Hey all.
I'm sure the campaign staff doesn't want to get into the business of adjudicating every rules question an Adventurers League DM might face. On the other hand, having been an Organized Play DM, I can attest that it's very helpful to have some source to go to where other DMs have discussed and figured out how to rule specifically tricky rules interactions. So I figured I'd start a thread for simple ruling questions (taken largely from the Rules board) and how I'd rule them at my DDAL table.
I'm not claiming (yet) that these are 'official' rulings, but simply having a place to see what rulings are out there can be helpful for a DM. So here goes!
--
Pauper
Campaign-specific questions
The Adventurer's League Player's Guide says you can level up at the end of a long rest or the end of a session. How does that work?
Pauper wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
This sort of effort is desperately needed. We should do it as a community if the admins refuse. There's nothing worse than sitting down at a table full of strangers and getting to a rules argument, especially a "but this was fine the last time I played" one.
That's definitely the idea, RCanine. If people want to post their own rules-related quandaries in this thread, I'll try to keep up and update the initial posts accordingly.
Discussions of rulings is also fair game for this thread, IMO.
--
Pauper
Long update related to somatic and material components and the War Caster feat. Discussion is encouraged.
Pauper wrote:
Jay_Ibero_911 wrote:
I disagree with your interpretation of how warcaster interacts with a holy symbol. I'm clipping things a bit, but Holy symbol says:
"A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus. To use the symbol in this way the caster must [branish it in some visible way]."
Warcaster says:
"You can perform the somatic components of a spell [without a free hand]."
The rules on material components say:
"A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus in place of components."
And:
"A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components..."
In other words:
- If you are a cleric or paladin, you can use a holy symbol in place of components that do not have a GP cost.
- The holy symbol can't be in your pocket. It must be somehow visible.
- If a spell has material components, you must have a free hand to access them.
- If you are using a holy symbol in place of material components, you must have a free hand to access it.
- If a spell has somatic components, you must have a free hand to enact them.
- If a spell has material and somatic components, you don't need two free hands. One will suffice.
- If you have war caster, you can cast spells with a somatic component even if neither of your two hands are free.
The idea is basically that if you have a holy symbol, in order to use it you must somehow touch it, brandish it, wave it around, etc.
What I'm getting at is that all holy symbols should basically be equal--a shield-borne holy symbol shouldn't give you an action economy benefit over an amulet-borne symbol. The holy symbol is a big RP component of the divine classes; there should not be an "optimal" one. The primary benefit of a holy symbol on your shield is that you can cast spells without spending the action to doff your shield; you can instead simply sheathe your sword. But there is nothing in the rules that eliminates the need for a free hand when casting a spell with a material component.
Some other recommended rulings:
Can my beast companion take opportunity attacks? What about bonus action attacks?
Yes. The beast companion can take any action a monster of its type could. The only limitation to your beast companions actions is that it only uses its Action (captial A) on its turn if you spend your Action (captial A) or, at higher levels, bonus action, to order it.
Can my giant badger beast companion multiattack? Can my giant frog beast companion swallow?
I'm going to depart a bit from RAW here and recommend this ruling, which seems fair.
Yes. You can spend your Action to order your beast companion to take any action listed on its stat block in addition to the actions enumerated in the class description. However, in order to gain the benefits of the Extra Attack and Bestial Fury class features, you must order your beast companion to take the Attack Action, which requires your companion to use a weapon attack. Multiattack and Swallow are not weapon attacks. For example, a 5th level beast master may spend his action to have his giant badger use the Multiattack Action, granting the badger one bite attack and one claw attack, or he can spend his action to have his badger use the Attack Action, selecting either claw or bite, and then, thanks to Extra Attack, make and attack himself.
How do I add my proficiency bonus to my beast companion's damage if it's not a single, simple roll?
You can add your proficiency bonus for each "damage roll", no matter how many dice are rolled, even if that number is zero. If the companion does multiple types of damage, you may choose which type gets the bonus. If one of those types grants a saving throw, you must choose before you see the result of the saving throw. Some examples, with a 3rd level ranger:
- The bat does 1 damage (essentially 0d4 + 1) with its bite attack. This attack would do 3 damage.
- The boar does 1d6 + 1 damage, with 1d6 additional damage when it charges. It's damage when charging is 2d6 + 4.
- The flying snake does 1 piercing + 3d4 poison damage as one roll. You may choose: 3 piercing + 3d4 poison or 1 piercing + 3d4 + 2 poison.
- The giant poisonous snake does 1d4+4 piercing damage plus 3d6 poison (save for half). You may choose: 1d4+6 piercing plus 3d6, or 1d4+4 piercing plus 3d6+2--you must choose before the saving throw is rolled.
- The panther can pounce on a prone target, gaining a second attack as a bonus action. Because there are two attacks involved, the pather gains your proficiency bonus to damage with both attacks.
I'm a gnome. Can I mount my beast companion?
Yes. However, a beast compion you are capable of mounting that is not of at least 6 intelligence is assumed to have been trained as a controlled mount. As such, its available actoins are limited to Dash, Disengage and Dodge.
Am I limited in the types of steeds I can summon with Find Steed enumerated in the PHB? If not, can I find a tarrasque?
The PHB suggests beasts with a CR between 1/8 and 1/2. You may summon any beast that is one size larger than you within that CR range. If none of the available beasts match what you'd like, then use the stat block of a qualifying beast and reflavor it. For example, if you'd like a unicorn companion, use the stats for a warhorse. Reflavoring in this way cannot grant a mechanical advantage. If you cannot find an available beast that matches the steed you'd like to summon then you cannot summon it.
If I am a paladin and I multiclass into druid, do I lose the ability to wear plate armor? What happens to a druid who puts on metal armor, anyway?
