(This space reserved for FAQ.)
Please all you awesome D&D fans, fill up this thread with what you think will be frequently asked questions, along with the answers if you have them.
1. Does unarmored Defense stack with Mage Armor? No, each offer an alternate method to calculate your AC value as opposed to being a bonus.
2. Can i take a reaction on my own turn? Yes.
3. Can i jump further than my speed with Boots of Striding and Springing?
Q. Where are the cheetos?
A. They're right next to you.
Q. Where's the Mountain Dew?
A. It's in the fridge, duh!
Plaguescarred wrote:
How does Halfing's Lucky interact with (dis)advantage?
mellored wrote:
Could someone help me to understand ECL in D&D please? I am creating a Wemic barbarian who has an ECL of 8 + class level. How much experience do I need to get Uncanny Dodge? I am starting the game as lv 1 or ECL 9. For the level prerequisites, do I go by ECL or actual level? If it goes by my actual level, does that mean I need to get 45K xp to get Uncanny dodge? Also.... I get a racial hit die of 5d8, does that mean I start with the 5d8 + the d12 for barbarians? Please help with my ECL questions. My DM and I are both a little confused about it.
HDKnight wrote:
TheLyons wrote:
Death Saving Throws
-When you roll a 20 on your death saving throw, you gain 1 hit point. It seems that the rule now, is that you do not automatically jump up to 0 hit points and THEN receive healing. Is this correct? Does rolling a 20 mean you are AT 1 hit point and are also stable, or is it that if you are dying and at -6, that rolling a 20 bumps your HP up to -5?
Sands666 wrote:
From Pg. 76:
"Falling Unconscious: If damage reduces you to 0 hit points and fails to kill you, you fall unconscious (see the appendix). This unconsciousness ends if you regain any hit points."
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Sands666 wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Does taking a Ready reaction change your initiative order in combat? Or is it just something that gets done immediately when the trigger occurs and then the initiative order is resumed?
According to the cover rules on p. 74 a target can get half cover if a friend of the attacker is in the way. The obstacle might be a ... creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend.
e.g. an archer fires at an enemy that is in combat with an ally and the ally is partially blocking the target.
If the attack misses, does it follow that there is a chance it hits the friend and, if so, what sort of chance should be applied?
Or is this just a case of the DM makes it up on the spot?
El_Condoro wrote:
I have a question about Disengage.
On page 72 of the Basic Rules it talks about the disengage action and that you can do it to avoid attacks of opportunity but it does not say HOW you take the disengage action. Then again on page 74 under opportunity attacks, it says that you can take the disengage action to avoid an opportunity attack but again it does not say HOW you take the disengage action.
I know how this rule worked in the Play Test but I do not want to assume that it works the same in the official rules.. If no one can find an answer I will just use the Play Test rules until a clarification comes out.
redspieder wrote:
redspieder wrote:
Okay, I was looking at it wrong. You are right you take the disengage action and then your movement action will not provoke. Thanks. Again I had the play test stuck in my head and was expecting something more like that.
Do the rules for rounding down still apply when regaining spent Hit Dice when taking a long rest at an odd level? If so, how do you regain spent Hit Dice at level 1?
El_Condoro wrote:
SeanCaruso wrote:
These came up today:
Q1: What happens if a creature is invisible but not hidden?
A1: You know where the creature is, can attack it without guessing its location, but because you cannot see it you take disadvantage to its attack rolls and it takes advantage to attack you.
Q2: Are you automatically hidden when you are invisible?
A2: No. Unless you use the stealth action to "hide," creatures detect your general location via sound and/or clues. If you use actions to hide while you are invisible, whether creatures are aware of your location or not will depend on your stealth check and the perception check made by creatures in your area.
Q3: Then what is the benefit of the level 14 rogue blindsense ability?
A3: It lets you automatically detect all hidden creatures within a 10 foot radius--basically, your passive perception check to detect hidden creatures within a 10 foot radius has an infinitely high value, and nothing can hide from you within that radius.
EDITED: To match a Mike Mearls response to Q3, which was a little different then my original A3.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
On page 94 of the Basic Rules .pdf the spell "Inflict Wounds" says that it deals 3d10 necrotic damage (provided you suceed at a melee spell attack). This seems absurdly high for a first level spell. My gut says that it's a typo and only supposed to be 1d10 (which isn't shabby at all for a first level spell, but does require a melee spell attack).
kasday wrote:
Q4: Does drinking potion and expending charges for rod/staff/wand/rings etc... use the Use an Object action? (Ref rogue's Cunning Action + Fast Hand)
Q5: Does Overchannel can be used with cantrip? If so, is there any adverse effect?
Q6: Does Empowered Evocation benefit all damage rolls of spells with multiple damage rolls such as Magic Misssile?
Dethangels_Shadow wrote:
Sands666 wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
TheLyons wrote:
Sands666 wrote:
Asking this over here as well.
Mainly this is just to confirm that hp works the way I think it does. If I create a 3rd level fighter (with a con mod of +3) I first start out with 13 hp, then add 1d10+3 (or 9) for second then 1d10+6 (or 12) for 3rd for a total of (using the averages) 34 hp. Correct?
My confusion comes from the phrasing that characters gain hit dice +con mod per level after 1st, which seems to mean the con mod bonus is constantly increasing, so a +3 bonus at level 2, +6 at 3, +9 at 4 ect. But this get's to be a little crazy when the bonus gets up to +54 and I'm not sure that is the intent
Plaguescarred wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
Okay thank you for the quick response
E-Tallitnics wrote:
Does rolling a 20 on a ranged spell attack double the spell damage, or do criticals only apply to weapon attacks?
grimnirs_might wrote:
ProphetSword wrote:
Well I can say for sure that it isnt 20d6+80, you never double static damage on a crit. As to criting on a magical attack, I dont see anything in the basic rules that says you shouldnt be able to.
The_Planar_Shepard wrote:
Q: If you are hiding, can you move stealthily (as long as you cannot be seen) and remain hidden?
Q: If so, can an invisible hidden attacker move stealthily about the area and not give away his location?
The_Planar_Shepard wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
E-Tallitnics wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
The_Planar_Shepard wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
I think I missed something with ranged weapons.
It doesn't mention that the [short/long]bows are finesse weapons. Can anyone provide clarity on if these can be used with Dex (which would make sense) for attack, and possibly damage?
himrin wrote:
ProphetSword wrote:
E-Tallitnics wrote:
How exactly does class equipment work do pick one from each bullet point or just one option from one bullet point?
BlazingFenrir wrote:
Nyarlathotep5150 wrote:
Q: Can spell attacks count as an "Attack" from "Actions in combat" on pages 71-72 or do they always follow "Cast a spell" rules?
Why it matters: "Making an attack" on page 73 makes it very clear that a spell attack is an attack. "Extra attack" on page 25 gives you an extra attack when you take the Attack action. It is not very clear if you can combine a cantrip with extra attack. Without multiclassing this might still be relevant for a High elf with Ray of frost, Fire bolt or Shocking grasp. I do not think a single use of either of those spells before level 5 is more powerful than a single weapon attack, but at level 5 the cantrips also start scaling and might end up being stronger than a single weapon attack.
Options I can see:
a) Spells always count as "Cast a spell action" and never as an "Attack action", so Extra attack can never apply.
b) Spells might count as taking an "Attack action", but the casting time is more specific than Extra attack so you still cannot make another attack.
c) Attack spells work with Extra attack, but you can still only cast one spell during a single action. In this case a spell attack and a weapon attack might be combined.
d) Extra attack allows you to make more than one spell attack during an action.
I hope that c) is the case.
Spellcasting use the Cast a Spell action, not the Attack action.
Be3Al2 wrote:
Thanks! That is the way I thought, but there was enough ambiguiety to make me think it could become a FAQ.
a) Regarding light conditions: can you hide only in heavily obscured areas? not in lightly obscured areas?
b) A monster with darkvision will make impossible to hide in a darkness area, correct?
c.) Looking for a hidden foe is a search action, right?
A) Yes, as you can't hide from creature seeing you.
B) Correct, unless you can find a way to be heavily obscured by something as well.
C) Yes.
daedel wrote:
daedel wrote:
You definatly cant use the hide action to hide in a lightly obscured area (without some special ability). But it is possible that you can hide in a heavily obscured area, and then move to a place that is lightly obscured and stay hidden. We just dont have the details on this in the basic rules (exactly when "you are seen" and what that means are not clearly defined).
One thing I saw that some new 5e players missed: "At the end of the battle, you can recover half your expended ammunition by taking a minute to search the battlefield."
Q: Can Heroes' Feast really not affect yourself? It says "up to twelve other creatures".
Q: Globe of Invulnerability's description says "such a spell can target creatures and objects within the barrier, but the spell has no effect on them". What implications does targetting cratures have if ithas no effect on them?
Q: What happens if you conjure a Guardian of Faith within 10 feet of a creature? Does it attack immediately or only if that creature moves within range?
Q: Why does Flame Strike not affect objects?
Q: Is there any way to notice an Arcane Eye?
DonEsteban wrote:
DonEsteban wrote:
Good point.
E-Tallitnics wrote:
E-Tallitnics wrote:
What happens when a character is underwater and gets knocked unconscious? Basic, pg 65 states this:
Suffocating
A creature can hold its breath for a number of minutes
equal to 1 + its Constitution modifier (minimum of
30 seconds).
