Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RangerWickett" data-source="post: 3081493" data-attributes="member: 63">Allow me to bold the parts that I think are important. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />The emboldened part makes it fairly clear to me that the intent is that the creature will attack, which is why they include a provision for how it responds if it can't easily get to you. I think if the creature had the option not to attack at all, it would be spelled out.I mean, the way the knight in our game does it, he roars a challenge to his enemies, telling them to have honor and face him without cowering. The last time this ability worked, it was against a mounted archer on a flying mount. The DM decided that the archer would just spend a few rounds flying around, drinking potions and letting his mount attack whoever it wanted. I'm sure if the DM could have justified the archer knowing the ability's duration, he just would have flown away for a few rounds, then come back later so he could kill our spellcasters instead of focusing fire on the knight.Seriously, the flavor of the ability is that it is a challenge to engage in combat. Instead you're making it sound like the ability is called, "Leave her alone! *pout*", and that the intent is just to make the bad guy stop picking on your friends.I'll go ask WotC.</blockquote>

Verification