The druid's restrition against wearing metal armor is part of its armor proficiencies. As such, a druid in metal armor suffers the penalty for not being proficient in the armor. Proficiencies are additive: a fighter multiclassing into rogue does not lose proficiency with his greatsword. Similarly, a druid gains proficiency with metal armor just like any other character (such as by being a mountain dwarf or taking the heavily armored feat), and if your character has proficiency with metal armor and multiclasses into druid, he does not lose his existing proficiencies.
When I multiclass, are class features that have a level requirement based on class or character level? Can my Monk 2/Warlock 3 take the Thirsting Blade evocation? At sixth level, if I take Monk 3/Warlock 3, can I take the Gong of the Summit discipline?
No. Like all class features, your warlock evocations and monk disciplines are based on class level, not character level. The only exception to this are the features (cantrips, spell slots) enumerated in the multiclassing section of the PHB.
I have class features from multiclassing and my race that seem like spells. Can I use them when my druid uses Wild Shape to turn into a beast.
You cannot cast spells while a beast. If the feature is a spell, you cannot use it. If the feature seems like a spell, but is not described in Chapter 11 of the PHB, you may use it. Some examples:
- Druid/Monks can use Water Whip, but not Flames ofthe Phoenix
- Tiefling druids retain Hellish Resistance but cannot use the benefits of Infernal Legacy.
Can I maintain an Aristocratic lifestyle at zero cost by never taking downtime? If I take 300 days of downtime, can I save money by having a wretched lifestyle for the first 270?
Yes. Although there may be consequences for doing so in future adventures.
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
RCanine wrote:
A general theme of my responses is going to be either there's no RAW way to rule this, or there's enough DM leeway that I think we should recommend something for consistency.
Pauper wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Sorry if I seemed to be trolling you -- I simply wanted to make clear that having things be consistent solely for the sake of consistency isn't necessarily a good thing or a laudable goal. For example, having the Warlock Eldritch Invocations prerequisites not be based on Warlock level is both supportable (as the text that exists for Monk disciplines isn't in the Warlock rules), and has the benefit of making them more multi-class friendly.
When I ran adventures in Living Forgotten Realms, we frequently had rules questions, often as they related to particular powers and how they fit into a character build. I remember thinking that it would be nice if there was a central repository of recommended rulings I could consult, rather than having to adjudicate everything 'on the fly' as I learned about it at the table. That, plus the knowledge that the campaign staff has better things to do than reiterate some 'bag of rats' ruling, convinced me to start this thread.
I largely agree with your presumptions regarding recommended rulings, and I think we can use those as a goal for the rulings made in this thread. However, since the rulings here are necessarily unofficial -- neither I nor anyone else who has commented is a designer, developer, or 'official source' for rules info -- I think we can get by with being a little less structured. In addition, it's going to be the case that something that looks innocuous enough on paper may prove to be a huge headache in play, so maintaining a certain level of flexibility allows us to have 'living rulings' that change over time to adapt to the realities of campaign play. Lastly, the goal of the game is to have fun, so if we can make rulings that help enhance fun without breaking the game itself, I think we can endeavor to do that (though 'it would be fun' is not in itself a reason to approve an otherwise 'bad' ruling).
So my version of your presumptions would boil down to this:
A recommended ruling is made when:
- A situation arises (or may arise) that might cause discussion that distracts from the adventure. The intent of a recommended ruling is to provide a quick (and hopefully accurate) interpretation that players and DM can agree upon and then return to actual play.
A recommended ruling should:
- Cite rules text where applicable.
- Evaluate cases on their own merits rather than assuming that all situations that appear similar are similar.
- Help rules mastery by pointing out or illuminating seldom-used or obscure rules interactions.
- Recognize that a DM is both able to and allowed to disagree with a ruling, so a detailed explanation of the reasoning behind the ruling can be helpful in allowing a DM to make that decision more intelligently.
Hopefully that helps explain where I'm coming from, and makes my perspective a little clearer.
--
Pauper
Here's an example of a general ruling I'd like some feedback on before putting it into the global rulings list.
I was looking at the discussion of whether or not you could pair up the Ranger's Whirlwind Attack feature with Extra Attacks -- my own feeling is that, while the rules do support such an interpretation, allowing a ranger to use multiple Whirlwind Attacks or Volleys on his turn would seem to perhaps be a bit abusive. However, when trying to formulate a general action economy rule, I ran into a paradox:
There is a general rule that could be used to restrict actions in this way: "When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise." (PH, p., BR, p.71) This seems to be an easy way of stopping the abuse of abilities like Whirlwind Attack -- simply rule that taking an action granted by a class or special ability does not count as taking the Attack action unless the ability specifically says that it does. In effect, you're not taking the Attack action when you Whirlwind Attack; you're taking an action to use Whirlwind Attack. But this kind of breaks down when looking at class abilities that mimic other kinds of actions. For instance, the Monk's Elemental Disciplines that allow the monk to cast spells by spending ki points don't specify that they use the Cast a Spell action, but it would seem that they should still be usable with features like the Sorcerer's Metamagic that modify spellcasting and should have an effect on other rules that govern spellcasting (like the rules for maintaining concentration).
So, is there a difference between features that appear to mimic the Attack action and features that mimic other kinds of actions, like Cast a Spell or Use an Object?
--
Pauper
Pauper wrote:
RCanine wrote:
SteveMND wrote:
Mind_Flayer_Monk wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Official Ruling:
Expect table variation.
Corrolary to Official Ruling:
If your character concept will not be fun to play if a DM does not agree with an unclear rules interpretation, save that concept for a home campaign and choose something different for organized play.
As I understand it, there was an attempt during Living Greyhawk days to have a specific set of official campaign rulings, but all reports are the system was messy and the effort was abandoned when Living Forgotten Realms got started. I doubt there will ever be 'official rulings' for the campaign outside of official rulings made by the designers for the game in general. All I'm saying here is, don't hold your breath waiting for official, campaign-specific rulings. (Edit: Looks like Uthrac has trumped me by publishing the campaign's 'official ruling'. Well played, sir.)
