@RedRiderX Well, the stuff free on DDB is also free on DMsGuild, and was also generally released for free elsewhere even earlier (e.g. Geek and Sundry). So even if that stuff got reprinted in the book, it ostensibly wouldn't change the ability to use it for free.
@RedRiderX Not sure which magic items you mean; I don't know of any released for free on DDB? At the least, there are none with special listings like the Blood Hunter and Gunslinger have
@Medix2 the chapter before the appendices in Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus is called the Baldur's Gate Gazetteer (it's the equivalent of Volo's Waterdeep Enchiridion from Waterdeep: Dragon Heist, except for the city of Baldur's Gate)
@MikeQ I'm trying to understand the pun but I'm feeling very bleh
Unrelated, the tags for this question is a mess, right? It has two of the systems in question (of which there are seven, so there's not enough rooms for all of them). There's also the [homebrew] tag which I'm not sure should be on it or not. Anyone have a good idea of how it should be tagged?
@MikeQ A linguistics competitions my kids did had them matching words from the list {battery, bowling, decent, message, puffiness} with machine-generated definitions from the list {small arrow-shooting device, era of disorder, like pancake-making material, remove pennies from, female northern bird}. I feel like you'd have liked it.
@Someone_Evil Gnome with the mounted combatant feat.
BTW--5e fans: I noticed the other night that the lance is not heavy, meaning a gnome (or other mechanically-small character) can use it without disadvantage! One of the players at my Wednesday table is now whipping up a gnomish character who uses a lance for everything.
@nitsua60 It does have the Special property, which says you have disadvantage on attacks at targets within 5 feet (all the time), and requires two hands to wield when not mounted
So, I recently asked about what happens when you lose requirements for an attuned item (here). Now, I have a slightly different but still related question involving the artificer class' lv. 20 ability, which says that you can
use your reaction to end one of your artificer infusions
One of t...
There's a question in the not-too-distant past where someone asked about how to deal with encounters after they're decisively over but before all the monsters are dead. Does anyone remember what the title is? I can't seem to find it by searching
I'm DMing for a party of 6. In our next session, I'm planning on running four combat encounters. With such a large group, I've found that it usually takes an hour or two to get through a single battle. So I'm potentially looking at an 8-hour session!
However, I've also noticed that once my playe...
What usually happens in an RPG if the players are definitely going to die? Surely it must've happened a lot in the past, not every group succeeds in the quest
In the question above if that happens to the monsters then the DM could have the last monster try to run, but if it happens to the players then the DM wouldn't have that option and would have to play out the last few rounds until the third player dies too (I think)
@Allure They can happen of course, players do dumb stuff all the time. But that last player can still run, fight for their life, or think of something clever. I don't think anything is to be gained by killing them off as a matter of course.
@RedRiderX Ah okay, I thought so. I didn't think there were any Mercer magic items that had a special/unique listing, so I guess I was right about that :P
I would take it further than that and say that random crits by monsters killing any or most or even all the PCs is kinda part of why we don't play D&D anymore
Not all of it but it's bundled into a list of reasons for sure
@Allure So, there are definitely situations where PCs are clearly outmatched. The question is, what will they do with that information? Will they try to run? Will they try to find a way to take the enemies down with them? Something else?
@trogdor I have never seen this happen personally. Crits in 5e are only ~2x damage, so at worst if every single enemy crits then the PCs are 1 round behind. I know that boneheaded PCs just want to fight and fight but in that case dying is a natural consequence.
Depends. "Definitely going to lose" is probably something that one can compute. But "Definitely going to die" is not guaranteed in the hands of a creative group.
@Allure It really depends on the setting. Rereolling character (perhaps at the same level even) is normal. Being resurrected by some cult afterwards is less normal, but certainly possible.
If the only reasonable way to resolve it is that the enemies would just kill them... Well, it happens sometimes. Ideally that should only be the result of players' choices in some respect rather than the DM forcing them into an unwinnable scenario and then just killing them.
Correct me if I'm wrong but right now (in D&D, which is the RPG I'm most familiar with) you go into fights and some players might die, but as long as someone lives that someone can drag the bodies to some cleric who resurrects them, right?
@Allure At low levels, PCs might not be able to afford spellcasting services, but the DM could also choose to find ways to resurrect them anyway, maybe in exchange for a favor to the NPC.
