Odd things about RAW

[Belac93]

A 5th edition character needs 1 pound of food every 3+con mod days. A chicken can give you about 3 pounds of meat. This theoretically means that a level 20 barbarian can survive an entire month off of a single chicken.

A strength 11 character can carry 1 of every weapon in the game without penalty.

Share your own that you found!

[JNAProductions]

Meh. That's for Encumbrance and Starvation, neither of which are mainstays of D&D.

So the RAW is weird on that front, but eh. Not a big deal.

[RickAllison]

If the weight of a PC is 450 pounds or greater with equipment, an Enlarge effect on them makes them weigh more than the highest possible carrying capacity (30 Str * 15 * 8 for Gatgantuan). This makes it rather easy to keep ancient dragons down to 5' fly speed.

[Foxhound438]

a level 1 can walk along the bottom of a river for 4 minutes, come up for one breath, and continue for another 4 minutes, and repeat for 8 hours with no penalty.

[Naanomi]

A 5th edition character needs 1 pound of food every 3+con mod days.
Does that mean anyone with 3-4 Con died instantly, unable to eat 1 pound of food every 0 days and starves?

[Belac93]

Does that mean anyone with 3-4 Con died instantly, unable to eat 1 pound of food every 0 days and starves?

No, its minimum 1 a day. And then you only gain a level of exhaustion from not eating. Which is even more ridiculous, because with a +2 Constitution modifier can lose all their levels of exhaustion before needing to eat again.

[Naanomi]

No, its minimum 1 a day. And then you only gain a level of exhaustion from not eating. Which is even more ridiculous, because with a +2 Constitution modifier can lose all their levels of exhaustion before needing to eat again.
Darn I was thinking of an extremely unhealthy character on 'good-berry life support'; needing that one Goodberry everyday without fail or they would immediately perish in a /0 error of sustenance

[Ashdate]

Speaking of weird RAW for starvation, if you eat 1/2 a days ration each day you'll slowly, but eventually, starve to death (via exhaustion). For a character with a below average constuition (8-9) you can eat every two days with no penalty, forever, despite it being the exact same amount of food.

[Malifice]

A 5th edition character needs 1 pound of food every 3+con mod days. A chicken can give you about 3 pounds of meat. This theoretically means that a level 20 barbarian can survive an entire month off of a single chicken.

http://38.media.tumblr.com/b55c8c96314dbe3ca161fecb647cde95/tumblr_n3nnxbgSdq1qhfadgo2_250.gif

[Bulldog Psion]

A 5th edition character needs 1 pound of food every 3+con mod days. A chicken can give you about 3 pounds of meat. This theoretically means that a level 20 barbarian can survive an entire month off of a single chicken.

I find this oddly hilarious. :smallbiggrin:

[Belac93]

And, with a high strength, assuming 4 pound chickens that give 3 pounds of meat, he can carry 90 of them (whole they are alive).

So, lets just add this up:

A 300 pound mass of muscle. He carries 360 chickens around with him (goliath+bear aspect), using their bones as his weapons (tavern brawler). Every month, he slaughters one of them to eat. He only breaths once every 8 minutes, and has no chance to fail swimming. When he falls, he can survive a drop at terminal velocity twice in a minute without any significant problems, or 5 times if he times getting angry right (rage). He can jump 10 feet straight up in the air, and 24 feet forward. If he wanted to, he could get into a slugging match with a small dragon and win. He can survive in altitudes of up to 20'000 feet, or in temperatures below freezing, without any ill effects. His skin is tougher than armour.

And he does all of this buck naked.

I love barbarians.

[Oramac]

And he does all of this buck naked.

I love barbarians.

I'v had the idea to play a naked barbarian for a while now. Sounds like a lot of fun, with plenty of shenanigans. Especially if it's a female in social situations.....

[JNAProductions]

Check my sig if you want to play a naked Paladin. :P

[Shining Wrath]

Since anyone can hold their breath for one minute, it is effectively impossible to drown anyone in a normal combat.

[Oramac]

Since anyone can hold their breath for one minute, it is effectively impossible to drown anyone in a normal combat.

In fairness to RAW, holding your breath for 60 seconds isn't particularly difficult in real life. Anyone in decent enough shape to be an "adventurer" could easily do it.

[Plaguescarred]

May be in a nonstressful situation yes, but in a combat where you can be caught offbreath (is that even a word? loll) then it would be different as you spend a lot more evergy and stamina than when you're calm.

[mgshamster]

May be in a nonstressful situation yes, but in a combat where you can be caught offbreath (is that even a word? loll) then it would be different as you spend a lot more evergy and stamina than when you're calm.

Just make a ruling that everytime you take an Action, it counts as a round for holding your breath.

[Telok]

Characters don't die of old age unless they want to.

[Belac93]

Characters don't die of old age unless they want to.

Technically not true. The PHB gives maximum ages, and the DM is allowed to say a character dies of old age any time past then. You could say that this is true, but then what about the Undying Warlock or Druid's 'age 10x slower' ability?

So, its more like Characters don't die of old age unless they or the DM wants them to.

[Slipperychicken]

A strength 11 character can carry 1 of every weapon in the game without penalty.