I count ten items on that list with 'up to the DM' or something similar, and that doesn't count the items that read 'I would rule this way' as though the designer was wearing a DM hat, not a designer hat. Point is it's not an insigificant number, especially given they're on the weirder interactions. And yes, other items are things the designers don't agree on, or don't really answer the question asked (ex.: "Is max stat at character creation an 18?" "Max is 20." Would be a better answer to say 'no specific max at character creation except the general max of 20', but that doesn't fit as neatly on Twitter. (Which is another point -- Twitter doesn't really let you explain a ruling.))
I'm not saying a thread on the WotC boards is a perfect solution, but I think it's better to have a resource (that you can then disregard if you don't like it) than not.
--
Pauper
Pauper wrote:
Uthrac wrote:
Uthrac wrote:
Q: What good is downtime, anyway?
A: You can spend it per the Player's Handbook, but gerenal consensus is that doing so is a waste. The admins have indicated that there will be special ways to spend downtime within your faction, once you reach Rank 3 (see page 19 of the AL Player's Guide). Advice is to save your downtime until then.
Q: I filled in to DM for two sessions of Encounters Episode 1. What do I get for XP and downtime awards?
Q: On page 12, D&D Expeditions and D&D Epics Rewards indicate that the DM recieves 200 XP times the tier of play. DDEX1-2 and DDEX1-3 each indicate 300 XP as the reward for the DM. Which is the correct guideline?
Q: What counts as a "secret mission" to advance in Faction Ranks? How are these identifiably different than the "psst ... while you're on your quest, could you do this for me" conversations with faction NPCs?
SteveMND wrote:
Rules aside .... some character concepts are better suited for home play than organized play.
For example, my wife has a sorcerer with wild magic. The class feature is entirely in the hands of the DM and, especially since the system is new, many DMs are hesitant to deal with rules they do not understand themselves. (For those unfamiliar ... when a wild sorcerer casts a non-cantrip spell, the DM may roll a d20 and ... on a result of 1 ... there's a big random table of 50 things that could happen to roll on. Generally, if the DM chooses to do so, the sorcerer also gets advantage on their next roll.)
So ... Expect Table Variation.
We sit down to play and my wife asks the DM, "If I play my wild sorcerer, you can choose to roll a die each time I cast a spell and random stuff happens if you roll a 1. Is that a mechanic you would use?"
If the DM says yes ... or is even excited about the prospect ... we play on. If the DM seems unsure or simply says no ... she plays her dwarven fighter.
Uthrac wrote:
Ah, a chance to make use of my proficiency in Investigation!
Uthrac wrote:
Being told to expect table variation at a living campaign where I was told I would be able to take my character and play it at conventions with no problems, seems problematic.
Being told to not play a character that might cause confusion of the rules is tantamount to telling a scientist to not try new things. Why bother testing other metals for conductivity when copper works just fine? Nevermind that there might be a metal out there that conducts electricity with no loss of power and no risk of heating up. With that thought process being applied in other facets of the world, we would still be in the dark ages.
A better suggestion is to get with your DM as soon as you are seated at the table. "Hey, DM, I have a character with a reach weapon. Are you aware of the different rulings on this? Which one do you use?" The problem then comes up that you'll have some people who are excellent spin doctors and who will present the ruling that doesn't favor their character as being biased and unfair, whereas the other ruling is perfectly acceptable for most people.
When WotC started publishing rules errata for 4th edition, we used to print those out and have them at the table for LFR. We would have already skimmed them so we would know if a rule was in there and could look it up when it came up; however, the majority of the time, it was just me and one other person trying to convince the rest of the players that the rules they were playing by were no longer valid. We were called "rules lawyers" and scoffed at. All because we are trying to play on a level playing field. I had several times that my character was "gimped" by some new rules errata. I brought it to the table anyway. Others would just ignore those rules and use what they had been using. Even when I brought it up to them that they were wrong, I would get shot down as being a rules lawyer, told to shut up and let them play their character. So, I quit playing. I got tired of being told that I was wrong, that I was being ridiculous for trying to, you know, follow the rules.
If I start seeing the same thing with 5e and AL, I might just stop playing altogether. And I would hope that that is not an outcome that WotC would desire. Why would they want to alienate their player base?
Back in LG, when there were rules clarifications, how were those handled? Was there an official channel that handed them down and you just abided by them, or were you just told "Here's some rules changes, you might be able to get your players to use them if it's to their benefit"?
I have already seen (as did someone else) that this thread is not going to be helpful. This thread appears to be directed at "This is how I would rule it" and not "This is how the rules actually work." The example with Warlock Invocations, for example.
There is every indication that WotC is taking the cookie-cutter approach to class design with this edition of D&D. Each class has sub-classes. Granted, some of them you pick up at level 1, 2, or 3. Each subclass, however, gains something as specific levels: 6, 11, 14, 18 (I might be off on the levels; sorry if I am but you'll see they are always the same levels.) So, given that this is the case, why would you assume they would break away from the cookie-cutter mold for one class (the Warlock) and make their class-gained invocations work any different from the features gained in a similar manner for another class (the monk's disciplines)? Is there a non-biased reason for thinking this?
On the one hand, you have players who want to be able to just two-level dip Warlock for that tasty +CHA to EB invocation and the character-level scaling cantrip it works with. Just two levels then they can go back to their base class (or other multiclassing, I guess.) But, they might decide to go to Warlock 4 to get the stat increase or feat. Fair enough. Now, this gives them access to a small selection of invocations. However, they see that if they get to level 7 (or whatever), they can get an invocation for their pact. Well, that interferes with the Barbarian or Paladin levels they want to take. So, the invocations don't *say* it requires you to be a level 7 Warlock, just level 7. So, *obviously*, they are talking about character levels. I mean, pfft, of course they are.
