messy's 5e newbie questions thread

Ah, I see they Sage Adviced this one. However, their wording still isn't airtight:

Two-Weapon Fighting (under melee attacks, not the fighting style, not the feat) says "When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand."

It says when you take the attack action you can use a bonus action. It doesn't say you can use a bonus action if you have not already used one on your turn. I'd even read it to mean that if you have spells and want to cast healing word as a bonus action, then attack with your action, you'd still get the off-hand attack, because it's automatically granted. I'd argue that the specific rule for two-weapon fighting trumps the general cap on bonus actions.

If they really want to eliminate the controversy they need to add a sentence in the PHB like "NOTE: Action Surge does not grant a second bonus action off-hand attack for two-weapon fighting."
I certainly haven't seen that interpretation before. You only get one bonus action per turn. period. Two weapon fighting just gives you something to use that bonus action for. If it worked like you are arguing, then the limit on bonus actions would be pointless, because every specific example would trump it.
Everything obeys the general rule, unless a specific rule says otherwise. The rules for two-weapon fighting don't need to specify that you can't do it if you've already used a bonus action for something else. Instead, the rule would specifically tell you if this did not count for the number of bonus actions you are allowed.
 

delph

Explorer
46) BattleMaster manouver Evasive Footwork - what mean "until you stop moving"? When i take move in every turn and don't do anything else? Or i make move in every turn and can make attack? Or only in part of my turn when I take move and stop when i start to do anything else (attack)?
 
46) BattleMaster manouver Evasive Footwork - what mean "until you stop moving"? When i take move in every turn and don't do anything else? Or i make move in every turn and can make attack? Or only in part of my turn when I take move and stop when i start to do anything else (attack)?
Now that is a good question. I've never seen anyone take this ability, but read literally the AC bonus would only apply to attacks of opportunity triggered by your movement. Which is really really bad.
 

delph

Explorer
Now that is a good question. I've never seen anyone take this ability, but read literally the AC bonus would only apply to attacks of opportunity triggered by your movement. Which is really really bad.
best compromise is IMHO use it with "until the start of your next turn" because use it only when you move to avoid attacks are much better features in game and "unlimited" use when you just need take a move in every round is too powerful.
 

messy

Explorer
47. armor seems to be an exception to the proficiency rule, in that proficiency in armor doesn't add your proficiency bonus to anything. is this correct?

48. if i'm understanding correctly, a spellcaster can have a spell component pouch OR a focus, and they serve the same function. is this correct?
 

TheCosmicKid

Adventurer
47. armor seems to be an exception to the proficiency rule, in that proficiency in armor doesn't add your proficiency bonus to anything. is this correct?

48. if i'm understanding correctly, a spellcaster can have a spell component pouch OR a focus, and they serve the same function. is this correct?
Yes to both.
 
48. if i'm understanding correctly, a spellcaster can have a spell component pouch OR a focus, and they serve the same function. is this correct?
Yes, but there is a slight qualification in that you need the actual component listed rather than a pouch or focus if it has a monetary value. You must also have a class feature that allows you to use a focus. E.g. Eldritch Knights must use a component pouch as this class does not have the spellcasting focus feature.

There are also a couple of spells (Booming Blade, Green Flame Blade) that list "weapon" as the material component. It's not explicitly stated, but the implication is that this must be the weapon you attack with as part of the spell. So maybe a wand isn't the best option here.
 
47. armor seems to be an exception to the proficiency rule, in that proficiency in armor doesn't add your proficiency bonus to anything. is this correct?
Yes. It should also be noted that you can put on armor you are not proficient in, but you cannot cast spells when you do so.
 

MarkB

Hero
Yes. It should also be noted that you can put on armor you are not proficient in, but you cannot cast spells when you do so.
Plus you have massive penalties - disadvantage to any attack, saving throw or skill check based upon Strength or Dexterity.