Weapons aren't all that heavy. Most of them are like 2 or 3 pounds, and that fact shocked my DM when he first heard it, despite him having played tabletop for years. Unlike what Dark Souls and Berserk would have you believe, they're generally designed to be very light so that tired, injured, heavy-backpack-wearing people can still wield them with great speed and agility.


Also, people are crazy about weapons. I tell my DM that my PC wants to stow a pair of six-pound greatswords on his back? He immediately starts cracking down on how unrealistic he says that is, glaring in disbelief at my inventory spreadsheet like it's the devil himself. But if I want to load up on a hundred-pound sack of coins, or drag a seven foot tall barbarian from dungeon to town? No problem!

[Mith]

Rough ruling:

If someone is trying to drown you, then they can force a Con check similar to a Concentration check. If you fail, you inhale water. If fail the next round of Con checks, I would say you take Disadvantage on any action. You are in such a state for Con mod rounds. At the end of those rounds, you start death saving throws with 1 failure.

[JumboWheat01]

A 5th edition character needs 1 pound of food every 3+con mod days. A chicken can give you about 3 pounds of meat. This theoretically means that a level 20 barbarian can survive an entire month off of a single chicken.

Hah! That's kinda funny. Though really, what Barbarian would eat just a pound of food a day? They'd eat several, because they're Barbarians, gods blast it!

[Slipperychicken]

Hah! That's kinda funny. Though really, what Barbarian would eat just a pound of food a day? They'd eat several, because they're Barbarians, gods blast it!

I refuse to believe that someone with Conan's musculature and a DnD adventurer's lifestyle is living off two pounds of food a day in the long term.

[Anonymouswizard]

Hah! That's kinda funny. Though really, what Barbarian would eat just a pound of food a day? They'd eat several hundred, because they're Barbarians, gods blast it!

Fixed it for you :smallwink:

[JumboWheat01]

Fixed it for you :smallwink:

Too true. I was thinking FAR too small with that one. After all, what's a barbarian tribe without a long table absolutely laden with meat?

[mgshamster]

It's much hard to hit a guy in full plate with a net than it is a guy with no armor.

There's no touch AC in this game, so a net still hits against full AC. Throw a net on a guy in full plate with a shield and you'll likely "miss" compared to that same guy with no armor at all. Not sure what happens - does it just bounce off the shield? Why doesn't the heavy armor and shield make it easier to hit with a net? RAW oddities.

[Slipperychicken]

Dexterity bonus to AC still applies while unconscious or paralyzed. I know why they did it, but it's kind of an awkward detail when you recognize it.

[Telok]

Technically not true. The PHB gives maximum ages, and the DM is allowed to say a character dies of old age any time past then. You could say that this is true, but then what about the Undying Warlock or Druid's 'age 10x slower' ability?

So, its more like Characters don't die of old age unless they or the DM wants them to.

Dm: You failed the save versus fear? You see a ghost and age (roll) thirty years. You die, no save, no raise dead.

These forums scream bloody murder about stuff like that.

[MaxWilson]

And, with a high strength, assuming 4 pound chickens that give 3 pounds of meat, he can carry 90 of them (whole they are alive).

So, lets just add this up:

A 300 pound mass of muscle. He carries 360 chickens around with him (goliath+bear aspect), using their bones as his weapons (tavern brawler). Every month, he slaughters one of them to eat. He only breaths once every 8 minutes, and has no chance to fail swimming. When he falls, he can survive a drop at terminal velocity twice in a minute without any significant problems, or 5 times if he times getting angry right (rage). He can jump 10 feet straight up in the air, and 24 feet forward. If he wanted to, he could get into a slugging match with a small dragon and win. He can survive in altitudes of up to 20'000 feet, or in temperatures below freezing, without any ill effects. His skin is tougher than armour.

And he does all of this buck naked.

I love barbarians.

Actually, surviving a drop at terminal velocity causes him a huge problem: he now has 360 dead chickens to replace.

[JumboWheat01]

Actually, surviving a drop at terminal velocity causes him a huge problem: he now has 360 dead chickens to replace.

After a feast of chicken flesh first, of course, assuming the chickens weren't all pancaked. If so, he may mourn his lost feast. And punch the ground.

[Malifice]

Also, people are crazy about weapons. I tell my DM that my PC wants to stow a pair of six-pound greatswords on his back? He immediately starts cracking down on how unrealistic he says that is, glaring in disbelief at my inventory spreadsheet like it's the devil himself.

http://assets.vg247.com/current//2015/01/the_witcher_3_wild_hunt.jpg

[Madbox]

The mighty Block and Tackle: with it, even your anemic wizard can lift a horse.

Also, the only action that familiars are forbidden is attacking. This leads to my favorite trick, the paramedic owl. How is it using that healing potion, or healer's kit, or doing a medicine check to stabilize someone? Don't know, don't care. I just know the book says it can.

[MaxWilson]

The mighty Block and Tackle: with it, even your anemic wizard can lift a horse.

How's that? Block and tackle quadruples your lifting capacity; a Str 8 wizard could lift 8 * 15 = 120 lb., or 480 lb. with a block and tackle. Google says a horse weighs between 840 and 2200 lb., so no, your anemic wizard still can't lift a horse.

[Mith]

There's no touch AC in this game, so a net still hits against full AC. Throw a net on a guy in full plate with a shield and you'll likely "miss" compared to that same guy with no armor at all. Not sure what happens - does it just bounce off the shield? Why doesn't the heavy armor and shield make it easier to hit with a net? RAW oddities.

