Search results

Using weapons and being proficient in weapons are not the same thing. Why do I need to keep saying this over and over? Yes, they use all sorts of simple weapons. No they should not bee proficient in them. The MM lets me not give them proficiency too, so that is as valid as your argument...

But what you are missing is any character, PC or NPC, can already use any weapon. Yes commoners can use light crossbows, and daggers and heavy crossbows, and longbows and swords, but they should not use all of those equally to a soldier who has been trained to use them ... i.e. they should not...

The basic commoner statblock has a club. Not a dagger, not a light crossbow, not a sling. Nor does it say they are proficient with anything else. Ok then oathbows and arrows of dragon slaying? No they can clearly use it .... WITHOUT adding their proficiency bonus. You don't seem to...

Well there is no rule saying they are proficient with all simple weapons either. They also don't get proficiency with improvised weaopons, and niether do PCs. I think a commoner would be a lot better at swinging a chair than effectively employing a dagger. This is exactly true RAW and I...

No they are not. RAW they are only proficient in clubs. As DM you can change/rule this differently obviously. These are the rules for PCs, and also notice it says "most" not all. From the monster manual: "Monsters have proficiency with their equipment." The only weapon listed in the...

In the interview they claimed most people disliked having the subclass associated with the Purple Dragons (which is Lore-related I suppose), but they also said people did not want a Dragon riding class, they wanted a support class. That would not be lore related.

If they are commoners they would not be proficient with crossbows and would need a 19 to hit I am not sure they are supposed to be terrifying any more. They took away their fear ability in the 2024 rules and if they still had that this would be a much easier fight for them.

The hit points don't stack but under the wording of the 2024 rules the spell lasts an hour as long as you have temp hit points. So if I am an 8th level Fiend warlock and I cast a 4th level AOA I get 20 temp hit points, and every time someone hits me they take 20 damage. If I lose 16 of of...

I would not agree that Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade are objectively better than Truestrike. They are situationally better, but I think Truestrike is generally better for 4 reasons: 1. Works at reach with reach weapons 2. Works with ranged weapons and thrown melee weapons 3. Uses spell...

No actually according to the 5E rules on spells "touch" is a range, just like "XX feet" or "self". It is not a mechanic, an attack or anything. It is specifically the range for a spell as noted in the description above. It is not an attack at all. I am the one arguing the opposite. Also...

Why should a touch spell with a save automatically hit, but a touch spell without anything mentioned need an attack roll to hit?

The designers clearly DON'T require an attack roll to touch someone. Touch is defined as a range in the section describing spells and does not mention an attack roll or save requirement as being needed. Further the specific spell we are talking about does not list either an attack roll or a...

It is not apples and oranges. You still touch him if he makes the save, he still takes damage if he makes the save. He still suffers effects from the spell if he makes a save. What is the logic there? When I cast a spell, either I can automatically touch someone who does not want to be...

It is exactly an example. You automatically touch the creature you target. The save does not stop the target from being touched and it still takes damage even if it makes the save. This is the whole argument you should have to roll an attack roll to touch someone who does not want to be...

But the point is the creature does not want to be touched and yet you can automatically touch it when you cast the spell. Whether it makes its save or not you still touch it and it still takes damage. The save does not stop you from touching it. So how do you explain that you can...

I did not miss it. It has a save. That is not the point. You can touch the enemy automatically whether he saves or not, and the save is a Constitution save which does not imply it has anything to do with dodging your hand. The whole argument against Dispel Evil and good is that you should...

But inflict wounds (2024) is. It has a Range of touch and if you cast it you automatically touch the enemy and damage him.

And it always hits the enemy when you cast it around them.

I agree, and spells that have a save also usually damage enemies when they make that save. This emphasizes my point. When you make your save against Lightning Bolt, it still hits you. When you make your save against Hellish Rebuke it still hits you. You can damage someone with a Lightning...

It depends what you roll how quick you hit max dex. On point buy you hit 20 the same time you would hit it with any other class except Fighter. If you are playing a character that is single class and hard melee I think you dump Charisma. You don't need it. A 16 Con Warlock with Armor of...