@jgn I don't recall dying a lot from it, but i do remember getting taken out of fights because of crits, but like i mentioned that wasn't really the only reason i stopped playing D&D
What official spells exist that can be used by characters to resurrect their fallen comrades in Dungeons & Dragons? Which classes can cast them and at what level?
Something to consider is that D&D was designed in Gygaxian style, where characters were expected to stumble through dungeons. Success was the exception, not the rule. One battle lost (or even one hidden trap) could mean the end of the heroes' adventure.
But as always, the DM is the arbiter of their table and could find ways (e.g. a deity's intervention, or the help of a powerful patron funding the party's exploits or something) to make it possible
@Allure Even if they all die, the locals may hear the party is missing, send adventurers on a quest to clear the area, then have the church resurrect them
Often it does help for the DM to consider these possibilities beforehand and appropriately set the stage for whatever they intend to do so it doesn't seem overly contrived in the moment.
@Allure According to the written rules (and many DMs), yes, that is what happens. And is it just as boring as it sounds. But back a few years, no, the player would immediately be expected to roll a new (and just as expendable) character.
@Allure If you're a DM, then talk to your players about how they want to handle character death in your games. Maybe yall can come up with a better idea that works for your group.
@MikeQ I'm not a DM, I'm just wondering how RPGs deal with the game design principles I am familiar with: keep everyone playing, and avoid lame duck situations where the players literally cannot win but aren't actually dead yet
IMO player death is a very rare situation. If it does happen, play it out and the other players will probably be still actively participating in the game / taking a break to morn their loss. If it happens a lot then that might indicate that either something is wrong, or the players just enjoy dying.
Oh. Other games have better approaches. If the game pace is expected to keep moving, then usually there's some way to accept the loss and let the narrative continue.
@Allure It can happen but is even rarer. Usually there is some possibility of something happening. Even if the cannibals have you locked up in a cage and the pot is already boiling, there is something you can do. And even if there isn't, there is still valid gameplay to be had. "Dying" isn't losing.
@trogdor If you don't know how to use a lockpick then when you are in a locked cage is not the time to learn. Similarly if you are weak, you are going to have a hard time becoming ridiculously strong fast enough to break the cage. Not everyone can use all solutions all the time, but everyone can do something.
It's not like you can say "there's nothing I could do, the only options were to muscle up, lockpick, or cast X spell but I didn't have any of those available!"
I'm not saying you can't circumvent those rules or lack of rules, but there are other games that already do that work fir you instead of expecting you to do it
@trogdor I guess I'm not seeing how the rules, are preventing you from trying to convince the jailer or destroy the cage. A core part of D&D is that the DM is expected to make rulings, not everything is 100% simulated.
@jgn well for example the one that says if you roll badly or just don't have enough charisma that you couldn't possibly talk the warden/jailer into letting you out?
@Rubiksmoose Chill with the snark, of course I have. What I am saying is "I don't see how the D&D rules are inhibiting you." If you can't answer that then fine.
@trogdor I don't remember such a rule in 3.5, and there certainly isn't one in 5.
I don't mean that to be a demeaning comment, but I don't think you really understand how little D&D supports things like this until you've experienced other designs. I had that issue.
@jgn was not at all intended as snark. And FWIW, many people don't play games except D&D, so it wouldn't be at all unusual.
@trogdor But let's suppose there is a rule saying that. Is that actually a bad thing? It's like saying "you cant lift heavy things if you are weak", why is that bad? IMO limits aren't bad things.
@jgn but anyway, its not " you literally can't do this" it's more " you have to ignore or circumvent rules to do things outside the parameters the game sets fir you"
@jgn Those kind of questions are trying to understand what you are familiar with, which is useful for what kind of explanations or comparisons will be useful
In D&D, if all the heroes drop to 0 hp in battle, or if someone rolls really badly on a Charisma check for the guard to let them escape, then there aren't really any safety nets (without DM ex machina). The heroes lose. TPK. That's it.
Whereas in, say, Fate, the players can say "No, I want to continue with these characters, so let's propose an alternative consequence where our heroes can still participate in the story"
@MikeQ I think that's kind of a strange assertion and strange interpretation of the DM as a referee, but anyway
@MikeQ I think this happens in D&D and not only does it happen, but it happens often. Many questions on this site boil down to "how can I talk to my DM about X?" there isn't a mechanism for retcon, but there doesn't need to be
In a TPK there is probably hunderds of rolls and decisions that lead to that point. To wait until the TPK happens and then say "oh we can't do anything now!" doesn't seem valid to me because I think consequences are good. Players shouldn't dive head long into insurmountable odds because you might die!
