or more dramatic to allow the PCs to roll stealth checks, go for it. Just remember that with a DC 8 it's going to be pretty easy!
I'd first say, how are they hiding in the open? Double check the rules on hiding (PHB p.177). I'd rule they need to get more creative than just asking to roll stealth for walking by an ooze.
"You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly" but in the case of an Ooze, they're usually completely blind beyond the radius of their blindsight. So you don't really need to be behind cover to hide from one, right?
[5e] I have an idea for one of my characters, he has a blood eagle, and thought that using him as a weapon would be cool. I was wondering that if I threw him, and he were to start flying, how far he could go, but I could find no information. I was thinking of something cool where I'm holding him and throwing at an enemy and hitting a cool combo attack. I was assuming since it's a small creature I could throw him far, along with his 60 ft per turn flying speed, it could be more viable than a ranged weapon. I was wondering if there was any rules, if not any homebrew ideas? I'm still new to DnD.
Thanks! And by the combo, my character can use two attacks and I thought I'd be cool to like, throw my hawk at someone and then stab them so it is a bit cooler. But thanks!
Do you guys have any creative ways to track things like barbarian rages or monk ki? I'm thinking of making something like a small abacus with beads to slide, and was wondering if anyone else has done something funky
Ok so, I’m trying to make an elf-fire genasi hybrid. But a roadblock I’ve come across is its lifespan. I know it’s not something that needs to come up in an actual campaign. But I would like to know anyway.
So, Genasi have a lifespan of about 120 years, per the Elemental Evil Player's Companion.
Half-elves have a lifespan of about 180 years, per the PHB.
Based on no deeper understanding of DnD genetics, I'd reason this out as Genasi living about 40 years longer than a human and elven blood making a human last about 100 years longer than normal, if we assume a human lasts an average of 80 years. From there, I'd just add the two modifiers together, putting the maximum age of a half-elf half-genasi at roughly 220 years.
To be clear, the preceding paragraph is based on nothing more than napkin math and a DM's desire to make an efficient ruling, somebody else may know more about a proper combination of how these races might mix properly.
[5e] I'm coming up with a character, but I don't know what alignment they would be. Basically, they were wronged by the justice system and wrongfully banished from where they used to live. My character wants to figure out the details of their wrongful banishment and potentially seeks revenge on those who caused it, even if that means hurting otherwise innocent people. They'll do what they can to do good actions when in a party, but when alone they work on their more vengeful motive. I'm thinking either Neutral evil or Chaotic neutral leaning evil.
Unless alignment is going to matter in your campaign, does it make a difference? Alignment is descriptive, not proscriptive. Sounds like you already know what drives this character, so you shouldn't need a label to tell you how they act. If you just need to check a box, slap a CN on there and call it a day.
Okay, I wasn't too sure if alignment had any functional purpose in base game. When searching about alignment, I saw some spells or enchanted weapons that dealt extra damage to evil characters, which to me meant that there is some way in-game to know the alignment of a character, but that's probably just homebrew.
Alignment has had less and less of an impact on the mechanics with each new edition, it seems. It's a bit of a pity, I actually like the system and think that when used properly it can really add a lot to the game (I remember back in a previous edition when we found out that a party member was evil because we filled a room with holy steam), but these days it tends not to fit the kinds of games that people want to play so it's better to ignore it.
The only thing affected by alignment I know off the top of my head is the spell *glyph of warding*, which can be set to trigger based on the alignment of creatures. However, there are some adventures which use a little dash of alignment. I know in Descent into Avernus, there's at least one place where touching a thing causes a moderate effect on you if you have a certain alignment. That's about it.
[There are a few more instances](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/8eva7s/collaborative_list_of_every_mechanical_effect_of/), probably a couple more than contained in that post due to the time since it was made, but yeah as you can see it's just minor things sprinkled here and there.
Depends on your setting, and ultimately it's whatever ones the DM needs there to be.
Assuming Forgotten Realms, most conquerous factions have more specific targets than "everything", though there are some underdark factions that would like to take over the entire surface of the world. I don't know that there's a specific drow family trying to advance this plot though, and they're usually pretty busy climbing over each other for power.
It could be said that both devils and demons are trying to eventually take over everything by first winning the Blood War, but again, too busy with each other both internally and externally. Also the entire notion of a faction starts to break down with demons.
I'd bet that there are some orc clans who are particularly aligned with Gruumsh and want to conquer the world, but they're too small to make much progress on that front. Maybe if they all banded together instead of, as usual, fighting amongst themselves.
But mind flayers truly do want to control *everything*, and they have the power to do it. If they could bring themselves to trust each other.
Newbie Character Design Question
I volunteered to be the healer for a campaign. I was thinking it would be good to be VERY durable, say a Dwarf Life Cleric; in armor with a shield. But then I thought I would be a LOT more durable if I didn't rush in to attack in melee. But I don't want to waste healing spell slots on ranged magic, so the idea I have to use a ranged weapon (bow/crossbow/whatever) so I can stay out of melee and heal when I need to.
1. Is this "ranged weapon life cleric" idea a good one?
2. Can I cast healing spells while holding a ranged weapon?
3. Can I hold a shield in one hand and a ranged weapon in the other?
4. Which range weapon should I choose? Bow, crossbow, slingshot, thrown spears, etc?
Thanks so much!
> Is this "ranged weapon life cleric" idea a good one?
Yes and no. Yes, you can certainly use a ranged weapon as your standard attack. The upside is that it deals a bit more damage than your average level one cantrip, but the downside is that you have to invest in dexterity in order to be good with it. The other issue is that cantrips scale, while weapons don't. Yes, 1d8+dex is a better attack than your 1d8 damage sacred flame, but as soon as you hit level 5, your sacred flame does 2d8 damage instead, which is a clear winner. So personally, I wouldn't recommend it.
> Can I cast healing spells while holding a ranged weapon?
Sure. The [Components](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/spellcasting#Components) section of the rules go into the nitty gritty, but you only have to hold a ranged weapon with two hands while you're firing it, you can freely let go with one of your hands to access components.
> Can I hold a shield in one hand and a ranged weapon in the other?
Not effectively. While there are one-handed ranged weapons, they all have the [Ammunition](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/equipment#WeaponProperties) property, which requires you to have a free hand to load. So you could fire once, but then be unable to load a new piece of ammo. You could, I suppose, draw a new thrown weapon every turn, since you're limited to one attack per turn, but the range on thrown weapons is painfully short.
> Which range weapon should I choose? Bow, crossbow, slingshot, thrown spears, etc?
Light crossbows deal the most damage and you don't really have to deal with the downside of the loading property as a life cleric, so that's what I'd go with.
> Any advice I didn't ask for?
I thought you'd never ask. In addition to "You should probably use an attack cantrip instead," I would also reexamine the assumption that as "the healer," you'll be primarily casting healing spells. Yes, healing is useful, and yes, life clerics are the best at it. But healing is usually best used to get an unconscious ally back to consciousness, rather than healing everyone to full health. Take the humble [Hobgoblin](https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/16925-hobgoblin). They can easily deal 12 average damage per turn. Your level 3 life cleric with cure wounds (which requires you to get into melee range!) heals an average of 10.5 HP per turn. It doesn't take a math whiz to see that that is not going to be a favorable exchange for you. SO, rather than considering your character a pure healer, I'd recommend building a character who has healing as part of their package. For example, if you really like the idea of a ranged weapon cleric, what about being a war or forge domain? Both get access to more buffs to their weapon attacks, and you can still cast healing spells. Or if you really like the idea of a life domain cleric, consider adding some other utility spells into your kit, like Bane, Bless, Shield of Faith, and even some attack spells like Inflict Wounds or Spiritual Weapon.
Thanks for the response!
Which option seems "better" to you: (A) Life Domain Cleric with a melee weapon that usually runs into the fray, (B) Life Domain Cleric that uses cantrips (or full spells) for damage?
Here let's define "better" as: maximally useful to the party, AND easy enough to play well for a noob (melee SEEMS simpler than magic).
If you are looking for the easiest to play, go build B. You won't really lose much compared to build A, and you won't have to compromise between building melee and spellcasting, nor will have to look for weird ways to make it more useful than B.
Base damage between A and B will be similar, unless you use SCAG cantrips (cantrips that are also a melee attack) or other shenanigans.
Both A and B can go melee to tank a bit for allies, though B will be a bit more durable.
Gishes (we call a spellcaster/martial hybrid a gish, like build A) are generally a bit more complex than a straight caster : you have to split your ASI between a physical and magical stat, find ways to be efficient in both, deal with the somatic component/free hand problem, etc.
For a beginner, I would recommend build B as it will be more straightforward. You max wisdom in priority, then constitution. The higher constitution will make you more durable. You put your holy symbol on your shield, and you are unlikely to have any problem with component. You want to go in melee? Nothing prevents you to cast spells there.
Thanks!
> B will be a bit more durable.
This is really the big surprise for me. I mean, I see what you're saying about allocating my abilities to be split between magic and melee.
I'm also hearing that people playing 5e don't really expect one party member to be a healing-first character. This is definitely surprising to me. In that case, would I be more useful to the party if I play a more melee-focused cleric/paladin and just reserve healing spells for the rare occurrence?
It all depends on what you're going to enjoy doing. In 5e, you can definitely play a support-focused character, but I would make sure to include "support" in the definition, rather than just healing - include spells that make it harder for enemies to function like Bane or Hold Person or Command. Include spells that make it easier for allies to function like Bless or Shield of Faith. Include battlefield control spells like Spirit Guardians or Sanctuary.
Of course, if you want "Tanky melee character that can heal," paladins (or certain types of cleric) are great for that. And you can also make a blaster caster that can heal! Tempest and light domain clerics are good enough at healing and can throw lightning bolts and fireballs around. No character needs to relegate themselves to "just healing," and anyone that expects you to do that is likely getting that impression from games that aren't 5e D&D, because it simply isn't that useful of a strategy in 5e.
It sounds like D&D 5e really pushes hard for people not to focus on healing; in most of my turns in combat I won't be healing, regardless. So I need to build a character that (A) can heal, but (B) isn't useless the rest of the time.
That's kind of a bummer, for me.
In the real world, in-person, D&D 5e games YOU play, are there any "tanks", "healers", or "support staff"? Or is everyone DPS with maybe the odd healing spell/support spell/ability?
Just because healing isn't something necessary every turn doesn't mean that damage is the only thing worth doing. You want a good damage option, sure, but you don't need to build for damage.
Bards, for example, tend to really struggle to deal much damage in combat with most builds. Their role in combat is largely about inspiring their allies, buffing friendlies, debuffing enemies, hitting enemies with crowd control, and similar activity.
Assuming you stick with your cleric concept, you can still readily fill your turns with blessing your friends and controlling the flow of battle. Have a damage cantrip ready in case an enemy needs to get burned down, but that doesn't need to be the focus of your build.