When a creature runs out of breath, it can survive for
a number of rounds equal to its Constitution modifier
(minimum 1 round). At the start of its next turn, it drops
to 0 hit points and is dying.
For example, a creature with a Constitution of 14 can
hold its breath for 3 minutes. If it starts suffocating, it
has 2 rounds to reach air before it drops to 0 hit points.
I assume when it goes unconscious, it goes out of breath. So it would survive for as many rounds as they have a CON mod, or until it fails 3 death saves, whichever comes first?
In my game last night, I had 3 characters underwater, one of which was a Warforged so he didn'th have to worry about drowning. The other 2 both had a +2 CON modifier. So, I had them roll death saves every round (for the potential 20, or 1) but neither of them did. So after 2 rounds, I said they were dead. Was this how it is supposed to work?
raistlinrox wrote:
obsid wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
raistlinrox wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
raistlinrox wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
awogaman wrote:
He had been bitten and clawed to unconsciousness by the dragon underwater. So, he had no fear of the drowning, but he was still pretty much out of reach of everyone else and failed 3 death saves.
raistlinrox wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Question that came up while reading the rules:
From p. 67, Core Rules:
"At the end of a long rest, a character recovers all lost hit points. The character also regains spent Hit Dice, up to a number of dice equal to the character's total number of them."
So does this mean that first-level characters can't recover spent Hit Dice? Because half of 1, rounded down (as we are told to do rather early in the rules) is zero...
CodeRonin wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Thanks for the clarification, I must have been thinking of his response when I suggested the same solution. I couldn't find the quote from Mike Mearls to check earlier.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
houftie wrote:
mellored wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
obsid wrote:
obsid wrote:
@Chaosmancer
Level 1: 13 hp
Level 2: 13+(1d10+3) hp, average of 21
Level 3: 13+(2d10+6) hp, average of 30
Level 4: 13+(3d10+9) hp, average of 38
You get the CON bonus once for each level. You read it as +HD/lvl plus +CON bonus/lvl, but it is +(HD+CON)/lvl.
(Many made a similar error in earlier editions when a spell said it deals "1d8 +1 per level" damage. They interpreted it as 6d8+6 at 6th level, when it really meant 1d8+6.)
Vatras wrote:
I cannot find any rules covering movement speed while blind or in darkness. are there any?
Daxarth wrote:
Daxarth wrote:
Can a Wizard copy a cantip to his spellbook? The paragraph in the Basic Rules mentions that if you find a Wizard spell of first level or higher, you can copy it, but mentions nothing about cantrips.
Again, it doesn't say you can, but it also doesn't say you can't, though I assume by ommitting it it's implying the latter.
If this is true, it creates a bit of an awkward situation. Though this is based on info from the alpha, the Bard could use Magical Secrets and the Warlock could take Pact of the Tome to get more cantrips; while the Wizard--the magical class which is supposed to be defined by its versatility and sheer number of spellcasting or ritual options--statrts with just 3 and at most gets 5. Sure, you can get more by spending a feat (which can hamper your actual stats) or by being certain races, but again that seems restrictive.
To me it seems like Wizards should get a way to copy them but by RAW I'm not sure. Thoughts?
It appears that your cantrip are not recorded in your spellbook but fixed in your mind as they are not spells of 1st-level or higher, but 0-th level spells.
BR30 Spellbook: At 1st level, you have a spellbook containing six 1st-level wizard spells of your choice.
BR32 Spellbook: Copying a Spell into the Book. When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a level for which you have spell slots and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it.
BR78 Cantrips: A cantrip is a spell that can be cast at will, without using a spell slot and without being prepared in advance. Repeated practice has fixed the spell in the caster’s mind and infused the caster with the magic needed to produce the effect over and over. A cantrip’s spell level is 0.
Plaguescarred wrote:
I know in a Q&A Rodney Thompson had said you could (the new site has eaten the articles it gives an ERROR) and i had said it was not making sense rule-wise back then as they had no level
Now cantrip have a level (0th-level) but spellbookeeping involve 1st level or higher spells so still a no-go.
Plaguescarred wrote:
Not sure where to ask this - - - What has happened to the compendium and the character builder? We still need them to continue out 4th ed campaign!
It_is_not_Martin wrote:
I mentioned this during the playtest - but some clarification needs to be given as to how (or if) cantrips scale when you multiclass or are a High Elf. This will mostly confuse players of 3.x who are thinking in terms of 'caster level'. Nowhere in the basic edition does it clarify what the level brackets of cantrips are for (not even in the 'casting spells section').
From context, they appear to be character level. This would make most sense, but does that mean a Rogue 19/Wizard 1 deals 4d10 damage with Fire Bolt? What about a High Elf Barbarian 20? My understanding the answer to both of these is 'yes', but clarification is useful 
.
shivafang wrote:
shivafang wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
shivafang wrote:
It needs clarification because nowhere in the Base Rules does it say what that level refers to. Every other (non-cantrip) spell that refers to level refers specifically to Spell Level or the Level of the Spell Slot used to cast it.
Someone familiar with 3.x will be more likely to be confused, but that's not the only reason it needs clarification.
The PHB might be more clear on the subject, however the Base Rules on their own it's unclear what this refers to, with only a weak inference that it likely means character level (because Spell Levels don't go higher than 9 and the levels refered to in cantrips mention upgrading at level 17.)
When you consider that class features are only gained or improved based on the class that grants them - for example a Fighter 4/Wizard 1 wouldn't get an extra attack at level 5 like a Fighter 5 would - some players and DMs may look at cantrips as being class features and thus only improving when the class that grants them is that level, which leaves it unclear for High Elves.
Thus, I maintain that this is an FAQ-worthy question.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
shivafang wrote:
You didn't read the rest of my points. It could still mean class level.
A Fighter 4 / Wizard 1 doesn't get an extra attack, because that's a specific class feature and uses fighter level (not character level). If a player or a DM considers a cantrip to be a class feature (because they get it under 'class features' in the class section just like the Fighter's Extra attack - except for High Elves), the same Fighter 4 / Wizard 1 wouldn't have their Fire Bolt, Shocking Grasp or Ray of Frost getting that extra bump either.
This is what makes it a head-scratcher for High Elves. Previous to looking in these forums for the information, I would have assumed High Elves would get it as a level 1 Wizard (No upgrades). This is why it needs to go in the FAQ so that people don't have to go hunting for the information.
EDIT: You edited your post while I was replying to it, and addressed my posts there.
The 'Extra attack' says "Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice..." doesn't say "Beginning at Fighter Level 5". Other than the High Elf exception in Base Rules, cantrips only come as class features. (There are likely feats too, but they haven't been released finalized yet). There's no reason to believe that taking levels in any other class would increase their power. Even the High Elf racial feature says you get a cantrip from the wizard spell list, which doubles down on the idea that it's a wizard class feature that the High Elf is getting access too.
I read FAQs all the time and often go "Of course, that's not even up for debate" because certain things make sense to me. They are included in FAQs because enough people are confused by them to warrent it, hence why they are Frequently Asked. This is one of those questions. If it's not in the FAQ it will get asked, and it will get asked repeatedly, so why are you arguing against it being in the FAQ? I'm not asking for an errata change or anything.
If I were to ask for an errata change - I would put it in the 'casting spells' section, under cantrips, rather than in each cantrip description. That's where I first tried to look to determine if it was character level or class/caster level.
You know, shivafang, I am beginning to think that I am overreacting to people, such as yourself, that are suggesting this or that needs clarification - I have a (probably extremely irrational) fear that the eventual FAQ is going to be quickly flooded with so many entries that it is a ridiculous mess that pretty much no one actually benefits from because the few entries that a particular person needs are buried among a torrent of entries that particular person didn't think needed clarification at all (like Paizo's - luckily searchible - FAQ-monster list).
shivafang wrote:
Thank you for pointing out why it makes sense to you. The fact remains is that not everyone thinks that deeply into the situation, thus the situation needs to be clearly explained in the FAQ. Either that, or the question will appear in the forums about once or twice a month. Your choice, really.
As I've said before, many times I look at a FAQ and see a question and go "Yeah, duh!" and wonder why it's even in the FAQ. This is one question where I appear to be on the other side of that, where it makes sense to others but doesn't at first glance to me.
I understand how it works now, but it's still something that should be in the FAQ.
Unrelated question: what are people's opinions on the number of reactions allocated per round, ie, 1 - is that enough? It seems to me like 1 per turn would be more suitable, but I'm interested to hear from people who have more play time logged than myself.
Crossbow Expert Feat:
You ignore the loading quality of crossbows
Being within 5 ft of a hostile creature doesn't impose disadvantage
"When you use the Attack action and attack with a one-handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding."
So the rules on the third point are a little confusing to me, particularly the word "loaded", because this feat eliminates loading, or makes crossbows auto-load, or however you want to say it works...
I suspect that the intent of the ability would be to swing with a sword (or whatever) in one hand, then fire your crossbow in the other hand for a bonus attack. However, the wording might lead one to think that you could use your Attack action with your hand crossbow (which is one-handed), then fire a bonus action attack with that same hand crossbow (leaving the other hand free for, say, a shield or magic focus).
