New Sage Advice: Class Features, Combat, Spells, & Monsters

There's a new Sage Advice column up from D&D designer Jeremy Crawford. This month he tackles class features, combat (bonus actions; reach weapons), spellcasting, and monsters. It's quite a long edition, covering 18 questions in total, all questions asked via Twitter.

You'lll find the article here. All Sage Advice material is added to the Sage Advice Compendium, which is a 6-page PDF of questions and answers.

 

[77IM]

[HYPERBOLE]

Whoa -- I just re-read the text of minor illusion. When you use that spell to make a sound, it can be any sound you (the player) choose. But if you use it to create an image, it DOESN'T say that the player chooses the image! Surely this must mean that the DM can choose the image. Although of course the player can express a preference of what image is created.

Holy crap, it looks like silent image has the same wording -- you can alter the image, but it doesn't explicitly say that you get to pick it, so it must be the DM's prerogative. It looks like phantasmal force is safe, though, since it says you create a phenomenon "of your choice."

Also, polymorph transforms a creature into a new form, but doesn't say who chooses the new form, so presumably this means the DM selects the form. And even message is ambiguous because it says you speak a message but doesn't say that you get to pick what the message is, so it is up to the DM.

[/HYPERBOLE]

In case it's not yet clear, I think the ruling on "conjure" spells is a little bit bogus. In general the caster of a spell should get to pick all of its parameters unless the spell explicitly says otherwise. Plane shift is a great example of a spell that explicitly says otherwise -- the player gives a general destination and the DM has broad latitude in where the PCs actually wind up.

 

[Remathilis]

8 or 16 "mediocre" CR 1/4 creatures is still a force to be reckoned with. I know people who avoid those spells because they make the game too easy; you're the first person I've encountered who is planning to avoid them because they are too mediocre.

You'd think, but the hackers have already determined the best creature for each spell at each level in terms of toughness and dps, so not getting the maximum out of each spell is now a waste.

http://community.wizards.com/forum/player-help/threads/4148541

 

[Blue]

I disagree with the shillalagh rulling strongly. The result I disagree with weakly because I think the PHB rules are open to interpretation, but the logic how he arrived at the rules is incorrect by the PHB.

Sage Advice: "If I cast shillelagh on my quarterstaff and have the Polearm Master feat, does the bonus attack use a d4 or a d8 for damage? The bonus attack uses a d4. That attack is a function of the feat, not the weapon being used."

The wording of the feat: "When you take the Attack action and attack with only a glaive, halberd, or quarterstaff, you can use a bonus action to make a melee attack with the opposite end of the weapon. The weapon’s damage die for this attack is a d4, and the attack deals bludgeoning damage."

The PHB clearly lists this as the weapon's damage die. It is not the feat's damage die as listed in Sage Advice. As a side note, the SA ruling would also mean that since it's the feat and not the weapon doing the damage, they wouldn't get to apply the other benefits of Shillalagh such as using your casting stat instead of Strength or that the weapon counts as magic since you're not actually using the weapon, you're using a feat that you can use because you just so happen to have the weapon. Actually, looking at just general usage of Polearm Master, the SA ruling would mean that magic of the weapon wouldn't help and you couldn't use any bonuses or other feats that apply to weapon attacks, since it's NOT a weapon attack, it's a feat attack. Luckily none of that is supported by the PHB.

On if the die is d4 or d8, here is the relevant part of Shillalagh:

"For the duration, you can use your spellcasting ability instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of melee attacks using that weapon, and the weapon's damage die becomes a d8."

Since Polearm Master grants you a weapon damage die, and this then takes an existing damage die and modifies it, I would say this does work. But there could be discussion about "order of operations" so that could be wrong. To me the order of operations is clear - shillalagh modifies an existing weapon damage die, so it comes after that gets assigned be it by wielding a weapon (club = d6) or via the feat. But again, that's not as clear cut.

 

[Eric V]

[HYPERBOLE]

Whoa -- I just re-read the text of minor illusion. When you use that spell to make a sound, it can be any sound you (the player) choose. But if you use it to create an image, it DOESN'T say that the player chooses the image! Surely this must mean that the DM can choose the image. Although of course the player can express a preference of what image is created.

Holy crap, it looks like silent image has the same wording -- you can alter the image, but it doesn't explicitly say that you get to pick it, so it must be the DM's prerogative. It looks like phantasmal force is safe, though, since it says you create a phenomenon "of your choice."

Also, polymorph transforms a creature into a new form, but doesn't say who chooses the new form, so presumably this means the DM selects the form. And even message is ambiguous because it says you speak a message but doesn't say that you get to pick what the message is, so it is up to the DM.

[/HYPERBOLE]

In case it's not yet clear, I think the ruling on "conjure" spells is a little bit bogus. In general the caster of a spell should get to pick all of its parameters unless the spell explicitly says otherwise. Plane shift is a great example of a spell that explicitly says otherwise -- the player gives a general destination and the DM has broad latitude in where the PCs actually wind up.