Ah, perhaps, but they may not know in advance that the odds are insurmountable. The players may assume that if a challenge is put in front of them, then they have the resources & odds to overcome it in that moment.
Personally I never play like that. I know that some people like to give the players the monster stat sheets and tell them DCs or whatever. I don't. My players see a monster, they have to figure it out. I do not play monolithic dice rolls either
@Someone_Evil Sure, it can happen. But what after they charge in? There is a huge void between "charge headlong" and "TPK". At some point I would hope PCs will realize their mistakes!
@MikeQ Though I imagine if you only ever feed players "appropriate" challenges, then you will never face a TPK so it's kind of moot.
@jgn It might be fair to say MikeQ were exaggerating and simplifying the example to make the difference more clear cut. Focusing on detail and playstyle might not be the correct way to work with the examples.
@Someone_Evil If not playstyle, I think this is at least a case of personal preference. The idea that actions have consequences is deeply rooted in D&D, and while there is many many chances for players to save themselves, eventually they might die.
It's also possible for the DM to underestimate the challenge, rather than the players. Maybe they think something like "It's called Dungeons and Dragons, so I'll have these level 1 heroes fight a dragon because it'll be cool"
@MikeQ I feel like even a handful of lvl 1 vs a CR 20 monster probably shouldn't be a team wipe unless the monster is trying to kill them and the players have been mislead/have no expectations.
I don't know if that has ever happened (and clearly the rules do not intend you to do that, and there are lots of recommendations about CR), but I guess it could happen and case a TPK. I still don't think it's a bad thing though. A dragon should be able to kill weenie lvl 1s
@Someone_Evil I'm not really sure what the point is apart from that players can fail. That seems to be the crux of the matter anyway
@Someone_Evil Indeed - how they fail, whether they can avoid failure, and how to proceed from failure. Where D&D leaves some things undefined and just vaguely indicates that the DM can figure it out, other games may have more defined mechanics for resolving those things and provide ways for players to influence the narrative.
Without going into too much detail, a question has come up in a Non-Adventurer's League game that I am running where a player has asked me whether healing their character would restore blood loss from self-inflicted harm.
The difference, as I understand it, between hit points (HP) is that it is...
@jgn What do you mean by actions having consequence being deeply rooted in DnD? Out of all TTRPG systems I've played, DnDs 4e and 5e seem like the least oriented towards that to me.
The main reason being that both encourage (and 4e practically demands) relatively labor-intensive prep from the GM, which means there is a certain pressure for campaigns to stay on-rails (at least during individual sessions) which is not really conductive to actions having consequences.
@kviiri I'm not sure I agree with D&D encouraging a lot of prep, I skipped 4e but adnd, 3.5 and 5 don't seem that way to me. For those DMs who prep a lot and don't improvise, I agree that they may try to railroad the party. I don't think that's a good way to play D&D
DnD is also relatively light-handed with its consequences, as most ails can be fixed by a long rest, dead characters can be resurrected at relatively little cost, etc. But that's not a bad thing, really. See all my rants about those inescapably bad wound penalties of Savage Worlds.
@kviiri Not sure about that. For example being resurrected costs 300-1000gp, requires fairly high level slots for a normal game, and has limitations. Even then, I don't think revivify or resurrect (iirc 7th lvl) fix a chopped off finger
I mean, yes. If you're good at eyeballing encounter difficulties, making maps and traps and stuff like that on the fly, you don't need to adhere to the DMG guidelines to produce good content consistently. But it's not the question here --- if we're talking about something deeply rooted in the system I'd expect to see something other than "yeah there's a few obstacles but you can work around them if you're good".
@kviiri What obstacles are you talking about? You can run d&d without any prep at all, I don't think there are any rules that require prep. The other players don't really prep besides maybe leveling up
@jgn Yes, you can, but that's not really what comes to mind when you say it's deeply rooted in actions having consequences (which prep is an extension to).
And the obstacle is that more so than other RPGs I've played, DnD wants prep.
@kviiri Like I said, I think that link is tenuous and situational. Even if some, or many, DMs play railroad campaigns, I don't think that is a good way to play D&D.
