Is there a way on D&D Beyond to search for spells by material component? I feel I must be missing something. The spell interface only seems to have a filter for having "M" or not, and the general site search doesn't seem to be searching the material component fields.
@PeterCooperJr. I don't think so, but I assume that if you search for a unique material component in the Compendium content, it will find the mention of the spell among the search results
Not sure how helpful that is
but yeah, probably easier to look at material components and then find where they appear as treasure in adventures rather than the reverse
If a spell's material components include any items with an indicated cost (such as the pearl worth at least 100 gp needed for identify), those items cannot be satisfied via a component pouch or spellcasting focus but must specifically exist in the caster's inventory. This raises the question: Wh...
Post-errata, page 195 of the PHB contains the text:
On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier.
Moreover, page 196 says:
When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier — the same modifier used for the attack roll — to the damage...
The other day I wanted to use a random loot table to determine what my players found on a hag they killed (dnd-5e), and one thing struck me as odd : the loot table for individual monsters only includes coin rewards, is that expected or was I looking at the wrong table?
Suppose I'm playing a character that has a flying speed (such as a Varient (Winged) Tiefling or an Aarakocra) and get critically hit. The DM rolls on the Lingering Injuries table and after rolling a 3 tells me I lose a leg. The table says (emphasis mine)
Lose a Foot or Leg. Your speed on foot...
@PierreCathé I think that's intentional - if an individual monster/NPC has a magic item on them, it's probably one they're using already. this is more to cover the situation of "if the party loots the body, how much money do they find"
Treasure parcels are shared among the whole group, not one per character.
The entire party has a level 2, 4 and 5 magic item to share between themselves. This means in a group of four level 1 characters, only three magic items have dropped, and one person may not have their own magic item yet.
...
Basically, the game tells you how much treasure a party of your size and level should get, including guidelines for how many magic items of what power level. It divides these things into "parcels" of items, coin, and other valuables, which the GM is free to include in the adventure as loot from corpses, quest rewards, treasure stockpiles, etc, as fits the story.
For background information: 4e's system of handing out magical treasure is more integrally tied to the game balance than 5e's. So where the table you're consulting in 5e is akin to a "helpful guideline"; the 4e equivalent is a much stronger recommendation
Notably, 4e doesn't really... care... about making sure that the stuff a monster is using in battle matches the stuff you pick up from its body, because in 4e the stuff you have doesn't define your capacity nearly so much as in 3.x or 5e: it's your character features that define your capacity, and items tend to just enhance that capacity.
One of my biggest issues with 4e (specifically, as opposed to DnDisms in general) is the number game, although it does have some bright sides.
I think there's a certain beauty to just picking enemies of roughly the same level as the players, instead of doing CR math.
Of course 4e is much less allowing of wide level gaps than eg. 5e is, even between players and monsters. You can't just use underleveled monsters instead of minions, or overleveled as bosses. I guess a part of the beauty is in that it doesn't work out too well in 5e either, all too often, even if it doesn't really advertise the fact as much
@Miniman Maybe in the sense that the game'd be worse without them.
But honestly, I feel the foundations of the combat engine undermine such attempts to make "solo bosses" work well without radically changing some assumptions.
@kviiri If I were to ever go back to 4e [throws salt over shoulder] I'd abandon the numbers game completely and revise the leveling system to be purely about increased options.
It would produce the same effect as my careful Effectivel-Level-One numbers-crunching back in the day, with 100% less crunching.
Honestly the number progression in 4e feels almost like a vestigial holdover, preserved only because of tradition. It's such an afterthought that they had to create some of the most desirable feats in the game just to patch it up midway through the edition.
I was thinking "don't use numbers on anything/anywhere" but then I was wondering how you'd handle combat. (If it's not being handled with numbers, why do 4e?)
It's still D&D with all the reasons I wouldn't play any edition of D&D, but within that box... I think 4e without numerical progression would be a significant improvement.
The whole reason they made the new set of +2-attack-and-also-a-feature feats is that the +2-attack-and-nothing-else feats were horribly boring but everybody needed to take them because of the numbers race so it was a 'feat tax' that just leveled out to "and you have one fewer feat slots."
@Rubiksmoose It's a really difficult situation. In some ways there's a no harm/no foul piece. But there's also the "we really don't want to perpetuate these attitudes in society" piece.
If the group is generally 'ok' with that type of talk/action and OP isn't, then it's highly unlikely they'll be able to make a change in the group dynamics.
But if others aren't okay and were hiding it like they were, then there is an opportunity.
@Rubiksmoose Yeah, i'm not answering in an ideal world.I'm answering with respect to rthe real world.