This was so great. Agreed, bogus ruling.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

You'd think, but the hackers have already determined the best creature for each spell at each level in terms of toughness and dps, so not getting the maximum out of each spell is now a waste.

http://community.wizards.com/forum/player-help/threads/4148541

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but just because someone on the Internet rates something as "red: suboptimal" doesn't mean it's bad. They rated the draft horse red, and yet 16 draft horses is a total of 304 HP attacking at +6 for 32d4+64 (144) points of damage. (Interestingly, the draft horses has a higher to-hit than the warhorse.) You can't tell me that's bad! They also underrated the cobra, which has the best offense of any CR 1/4 and also has blindsight, so is easy to buff with darkness.

Have you ever seen Conjured animals taking out frost giants? If the giants pause to attack the animals, the party wastes the giants with no damage taken to anyone but the animals. If the giants attack the party, they just play defense while the animals kill them. (I do use a Speed Factor initiative variant to prevent combat from being predictable, so that's probably one factor that makes it harder on the giants, but I've also seen Conjure Animals in action at a table which uses regular initiative and it was equally amazing, and would have been so even with draft horses instead of wolves.)

 

[Remathilis]

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but just because someone on the Internet rates something as "red: suboptimal" doesn't mean it's bad. They rated the draft horse red, and yet 16 draft horses is a total of 304 HP attacking at +6 for 32d4+64 (144) points of damage. (Interestingly, the draft horses has a higher to-hit than the warhorse.) You can't tell me that's bad! They also underrated the cobra, which has the best offense of any CR 1/4 and also has blindsight, so is easy to buff with darkness.

My point is that people already have tried to squeeze every last drop of utility out of those spells, so naturally there will be people upset their favorite trick (8 pixies for example) doesn't work whenever they want it too. I'm okay with this; summoning should be a bit unpredictable to make up for the extra meat you get to bring to bear on a foe. If its a nerf, its a good one.

Though I did like the random table someone suggested upthread; that might be a project worth doing...

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

I haven't seen a player use any of the conjure spells but I think my preferred way of handling it will be to ask the player what general purpose they want the summons for and decide based on that, trying best to match the selected CR (only going under the maximum if necessary). The player could ask for flying mounts at CR 1/4 and I'd give giant owls if in a woodsy area or giant bats if underground or near a cave.

It gets weird with Conjure Celestial and Conjure Fey though, since there is an awful lack of choices in those categories. Conjure Fey in its default state can get a Fey of CR 6 but there is currently no CR 6 fey in the MM.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

It gets weird with Conjure Celestial and Conjure Fey though, since there is an awful lack of choices in those categories. Conjure Fey in its default state can get a Fey of CR 6 but there is currently no CR 6 fey in the MM.

If you don't want to stat something up yourself, Frog God's /Fifth Edition Foes/ has the CR 6 Gray Nisp, the CR 7 Grimm, and a bunch of smaller fey. No celestials though.

 

[Jester David]

It makes sense to give the DM veto power over conjuring animals.

There's the "story" reasons. The spellcaster is calling fey spirits to take a particular form, but the fey spirit arguably chooses the form they take. And there's no solid reason why a PC would know all the best available animals and have a mental menagerie to pick from. Knowledge of foreign animals might be spotty.
Plus, sometimes it doesn't make sense for an animal to fit the terrain. Why would a fey spirit pretending to be a beast choose to be a tropical ape in a temperate forest.

Turning monster books into a player resource is always tricky. As more monsters are introduced that are designed as monsters and not PC allies, there's a greater chance of something breaking the game. And under CR-ed monsters - ones with too low AC/HP/dmg to be a threat to the PCs - are suddenly powerful allies. There are some monsters with great utility. Just being able to choose 8 pixies and, for a single 4th-level spell and gain access to all their spellcasting is pretty potent.

 

[iserith]

It makes sense to give the DM veto power over conjuring animals.

There's the "story" reasons. The spellcaster is calling fey spirits to take a particular form, but the fey spirit arguably chooses the form they take. And there's no solid reason why a PC would know all the best available animals and have a mental menagerie to pick from. Knowledge of foreign animals might be spotty.
Plus, sometimes it doesn't make sense for an animal to fit the terrain. Why would a fey spirit pretending to be a beast choose to be a tropical ape in a temperate forest.

Turning monster books into a player resource is always tricky. As more monsters are introduced that are designed as monsters and not PC allies, there's a greater chance of something breaking the game. And under CR-ed monsters - ones with too low AC/HP/dmg to be a threat to the PCs - are suddenly powerful allies. There are some monsters with great utility. Just being able to choose 8 pixies and, for a single 4th-level spell and gain access to all their spellcasting is pretty potent.

Can you trust your players not to intentionally "break" the game?