"A fun thread entitled "Adjudicate THIS" might be a good learning exercise. Present likely scenarios that could come up during game play and see how everyone would rule in that situation (with rules references). This is done in general all over the boards for this or that. A compiled thread to just practice adjudicating and seeing where the rules are clear and unclear might be useful." — iserith
This thread is a place to present a specific scenario, and gather feedback on how to adjudicate it based on the 5e rules.
Rules:
- Number your scenario! Formatted as: Scenario 1: Ready an action using a spell
- Then reference the rules, including book and page number, formatted as: Basic: Ready, page 72
- Then give an example of the scenario you wish feedback on in as much detail as possible: "Any dungeon with an L-shaped corridor. The Wizard uses Ready to prepare Ray of Frost, with the trigger, "I'll hit the 1st goblin that rounds the corner."
- Then: Adjudicate THIS! What happens if the goblins don't round the corner this round and the Wizard is still on Ready with her spell? Can she keep it at Ready into her next turn? Can she move up to the corner to see where they are and still keep the spell at Ready?
Please keep this thread respectful and on point to the scenario given. Reference the rules where you can. If some other topic is introduced that's not on point please spawn it into its own Scenario.
REMEMBER TO PREFACE ALL POSTS WITH: S[number] so everyone is clear what scenario your post is referring to!
Scenario 1
Ready an action using a spell
Basic: Ready, page 72
Any dungeon with an L-shaped corridor. The Wizard uses Ready to prepare Ray of Frost, with the trigger, "I'll hit the 1st goblin that rounds the corner."
Adjudicate THIS! What happens if the goblins don't round the corner this round and the Wizard is still on Ready with her spell? Can she keep it at Ready into her next turn? Can she move up to the corner to see where they are and still keep the spell at Ready?
E-Tallitnics wrote:
S1: I could make one of two cases, either have relatively similar merit to me:
1: The Wizard's readied spell is lost because the trigger didn't occur before her next turn. The spell slot is expended. The wizard may act normally.
2: The Wizard's trigger condition didn't occur, so if she maintains concentration, I would allow her to take another "Ready" action on her turn. I would allow her to move her movement, as there's nothing about concentration or the "Ready" action that limits movement during a turn.
The quoted sentence, in my reading, refers to the option to ready a move instead of ready an action. I.e.: When the goblin turns the corner, I will move 30' away. Even in the case of readying a move, the wizard would still be able to move 30' on her turn, because the Ready action has no impact on the rest of her turn outside the "action" part. Essentially she is readying the "Dash" action instead of a spell.
The specific sentence says "... move up to your speed in response to it.", which should imply that the movement is what has been readied.
E-Tallitnics wrote:
You must realize this "later in the round" stuff is absurd, yes? Interpreting the statement in that way, you're basically saying that the lowest-initiative person in a combat cannot ready actions.
The text that is being heavily quoted to imply an "end of the round" construction isn't even in the step-by-step process for taking the Ready action. It's in the introductory paragraph which is little more than a description of when you may wish to consider the Ready action.
Since S1 is a cantrip, "saving the spell slot" isn't important. Just scrub the failed ready action and take a new fresh turn. If you still want to freeze the enemy, just take another ready action.
I agree that it's strange. I have no idea what the authors intend.
The whole "Ready" section is pretty sloppy:
"Remember that you can take only one reaction per round." False, since you could use a reaction both before and after the start of your turn.
"When you ready a spell, you cast it as normal but hold its energy, which you release with your reaction when the trigger occurs." Swell, but what if the trigger doesn't occur this round? What if it doesn't occur before your next turn? What if it never occurs? Do you lose the slot with no effect? Do you have to cast the spell to release the energy? I have no idea.
emwasick wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Scenario 2: Out in the woods the characters are sitting around a campfire, but they are awake and not distracted but nor are they using thier turn to keep doing perception checks. One of the golbins is hidding out in the darkness (a long ways away far outside the low light range of the fire), assuming the stealth roll beats the passive perception of the party. The goblin starts sneaking towards the campfire. Assuming no cover, are they seen when they enter the low light range of the fire (or only when they enter the bright light range of the fire)?
As far as I know the rules dont currently say the answer to this question (and it should be answered in the rules). The rules do say you cant start hiding in light obscurement (which would include low light but not darkness), but it says nothing about if that means you cant sneak through light obscurement if you are already hidden.
Obsid, your scenario is Scenario 3.
S1: I would allow cautious movement up to the corner (I can actually see the scenario - a wizard with their index finger glowing blue, holding it steady with their other hand, hustling up to a corner to peer around it...), and for the caster to maintain readiness on the spell past one round using concentration as per the fourth paragraph of the Ready rules, Basic pg72
S2: Same as S1 - I would allow cautious movement up to the corner. If the readied spell is unreadied, I would rule that it is not cast, and the caster does not lose a spell slot. It's like getting ready to fire a round from a gun - you go through all the steps to fire except pulling the trigger, and if you don't pull the trigger you still have that round.
S3: Make a second check for the goblin when it enters the dim light to continue hiding. I would say that it is auomatically fails a stealth check when it enters bright light.
RustedKitsune wrote:
Readying to cast anything other than a cantrip is looking like a pretty dodgy proposition per RAW.
lawrencehoy wrote:
getting back to S1 for a moment. What happens id something other than a goblin comes around the corner? Is the mage left dangling with a ray of frost that is uncastable at the new threat?
Thanks, E-Tallitnics! This is an awesome execution of my suggestion. Fun! I'll jump in at some point today.
Response to S2:
I'm led to believe by RAW that the slot is lost if the trigger doesn't occur. On page 72 of Basic, it says:
"When you ready a spell, you cast it as normal but
hold its energy, which you release with your reaction
when the trigger occurs."
The part that says, "you cast it as normal" leads me to believe that this is the point at which the slot is expended. At this point you've cast the spell, but your still holding the energy.
EDIT: I didn't see lawrenchoy's earlier post about this before posting, but it seems we've come to the same conclusion.
It also specifies:
"To be readied, a spell must
have a casting time of 1 action"
Since you get 1 action per turn (generally, not including specific bonus actions), it seems to me that the action ends when the round is over, and during the next round, the PC would have to engage in a new action. There is no mention of actions carrying over into a new round as each new round starts with a new action per character.
That's how I interpret it at this point.
BTW, great idea for a thread!
obsid wrote:
emwasick wrote:
Since this is "Adjudicate this!" and not direct rules questions, should we be considered free to use more liberal 'ruling' style responses? 
S1:
The book says you "cast a spell normally and hold its energy," and that it "dissipates if your concentration is broken." It seems people are largely reading this to mean that the spell slot is expended and the spell doesn't go off, but I don't think there's anything unbalanced/overpowered about allowing the caster to at least keep their spell slot. They've wasted a whole round doing nothing, and IMO that's 'punishment' enough. No need to rub salt in the wound by depriving them of their spell slot.
Playing it that way, it becomes easier to decide how to handle it if a whole round passes (i.e. it has come back around to their turn) and the trigger is not met: they can choose to simply do something else now, or, use the same spell slot again to ready the same action again.