Would it then be better just to use a Dex Check with restraining attacks instead? I realize that is what a Touch AC is, but that should fix that oddity.

[xanderh]

http://assets.vg247.com/current//2015/01/the_witcher_3_wild_hunt.jpg

Those are longswords.
Greatswords were the size of the wielder, and were not carried on the back, as they would be impossible to draw in anything resembling reasonable time. Instead, you would hold the pommel and rest the flat against your shoulder.
Greatswords were not carried around in people's day-to-day lives, but were weapons of war. People did carry longswords, but they were sheathed at the hip, not on the back, as it is surprisingly difficult to draw the sword from the back smoothly. You can do it with shortswords, but anything bigger becomes awkward.

[Moosoculars]

A spellcaster holding a spellcasting focus in one hand and something else in the other can cast a vsm spell but not a vs spell.

Weird

[SaintRidley]

Dm: You failed the save versus fear? You see a ghost and age (roll) thirty years. You die, no save, no raise dead.

These forums scream bloody murder about stuff like that.

And yet, it's so fun.

I may or may not be building custom wild magic tables for a setting and including results like "You cast Ireball as a 3rd level spell. All targets must pass a Wisdom save or go into a Barbarian Rage" or "You cast Cone of Old as a 5th level spell. All targets must pass a Charisma save or age 1d100 years. If they age beyond their maximum age, they die."

I really want to be able to say something died of old age in the middle of combat. I hope that result gets landed on at least once.

[TheFlyingCleric]

Actually, surviving a drop at terminal velocity causes him a huge problem: he now has 360 dead chickens to replace.

Nah, he just needs to drop them when he falls. They have wings after all!

It might be hard to collect them up again though. But if he can't outrun a chicken with his normal movement speed + dash, then he certainly could using his infinite rages.

[Madbox]

How's that? Block and tackle quadruples your lifting capacity; a Str 8 wizard could lift 8 * 15 = 120 lb., or 480 lb. with a block and tackle. Google says a horse weighs between 840 and 2200 lb., so no, your anemic wizard still can't lift a horse.

30 times STR is absolute dead lift capacity, 15 is for what you can actually walk around with. So it is 8*30*4=960, or a scrawny horse.

[Giant2005]

As long as they are never wounded in combat (or lose anything else that only replenishes on a long rest), a human can live a long, productive life without ever sleeping.

[JumboWheat01]

The mighty Block and Tackle: with it, even your anemic wizard can lift a horse.

Also, the only action that familiars are forbidden is attacking. This leads to my favorite trick, the paramedic owl. How is it using that healing potion, or healer's kit, or doing a medicine check to stabilize someone? Don't know, don't care. I just know the book says it can.

... I need to tell my group this one. I could see the guy who likes playing wizards taking an owl familiar now and designing a little potion holder on it.

[Logosloki]

You could be one year under your races maximum age and still be as spry as you were when you were a child. In fact after a life time of adventuring you are probably much stronger.

Your mere presence inspires workers to work four times faster.

[Plaguescarred]

The target of a Champion Challenge seems like its unable to move if the Paladin moved more than 30 feet away since it's not the target that was moved.

[TheFlyingCleric]

... I need to tell my group this one. I could see the guy who likes playing wizards taking an owl familiar now and designing a little potion holder on it.

Wizard: NO! I said Potion, not Poison!

Owl: Hoot Hoot Hoo, Hoot Hoot! (If you wanted me to understand Common, you should have picked a Raven!)

[tsotate]

A turned creature within 25' of the cleric or paladin who turned it is stuck in place, because any square it could move to is within 30' of its turner.

[MaxWilson]

30 times STR is absolute dead lift capacity, 15 is for what you can actually walk around with. So it is 8*30*4=960, or a scrawny horse.

Aha, I see.


Block and Tackle: A set of pulleys with a cable threaded through them and a hook to attach to objects, a block and tackle allows you to hoist up to four times the weight you can normally lift.

I had wrongly assumed that this was a reference to carrying capacity, but you're right, I see that it's not:


Push, Drag, or Lift. You can push, drag, or lift a weight in pounds up to twice your carrying capacity (or 30 times your Strength score). While pushing or dragging weight in excess of your carrying capacity, your speed drops to 5 feet.

Interesting, but perhaps not unrealistic, with enough pulleys. Pulleys are amazing.

===========================================


... I need to tell my group this one. I could see the guy who likes playing wizards taking an owl familiar now and designing a little potion holder on it.

Note that owls can also use their actions to pour oil flasts, scatter caltrops and set up hunting traps.

[Plaguescarred]

A turned creature within 25' of the cleric or paladin who turned it is stuck in place, because any square it could move to is within 30' of its turner.It's pobably by design so that a turned creature can't close in and if it's already within 30 feet of you, can't move at all.

[LordVonDerp]

The mighty Block and Tackle: with it, even your anemic wizard can lift a horse.


Archimedes would like a word with you.

[LordVonDerp]

Those are longswords.
Greatswords were the size of the wielder, and were not carried on the back, as they would be impossible to draw in anything resembling reasonable time.

Swords of any size were not carried on the back.

[xanderh]

Swords of any size were not carried on the back.