I'm really not sure that railroading is the way modern D&D is supposed to be played. In my experience back from adnd to now death can happen if bad decisions are made. I think that in earlier additions it was even more common.
I think D&D is pretty hecking easy to play without prep, but there are definitely easier games to play without prep too. Regardless I don't think being "not the easiest game to play without any prep" is justification for saying that railroading is the norm and that since railroading is the norm that means actions don't have consequences.
If I understood the earlier discussion, it was moreso focused on whether those consequences could be negotiated into consequences other than "Game Over"
@MikeQ Well, I haven't played fate, but as I understand it someone said that if your character is cooked alive by cannibals you can discuss an alternate situation instead. Someone who plays fate may be able to elaborate
To boil it down "in D&D you can die, and thats ok" vs "PCs should never have to die, there should always be an out"
But there are a lot of games that are a lot easier to play without prep. Saying that DnD is easy to play without prep just rings in my ear a bit in the same way as someone saying a restaurant is vegan friendly because they have a non-meat salad option. It might be true in some frames of reference but nowhere near in mine.
@kviiri That's not really logically consistent. If someone is 6'5" they are tall, if someone is 6'6" they are taller. That doesn't stop the first person being tall. If YMMV ok, but yours isnt the only millage.
I really enjoy working out rather unusual character builds, or taking a subpar character concept and try to make it work using min/maxing, point buy and having every level from one to twenty planned out before even starting the adventure (ability increases, feats, equipment, etc). My latest proje...
@kviiri No I'm not. If I remember correctly you claimed D&D is high prep and railroady, which I disagree with. It certainly can be, but there is no requirement for it to be.
@jgn I never claimed DnD "is railroady", and as for high-prep, I only stated it encourages it.
@jgn Take the 6'5" person to an island of giants and suddenly they're short. That's what I'm proposing happens to DnD's "no prep needed" when compared to the wider breadth of the RPG spectrum, or the "vegan-friendly salad option" restaurant when taken to any place where most places serve proper veggie meals.
@kviiri Well, like I said I disagree. DMs prep because they enjoy it, but theres nothing requiring prep as far as I am aware. When running sessions with no prep there has never been any problems.
@jgn I'm not talking about a strict requirement, and yeah, you may be good improvising. But that doesn't change the fact that DnD is a lot harder to make up on the fly than most RPGs out there, thanks to the relatively finicky combat balance. (4e was, again, a lot more extreme than 5e in this regard, but made up a bit by having ready-made level-appropriate encounter suggestions in the MM for the times you didn't have the time to actually crunch the numbers)
but normal-sized mushrooms came out which was a bit of a bummer
@jgn But to clarify, I don't want to invalidate your experience. DnD is probably suitably low-prep for you. I'm just saying it's not really specifically so in the wider spectrum of RPGs
@kviiri In 5e CR is exceedingly simple and you can even ignore it entirely if you want.
@kviiri I understand, but like I said, I disagree. I think DMs make maps and other artifacts mainly out of enjoyment. Not because the rules told them they have to. And I don't think the existence of these items necessitates railroading either. In fact in my experience sandboxy games are generally higher prep than storyline ones.
Moreover I don't think that means that a DM should protect you from the consequences of your actions just so that the script can play out the way they want it to. I am sure I am not the only person who has seen character death at their tables.
And well, I don't honestly think you can really argue about how intensive DnD is in relation to the rest of the games out there with experience only in DnD.
I do agree about sandbox games though. The concept of a complete sandbox in DnD has always felt like a ghastly affair to me, though, both to prep, play or run :P
@kviiri I have had different experiences with D&D than you, why is that so hard to accept? No part of D&D requires a large amount of prep, DMs just enjoy it, its fun. Drawing a map, building a world, making dungeons with traps, its fun. You are confusing culture with rules.
@kviiri Right, but you did reply to me. So if you think what I am saying is besides the point, then that probably means you misinterpreted what you replied to originally.
@jgn It's not your experience with DnD that's hard to accept. It's the lack of your experience outside DnD, which means you don't really have the grounds to make statements about DnD compared to other games.
PCs dying because they seriously misjudged a threat then failed to act to save themselves is acceptable and a core part of D&D since inception IMO.
@kviiri I never made any statement like that though, and you are the one harping on about my supposed inexperience as if that discredits what I'm saying about D&D.
@kviiri I understand, but like I said, I disagree. I think DMs make maps and other artifacts mainly out of enjoyment. Not because the rules told them they have to. And I don't think the existence of these items necessitates railroading either. In fact in my experience sandboxy games are generally higher prep than storyline ones.