To answer eleran's question: yes, if they specified "at the first goblin that walks around that corner" then they would indeed not be able to cast it at a non-goblin threat -- at least, not until their turn came back around. (In that case, if you used my ruling they'd be able to do it with the same spell slot; if you used the ruling that the original is expended then they'd have to do it with a different spell slot.)
S1 & S2: The wizard can move, and can hold the cantrip/spell from round to round, but if the wizard fails to ready it on the wizard's turn, that spell must be cast or lost (not a huge cost in the case of S1). If a non-goblin comes around the corner, as DM I wouldn't even describe it - just say, "Something comes around the corner, not a goblin - if you take time to determine what it is, you lose your spell. You could cast your spell now, (implied: and hope that it is not some innocent person/prisoner/slave/princess). What do you do?"
S3: Goblin is seen upon entering dim light.
S1 & S2: I would allow the caster to continue to hold the spell as a readied action across multiple rounds if the trigger hasn't happened and the player hasn't elected to perform a different action (or lost concentration). I base this ruling on an ambush situation which tends to start outside of combat. I personally like the idea of a caster readying a spell to be used in an ambush, so I'm not sure how I can then decide that readying can only last for 6 seconds.
I agree with Chimerasame on safeguarding the spell slot. I like for there to be possible consequences to tactical choices, but I think losing your action is sufficient in this scenario. Losing the spell slot seems like too high a price, IMO.
Oh -- I really like Particle's suggestion for adjudicating a variation of the triggering action.
E-Tallitnics wrote:
S1:
The supposition is that the goblins come after the wizard in initiative order.
If the trigger doesn't happen by the end of the round, the spell is wasted (but it was a cantrip, so no great loss) but, by then, the goblins will have had their turn. Next round, before the goblins get their next turn, the wizard is free to move round the corner and zap them, or just renew the Ready if she wishes.
Although it might seem that there is a gap between the end of the round and the start of the wizard's turn where there is no Ready in effect, it doesn't actually matter because the goblins can't act during that period anyway.
If the goblins won the initiative, that would be different. By the time the wizard got to do anything, they would either have come round the corner or not; trigger conditions don't feature.
- You can't usefully use Ready against creatures who come before you in initiative order. Initiative is important.
- If you are going to ready a spell, it's generally best to use a cantrip (or a Master or Signature spell at high levels)
Great thread!
Scenario S4:
I am a wood elf rogue trekking through a dungeon with my ally, who is a dwarf fighter. We enter a large chamber containing several thick marble columns, each occupying a 5'x5' space. We are immediately attacked by a troll. While my dwarven comrade races forward to engage the troll , I fire a shot from my bow, then duck behind a marble column gaining total cover from the troll. I then use my Cunning Action and successfully make a Stealth check to hide from the troll. In the next round, I inch my body around the column, exposing enough of myself to get a clear shot off while still retaining about 50% cover.
Q1. Am I hidden from the troll when I take the shot, thus gaining advantage?
I then use my remaining movement to slip back behind the column and succeed at another Stealth check with Cunning Action.
Q2. Assuming that my dwarven buddy is keeping the troll locked down in melee, can I keep repeating this sequence of actions every round, thus gaining advantage until the troll is dead or I fail my stealth check? How would you rule on this if you were the DM?
Leugren wrote:
S4:
I'd say, the moment you half-emerge from behind the column, you are no longer hidden because from that moment, the troll can see you (or at least, half of you and that's enough). So because it can see you, you don't get advantage on the attack. You could claim Sneak Attack because the Dwarf is within 5ft of the troll, but not advantage. Hiding behind the column is unimportant because the troll is busy with the dwarf and isn't going to be attacking you anyway.
Archon007 wrote:
S4: Hell yes! It seems to me to be able to do this is the entire point of the rogue with cunning action. As long as the troll is distracted by the fight and not explicitly looking for the rogue then the rogue still gains the advantage of being hidden, but once the attack is made the rogue is no longer hidden, unless it once again uses cunning action to hide.
Now, if the troll is a spellcaster and has a readied spell.. oops, slipped into the other question.
Archon007 wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
youtellatale wrote:
Archon007 wrote:
youtellatale wrote:
I think S4 is debatable because (1) the elf has not moved to approach the troll (as mentioned in the rules) and (2) the elf has not taken any kind of action to lean out from behind the pillar. On that basis, I would say that the attack itself it the action that breaks stealth, and as such the attack would benefit from advantage. I would rule though that the troll gets the benefit of cover due to the pillar.
In general, I'd play that if you don't move or take any action before your attack, then you should get the benefit of stealth for it.
emwasick wrote:
Archon007 wrote:
E-Tallitnics wrote:
jaelis wrote:
E-Tallitnics wrote:
Archon007 wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
Leugren wrote:
Archon007 wrote:
Scenario 5:
Solid or not?
Basic "Flame Sphere", page 91
Any use of the spell.
Adjudicate THIS! I put a sphere in a standard sized doorway to block it. After reading the spell the DM simply had our opponents run through it, taking no damage! How can you ram a creature with it if it's not solid?
E-Tallitnics wrote:
E-Tallitnics wrote:
E-Tallitnics wrote:
R5: The fact that the sphere is conjured into an unoccupied space implies that it cannot simultaneously occupy the same space as other creatures or objects. Also, word "ram" does imply contact. Additionally, the facts that the sphere must climb over barriers and jump pits indicate that it rests on a surface and thus is solid or least massive.
Previous editions explicitly referred to the sphere as solid and "spongy in consistency," explaining that if it contacted creatures, it could cause fire damage but little or no blunt force damage.
I would rule that the sphere occupies its space, about the same as a Dwarf occupies space. Only creatures able to move through an interposed medium creature would be able to "step over" the sphere.
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
R5: I've always envisioned them as hollow; sort of a (relatively) permanent, low-damaging fireball. *That said*, the damage triggers seem to be working off of the assumption that it's solid; if I did run it as hollow then I would definitely say passing through it triggers the same damage as ending next to it.
I might give a pass on *passing next to* it, though.
S5
I would rewrite the description of Flaming Sphere to change "ends its turn" to "ends its movement." Then I would treat getting past the sphere as a split move. You move to the sphere, spend an action getting past it (or through it, if it isn't solid), then spend the rest of your move. You ended the first part of your move next to the sphere, so you have to save for half damage.
First off I want to thank E-Tallitnics for starting this thread. It's sure to help those who need help if it's managed properly.
Scenario 5.
Unfortunately, unlike 4e, Conjuration has no written rules about what exactly they are. Do they occupy the square they are in or not which is the main question about this scenario. As per the basic rules PDF that we have, that question cannot be answered since the definition of what a conjuration actually is not present. This leaves the DM and players with the task of arbitrarily deciding how they want this spell and similar spells which are conjurations to work.
The way the spell functions with ramming a creature is completely seperate from if conjurations occupy the square they are in and has no bearing on if it does or doesn't.