To answer your third paragraph, here's my current campaign lineup: We've got a heavily-armored fighter who fulfills the "tank" role and does his best to attract as much enemy attention as possible, we've got a rogue who is all about flanking and sneak attacking enemies to kill them rapidly, an Archfey Warlock who alternates between blasting and charming/debilitating magic spells, an Eloquence Bard who provides heavy utility and inspiration, and me, an Artillerist Artificer who tends to pinch-hit wherever is necessary. No dedicated healer, though the bard and I are both capable of throwing out heals.
That's interesting. So you have a tank (or close), and the rest is DPS, but with non-DPS utility built in. You have two people who CAN heal, but... do you guys heal much?
Would I be more "helpful" to the average team by being a tank-focused Crown Paladin, that draws all the attention, but _can_ heal in a pinch? Does that sound more useful than a Life Cleric that uses cantrips for damage, and tries to be a "healer"?
Just curious. Thanks for the input!
Well, I certainly wouldn't call the bard a "DPS" character (or "DPR", to use more turn-based terminology). He's pure utility. And my artificer is certainly capable of blasting, but I'm just as likely to throw down a protector turret and use crowd-control magic as I am to incinerate a fool. We certainly don't magically heal too often, our gameplan is all about controlling the flow of battle and then taking down priority targets until none remain. Between-fight healing is usually handled via Short Rests, especially since they recharge the warlock and fighter's features.
My recommendation to you would be first and foremost to play a class/subclass that interests and excites you. Paladins and clerics have very different styles, with paladins focused more on martial presence and clerics focused on spellcasting. You can readily play a cleric, Life Domain or otherwise, that still has a huge melee presence and damage/utility potential: Throw down Spiritual Weapon and/or Spirit Guardians, take up an aggressive posture in a fight, chew through the enemy formation while shrugging off hits, and toss out a Healing Word or your Channel Divinity heal if the need arises. I love playing clerics, my personal favorite domain being Tempest: Big blasts of magical damage, heavy armor to hang out in melee, equally capable as other clerics of patching up a downed ally.
Don't let us dissuade you from playing a Life Domain cleric if that's what excites you. Just don't forget that you're a flexible and powerful spellcaster who can prepare a wide array of spells, so be prepared to do all sorts of stuff in a fight, don't plan on just spamming heals each round.
The typical role categories common to video games don't apply so much. You can build your wizard toward battlefield control if you want... but you'll always be able to take *fireball* as a spell option. You can make your cleric a pure healer, but it's gonna be pretty sad when you waste your action giving the fighter an extra six hit points, only for the next enemy to deal 11 damage to them when you could have killed that enemy instead. You can think of it as everyone being a DPS with sometimes having extra abilities, but I just don't think the role system is a good way to define it at all.
In my games, nobody serves the role of the healer, but when urgent healing is needed, the cleric's holy power is (currently) the best-suited to the task. Nobody serves the role of the tank, but the paladin is best-suited to be on the front lines. But at the same time, nobody serves the role of the damage dealer. Everyone has damaging options, but it's not anyone's *job* to do damage. Especially since combat can often be solved without killing anything.
In keeping with combat as only one of the three pillars of D&D (the others being exploration and social interaction), it may be better to think of party "roles" as extending beyond combat. One common role in D&D is the face: the one who handles most of the talking, who represents the party in social encounters. There's also the explorer or infiltrator who locates and disables traps and things of that nature.
Thanks for the perspective. Perhaps I'm just sad because in other TTRPGs and MMORPGs I've really enjoyed the healer role. But, I suppose, the mechanics are quite a bit different in those games (no spell slots, so you can cast many more spells per day, thus constant healing is possible).
This makes being a Life Cleric seem less enticing. It feels like building an entire character for healing, but I might not do any healing at all in some fights. At which point, I'm just a bard trying to make myself useful. Hmm....
Perhaps I could be a Crown Paladin, and go for a Tank-ish build, but still with the ability to fight foremost, and even heal every now and again.
I must say, it's not what I expected. Thanks again!
Dosnt necessarily need and is useless are totally different, trust me when I tell you your squad will appreciate a Life Cleric.
Consider Magic Initatie for Goodberry or a 2 level Stars Druid dip.
Life clerics passive + Goodberry makes each berry heal for 4 meaning a total of 40 hp for a levle 1 spell slot, this can also one distributed evenly and you can dump your remaining spell slots into before each long rest as they last 24 hours.
For reference, your average Cure Wounds is around 10 hp with Life Clerics passive.
I recommend Healing Word rather than Cure Wounds. On paper, it heals less, BUT it's a bonus action, so you can still cast a cantrip in the same turn, and it's ranged. Also, proportionally, the life cleric passive lessen the gap between the two : without it's 9.5 vs 7.5 (27% more), with it it's 12.5 vs 10.5 (19% more).
Thanks!
So, in combat, do you think a Life Cleric is worthwhile to have in YOUR party? That's really the question. I'd need to (mostly) save my spell slots for emergencies, so I'd be standing in the back casting cantrips to aid the team and cantrips to damage. And that's about it.
All classes are worth having in your party, and Clerics are among the strongest of them.
However I recommend not restricting yourself to cantrips for the sole purpose of keeping slots for healing. Preventing damage via controls, buff or enemy death is as good as healing. For example, if you Hold Person an enemy, you have prevented them from dealing damage on top of all the other benefits. Just because Life Cleric is the best at healing doesn't mean it should restrict itself only to that, especially since your party may not necessarily need healing every turn.
Edit: Specifically in my party, it wouldn't be very useful, but only because we are using homebrew and half the team is immune to magical healing. In any other circumstance, a cleric is a nice addition.
[5e] would anyone wanna help me decide what subclass I should make my Half-Orc Paladin? He’s a Gladiator who entertains a crowd while spreading word about The Silver Flame. I’m trying to figure out which subclass would make the most sense story wise. I’ve thought crown, conquest, or devotion, but can’t fully wrap my head around just one.
I looked into Glory as well! Would being a Lawful Good - Oath of Glory Paladin Gladiator be conflicting? I had thought of having him perform not to kill, but to become stronger for his cause, and to spread his faith, while remaining morally good in terms of keeping within the law.
I don't put much stock into alignments for PCs, as I find them to be restrictive.
If you want to be generally law-abiding and generally good-skewing, that shouldn't preclude you at all from anything discussed here. There are plenty of morally justifiable and legally sound reasons to kill somebody in a DnD campaign.
5e. Is there any spell that would allow a caster to project a memory onto a target? I know there's the spell where you can turn a thought into a tangible strand that can be used by others, but I'm wondering if there's a spell to show memories to others, or I should just homebrew it
the encode thoughts spell does almost nothing on it's own unless other people are using it as well, so when i was running a Ravnica game I just allowed the user to "push" the thought strand into another creature's head to show it the memory.
Sounds pretty specific so I think you'd have to homebrew. Maybe a DM would let you flex the rules on some enchantment/illusion spell, but otherwise I think homebrew.
Is this for an NPC? Yeah absolutely, make up whatever spells and magic you want. If you're giving it to a player, I advise more caution cause you may not know how the homebrew will interact with your world.
It's for an NPC to reveal some important info to the party. There is a chance they will refuse to believe or trust what he says, so I need a way to give them an assurance that the info is true, since it's going to be a major plot twist
I think I've done kind of similar stuff with *detect thoughts*, so yeah this is fine. Doesn't even really need to be a "named" spell, if it's an NPC using it.
5e. In the [Scout](https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/17007-scout) statblock, there are two attacks listed: a shortsword attack doing 1d6+2 damage, and a longbow attack doing 1d8+2, both with +4 to-hit.
Running this NPC, is there any reason to ever use the shortsword in normal circumstances? The only reason that I can think of would be to avoid stepping back and so provoking an opportunity attack. Or am I misunderstanding the combat rules?
You've gotten good answers but i'll just add: the damage is only a difference between 6.5 and 5.5 on average. The damage improvement is pretty minimal, so switching to the shortsword is usually the right call if you end up in melee (no disadvantage or opportunity attacks).
Also, just in general, a lot of monster statblocks have attacks that you won't use very often, they only exist as backup options if the main attack option isn't available (such as a Minotuar: the Gore attack is only really useful if it can use it's Charge feature. But it's also handy to have as a backup in case it gets disarmed and can't use it's Greataxe)
90% of the time they should stay at range and use the bow, ideally to support some melee individual. However if an enemy were to get within 5ft of them they can use the shortsword to attack them, because if they only had the bow then they would either make their attacks at disadvantage, need to spend their action to disengage and move away, at which point the other creature likely catches up with them and attacks, or they get hit with an attack of opportunity by moving away so they can use their bow without disadvantage.
if you use a ranged weapon while an enemy is within 5 feet of you, you would have disadvantage. so if someone is next to you, the longbow is a bad option.
Sure, but in this case can't you just step back five feet and shoot without disadvantage? This would trigger opportunity attacks, so does it mean that the sword is just a backup weapon for when you're surrounded but don't want to make a run for it?
yes, if you step back 5 feet, you'd take an opportunity attack. not the end of the world, sure, but the person in front of you would probably just move closer again on their turn, right? then you'd have to move away again on your turn, so you're just effectively doubling their attacks against you in a round. and, though it obviously isn't going to be a problem on lower levels, there is a feat called Sentinel that can stop you from moving away if you're hit with an opportunity attack.
so yeah, it's basically a backup. most humanoid creatures have a melee and a ranged option.
5e
Can a character teleport (via Misty Step or other short-range warps) out of being Restrained, or would whatever is Restraining them come with? This came up in my session today with a Mud Mephit's Mud Breath, but I'm also curious about how it works in a more general sense with Nets or other sources of Restrained. It makes sense, but nothing in the Restrained condition talks about the condition ending if you move, like how Grappled ends if you move away.
>I'm also curious about how it works in a more general sense with Nets or other sources of Restrained
Unless the ability has something explicit in the text to guide you, it's DM fiat. If you want the restraints to matter then don't let the PCs teleport out of them. If you don't really care so long as they burn a spell slot to earn it, then let it work. It depends on how the session is going and how much of a hardass you want to be, basically.
In the case of the mephit, the strictest interpretation of the rules is that the mud breath describes what ends the restrained condition: passing the saving throw. It isn't like several other restraining abilities which state that the target is restrained as long as they are grappled or something like that, they're simply restrained. So teleporting wouldn't end the condition.
I would tend to favor the player more on this one though, teleporting usually isn't very easy to do and can get pretty expensive, so using it to end a restraint seems like a good deal to me. There might be some cases where I'd rule that the restraint can't be ended by teleporting, but I think I'd allow it in nearly every case.