That was essentially what I said, yes. It is possible to smoothly draw a shortsword from a sheath on your back, but it wasn't really done, as most people already wore belts and having a belt sheath is just as, if not more, convenient.

[Slipperychicken]

As long as they are never wounded in combat (or lose anything else that only replenishes on a long rest), a human can live a long, productive life without ever sleeping.

If over their whole lives they spend no more than 8 hours traveling, never go more than 3+con mod days without food, always have a full gallon of water every day without fail, never take damage outside combat either, and never need to naturally recover from a disease.

But yeah, outside of that stuff and recovering powers, you don't really need long rests in 5e. There's no rule that says "if you stay up really late, you have to make checks to avoid falling asleep".

[Anonymouswizard]

Archimedes would like a word with you.

'Give me a wizard and a place to stand, and I will lift a horse' - some guy in the pub, possibly drunk.

Also, Fire Bolt can ignite flammable objects, but not flammable liquids or flammable gases. This means that a spellbook ignites while a puddle of oil doesn't. EDIT: in addition, a flask of oil might ignite, while the puddle of oil will still fail to catch.

In addition, it's intentional, but your spellbook is more flammable placed on the ground then it is in your backpack.

[Giant2005]

If over their whole lives they spend no more than 8 hours traveling

They can travel more than 8 hours, just not more than 8 hours in a single day unless they are a high level, high Con/Cha Paladin.
Paladins can forced march for 15 hours a day, every day without ever sleeping or tiring themselves out. They make great traveling salesmen.

[Cazero]

If over their whole lives they spend no more than 8 hours traveling, never go more than 3+con mod days without food, always have a full gallon of water every day without fail, never take damage outside combat either, and never need to naturally recover from a disease.

But yeah, outside of that stuff and recovering powers, you don't really need long rests in 5e. There's no rule that says "if you stay up really late, you have to make checks to avoid falling asleep".

No, no, it's way funnier than that. You don't need to sleep to long rest, so anyone can spend his entire life without ever sleeping, period.

[Giant2005]

No, no, it's way funnier than that. You don't need to sleep to long rest, so anyone can spend his entire life without ever sleeping, period.

You do need to sleep to long rest (a minimum of 6 hours). A Warlock/any class with healing spells multiclass could get by with never sleeping though.
I change my previous post. Paladin 6/warlock X multiclass characters make great traveling salesmen!

[Belac93]

A Drow Undying Warlock 10 can spend the better part of 9'000 years walking along the bottom of the ocean, fighting, and it will take a long time before they have to rest for more than an hour.

[JackPhoenix]

Your mere presence inspires workers to work four times faster.

Sounds about right, given my experience with construction workers with no supervisor around.

[mgshamster]

Traveling Sales Paladin, you say?

I present the Oath of the Salesman

Tenets of Sales
Never stop closing. Everything is always a deal, and every conversation is a potential deal in the making.
Negotiation above all else. The best deal is when everyone walks away believing they got the upper hand.
Fight against fixed prices. Fixed prices are anathema to a good deal; they take away from the ability to negotiate.
Play on Emotions. The best sales are when the other party has a positive emotional attachment to what is being sold. Use this to your advantage.

Oath of the Salesman Spells
3rd - Longstrider, Comprehend Languages, Speak with Animals
5th - Calm Emotions, Suggestion
9th - Tongues, Speak with Plants, Water breathing
13th - Compulsion, Dimension Door
17th - Creation, Teleportation Circle

Channel Divinity
When you take this oath at 3rd level, you gain the following two channel divinity options.
Salesman's Advantage. As an action, you can cause a nearby creature to be friendly towards you and compelled to tell you the truth. Choose one creature you can see within 60 feet of you. That creature must make a wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, that creature is charmed towards you and treated as if under the effect of a Zone of Truth spell.
Inspiring Speech. As a bonus action, your fast talking words can move the hearts and minds of those around you. Each creature of your choice within 30 feet of you gain inspiration if they didn't already have it. They must use this inspiration within one minute or they lose it. In addition, they regain hit points equal to your charisma modifier (minimum 1).

Aura of Independence
Beginning at 7th level, you and friendly creatures within 10 feet of you cannot be charmed or effected by mind-affecting effects, so long as you are conscious.

Relentless Traveling.
Beginning at 15th level, you can move twice as fast for the purposes of overland travel. You cannot use this ability during battle or in towns and cities, only when traveling between major centers of civilization. In addition, you have advantage on Forced March saving throws.

Trusting Angel.
At 20th level, you can assume the form of an angel. Using your action, you undergo a transformation. For 1 hour, you gain the following benefits:
- Wings sprout from your back and grant you a flying speed of 60 feet.
- You emanate an aria of trust in a 30 foot radius. The first time any creature enters the aura or starts its turn there, the creature must succeed in a Wisdom Saving Throw or become friendly towards you for 1 minute or until is takes any damage. Attack rolls against the friendly creature have advantage.

Once you use this feature, you can't use it again until you finish a long rest.

======

Want to combine it with a Warlock? Check out the Corporate Patron in my sig!

[LordVonDerp]

Also, Fire Bolt can ignite flammable objects, but not flammable liquids or flammable gases. This means that a spellbook ignites while a puddle of oil doesn't. EDIT: in addition, a flask of oil might ignite, while the puddle of oil will still fail to catch.

