Search results

The answer's in the official Sage Advice Compendium as well: http://dnd.wizards.com/sage-advice-compendium You keep the AC bonus. All the rules require (PHB, page 144) is to wield a shield. That's it.

This thread is three years old, by the way.

When I read the thread topic, I thought to myself: Not necessarily! You can do just fine with the Basic Rules! And some people learned to play D&D several editions ago, they don't need to go over the DMG for all that much, save perhaps for magic items or something. But if you've got some...

5e has a ton of spells, class abilities, and feats. It has bonus actions that are not the same as actions. There are attacks that are not Attacks. It has something called Armor Class and some effects provide bonuses to this score, whereas others provide alternative methods of calculation, and...

4e rituals don't covert coins into effects. The gp costs of rituals represent the worth of the components used. Unless you always have a barrel full of residuum dust and/or assorted arcane ingredients, you'll still need a town or trader of some sort to acquire those components.

Sharpshooter says it applies "when you make an attack", which is defined in the combat chapter of the PHB. It says quite clearly: "If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack."...

Quick fact check: that's not quite true. When you type in "orc" in the DDI compendium you do get 93 results, but that also includes half-orcs, Tanarukks, and a surprising amount of unique characters who happen to be an orc or half-orc. It's like complaining you have too many human variants just...

It seems to me there's some conflicting priorities going around. On the one hand, a desire for realism. Or verisimilitude or whatever it's called this week. People, in a surprise situation, ought not to be able to dodge as well as in normal situations. Then again there's something to be said...

It's not entirely unprecedented. Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed/Evolved used this as a cornerstone for its spellcasting system. 13th Age also allows a very freeform "ritual" system where you use up a spell for a different but related effect. In my experience, this kind of flexibility can enhance...

I could tell, but I have no idea what tapatalk is like or how things look on your end. It appears I've mistaken a technical limitation for rudeness, and for that I apologize.

Yes, the very first incarnations of Magic Missile (OD&D and Holmes) essentially treated it as a magic arrow launched from a longbow. Even did 1d6+1 damage. It became the more familiar unerringly auto-hitting 1d4+1 spell in 1981. (And of course, pre-errata 4e also used attack rolls. It's...

No he didn't, I did that. It's becoming increasingly clear to me that you're misreading the rules, the forum posts, and the validity of your own answers. But I ask you do your peers the courtesy of reading their names; we are not some monolith, we are individuals with our own posts.

I have no idea what you're even saying at this point, nor how it's supposed to answer my question. So I'm just going to bow out now. This has been strange.

I think you might have misunderstood my question? Because Multiattack is not a correct answer. Multiattack is an Action (capital A) which triggers several Attacks. It is not, itself, a type of attack. And even if it were an attack, it wouldn't count as a correct answer because it clearly...

Such as? I did a quick browse through the MM but I must have missed them. Each and every attack seems clearly to be an attack.

Can anyone provide an example of something that is never called an attack (either explicitly or through involving an attack roll), that nevertheless does count as an attack? Because I'm struggling to think of any. Note that I am talking in terms of game mechanics here. Lighting oil on the...

If I may offer a small correction: Gnomes were immediately fey in 4e. They appear in the Monster Manual as fey. The only thing that 4e took some time with was providing full PC race status to gnomes, but that's not the same as being fey or not.

If the DM doesn't use errata then unarmed strikes are weapons; they are listed as such on page 149 amongst all other weapons. Monks don't have a special "monk strike" attack, they just alter the damage of their "normal" unarmed strikes. Stunning Strike will still work.

If we accept for the sake of argument that there's a problem with the Rogue18/Barbarian2 multiclass combo, then I would propose that the real problem is the optional multiclassing rules and not the Elusive ability itself. You don't like how things shake out? Then why did you allow it? Mind you...

Just because a critical hit happens doesn't mean it's a bad thing. You must look at critical hits in two ways: how often they happen, and what they actually do. Critical hits in 5e are weak for most people because they only double the dice. In 3e they could double all damage, or triple it, or...