On the other hand, you have DMs that want to make sure they can make balanced encounters for a group of characters that are built up to level 7 (or whatever) and that assumes certain sacrifices made for multiclassing or gaining feats. Now, you have this one player who shows up as a Level 4 Warlock/Level 3 Paladin who has what amounts to a level 7 Warlock feature and level 3 Paladin features. How do you balance around that when everyone else is maybe level 2 rogue/level 5 fighter or level 1 druid/level 6 life cleric? No other class has a way to just up and give you the ability to act like a level x of that class when you are not actually level x in that class.
So, again I ask, why would you assume that Wizard's of the Coast would allow that on purpose?
Undrhil wrote:
TheBreen wrote:
SteveMND wrote:
Pauper wrote:
3 more berries seems at least mostly balanced to me. I mean I can even see the argument that you are not using the spell to heal anyone, just to create objects that can heal people, as such you get 0 from Disciple of life. Increasing the healing done by 4 times and equal to a 9th level cure wounds seems crazy unbalanced. Even if you believe the Disciple of Life extra healing per berry is actually more accurate to the text (and I don't), that unbalances the game so much that the rules should be construed to avoid unbalancing the game by that much, especially as between reasonable interpretations.
(sigh)
Someone used the metaphor of a DMs' meeting with an organizer at a big convention to describe this forum thread. Goodberry is a perfect example of why that metaphor fails; there's no "organizer" with authority to select a given interpretation, and the interpretations provided so far vary wildly. I suggest the proper metaphor might be a bunch of DMs standing in the hallway arguing. 
Here's my interpretation, which I recognize isn't binding on any of you. Goodberry isn't a healing spell. There's no target (it's a conjuration spell), and casting the spell heals no one. It creates "up to ten" berries—I suspect a 1d10 die roll is missing here somewhere—which have two properties. One property is that each berry can heal one (1) hit point—not a variable number—and they provide all the sustenance a character needs for a full day. (No word on whether they're fattening. )
The Goodberry spell isn't even available to [single class] clerics, for whom the Disciple of Life feature is written. To try to apply this feature to a druid/ranger spell in order to quadruple the total number of hit points which could potentially be regained by this first-level spell seems to me a very broken interpretation. (We used to call that "munchkin" back in the day; I don't know if that term is still used.)
TheBreen wrote:
Tweaked the format a bit, and added a blurb regarding crafting.
--
Pauper
Updates regarding partial awards in D&D Encounters as well as a brief discussion of Crossbow Master in AL play.
--
Pauper
Pauper wrote:
Uthrac wrote:
Sounds good.
To clarify, I think the answers at the top of the thread can be expanded (minimally) when there are multiple views to include all of the views ... including the "prevalent thinking."
(Of course, I'm in the camp of avoiding players printing out forum threads and waving them in front of DMs as "rulings.")
Guide for DMs = Good
Guide for Players = Bad
So, for example, I'd be happy with "Goodberry" reading something like:
DMs may interpret this in different ways. Here are some common interpretations:
Many DMs go with {interpretation X} for the following reason {in-line with other level 1 healing spells}.
I think a thread like this (repository of official rulings clarified by the admins PLUS short summary of discussions by experienced DMs) is really useful. Thanks again for putting it together!
That makes a lot of sense -- I, too, would prefer this not become a thread that players use to browbeat their DMs into making a specific ruling. I'll agree that the discussion is probably more valuable than the rulings themselves.
Appreciate the thanks -- my inspiration was wishing I had a similar resource when I was DMing LFR modules.
--
Pauper
There are lots of ... debatably "useful" ... threads about RAW vs. RAI vs. everything else under the sun. I get that some people enjoy that aspect of the game. I get that people argue about what is possible within the rules. I've learned that the reality is what actually happens at the table.
And that's where this thread comes in ... it's great to have a place that points out common questions and provides a level of expectation ... to players and to DMs ... about how they might expect an Adventurer's League DM to rule on a particular rule. (I still stick with rule 0: If your fun requires a rules interpretation by the DM, expect table variation and consider playing a different PC in organized play.)
This also removes the right vs. wrong discussion. There are camps who see things both ways, so you should expect either interpretation. However, interpretation X is the most common/supported/whatever. That is, there's nothing wrong about you interpreting the rule the way you are, but there's a good chance the DM at your table may hold a different interpretation.
It would be interesting if they ever got a polling feature added. This would be a useful application of polls. The results would give a good "sky-high view" of how DMs are handling these things.
Uthrac wrote:
Added a section in Campaign Rulings discussing how DMs should interpret the advice that they "are empowered to make adjustments to the adventure and make decisions about how the group interacts with the world of this adventure."
Much of this comes from similar discussions during Living Forgotten Realms, but still seems relevant today.
--
Pauper
Added a section in Campaign Rulings to address the question: "Can we loot the corpse of a fallen party member?"
The obvious answer would appear to be 'no', but discussion is encouraged.
Pauper wrote:
I don't see a reason why not, as long as you're not trying to use it for monetary gain. Dead party member has extra rope you need to cross that gap? Borrow it.
Kentor_Slowhand_02 wrote:
TheBreen wrote:
Dan is right. We definately do not want to promote the "I'm letting you die so I can take your stuff" sorts of episodes that we have seen in previous campaigns.
I'd accept that, if a dead party member has gear that would be useful to the party, like a rope or healer's kit, then the party could certainly make use of that gear during the current adventure. That's not the same thing as 'looting', though, and I think most DMs would probably allow that as a common-sense ruling.
Any specific issues with the wording of the answer? It seems to privilege the 'gather all the loot and distribute it at the end' versus 'pass it out as we go' style of adventuring, but that may not be a big deal.
--
Pauper
My apologies to those that have seen this before. I posted this comment elsewhere, but did not generate much response. I really am trying to understand something I am seeing in different threads that impacts AL play for certain spellcasters.
It seems that much of the discussion on somatic elements assumes that the character must have an empty hand, but the rule concerning them does not state that explicitly (nor is it implied). There are a number of examples of people gesticulating or gesturing (even forcefully or intricately) while holding an object.