In addition, it's intentional, but your spellbook is more flammable placed on the ground then it is in your backpack.

Does fire bolt really say the object has to be solid? I just checked and it only says object, so puddles ands clouds of gas still can be lit.

Also, have you ever tried setting fire to someone else's things? I'd expect most people to try to stop you.

[Anonymouswizard]

Traveling Sales Paladin, you say?

I present the Oath of the Salesman

Tenets of Sales
Never stop closing. Everything is always a deal, and every conversation is a potential deal in the making.
Negotiation above all else. The best deal is when everyone walks away believing they got the upper hand.
Fight against fixed prices. Fixed prices are anathema to a good deal; they take away from the ability to negotiate.
Play on Emotions. The best sales are when the other party has a positive emotional attachment to what is being sold. Use this to your advantage.

Oath of the Salesman Spells
3rd - Longstrider, Comprehend Languages, Speak with Animals
5th - Calm Emotions, Suggestion
9th - Tongues, Speak with Plants, Water breathing
13th - Compulsion, Dimension Door
17th - Creation, Teleportation Circle

Channel Divinity
When you take this oath at 3rd level, you gain the following two channel divinity options.
Salesman's Advantage. As an action, you can cause a nearby creature to be friendly towards you and compelled to tell you the truth. Choose one creature you can see within 60 feet of you. That creature must make a wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, that creature is charmed towards you and treated as if under the effect of a Zone of Truth spell.
Inspiring Speech. As a bonus action, your fast talking words can move the hearts and minds of those around you. Each creature of your choice within 30 feet of you gain inspiration if they didn't already have it. They must use this inspiration within one minute or they lose it. In addition, they regain hit points equal to your charisma modifier (minimum 1).

Aura of Independence
Beginning at 7th level, you and friendly creatures within 10 feet of you cannot be charmed or effected by mind-affecting effects, so long as you are conscious.

Relentless Traveling.
Beginning at 15th level, you can move twice as fast for the purposes of overland travel. You cannot use this ability during battle or in towns and cities, only when traveling between major centers of civilization. In addition, you have advantage on Forced March saving throws.

Trusting Angel.
At 20th level, you can assume the form of an angel. Using your action, you undergo a transformation. For 1 hour, you gain the following benefits:
- Wings sprout from your back and grant you a flying speed of 60 feet.
- You emanate an aria of trust in a 30 foot radius. The first time any creature enters the aura or starts its turn there, the creature must succeed in a Wisdom Saving Throw or become friendly towards you for 1 minute or until is takes any damage. Attack rolls against the friendly creature have advantage.

Once you use this feature, you can't use it again until you finish a long rest.

======

Want to combine it with a Warlock? Check out the Corporate Patron in my sig!

I am deeply disgusted at the lack of an ability to traverse any network of paths and towns while stopping in any specific town only once.


Does fire bolt really say the object has to be solid? I just checked and it only says object, so puddles ands clouds of gas still can be lit.

Also, have you ever tried setting fire to someone else's things? I'd expect most people to try to stop you.

I looked under object in the PhB index. None of the pages listed under objects had a definition of object, so I looked for glossary. That too wasn't listed in the index so I shall now trust Google and type in 'define object'.

object
(noun)
1. a material thing that can be seen and touched.
2. a person or thing to which a specified action or feeling is directed.
(verb)
1. say something to express one's disapproval of or disagreement with something.

This only makes the effect more confusing. Oil is fine, but a cloud of hydrogen is up in the air (badum tish). Can it be seen and touched? If so then the spell will always set it on fire. If not it will only be set on fire if the cloud is targeted by the spell.

This be easier if the PhB had a definition for object.

[mgshamster]

I am deeply disgusted at the lack of an ability to traverse any network of paths and towns while stopping in any specific town only once.

I'm not really sure what this means, but come up with something and we can alter the oath.

[xanderh]

I'm not really sure what this means, but come up with something and we can alter the oath.

He's referring to the travelling salesman problem. Look it up, it's actually pretty interesting.

[hymer]

I'm not really sure what this means, but come up with something and we can alter the oath.

I believe it is a reference to the travelling salesman probem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling_salesman_problem).

[Anonymouswizard]

He's referring to the travelling salesman problem. Look it up, it's actually pretty interesting.


I believe it is a reference to the travelling salesman probem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling_salesman_problem).

Bingo! Sorry, it's just what I think of whenever I see travelling salesman.

[Dalebert]

Bingo! Sorry, it's just what I think of whenever I see travelling salesman.

I wasn't quite nerdy enough to think of it myself, but I did recognize the reference. :)

[MaxWilson]

Does fire bolt really say the object has to be solid? I just checked and it only says object, so puddles ands clouds of gas still can be lit.

Also, have you ever tried setting fire to someone else's things? I'd expect most people to try to stop you.

Sure. But in 5E, the spellbook is still harder to set fire to in your backpack even if you are unconscious at the time.

[tsotate]

Sure. But in 5E, the spellbook is still harder to set fire to in your backpack even if you are unconscious at the time.

Books are generally made of more flammable materials than backpacks, so I fail to see the problem.

[xanderh]

Books are generally made of more flammable materials than backpacks, so I fail to see the problem.

Okay, but what if the spellbook is attached to the belt? It's completely exposed, but it's just as hard to set fire to as it would be in the backpack.