EDIT: I want to expand on this post that I had to cut short earlier, the RAW answer is that it doesn't block creatures from moving through it. Conjuration not being a defined game term other than the Conjuration school means that there's no rule for it established. In 4e the definition was there, which makes me wonder why they didn't bring that over. It's a logical fallacy to say that because the rules don't say you can't you can. But in this case it's just not defined as a game term at all and the spell itself doesn't address the issue. Which brings me to the point of the DM and group having to decide how it'll work for them. The conjuration not occupying the square it's in allows creatures to move right through it and they wouldn't take any damage from doing so. The ability to "ram" a creature by moving the Flame Sphere into them is a unique ability that is part of moving the conjuration and does not mean that creatures who move through its square automatically get "rammed". That's a leap in logic that no one should be making automatically when it comes to reading rules text.
Now that might not be fun for you and your table. But that's not what this forum should be about. This is the rules forum and we shouldn't deal in houserules if at all possible.
Noctaem wrote:
erm no the logical fallacy is how I detailed within an exception based rule system. Which is what 5th edition is. That's the logic behind the entire system in fact. I was specifically talking about the Munchkin Fallacy. If you want more info you can find it here:
http://community.wizards.com/forum/4e-character-optimization/threads/1548256
It is true that 5e has been marketed as being flexible and that the rules can be left with some interpretation. Examples being Flame Sphere, how conjurations work in general, etc.. If that was a good idea or not is something that's impossible to tell for now. In time however that should become more clear.
Although I agree that rule interpretation is an important part of playing the game, over-interpretation to the point that you question every rules intent like what happened with Sneak Attack in the rules forum is not. That's just silly nonsense. So I would further state that when something like how conjurations work is not listed in the rules, as is the case now, that's what their "vague enough to support many interpretations" means. Arguing about what the intent of the words Once Per Turn is, should not be.
Did you miss the "End of Round" discussion and how that turned out?
I'm not sure, got a link?
http://community.wizards.com/forum/rules-questions/threads/4111606
Specifically the reading of the sidebar on page 69 versus the tweet from Mr. Mearls.
"... to act later in the round." was explained to mean "to act at a later point before your next turn." There is nothing in the rules which explicitly says "one round" lasts from your turn to turn, although it is strongly implied by other rules. The rules do explicitly say that "a round ends" when everyone has had a turn in initiative order.
The intent delivered in the tweet, however, is in line with the former interpretation, not the latter.
I see this situation as very similar to the "once per turn" discussion, and equally as valid. Also as valid as discussing the space-occupying properties of a flaming sphere.
The key difference is that in the readied action debate, there's 2 rules that seem to contradict each other. One says until the start of your next turn while another says per round. There's also the sidebar.
The once per turn discussion has no such problems. And it has a growing mountain of evidence as you know to support that it is in fact once per turn for RAW and RAI. The Flaming Sphere issue is that conjurations aren't detailed in an entry of the rules. They are just called that because they're part of the Conjuration School. So that leaves room for interpretation at various levels. The once per turn does not.
Thanks for the link.
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
It is my understanding the point of this thread is to have individuals explain their interpretation of a somewhat unclear rule or situation. The assumption is that there is possibly no correct by-the-rules answer. Each person acting as a DM rules on the situation. It is interesting to discover if most rulings are similar, if they yield polar opposite positions, or is everyone just all over the map.
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
What you're describing is the Munchkin Fallacy, the rules don't say I can't so I can. It's nothing new and it even has an established name and following.
S5:
The spell description for Flaming Sphere implies some amount of solidity to the sphere:
- The sphere is only created in an unoccupied space,
- You can move the sphere and "ram" it into a creature,
- The sphere stops when it is "rammed" into a creature (or, presumably, an object),
- The sphere can be directed "over" barriers (but not though barriers), and
- The rules only give mechanics for when creatures are "within 5 feet" of the sphere (not for creatures/objects sharing the space with the sphere).
These things would imply, logically and physically, that:
- Creatures/objects cannot occupy the same space as a Flaming Sphere,
- Creatures/objects cannot pass through a Flaming Sphere,
It is still up to the DM to adjudicate whether someone could squeeze through the edges of the space occupied by the Flaiming Sphere (at the upper and lower corners, since the sphere is spherical) and whether doing so would risk a saving throw (and possible damage), unless the creature gets stopped within 5' of the Flaming Sphere.
E-Tallitnics wrote:
What I'm most interested in seeing is how people adjucate these rules based on what is written in the 5E materials instead of falling back on what was in previous editions. When I responded to the "Flaming Sphere" question, someone else's response mentioned how the spell was described in a previous edition. Mind you, there's nothing wrong with that. But, what I am saying is that when you're at the table playing, you sometimes have to go by what's in the material in front of you and you don't always have the luxury of knowing what was in the previous editions right at that moment. It's one thing if you're already familiar with it (and the poster might have been), but what about when you aren't?
So, I know it might be a benefit to see how people adjucate the rules based on just what it says in the 5E rules only...because that might be all a DM has to work with at the moment. Then if they want, they can add information about how they might adjucate it with further information from previous editions. Seeing how the two contrast each other could be in an eye opener. Don't know if that makes any sense at all. I wouldn't force anyone to do it that way, but it could be helpful to someone if anyone wants to do it in that manner.
I know that's usually how I have to do it when sitting at the table.
Noctaem wrote:
"Remember that you can take only one reaction per round." False, since you could use a reaction both before and after the start of your turn."
Not false. True, because "one round" is measured from the beginning of your turn until the beginning of your next turn. During that period, you may take one and only one reaction.
The problem is that according to the rules for how turns and rounds work in 5e it lists a round as being once every creature has acted a new round begins instead of being how you describe. But other rules seem to alude to exactly what you're saying. So it's not clear. I agree with you though for what it's worth.
terryoc23 wrote:
For what it's worth, Mike Mearls gave me a response on something that seems to indicate the "from your turn to your turn" concept:
@Chimerasame @mikemearls Can a low-init character ready an action, then take that action if legit triggered by a high-init character in the next round?
@mikemearls @Chimerasame Yes
RustedKitsune wrote:
terryoc23 wrote:
Well, one more bit of sloppy work to report to them... They should get on collecting updates and errata that they can update the books with before they print them - and have to release an errata pdf less than 24 hours later.
SCENARIO X!
Adjucate this! Should a person that avoided the playtest for fear of it being a renamed clone of 4E be eligible to make rulings on any situation arising from the 5E rules?
Yes, said person is me.
RustedKitsune wrote:
RustedKitsune wrote:
REMINDER: Please remember to start your posting by referencing the Scenario #.
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
E-Tallitnics wrote:
Scenario 7 (I think...let me know if that's wrong):
The spell Ice Storm has a radius of 20-feet and a 40-foot cylinder centered on a point. What happens if you cast it in a 10x10 room with an 8 foot roof?
ProphetSword wrote:
S7: Basic, page 80: A spell’s effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin. If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn’t included in the spell’s area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover, as explained in chapter 9.
Note: Some spell effects, like Fireball, state, "The fire spreads around corners." That means the effect doesn't rely on the straight lines to affect a creature, but instead simply fills the entire area of effect.
Scenario 8:
Can adventurer's survive a dungeon crawl?
Basic, page 66: Food, a character needs 1 lb. per day. Water, a character needs 1 gallon per day. Note: Basic doesn't include the spells Create Food and Water., nor Purify Food and Drink.
Rations on page 47 state that 1 day is 2 lbs (!?). A wineskin contains 4 pints of water, or a 1/2 gallon, page 49.