And my own experience at a table I play at.
They talk a big game, but they all treat their wives/girlfriends/other women very well in reality. I don't love a lot of the in-game stuff, but I also see them outside the table not acting in those ways.
@NautArch Fair enough. I can tell you though a cons and other spaces (including any game I run, even if it is only for casual acquantences, "group dynamics" mean nothing. If someone is not having fun and there is any way to fix it, we try to do that.
But I seriously cannot imagine as a DM having a player coming up to me and expressing discomfort at a situation and me, as DM, telling them immediately that they should just find a new table.
@Rubiksmoose Well yeah, the latter is kinda bonkers. But if OP is odd-man out, then they're not going to change to make the new guy comfortable when they're all comfortable.
Heck, the guy that left our table was a long-standing member. Had other issues, too, though.
Well, a DM generally is trying to get a table to have fun together. If everyone is and then one person joins relatively recently and says "this isn't fun!", I think the DM is more likely to say "well, we've been having fun. Why do we have to change for you?"
@NautArch I'm not arguing that that can't and doesn't happen (I mean, just look at the comments made in that chat). I guess the thing that feels wrong to me would be to tell someone that that outcome is certain. It seems way too depressingly pessimistic to me. And also, I've seen and played with a lot of groups where that would not happen.
Because a good DM has a very good reason to not do that because a good DM respects and values the emotional health and fun of every player.
@NautArch True. I think that might have been the another reason the question was unclear. We probably should have pushed OP to help define what "Help on how to approach?" actually meant way sooner.
I feel like OP may have changed their approach with the question in direct response to that chat.
Hm I'm not seeing a clear way forward at the moment, but I think I need to step back from it for a little bit. It might be something best served by having the community take a look with a Meta post.
Hey everyone. I was wanting to get some kind of clarification on the events of the second sundering. was it ever put in an official book for 5e? If so, which book?
@NautArch I put in another edit based on the most recent comments. What do you think? It certainly puts another twist on things that answers should address, but I don't think it invalidates anything.
I'm also not sure it completely captures what OP is asking.
@Rubiksmoose I think that's pretty good. Dale's misogyny piece doesn't seem quite as applicable, but he still goes into recommendations. But now he really is unsupported.
For instance, say the creature rolled a 1 on the d20, and would have gotten failed 2 death saves, but uses their pre-given bardic inspiration and actually rolls a total of 10+.
Would the creature be saved from the consequences of rolling a 1 on the d20, since it says that when you roll a 10 or h...
@Himitsu_no_Yami Definitely seems like a situation where the table didn't account for it, so if a DM is using the optional rule, they'll need to adjust it for their players.
^not an answer.
feeling lazy - can pact of chain familiars attack? or are they limited like wizard familiars?
> Additionally, when you take the Attack action, you can forgo one of your own attacks to allow your familiar to use its reaction to make one attack of its own.
> Your familiar acts independently of you, but it always obeys your commands. In combat, it rolls its own initiative and acts on its own turn. A familiar can't attack, but it can take other actions as normal.
@Xirema Well, the standard Find Familiars don't have spellcasting - just that you can deliver a touch spell through them. But I guess if you True Polymorphed it into something else, then it could.
@Xirema Mhm. But most familiars don't really have the capacity to provide components, and have questionable capacity to attune to items that would let them cast without
> What's this over here? My goodness, it's another Unearthed Arcana! Today the bard and the paladin each gain a playtest option: the College of Eloquence and the Oath of Heroism. You can read them here: dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/bard-paladin #DnD — Jeremy Crawford
The system for The Expanse is the AGE system, so I'm hoping someone with another game which uses AGE can answer this. Neither The Expanse core rules nor the Blue Rose RPG have any rules about it!
In all the lists of stunts, the first few have the label (Core) written before their name. For insta...
We have previously determined that an awakened creature or a familiar can attune to magic items, but one of those is a sapient creature, and the other "always obeys your commands". A paladin's steed (per the Find Steed spell) is also 'unusually intelligent' and falls within the score range for s...
@Rubiksmoose I think Undeniable Logic might be good under the right circumstances, and Universal Speech/Soothing Words are about on par with what Bards usually get at level 3 for subclass options.
I think situational is the most of it. Universal Speech is actually really strong from a mathematical perspective (replicating the effect of a level 3 spell), but since the spell itself is so situational, the feature is too
@DavidCoffron sure, but where does it say you need a certain stat to focus for an hour? that seems very dm-determined, but nothing in the rules that they can't.
@MikeQ ability check focused. Those generally aren't as combat necessary. especially with grappling being awful.