[Anonymouswizard]

Books are generally made of more flammable materials than backpacks, so I fail to see the problem.

Yes, but RAW, if you throw a fire bolt into a worn backpack nothing will catch on fire.

[LordVonDerp]

Sure. But in 5E, the spellbook is still harder to set fire to in your backpack even if you are unconscious at the time.
Is that specific to spell books? If the person is unconscious then the book is neither worn nor carried so Fire Bolt doesbt have a problem with it.

[JumboWheat01]

Okay, but what if the spellbook is attached to the belt? It's completely exposed, but it's just as hard to set fire to as it would be in the backpack.

I would call that "being worn," which means it would be impossible to set on fire, actually. As would the backpack.

[LordVonDerp]

Okay, but what if the spellbook is attached to the belt? It's completely exposed, but it's just as hard to set fire to as it would be in the backpack.

Well, it's not being worn or carried so what's stopping it from being set on fire?

[LordVonDerp]

I would call that "being worn," which means it would be impossible to set on fire, actually. As would the backpack.

The backpack, sure, but the book isn't being worn.

[xanderh]

The backpack, sure, but the book isn't being worn.

So the scabbard in the belt isn't being worn either? Or the belt pouches? Or a wooden pendant on a chain necklace? If a book, attached by a chain to the belt isn't being worn, none of the other items would be.

[LordVonDerp]

So the scabbard in the belt isn't being worn either? Or the belt pouches? Or a wooden pendant on a chain necklace? If a book, attached by a chain to the belt isn't being worn, none of the other items would be.

A scabbard is not flammable and the belt pouches are a part of a piece of clothing. A necklace is also a peice of clothing.

[Madbox]

Archimedes would like a word with you.

Yes, such an accomplishment is possible. Any engineering student could rig up something for that. But it stretches my suspension of disbelief that it is possible with an easily carried series of pulleys, made with the materials available (steel and wood).

Archimedes: Give me a large enough lever and a place to stand and I will move the world. But screw carrying that lever around in my backpack everywhere. It won't fit, and would be really freaking heavy.

[JNAProductions]

Yes, such an accomplishment is possible. Any engineering student could rig up something for that. But it stretches my suspension of disbelief that it is possible with an easily carried series of pulleys, made with the materials available (steel and wood).

Archimedes: Give me a large enough lever and a place to stand and I will move the world. But screw carrying that lever around in my backpack everywhere. It won't fit, and would be really freaking heavy.

But give me a smaller lever, and I'll move that lever!

[JoeJ]

A spellcaster holding a spellcasting focus in one hand and something else in the other can cast a vsm spell but not a vs spell.

Weird

Why is that weird? If I'm holding a pen in one hand and something else in the other I can write with the pen, but I can't effectively do finger spelling. To me, it makes perfect sense that holding anything in your hand gets in the way of casting a spell unless what you're holding is part the casting.

[MaxWilson]

Books are generally made of more flammable materials than backpacks, so I fail to see the problem.

Okay, Mr. Pedantic. :) It's also harder to set fire to when it's held loosely in the grip of an unconscious man... but as soon as that unconscious man fails his last death save, it gets easier to set aflame once more.

I have an explanation for this at my table. Do you at yours?

[LordVonDerp]

Yes, such an accomplishment is possible. Any engineering student could rig up something for that. But it stretches my suspension of disbelief that it is possible with an easily carried series of pulleys, made with the materials available (steel and wood).


The pulleys are the easy part, the only issue is finding a way to mount it.

[Naanomi]

The pulleys are the easy part, the only issue is finding a way to mount it.
The ancients invented immovable rods and walls of force for just such a purpose

[TripleD]

The ancients invented immovable rods and walls of force for just such a purpose

I love the idea that both of those started out as construction equipment.

[Madbox]

The ancients invented immovable rods and walls of force for just such a purpose
Mundane utility is such a wonderful thing!

[Telok]

Why is that weird? If I'm holding a pen in one hand and something else in the other I can write with the pen, but I can't effectively do finger spelling. To me, it makes perfect sense that holding anything in your hand gets in the way of casting a spell unless what you're holding is part the casting.

The point is that someone with a wand in one hand and the hamsterball of doom in the other hand can cast a VSM spell despite having no hands free while not being able to cast a VS spell because they have no hands free.

The addition of a material component, any material component, allows one to use a wand in place of somatic components. But spells that do not require material components cannot be cast with a wand.

[Dalebert]

Wizards can create Magic Mouths, Walls of Stone, fields of force, protection spells for people. You'd think they could come up with some process to make an item less flammable. Maybe something could be incorporated into the paper-making process at a substantial increase in cost, of course. But then, spellbooks cost frickin' 25gp (yes?) for some reason and the ink is way more. Just rantin' and going slightly off-topic. Forgive please.

[JoeJ]

The point is that someone with a wand in one hand and the hamsterball of doom in the other hand can cast a VSM spell despite having no hands free while not being able to cast a VS spell because they have no hands free.

The addition of a material component, any material component, allows one to use a wand in place of somatic components. But spells that do not require material components cannot be cast with a wand.

Yes, I get that. I just don't see why it's weird. It's still an M spell, a wand is just a different M. But you're wrong about the first part. A spell caster casting a VSM spell with a wand does have a hand free. The hand with the wand is free as far as casting that spell is concerned, because holding the thing you use to cast the spell doesn't interfere with casting the spell.