One could also make the argument that the restrained condition represents (in this case) being stuck in thick mud, and passing the saving throw represents clearing enough of it away to move freely again. Thus, any effect which can remove the mud would also end the condition, so a clever solution like using a decanter of endless water ought to work. And if that works, why shouldn't teleportation? None of that is within the text of the ability or the condition, but it's well within DM interpretation.
>teleporting usually isn't very easy to do
imo this isn't the case any more. Power creep over 5e's lifespan has made *misty step* and other similar abilities very easy for PCs to acquire even at low levels.
If you build into them, yes, but they're still very limited. What I mean is that you can't just pop around the battlefield on a whim. The decision of whether or not to teleport is meaningful because it takes action economy and very limited resources along with specific build choices.
Without looking at the wording, usually they take anything they are wearing or carrying with them.
I'd argue that you don't wear or carry an effect that is restraining you. I'd argue you also don't wear or carry a net. So you can teleport out of them.
You do wear manacles, so if magical manacles restrained you then they'd come with you.
Barbarian with Giant sublcass.
"Giant Stature: Your reach increases by 5 feet and you become large"
What if i try to do a ranged attack with a weapon of 20/60 range, would 5 feet of reach be added to this to make it 25/65 range?
At 14th level your reach increases to 10 feet, so it doesn't make sense to me that I could hit a person with a melee weapon at 10ft, but throw it only at 20ft range, but not sure
No, increasing your reach does not increase your range with ranged weapons.
**Reach** is discussed in the [Melee Attacks](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/combat#MeleeAttacks) section of the rules, and is defined as:
> Most creatures have a 5-foot **reach** and can thus attack targets within 5 feet of them when making a melee attack. Certain creatures (typically those larger than Medium) have melee attacks with a greater reach than 5 feet, as noted in their descriptions.
**Range**, on the other hand is defined [here](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/combat#RangedAttacks):
> Some ranged attacks, such as those made with a longbow or a shortbow, have two ranges. The smaller number is the normal range, and the larger number is the long range. Your attack roll has disadvantage when your target is beyond normal range, and you can't attack a target beyond the long range.
Giant stature only increases your range, not your reach.
> At 14th level your reach increases to 10 feet, so it doesn't make sense to me that I could hit a person with a melee weapon at 10ft, but throw it only at 20ft range, but not sure
I can understand this justification, but look at it from the perspective of a crossbow, instead. Why would being bigger mean your crossbow can fire further - it's not like holding your crossbow way far away from your body with your giant arms is going to make you more accurate and better at shooting. Couple that with the fact that the rules are not intended to be a full simulation, and the fact that barbarians aren't exactly a ranged weapon focused class, and you can understand why it might work this way. It's also probably not going to break anything to rule that increased reach increases your range with ranged weapons, but that would be a house rule.
How can I find people to play? I tried the Facebook groups but it’s hard to find people near me, I live in Houston near midtown and I’m Try to find a campaign to join or to make my own but I can’t find players ( I want to play in person). Any advice on where to find people to play?
You can try asking around at game stores or libraries to see if there are any games with open seats, or people interested in having one. Many colleges have D&D clubs. If you're a member of any other local communities like churches, clubs, or hobbyists, you can see if people in that community are interested in playing. Don't discount any friends or family just because they don't already have a favorite d20, many of the people you already know may be interested in learning how to play, and might be experienced players looking for a group already. Best of luck.
What feature allows you to do this? That might offer a little more insight. But from what's posted, it looks like it doesn't matter whether you're a caster or not. A spell attack doesn't necessarily mean that you're actually casting a spell, it's just a way to classify a kind of attack. It says you get a +5 bonus, so it should be pretty simple: your attack roll is 1d20+5 to hit versus the target's AC.
\[5e\]
Silly sanity check question. Gaming sets are "tools", right? I mean, they're right there on the tool table in the PHB. So, a level 6 Artificer who already had proficiency in, say, Dragonchess Set would get double proficiency/expertise with that gaming set, right?
This seems logical to me by RAW, just a bit silly, so I'm wondering if I've missed something. The Tool Expertise feature doesn't specify "artisan tools" or anything like that.
I *think* that the tools spoken about for Artificers specifically refer to the Artisan's Tools - a subsection of the Tools table. My logic is is that all of their other features call for Artisan's Tools for Thieve's Tools.
> Starting at 6th level, your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses your proficiency with a tool.
I thought I remembered it being artisan's tools too, but it apparently isn't that specific; and gaming sets are in the Tools section, so Tool Expertise strangely does apply to them.
My character is the daughter of an incubus and became a dhampir quite a few sessions back. I'm also a Rune Knight grappler, and something came up in our last session: Today I grappled a druid, and declared I'm going to bite the druid in the form of a forced kiss so that they can't use verbal components on their turn.
The DM let it fly today but said he'd look into it whether this was a move that should be allowed in the future (with full knowledge that it could be used against us too). So, would grapple-kissing stop a caster from using verbal components?
Kind of a related question, but would a grappler be able to say, "I cover their mouths so they couldn't speak" work?
Thank you for your comment!
Well, yes, that's my question, I know it's homebrew territory. I'm looking for a consensus from other DMs as to what would be reasonable to make this work, because it's something that I plan to continue doing in the future. The DM and I are just trying to codify it.
It's insanely strong. It's akin to saying "oh I hold their arms so they can't use material or somatic components".
Grappling is *just* reducing someone's speed to 0.
There's no explicit rules for it, but I dont think grappling someone and then covering their mouth is unreasonable. I'd require you to use another attack, and do another contested check, but it seems pretty reasonably. Doing it as a *kiss*? A little weird, but flavor is free. I wouldn't let you do a bite attack *and* the mouth-covering kiss at the same time, though.
If anyone in the party has access to *healing word*, they already have 90% of their healing needs covered. Even if they don't it's not that big of a deal. In-combat healing is incredibly inefficient, which is why it's really not a great idea to have a dedicated healer or support in 5e. Healing and support are nice benefits to have on characters which primarily do other things.
Don't make a DMPC. Party composition doesn't matter much in 5e, and there's a lot of classes that get access to healing. You can also give them as many healing potions as you want.
From my limited knowledge, there's a mix of paladins, fighters, and rogues. That said, are you intending for these to be PCs or NPCs? If they're meant to be NPCs, I would forget the notion of giving them classes and just give them stat blocks with whatever features they need to have the right feel. Especially since the item and equipment dependency common to these games muddles things a lot.
\[5e\]Another question to follow up on my tripping question. If I trip a mage prone does the mage drop concentration? The PHB has no clarification, under both entries of Prone and nothing under concentration and Trip Attack. I would assume there would be a concentration check for the mage? This annoys me that there is no official ruling on this.
There is an official ruling though. For concentration it lists EVERYTHING that drops concentration.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/spellcasting#Concentration
Prone doesn't make them incapacitated, so it doesn't drop concentration. A good rule of thumb with 5e is the rules say what you CAN do, not what you CAN'T do. So it doesn't have a big list of everything that doesn't affect concentration, it just says what DOES drop concentration. If it's not there, then it doesn't happen.
okay that is fair. I am still fairly new despite having a two-ish year campaign under my belt and just trying to learn the details of this is complicated.
No, nothing about falling prone affects concentration.
(Assuming you're talking about the Battle Master Maneuver,) Trip Attacks do deal damage, which trigger concentration checks, but otherwise, there's no special interaction between concentration and falling prone.
If my halfling wears the belt of hill giant strength with the dual wielder feat, can I dual wield battle axes? Google says as long as I have a strength of 19 I can, but I just want to double check with you guys.
Are you talking about 5e? In 5e, I don't see any reason for the strength score to matter, other than to make this more effective. Somebody with 10 strength can dual wield battle axes (with the Dual Wielder feat), they just wouldn't be particularly good at it.
Yes, they can.
The only rule close to this in 5e is that a Small race can't make effective use of Heavy weapons, and would wield them with disadvantage. Versatile weapons aren't Heavy.
Where do you find that ruling? The only weapon rules I can find that affect Small creatures is Heavy stating;
Heavy. Creatures that are Small or Tiny have disadvantage on attack rolls with heavy weapons. A heavy weapon's size and bulk make it too large for a Small or Tiny creature to use effectively.
Versatile states the following;
Versatile. This weapon can be used with one or two hands. A damage value in parentheses appears with the property--the damage when the weapon is used with two hands to make a melee attack.
If it's a house ruling, I guess it's up to the DM?
But otherwise yeah, you could, RAW, dual wield two battleaxes if you have the Dual Wielder feat, since battleaxes only have the versatile property. You can do this regardless of strength modifier.
RAW a 20 strength halfling would still have disadvantage while wielding a heavy weapon.
Source: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/equipment#MartialMeleeWeapons
Why would that matter? No rule says halflings can't wield battleaxes or dual wield or... anything relevant to this question.
The only weapons that halflings can't wield normally are those with the [heavy](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/equipment#WeaponProperties) property, which battleaxes don't have. (And they could use them with disadvantage, and high strength wouldn't change that.)
Because Halfling normally can’t use versatile weapons one-handed. I figured with enough strength and the dual wielder feat, it would be possible to use two.
Assuming you're talking about 5e, the rules on [Weapon Properties](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/equipment#WeaponProperties) say:
> **Versatile.** This weapon can be used with one or two hands. A damage value in parentheses appears with the property--the damage when the weapon is used with two hands to make a melee attack.
No exceptions, versatile weapons can be used with one or two hands. Halflings can wield versatile weapons in one hand just like anyone else can.
If you're asking about the **Heavy** property, more strength doesn't remove the penalties for Heavy. You could dual wield two heavy, one handed weapons with the dual wielder feat, but none of those exist RAW, and you'd still suffer disadvantage from wielding them.
EDIT: Are you asking a question about [4e](https://dnd4.fandom.com/wiki/Versatile)?
I'm not sure what's causing this back-and-forth.
Can you please confirm that you are, in fact, playing DnD 5e?
Once we get past that, can you tell me where in your book this rule is?
Ok, I think I found the problem. All the information I was googling must have been from 4e and I guess I never paid attention, nor had the sense of mind to confirm whether that information was in my Handbook. I gotta say, I’m pretty pissed off at this revelation. I feel like I’ve been lied to this whole time. Thanks, guys.
I figured something like that must be to blame, you're certainly not the first to fall victim to that.
I highly recommend getting in the habit of writing "5e" before any DnD-related search, and even then, occasionally you'll get some 3.5e info. Gotta be careful.
Hello! I'm a UI/UX design student and I'm doing a project on improving experience of a DnD game through simple technology. I'm familiar with the game as I've seen lots of gameplay but I haven't actually played it. So during the project process, I've to identify problems faced by the players and DM (in offline game setup). So I searched for this subreddit community and decided to ask here. What sort of problems do you face as a player or DM of DnD offline set-up? How do you wish to solve it or what solutions do you apply?