In my own work I often deliver a lecture while holding a marker, a pointer, or a computer remote. I am actively gesticulating throughout the lecture. (As I think about it, at one point last week I was lecturing on a complex topic that requires a diagram. I was holding two markers in one hand and another marker and a remote in the other.) Here are a few other examples: an orchestra conductor using a baton (intricate gestures), a drum major with a mace (both forceful and intricate), a priest with a censer (they are making the sign of the Cross with that thing), handwriting is an intricate gesture performed by the hand that works much better if you are holding something, and, I imagine, there are many other examples.
Conversely, if you are hand-cuffed (manacled, if you must), you may very well have an empty hand, but you would not have free use of your hand.
The rules on material components state that the hand that accesses material components can be used to perform somatic components. That seems to imply that the hand performing a somatic gesture is holding a material component or focus.
I understand that some spells have specific gestures, but there are few of those. The Warcaster feat certainly implies the need for an empty hand. However, one bullet point in what is an optional rule seems a weak basis for overriding the fairly clear language on somatic components. It seems that a feat should expand options for the character that takes it, not unilaterally create a limitation for everyone else that is not otherwise present.
There are some very bright people on these forums that understand the rules better than I. Many of you have accepted the premise that an empty hand is required, so I am assuming that I am missing something. Please help me understand how we get from “free use of a hand” to “free use of an empty hand”.
Thanks for reading this far.
"free use of a hand" implies the hand is empty and not otherwise employed.
In your example of giving a lecture and gesticulating wildly while holding markers, you cannot draw with those markers and still gesticulate wildly while talking.
That is what is missing from your example. Using the markers is the "somatic component", not the gesticulation.
In the absense of a strict rule about something, you look for other rules which are similar or which interact with the type of rule you are looking for. In this case, there is no strict rule for needing an empty hand to use somatic components. Fine.
However, there is a feat which states that you are able to use somatic components even while holding two weapons.
Therefore, you have the implied rule that you have to have a hand free (empty) in order to use somatic components.
This is actually a fallback to the way similar things were figured out in 4e. In the absense of an actual ruling from the devs, people would look for something else which interacts with the rules in regards to what you are trying to do and use that as a guideline for what the ruling might end up being.
I think that is what you call an 'exception based' ruleset?
Yes, the rules specify only that you need 'free use of a hand' to perform somatic components. However, it's a pretty common-sense determination to say that, if you're wielding a weapon, you're using that hand to wield that weapon, even if there is no rule specifically saying that wielding a weapon requires the 'use' of that hand. The hand with the weapon wouldn't be considered 'free' for the purposes of casting a spell with somatic components. Rather than try to determine whether any possible object that a character could be holding might cause the character's hand to not be 'free' for spellcasting purposes, it's simpler just to require that the hand be obviously free -- not holding anything, not manacled or otherwise restricted, etc. (This would also imply that a restrained character cannot cast spells with somatic components, but since there is nothing in the Restrained condition that specifically says a character cannot cast spells while restrained, most DMs will likely not make that ruling.)
I'd been pondering throwing something into these Recommended Rulings to explain explicit versus implicit rules, based on more than a few threads over in the Rules forum of late; I'll have to get cracking on that, since it seems like it would be a useful thing.
--
Pauper
Hey Pauper, Thanks for doing this.
I think you are missing something on the "craft Healing potion" answer.
If the character can make art/jewelry: The character starts with 50gp, he can either:
Spend the 50gp for 1 Heal potion, or
Spend the 50gp for art materials, and 20 days later have 2 heal potions for that 50gp investment. This even lets him live a Modest lifestyle. Or could live a Comfortable lifestyle, and get 2 potions for 70gp.
Thanks, Coredump.
The phrasing of the explanation for crafting art objects to use to buy potions of healing is intentional -- my feeling is that we don't want to encourage folks effectively exchanging downtime days for healing potions**, so while it's not technically illegal, it should be discouraged. A DM who wants to allow it anyway is welcome to do so.
I've also added a new question on how to repair armor when it is 'permanently' damaged by monsters during an adventure. While there aren't any explicit repair rules, I've devised a use of the existing crafting rules to cover this situation if a DM chooses to allow it.
--
Pauper
** - Buried in both our explanations is the simple truth that, if a character begins with 50gp, proficiency with artisan's tools, and a Modest lifestyle, she can effectively turn 20 downtime days into a healing potion while maintaining both her original 50gp and her Modest lifestyle. Note that the same character cannot do with an herbalism kit, despite the herbalism kit saying that it is used to craft potions of healing, since directly crafting healing potions isn't allowed, but crafting items to sell to buy potions of healing is. (A player could legitimately ask what the difference is, and there's no really good answer for that question.)
I think they should be allowed to craft the healing potions... but I realize that isn't allowed, I just don't see it being a big deal, you aren't getting that many downtime days anyway, and if you want to spend 20 of them to gain a 50gp potion.... meh.....
Undrhil wrote:
StrykerMac wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Thanks for the compliment, and yes, it is challenging to come up with a consistent set of rulings across Organized Play. This thread is an attempt to provide some unofficial rulings to help confused DMs, but as has been said earlier and in other threads, players should generally expect some variation in rulings across different tables, because perfect consistency is impossible.
StrykerMac wrote:
I think it was also trying to cover the two situations of a weapon and a shield each in one hand, or a weapon in both hands. Kinda clumsy though...
Coredump00 wrote:
Can I use my downtime to craft potions of healing?
JPDG wrote:
Varisthenes wrote:
All it would take to close this 'loophole' is for campaign staff to rule that crafting art objects is also not allowed in Organized Play.
It wouldn't necessarily be just for the effect on potions of healing -- crafting art objects converts downtime to cash, so restricting crafting also helps maintain the expected campaign economy.
I'm not putting it into the Recommended Rulings, though, until there's an official response, as I don't feel comfortable recommending something that is strictly allowed by rule without some sort of official back-up.