[xanderh]

A scabbard is not flammable and the belt pouches are a part of a piece of clothing. A necklace is also a peice of clothing.

I just want to be completely clear, here. You're saying that a book hanging from a chain in a belt is neither worn nor carried?

Also, scabbards were often made of leather and wood. Metal scabbards came later, around the time sabers became the most common military sword.

[TheFlyingCleric]

When you throw an improvised weapon, it's damage is always 1d4+ STR modifier, and its range is always 20/60 feet, and it's chance to hit is always the same number.

This is regardless of whether you're throwing a small rock, or a really big axe, or a boulder (if you can lift it) or a very long stick (quarterstaff), or a heavy crossbow.
Want to bet how much damage throwing a gnome deals? Even with the pointy hat?

[KorvinStarmast]

Traveling Sales Paladin, you say?

Want to combine it with a Warlock? Check out the Corporate Patron in my sig!Love it! Sadly, our table broke up last month, summer vac and in one case RL getting too far into one guy's life.

[LordVonDerp]

I just want to be completely clear, here. You're saying that a book hanging from a chain in a belt is neither worn nor carried?

Also, scabbards were often made of leather and wood. Metal scabbards came later, around the time sabers became the most common military sword.

What kind of clothing does the book qualify as?

[xanderh]

What kind of clothing does the book qualify as?

Here's the definition of the verb "wear":

1.
have (something) on one's body as clothing, decoration, or protection.

I wouldn't call the book clothing, but it'd be easy to argue that it's decoration. If that doesn't convince you, here's one of the definitions of carry:
to have (something) with you or on your body

I can see an argument that you're not wearing the book, but I can not see any argument that you're not carrying a book attached to your belt by a chain. And you only need to be doing one of them, not both. If the spellbook worn by a chain in the belt is vulnerable, so is the quarterstaff in the wizard's hand.

Edit: In fact, here's one of the definitions of "wear" from merriam-webster: "to bear or have on the person <wore a coat>". A book attached to your belt by a chain is most definitely on your person, so there's no way you could argue that a book attached to your belt isn't being worn. Another is "to carry on the person <wear a sword>", which further supports this.

[Toofey]

There doesn't seem to be a '2 ring only' rule. I know it's not very weird or anything, but I feel like it is kind of assumed given that it's still a D&D game.

[xanderh]

There doesn't seem to be a '2 ring only' rule. I know it's not very weird or anything, but I feel like it is kind of assumed given that it's still a D&D game.

Why 2 rings? Why not as many rings as you can comfortably fit on your hands? It's still limited by attunement, so you're probably not going to use much more than 2 rings anyway.

[RickAllison]

What kind of clothing does the book qualify as?

What kind of clothing does a belt pouch qualify as? It is an item attached to the person, as is a scabbard.

[Laserlight]

Why 2 rings? Why not as many rings as you can comfortably fit on your hands? It's still limited by attunement, so you're probably not going to use much more than 2 rings anyway.

Hands. Toes. Earrings. Other piercings.

[Laserlight]

Those are longswords.
Greatswords were the size of the wielder, and were not carried on the back, as they would be impossible to draw in anything resembling reasonable time. Instead, you would hold the pommel and rest the flat against your shoulder.
Greatswords were not carried around in people's day-to-day lives, but were weapons of war. People did carry longswords, but they were sheathed at the hip, not on the back, as it is surprisingly difficult to draw the sword from the back smoothly. You can do it with shortswords, but anything bigger becomes awkward.

Also, that's a painting, not an actual person. If an actual person tried to do that, he'd discover that the weight of the sword tends to pull the baldric around so the sword is hanging at the lowest point, ie the hip.

[Laserlight]

Traveling Sales Paladin, you say?

I present the Oath of the Salesman

Having been in sales for 25 years....I'm emailing my DM right now for permission to use this for my next character.

[EvanescentHero]

Traveling Sales Paladin, you say?

I present the Oath of the Salesman

I like this lots, except you've got a couple levels with three oath spells instead of two.

[mgshamster]

Love it! Sadly, our table broke up last month, summer vac and in one case RL getting too far into one guy's life.


Having been in sales for 25 years....I'm emailing my DM right now for permission to use this for my next character.


I like this lots, except you've got a couple levels with three oath spells instead of two.

Thank guys!

The three oath spells were a conscious decision. First, they fit the theme of the traveling salesman in some way. Second, for a paladin, I felt this archetype was on the weaker side, so I was ok with having more spells on some levels to help increase the power.

Edit: However, feel free to offer suggestions! I have no problem trying to improve it. :)

[LordVonDerp]

What kind of clothing does a belt pouch qualify as? It is an item attached to the person, as is a scabbard.
Part of a belt.

[xanderh]

Part of a belt.

If the belt pouches attached to the belt are part of the belt, why isn't the book that is also attached to the belt?
And please address my post where I point out the definition of the words wear and carry. If you ignore it, I'm going to assume you concede.

[pwykersotz]

What kind of clothing does the book qualify as?

A Broach-ure?
A Coat-ex?
A Pant-phlet?

Or maybe a book is a creature instead of an object. After all it can have a jacket and it has a spine.