Adjuticate THIS! I assume that 1 lb./day is correct, so rations last twice as long as stated on the equipment list. But for water I can only think of somehow trapping Ray of Frost to collect the frost and allow it to melt into water… This is of course assuming that the adventurers can't find potable water in the dungeon.
S8:
It's also assuming that the frost you create with magic melts into water in the first place :p If I was a player I would argue that the magic saps the humidity straight out of the ambient air and freezes it into the Ray of Frost which I then shoot at my target. Yay realism!
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Fun thread thanks to E-Tallitnics for starting it! #YouDaMan
S9: A PC grabs a wooden shard (similar to a spear for exemple) splintered from a broken long table during a tavern brawl and use it as an Improvised Weapon. How would you treat it? Would you only let him apply its proficiency bonus (if proficient with spear for exemple) and deal 1d4 damage or would you let it be used as if it was a spear for all intent and purposes, meaning a thrown versatile weapon dealing 1d6 damage instead?
BR46 Improvised Weapon: Sometimes characters don’t have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is close at hand. An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin. In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM’s option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus. An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet.
S9:
I like to apply the "rule of cool" when I DM. Especially for things like this that are left to me to decide arbitrarily. If a player was to do this I would let him use the splintered shard as an actual spear for a few attacks. I don't think a piece of table should be as resilient as a real spear for example, so it would splinter and eventually break. But for a few attacks it would function as the real deal. Why not?
Plaguescarred wrote:
S9: I heartily agree with Noctæm that for a few rounds, sure. However I'd draw the line at the damage amount and especially an improvised weapon gaining the same weapon properties.
The damage because it doesn't make a sense that a crafted weapon is exactly the same as an improvised one. (However if a character has a sweet background story, say as a cook, and wants their main weapon to be a frying pan, "I'll allow it!" But then it's no longer an improvised weapon, is it?)
The weapon properties simply because of the adverse effect on the local economy! Too many no skill weapons on the market and the next thing you know Mom & Pop smithies are going out of business and IKEA moves in… 
E-Tallitnics wrote:
Makes me remember as a kid when my brother and i would use straw & napkins as improvised blowgun at the restaurant...
Noctaem wrote:
@Leugren
I know this thread has moved on from your post about the dwarf the elf and the troll, but;
You could still claim advantage on the attack if you moved behind the troll and slid out from behind the pillar from that position. I don't think it could be argued that the troll would constantly turn around whilst facing the Dwarf in hand to hand, at least until it took a nasty shot to the kidneys and started moving to cut down your shooting angle. The 'no facing' rules should not penalise tactical play, and there is no de-facto rule saying what I have just said isn't entirely permissable under the rules.
Besides, the cool scene (in either movie) of Perseus and Medusa in the ruined temple wouldn't be possible unless I am right!
I like this thread, let's bring it back up. Something I've been mulling over.
Scenario 10: A player wants to physically hold two or more one-handed items in the same hand. Is it possible? If so, what happens?
For example, a player holding a shield wants to transfer his warhammer into his shield hand in order to free up his main hand. This is not really covered by the rules. Physically, this shouldn't be impossible -- I'm not as strong or dextrous as a typical adventurer, and I can hold ... say... two large brooms, and a folding chair, in the same hand. My fingers're gonna get tired after a while of that but I can definitely last out the equivalent of a few D&D combat rounds. I find it overly gamey to say it's outright impossible to hold two one-handed items in one hand. That said, you're not gonna be able to use them at all when you're doing that. I certainly can't sweep anything, nor could I unfold the chair while the brooms are there.
Here's my thought: (Entirely unsupported by rules, but just my feeling as a ruling): one hand can indeed hold multiple items, but as soon as you do this, you lose the mechanical benefit of those items. At the point that you transfer the warhammer into your shield hand, not only are you ceasing to wield the warhammer, but you're also ceasing to wield the shield as well, and your AC thus drops. You're now simply carrying them.
Also, I'd say it counts as your one free object-use action to transfer the warhammer into your shield hand -- it'd require a real action, a bonus action, or a later turn's free object-use action, to be able to transfer it back to your other hand and thus start wielding the shield again.
Chimerasame wrote:
Great thread! Here's my contribution:
Scenario 11:
You are DMing an adventure taking place in a kobold-infested mine. You are currently running 'theater of the mind' style play. The party's rogue is at the front of the group checking for traps, and though his Passive Perception would be high enough to spot an ambush coming from behind the party, you rule that he is focused on searching for traps and not looking for ambushes. No other party member has a high enough Passive Perception to notice the ambush, so the kobolds get surprise.
The player running the rogue is upset at this outcome, so after the combat, he argues that the group should play this part of the adventure on a map grid (which will also immediately answer questions like 'can I get past the cleric to attack that kobold with the acid bombs?'). You agree, and draw out the map, but the movement on the map is so haphazard with people moving figures everywhere that you call for an initiative order to organize the party's movement. This results in another ambush following the rogue's action where he moves away from the point of ambush toward a distraction created by the kobolds, allowing the kobolds to achieve surprise again when the rogue cannot draw line-of-sight to the ambush point following his move, which triggers another discussion after the combat as to why the party cannot move 'as a coherent unit' and the rest of the group was thus left vulnerable when the rogue moved off toward the distraction (the argument being that the group should have moved together toward the distraction, which would have taken them out of the range of the kobold ambush, thus depriving the kobolds of the benefit of their distraction).
Can you adjudicate either scenario to avoid the rogue player's objections, or do you just have to live with there being some drawback (in the players' minds, anyway) regardless of the style of play you choose?
--
Pauper
If the DM says that the rogue didn't see the ambush coming, that should be good enough. There is no reason for the player who is controlling the rogue to be upset; because, they should have no idea what roll was used to overcome the Passive Perception. The point is to keep that information secret.
In my campaign, when the rogue asks about things like that, I just say: "You didn't see it," and that's usually good enough for him. He understands that the roll may have been higher than his ability to percieve it.
I will also add that if the rogue is ahead of the party looking for things, he isn't likely to see an attack from behind the party coming. So, again, there was no reason for the rogue player to be upset at all.
Chimerasame wrote:
ProphetSword wrote:
S8: Food & Water. Older modules included things like barrels full of water and crates of food throughout a dungeon. Unless the dungeon is comprised entirely of undead or extra planar creatures that don't need water, there will be water and food in your dungeon (or nothing to fight I guess...) A wineskin is plenty for half a day's travel which will get through most dungeons anyway. Crossland you're either filling up along the way at creeks, or carrying casks for water if traveling through drier locales. To reiterate what others said, it's a handwave, until it isn't. Sometimes food and water is an interesting problem to tackle, but not very often. This question is really why the Purify Food and Drink spell exists, this is the sort of stuff that Gygax lived for, killing you in horrible, unforseen, ways...