This is probably not what they intended, since they included the word "loaded", but it isn't clear.
So to be brief, could a 5th level fighter Crossbow expert with a hand crossbow and a shield fire his hand crossbow for an action surge attack (from 2nd level fighter), regular attack action, extra attack action (from 5th level fighter) , and bonus attack action (from crossbow expert) for a total of four shots?
I'm 99% sure he could while wielding two hand crossbows, much less certain with one.
Archfiend.Malus wrote:
dustinx wrote:
dustinx wrote:
Ok, so something came up while we were playing the starter set adventure. room with 3 skeletons, they stand up and attack, they are right there next to the party. Cleric uses turn undead and 2 of the 3 fail their saves. Here is the exact wording in the basic rules (emphasis added):
"Each undead that can see or hear you within 30 feet of you must make a Wisdom saving throw. If the creature fails its saving throw, it is turned for 1 minute or until it takes any damage.
A turned creature must spend its turns trying to move as far away from you as it can, and it can’t willingly move to a space within 30 feet of you."
So assuming that the cleric does not move from his spot, any undead close enough to be affected by turn undead cannot flee from the cleric unless they are right on the edge of the area, because every space in the area is a space "within 30 feet of you"
Is that how this is supposed to work? Are there maybe some words missing?
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
Daxarth wrote:
I'm kind of with you halfway
First, my question assumes we're just using hand crossbow(s), not bringing the other crossbows into the issue, just to make things simpler for discussion.
It does specify "attack with a one handed weapon" for the initial basic attack action - and indeed, a hand crossbow is a one-handed weapon. So that should be fine. I actually have little doubt about that part. The question is mainly whether the "bonus action" attack would necessarily have to be from a hand crossbow in the other hand.
The part I agree with you is where it says a "loaded" hand crossbow, which implies "pre-loaded", as in "not loaded as a result of your feat," but that's implied, certainly not explicit, and the point of my post here.
I don't really know where you got "you can ignore the loading property of crossbows unless you have a weapon in your other hand, and even then you can only use a pre-loaded hand crossbow."
That bit doesn't seem correct - the feat doesn't say that. It says "You ignore the loading quality of crossbows with which you are proficient." Nothing about what's in your other hand. I mean, your point has merit, but that's not what is written in the rules. To the contrary, if you have a sword in one hand and have a hand crossbow in the other, looking just at the first part of the feat, it's pretty clear you can shoot multiple times with the hand crossbow if you have multiple attacks from, say, a fighter's extra attacks. (That's ignoring the main point in question, of course, which is the loaded/pre-loaded/same hand/other hand bonus attack thing)
I hope I made sense, and thanks for replying.
E-Tallitnics wrote:
E-Tallitnics wrote:
E-Tallitnics wrote:
dustinx wrote:
E-Tallitnics wrote:
E-Tallitnics wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
I think the word loaded in the Crossbow Expert text makes it pretty clear. If you make an attack with a hand crossbow in one hand, then that hand crossbow is no longer loaded, thus eliminating it from consideration when using your bonus action. How you go about actually loading it is immaterial in this case.
What I do find interesting is that this rule would effectively allow you to dual wield hand crossbows, as long as one of them is pre-loaded. Normally two weapon fighting is limited to melee or thrown attacks with melee weapons only.
Scenario #1: A 5th level fighter without the Crossbow Expert feat is wielding a hand crossbow in one hand and a loaded hand crossbow in the other hand. For his Action, he makes an Attack with the hand crossbow, firing it at his opponent. He gets an Extra Attack with his Attack Action, but the loading property of the hand crossbow prevents him from loading it a second time in the same Action, so at best he could use it as an improvised weapon and club someone over the head with it. Since his Attack Action was not made with a melee weapon, he cannot use a Bonus Action to attack with a weapon in his other hand, so he just points the loaded hand crossbow in his other hand menacingly at his opponent. Net result: one shot with a hand crossbow, one whack over the head with an improvised weapon (hopefully not breaking it), and a menacing point.
Scenario #2: A 5th level fighter with the Crossbow Expert feat is wielding a hand crossbow in one hand and a loaded hand crossbow in the other hand. For his Action, he makes an Attack with the hand crossbow, firing it at his opponent. He gets an Extra Attack with his Attack Action, and since he gets to ignore the loading property of the hand crossbow he quickly reloads it and fires it again. In addition, since he made an Attack Action with a one-handed weapon, he is able to use his Bonus Action to make an Attack with the loaded hand crossbow in his other hand, so he fires that as well. Net result: three shots with hand crossbows.
I would also rule that since picking up a dropped weapon or handing an object to someone else can be performed as part of a Move prior to making an Attack Action, you could have a number of pre-loaded hand crossbows laid out in reach and ready to fire, or alternately a loader with an extra hand crossbow ready to swap out with you, allowing you to get a Bonus hand crossbow shot every round.
dustinx wrote:
Question on the Warlock, the slot level says the max a Warlock can get for a spell is 5th level, yet the Warlocks spell list , pg 210, goes to 9th.
Is this a misprint on their Slot level or am I missing something?
Chaosmancer wrote:
BrotherDave, I tend to agree with you, that's probably how Wizards intended the feat to work. I'm still kind of obsessed with that word loaded though, eventually coming to the question, "What does it take for a hand crossbow to be considered loaded when you ignore its loading property?"
Plaguescarred, I'm pretty sure your interpretation is off in terms of the extra attack, which this character almost certainly would have available. The Crossbow Expert feat allows you to ignore the loading property on crossbows.
In any case, thanks for looking at it you guys. Good to see I'm not completely crazy, anyway.
drasco wrote:
Q: How many spells can you fit per page in your spellbook? One spell per page? Do higher level spells take up more pages?
I couldn't find anything in the rules that specifically says how many pages a spell takes up in your spellbook. I could superimpose rules from 3.5 and say that spells take up one page per spell level, but this isn't 3.5, so I'd feel better about it if there was a rule in 5th edition that clearly spelled it out. I'm leaning more toward one spell per page regardless of level since it seems like an additional tax on Wizards to require them to lug around a stack of spellbooks because they dared to learn level 6 spells. The scribing cost is already pretty high at 50gp per spell level.
drasco wrote:
reddaemon wrote:
dustinx wrote:
reddaemon wrote:
Thanks all on the answer to the Warlok question!
dustinx wrote:
Daxarth wrote:
If the turned undead cannot move to a space within 30 feet of you, it result in the same wether you use a grid or not.
Plaguescarred wrote:
The intention of Turn Undead is to make the Undead run away. Bad wording on the rule shouldn't negate the intention of the rule if the intention is clear. This is a bogus debate.
I don't think many DM will actually play it that way and the intention is not in debate, its pretty clear Turn Undead is intended to allow a undead to move farther away from you. But its not as written and that's what we're pointing out. RAW as the turned creature move as far away from you as it can, to know if its legally doing so you have to ask yourself, does it move to a space (or square) within 30 feet of you? If the answer is yes, then it cannot willingly do so.
Plaguescarred wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
Yeah that wording would be more consistent for sure.
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Can a mage Hand Cantrip remove an item from someone if the weight is not an issue. Such as removing an attended amulet or ring from a foe? The spell no longer says unattended objects. I ruled a save applied, but couldn't find support for the ruling anywhere in the PHB.
Guanyu wrote:
I haven't the books yet, but considering what this says about the arcane trickster, I'd suggest checking their and that it's probably intentional.
As for turn undead - I rule it that the undead can't move within 30 feet TOWARD the cleric (they can move away). That's clearly the intent of the rule, but I agree the actual wording is very wonky.
Plaguescarred wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
I don't need an answer here (because there's too much disagreement on these topics) but it is frequently asked and not clear in the rules, and should be added to an FAQ;
Q1: The 'Two-Handed' property reads "This weapon requires two hand to use." What does it mean to 'use' a weapon, and how does it affect doing things with the other hand?
Interpretation 1a: Like Reach, Two-Handed only applies when you are attacking with it. When you are not attacking you can use your other hand to cast spells with somatic or material components, as well as things like throwing weapons.
Interpretation 2b: You need two hands to even hold it. You cannot do anything else with either hand. You must sheathe the weapon to cast spells or throw throwing weapons.
Q1 supplementary: Is the rule intended to interact with the Heavy property - meaning that 1b applies if the weapon is heavy and 1a applies if it is not (currently only the shorbow is two-handed, but not heavy.)
Q2: A spellcasting focus replaces the need to use a material component. Is the intent of the rule to also allow you to cast somatic components?
Interpretation 2a: In the material components section it states that the free hand needed for material components can be the same one that is needed for the somatic components. Thus, the hand holding the spellcasting focus can be used for somatic components, allowing the other hand to hold a shield, weapon, or other object.
Interpretation 2b: You still require a free hand to cast a somatic spell, even if you are using a spellcasting focus. If the other hand that is not using the spellcasting focus has a weapon, shield, or other object has something in it it must be stowed.
In my opinion, 2b is so restrictive it makes spellcasting foci useless. It is far better to use a component pouch so you can access material components and still have the hand free while you have a weapon or shield in the other, wheras a focus basically ties up the hand and prevents somatic components and thus requires the other hand to be free.
Q2 supplementary: When using a holy symbol that is an amulet or an emblem on a shield, do you still need a hand free to use the spellcasting focus? What about somatic components?