So if you're building a prison for criminal mages, an effective way to suppress their abilities is to padlock them into suits of plate armour.
 

Salthorae

Imperial Mountain Dew Taster
48. if i'm understanding correctly, a spellcaster can have a spell component pouch OR a focus, and they serve the same function. is this correct?
There is also the caveat that you can't always use the same focus for your spells even within the same traditions (arcane or divine) if you're multiclass. There are times where exception rules allow you to use something else as a focus for spells, one of the easiest example is College of Swords bard who is multiclassed as a sorcerer.

College of Swords lets you use a simple or martial weapon as your spellcasting focus for bard spells. But your sorcerer spells would require a different focus or component pouch to cast Material component spells still.

Also if you spell has a costly component or one that is consumed, you still have to have those on you, they are not replaced with a focus.
 

delph

Explorer
49. Is Battlemasters manouver "sweeping attack" working together with GWM to second attack? I mean if is using -5/+10 in base Attack Is dealing 1d8/10/12 + 10 dmg?

If yes, than this manouver worth to take, when I have GWM
 
Last edited:
49. Is Battlemasters manouver "sweeping attack" working together with GWM to second attack? I mean if is using -5/+10 in base Attack Is dealing 1d8/10/12 + 10 dmg?

If yes, than this manouver worth to take, when I have GWM
Yes, they stack. The extra attack you can get from GWM uses your bonus action, whereas "Sweeping attack" is just a regular attack but with multiple targets. You could make multiple Sweeping stacks in one action with your "Extra Attack" feature.

Given that the extra target only takes damage equal to your superiority dice (so you can't attach riders to it) I would still rate it "poor" though.
 

delph

Explorer
Yes, they stack. The extra attack you can get from GWM uses your bonus action, whereas "Sweeping attack" is just a regular attack but with multiple targets. You could make multiple Sweeping stacks in one action with your "Extra Attack" feature.

Given that the extra target only takes damage equal to your superiority dice (so you can't attach riders to it) I would still rate it "poor" though.
Last part was answer I wont. So second target get only manouver sice dmg And no +10 even I used it for main target.
 

Sabathius42

Explorer
Why have I never thought of this?!?!?! I can think of many cases where Athletics (Con) makes so much more sense than a flat Con check or save. Thank you for reminding me that, when appropriate, the modifying stat for a skill proficiency can change.
Intimidate (STR) is a commonly requested change which can make a lot of sense.
 

Sabathius42

Explorer
okay. Ya know, this is one of those cases where it would have been simpler to say 'roll 1D20 and add your Dex modifier'. The problem with calling it an ability check is that it implies you can fail it... and how the heck do you fail initiative? Sure, you can lose and go last, but fail? I was picturing the DM saying, "Sorry, you failed initiative, so you can't do anything. Better luck next round." :)
You can get advantage and disadvantage to ability checks with different conditions.
 

Harzel

Explorer
49. Is Battlemasters manouver "sweeping attack" working together with GWM to second attack? I mean if is using -5/+10 in base Attack Is dealing 1d8/10/12 + 10 dmg?

If yes, than this manouver worth to take, when I have GWM
Yes, they stack. The extra attack you can get from GWM uses your bonus action, whereas "Sweeping attack" is just a regular attack but with multiple targets. You could make multiple Sweeping stacks in one action with your "Extra Attack" feature.

Given that the extra target only takes damage equal to your superiority dice (so you can't attach riders to it) I would still rate it "poor" though.
Last part was answer I wont. So second target get only manouver sice dmg And no +10 even I used it for main target.
That would be my reading. And no extra sneak attack/barbarian rage/zealot etc damage for devious multiclassers.
I would infer from this Sage Advice that @Paul Farquhar's reading is probably RAI, FWIW.*


However, GWM introduces an additional question not raised by Dueling: if you disallow the +10 to damage against the secondary target, do you still apply the -5 to the attack roll?