S3: Goblin ambush at camp. Dim light is ample to hide in. "Bright light" is really a horrible description for a campfire, any time I've been sitting at a fire on a dark night I wouldn't be shocked to see someone walk up fifteen feet from me without even having a clue they were there. Put a couple trees or bushes around and I'd give it to the goblins being able to sneak virtually right up on someone without a problem every time. People cast shadows for that matter, and that's more than enough to hide in. Unless the party is facing away from the campfire expecting ambush (this scenario said they weren't searching) seeing across a fire into a dark night is virtually impossible. Moonlight/cloudcover matters a lot when you're trying to see things at night in the wilderness. A full moon and starry night changes this entire scenario, probably making the difference between everything being Dim Light and around the fire being Bright Light, as opposed to absolute darkness past about 20' and Dim Light. I remember playing hide and seek as a kid at night, it wasn't unusual to be completely hidden in plain sight less than twenty feet from someone. DMs rarely give hiding the credit it deserves, plus, players really enjoy when they're doing the sneaking.
S9: I'd ask the player what they have in mind for it, damage wise. Because I find it tiring the player wants something, but wants me to guess what it is AND give it to them.
S10: 'I find it overly gamey to say it's outright impossible to hold two one-handed items in one hand.'. Sure you can. I find it overly gamey trying to get a mechanical benefit out of insisting something is possible. So there may be absolutely no mechanical benefit from doing so and if you feel like it should go your way, hey, have fun doing it that way when you DM.
S11: Did they all get to move their figures, then the ambush occured? Or was it one of those 'Well, rogue, have your turn - ah! You walked away - ambush happens now!' things? Because you went by turn order rather than the party moving all on the same turn?
I'd figure the distance the rogue keeps from the group and move all units along at the same time, keeping their relative distances to each other.
S11: The rogue is right.
You were doing things in initiative order, thus the kobolds either were in initiative and had readied actions (single action) or they were not in initiative order in which case they'd enter initiative at the top of the order (and thus the rest of the party would get a chance to act before they are aware of the kobolds.)
Basically how you ran it is:
- Kobolds create distraction
- Rogue moves
- Kobolds get surprise round.
Why are the kobolds essentially getting 2 turns before the rest of the party does? The rest of the party absolutely should have had just as much time to react to the distraction as the rogue did (1 turn) UNLESS you treated the Kobolds as being in initiative and are giving them readied actions instead of a surprise round.
EDIT: Reread the scenario - my comments above refer to the 2nd portion of it. The first portion of it - you were absoloutely right.
S10: As others have said - I'd always allow them to hold multiple items in the same hand if it makes sense to do so (weapon + shield is no problem) but none of them are wielded or equipped. Remember that you can only manipulate one object per turn, so that shield and that weapon are essentially useless for the entire turn until they use their free 'manipulate object' next turn to fix it.
Continued discussion of Scenario 11:
E-Tallitnics wrote:
S11 - the cleric should have finished his move if he was the one that triggered it by being heard. If he made noise during his turn (presumably his movement) that turn should have ended before the surprise round started. Either that, or the kobolds should have noticed the players before anyone moved if they could sense the cleric without him having to move at all.
Other than that, based on the new information you provided, I think the way you handled it was correct. I probably would have allowed the rest of the party to move (The 'full turn') before I started the surprise round - but both ways of handling it work.
The only thing is - if they were actually readied actions (as you described in your latest post) that's a whole separate thing. A readied action is not a suprise round, but a single action. Then you would be 100% correct to trigger them before the cleric finished their turn, but it would only be one action (an attack or a move) rather than a full round. Then they would assume their normal place in initiative and the cleric would be able to change their turn to react to the new situation.
No matter how I look at it - the Rogue has a valid point and you have a valid point. 50/50 so to speak. You are asking the right questions to figure out what works best for handling a similar situation in the future!
It seems like the expectations for both you as DM and the players as a whole, the 'theatre of mind' method works best, and the tactical movement mode just confuses things. (For me, and my group, it's the opposite.) I think the best take-away you can get from this experience is stick with what you are comfortable with even if it creates a disadvantage occasionally because both methods have their pros and cons.
EDIT: In all honesty 'We move together as a group" is mechanically everyone saying "I ready an action to move when the Rogue moves". This would all happen before the suprise round, however if the kobolds actually had specifc, declared readied actions it would be up to you to decide in what order the readied actions all happen. This, however, is more complicated than it is worth for most DMs - it's how I do it because that's how my brain works.
Pauper wrote:
S12: A cleric turns undead, like a lot of undead, say 7 zombies. They then run for ten turns through your carefully constructed dungeon, warning other encounters, setting off traps, and generally making a mess of things. Assuming they carry out their initial orders, they come back twenty turns later.
This feels like a logistics nightmare and happened to me tonight. Fortunately it was outdoors and their leader (Hamun Koth for those playing Phandelver) was happy to run with them, but I can see this happening again in a dungeon and it quickly becoming virtually impossible to adjudicate looking at the myriad ways things could run through a complex dungeon.
S12: Depends - why haven't the zombies already set off traps near them as they lurch around the dungeon? If the zombies know the right way, from the text it seems like once they are thirty feet from the cleric they are free to sensibly dash and not just a blind panic dash.
Unless you split up the mob it doesn't seem that hard and if any intelligent monsters see zombies dashing past, perhaps they'll go hide for an ambush (though they may get bored after an hour of it and stop if nothing turns up by then). That doesn't seem too hard to work out.
S12 - I agree with Noon.
shivafang wrote:
but I was walking slowly
Sherman wrote:
S13: Concerning Druids, the 5e PH states (under Proficiencies): "Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)
However there are no attached penalties with "will not".
How would you adjudicate this?
S12: Opening a door isn't an action. My bigger issue than setting off traps even is them running through your entire dungeon and then coming back a couple minutes later with the next four encounters in tow. A more reasonable wording would involve them fleeing out of sight or to where they are safe. For them to keep running is what weirds me out, just makes for a challenging dungeon build. Undead are typically the dungeon minion I use to make sure that encounters are more set piece and not part of a "living" location where creatures communicate and work together. This rule seems to send undead for help.
E-Tallitnics wrote:
E-Tallitnics wrote:
S13: This topic is too much in dispute to cover here - view the 5 page discussion here;
http://community.wizards.com/forum/rules-questions/threads/4122946
I personally rule that this is a proficiency thing only, as the "won't" rule only appears in the proficiency line, and the table on page 48 also shows they are not proficient with non-metal armour. However, this is not the only opinion.
S14: A player wishes to drop prone, in such a situation that it does not seem like it would impose Disadvantage on attack rolls. (For example, a sniper with a crossbow could fire quite easily when lying down.)
- Do not impose the disadvantage from dropping prone (allowing advantage from stealth, if applicable, to apply fully)
- By RAW, impose the disadvantage from dropping prone (allowing the advantage from stealth, if applicable, to merely cancel it out)
- Do one of these things but only in certain circumstances (e.g. only with specific weapons perhaps)
I looked through to see if there was a feat saying something like "Being Prone does not cause you to have disadvantage on attack rolls," but unless my reading comprehension failed, I saw no such feat. I feel like that should exist (although it's quite low-powered by itself so it ought to combine with one or two other things, like +1 dex, ability to tumble through spaces, somethin' like that.)
S14: I think that attack rolls while intentionally prone (as opposed to lying flat on your back because you got knocked down) with a crossbow could be called not disadvantageous, sure. But I can't think of any other weapon type which would not suffer from being prone, so I'd say ONLY that specific family.
