Search results

Hmm. If I didn't already know what Rage of Demons was, this trailer wouldn't have really made it clear what it was. I would have probably thought it was about a new video game franchise with some dated cutscene graphics. The various noises and whisperings drowned out the narration sometimes...

Areas, positioning, and movement are all highly abstract anyway. An orc is not really standing still in one square and waiting for its turn to come up before moving. A Fireball is not really a homogeneously filled, perfectly rounded sphere. Square AoE effects are fine with me because it's all...

That is very much open to debate. Clerics can't prepare spells of certain levels, sure, but that's not the same as not knowing them. It's not even certain if the the game mechanical sense of "knowing" spells is even applicable to Clerics in the first place. The term "knowing" spells seems to...

You know what's weird? Silver Dragon's attacks don't count as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming resistances. Ok, perhaps, fine. That wasn't the weird bit. But they also don't count as silver weapons for the purpose of overcoming resistances. Yeah. Think about that. *ahem* Anyway...

Weird, right? I dug into the PHB fully expecting to reach a different conclusion myself but I couldn't reach any other conclusion about the RAW than the one I wrote.

By the strictest reading of the rules: yes. But I believe this to be an oversight based on poor wording. (A recurring bugbear in 5e's "natural language".) The issue is that "Spells Known" are determined by each class individually. However, Clerics don't have spells known. They just access all...

This isn't the only issue 5e has with auto-failing saving throws. The Rod of Lordly Might can paralyze you with a Str save, but it allows you to repeat the save every round... which you will auto-fail because you're paralyzed. The Wand of Paralysis allows you to repeat the initial saving throw...

People trying to "trick" reality itself by pretending to be hostile for a split-second... Glad to see we still have our senses of humor. :D This is not official but there's a fix to War Caster that's simple, effective, and sticks to the spell's intent: houserule it so that only spells which...

While not an official rule, Mike Mearls did say that you can't combine Polearm Master and War Caster this way. http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/16/polearm-caster/

But when the Sorcerer and Warlock were introduced they were blank slates because those classes didn't previously exist. Psions do. So they apply a highly generic, non-descriptive name to a very specific and already well-defined concept. It doesn't work for me. It's a step back in terms of...

Mystic could describe anything. It could be a Cleric or a Wizard. Or a Paladin, a Sorcerer, even a Barbarian if you go with the animal totem thing. I could understand the desire to get rid of Psion and Psionicist (although personally I think they're fine) but Mystic isn't a good substitute...

Important Notice: the math in the UA article is wrong. Quick example. A level 1 caster with a 16 casting stat has a save DC of (8+2+3) 13. Let's say there's a critter with a +2 save bonus, so it's a perfect 50-50 chance whether it saves or not. Under the UA version, the caster would have a +5...

They messed up the math for saving throws under the "players make all the rolls" section. Take a level 1 Wizard with 16 Int, casting a spell on a creature with a +2 bonus. Under the normal system this is a DC 13 vs. a +2 bonus. A roll of 10 or less means the monster is affected. In other words...

No, you're looking at it from the wrong direction. They get the same number of attacks. However, they didn't spend the same number of actions to get those attacks. Axechick readied twice, Swordguy readied once. Although they will make the same number of attacks through the combat, Swordguy...

To actually answer the OP: No, to the best of my knowledge this never received a clarification.

Indeed. If players and the DM are the root cause of slowness, then how come 4e has a reputation for long drawn-out combats? How come people favorably compare 5e to 4e when discussing the amount of time it takes them to do an encounter? If it's down to the people, then the answer would always be...

You're right, I misremembered.

The Monk's martial arts attacks don't have to be unarmed, they can already be used with weapons such as the quarterstaff.

That still doesn't explain anything. Do you think that the Monk's inherent bonus action attack wouldn't benefit from +1/flaming or something? If the weapon was somehow magical, what would the butt end attack provide that the martial arts attack couldn't?

I'm not sure how this makes the butt end attack useful? Feat or no, the martial arts bonus attack already has all this.