Personally, I'd rule the other way, having the -5/+10 apply to the secondary attack as well (and the same for the +2 of Dueling for that matter). IMO, several considerations point in that direction.

- For me, the obvious fluff for GWM is that the character is swinging harder, but, as a result, less accurately. Removing the damage bonus from the damage to the second target, to me flies in the face of that fluff. The description for Sweeping Attack literally says that the effect on the secondary target is part of the "same attack". If that attack was made harder and less accurate, then it's harder and less accurate. Period.

- The issue of the the -5 makes both alternatives to keeping the -5/+10 suck. For the secondary target, removing the +10, but keeping the -5 just seems unfair, but removing the -5 means that after cleaving through one target your strike became somehow .... more accurate?? Blech.

- GWM's -5/+10 option is not a limited use ability. So if the strike against the secondary target had been made as a separate attack, the -5/+10 could have been applied without using any more resources. Hence, applying it to the secondary target of Sweeping Attack doesn't seem to me to be providing very much additional "leverage". In fact, it's a bit of a trade-off: if you want to use Sweeping Attack, then the -5/+10 applies to either both targets or neither, whereas if you attacked them separately you could choose to use it on one and not the other.

- Superiority Dice are a limited resource and Sweeping Attack competes for their use with the other maneuvers the BM has picked. Also, Sweeping Attack can only be used situationally. This means that the GWM/Sweeping Attack combo is unlikely to come up very often, so any argument that allowing the -5/+10 to apply is somehow OP is suspect, at best.

- I don't see any particularly good reasons to rule otherwise.

I would rule the same way for Dueling (Crawford notwithstanding) and bonus Rage damage. However, Sneak Attack and Divine Fury are specifically limited to one creature per turn, and not applying them to the secondary target is compatible with their fluff.

My 2 c.p.

* Which, in my estimation, is not much; but that's just me.
 

Harzel

Explorer
okay. Ya know, this is one of those cases where it would have been simpler to say 'roll 1D20 and add your Dex modifier'. The problem with calling it an ability check is that it implies you can fail it... and how the heck do you fail initiative? Sure, you can lose and go last, but fail? I was picturing the DM saying, "Sorry, you failed initiative, so you can't do anything. Better luck next round." :)
Reading literally the section of the PH that you are implicitly referencing (Ability Checks in Ch. 7) is clearly a mistake. For example, ability check contests, specifically described in the sections on Grappling, etc., in Ch. 9 do not fall under the literal rubric in the Ability Checks section. The use of ability checks described there is just the most common case. (And the fact that it is framed in a misleading way is certainly not unique to that topic in the context of the 5e books.)

However, if one were to feel strongly that initiative must be shoe-horned into the description in the Ability Checks section, then we'll just say that the DC is 100, but everyone gets to make 'progress with a setback', with the 'setback' (delay to act) being determined by the roll. See? You just have to know how to exploit the loopholes.
 
I would infer from this Sage Advice that @Paul Farquhar's reading is probably RAI, FWIW.*


However, GWM introduces an additional question not raised by Dueling: if you disallow the +10 to damage against the secondary target, do you still apply the -5 to the attack roll?
I would rule yes. The second attack uses the same attack role, including any bonuses and penalties.

Sweeping attack is, of course, so bad that no one would ever use it, and therefore the issue will never arise.

- however, what does JC mean by "an effect that increases all your damage rolls"??
 

delph

Explorer
I would rule yes. The second attack uses the same attack role, including any bonuses and penalties.

Sweeping attack is, of course, so bad that no one would ever use it, and therefore the issue will never arise.

- however, what does JC mean by "an effect that increases all your damage rolls"??
but when you can use -5/+10 it get new dimension of use. And perfectly match with idea brutal power warrior. With one swing get down 2 enemies (ok like goblins, or wolfs)... 1d10+10 is dmg you cant ignore. And if you take green flame blade You are 2 target destroyer :D but it's really situational.
 

Advertisement

Top