@Rubiksmoose Idk. Undeniable Logic is pretty strong; if they fail the Intelligence check its on par with Heightened Spell Metamagic (albeit using your bonus action)
> —Once on each of your turns when you make a weapon attack and miss, you can cause that attack to hit instead. —If you fail a saving throw, you can use your reaction to succeed instead. — Level 20 Capstone, ten minutes per long rest.
@DavidCoffron Hmm. It is better than my first impression. I thought the "before the end of your next turn" bit was a significant nerf, but I think it would be very powerful doing that then casting a spell immediately.
Can someone also take a look at that flaming gauntlet/baldur's gate question and let me know if my related are dupes. I can't duplicate now since I had previously voted to close as unclear.
But they seem like they are. THe question isn't exact, but it is effectively asking if an improvised weapon can have weapon things applied to it.
and we've definitely closed as duplicates other similar type questions. but not same answer doesn't mean same question still applies. so...
@NautArch I don't think they are dupes. Weapon Bond and magic weapon are both applied to the weapon through a process (a ritual and Spellcasting respectively) whereas the gauntlets are an ongoing effect
@DavidCoffron okay, i think it's definitely same answer, though. It's can you do stuff to an imrpovised weapon that requires the target to be a weapon.
Yeah I think it is one of those cases where there are a bunch of not-quite identical questions circling around the same issue, but not quite close enough to dupe.
@NautArch Yeah, the object is not a "weapon" (game term) unless the GM agrees it can be treated as one, and therefore is only affected by the gauntlets in that case
Dread Lord At 20th level, the paladin can, as an action, surround himself or herself with an aura of gloom that lasts for 1 minute. The aura reduces any bright light in a 30-foot radius around the paladin to dim light. Whenever an enemy that is frightened by the paladin starts its turn in the aura, it takes 4d10 psychic damage. Additionally, the paladin and creatures he or she chooses in the aura are draped in deeper shadow. Creatures that rely on sight have disadvantage on attack rolls against creatures draped in this shadow.
I'd really like to see more class archetypes that do stuff outside what the class already focuses on, to add versatility and encourage different playstyles. I mean, these new UA ideas are okay, but it doesn't expand much past the basic concept of the class.
@Xirema ah, gotcha. At 15th level, but yeah. They'd get their 2 attacks, bonus action attack, reaction attack. I had a similar setup with sentinel/PAM.
@KorvinStarmast yeah, i think that's (for better or worse) more common than not.
@goodguy5 What about modifiers that get you to a 20 or move from a 20 on an attack. Is that both a crit and not a crit and you get to roll damage accordingly?
Or roll a 1 on an attack. Is it both a hit and not a hit?
@Xirema it's a hexblade and fighter, it's got room for improvement right now weapon-wise but I get 2 attacks with my pact weapon, bonus action attack with my off-hand weapon. action surge into two more attacks with the pact weapon for 5 attacks, plus an opportunity attack if the situation presents itself
@goodguy5 My point is that when you have a roll that has a rule without modifiers, then you don't use the modifiers. If you're going to use the result and the modifiers in those cases for death saving throws, why don't you apply that to all other cases?
@Himitsu_no_Yami Ah—so when I say 4 attacks per round, I generally intend that to mean "without blowing situational, one-turn effects" a'la Action Surge. So your build would still be classified as dealing 3 attacks per round by those standards. The reason I'm allowing the Heroism paladin to extend to 4 is because "getting hit, but then using your reaction to boost your AC and get a counter-attack" is more reliable than "consistently engineer a scenario where enemies trigger Attacks of Opportunity"
I'm not including things like Haste even though a level 15 Paladin probably could ensure they have it up very frequently at that level.
@Xirema the beauty comes in when you add things like hex and hexblade's curse. and adding ability modifiers to offhand attacks (two weapon fighting style) and a good old Eldritch Smite
Could Rust monster or maybe Gray ooze make adamantine weapon rust? Or maybe adamantine doesn't rust at all?
Suppose I'm playing a character that has a flying speed (such as a Varient (Winged) Tiefling or an Aarakocra) and get critically hit. The DM rolls on the Lingering Injuries table and after rolling a 3 tells me I lose a leg. The table says (emphasis mine)
Lose a Foot or Leg. Your speed on foot...
Treasure parcels are shared among the whole group, not one per character.
The entire party has a level 2, 4 and 5 magic item to share between themselves. This means in a group of four level 1 characters, only three magic items have dropped, and one person may not have their own magic item yet.
...
Is it possible for a familiar to attune to and then wear or wield a magic item?