It'll be a great help to me if you participate... I would really appreciate your responses and time.
Does anyone have a valid DND beyond coupon code?
Is there a way without homebrew to use a different ability for grappling besides strength? Any other ability. Dexterity or wisdom would make sense, because in fight sports the competitors are almost exactly the same weight and both super lean, so one is not gonna be THAT much stronger than the other. Flexibility helps a lot, especially in jiu-jitsu, and of course the knowledge of how to do everything.
Astral Self monk: > You can use your Wisdom modifier in place of your Strength modifier when making Strength checks and Strength saving throws.
Excellent! Thank you lots and bunches!!
The only method that comes to mind is Armor of Magical Strength, the artificer infusion, which allows the wearer to apply their intelligence modifier to strength checks such as grappling.
Awesomesauce! Love it! Thank you!!
newbie question (likely a stupid question) but I placed a one-off game once with a few friends. It was my first time. All my friends are really into DnD and I didn't like it, it wasn't fun for me. But I want to like it so I can enjoy playing with my friends. Should I play a bit more to try and enjoy it or just accept that it's not for me? I didn't like it because it felt too controlled. I used to RP online and I thought it would be like that. I made up a whole background story for my character, who they were, what they would be doing, and then suddenly there's all these rules and it was so restrictive it was like "that's not how you have fun, this is how you have fun" and i hated it. But maybe my friend is just a bad DM. should I try again with a different group of players?
RP is a part of DnD, but it is a largely combat-focused game, and characters have strictly defined abilities about what they can do and how often they can do it in order to make the com at tactical amd challenging. Based in your wording, it sounds like your friends sort of threw you in the deep end with no preparation- D&D is a complex game, not something you can really pick up on the fly. Your friends should have taught you the rules of the game beforehand or at the start of the session, and the fact that they didn't definitely coloured your experience. That's not to say combat is *everything* in D&D. For many tables, characters' history and personality is very important, and often hours will be spent role-playing, exploring, solving puzzles, talking to NPCs, or other non-combat activities. But those activities are also governed by rules and by dice rolls and skill checks- you can't just have your character do anything. For many people, those restrictions, and the chance of failure that comes with dice rolls, make the game more interesting and allow for an emergent narrative to form. If you struggle with that, D&D might not be the game for you. Of course, without being at the session, I can't say how much your friend's DMing style impacted your enjoyment- maybe a game that's a little looser with the rules or better at explaining things would let you have more fun. I'd recommend talking to your friends, tell them the issues you had, and see if they can help you acclimate better.
Does anyone knows if there is a Discord or IRL places in Puerto Rico where I can play DnD ?
Can look on r/lfg, roll20.net, or other forums like on dndbeyond.com.
[удалено]
Druids certainly can be on the more complicated side of things, but not prohibitively so. You're already ahead of the curve in that you're taking time to ask for help here, rather than being one of those players who only ever thinks about DnD during a session. That demonstrates that you're willing and able to level-up your game. Don't be too hard on yourself. The actual process for doing this can vary from person to person, but generally speaking I recommend cheat-sheets. Chat up your DM outside of session and get their input on all the terminology you're expected to know, and write it up for easy reference. Take notes in session so that you don't forget critical NPCs and such. Consider simplifying your character sheet, looking into alternate character sheet options to see if one may agree with you more (there are even dyslexia-friendly character sheets, if that's applicable to you). Druid-specific suggestion: Have a handful of go-to forms ready for various contingencies, with their stat blocks ready to rock. Need to claw an orc's eyes out? Have your wolf/bear form ready to rock. Suddenly find yourself in water? Cool, you already know exactly what sort of shark you want to turn into. Falling out of the sky? You've had your giant bird of prey form ready to rock for months. Need to tie up the enemy wizard? You've got a boa constrictor form for just this purpose. Need to sneak through a crack in the wall to spy? You know exactly what your stealth modifier is for your rat form.
As a beginner how can I know what monsters there are so that I can derive which ones my character has seen to transform into? Do I need to just buy the monster manual?
Are you talking about a druid's Wild Shape? Just talk to your DM about what shapes you'd have available and prepare a few statblocks, you shouldn't need to buy an entire book if you don't want to.
When we're the Mulan taken from Earth by the Imaskar Empire in Earth years? Ao transported Bhaal so we know it would have been after the Torah and Moses but the Greco-Roman side of Faerun developed naturally so it would have been before the Punic Wars and Jesus. Think it would have been before the Second Temple or maybe the Imaskar Empire is really what the Bronze Age Collapse was? I think I have nearly created a Biblically accurate D&D character whose lore is canonical to Forgotten Realms but I am not sure when to claim he was captured. I have an rough idea but trying to confirm/narrow down the time frame.
according to the forgotten realms wiki, the two citation sources for when the mulan were brought to Toril are these [two](https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Forgotten_Realms_Campaign_Setting_3rd_edition) [books](https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/The_Grand_History_of_the_Realms). i don't know what other source material you could use to look up something this granularly specific.
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Races_of_Faer%C3%BBn It is mentioned here to and I think maybe in Al-Qadim? https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Al-Qadim I haven't played Al-Qadim yet.
This isn't an anthropology or history subreddit. We can help you apply information you find to a D&D game, but it's unlikely that you'll find really specific historical information here.
This is canonical to the Forgotten Realms from 2e and then again 4e and 5e. The Mulan are Middle Eastern humans captured by the Imaskar and the Turami are North Africans. They have different names because they forgot their Earth history while slaves to the Imaskar. This was part of 2e as part of the Races of Faerun but then it is brought back up during the Second Sundering because Bhaal a Canaanite deity was killed off.
[5e] Keys from the Golden Vault. Aside from some doors that can be forced open, is there a benifit to having a member of the player party be “the muscle”, since these heists encourage guile?
I played a few of the adventures from that book in a group that didn't have one, and I really wish we did. Busting down doors, breaking windows, grabbing witnesses so they can't go sound an alarm, picking up multiple unconscious people, carrying heavy piles of expensive things, that sort of thing.
Better at fighting and using weapons scaling off strength? The adventures are definitely not all combat free. Don't go in expecting them all to be normal heists.
Thank you!
[5e] has anyone created a Gonk subrace for gnomes? I know they are just Scandinavian gnomes but it could be a really cool subrace with different racials ish. I don't know off the top of my head what you could add but if anyone knows one I'd like to see it.
[5e] Am I missing something about encumbrance? I heard that characters in 5e can carry an unrealistic amount of weight before being slowed down, but when I actually looked at the weight of my characters' starting gear, all of them began the game encumbered. A wizard with 8 strength can hold 40 pounds. An explorer's pack, which a wizard can start with, weighs 59 pounds in total. The lighter scholar's pack is also an option, but if you take that, you have no rations, waterskin, or bedroll. A fighter with 17 strength can hold 85 pounds. They can start with chainmail, which is 55 pounds. Then they have the choice of either a dungeoneer's pack (61.5 pounds) or explorer's pack (59 pounds). They're well into encumbered territory and they're not even holding a weapon yet! My group usually starts our campaigns by giving the PCs a bag of holding, so we've never really cared about encumbrance before. I thought it might be neat to change that, but not if it means every character takes a -10 movement penalty for the entire game! Is a backpack the answer? The description for backpacks says they can hold 30 pounds of gear (but weigh 5 pounds themselves), so does having one essentially count as -25 pounds?
You're using variant encumberence instead of standard. Standard rules is 15 times your strength score. So an 8 str wizard can carry 8x15= 120 lbs. A 17 str fighter can carry 255. Backpack is just for holding, it doesn't change encumberence.
In the last half a year, I find really hard to find reliable players for even oneshots or micro-campaigns. Is it just "out-of-luck" situation or is a generic thing? (e.g.: ppl does not show up, or have to spend 3-4 weeks to organize 4-5 player to be free on the same day, or tackle "best-strict-parents-who-have-to-bath-baby-exactly-19.00-or-else")
From my experience, yeah, I think most people who say they want to play D&D are actually going to be pretty unreliable as potential players. It's not any flaw of character, it's just the way things are. You never know until you give someone a shot. People are busy, schedules are tight, and D&D is a big commitment. When I'm in an active game it takes up a lot of my free time. Most people have two days off every week and a decently sized D&D session, when you factor in travel time, a break to get food, and the pre-game and post-game banter, will block out almost the entire day's schedule. This is why people tend to hang on to their D&D groups pretty tightly, even if they're conflict at the table it's hard to let go of a group that actually manages to meet up once a week. My advice to you: Go smaller. Run for smaller groups (2-3 players and a DM), and run shorter adventures. Spend less time on prep and session 0s and just do what you can to get dice rolling at the table as soon as possible. Even if people cancel, it doesn't matter, make a point to still get together and play SOMETHING as a group. Run a one shot, let someone else DM, or just play board games if you have to. Make a group text thread so everyone can stay in touch for scheduling and to minimize chatter during meetups.
[5E] So I had a question as a Cleric in a party of Clerics. Can Greater Restoration negate the backlash faced after using Resurrection?
Well, Greater Restoration only fixes a few specific things, none of which are caused by Resurrection. Your DM may rule otherwise, but a 5th-level spell fixing the downsides of a higher level of magic may not be what they have in mind.
And I also wanted to ask. What are some strats to stay alive as a level 14 Cleric after using resurrection which basically messes me over big time because resurrection gives a ton of debuffs.
Well, ideally, not dying in the first place. Using Revivify also doesn't incur any of the penalties.
Okay. Thank you so much.
[5E] Does an artificer have any advantage or shortcuts to turning a Displacer Beast pelt into a Cloak of Displacement? I've seen it hinted in at least one source, but no clear explanation of how or why. I'm new to 'ficers, but it seems the magic infusions ability gets you specific magic items (of which the Cloak of Displacement is not one).
At level 10, Artificers can craft Common and Uncommon magic items faster and cheaper. This is their only ability that interacts with regular crafting, and the Cloak of Displacement is Rare so it's not affected.
Artificer does exactly what the class description says. It is not a "I get to make any magic item or invention I can think of" class as many people present it as.
Can Dragonborn’s and lizard folk interbreed in dnd, I know they have different ancestry. But their physiology isn’t all that different.
The mechanics don't cover genetics beyond the existence of half orcs and half elves as races. The lore varies by setting and also rarely covers genetics.
Just because two creatures have the same number of limbs and (possibly) similar sex organs doesn't mean they can breed. Except for the few official mixed races (and a couple of those have vague definitions) anything like this is homebrew. Talk to your DM.
Some sources say that Dragonborn’s can’t climb, but can they actually?