S14: Ideally I'd only allow it if their prone position is from a height advantage, or some other terrain positioning that makes sense as a sniper position. I played a character like this in 4e, and he had quite the feat/equipment investment in being this type of sniper... So I'd definately prefer hand-waving rules for the player as long as they are putting consistant thought into their positioning.
S15: Wraith Damage.
My Druid had 11 HP when he Wild Shaped into a giant spider form which has an average HP of 26. His max Druid HP is 18 at 3rd level. He took damage that left him at 7 HP.
He took 19 damage from the Wraith. Which cannot be healed until a long rest.
If he returns to normal shape, what happens to the 19 points of Wraith damage?
E-Tallitnics wrote:
E-Tallitnics wrote:
A 3rd level Druid can't shape change into a giant spider. 8th level minimum.
El_Condoro wrote:
Well, his DM did allow it, so it might be a hard sell! I would just say he reverts and goes unconscious - from the damage and also from doing something that is beyond his abilities!
If you wanted to carry the damage over and were willing to break from the RAW in an attempt to be faithful conceptually to the distinct ideas of life drain's max hp damage on one hand and the effects of wild shaping on hp on the other, perhaps you could convert the max hp damage into a percentage. That is, as a spider, the max hp was reduced by 73%, so in subsequent forms, max hp would be reduced by that amount (in regular non-beast form, the max hp would be 5 until healed). Or, alternatively, houserule that the enduring effect of life drain is that when the druid reverts to non-beast, he doesn't heal any hp, so his max hp remains 7.
The other solutions are either a) the effect ends when the wildshape ends b/c the reversion to the old max hp supercedes the effect of the wraith's life drain, or
b) the druid dies if it reverts back to non-beast form.
Ruling a seems preferable to ruling b (besides ruling a being more faithful to the wording of the rules, ruling b doesn't make sense to me -- why would being drained of around three-quarters of one's life translate to being drained of >100% of one's life, especially since hp are an abstraction in the first place?), so I would consider the above houserulings if you wanted a grittier life drain effect that transcended wildshape but wasn't facially absurd.
El_Condoro wrote:
Because a giant spider is CR 1 and druids can't do that until level 8.
El_Condoro wrote:
Correct. Sorry - I missed that on p. 69 of PHB. I've learned something today.
S16: Spell preparation and "Prepare Slots" (RAW!).
There is an argument about this in the Simple Q&A thread:
1) When is a Prepared Slot empty,
2) When can a Prepared Slot be filled.
(RAW!)
Adjudicate This!
S16: the relevant text:
"You can change your list of prepared spells when you finish a long rest. Preparing a new list of wizard spells requires time spent studying ..."
The first sentence implies that you cannot change your list of prepared spells at any time, only when you finish a long rest.
The second sentence implies that emptying a slot takes no time (by virtue of not being mentioned) while memorizing a spell to fill a slot takes a specific amount of time.
Adding or removing something from a list is by definition changing that list. Which means that in this case, you can only add or remove spells when you finish a long rest.
To fill an empty preparation slot in the middle of the day, you must violate that first sentence.
S16: RAW 5E seems to requires 1 minute per spell level for each spell on your list when changing your list of prepared spells, this wether the list gets fully or partially changed according to the last sentence. I don't adjucate it that way when DMing though, i have the wizard spend 1 minute per spell level for each spell on his list that was actually changed and not 1 minute per spell level for each spell on your list like it says.
SilentSin wrote:
Plaguescarred4 wrote:
guachi wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Kalani wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
I edited my original comment, seeing as it was apparently "confusing".
How large a window is just after finishing the long rest? 5 minutes? 20 minutes? 2 days? The answer is as long a window as it takes to prepare your spells to make a full list of prepared spells.
Bloodscythe wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
Kalani wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Nothing in the rules says you have to remove all the spells you no longer want and then add the spells you do want.
The entirety of the text of PHB114 that is relevant is You can change your list of prepared spells when you finish a long rest. Preparing a new list of wizard spells requires time spent studying your spellbook and memorizing the incantations and gestures you must make to cast the spell: at least 1 minute per spell level for each spell on your list.
As others have said, the text seems to indicate that if you change even one spell that you have to rememorize the entire list. But nowhere in those two sentences does it say that you first remove and then add.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
guachi wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Ultimately - this "issue" falls under "situations the rules do not cover". As such, it falls to the DM to make a ruling which works at their table, and therefore - there is only one CORRECT answer:
- Ask your DM
@Bloodscythe: We get it. Honestly, the participants of this thread understand your PoV very clearly - we simply do not share it. At this point, I think it is fair to say that this thread has devolved to the point where you are bludgeoning everyone who disagrees with your PoV into submission. Lighten up man, its just a game - and from what I can tell - you aren't a troll, but are simply someone with a very strong and vocal opinion. I would hate for you to get labeled as a troll because you simply cannot let an issue drop.
We are entitled to have a difference of opinion (which is what this issue largely boils down to). Let it go man, its all cool. Believe it or not, we are actually trying to be helpful - and have tried to give you suggestions how to deal with the "percieved problem" that you are facing. I am sincerely sorry that nobody here shares your interpretation of the rules, and so you feel "alone" - but that is no reason to beat us into submission with your interpretation. We get it, and you are welcome to your interpretation.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Kalissa_Marshall wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
Kalani wrote:
On the upside, this is the "Adjudicate THIS!" thread. So given the ambiguity in the rule, there is more than enough room to fit all of our interpretations.
guachi wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Kalissa_Marshall wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Can =/= Will
We are inferring that a DM can take whatever course of action furthers the story/plot, and that they should, without fear of being held hostage by a beligerant player.
We are not saying the DM will take this course of action, only that they might. If they do, we are saying they should use this sparingly in order to prevent coming across as an adversarial DM.
Only you are arguing from an absolute point of view. Stop claiming you can hold your DM hostage and dictate to them how they run their adventures. This is one of those situations the rules do not cover - and therefore one that falls squarely within the realm of DM adjudication.
No amount of rules-lawyering will win you this argument because the rules are 100% silent on the issue - making your stance no better/worse than anyone elses. This is a DM call (even in organized play), and nothing you can do or say will change that fact.
The one rule you seem to be forgetting is Wheaton's Law.
Don't be a Jerk. It applies to everyone (DM included).
Kalani wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
The basic rules' wording is different from the PHB. They invalidate my interpretation. The wording suggests it IS a list of "spells I'm going to prepare". You first select your full complement of spells you want on the list of prepared spells. The list is instantly changed from the old list to the new list. However, you don't have access to the new spells until you memorize them.
So it works something like:
magic missile..., web..., fireball. is my list from the day before. I finish a long rest and I select a number of spells equal to my level + ability modifier: magic missile..., web..., lightning bolt. This is now my new list. The list is completed instantly when finishing a long rest, but not all the spells on the list can be cast yet. Any spells on this new list that were on the previous list are already prepared and can be cast. And any new spells must be memorized before they can be cast, so they're kinda in a state of flux until they are actually memorized... they're on the list but not castable.
Bloodscythe wrote:
So I asked Rodney on twitter what happens when a wizard is interrupted when memorizing by something like combat or having to flee. This is the response I got back, and part of it surprised me a bit.
@wotc_rodney: @Orethalion The wizard retains the same prepares spells from the day before.