Because in the message you replied to, I said DnD is not low-prep in the wider spectrum of RPGs. So it seemed to me you were claiming that just knowing DnD you can compare it to other games which doesn't seem true to me.
@jgn We're in an RPG community. Knowing games is our thing. Of course we compare things to the spectrum as wide as we know it --- just like that "vegetarian salad option" restaurant would've been hot stuff in the small veggie food scene of the 1980's but would be laughed out today.
@jgn But still somehow you seem to assume that I'm presenting DnD as being railroady, or necessitating a lot of stuff where I've only said it has made design choices that encourage them. So I'll say this one more time: you can play DnD with little or no prep, and that was never my point.
@kviiri I think you seem to be re-framing your issue to make my position seem ridiculous. I have played plenty of D&D with no prep, I'm sure others have too. You have not. I don't think the rules encourage a high amount of prep, you do but don't really know why apart from other games having lower prep.
What stops someone writing lore and drawing fan art for a game of chess? Nothing.
@jgn I have played DnD without prep, yes, so kindly refrain from assuming. I just find it's much harder to play DnD without prep than with prep, and much harder to play DnD without prep than many other games.
@kviiri You said that D&D encourages high prep and that encourages DMs to force the campaign to stay on-rails, which means actions have little consequence. I disagree with that on the basis of having played plenty of games that differ from those ideas.
@kviiri Oh you have? Well you know what I mean then. How can you have less prep than none? You see what I mean?
@jgn I don't think the fact that you've played such games is a sufficient reason to say DnD is "deeply rooted" in actions having consequence. It means sufficiently skilled GMs can eyeball things like encounter balance and things like that, but consequences of actions in no way permeate the design of the system. That's my point.
@kviiri Your point contains a large string of highly questionable assertions from start to finish. What's more, it ignores the context and examples of the statement you are disagreeing with.
If you usually play games that are high prep and DMs fight to keep them "on the rails" then that is your experience. I just don't think that makes for a good game. Why is it so hard for you to accept that we have different experiences?
But I do disagree with the idea of "actions have consequences" being deeply rooted in DnD, compared to every other RPG I've played. Maybe it's just in your playstyle.
@kviiri Hm. Well like I said, I don't think such a railroaded format is normal nor encouraged by the rules. If you want to suppose it is then you could say its just my playstyle where character death can happen. I don't really think that is accurate though, as I said I don't know anything in the rules that encourages this behavior, and you certainly haven't volunteered anything either.
At the moment I have said "I don't know anywhere in the rules where that is true" and you have replied "its there!" but so far I haven't seen anything so I'm not convinced. You understand my position, I'm sure.
That said I do not doubt that DMs like the one you describe exist. I have heard plenty of stories about games like that, often not good ones.
I do recall a WoD game where a PC died, and the GM wasn't sure what to do, so the PC was just inexplicably resurrected in the next scene
In another campaign, our characters were integral to a complicated backstory that the GM didn't want to rewrite, so characters could be resurrected via trippy dream sequence in the session following death, although the player mostly had control over how that worked
@jgn I mostly mean things like the relatively fragile combat balance, that's certainly possible to eyeball but requires forethought from less-experienced and worse-at-improvising GMs.
@kviiri In 3.5 that was kind of true, in 5 I don't think that's true at all. I think you said before that point was mainly for 4 and but I didn't play 4
@kviiri If you haven't played much 5e, you might find that it alleviates many of these problems.
In another another campaign, the BBEG one-shot-killed our entire group as we entered their chamber, despite many sessions' worth prep, and the TPK was really anticlimactic
@MikeQ Sure, those are good goals. I just felt like maybe kviiri is doing something with their encounters which is contributing to large amounts of effort. There are a lot of ways to accomplish those goals. I think they are certainly more important than "Balance"
@kviiri Looking forward to it. Clearly you are playing very differently to me, it can be hard to identify why without drilling down.
Setting up a well-designed encounter probably involves some amount of preparation. Prepare the NPCs, their stats, their strategies, maybe some environmental factors, etc.
A completely ad-libbed encounter could be fun, but wouldn't be built as thoroughly, and there's less time to consider whether it's too easy/hard for the players.