For the FAQ;
Q: Does casting a spell using a higher level slot make it a higher level spell (for the purposes of weather or not it is affected by darkness, counterspell, or the abjurer's arcane ward and similar situations)
A: No, it does not (At last, nowhere in the PHB does it say that. If it was intended to then the FAQ entry should clarify that.)
shivafang wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
I was reading the "Animate Dead" spell today, and I could not find any limitation as to what could be animated besides number (how many creatures can be animated). This cannot be correct, right? Could you cast this spell when you first get it and animate an elder dragon skeleton if you happened to find one? I remember the spell in 3e had a HD limitation, but I can't find anything like that in the PHB. Am I just blind?
Insigzilla wrote:
Insigzilla wrote:
Inaubryyn wrote:
As this has turned into a heated debate in another thread, here's an FAQ question for you folks:
- Does the act of using material components from your component bag for a spell (or pulling out your foci from your belt) constitute 'interacting with an object' for the purposes the free action limit? In other words, is it the same as drawing a weapon? Also, do you need two hands to hold a greatsword, or just to attack with one?
Folks, I'm just dropping it here for WoTC to take a look. If you want to debate the question, please check out the thread devoted to it.
KarlB wrote:
Actually, careful with that comparison. Remember that specific trumps general, and the rules for ammunition specifically state that it's part of the attack. This is probably due to the fact that the arrows are expended after each use instead of staying in one's hand like a component pouch or foci would. In the same way that you cannot both draw a dagger into your offhand and put it away in the same turn.
Again, I recommend keeping that debate in it's own thread so we don't add even more pages to this one needlessly:
http://community.wizards.com/forum/rules-questions/threads/4130941
Stictly speaking nothing says you need the component pouch or foci in your hand. RAW the only requirement is that you're able to access it. And even then, nothing says you have to access it, only that you are able to.
Again that's the strictest reading, but it's RAW nonetheless.
Q1. Where is treasure for NPC's and Monsters? I can't find them.
Q2. No height or weight for NPC's and Monsters listed. Where do I get these?
Q3. Unless otherwised noted XP awarded to PC's is divided by the party number then awarded to the Players?
Thanks, Bob......................
Plaguescarred wrote:
KarlB wrote:
Actually, it's excellent rebuttal. The War Caster feat states that it is an exception to casting a spell while *holding* a weapon or weapons in both hands. It says nothing about attacking. Ergo, you cannot cast a spell that has a somatic element, and by extension a material element as both state you need a free hand, if you do not have War Caster. And since War Caster only covers the somatic component, you still need a free hand to cast a spell that requires material components.
I believe the intent behind a two handed weapon is that you need both hands to even hold it. Hence why Versatile weapons are now useful ... because you *can* switch that to a one handed grip to free up the other hand to cast.
The only spells that War Caster allows you to cast while holding a two handed weapon are V,S ones. Not V,S,M ones.
KarlB wrote:
Then why War Caster state that feature as an exception to the existing rule? Are you arguing that it only applies to using the off hand to wield either a single weapon or a shield as opposed to using it to hold a two handed weapon?
KarlB wrote:
Ah, but here's the crux of it: The way I see it, the act of unreadying your weapon comes to the same, mechanically, as putting it away. You are removing it from a stance where you can use it, and then attempting to ready it back. Which you cannot do in the same turn as both are free actions falling under the 'interact with an object' rule. If you just release your hand from a greatsword without repositioning it first, what actually happens is that the weight of it will pull the blade to the ground.. Those things are meant to be held with two hands. Seriously, try it ... grab a 6 or 7 foot long weapon, hold it in battle stand with both hands, and then let go of one hand ... betting you won't be able to just hold it in place even if you are not attacking with it.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point and call it DM fiat.
Why is there no thread where you can get an official ruling for a question?
I believe they are still compiling the list for now. They'll likely just release one big FAQ in a month or two.
My question:
Is the experience table cumulative (as in levels 1 to 4 needs 2700 experience) or does it reset at each level (as in by the time you reach level 4 your character has a total of 3900 experience under his belt)
Also it would help if there is something specific you can point to because my GM is a stiff that likes to make things hard when he can XD
Omnitricks: It's cumulative. It's been in this format for pretty much the entirety of the D&D line.
Whoa ... wait a minute. If we go by the suggested XP *per player per day* listed in the DMG basic guide (PDG page 58), you're supposed to level each 1 or 2 days of game time.
That doesn't seem right ...
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Lucas, it's not *explicitly* in the rules. That was more of a common sense thing for me.
That being said, requiring a free hand to pull out material components or foci IS in the rules, and since pulling something from your belt and placing it in your hand is an object interaction (unless specifically stated otherwise like in the case of the Ammunition property), you can only pull it out, but not put it back in the same turn. The way around this would be to use a Versatile weapon as that weapon can be used for attacks in both single and two handed stances.
Karl contends that you have to burn item interaction to cast M spells. AFAIK he's the only person on the entire forum who believes this.
Grips outside of versatile are not discussed, and switching grips on versatile weapons is also not anywhere to be found.
All of this is pretty much up to the DM at any given table as such.
does the feat crossbow expert apply only when using a crossbow?
Nope. Easiest well to tell is to ask yourself: Does it say it does?
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
People will always game systems if given a chance, especially in (relatively anonymous) organized play. The advantage I have in playing with my friends is that we can all unanimously agree that drop/pick is silly and won't do it as a matter of course, even if it's technically okay. Anyone in my group who wants to cast an S spell with two hands occupied either sheathes or stows and object or takes the appropriate feats or other measures to allow it as part of their character design and development.
We don't run into many problems about allowable actions because we either address them ahead of time or agree as a group when the situation arises.
Which is fine, but this is the FAQ thread, and it's not about houserules.
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Which is fine, but it's a handwave to make it look better than the legal option, which is that weapons can be dropped and picked up with no penalty so long as the ground beneath the player's feet is present. (So only in extremely rare cases will it not work.)
You're awfully concerned with what seems right and what looks good, and yet given a 100% legal process you begrudge people the same rights you're taking: the right to have the characters not look like they're doing calisthenics in combat.
So what if people would rather describe what they're doing in a better manner than that? What's it matter, given that it's a legal move by the rules? Yes, it IS a houserule, but it changes next to nothing, and if the houserule says "can't try this while flying/swimming" in little text at the bottom, it matches RAW while looking much better.
The rule is that you can cast spells V,S,M spells while wielding ANY weapon setup by burning item interaction, so long as the ground is there for you to recover the item you drop. If people want to describe that differently how is it much different than saying "the goblin's head explodes" when you crit with a chill touch? It's flavor. The mechanics support the move. Houserule it out if you want. Agree to never, ever do it, on pain of shunning. But RAW: drop, cast, recover is 100% legit. Let people describe it how they will. The outcome is the same.
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Corwynn, sorry but your logic in interpreting the rules is inherently flawed. What we are discussing is the rational behind the existing rules and why trying to game it the way you are doing is wrong and makes no sense.
First off, and this seems to be a sticker with you, the reason Wizards don't need to use an object interaction every time they cast a spell is because they generally leave the foci or component bag *in their hand at all times*. In the same way that a Fighter is expected to have a weapon in his hand to use a reaction to opportunity attack, a Wizard should have his component bag or foci in hand to react to a situation magically. If he's caught with his pants down, too bad, but he should have known better. This is why Wizards are very possessive of their magic wands ... because, much of the time, they cannot cast without them in hand. Mind you, falls from great heights generally take longer than 6 seconds to land. If they cannot react that turn, they can react the next by pulling out their foci on their turn.
Secondly, from the wording of spellcasting that says you need a free hand to access material components and to use somatic gestures, to the wording of War Caster that states *as an exception* (otherwise it would not have been written there) that you don't need a free hand for somatic in that instance if you are using both hands to wield weaponry, it's very very clear the designers did not intend for someone using a greatsword to cast a V,S,M spell while holding that weapon. If you *could* just use a greatsword and cast spells with somatic and material components without the War Caster, it *would never have been mentioned in the feat description*. Remember, specifics always trump general. So if the *specific* rule says you can do something because and only because you have that feat, then clearly, the general rule would have it that you cannot if you do not. Duh.
Thirdly, the list of examples for object interaction are ALL the same, even if material components are not explictly mentioned: The act of using your hand to grab an object that was not previously in your hand is an object interaction. The act of taking an object in your hand and putting it away is an object interaction. Would just dropping an object not count as one? Sure, why not, I can agree with that. But can you pick up your component bag or foci that is hanging from your belt and put it in your hand without it being an object interaction? Hell no. Why would grabbing a potion or drawing a weapon be one, but drawing a foci or component bag not be? They are the exactly equivalent actions. What you are doing here is, again, gaming the system by infering that if something is not *explicitly* mentioned, then it's a usable loophole. But the spellcasting rules say you need a free hand to *access* your foci or component bag. Accessing it implies using your hand to take said object. If you didn't need to access a foci or component bag with a free hand, it wouldn't have been mentioned.