@wotc_rodney: @Orethalion Alternatively, as DM you could allow the player to change some spells, but not all.
I hadn't considered the possibility that nothing gets changed.
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
As I see it the rule is open to interpretation by the DM, personally I would see it as abuse if the wizard somehow benefits from both spell lists i.e. waking up casting mage armor, contingency, a concentration spell lasting X hours and then preparing new spells.
A bit less so if he gets attacked and uses spells he actually is planning to replace a bit after.
For simplicity's sake I'd probably rule that once you start preparing you wipe the spells you are going to change, and cant decide to change your selection at any time of the day.
So having prepared :
magic missile, shield, mage armor
rope trick, scorcing ray
fireball
You wake up and decide you are going to replace rope trick and mage armor with invisibility and burning hands. Once you say you start preparing that is fixed (note that long rest itself is flexible in duation and allows for 2 hours of light activity). So you drink a cup of coffee have aa sandwich and pull out your reading glasses and start to study for a bit. At this point you forget the spells that are going to be replaced.
So you get attacked before finishing 3 minutes of studying (maybe some bandits see the secretive wizard wander away from the party) you can not use mirror image and mage armor, but the restof your spells are good to go. Afterwardsyou can decide to take the rest of the time studying or move away at your option and finish later but you can't change the chosen spells.
Bloodscythe wrote:
EzechielDantan wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
posineg wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
EzechielDantan wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not know the difference
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
So to summarize, you're saying you change your spell list within a variable window of time beginning when you finish a long rest and ending when... you memorize all of the new spells. But the process can be interrupted because... because you say so. You're stating the unspoken "interruption" clause exists by virtue of the wording "when you finish a long rest", and anything happening between finishing your long rest and preparing the list constitutes interruption, but the rules don't say that either. So we could apply the rules from long rest to extrapolate what can interrupt the process, but I'd imagine if the same stuff that interrupts a long rest can interrupt spell preparation, the designers of the game might have included that in the rule, like they did in the rules for a long rest.
So I'm adding restrictions and words to spell preparation by claiming you have to remove spells first then memorize new spells, but you're not adding restrictions or words to spell preparation by saying the process can be interrupted?
Long rests can be interrupted. The rules say so. There is nothing within the wording for spell preparation that says it can be interrupted, what can interrupt it, or what happens if it is interrupted. Since it doesn't say, the DM decides. I decided the process can't be interrupted.
I agree, I wouldn't want a situation where a wizard has removed spells but didn't have time to replace them... so I didn't insert an imaginary "interruption" clause into the rules for spell preparation. The wizard changes his list, then memorizes spells until the list is fully prepared. You don't like the rule? Don't play at my table.
I'm basing it on the words in the text...
You prepare the list of spells that are available for you to cast. To do so, select a number of spells from your spellbook equal to your intelligence modifier + your wizard level.
When you finish a long rest, you can change your list of prepared spells. "To do so, select a number of spells from your spellbook equal to your intelligence modifier + your wizard level."
Preparing the new list requires time spent studying your spellbook and memorizing incantations and gestures...at least 1 minute per spell level.
don't see anything in there about interruption. I don't see anything in there about requiring at least 1 minute per spell level [uninterrupted].
So when you finish your long rest you make a new list, then you spend time to memorize the list. That's how I rule, that's what the book says to me. Admittedly, I initially didn't require a wizard to select their list immediately upon finishing a rest... instead I allowed them to build the list as they memorized spells, but that isn't supported by the text since you have to select the list of spells first.
So to bring the meta game into it, here's how this typically occurs at my table:
The player playing the wizard erases marks from spells he wants to get rid of. The wizard forgets these spells. The character sits down to memorize spells that are added to the list.. the player starts marking new spells as his character memorizes them. Uh oh! Random encounter based on dice rolls.. process interrupted but the character doesn't have a full list of prepared spells. Combat ensues and the wizard can only cast spells that are currently marked. The player resumes "memorizing spells" by marking spells on his character sheet until he marks all the spells the rules allow explicitly.
Another alternatve could be:
Player wants to change his list so he erases the marks beside the spells he wants to get rid of and marks the new spells... but just after changing the list, a random encounter is rolled, but the character wouldn't have had enough time to memorize the new spells so the changes could not have been completed... so now we have a wizard having a spell list with spells the wizard didn't have time to memorize. This method doesn't work. The list can only be changed following memorization of spells if you allow for interruption of the process. But the rules don't say you change the list after memorizing new spells or as you memorize new spells... the rules say you can change the list when you finish a long rest, which the player's character did. So the character meets the condition to change the list, but doesn't meet the condition for preparing the spells, which actually change the list... seems contradictory. I consider "when you finish a long rest" to mean when the characters break camp. But seems a wizard would have to wait until after memorizing spells before they can break camp... it's hard to explore a dungeon or traverse woods or ride a horse while studying.
Another alternate (extrapolated from the above example) could be:
Player wants to change his list so he erases the marks from spells he doesn't want and marks the new spells and tells me how long his character has to spend to memorize the spells and at the end of that time is when the long rest ends. Afterall, the rules say the list is potentially changed when you finish a long rest. This could imply that spell preparation starts before the long rest ends, and concludes exactly when the long rest does. If combat or other interruption occurs during a long rest, the long rest must be started over to gain its benefits, which would mean spell preparation though interrupted along with the long rest, will simply commence when the rest is started over, concluding when the long rest ends.
Another alternate could be (I'll call this one Rodney's Rule):
Player says he wants to change his list but the list doesn't change until the required length of time passes without interruption. I roll dice to see if anything interrupts the characters. If something occurs, the wizard can't change their spell list despite the rules saying the list can be changed following a long rest, only requiring time and a spellbook to do so and is stuck with their previous list... better luck tomorrow. But, I don't like screwing players like that. It's kinda like saying to a player of a fighter that since something interrupted his character while he was grabbing his gear, that despite being newly attuned to a new set of magical armor and a awesome new flame tongue sword, he's stuck using the chain mail and mundane longsword from the day before. The game is supposed to be fun. I don't see the fun in screwing over the wizard with a nonexistent interruption rule. Keep in mind, this approach, since levelling is typically done during downtime, which can include a long rest, could prevent a wizard from memorizing new potentially higher level spells gained from levelling.
Another alternate could be (I'll call this Rodney's Alt Rule):
Player says he wants to change his list and selects new spells and I roll dice to see if there is any sort of interruption... if there is, I now have to roll to see how much time occured between ending the long rest and the interruption so the player can know how many spell levels his character memorized... or I can just arbitrarily invent an amount of time. This method leaves the player with a mixture of the list he had the day before and part of the list he wants for the new day. It's not ideal, but at least he's not working with an incomplete spell list. If I were to go with a method that assumes spell preparation can be interrupted, I'd go with this one.
Do you suppose the rules for interrupting a long rest mean:
1) 1 hour of [walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity]
or
2) [1 hour of walking], or any length of time of fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring...
or
3) some other interpretation entirely.
So if the assumption is that the RAW means 1, and a long rest can only be interrupted if an hour of strenuous activity occurs during it, would it also be reasonable to assume that spell preparation can only be interrupted if an hour of strenuous activity occurs during it? If that's the case, a wizard would be able to start memorizing spells, and as long as an interruption is only brief, could resume memorizing spells afterward... Of course, I also think it's reasonable to say that changing your list can't be cancelled since the rules don't say anything about spell preparation interruption.