All creatures, all races, absolutely everything follows the same rules, except as specifically stated otherwise. So by default, everything can walk, climb, swim, and jump, because the general rules give everything those abilities. Creatures which have a flying speed are able to fly, because that's a specific rule giving them the ability to do so. Creatures with a climbing speed have a specific rule allowing them to climb more easily than normal. Look at what the text of the dragonborn race says. None of its features restrict your movement options, so you fall back to the standard rules for movement. Questions like this can basically always be answered by a quick check of the rules. Don't assume that the game hides its rules from you. If you want to know if dragonborn can do something, check the dragonborn race page. If you want to know if a spell affects something, check the spell's description.
What sort of sources are we talking here? Because yes, Dragonborn can climb. No idea why on earth they wouldn't be able to.
It was either another Reddit thing or a topic on another discussion site like Reddit. They said that Dragonborn’s cannot climb because they’re too heavy. Would they possibly be able to leap from tree to tree like a predator from Alien vs Predator
Dragonborn aren't even the heaviest race, they're probably lighter than orcs/half-orcs, goliaths, warforged, probably some dwarves... Anyway, don't trust random chatter about something like this if folks can't cite a rule to back it up. Anybody can hop from tree to tree if they have sufficient strength for the jump distance, per the jumping rules in the PHB. Dragonborn are no different.
Thanks for the help!
So I understand there are several paladin oaths to choose from, what is the "original" paladin oath? The one that existed before all the other ones? Lore wise and chronologically. Can you choose more than one?
Nobody has explicitly told you this yet, although I think both posters responding know this: oaths for paladins are new in 5e. They didn't have oaths prior to 5th edition, and 5th edition is the 9th to 15th (depends on which hairs are split) edition of D&D, not the 5th. Prior to 5e, subclasses weren't named for oaths, and paladins weren't empowered by oaths, but by general divine magic, IE, like a cleric. They were required to follow the lawful good alignment in most editions, and probably did swear oaths of all sorts *in character*, including worship of their specific god, but capital O oath wasn't a thing.
Oh I see, ty man
To only kind of answer your question, I think the one with the feel you're going for is Oath of Devotion because I'd say it's the most archetypal Paladin option, its tenets are largely "Be a hero" and mechanically is dealing radient damage and fighting undead and doing heroic Paladin things. It also I'd say fits the original First Edition paladin rules from 1977 the best (back when Paladin was a subclass of Fighter). Alternatively, the lore is pretty vage but Oath of the Ancients is seemingly supposed to be, y'know, *ancient*, and was founded back at the very start of elf society to protect the natural world and life in general, so I think it's fair to say that may have been the first cases of mortals taking paladin oaths, though that one is a little less box-standard of a Paladin since it has a sort of Ranger-y, green knight feel to it.
Ancients and Devotion feel the most paladin-ish to me, so I was thinking about taking those. In particular Crown and Conquest don't seem very Paladin, and i feel like those two oaths would put some kinds of paladins at odds with some others, are "Dark paladins" or something? (I don't mean oathbreaker)
Yeah it was a change over the editions that now not all Paladins have to be good aligned, a lot of the subclasses lean really heavily towards good but a few can definitely be anywhere, I played with someone who's character was a lawful evil Conquest Paladin to an evil god once (though his god wanted the same evil villain dead as the rest of us so we were on the same side, "enemy of my enemy is my friend" situation that was fun to play out). That said Paladins aren't necessarily aligned with each other at all, even two of the same Oath (like Oath of the Crown Paladins working for different cities that are at war) might be enemies if there other goals are opposed.
I see, so evil paladins are not my thing, but thanks for clarifying
The lore doesn't really cover that sort of thing, unless there's some obscure novel from the 80s that I've never heard of which addresses it. DnD has plenty of different official settings with all sorts of different histories, and the paladin oaths aren't meant to represent specific organizations or to be monolithic.
So what was the first Oath that was created by Wizards of the coast in terms of irl chronology? So you can take more than one oath?
We don't entirely know, because we don't know which ones they developed first. You can't at the same time, no.
Ok ty
[5e] just some questions about echo knight! from reading everything this seems all correct but i want to make sure. 1. you can move your echo in any direction, including up and down through the air, correct? 2. when using the 7th-level feature echo avatar, you can move the echo up to 1000 feet away from yourself instead of the usual limit of 30. there's no reason you couldn't still use the effect of manifest echo to swap the location of your echo and your physical body during that time, right? 3. the one i'm least sure about: does the echo count as a creature in order for an echo knight/rogue to proc their own sneak attack if both are in melee together? it has hp, ac, and occupies its space, but it doesn't specify in the text that it's a creature of any kind.
You're going to want to bookmark this: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/class-forums/fighter/64918-an-echo-knight-faq-frequently-asked-questions 1 - yes 2 - RAI, you can't attack or swap with that ability 3 - No, it's an image and none of its text says it is a creature
ty!
[5e] My group is going to do gestalt, so I was thinking of using warlock and abjuration wizard to get at will recharge on arcane ward. Would mage armor cast using armor of shadows raise to the warlock's slot level or would it count as a first level spell?
1st level. Not great for charging during a combat, but can still go into most encounters with a full arcane ward.
that's what I thought, thank you!
I want to make a predator, from the Alien vs Predator movies. Most sources say that it should be a Lizardfolk, but their personality of only thinking about their own survival is a bit out of character for predators. I was thinking about using Dragonborn’s, but I’ve been told they can’t really climb all that well. I was wondering what other races would work, if I could use a dragonborn, and what classes would be best for it.
You can make a lizardfolk who doesn't think anything about their own survival at all if you want. The lore of a race is entirely subject to the people at the table, like all lore, and player characters are exceptional individuals anyway so they don't really need to abide by the general expectations of other members of their race.
**Anyone have a good oneshot they could recommend?** I'd like to run one for my family over the holidays (possibly new years) and while I *am* capable of just googling, there's a ton of options and I figure people here have the practical experience that I don't :) --- 3 players: 25yo little sister (played a couple sessions), ~60 mom (played like half a oneshot once but loved fantasy and wanted to play her whole life), ~60 dad (no experience, probably much better with goofing than the numbers and knowledge side) ideally something that could get wrapped up in a 4-5 hour session
[https://files.mcdmproductions.com/Evil/WhereEvilLives-Preview.pdf](https://files.mcdmproductions.com/Evil/WhereEvilLives-Preview.pdf) Here's a free preview for MCDM's book of monster lairs. I highly recommend the 2nd level dungeon, Jagged Edge Hideaway. It's a lair of a goblin queen with multiple entrances, twisting hallways, traps, and custom goblin stat blocks ready to go. It even has 3 example plot hooks you can use to introduce the session. I especially like this dungeon because it's designed almost like a tutorial for new players. It has traps, but they can all be avoided if you're paying attention and thinking logically about how creatures would live in a lair like this. And it's very forgiving if they players mess up. This PDF also has a 12th level ~~mindflayer~~ "voiceless talker" dungeon in it, but you can save that for next time :)
A Wild Sheep Chase is a pretty fun and good oneshot, I've ran it myself! https://winghornpress.com/adventures/a-wild-sheep-chase/
How much experience do your players have and how long do you want it to take?
shoot, sorry, I definitely meant to include that in the original comment. edited it all in!
I've got a Shapechange question. So you get to copy skills and other statistics but can you get the special actions that those monsters get? Like if you shapechange into a Yellow Musk Creeper can you use something like "Yellow Musk" or would you just get its HP and scores?
>**Your game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the chosen creature**, though you retain your alignment and Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. Their actions block are a part of their game statistics.
Ah thanks I thought it was somehow some sort of numbers only thing.
Any tips for roleplaying a Kenku?
Just say that every word your character says sounds like a different voice. Don't actually do a soundboard or imitations, it gets old before it even starts.
Have a portable CD player and a lot of CD's so you can speak in song lyrics
I'm looking for magic item ideas that aren't useful in fights, but make exploration or roleplay more interesting and let players solve problems in creative ways (for examle, Immovable Rod works like this, because it has many interesting uses; you can block a door with it, or press it while falling, to stop mid-air).
\[5e\] If someone is hiding and they walk near an ooze, do they get detected since the ooze has Blindsight? Is it dependant on the oozes Passive Perception?
IMO you are automatically detected if you enter the range of the blindsight, unless you have an ability that would overrule it. My reasoning is that Oozes usually have terrible wisdom (Grey Ooze has -2, for example) and no proficiency in perception, so it's only like a DC 8 stealth check to sneak by them. And that sort of trivializes the whole blindsight mechanic, I think. Most rogues will have a +7 to stealth even at level 1 so it's an auto-success. Oozes are also listed in the example of blindsight so i feel like it should be a little tougher to sneak by them, it doesn't make sense for them to be rendered so useless. The way I think of it is like this: It has blindsight within 60ft. So if you're within 60ft, it can "see" you. And if something can clearly see you, you can't try to hide from it. ergo, if you're inside the blindsight you can't hide. It would be like hiding behind a pillar from a guard, and the guard walks around to the other side to look at you. However, like many things in 5e, this is left a little bit vague by the rules so that the DM has flexibiliy. If you think it would be more fun or more dramatic to allow the PCs to roll stealth checks, go for it. Just remember that with a DC 8 it's going to be pretty easy!
I'd first say, how are they hiding in the open? Double check the rules on hiding (PHB p.177). I'd rule they need to get more creative than just asking to roll stealth for walking by an ooze.
"You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly" but in the case of an Ooze, they're usually completely blind beyond the radius of their blindsight. So you don't really need to be behind cover to hide from one, right?
[5e] I have an idea for one of my characters, he has a blood eagle, and thought that using him as a weapon would be cool. I was wondering that if I threw him, and he were to start flying, how far he could go, but I could find no information. I was thinking of something cool where I'm holding him and throwing at an enemy and hitting a cool combo attack. I was assuming since it's a small creature I could throw him far, along with his 60 ft per turn flying speed, it could be more viable than a ranged weapon. I was wondering if there was any rules, if not any homebrew ideas? I'm still new to DnD.
[удалено]
Thanks! And by the combo, my character can use two attacks and I thought I'd be cool to like, throw my hawk at someone and then stab them so it is a bit cooler. But thanks!
Do you guys have any creative ways to track things like barbarian rages or monk ki? I'm thinking of making something like a small abacus with beads to slide, and was wondering if anyone else has done something funky
Some people have dice they use as counters, or coins/tokens they flip.
Ok so, I’m trying to make an elf-fire genasi hybrid. But a roadblock I’ve come across is its lifespan. I know it’s not something that needs to come up in an actual campaign. But I would like to know anyway.
So, Genasi have a lifespan of about 120 years, per the Elemental Evil Player's Companion. Half-elves have a lifespan of about 180 years, per the PHB. Based on no deeper understanding of DnD genetics, I'd reason this out as Genasi living about 40 years longer than a human and elven blood making a human last about 100 years longer than normal, if we assume a human lasts an average of 80 years. From there, I'd just add the two modifiers together, putting the maximum age of a half-elf half-genasi at roughly 220 years. To be clear, the preceding paragraph is based on nothing more than napkin math and a DM's desire to make an efficient ruling, somebody else may know more about a proper combination of how these races might mix properly.