See, there are plenty of spots where rules breaks down your argument. Plenty. The fact that you are ignoring the logic behind ALL of them just means you are, well, ignoring them for your own purpose. You really just want to see some sort of powerhouse Wizard or Warlock who can both cast spells and smack people around with the scariest melee weapons in the game without any difficulty. Again, if you want to do that, and your GM agrees, go right ahead. But by RAW, it cannot be done unless in specific situations. This is why, in pretty much every single fantasy trope ever, a wizardly melee character will fight with a one handed sword in one hand, and his wand or staff in the other.
To give you an example of people who DO cast magic and use two handed weapons at the same time, look at Paladin smite spells. All of them have the verbal component only.
KarlB wrote:
Heh, actually, scroll up a ways. When I first asked this question, I specifically requested people debate it in it's own thread. I just wanted to leave it there for Wizards to take a look at a later time.
It's everyone else who decided to start debating it here ;)
KarlB wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Corwynn, you're starting to get personal and use sarcasm in your replies rather than debating counterpoints. If it's really that important to you, bring it up with your DM and let him or her decide. If you are the DM, then rule it as you like in your game. Golden Rule and all. The one thing I do agree with you here is that this debate has been clubbed to death, and that this point, it's best to let it go and wait for WoTC to make a ruling on this within the next few months when they complete their FAQ.
P.S: Taking a dump in combat *definitely* would constitute a full action unless you are wearing a Ring of Mighty Laxative, lol ;)
KarlB wrote:
Perhaps crapping one's pants in combat would give disadvantage on their next roll due to the sheer humiliation of having crapped one's pants in combat? ;)
If you read Joe Abercrombies The Heroes, there's a character who goes in his pants (fairly sure just number one) every single time they're about to fight. He seems none the worse for it.
Couple Questions:
1) Is a target of a spell inherently aware of a spell that is cast on them? Asking specifically about a Bard trying to cast Suggestion during a performance.
2) How does the Extra Attack feature interact with a Druid's Wildshape? Example: A Multiclass Fighter 5/Druid 5 transforms into an animal that has the "Multiattack" feature allowing it to attack once with both a Claw attack and a Bite attack. Wildshape states you retain any features of your class.
Vengeful_Deity wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Is the "multiattack action" even a thing? I couldn't find it in the Basic Rules. Surely you take the attack action to use one of your attacks, "Multiattack".
Yunru wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
He didn't say either way.
Without the MM (due out in late September) we're lacking all the rules for creatures. There may be more useful information there.
Plaguescarred wrote:
https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/504001681689169920
Upshot (relevant to hands free for spellcasting):
It's not a balancing factor so much as there to allow DM's to have something to point out if things get crazy. Swapping hands (weapon to shield, 2-hander, whatever) is fine for casting.
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
It's there to give DMs an out if they want one, yes.
Surprise!
"If you're surprised, you can't move or take an action on your first turn of the combat..."
Q: Can you take a bonus action or interact with objects, or are these lumped under 'action'? Typically, the term action is used for the normal action and does not include the bonus action.
"...and you can't take a reaction until that turn ends."
Q: Does this mean you get reactions during the surprise round as long as they happen after your initiative count?
shivafang wrote:
When a Wizard gains their "Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook", does the Wizard have to spend 50gp and take 2 hours for each level of each of the spells being added? Or are the "I just leveled and gained spells" free of charge and go right into the spell book, while "found" spells during the adventure are the ones that cost gold and take time to copy into the spellbook of the wizard?
Jundle wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Vengeful_Deity wrote:
According to p.190 of the PHB or (p. 70 of the Basic Rules) if you have multiple attacks, such as from the Extra Attack class feature, you can use some or all of your movement between the attacks. Can you also use a bonus action, if you have one, between the attacks?
For example, can a character with the Extra Attack feature and the Shield Master feat use his bonus shove action (and optionally some movement) between the two attacks? (Indeed, could he use it before both attacks provided that he is commiting to attacking? I would guess at least one of the attacks is needed first as that is a prerequisite to getting the bonus action, but am not sure.)
Could a multiclassed rogue with Extra Action use her Cunning Action between the attacks?
What about a ranger who is two-weapon fighting and has the Hunter's Prey (Horde Breaker) class feature? Horde Breaker doesn't require a bonus action, but two-weapon fighting does. Horde Breaker does restict the potential targets, however. If the ranger hits with his first weapon, could he opt to use his attack from Horde Breaker next if there is a valid target, and then if desired move and attack with his second weapon as a bonus action? For extra fun, what if this ranger also has Extra Attack? Can the Horde Breaker attack be used after a successful hit with any one of the other three attacks, provided there is a valid target? (Horde breaker can be used no more than once per turn, of course.)
As far as I can see the rules aren't explicit enough to give a firm yes or no, tsalla. But the feeling of the actions in 5e is one of flow, and not of strict resolution order. The fact that attacks and movement mix, for example. My personal ruling is that bonus actions may be taken (and individual attacks within that bonus action, such as discrete flurries from a monk) may be taken at any time.
This plays in well with the fantasy feel of someone carving a path of death across a battlefield. I think it is the right way for my campaign to be run.
The rules aren't explicit enough (in my reading) as to tell me wether that's how "it's supposed to be" but for my table, at least, it feels "right" ...
The rules for bonus actions state that:
You choose when to take a bonus action during your
turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified
The magic rules seem vague regarding the learning of new cantrips, except when a character reaches a new level that adds another cantrip. Can cantrips be copied into spellbooks and then learned? The rules say a first level wizards knows three. Can a wizard not copy one into his spellbook and then replace one of the three known by rote? Should a wizard not be able to "prepare" the cantrips known by rote for the day?
darknater wrote:
People seem to think that since the level requirements for Warlock invocations do not specifically say "Warlock level," it means character level. Please clarify in the FAQ.
That's not a question :P
And requirements only require what they say they require. So warlock invocations, as written, go off of character level.
Yunru wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
shivafang wrote:
darknater wrote:
Is a touch attack a finnesse weapon and can it sneak attack?
p.149 description of an unarmed strike isn't indicating "finesse"
Touch isn't explicitly indicated as beeing exacly the equivalent of an unarmed strike, I know, but I mention it to back the fact that since it's not stipulated anywhere, we can assume Touch is not a Finesse weapon AND the only "Weapon" equivalent would go along that line of thinking.
So no.
Added to this, the monk ability allows him to use Dexterity for Unarmed attack but doesn't make it "finesse"... A willing decision since, if touch was finesse, I can see a whole lot f shinanigan I could play out with shocking grasp monk/rogue/wizard abilities...
Touch attack isn't defined in 5e.
You may be refering to melee spell attacks. Those are based on your casting stat, not Strength as in previous editions. Also some touch-range spells just require a saving throw, no roll is necessary to determine if you touch the target. You cannot Sneak Attack with a spell; you are required to use a finesse or ranged weapon and a spell is not a weapon.
Some monsters have "touch" attacks. Apparently those vary as to whether they are melee spell attacks or melee weapon attacks, but monster attacks are never explicity defined as being finesse or not (though which ability they use varies).
Yunru wrote:
Q1: Wizard/School of Abjuration. The wizard's arcane ward currently has 2 hit points. The wizard casts an abujuration. Does the ward now have more than 2 hit points? My impression is that the ward only gains new hit points once it reaches zero.
Q2: Wizard/School of Transmutation. Can minor alchemy be used on an object of greater than 1 cubic foot in size, albeit, the alchemy only affects 1 cubic foot of the object per 10 minutes?
roddyriot2 wrote:
Can I use great weapon fighting style to reroll “extra damage dice” such as divine smite ability or banishing smite spell？
There is no limitation on it indeed，but reroll many 1s and 2s seems so suck……
zghzgh1779 wrote:
Guanyu wrote:
Also, I have a question of my own that I've seen all over with no real resolution. Regarding the Monk and its martial arts, I was wondering how the bonus attack unarmed strike functions. Seeing as it is not explicitly or even technically subject to two weapon fighting rules as you can feasibly use the bonus attack after attacking with the quarterstaff in 2 handed mode.
That said, I see two options for how it functions,
A.) it is treated the exact same as two weapon fighting (seems like a reasonable assumption)
or
B.) treated as an entirely separate attack requiring its own attack roll and applicable modifiers/proficiencies.
This question is further compounded by flurry of blows which allows two bonus unarmed attacks in exchange for a ki. If B from above is to be assumed, would each strike for flurry of blows be considered separate attacks requiring their own attack rolls and so on.
mddsangster wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
GilbertMDH wrote:
The 8th level wizard spell "Trap the Soul" doesn't appears to be in my book ... Did I fail my save while searching for it and ended up in silent hill, cursed to look for it only to find out it's me who's incarnating its very fabric in an eternal circle of pain and suffering for all eternity + 10D4 Psychic damages???
Also... How does a Bard (valor) with Rapier & Shield cast ?
... seems stupid that, to have the Sommatic (free hand), you need to drop your weapon or shield just so you can take out your music instrument... and screw a whole round of action later on just to come back in the fight with Shield and Rapier... I say stupid since that's screwing the whole mechanic of the valor archetype over the Lore one.
PS : I get that the Warcaster Feat answer all this ... but feats are OPTIONAL NOW... so it ain't a valid answer to this problem.
PPS : unless they remake the musical sword (signing blade - if I recall the name correctly) ... and again, seems weird at level 12 to find a singning blade +2 (a rater specific weapon for a ratter specific archetype) in the hoards of a Beholder... but anyway...