--
Pauper
A few formatting tweaks, as well as a couple of new items in the Campaign Rulings section.
--
Pauper
Update to cover the use of the Magic Initiate feat in OP.
In short, since the feat doesn't require the use of spell slots, the spell gained via the feat shouldn't be cast using spell slots.
--
Pauper
Pauper. I agree that the spell gained through the magic initiate feat shouldn't be cast with spell slots but, apparently, it's been tweeted that, since the feat says you 'know' the spell, you are allowed to cast it in whatever manner you have for casting spells that you know.
Personally, I think they should change the feat so that you instead do not learn the spell, but can cast it once per day, without a spell slot. Maybe you gain it as a supernatural or spell-like ability instead? Who knows?
RCanine wrote:
It's probably not a big stretch, when it says "almost any non-evil deity can claim influence over this domain", to say evil deities cannot and therefore their clerics cannot, either.
Who made that tweet Undrhil? If it was Jeremy Crawford - then it stands as a legitimate rules source/ruling. If it was Mike Mearles however, the ruling is still up in the air as Mike Mearles rulings are no more (or less) valid than any other DMs.
Despite being one of the Devs, Mike's involvement was mostly administrative. Jeremy Crawford was the project lead on the PHB and DMG, and is the "go-to" guy for all rules.
Kalani wrote:
I'm not considering tweets of any sort to be official unless they refer back to a more official source (an errata document, a Sage Advice column, etc.); there are just too many examples of tweets that don't seem to take all the relevent rules into consideration, and on the rare chance that a tweet is corrected, the correction isn't connected at all to the original erroneous ruling, so the error is still out there to be quoted.
And whether a tweet is official or not is largely irrelevant to these rulings anyway -- these rulings aren't official themselves, but are intended to be a resource for DMs who need to resolve a rules issue in the absence of official clarification. They're better than nothing, in other words. If a DM wants to allow the cleric of an evil deity to take the Life domain, that's fine; another AL DM, however, can use the reference on p.60 to deny the evil cleric that domain ability. As such, clerics of evil deities are recommended to not take the Life domain, unless the deity specifically offers it (which is not the case for any deity currently approved for AL).
If the blurb on p.3 of the ALPG is intended to allow clerics of evil deities to take the Life domain, an AL admin can confirm it. My understanding is that the blurb simply refers to the rules in the PH (with the clarification that the Death domain, which is not in the PH, is not legal without confirming documentation).
--
Pauper
Pauper wrote:
What harm is there in a Cleric of an evil deity having the Life domain, aside from it not meshing with your idea of how Forgotten Realms works?
So, let me get this straight. You believe that an Evil character will take the Life domain and somehow be abusive? Do you see them healing the bad guys or something?
Regardless of supposed reasons or assumptions, evil characters are allowed with the caveat that there is no PvP in AL. Also, any cleric or character with the acolyte background can choose any deity in the PHB FR or non-human deity list. Any cleric can take a domain associated with their deity or the life domain, with the only exception given that the death domain is not legal without campaign documentation.
As was stated in another thread somewhere, just because it doesn't fit *your* world view, doesn't mean it isn't allowed.
Edit: Not to mention that the rules currently allow for an Evil character to choose a non-evil deity and take the Life domain that way. I just don't understand why you have a problem with an Evil cleric taking the Life domain. This boggles my mind.
Dropping out of this discussion, as I don't see it going anywhere productive.
--
Pauper
Well, my druid wants to wear metal armor. What happens? This is one of those situations that is challenging in an Organized Play campaign. In a home game, if your DM is willing to suspend the rule noted above, your druid can wear metal armor. However, having some DMs in Organized Play allow druids to wear metal armor and some to not allow it is confusing and leads to bad play experiences; for this reason, it's assumed that Organized Play DMs follow the rules advice given in the official rules sources. The rules say that druids 'won't' wear metal armor, so they won't in Organized Play.
I feel this should be stickied
Thanks.
I've been working on a v2.0 of these Recommended Rulings, and if a version is going to be stickied, I'd prefer it to be that one.
--
Pauper
"So which armors are made of metal and which aren't?
Light: Padded, Leather, Studded Leather
Medium: Hide
Heavy: Ring Mail
Ring mail isn't made of metal?
Based on the description, ring mail is similar to studded leather -- it is leather armor with metal pieces added to it. ("This armor is leather armor with heavy rings sewn into it." PH, p.145;BR, p.45) This makes it legal for druids to wear, even though druids do not have default proficiency with heavy armor. A druid that gained proficiency with heavy armor (via multiclassing or feats) could wear ring mail without penalty."
I think this is totally off-base. Studded Leather and Ring Mail should not be on this list. The 5th Edition Player's Handbook says that Studded Leather is 3 pounds heavier than Leather and "reinforced with close-set rivets or spikes."
I dug out my 1st Edition AD&D book just to check whether studded was allowed for Druids back then, the answer was no. Studded and Ring Mail were in that edition, but Hide was not. Druids were not allowed to wear Studded or Ring Mail. Quote from page 21: "(metalic armor spoils their magical powers)."
Kajamo
Kajamo wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Now you've done it. You've sent me on a quest of historical antiquity (through my D&D books up to 3rd edition). I never played 3.5e or 4e. This info is just for fun.
In the original "Advanced" D&D (©1978), Druids were required to be of Neutral ("True Neutral") alignment, and had to be either human or half-elven. They were not allowed to be of any other races. They were also the ONLY clerics—druids were considered a sub-class of cleric—that was allowed to be True Neutral. However, NPC druids could also be halflings, limited to 6th level maximum.