Thoughts?
SilentSin wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
Kalani wrote:
So could spell preparation be interrupted in previous editions? Why the assumption the process can be interrupted? Seems a leap in logic. The rules don't say it can be interrupted, so why insist that it's RAW that it can be interrupted.
And yes, an hour of spell casting would be a LOT of spells, but the interruption isn't just spell casting... it's a cumulative hour of adventurous activity. Walking, running, climbing, fighting, casting, etc. If you spend an hour or more during your 8 hour long rest, you must restart the long rest. And unlike the rules for spell preparation, the rules actually say long rests can be interrupted, and what happens if they are interrupted.
Your conjecture on spell preparation interruption is based on what?
Kalani wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
E-Tallitnics wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Whoa. I saw this thread and was "O, cool. I want to join in on helping adjudicate!"
Did this super-great idea REALLY devolve into another RAW bickerfest? Holy crud. I hate to say it, but this makes me embarassed for our community. It's one thing to argue rule interpretations on a rule interpretation thread... but this is very plainly "I'll give a scenario, and you tell me how you would adjudicate."
Ugh. Depressed.
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Let it be known that this is the last post of troll Bloodscythe's I will ever read. *plonk* into the kill filter.
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
S17: Wand of the War Mage, as worded in the DMG:
(requires attunement by a spellcaster)
While holding this wand, you gain a bonus to spell attack rolls...
Can a character gain the benefit of two at the same time, providing a +6 bonus to spell attack rolls so long as the spellcaster is holding two wands and attuned to both of them?
Can a character gain the benefit of three?
Personally, I'd have issue with a character holding three wands at the same time, either 3 in one hand, or 1 in a hand and 2 in the other... I'd limit the character to only one wand per hand maximum, if the character wishes to channel spells through the focus. If however the character is simply picking up objects, and not trying to attack with them, I'd allow picking up multiple wands, so for purposes of gaining the bonus, as long as the spellcaster is attuned to both, I'd allow a +6 bonus to spell attacks.
I can see where someone might think this is overpowered, but at the same time, characters can only attune to 3 magical items, so it's a very limited resource. The spellcaster gives up an attunement slot for a +3 attack boost.
Would you allow a thri-kreen or any other example of PC with more than 2 arms to be able to attune to 3 at the same time and gain all three bonuses for a +9 to their spell attack rolls?
Adjudicate this!
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Kalani clearly stated that she was posting a famous quote and not actually calling bloodscythe a fool. Bloodscythe then tries to victimize himself anyway. Um ok. If that was in reference to my response to Kalani's post, well guess what buddy, you're a stubborn person. So much so in fact that those you were talking with see no further point to continue the discussion with you! I mean that's not what I would call something to be proud of..
And actually, that quote is not from Mark Twain. I believe it's also misattributed to George Carling but I believe it comes from Proverbs 26:4 "When arguing with fools, don't answer their foolish arguments, or you will become as foolish as they are."
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
The specific version I was quoting was Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) - however given how he was a self-educated man, he may have simply made famous an ill-remembered passage from proverbs. Either way, most people attribute Twain to being the source of the quote (if he wasn't he was the one who made it famous).
And no, I was not directing it toward anyone - I was simply shrugging my shoulders at the back and forth arguments that were devolving
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
randl wrote:
randl wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
S18: What about a monk benefiting from an animated shield while it's activated... can they use unarmored defense to determine their AC in this case since they are neither holding, nor wielding the shield, but they would be using a shield... thoughts?
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
2 wands should not be an issue, as most wands require an action to activate (limiting it to one/turn as a rule), and also frequently require attunement (usually by a spellcaster). Both the attunement and action requirements limit the abusiveness of magic wands, staffs, rods, and other functionally similar items.
The only "abusive" issue (if you can call it that) - is that having multiple spell-granting items grants the character a number of virtual spell slots, allowing them to cast more spells/day. While this could theoretically allow the spellcaster to go longer without rest, it affords no such benefit to the rest of the party. As such, it will usually result in the spellcaster casting more spells/encounter, which can easily be accounted for as part of encounter design.
Orethalion wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
S19: A 20th lvl strength based fighter comes to a chasm, and on the other side are goblins that are shooting arrows his way. The chasm is too far to jump across, so the fighter decides to use thrown weapons... he has at his disposal a dozen daggers, a couple of javelins, and a spear. He is currently holding a spear and a shield. Being 20th lvl, this fighter has 4 attacks per attack action.
It is his turn and the fighter takes the attack action:
Attack 1: throws the spear.
Attack 2: draws and throws a dagger.
Attack 3: ... does the fighter continue to draw daggers or can he not make a 3rd attack since he can only interact with one object for free during his turn?
Follow-up question: would this same fighter be able to draw and throw javelins just as easily as drawing and throwing daggers? Would you rule the same way regardless of the thrown weapon being used?
S18
1 - The Monk ability Unarmored Defense and Unarmored Movement say that you get those abilities "while you are wearing no armor and not wielding a shield."
2 - The Animated Shield says, as noted, that it will leap into the and hover in your space to "protect you as if you were wielding it".
From those two wordings, what sticks out more than anything is the "as if" verbiage. However, we should examine the shield rules, as well:
3 - Shields are carried in one hand. "Wielding a shield increases your Armor Class by 2. You can benefit from only one shield at a time."
So the rules for shields require you wield it for the AC increase. Go back to the Animated Shield line. It protects you AS IF you were wielding it. So you are technically not wielding it, but it protects as if you were. Since you can only benefit from one shield at a time (notice that it doesn't say "You can only wield one shield at a time") you cannot use a second shield.
My first hunch at reading this question was "That's just a loophole!" but I believe the wording is actually quite particular. I believe the wording on the basic shield description was exact, since it not only mentioned that you use a shield by holding it in one hand, but that you get the protection by wielding. I believe that the power of the Animated Shield protects as if -- but doesn't require -- wielding. Hence, the magic shield is a specific > general ruling.
Lastly, in case you think this overpowers the monk: They are not proficient in shields, so in order to use this properly, you would need to either multiclass or use a feat -- both of which are sizable payoffs -- and you would need a very rare magic item. That's not only a semi-steep price to pay, but that shield won't even pop up very often.
I would LOVE feedback on this. It seems to click very well in my mind, but sometimes things aren't always what they see.
At any rate, my ruling: the Animated Shield will work in conjunction with the monk Unarmored abilities.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Plaguescarred4 wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
In respect to Mike's hex ruling, he retracted it about a week later stating he was in error (at which point he provided the correct ruling). I for one was appreciative that he was willing to admit his mistake and correct it. My point was simply that Mike does not claim to be the "rules authority". That job goes to Jeremy (whose job was to oversee rules development).
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Plaguescarred4 wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Plaguescarred4 wrote:
Plaguescarred4 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Plaguescarred4 wrote:
Plaguescarred4 wrote:
Did Jeremy ever respond?
Bloodscythe wrote:
nah... he has made a lot of replies in the past couple of weeks. Face it, he's just not that into you... 