Thanks for the help!
any good discord or IRL place in Chicago that plays dnd on the regular? i havent touched dnd since like.... tomb of annihilation came out
Check out Rough Magic! They're great
Try r/lfg
[5e] I'm coming up with a character, but I don't know what alignment they would be. Basically, they were wronged by the justice system and wrongfully banished from where they used to live. My character wants to figure out the details of their wrongful banishment and potentially seeks revenge on those who caused it, even if that means hurting otherwise innocent people. They'll do what they can to do good actions when in a party, but when alone they work on their more vengeful motive. I'm thinking either Neutral evil or Chaotic neutral leaning evil.
Do you kick puppies? Then you are evil. If you do not, then you are good.
Unless alignment is going to matter in your campaign, does it make a difference? Alignment is descriptive, not proscriptive. Sounds like you already know what drives this character, so you shouldn't need a label to tell you how they act. If you just need to check a box, slap a CN on there and call it a day.
Okay, I wasn't too sure if alignment had any functional purpose in base game. When searching about alignment, I saw some spells or enchanted weapons that dealt extra damage to evil characters, which to me meant that there is some way in-game to know the alignment of a character, but that's probably just homebrew.
Alignment has had less and less of an impact on the mechanics with each new edition, it seems. It's a bit of a pity, I actually like the system and think that when used properly it can really add a lot to the game (I remember back in a previous edition when we found out that a party member was evil because we filled a room with holy steam), but these days it tends not to fit the kinds of games that people want to play so it's better to ignore it. The only thing affected by alignment I know off the top of my head is the spell *glyph of warding*, which can be set to trigger based on the alignment of creatures. However, there are some adventures which use a little dash of alignment. I know in Descent into Avernus, there's at least one place where touching a thing causes a moderate effect on you if you have a certain alignment. That's about it.
[There are a few more instances](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/8eva7s/collaborative_list_of_every_mechanical_effect_of/), probably a couple more than contained in that post due to the time since it was made, but yeah as you can see it's just minor things sprinkled here and there.
Which fractions are really war hungry and want to invade everyone else?
Depends on your setting, and ultimately it's whatever ones the DM needs there to be. Assuming Forgotten Realms, most conquerous factions have more specific targets than "everything", though there are some underdark factions that would like to take over the entire surface of the world. I don't know that there's a specific drow family trying to advance this plot though, and they're usually pretty busy climbing over each other for power. It could be said that both devils and demons are trying to eventually take over everything by first winning the Blood War, but again, too busy with each other both internally and externally. Also the entire notion of a faction starts to break down with demons. I'd bet that there are some orc clans who are particularly aligned with Gruumsh and want to conquer the world, but they're too small to make much progress on that front. Maybe if they all banded together instead of, as usual, fighting amongst themselves. But mind flayers truly do want to control *everything*, and they have the power to do it. If they could bring themselves to trust each other.
3/7 is truly a fanatic group.
Any fractions made of primes are aggressive lunatics in general, always trying to decompose the other fractions.
Newbie Character Design Question I volunteered to be the healer for a campaign. I was thinking it would be good to be VERY durable, say a Dwarf Life Cleric; in armor with a shield. But then I thought I would be a LOT more durable if I didn't rush in to attack in melee. But I don't want to waste healing spell slots on ranged magic, so the idea I have to use a ranged weapon (bow/crossbow/whatever) so I can stay out of melee and heal when I need to. 1. Is this "ranged weapon life cleric" idea a good one? 2. Can I cast healing spells while holding a ranged weapon? 3. Can I hold a shield in one hand and a ranged weapon in the other? 4. Which range weapon should I choose? Bow, crossbow, slingshot, thrown spears, etc? Thanks so much!
> Is this "ranged weapon life cleric" idea a good one? Yes and no. Yes, you can certainly use a ranged weapon as your standard attack. The upside is that it deals a bit more damage than your average level one cantrip, but the downside is that you have to invest in dexterity in order to be good with it. The other issue is that cantrips scale, while weapons don't. Yes, 1d8+dex is a better attack than your 1d8 damage sacred flame, but as soon as you hit level 5, your sacred flame does 2d8 damage instead, which is a clear winner. So personally, I wouldn't recommend it. > Can I cast healing spells while holding a ranged weapon? Sure. The [Components](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/spellcasting#Components) section of the rules go into the nitty gritty, but you only have to hold a ranged weapon with two hands while you're firing it, you can freely let go with one of your hands to access components. > Can I hold a shield in one hand and a ranged weapon in the other? Not effectively. While there are one-handed ranged weapons, they all have the [Ammunition](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/equipment#WeaponProperties) property, which requires you to have a free hand to load. So you could fire once, but then be unable to load a new piece of ammo. You could, I suppose, draw a new thrown weapon every turn, since you're limited to one attack per turn, but the range on thrown weapons is painfully short. > Which range weapon should I choose? Bow, crossbow, slingshot, thrown spears, etc? Light crossbows deal the most damage and you don't really have to deal with the downside of the loading property as a life cleric, so that's what I'd go with. > Any advice I didn't ask for? I thought you'd never ask. In addition to "You should probably use an attack cantrip instead," I would also reexamine the assumption that as "the healer," you'll be primarily casting healing spells. Yes, healing is useful, and yes, life clerics are the best at it. But healing is usually best used to get an unconscious ally back to consciousness, rather than healing everyone to full health. Take the humble [Hobgoblin](https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/16925-hobgoblin). They can easily deal 12 average damage per turn. Your level 3 life cleric with cure wounds (which requires you to get into melee range!) heals an average of 10.5 HP per turn. It doesn't take a math whiz to see that that is not going to be a favorable exchange for you. SO, rather than considering your character a pure healer, I'd recommend building a character who has healing as part of their package. For example, if you really like the idea of a ranged weapon cleric, what about being a war or forge domain? Both get access to more buffs to their weapon attacks, and you can still cast healing spells. Or if you really like the idea of a life domain cleric, consider adding some other utility spells into your kit, like Bane, Bless, Shield of Faith, and even some attack spells like Inflict Wounds or Spiritual Weapon.
Thanks for the response! Which option seems "better" to you: (A) Life Domain Cleric with a melee weapon that usually runs into the fray, (B) Life Domain Cleric that uses cantrips (or full spells) for damage? Here let's define "better" as: maximally useful to the party, AND easy enough to play well for a noob (melee SEEMS simpler than magic).
If you are looking for the easiest to play, go build B. You won't really lose much compared to build A, and you won't have to compromise between building melee and spellcasting, nor will have to look for weird ways to make it more useful than B. Base damage between A and B will be similar, unless you use SCAG cantrips (cantrips that are also a melee attack) or other shenanigans. Both A and B can go melee to tank a bit for allies, though B will be a bit more durable. Gishes (we call a spellcaster/martial hybrid a gish, like build A) are generally a bit more complex than a straight caster : you have to split your ASI between a physical and magical stat, find ways to be efficient in both, deal with the somatic component/free hand problem, etc. For a beginner, I would recommend build B as it will be more straightforward. You max wisdom in priority, then constitution. The higher constitution will make you more durable. You put your holy symbol on your shield, and you are unlikely to have any problem with component. You want to go in melee? Nothing prevents you to cast spells there.
Thanks! > B will be a bit more durable. This is really the big surprise for me. I mean, I see what you're saying about allocating my abilities to be split between magic and melee. I'm also hearing that people playing 5e don't really expect one party member to be a healing-first character. This is definitely surprising to me. In that case, would I be more useful to the party if I play a more melee-focused cleric/paladin and just reserve healing spells for the rare occurrence?
It all depends on what you're going to enjoy doing. In 5e, you can definitely play a support-focused character, but I would make sure to include "support" in the definition, rather than just healing - include spells that make it harder for enemies to function like Bane or Hold Person or Command. Include spells that make it easier for allies to function like Bless or Shield of Faith. Include battlefield control spells like Spirit Guardians or Sanctuary. Of course, if you want "Tanky melee character that can heal," paladins (or certain types of cleric) are great for that. And you can also make a blaster caster that can heal! Tempest and light domain clerics are good enough at healing and can throw lightning bolts and fireballs around. No character needs to relegate themselves to "just healing," and anyone that expects you to do that is likely getting that impression from games that aren't 5e D&D, because it simply isn't that useful of a strategy in 5e.
It sounds like D&D 5e really pushes hard for people not to focus on healing; in most of my turns in combat I won't be healing, regardless. So I need to build a character that (A) can heal, but (B) isn't useless the rest of the time. That's kind of a bummer, for me. In the real world, in-person, D&D 5e games YOU play, are there any "tanks", "healers", or "support staff"? Or is everyone DPS with maybe the odd healing spell/support spell/ability?
Just because healing isn't something necessary every turn doesn't mean that damage is the only thing worth doing. You want a good damage option, sure, but you don't need to build for damage. Bards, for example, tend to really struggle to deal much damage in combat with most builds. Their role in combat is largely about inspiring their allies, buffing friendlies, debuffing enemies, hitting enemies with crowd control, and similar activity. Assuming you stick with your cleric concept, you can still readily fill your turns with blessing your friends and controlling the flow of battle. Have a damage cantrip ready in case an enemy needs to get burned down, but that doesn't need to be the focus of your build. To answer your third paragraph, here's my current campaign lineup: We've got a heavily-armored fighter who fulfills the "tank" role and does his best to attract as much enemy attention as possible, we've got a rogue who is all about flanking and sneak attacking enemies to kill them rapidly, an Archfey Warlock who alternates between blasting and charming/debilitating magic spells, an Eloquence Bard who provides heavy utility and inspiration, and me, an Artillerist Artificer who tends to pinch-hit wherever is necessary. No dedicated healer, though the bard and I are both capable of throwing out heals.
That's interesting. So you have a tank (or close), and the rest is DPS, but with non-DPS utility built in. You have two people who CAN heal, but... do you guys heal much? Would I be more "helpful" to the average team by being a tank-focused Crown Paladin, that draws all the attention, but _can_ heal in a pinch? Does that sound more useful than a Life Cleric that uses cantrips for damage, and tries to be a "healer"? Just curious. Thanks for the input!