Druids were limited to leather armor and a wooden shield. "The more powerful druidic spells, as well as their wider range of weaponry, make up for the fact that druids are unable to use any armor or shields other than leather armor and wooden shields (metallic armor spoils their magical powers)." [AD&D Player's Handbook, page 21] also, "In melee combat, druids fight as clerics, but they do suffer somewhat from their inability to wear protective armor of metal." Interestingly, to gain 12th level or above, a druid had to defeat another druid of the desired level in hand-to-hand combat. The loser would drop to the beginning of the previous level (e.g., bottom of 11th level if failing to achieve 12th). "Multiple attempts to move upwards are possible as long as the character survives." The highest level druid in the world is limited to 14th level. A beginning druid needed to earn 2,001 experience points to advance from Aspirant (1st level) to Ovate (2nd level). The Great Druid (14th level) would have 1,500,001 or more experience points.
In 2nd Edition AD&D (©1989) the druid was considered an optional character class [2nd Edition PHB, page 25]. Clerics and druids were subclasses of "Priest." The 2nd Edition druid had it a little easier getting to 2nd level, in that she needed only 2,000 (not 2,001) experience points. Once again, however, only humans or half-elves need apply. Weapon and armor restrictions still applied. "Unlike the cleric, the druid is allowed to use only "natural" armors—leather armor and wooden shields, including those with magical enhancements. All other armors are forbidden to him." [ibid, p. 35] As with 1st Edition, druids had to fight to attain 12th level or higher, this time "in magical or hand-to-hand combat." This edition added a 15th level druid, the Hierophant Druid, as the highest ranking druid in the world. (The other druid positions were now per geographic area.) The Hierophant druid could advance up to 20th level, for a mere 2,000,000 experience points.
3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons—no longer called "Advanced"—was the first edition put out by Wizards of the Coast. My Player's Handbook doesn't have an easily-discoverable copyright date, but does include a CD with "Character Generator demonstration version 1.0" ©2000.
Regarding metal equipment, the PHB says, "The weapons and armor of a druid are restricted by traditional oaths, not simply training. A druid could learn to use a two-handed sword, but using it would violate the druid's oath and suppress her druidic powers. Druids avoid carrying much worked metal with them because it interferes with the pure and primal nature that they attempt to embody." [Player's Handbook, page 33] and "They are proficient with light and medium armors but are prohibited from wearing metal armor (thus, they may wear only padded, leather, or hide armor). They are skilled with shields but must use only wooden ones. […] A druid who wears prohibited armor or wields a prohibited weapon is unable to use any of her magical powers while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter." [page 34].
This is also the first time new races could become druids. "Elves and gnomes have an affinity for natural lands and are commonly druids. Humans and half-elves are also frequently druids, and druids are particularly common among savage humans. Dwarves, halflings, and half-orcs are rarely druids." But—Aha!—they are not prohibited any more!
Alignment restrictions in 3e are eased as well. Druids may now be of neutral good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, or neutral evil alignment. Advancement in 3e was significantly easier as well. All classes began using the same xp advancement tables, and a character only needed 1,000 xp to get to 2nd level. The xp table topped out at 20th level with 190,000 xp, which wasn't quite enough for 11th level druids in previous editions (200,000 xp required). Also, no more fighting another druid to achieve higher levels.
While all of this is just for historical perspective, it does give us some insight on the issue of druids using worked metal stuff and perhaps why we might want to try to stay with the traditional spirit of the game.
The logic behind this specific ruling is that the druid prohibition is on armors 'made of' metal, and the text describing both ring mail and studded leather specify that those armors are made like leather armor -- in other words, while studded leather and ring mail have metal pieces, they are not 'made of' metal any more than leather armor is.
If as a player, you choose to abide by a restriction that your druid won't wear studded leather or ring mail, that's fine. If as a DM, you decide to enforce that druids at your table can't wear studded leather or ring mail, you should inform your druid players up-front, since if they don't agree, it's likely to cause an argument (one you will win, since you're the DM, but an argument nonetheless). Recommending that ring mail and studded leather be allowed for druids seems a useful compromise.
--
Pauper
I ran the concept of a Druid in ring mail by two different DMs at the store I play Encounters and Expeditions at. They all but laughed. I can find no acceptance of this concept anywhere but in your suggestions. I honestly feel this particular ruling is not the norm, that it will cause far more issues than it solves.
Please note, the following is a total exaggeration, but I can actually see it happening with a small percentage of the population.
DM: "Umm, Billy, why is your Druid in Plate Mail?"
Billy: "Totally allowed under the rules. This is really a full set of padded armor with heavy leather boots and plates attached, go read the description in the PH. Then check out the Ring Mail suggested ruling. There are no actual descriptions on how much metal a Druid can wear."
Kajamo wrote:
Kajamo wrote:
Even I, who will defend up and down a druid's ability to wear plate if he takes the Heavily Armored feat, believe base druids not proficient with ringmail and studded Leather (unless they are mountain dwarves, who get Medium and Light armor proficiencies for free).
The ruling isn't that open to abuse:
Chain Mail - "Made of interlocking metal rings..."
Splint Mail - "This armor is made of narrow vertical strips of metal..."
Plate Mail - "Plate consists of shaped, interlocking metal plates..."
Seems pretty clear that all those armors are 'made of metal'. Contrast ring mail:
Ring Mail - "This armor is leather armor with heavy rings sewn into it."
The word 'metal' doesn't even appear once in the description.
If you want to enforce a restriction that druids won't wear ring mail, feel free -- but be prepared to defend your ruling against a player who actually reads the armor descriptions. And if you want to argue the historicity of ring mail, then be aware that what the PH describes as 'ring mail' has never been found in a European archeological site, and is likely a misinterpretation by Victorian Englishfolk of certain medieval texts. The closest we see in the 'real world' to what the PH describes as 'ring mail' is an Eastern invention:
http://s831.photobucket.com/user/estcrh/media/000003.jpg.html
Just sayin'.
--
Pauper
Pauper wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Do whatever you like. I know how I'm ruling.
Pauper wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
TheBreen wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Pauper wrote:
I still go after you about the Clerics of Evil deities not getting to access the Life domain ruling.
Also, if we are going to start using real-world definitions, instead of the ones given in the game, then you might as well throw out the entire magic system and make the game all about swords and arrows. (In regards to ring mail as metal armor.)