How does Advantage work with characters who have multiple attacks in a turn, or are using two weapons? The Players Handbook (pg. 173) mentions applying Advantage / Disadvantage to attack rolls, but what if a character has multiple rolls within his turn?
For example: a 6th level ranger has advantage over an owlbear and attacks with a scimitar and dagger (two-weapon fighting) and spends both of his attacks on the owlbear. Does the player get to roll twice for each weapon strike (4 extra rolls) during the turn, the first attack (2 extra rolls), or just the first strike of the scimitar (1 extra roll)?
Manaknight wrote:
People, number your damn questions.
1 ) Am I retarded? or...
2 ) is my reading correct : Ranged spell attack that aren't based on an attack roll but ratter on a save (like the "Sacred Flame" Cantrip) have no drawback for being cast in melee range (and can't crit)!
Manaknight wrote:
ok search function seems to dodge my queries or wants me to read every single thread in the WotC forum, and there are too many posts I'm gonna ask something that not only maybe is already answered but is incredibly noob (and it ebarasess me cause i'm not a noob, just stop paying d&d when 4e came out)
i browse and search the 5e players handbook, and i'm sure is there, but i can't find where it says how you calculate AC and against what you use your attack roll.
I'm used to 3.5: 10+dex+AC+mods yet, the character sheet for 5e only has a box for the AC and nothing else.
I know i'm missing it or passing it by, but someone care to explain me the AC in 5e?
thank you and sorry for the "noobnes" of my question.
HexbladeX wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Q1: How does forced movement interact with conditions?
For instance: can a thunderwave spell or a shove action push a restrained target?
A1: Up to DM. I'd say It will depend what restrains it. If its rope, web or other entanglement securing it in place, the DM will have to judge if the effect is strong enought to break free of them or if it can be pushed up to distance while remaining restrained...
If it was pinned and restrained by a grappler though, it would break free if its pushed beyond the grappler's reach.
VividAntivirus wrote:
Amerikajin wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Have you looked at how multiclassing works? See P.164 - 165 : your level 1 wizard / level 5 fighter is a level (1+0=) 1 caster, so he knows 2 level 1 spells... fireball is level 3... so, no.
Warlock is a special case and yes, it's clearly "character level" for it's warlock cantrips since all cantrip use "character level". But neither the warlock or any other "standard" spell caster has his amount of spell or level of spell mastered modified by his raw character level.
Simply put :
Cantrips (class) - use Raw character level for efficiency
# spell slots / day - see p.164-165 for "combined spellcaster" level
level of spell known : same as above --> see p.164-165 for combined spellcaster level
You don't see the parallel here? Why is it so clear to you that invocations are "character level" requirements? They have nothing to do with "casting power" - many of them are not spells.
Are you sure we're addressing the same topic? My fireball example was an absurdism manufactured to hilight the problems caused by "character level"-based invocations. The "character level" at which a PC gains a class level should not dictate the power or options of that class level. What other class has a feature that, when selected, becomes more powerful in itself if selected at a high "character level" rather than a low one?
If I understand your exemple that way, you try to expose the exploit of a warlock feature by using a Wizard's casting ability? Yet The two are way different and that seem to create more confusion...
A level X wizard / level Y fighter simply uses his wizard levels for efficiency (what we will both agree is fair and so, to avoid confusion, won't speek of again)
A level X Warlock / level Y Fighter uses either:
#1 ) Warlock level to determine his spell known & stuff
#2 ) Character level to determine his spell known & stuff
BUT, in both cases, the last paragraph of "spell known" entry states that you need to gain level in the Warlock class to modify the spell you know... so you would actually need to be a level 1 Warlock / level 5 Fighter, gain a level, switch back to warlock, modify a spell known...THAT'S were I would also agree with you, 2Chlorobutanal, and modify the "spell known entry" from...
"A spell you choose must be o f a level no higher than what’s shown in the table's Slot Level column for your level."
to
"A spell you choose must be o f a level no higher than what’s shown in the table's Slot Level column for your WARLOCK level."
But for now, RAW, DOES seems to give us the #1 as an answer... a rater bit broken one in my book, but lets remember that to modify our spell known, we still need to gain a level in the warlock entry.. does it make Warlock multiclassing broken, yes. Is it game breaking, no. Does it screw the meaning of playing a full fledged Warlock? YES!
RAW does not obligately support your second option's #1. At best, its ambiguity can be construed loosely to allow #1, but as it doesn't say "character level" or "total level" or "multiclass level," it doesn't necessitate it. I've pointed out several times that the feature is described in the context of a class and therefore the concept of "level" applies to that class, even if not explicitly stated. I can't think of any other class feature that uses total character level as a scalar for its prerequisites or effect.
This was recently brought up in another thread about spellbooks (again), but I think that one must also consider that multiclassing is an optional rule, so the chapter 3 rules are not necessarily written to conform completely with the concept of multiclassing, such as using the wording "in this class" in every instance where a level is mentioned. In fact, I think the majority of class features in chapter 3 make no explicit mention of "in this class" when they mention levels (or they mention it in some places but not in others).
1. Second Wind is reusable by a fighter after a short rest (1 hour of downtime). What's stopping a Fighter from just healing 1d10+fighter level per hour? And if they can use this feature 1/hour, why spend Hit Dice to heal? A Suggestion might be to turn them into temporary hit points.
giftofthunder wrote:
the find familiar spell says that familiars can't attack but can take actions as normal, but most familiars have actions listed that are also described as attacks. My assumption is that these are only relevant when they are summoned by a warlock using find familiar through Pact of the Chain, ...(which says that you may attack with your familiar by forgoing on of your attacks.), or as NPC creatures of the same type? Would this be accurate ?
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Yes, the rules for most familiars prevent them from taking the same actions or attacks that a Warlock of the Chain familiar or an NPC could take.
RandomPandora wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
RandomPandora wrote:
No the legitimacy or cheating is not in the eye of the beholder. One is vague, where both could be legal, your "comparison" is completely 100% cheating, as it goes against stated rules.
They're the same case, Yunru - if you accept one, you should accept the other for the sake of consistency.
No other "legal" class feature in the game inherently changes (either in effect or available options) based at the "character level" you choose to select that class level - unless you can find one for me.
Manaknight wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
In the Warlock's class table, they don't advance in spell levels after 9th level where 5th is their top spell level available. However, in the Spells section the spell list for Warlocks goes up to 9th level spells, which is correct, and what should their spell elvel progression be after 9th class level? This is all out of the PHB, FYI.
It's in the PHB, but under the "Mystic Arcanum" class feature.
Warlocks don't have a "spell progression" for levels 6-9, but rather a class feature that grants a warlock one spell known of each level, 6 through 9. Each spell can be cast once per long rest. It's similar to, but more limited than, having a spell progression that reads: "1, 1, 1, 1" for levels 6-9.
GilbertMDH wrote:
A 1st Level Wizard casting a spell with a 16 Intelligence [+3 modifier]
Spell Save DC is 13 (8 + proficiency bonus [+2] + intelligence modifier [+3])
Spell Attack Modifier = +5 (proficiency bonus [+2] + intelligence modifier [+3])
Simple enough. According to Page 206 under Attack Rolls, it looks like you use the same attack roll for all spells that require you to hit a target, the only difference for Range Spell Attacks is that you have Disadvantage if you're within 5 feet of a hostile creature. Just making sure I'm reading the rules correctly and that Ranged Spells don't make you use your Dex modifier like a ranged attack with a weapon would use your Dex modifier instead of your Strength modifier.
Jaxom wrote:
If a rouge attacks more than one time in a round (say because of a bonus action) and it is sneak attacking. Do you apply the +1d6 to both attacks?
Kona69 wrote:
Manaknight wrote:
I'm going to post this here in an effort to make it easier to find and read up on dual wielding weapons, dual wielding handcrossbows, the interaction between Crossbow Expert and hand crossbows as well as the supporting arguments behind all of it. This is clearly a topic that is problematic for many and so I think it would be a good idea to put the explanation here.
The relevant rules passages within the PHB are:
Page 146-147, Ammunition rules + Light, Loading, etc.. Properties
Page 165, Dual Wielder + Crossbow Expert feat
Page 195, Two-Weapon Fighting (for light melee/thrown weapons) rules
The main problem with the above tretise on Crossbow Expert, is the difference between being 'a valid interpretation within the bounds of the rules' and being ' the *only* valid interpretation within the bounds of the rules"
Many of the rules in 5E are left as a framework, allowing the specific details to be filled in by the various playgroups to meet their needs. These are not 'house rules', but simply different interpretations of the same rule.
Almost all of his above assumptions have a simple counter from within the written rules. I may get around to reposting them if I get some time...
(Again, nowhere in the rules is dual weilding handbows explicilty disallowed... but neither is it explicitly allowed. Both interpretations are well within the framework of rules provided. Play it however your group finds more acceptable and fun.)
I have some questions about the spell "mislead". It seems that most of the other illusion spells at least briefly describe how the illusion interacts with the environment or, more to the point, how others can interact with it. But, the "mislead" spell does not say anything about this. So, my questions are about this.
First, is the illusory double only visual and auditory? Or, is it also tactile? If not, this seems a bit weak for a 5th level spell.
If it is tactile, what happens if another creature attempts to target it with a spell or attack? The spell says that the caster can have the double "behave" as he chooses. So, can the illusion attack something if it is tactile? Can he cast spells through the double?
I guess this could all be answered by answering the following: is the illusion created by the "mislead" spell more like the "hallucinatory terrain" illusion or more like "mirage arcane" illusion?
RxDocSF wrote:
Figured I would repost this update here as well.
Question: Does it require an action to drop a weapon?
Answer: According to Mr. Crawford, "in most circumstances", no.
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/530135480390533120
Props to IxidorRS for asking!
If someone made an unarmed strike while wearing a silver ring, would it bypass associated damage resistance? Or would you require something more substantial like silver knuckles, a silver threaded glove, etc?
Nevvur wrote:
craigarius wrote:
Plaguescarred1 wrote:
turri wrote:
Question
Can I use strength with Rapier and still get Sneak Attack bonus?
( I am thinking of Rogue Grappler)
First time poster here with a quick question: does the Evasive Footwork maneuver carry on from turn to turn (as long as you move in each turn of combat), or do you have to expend a superiority die for each turn to gain the AC bonus? The PHB description is rather ambiguous.
Muker wrote:
zymurgy65 wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
Are Material spell components consumed upon casting? The rules are kind of unclear.
This is assuming no component pouch or focus is being used. I'm also talking about costless components.
Isn't that kind of strange? If components are not consumed, then what is even the point of getting a focus or component pouch?
Not to mention it wouldn't make much sense given the nature of a lot of spells. A spell that causes plant growth? How would a few seeds or branches or whatever survive that? A Fireball.. Obviously the sulfur ball is there to ignite it, there wouldn't be anything left.
It just does not make any sense.
Dengar wrote:
Dengar wrote:
A component pouch or focus also uses a hand so... That doesn't really make a difference with using components.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Dengar wrote:
Avross wrote:
mellored wrote:
Semi-Retired_Gamer wrote:
You could technically disarm a wizard by taking away his component pouch...but little did you know the crystal anklet he is wearing is a spell focus...also his platinum ear hoop...also so are the 4 runed daggers he carries on his belt. Also there is some 0 guage jewelry down south that he likes to channel magic through occasionally. And that iron knee brace he was wearing channels magic too, but you wouldn't take a cripple man's knee brace would you?
What constitutes an arcane focus is very much up to interpretation. Also it doesn't say it must be held in hand, just implies it.
In the case of 'the party gets taken prisoner and everyone's gear gets confiscated and put in the chest' sure, no problem. But barring some very specific situations, its generally a bad idea to target PCs and deny them their defining class features, especially with dirty tricks. In the 20 years I've been gaming, every game I have played in where a DM irrevokeably destroyed someone's (good)magic items, or destroyed a wizard's spellbook(knowing they had no copies) it either derailed the whole campaign or caused a player to leave the group. This was also the case in the older editions where level drains were permanent...whoever got hit by the wight quit, or if multiple people did, everybody lost interest and wanted to start a new game.
Disenchanters and Rust monsters...and what were they called, Ravagers? Those things are not fun and they end games. Also, Decks of Many Things.
I would walk out immediately from our AL game if the DM destroyed my spellbook...we have discovered 0 spell scrolls in 30 hours of playing so my wizard has only the spells gained from levels and creating a new spellbook from scratch would be impossible.
Byakugan01 wrote:
**HotDQ spoilers** you have been warned
I started on episode 3, where the party is hired to scout out the cultist camp. Before the christmas break we finished episode 18 where we just finished the annoying caravan trip to waterdeep.. We usually play from 6-8:but tend to go 8:30ish. So 2.5 hours times 15 sessions. The only thing I know for sure we skipped was the Final chamber in the caves because we were 3rd level and only had 1 short rest and 1 long rest for the entire cave sequence. There was a roper and 12 kobolds in the room and we werent in the mood to all die horribly, so we left. I mean we killed close to 140 kobolds and a dozen winged ones in that place, not to mention the ambush drakes, the cultist leaders, and 4 berserkers.
There have also been 2 Expeditions that I couldnt play(wrong days). Those account for 2 of our party's 3 magic items. Don't know which Expeditions they were.
But yeah we are in Waterdeep....a metropolitan city and there are no spell scrolls available.
mellored wrote:
Do I have to go through all the posts in this or is there a PDF FAQ that I can simply download to skip all the speculation and redundancy to find the right answers to the questions? If this exists, please post it, or a link to it, in a modification to the first post. Thanks!
I have a couple of questions but I hate to ask anything that has already been asked. But, rather than read through each and every post to see if my questions have been answered, I'll post them at the risk of being redundant.
Question 1 example: The party of 6 level 4 PCs fights and defeats a level 12 assassin (CR8) NPC. If I'm using the same rules for the NPC as for PCs, they simply cannot kill him even though he is unconscious on the ground. The thought here is that if there are no negative hit points and somebody has to do the assassin's hit points in damage (78) to kill him, even on a crit they can't do it. Now, if the rule is that you keep track of how much damage has been done since the assassin hit 0 HP, then the party can kill him simply by striking him several times (which I think each count as crits) until his total damage since hitting zero HP would be equal to his total HP. If this is how it works, then it is like 4e except that the party (or monster on a party member) must damage the unconscious one until they are negative their total HP. Now before the flames get going, I know, there are no negative HP in 5e. So how does a monster kill a PC if not by multiple attacks once the PC is down? No, I'm not one of those DMs but it matters.
Question 2: The assassin in the example above has poison on his short sword (this is an assassin right out of the Hoard of the Dragon Queen adventure). How long is the poison effective on his short sword? The description does not indicate any duration and it seems to be there for every attack that the assassin takes using the short sword (and light crossbow, for that matter). Is one application of a poison enough to last for "1 encounter"?
geoharpst wrote:
Yes. After I posted I found on one of the other forums the rules on Page 197 of the PHB where it says:
"Damage at 0 hit points. If you take any damage while you have 0 hit points, you suffer a death saving throw failure. If the damage is from a critical hit, you suffer two failures instead. If the damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum, you suffer instant death."
And, according to the DM Screen under the Unconscious condition "any attack that hits the creature is a critical hit if the attacker is within 5 feet of the creature." So, attacking somebody who is unconscious from within 5 feet automatically deals 2 failed death saves. So, any damage at 0 hit points (stable or not) is 1 failed death save. A crit or an attack from within 5 feet = 2 failed saves. Damage from such a hit that equals your hit point maximum = death. To kill anybody who is unconscious all that is required is to strike them twice (once within 5 feet) or thrice (if none are within 5 feet) before they stabilize.
It appears that the most likely cause of death in this version will be failing 3 death saves. 
And, as an aside, the assassin failed 3 death saves on the dice, anyway.
Thanks for the answers!
Byakugan01 wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
Sands666 wrote:
1. When a wizard scribes a scroll into his spellbook, is the scroll consumed? I can't seem to find something that says it is consumed. Could a group of wizards all share the same scrolls? (I know there is a gold amount to scribe them in, and I suppose that could be acting as the cost)
2. Spells with no saving throws. This is very 1st edition but some of the spells that have no save seem deadly if cast on PCs (I'm looking at you PW: Kill) Should these spells just never be used on PCs? Without a 16 con or the toughness feats even a 20th level wizard barely breaks 100HP. Also sleep and contaigion are mean spells to use on PCs. Are there any answeres or clairifications about spells with no saves?
3.If you have a feature that allows you to take the hide action in certain conditions, such as when in a bush. Can you hide while being observed? (Ex. My party has darkvision so they decided to run a dungeon without a light source, they fought a shadow and every round he took a hide action at the end of his turn, Legit?)
Boontaker wrote:
Forgot to ask on my last post
4. So picking up/sheathing/storing a weapon is all apart of a move action, really cool feature but how does it play with disarm? I have a player that was excited about battlemasters(? fighter archtype) And the disarm feature. I then pointed out that it's just a move action that doesn't provoke to pick up a weapon so it's not that useful. The only advantage I can see of disarm is if you use your move action to pick up the weapon you disarmed. In a 1 on 1 duel what would be the advantage on disarm? If someone disarmed an opponent and took a move action to drop the disarmed weapon into their bag of holding would the fight be effectivly over?
Boontaker wrote:
Boontaker wrote:
Boontaker wrote:
EzechielDantan wrote:
Boontaker wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Are there any effects on the target if you attack with a spell and miss?
I assumed the answer was no, but the DMG secion on creating spells gives a table describing average damage based on spell level, and says "The Table assumes the spell deals half damage on a successful saving throw or a missed attack."
That's the only reference I've been able to find to spells dealing half damage on a missed attack, and was wondering if that was a remnant from the playtest or indactive of a mechanic I'm missing somewhere.
Undrhil wrote:
DajaKisubo42 wrote:
EzechielDantan wrote:
Has anyone found rules on starting equipment if your group is NOT starting as level one characters? For instance, if someone jumps into the middle of a campaign as a level 5 character, are there any rules about what starting equipment/gold they get? The best I could come up with is that they get normal starting equipment at first, then they role on the optional gold table in the equipment section once for each level above first that they are. I was just wondering if anyone knows of any official rulings?
Insigzilla wrote:
Insigzilla wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
You divide eldritch knight by 3 and then round down. However this doesn't actually match the slot progression of the class... which is divided by 3 but rounded UP.
The same is true of paladins and rangers.
The simplest fix seems to be to divide by 3 (or 2) and round up with the caveat you have to have at least the spellcasting feature before you apply anything... but is there a reason multi classing gives worse progression?
blindhamster wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
blindhamster wrote:
Or what if Brian the arcane trickster multi classes at 7th level into wizar? Again he gets both the variety and the power. Or jack the dashing paladin takes up poetry and takes a level of bard at 9th level. Again... variety and power.
However, if the number was rounded up... Jack, Brian, Clive, bob and Paul would all gain the same benefits on level up. Surely that's more balanced?
blindhamster wrote:
Rounding up rather than down seems to even out all the multi classing rather than very specific level cutoffs being clearly superior.
More importantly, rather than looking at the end result, look at how the play progression will work.
The 1/3 caster multied to full caster at 7th level will feel like their progression continues smoothly, where the 1/3 caster multied at 8th will feel less smooth, compared to those around them they gained less.
I agree on the versatility for power trade off you mentioned, but that's covered in how the spell's you can actually know and or prepare are covered.
If you do go by end results though...
6 arcane trickster 14 wizard gets you slots like a level 16 character
7 arcane trickster 13 wizard gets you slots like a level 15 character.
I'm not convinced the latter is more versatile. It definitely has a level worse slots though
blindhamster wrote:
Rogue 10/Wizard 10 has same number of ASIs as Rogue 8/Wizard 12, since Rogues get a bonus ASI at 10.
Cyber-Dave wrote:
turri wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
So, a invisible character+elven boots should be non detectable even with no hide check?(As elven boots make your steps make no sound)
turri wrote:
turri wrote:
Can someone please explain overland travelling to me? The rules are sprinkled around the DMG and PG - I get how to calculate speed etc. But:
- If a party travels fast, does it only incur -5 to perception checks? Do they start making CON checks a) normally after 8 hours, or b)earlier? I think that travelling fast should make PCs tired faster, but I don't think it's in the rules... Or is it?
Q1. Can it be assumed that any spell with a range of "touch" can be cast on oneself? Ex: Mage Armor, Cure Wounds, or even a paladin's Lay on Hands ability
Q2. Is a character's magical attack adjustment added only to "to-hit" rolls, or is it added to spell damage as well?
Zelix wrote:
Q: Hill Dwarf hitpoints? Geometric stacking or not?
Dwarven Toughness. Your hit point maximum increases by 1, and it increases by 1 every time you gain a level.
Viscar wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
it doesn't matter. if "it" refers to your hit point maximum, you get 20 at level 20.
even if you read "it" to be the amount increased, you get 20 at level 20.
druids get extra HP, yes, but they lose 5 AC and the ability to cast spells while they are shifted. they pay for tank mode.
mellored wrote:
This is a bizarre question. I was half listening to a D&D podcast while doing dishes, I think it was Critical Hit, and they were talking about a creature that could fight for one more round after you kill it. I thought they said orcs but that’s not correct. Anyone know which baddie this would be?
KaliRA73 wrote:
KaliRA73 wrote:
Boars have a Relentless feature as well.
"If the boar takes 7 damage or less that would reduce it to 0 hit points, it is reduced to 1 hit point instead."
Giant Boars have the same feature, with a limit of 10 hit points instead of 7.
Hi all
I am entirely new at D&D so I have a very basic question.
How many times can I cast a Cantrip? They don't use a spell slot so does that mean I can cast them Indefinitly or can I only cast them once before I have to take a rest?
Please and Thanks.
Jaidenthejaded wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Heres a question I've been wondering about: When you have the spell Mage Armor in effect for you, can you use a shield for an AC of 13 + Dex + 2? Or does a shield count as donning armor, which ends the spell?
tyrionlannister2113 wrote:
Thanks!
Re: Witch Bolt. -OR- All the poor rabbits - Oh the Humanity - Finer points of Rules or Splitting Hairs
How many times total will this spell deal damage provided the 'to hit' roll is made and all conditions are met.
Following the writup of the spell I can see this be six or seven depending.
One minute is 6 rounds, no?
(A) I can see the initial damage count as the first round (no concentration required) or I can see it go as;
(B) If cast time is the literal start or ZERO time at the end of the first 10 seconds/round on your action you deal damage. On the END of each of the following rounds you ALSO would deal damage. Thus initial hit + six more.
Which way does the Witch crumble? And most importantly how does this compare to a Duck?
Re: Witch Bolt. -OR- All the poor rabbits - Oh the Humanity - Finer points of Rules or Splitting Hairs
How many times total will this spell deal damage provided the 'to hit' roll is made and all conditions are met.
Following the writup of the spell I can see this be ten or eleven depending.
One minute is 6 rounds or 10? Too many game systems in my head. Ok looked it up 6 sec.
(A) I can see the initial damage count as the first round (no concentration required) or I can see it go as;
(B) If cast time is the literal start or ZERO time at the end of the first 6 seconds/round on your action you deal damage. On the END of each of the following rounds you ALSO would deal damage. Thus initial hit + ten more.
Which way does the Witch crumble? And most importantly how does this compare to a Duck?
-edit- typo and fix rnd length
Excellerant wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Excellerant wrote:
TheLyons wrote:
If you cast Detect Magic can you see a Druid who has used his Wild Shape ability to transform into an animal? The description in the PHB says the Druid "magically" transforms...
Sands666 wrote:
jaelis wrote:
I apologise if this has been answered before or is in the wrong place, but I have a question regarding paladins.
S e a r in g Sm i t e
1st-level evocation
Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: Self
Components: V
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute
The next time you hit a creature with a melee weapon
attack during the spell’s duration, your w eapon flares
with white-hot intensity, and the attack deals an extra
1d6 fire damage to the target and causes the target to
ignite in flames. At the start o f each o f its turns until
the spell ends, the target must make a Constitution
saving throw. On a failed save, it takes 1d6 fire damage.
On a successful save, the spell ends. If the target or a
creature within 5 feet o f it uses an action to put out the
flames, or if some other effect douses the flames (such
as the target being submerged in water), the spell ends.
Can this Searing Smite spell stack? If I hit an enemy three times in a round, will they make three CON saves at the start of its turn?
Thank you.
Crowbarr wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Crowbarr wrote:
Crowbarr wrote:
Bardic Skills
I'm confused by the bardic proficiencies. Why would a 5th level bard with DEX 16, CHA 18 and proficiency in both Performance and lute have a +9 bonus when playing the lute but only +7 when singing? To add to my confusion, the DMG states that you need proficiency in wind instruments to play the pipes of haunting or pipes of the sewers. This implies proficiency in broader fields (wind instruments, stringed instruments, singing, etc.), rather than individual instruments. Which is correct?
zymurgy65 wrote:
So, this came up at a session of D&D, yesterday. I was just a bystander, and wasn't participating.
What happened was, one of the monsters moved up to one of the players (We'll call this Player A). To do this, he moved through threatend squares but did not explicitly leave the area of another player (We'll call this Player B). Player B prepared to roll for an attack of opportunity, but Player A stopped him, saying that he couldn't attack when it wasn't his turn. Player B explained that he was taking an attack of opportunity against the monster. Player A took out the PHB and pointed out this passage:
"You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach."
I read the book, and it doesn't go into much more detail than that, but I know that in earlier editions, simply moving from one threatend square to another was enough for an Attack of Opportunity. This was also the case brought up by Player B. Player A just couldn't comprehend what he was saying, and the DM hadn't played since AD&D and made no call on it.
My question is, who was right?
Player A: Who says the enemy has to leave your reach?
OR
Player B: Who says the enemy did leave his reach, even though it was only to enter another square within his reach?
BurntSquirrelMan wrote:
BurntSquirrelMan wrote:
jaelis wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
To my way of thinking, there are two rules that come into play here. On page 45 of the BR, Ammunition, it specifically states that "you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon" with this property. (So, this rule is concerned with the physical act of drawing and placing ammunition onto/into position with the firing weapon.) On page 46 of the BR, Loading, it says that weapons with the loading property take time to load, and you can only fire them one time per round. (So, this rule is about the time/speed at which you can load the weapon.)
I think the feat in question tells you that you can ignore the second item (the Loading property) but the first item (the Ammunition property) is still in effect. That way, you must use a pre-loaded weapon in your second hand and cannot re-fire it, because you don't have the free hand to re-load it. However, if you have a free hand, and you have multiple attacks in a round, you can now use that weapon for those multiple attacks (whereas, without the feat, you cannot fire the weapon more than 1x per round, regardless).
This would apply to all xbows, as all of them have both the Ammunition and the Loading property. So the feat ignores the Loading property, but the Ammunition property (and its requirement for a free hand to reload the weapon), still applies. In this case, the word "property" is the key component, as there is an actual column for weapons called "Properties" and those properties are listed in the Weapons Properties section-- they are specifically talking about the "Loaded" property and that that, and that alone, is what you ignore. The other properties for the weapon in question (ammuntion, light/heavy, etc.) still are in effect.
Anyway, this makes sense to me.
dustinx wrote:
Can a Magical Bow be a Warlock's Pact weapon?
Can a Pact Weapon be dispelled by Dispel Magic or similar spells, thus ceasing it's pact weapon status?
Thanks!