New Sage Advice: Class Features, Combat, Spells, & Monsters

There's a new Sage Advice column up from D&D designer Jeremy Crawford. This month he tackles class features, combat (bonus actions; reach weapons), spellcasting, and monsters. It's quite a long edition, covering 18 questions in total, all questions asked via Twitter.

You'lll find the article here. All Sage Advice material is added to the Sage Advice Compendium, which is a 6-page PDF of questions and answers.

 

[Remathilis]

Looks good, doesn't seem too controversial this time.

I await the 30 page thread to prove me wrong.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Your link is missing the colon in "http://" but otherwise correct. Edit: Pardon, it has two HTTP sections, the first is correct.

Not much to say about the rules stuff, though the fact that reach weapons make opportunity attacks harder is silly in my opinion. Now things have free reign over a 25x25 foot area (24 grid squares, not counting the polearm-wielder's square) for such characters. Coupled with the inherent high mobility of attackers in 5e, this seems like a pretty substantial reduction in polearm effeciveness, though I guess the hard limit on OAs means it might not make much more of a difference. Still find it hard to wrap my brain around the idea that a polearm can hit enemies at both 5 and 10 feet, but doesn't let you hit them for moving only 5 feet away from you...

 

[Coredump]

But it works sell with my Polearm Master house rule.

The bonus attack (butt strike) is only usable for targets within 5', But...
it also means you get an OA if the move from 5' to 10' away.

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

Most of this stuff isn't too surprising. The only thing that's really different from how I interpreted the rules is the conjuring clarification. But looking back, I very much agree with Jeremy's clarification. I'm not a big fan of player's flipping through the MM, or any DM resource for that matter.

 

[Yaarel]

The link seems bad, getting hijacked by ‘doubleclick.net’.

Probably ‘http.com’ is the culprit?

 

[Li Shenron]

The one which surprised me is the conjure spells ones, where the DM gets to choose the summoned creature.

AFAIK it has always been up to the player to choose the summoned creature, but it has also often been a source of mess, and easy to exploit. So in more than one sense, it's for the better IMHO!

 

[Kobold Stew]

I agree -- this is a nice ruling. The rest, to me, are unsurprising.

 

[Pauper]

The bonus attack (butt strike) is only usable for targets within 5', But...
it also means you get an OA if the move from 5' to 10' away.

As noted in another part of the column, you can only take a bonus action on your
own turn; no bonus action 5' OAs with Polearm Master.

--
Pauper

 

[Rune]

Your link is missing the colon in "http://" but otherwise correct. Edit: Pardon, it has two HTTP sections, the first is correct.

Not much to say about the rules stuff, though the fact that reach weapons make opportunity attacks harder is silly in my opinion. Now things have free reign over a 25x25 foot area (24 grid squares, not counting the polearm-wielder's square) for such characters. Coupled with the inherent high mobility of attackers in 5e, this seems like a pretty substantial reduction in polearm effeciveness, though I guess the hard limit on OAs means it might not make much more of a difference. Still find it hard to wrap my brain around the idea that a polearm can hit enemies at both 5 and 10 feet, but doesn't let you hit them for moving only 5 feet away from you...

Makes since to me. A reach weapon (especially a polearm) should have a difficult time reacting to (that is, triggering reactions from) enemies that are within its reach. And, note, the ability to OA an enemy that never even closes to within 5 feet of you has tactical applicability. And tactical applicability is why polearms exist, in the first place.