Pauper wrote:
RCanine wrote:
If a DM already has an opinion on how to rule in an ambiguous or controversial situation, then the DM can make that ruling as long as it doesn't contradict an official ruling from the admin staff. Pretty much everyone who posts regularly on these boards seem to fall into that category.
The point of the 'recommended rulings' though is for those DMs who come out to the boards looking for help with a particular rules issue that they either just heard about or just had a player try to exploit at their table -- this kind of thing was fairly common in our area during Living Forgotten Realms, and I often found myself wishing there was a simple, easily read summary of all such rulings so that I had a baseline to start from when figuring out how I wanted to rule (or figuring out what ruling might actually be official).
The 'recommended' part isn't so much about the who but the why -- the more DMs that use the recommended rulings, the more consistent the experience is across AL, which is a reasonable goal. Anything that's not taken from an official source (dndadventurersleague.com for instance) isn't at all binding, and a DM can certainly choose to rule differently from an unofficial ruling listed in the recommended rulings. (That's something I can emphasize in the intro to the 2.0 rulings thread, which should be ready to go shortly after the upcoming ALPG update.)
The biggest challenge in deciding what goes into the recommended rulings (aside from the official stuff) is that, no matter how forcefully they make their argument, three people on these boards don't constitute a plurality or even a significant portion of DMs -- especially when the way they rule differs from the DMs in my region (which I generally use as the baseline). Sometimes an argument is persuasive and I change a ruling (such as for goodberry); sometimes the argument isn't persuasive and I leave the ruling as I originally wrote it (such as for druids and armor). The idea is that every such unofficial ruling is both defensible according to the printed rules (which isn't the same thing as being the only possible interpretation, because if there was only one possible intepretation, then the ruling wouldn't need to be in this list), and actually being used by some number of active AL DMs. Consensus is nice and all, but after a few months of running this list, I've come to realize the truth behind the saying "The perfect is the enemy of the good."
--
Pauper
Undrhil wrote:
Oraibi wrote:
TheBreen wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
Updated with preliminary questions on the legality of a lute-axe (either the lute or the axe is cosmetic only, not functional) and using gentle repose to defray the cost of raising an ally from the dead (legal, but more expensive than you think, since the actual cost isn't listed in the ALPG and is going to be higher than the material component cost).
--
Pauper
Updated with rulings related to wizards' spellbooks, including the 8-hour downtime day, and that fabricate cannot be used to create a copy of a spellbook (since fabricate can only be used to create non-magical objects, and a spellbook is pretty clearly magical).
Actually, skerrit and Jeremy Crawford both have clarified that normal spellbooks are non magical.
Luckily a spellbook with spells in it is clearly something that needs a high degree of crafsmanship, which also works to block the creation of spell filled spellbooks with fabricate. Plain spellbooks with empty pages. Should be fine
If it was my table, I would allow you to create a spellbook filled with spell-like gobbledegock, but not actual spells you don't know. As Krishna said, actual spells require a high degree of craftsmanship and are obviously not allowed to be created.
Kalani wrote:
Also updated to reflect that the official FAQ notes that Unearthed Arcana articles are not an allowable rules source for Adventurers League play.
Wait, what!? Skerrit gets to make rulings?? Now I am scared. (scared enough to go way off topic, sry 
)
Though Skerrit has stated that anything he posts here has generally been cleared with the other members of the AL admin team, one could argue that Skerrit, by virtue of being one of the few admins who posts here regularly (raddu26 being the other), is pretty much the only person who can post official rulings for AL. (I seem to recall that one person -- Alphastream? -- was given specific permission to play warforged in AL way back near the beginning of the FAQ thread.)
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Ehm, so I realyl didn't expect to need to explain this, but.. I was kidding? And the "are warforged legal in LFR?" was the running forum gag for that campaign.
I consider Skerrit a well informed and, more importantly, careful and deliberating source for rulings advice. I won't follow him blindly (cause I am more than a little afraid of where I'd end up and alcohol might be involved) but it would take a major disagreement with his stance for me to consider going against him.
Oh and if Alphstream is playing a warforged I am playing a gnoll!
</moreofftopic>
RCanine wrote:
Hey Pauper, in one of your answers you claim this as a fact;
Note, however, that such a piece of equipment cannot give a mechanical benefit that isn't available in an allowed rules source.
Pauper wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Pauper wrote:
@Coredump: Please lets not continue that discussion here. Skerrit had already asked us to drop it because it had become toxic and hostile - that and the fact that we had already debated that particular thread into the ground.
Let's not necromance things that are better left dead, burried, and consecrated to prevent it from rising as an undead abomination.
Thanks for acting like a moderator. Perhaps you could let Pauper and I continue our polite conversation in peace.
Since he and I were not the ones insulting people in that thread, I am pretty sure we can have a conversation without it becoming 'toxic'.
Just a suggestion, but how about we all try to assume people posting are trying to be helpful rather than look for the attack? Yeah I know its easy to feel stung by something written here, I am far from immune to it, but sjeez...
(yeah I know more "moderating", but I happen to think this forum does not need to be a dark dank swamp, sue me)
Anyway..
The sentence "Note, however, that a DM should be wary of any equipment that provides a mechanical advantage beyond those of readily available items" does not work imho as it oversimplifies the issue and fails to adress some key elements (for instance; . there cannot be any expectation your next DM will honor the mechanics assigned) . I think Pauper has a handle on the basic question and all the debate surrounding it. So I will wait and see what they come up with.
Again, this is why I appreciate the discussion in this thread -- looking through the thread gives a DM much more context on a ruling than I can provide in the short blurbs in the actual ruling post, and will almost certainly result in a better ruling.
On the other hand, at some point (as with the thread on spellbooks), it's probably best just to say 'we have a ruling, let's just go with that' rather than endlessly argue the same points.
--
Pauper
Pauper wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote: