Search results

When reading the PHB without the 'benefit' of the tweets/Sage Advice, it is just as reasonable to interpret 'when/if' to mean 'when/if you take this action this round', so both Action and bonus action must be chosen together but the timing withing the round of the execution of each element of...

JC himself is totally okay with bonus actions (like misty step) within Attack actions. But it wasn't true then either. In 3.5/PF you can certainly take free and swift actions between the attacks of a full attack.

See, that makes sense, in isolation. If 'taking the Attack action' IS synonymous with 'executing the weapon attack allowed by the Attack action', then a creature with one attack declares/actually attacks simultaneously. That makes sense. But, if this IS the rule, then it is unavoidable that if...

As a 4th level warrior-type, I get 1 attack when I take the Attack action. If I have a feat which lets me take a bonus action if I take the Attack action, then the feat lets me do something MORE than if I don't have the feat. The feat makes me 'better'. If that 4th level warrior took, say, +2...

No, JC is saying that the attack action must be completed before you are allowed to take the bonus bash. He's saying that attack -> bash -> extra attack is not legal, because Extra Attack is part of the Attack action and Actions are (now, suddenly!) indivisible!

So my 4th level fighter gets the Shield Master feat. Now I can shield bash, but ONLY if I execute my one attack first. Okay, so attacking ONCE is the thing that allows me to shield bash, right? Now I get to 5th level and gain Extra Attack. Why does one attack no longer allow me to shield...

My current PC is Bar 1/War 4 (fiendish bladepact) built around armour of agathys. My current options for my bonus actions include: starting my Rage, casting or moving hex, casting misty step, using the extra bonus action weapon attack generated by scoring a crit or reducing an enemy to zero HP...

Just because the PHB mentions that you can ignore/change any rule you want, this does not mean that there are no rules! Sure, DM's can change/ignore rules. Does that mean that there can be no thread asking about the rules without the first reply shutting the thread down? "You can ignore the...

The way you are running things is what creates the problems you are having, and your solutions are making things worse. Compare:- * the situation is that an ogre is hiding behind a rock in order to ambush the party, because they were being loud and he heard them. The DM determines that the...

It's not about power creep or the DM's right to adjust the game rules for non-standard settings. It is about the DM trying to tell me that my PC must be a thief/drunkard/Lawful Stupid based on the character class! I will do my own characterisation, thank you very much! Judge: So, Sir Simon...

Immunity to Surprise =/= successful Perception check! When deciding who is surprised, the DM usually asks for contested skill checks, and usually chooses Perception/Stealth. If so, then a successful Perception check not only determines that this creature is 'not surprised' but also gives some...

In this post you say your motive is to keep out PC's whose mechanics are inappropriate for a particular campaign; one example is create water for DarkSun, which if it worked normally would mean that the DarkSun setting would not make sense. Fair enough, I suppose. But in other posts your motive...

When I run the game I roll the monster's attack rolls/saving throws/skill checks in view of the players (assuming the PCs can observe the creature doing the thing). I then ask for the PC's AC/save DC/opposed check result or passive score. It works. If I roll, say, a 9 on an attack roll, I ask...

If one wants to play for everything in that list, then to be consistent and maximise those supposed benefits then the character sheets should be taken away from the players. They don't get to roll their own dice either. I mean, if they roll high and fail or roll low and succeed anyway, then...

Ah, so your players don't know their own current hit point totals either.

It's not about lack of trust, it's about game mechanics which state that they are used after they see the die roll but before the result is announced. Therefore, they do know what the d20 rolled! I don't want you to spill your beer; you can just tell them what the d20 rolled!

Yeah, don't roll in secret. Seriously, why are you rolling in secret? I'd roll in secret for things done that the PCs cannot observe, such as when they are not there or are blinded and so forth. But why would you roll in secret when the PCs ARE observing the action? It is entirely appropriate...

There are two things that are pivotal for me:- 1.) Unlike previous editions, 5e doesn't want players to waste stuff. For example, in 3e/Pathfinder you might have an ability that grants you +2 to a single roll once per day, but you have to announce you are using that ability before you roll the...

The Shrug It Off ability has no relevance to which damage dice belong to the attack roll that scored a crit. That attack is resolved, from 'attack roll=crit' to 'damage roll', with qualifying dice rolled twice, to get a total of damage dealt by that attack. The fact that this particular target...

The 5e rules are written using natural language. The use of the apostrophe (the ' character) in a word, followed by an s, indicates the possessive case and differentiates it from the plural. So "the attack's damage dice" indicates that the damage dice are possessed by (belong to) the attack...