Search results

I agree that Bless does not require the caster to be able to see the targets. However, if it did say something like that, the usual phrasing is "creature(s) that you can see within range". (Bane is an example of a spell with multiple targets that the caster has to be able to see.) I've never...

The issue of whether something is an AoE spell in 5e is a little muddled. There are 1) spells that affect a single target; 2) spells that affect a fixed number (>1) of targets; 3) spells that affect all creatures within range that you choose; and 4) spells that affect all creatures in...

None of my players shows even the slightest teensy-weensy inclination to DM. (Well, ok, to be fair one of them was the DM from about 1977 to 1979, but at this remove, that hardly seems to count.) I'd like to play, not the least because I think it would make me a better DM, but I'd have to...

Oh, interesting. Thanks for the clarification.

Overall, a good, interesting list. But, hey, you posted it on the internet, so let's pick it apart. :geek::unsure: Arcane - This description sounds more like a method or practice (like @Doug McCrae's #2) than a source; that is, more "how" than "what". Perhaps the "what" is something more...

Was pulling for the Aboleth, but I'm ok with the Beholder.

Aboleth 6 + 1 = 7 Beholder 17 Mind Flayer 20 - 2 = 18

Aboleth 19 + 1 = 20 Beholder 31 Elder Brain 4 Gibbering Mouther 10 - 2 = 8 Mind Flayer 20

Um, sort of? It's not so much that it doesn't stack with armor or shields - you can't use it at all if you are wearing armor or using a shield. So, for example, if a monk with 16 DEX and 14 WIS puts on leather armor, they cannot use UD and their AC actually decreases from 15 to 14. So having...

The narration occurring after the mechanical outcome is determined and being dependent on it is what always happens in D&D, isn't it? While I am definitely not a fan of either the way the spell is written or Crawford's (most recent) interpretation, I think what @Charlaquin is suggesting can be...

Aboleth 27 + 1 = 28 Beholder 29 Elder Brain 16 - 2 = 14 Gibbering Mouther 16 Mind Flayer 24

Aboleth 31 Beholder 26 + 1 = 27 Elder Brain 27 Gibbering Mouther 16 Mind Flayer 28 Otyugh 16 - 2 = 14

Did you mean Lore Bards maybe? Valor gets access to medium armor and shields, so not much trouble getting AC to 17 or 18.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "not supported by the rules". If you mean that the rules don't define the term "armor-based AC", well, yes, that's true, but I don't understand what difference that alone would make. The concept of calculating an AC value based on the armor you are...

Welllll, as to RAI, it appears you are correct. https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-january-2016 However, I greatly disagree that the wording of the spell leaves no room for misinterpretation. As evidence, I submit the words of the many people who have expressed their...

Except that that is not what the spell says, at least to me. Consider the two following wordings: If the spell read as in the first wording, I would agree with you. However, what we actually have is the second. So I would modify what you said to be the following: Calculate your AC based...

Because it is the beloved classic trash pile. Aboleth 33 Beholder 31 + 1 = 32 Elder Brain 30 Gibbering Mouther 26 Mind Flayer 31 Otyugh 27 - 2 = 25 But sooner or later, it's time to take out the trash. Ulitharid 7

Aboleth 29 + 1 = 30 Beholder 32 Chuul 6 Elder Brain 29 Gibbering Mouther 28 Mind Flayer 28 Neogi 9 Otyugh 32 - 2 = 30 Ulitharid 18

By "high point" do you mean the mean value (average) or the most likely single result? Those are not the same thing.

The thing is, in general, there's no way to prove that a restriction is unnecessary. So unless removing the restriction has a really big benefit, I, personally, have no interest in spending the mental effort to convince myself that it's "probably" ok. As for the particular things you've...