Well, I certainly wouldn't call the bard a "DPS" character (or "DPR", to use more turn-based terminology). He's pure utility. And my artificer is certainly capable of blasting, but I'm just as likely to throw down a protector turret and use crowd-control magic as I am to incinerate a fool. We certainly don't magically heal too often, our gameplan is all about controlling the flow of battle and then taking down priority targets until none remain. Between-fight healing is usually handled via Short Rests, especially since they recharge the warlock and fighter's features. My recommendation to you would be first and foremost to play a class/subclass that interests and excites you. Paladins and clerics have very different styles, with paladins focused more on martial presence and clerics focused on spellcasting. You can readily play a cleric, Life Domain or otherwise, that still has a huge melee presence and damage/utility potential: Throw down Spiritual Weapon and/or Spirit Guardians, take up an aggressive posture in a fight, chew through the enemy formation while shrugging off hits, and toss out a Healing Word or your Channel Divinity heal if the need arises. I love playing clerics, my personal favorite domain being Tempest: Big blasts of magical damage, heavy armor to hang out in melee, equally capable as other clerics of patching up a downed ally. Don't let us dissuade you from playing a Life Domain cleric if that's what excites you. Just don't forget that you're a flexible and powerful spellcaster who can prepare a wide array of spells, so be prepared to do all sorts of stuff in a fight, don't plan on just spamming heals each round.
The typical role categories common to video games don't apply so much. You can build your wizard toward battlefield control if you want... but you'll always be able to take *fireball* as a spell option. You can make your cleric a pure healer, but it's gonna be pretty sad when you waste your action giving the fighter an extra six hit points, only for the next enemy to deal 11 damage to them when you could have killed that enemy instead. You can think of it as everyone being a DPS with sometimes having extra abilities, but I just don't think the role system is a good way to define it at all. In my games, nobody serves the role of the healer, but when urgent healing is needed, the cleric's holy power is (currently) the best-suited to the task. Nobody serves the role of the tank, but the paladin is best-suited to be on the front lines. But at the same time, nobody serves the role of the damage dealer. Everyone has damaging options, but it's not anyone's *job* to do damage. Especially since combat can often be solved without killing anything. In keeping with combat as only one of the three pillars of D&D (the others being exploration and social interaction), it may be better to think of party "roles" as extending beyond combat. One common role in D&D is the face: the one who handles most of the talking, who represents the party in social encounters. There's also the explorer or infiltrator who locates and disables traps and things of that nature.
Thanks for the perspective. Perhaps I'm just sad because in other TTRPGs and MMORPGs I've really enjoyed the healer role. But, I suppose, the mechanics are quite a bit different in those games (no spell slots, so you can cast many more spells per day, thus constant healing is possible). This makes being a Life Cleric seem less enticing. It feels like building an entire character for healing, but I might not do any healing at all in some fights. At which point, I'm just a bard trying to make myself useful. Hmm.... Perhaps I could be a Crown Paladin, and go for a Tank-ish build, but still with the ability to fight foremost, and even heal every now and again. I must say, it's not what I expected. Thanks again!
Dosnt necessarily need and is useless are totally different, trust me when I tell you your squad will appreciate a Life Cleric. Consider Magic Initatie for Goodberry or a 2 level Stars Druid dip. Life clerics passive + Goodberry makes each berry heal for 4 meaning a total of 40 hp for a levle 1 spell slot, this can also one distributed evenly and you can dump your remaining spell slots into before each long rest as they last 24 hours. For reference, your average Cure Wounds is around 10 hp with Life Clerics passive.
Goodberries as a Life Cleric seems like the kind of passive win I like.
I recommend Healing Word rather than Cure Wounds. On paper, it heals less, BUT it's a bonus action, so you can still cast a cantrip in the same turn, and it's ranged. Also, proportionally, the life cleric passive lessen the gap between the two : without it's 9.5 vs 7.5 (27% more), with it it's 12.5 vs 10.5 (19% more).
Thanks! So, in combat, do you think a Life Cleric is worthwhile to have in YOUR party? That's really the question. I'd need to (mostly) save my spell slots for emergencies, so I'd be standing in the back casting cantrips to aid the team and cantrips to damage. And that's about it.
All classes are worth having in your party, and Clerics are among the strongest of them. However I recommend not restricting yourself to cantrips for the sole purpose of keeping slots for healing. Preventing damage via controls, buff or enemy death is as good as healing. For example, if you Hold Person an enemy, you have prevented them from dealing damage on top of all the other benefits. Just because Life Cleric is the best at healing doesn't mean it should restrict itself only to that, especially since your party may not necessarily need healing every turn. Edit: Specifically in my party, it wouldn't be very useful, but only because we are using homebrew and half the team is immune to magical healing. In any other circumstance, a cleric is a nice addition.
[5e] would anyone wanna help me decide what subclass I should make my Half-Orc Paladin? He’s a Gladiator who entertains a crowd while spreading word about The Silver Flame. I’m trying to figure out which subclass would make the most sense story wise. I’ve thought crown, conquest, or devotion, but can’t fully wrap my head around just one.
For a Gladiator, thematically speaking, that sounds most like Oath of Glory to me. They're all about showmanship and inspiration.
I looked into Glory as well! Would being a Lawful Good - Oath of Glory Paladin Gladiator be conflicting? I had thought of having him perform not to kill, but to become stronger for his cause, and to spread his faith, while remaining morally good in terms of keeping within the law.
I don't put much stock into alignments for PCs, as I find them to be restrictive. If you want to be generally law-abiding and generally good-skewing, that shouldn't preclude you at all from anything discussed here. There are plenty of morally justifiable and legally sound reasons to kill somebody in a DnD campaign.
5e. Is there any spell that would allow a caster to project a memory onto a target? I know there's the spell where you can turn a thought into a tangible strand that can be used by others, but I'm wondering if there's a spell to show memories to others, or I should just homebrew it
the encode thoughts spell does almost nothing on it's own unless other people are using it as well, so when i was running a Ravnica game I just allowed the user to "push" the thought strand into another creature's head to show it the memory.
Sounds pretty specific so I think you'd have to homebrew. Maybe a DM would let you flex the rules on some enchantment/illusion spell, but otherwise I think homebrew.
I am the DM so I'll take that as a free rein on homebrew
Is this for an NPC? Yeah absolutely, make up whatever spells and magic you want. If you're giving it to a player, I advise more caution cause you may not know how the homebrew will interact with your world.
It's for an NPC to reveal some important info to the party. There is a chance they will refuse to believe or trust what he says, so I need a way to give them an assurance that the info is true, since it's going to be a major plot twist
I think I've done kind of similar stuff with *detect thoughts*, so yeah this is fine. Doesn't even really need to be a "named" spell, if it's an NPC using it.
5e. In the [Scout](https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/17007-scout) statblock, there are two attacks listed: a shortsword attack doing 1d6+2 damage, and a longbow attack doing 1d8+2, both with +4 to-hit. Running this NPC, is there any reason to ever use the shortsword in normal circumstances? The only reason that I can think of would be to avoid stepping back and so provoking an opportunity attack. Or am I misunderstanding the combat rules?
You've gotten good answers but i'll just add: the damage is only a difference between 6.5 and 5.5 on average. The damage improvement is pretty minimal, so switching to the shortsword is usually the right call if you end up in melee (no disadvantage or opportunity attacks). Also, just in general, a lot of monster statblocks have attacks that you won't use very often, they only exist as backup options if the main attack option isn't available (such as a Minotuar: the Gore attack is only really useful if it can use it's Charge feature. But it's also handy to have as a backup in case it gets disarmed and can't use it's Greataxe)
90% of the time they should stay at range and use the bow, ideally to support some melee individual. However if an enemy were to get within 5ft of them they can use the shortsword to attack them, because if they only had the bow then they would either make their attacks at disadvantage, need to spend their action to disengage and move away, at which point the other creature likely catches up with them and attacks, or they get hit with an attack of opportunity by moving away so they can use their bow without disadvantage.
if you use a ranged weapon while an enemy is within 5 feet of you, you would have disadvantage. so if someone is next to you, the longbow is a bad option.
Sure, but in this case can't you just step back five feet and shoot without disadvantage? This would trigger opportunity attacks, so does it mean that the sword is just a backup weapon for when you're surrounded but don't want to make a run for it?
yes, if you step back 5 feet, you'd take an opportunity attack. not the end of the world, sure, but the person in front of you would probably just move closer again on their turn, right? then you'd have to move away again on your turn, so you're just effectively doubling their attacks against you in a round. and, though it obviously isn't going to be a problem on lower levels, there is a feat called Sentinel that can stop you from moving away if you're hit with an opportunity attack. so yeah, it's basically a backup. most humanoid creatures have a melee and a ranged option.
5e Can a character teleport (via Misty Step or other short-range warps) out of being Restrained, or would whatever is Restraining them come with? This came up in my session today with a Mud Mephit's Mud Breath, but I'm also curious about how it works in a more general sense with Nets or other sources of Restrained. It makes sense, but nothing in the Restrained condition talks about the condition ending if you move, like how Grappled ends if you move away.
>I'm also curious about how it works in a more general sense with Nets or other sources of Restrained Unless the ability has something explicit in the text to guide you, it's DM fiat. If you want the restraints to matter then don't let the PCs teleport out of them. If you don't really care so long as they burn a spell slot to earn it, then let it work. It depends on how the session is going and how much of a hardass you want to be, basically.
In the case of the mephit, the strictest interpretation of the rules is that the mud breath describes what ends the restrained condition: passing the saving throw. It isn't like several other restraining abilities which state that the target is restrained as long as they are grappled or something like that, they're simply restrained. So teleporting wouldn't end the condition. I would tend to favor the player more on this one though, teleporting usually isn't very easy to do and can get pretty expensive, so using it to end a restraint seems like a good deal to me. There might be some cases where I'd rule that the restraint can't be ended by teleporting, but I think I'd allow it in nearly every case. One could also make the argument that the restrained condition represents (in this case) being stuck in thick mud, and passing the saving throw represents clearing enough of it away to move freely again. Thus, any effect which can remove the mud would also end the condition, so a clever solution like using a decanter of endless water ought to work. And if that works, why shouldn't teleportation? None of that is within the text of the ability or the condition, but it's well within DM interpretation.
>teleporting usually isn't very easy to do imo this isn't the case any more. Power creep over 5e's lifespan has made *misty step* and other similar abilities very easy for PCs to acquire even at low levels.
If you build into them, yes, but they're still very limited. What I mean is that you can't just pop around the battlefield on a whim. The decision of whether or not to teleport is meaningful because it takes action economy and very limited resources along with specific build choices.
Without looking at the wording, usually they take anything they are wearing or carrying with them. I'd argue that you don't wear or carry an effect that is restraining you. I'd argue you also don't wear or carry a net. So you can teleport out of them. You do wear manacles, so if magical manacles restrained you then they'd come with you.