@MikeQ I think that supposed a couple of points. Firstly that the DM controls encounters. Secondly that encounters need to be prepared at all. Lastly that monsters need to be custom. And, that difficulty matters.
So yeah, a "good encounter" is a fairly nebulous ideal but I think some common themes from my best encounters in DnD 5e were diversity (of tactics, of environments, of adversaries, of objectives) and balancing, the latter not just for "which side wins" but also "does everyone get to do their part" and "is this sufficient nudge to get the players to pursue opportunities/deal with threats outside their normal routine"
I've run/played unprepared encounters, and across my experience, the most memorable and interesting challenges were those that the GM had thought-out in advance
Certainly there's lots to think about there but it makes encounters better so IMO it's worth it, as long as people are interested in the tactical combat experience
@MikeQ Yeah, same. I can ad-lib passable encounters but they don't really come even close
Or well, I guess I could ad-lib passable encounters but it's been a few years since I last tried
Random encounters are sorta meant so that the DM can throw something together with minimal prep. And that tends to result in relatively simple combats. Not bad per se, but simple.
@jgn That's exactly how I felt before I played any non-D&D games. (Not counting Shadowrun or Warhammer RPG, which for the purposes of this discussion are close enough to D&D not to matter).
Consider an encounter where the PCs attack or defend some location. The GM may want to consider the placement of objects that serve as potential cover, and where the enemies could enter/flee, and what sort of tactics/tools they'll use against the PCs, etc
@MikeQ I have fond memories of a boss-fight where the PCs fought a witch lord who could cast more powerful spells if he was standing on his magically-inscribed carpet alone, so the encounter had a running secondary objective of someone, anyone, no matter how stupid it would've been otherwise, pushing themselves towards the bad guy
The bad guy's guards were, of course, eager to remove threats from the carpet.
There's an old rule-of-thumb, which I heard a few years back but can't remember where: "Make up some bad guys, think of how your party would deal with it and make up one reason why that won't work this time"
@Miniman That's not really the issue. It's whether D&D is high prep enough that GMs are forced to keep their game on rails by denying player autonomy. I don't want to get side tracked debating other games and being told that playing X games isn't enough I should play X+1. It's not really relevant
Preparation doesn't mean preparing for one specific path of action. Being well-prepared often means preparing for a bunch of different scenarios, based on the players' choices.
@jgn Sure. But you ask for examples a lot; would you mind giving an example (one is fine) of a non-D&D game you've played, so that there's a common data point?
@Miniman D&D is the common data point, we are talking about whether D&D encourages/pressures/implies certain things. Whether or not I have played Fate doesn't matter, I already said I haven't played it.
If how D&D does this is unexplainable then does it matter if the games you have played are more or less prep than some other game?
That was wholly and precisely where I was going, and I've read through what you said above several times now, without finding anything that seems even close to that admission, at least to me.
@Miniman Sure. I just don't think that a game having less prep necessitates D&D encourages so much prep that DMs are pressured to railroad which implies there is less player autonomy.
@kviiri Maybe give it a try with less prep, less focus on balance, and less "set encounters". You may find it to be more player focused and fun for you. Worth a shot, right?
@jgn Yeah, I would characterize it as DnD being a fun choice for me as a game using a lot of setpiece encounters, but if I don't want to focus much on tactical combat, I'll probably pick up something else entirely
Apocalypse World has been my traditional go-to option but I haven't gotten to play that in a whlie
I've got a few games in the pipeline, but last week we playtested an old game about adopting unusual animals. I want to revise it and submit it for the Pleasant Dreams Jam.
@jgn I haven't found anything better, but I must say I haven't been looking that hard. I think 4e was better than 5e in the combat respect but few want to play 4e nowadays
Savage Worlds would be the only other RPG with a proper tactical combat system I've played so far, and I dislike it for various reasons
The description of the dust of disappearance magic item states:
There is enough of it for one use. When you use an action to throw the
dust into the air, you and each creature and object within 10 feet of
you become invisible for 2d4 minutes.
One of my players decided to do a line of du...
I understand that a wizard gains 2 free spells to add into their Spellbook when they gain a level (pg. 178). What isn't clear is if they have to pay to inscribe the spell or take the time to put the spell into the book when they do so.
Do these spells just appear automatically in their Spellboo...
Can Opportunity Attacks have Advantage?
Say, for example, a character with the Mounted Combatant feat was to perform an attack of opportunity on a smaller creature while mounted. Can you add advantage to that attack?