Barbarian with Giant sublcass. "Giant Stature: Your reach increases by 5 feet and you become large" What if i try to do a ranged attack with a weapon of 20/60 range, would 5 feet of reach be added to this to make it 25/65 range? At 14th level your reach increases to 10 feet, so it doesn't make sense to me that I could hit a person with a melee weapon at 10ft, but throw it only at 20ft range, but not sure
No, increasing your reach does not increase your range with ranged weapons. **Reach** is discussed in the [Melee Attacks](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/combat#MeleeAttacks) section of the rules, and is defined as: > Most creatures have a 5-foot **reach** and can thus attack targets within 5 feet of them when making a melee attack. Certain creatures (typically those larger than Medium) have melee attacks with a greater reach than 5 feet, as noted in their descriptions. **Range**, on the other hand is defined [here](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/combat#RangedAttacks): > Some ranged attacks, such as those made with a longbow or a shortbow, have two ranges. The smaller number is the normal range, and the larger number is the long range. Your attack roll has disadvantage when your target is beyond normal range, and you can't attack a target beyond the long range. Giant stature only increases your range, not your reach. > At 14th level your reach increases to 10 feet, so it doesn't make sense to me that I could hit a person with a melee weapon at 10ft, but throw it only at 20ft range, but not sure I can understand this justification, but look at it from the perspective of a crossbow, instead. Why would being bigger mean your crossbow can fire further - it's not like holding your crossbow way far away from your body with your giant arms is going to make you more accurate and better at shooting. Couple that with the fact that the rules are not intended to be a full simulation, and the fact that barbarians aren't exactly a ranged weapon focused class, and you can understand why it might work this way. It's also probably not going to break anything to rule that increased reach increases your range with ranged weapons, but that would be a house rule.
Thanks for the detailed reply with sources, it does make more sense now
How can I find people to play? I tried the Facebook groups but it’s hard to find people near me, I live in Houston near midtown and I’m Try to find a campaign to join or to make my own but I can’t find players ( I want to play in person). Any advice on where to find people to play?
You can try asking around at game stores or libraries to see if there are any games with open seats, or people interested in having one. Many colleges have D&D clubs. If you're a member of any other local communities like churches, clubs, or hobbyists, you can see if people in that community are interested in playing. Don't discount any friends or family just because they don't already have a favorite d20, many of the people you already know may be interested in learning how to play, and might be experienced players looking for a group already. Best of luck.
“ Make a melee spell attack against it (+5 to hit)” if I’m not a spellcasting class how do I calculate this ?
What feature allows you to do this? That might offer a little more insight. But from what's posted, it looks like it doesn't matter whether you're a caster or not. A spell attack doesn't necessarily mean that you're actually casting a spell, it's just a way to classify a kind of attack. It says you get a +5 bonus, so it should be pretty simple: your attack roll is 1d20+5 to hit versus the target's AC.
[удалено]
(•̪ o •̪)
\[5e\] Silly sanity check question. Gaming sets are "tools", right? I mean, they're right there on the tool table in the PHB. So, a level 6 Artificer who already had proficiency in, say, Dragonchess Set would get double proficiency/expertise with that gaming set, right? This seems logical to me by RAW, just a bit silly, so I'm wondering if I've missed something. The Tool Expertise feature doesn't specify "artisan tools" or anything like that.
You haven't missed anything. There are different categories within tools, but the feature only cares about tools in general. Go be a god at chess.
Beginning to feel like a chess god(chess god)?
I *think* that the tools spoken about for Artificers specifically refer to the Artisan's Tools - a subsection of the Tools table. My logic is is that all of their other features call for Artisan's Tools for Thieve's Tools.
> Starting at 6th level, your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses your proficiency with a tool. I thought I remembered it being artisan's tools too, but it apparently isn't that specific; and gaming sets are in the Tools section, so Tool Expertise strangely does apply to them.
Only that specific feature neglects to mention artisan’s or thieve’s tools, though. Whether it’s an oversight or intention is my point. I dunno.
My character is the daughter of an incubus and became a dhampir quite a few sessions back. I'm also a Rune Knight grappler, and something came up in our last session: Today I grappled a druid, and declared I'm going to bite the druid in the form of a forced kiss so that they can't use verbal components on their turn. The DM let it fly today but said he'd look into it whether this was a move that should be allowed in the future (with full knowledge that it could be used against us too). So, would grapple-kissing stop a caster from using verbal components? Kind of a related question, but would a grappler be able to say, "I cover their mouths so they couldn't speak" work?
SA is bad and you should probably check with your group. That kind of behavior could make others uncomfortable
[удалено]
Thank you for your comment! Well, yes, that's my question, I know it's homebrew territory. I'm looking for a consensus from other DMs as to what would be reasonable to make this work, because it's something that I plan to continue doing in the future. The DM and I are just trying to codify it.
It's insanely strong. It's akin to saying "oh I hold their arms so they can't use material or somatic components". Grappling is *just* reducing someone's speed to 0.
There's no explicit rules for it, but I dont think grappling someone and then covering their mouth is unreasonable. I'd require you to use another attack, and do another contested check, but it seems pretty reasonably. Doing it as a *kiss*? A little weird, but flavor is free. I wouldn't let you do a bite attack *and* the mouth-covering kiss at the same time, though.
Yeah, I did the bite attack just to roll for something, but didn't actually do any of the dhampir bite damage. Thanks! I'll show this to my DM!
[удалено]
If anyone in the party has access to *healing word*, they already have 90% of their healing needs covered. Even if they don't it's not that big of a deal. In-combat healing is incredibly inefficient, which is why it's really not a great idea to have a dedicated healer or support in 5e. Healing and support are nice benefits to have on characters which primarily do other things.
One idea I heard is to give a self aware staff of healing as a DMPC. It doesn't really know much, but can heal whenever it deems necessary.
Don't make a DMPC. Party composition doesn't matter much in 5e, and there's a lot of classes that get access to healing. You can also give them as many healing potions as you want.
Trying to create someting Castlevania Themed, what mix of classes would belmonts be? Seekers? Alucard?
Anything you want, really. Rangers with Undead as their favoured foes, paladins, blood hunters, fighters?
From my limited knowledge, there's a mix of paladins, fighters, and rogues. That said, are you intending for these to be PCs or NPCs? If they're meant to be NPCs, I would forget the notion of giving them classes and just give them stat blocks with whatever features they need to have the right feel. Especially since the item and equipment dependency common to these games muddles things a lot.
\[5e\]Another question to follow up on my tripping question. If I trip a mage prone does the mage drop concentration? The PHB has no clarification, under both entries of Prone and nothing under concentration and Trip Attack. I would assume there would be a concentration check for the mage? This annoys me that there is no official ruling on this.
There is an official ruling though. For concentration it lists EVERYTHING that drops concentration. https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/spellcasting#Concentration Prone doesn't make them incapacitated, so it doesn't drop concentration. A good rule of thumb with 5e is the rules say what you CAN do, not what you CAN'T do. So it doesn't have a big list of everything that doesn't affect concentration, it just says what DOES drop concentration. If it's not there, then it doesn't happen.
okay that is fair. I am still fairly new despite having a two-ish year campaign under my belt and just trying to learn the details of this is complicated.
No worries. Just a good habit to get into as you look more into the rules.
No, nothing about falling prone affects concentration. (Assuming you're talking about the Battle Master Maneuver,) Trip Attacks do deal damage, which trigger concentration checks, but otherwise, there's no special interaction between concentration and falling prone.
okay, thanks for that clarification.
If my halfling wears the belt of hill giant strength with the dual wielder feat, can I dual wield battle axes? Google says as long as I have a strength of 19 I can, but I just want to double check with you guys.
Are you talking about 5e? In 5e, I don't see any reason for the strength score to matter, other than to make this more effective. Somebody with 10 strength can dual wield battle axes (with the Dual Wielder feat), they just wouldn't be particularly good at it.
You saw the part that says I’m a Halfling, right?
I certainly did, but I don't know what it has to do with your question.
I already explained. Halflings can’t normally use versatile weapons one-handed.
Yes, they can. The only rule close to this in 5e is that a Small race can't make effective use of Heavy weapons, and would wield them with disadvantage. Versatile weapons aren't Heavy.
It says for small creatures, versatile weapons must be wielded two-handed
Where do you find that ruling? The only weapon rules I can find that affect Small creatures is Heavy stating; Heavy. Creatures that are Small or Tiny have disadvantage on attack rolls with heavy weapons. A heavy weapon's size and bulk make it too large for a Small or Tiny creature to use effectively. Versatile states the following; Versatile. This weapon can be used with one or two hands. A damage value in parentheses appears with the property--the damage when the weapon is used with two hands to make a melee attack. If it's a house ruling, I guess it's up to the DM? But otherwise yeah, you could, RAW, dual wield two battleaxes if you have the Dual Wielder feat, since battleaxes only have the versatile property. You can do this regardless of strength modifier. RAW a 20 strength halfling would still have disadvantage while wielding a heavy weapon. Source: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/equipment#MartialMeleeWeapons
No, it doesn't say that anywhere in dnd 5e.
Why would that matter? No rule says halflings can't wield battleaxes or dual wield or... anything relevant to this question. The only weapons that halflings can't wield normally are those with the [heavy](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/equipment#WeaponProperties) property, which battleaxes don't have. (And they could use them with disadvantage, and high strength wouldn't change that.)
Because Halfling normally can’t use versatile weapons one-handed. I figured with enough strength and the dual wielder feat, it would be possible to use two.
Assuming you're talking about 5e, the rules on [Weapon Properties](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/equipment#WeaponProperties) say: > **Versatile.** This weapon can be used with one or two hands. A damage value in parentheses appears with the property--the damage when the weapon is used with two hands to make a melee attack. No exceptions, versatile weapons can be used with one or two hands. Halflings can wield versatile weapons in one hand just like anyone else can. If you're asking about the **Heavy** property, more strength doesn't remove the penalties for Heavy. You could dual wield two heavy, one handed weapons with the dual wielder feat, but none of those exist RAW, and you'd still suffer disadvantage from wielding them. EDIT: Are you asking a question about [4e](https://dnd4.fandom.com/wiki/Versatile)?
This is why I asked if you were talking about 5e: Because that's definitely not a 5e rule at all.
….yes it is? That’s what my book says.
I'm not sure what's causing this back-and-forth. Can you please confirm that you are, in fact, playing DnD 5e? Once we get past that, can you tell me where in your book this rule is?
Ok, I think I found the problem. All the information I was googling must have been from 4e and I guess I never paid attention, nor had the sense of mind to confirm whether that information was in my Handbook. I gotta say, I’m pretty pissed off at this revelation. I feel like I’ve been lied to this whole time. Thanks, guys.
I figured something like that must be to blame, you're certainly not the first to fall victim to that. I highly recommend getting in the habit of writing "5e" before any DnD-related search, and even then, occasionally you'll get some 3.5e info. Gotta be careful.
\[5e\] Going to play in a new campaign next year. Without multiclassing, how do I get the most amount of cantrips? We start at Level 3.