[LordVonDerp]

If the belt pouches attached to the belt are part of the belt, why isn't the book that is also attached to the belt?
And please address my post where I point out the definition of the words wear and carry. If you ignore it, I'm going to assume you concede.

The pouches are built into the belt itself, the book and chain are not.

Dictionary definitions are nice but they are not common use definitions, so they don matter for rules discussions.

Also, assuming something does not make it true.

[xanderh]

The pouches are built into the belt itself, the book and chain are not.

Dictionary definitions are nice but they are not common use definitions, so they don matter for rules discussions.

I'm sorry, but belt pouches are not usually built into the belt itself. Belt pouches are pouches with straps for attaching to the belt. You can remove them from the belt quite easily when not wearing the belt.
And how is a book attached by a chain to the belt neither worn nor carried? Actually, let me re-phrase that: How is a book on a chain, worn by the belt, neither worn nor carried?

Common use definitions are not useful for discussions, since they are not defined formally anywhere, so anyone can claim that anything is a common use definition. In the variant of english I speak (english as spoken by Danes), the book carried on a chain is covered by the common use definitions of both wear and carry. I'd like to know what region you live in, where the act of having a book attached to your belt via a chain doesn't even qualify for carrying it.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'm sorry, but belt pouches are not usually built into the belt itself. Belt pouches are pouches with straps for attaching to the belt. You can remove them from the belt quite easily when not wearing the belt.
And how is a book attached by a chain to the belt neither worn nor carried? Actually, let me re-phrase that: How is a book on a chain, worn by the belt, neither worn nor carried?

Common use definitions are not useful for discussions, since they are not defined formally anywhere, so anyone can claim that anything is a common use definition. In the variant of english I speak (english as spoken by Danes), the book carried on a chain is covered by the common use definitions of both wear and carry. I'd like to know what region you live in, where the act of having a book attached to your belt via a chain doesn't even qualify for carrying it.

It works that way in English as spoken by Englishmen as well. Well, it's arguable for wear, I would say the belt pouch is worn while the book is carried, but I would understand what was meant by something like 'wearing a book on his belt' to a good enough degree (although I'd personally use 'carrying the book by means of a chain attached to his belt').

[xanderh]

It works that way in English as spoken by Englishmen as well. Well, it's arguable for wear, I would say the belt pouch is worn while the book is carried, but I would understand what was meant by something like 'wearing a book on his belt' to a good enough degree (although I'd personally use 'carrying the book by means of a chain attached to his belt').

I agree, and would usually use carry, but "wearing a book by a chain in the belt" is not something I would ever judge as an incorrect sentence. It'd be unorthodox usage of the term "wear", but not incorrect.
Luckily, that whole debate isn't actually relevant, as you only need to wear OR carry the book for it to be immune to fireball. LordVonDerp has, at best, proven that wearing the book is questionable, but he has not once addressed the "carry" part of these arguments.

[LordVonDerp]

I'm sorry, but belt pouches are not usually built into the belt itself. Belt pouches are pouches with straps for attaching to the belt. You can remove them from the belt quite easily when not wearing the belt.
And how is a book attached by a chain to the belt neither worn nor carried? Actually, let me re-phrase that: How is a book on a chain, worn by the belt, neither worn nor carried?

Common use definitions are not useful for discussions, since they are not defined formally anywhere, so anyone can claim that anything is a common use definition. In the variant of english I speak (english as spoken by Danes), the book carried on a chain is covered by the common use definitions of both wear and carry. I'd like to know what region you live in, where the act of having a book attached to your belt via a chain doesn't even qualify for carrying it.

Common use definitions are the basis of the rules, they are all that matter in the discussion.

And usually belt pouches are fixed to the belt so they don't slide off when you're not wearing it.

[LordVonDerp]

Luckily, that whole debate isn't actually relevant, as you only need to wear OR carry the book for it to be immune to fireball. LordVonDerp has, at best, proven that wearing the book is questionable, but he has not once addressed the "carry" part of these arguments.

The debate is about setting fire to the spell book of an unconscious wizard, so carrying the book is neither possible nor relevant.

[xanderh]

Common use definitions are the basis of the rules, they are all that matter in the discussion.

And usually belt pouches are fixed to the belt so they don't slide off when you're not wearing it.

The debate is about setting fire to the spell book of an unconscious wizard, so carrying the book is neither possible nor relevant.

I have to say, I have not seen a single belt pouch that is fixed in a way that makes it impossible for it to slide around. The belt pouches I use for LARPing just have a way to attach to the belt. They generally don't slide around at all, and neither does my scabbard, which is attached by two hoops. If the belt is tightened properly, the pressure is going to hold the pouches in place.

And if your "common use" definition of the word carry excludes a book on a chain by the belt, there's no point in arguing further. Your understanding of the word is so far removed from my understanding, as well as the understanding of anyone I know who has ever used that word, that we may as well be speaking different languages.

If that is the case, then the common use definition is absolutely useless for discussing rules, as we have no common frame of reference. That means we have to fall back on a more rigid definition, and all of the definitions for carry I have found so far have supported me rather than you.

If I was to speculate on what you understand by the word carry, I would guess that you think the fact he isn't moving it around or supporting the weight somehow, precludes him from carrying it. That interpretation of the word is problematic, however, as that would mean literally anything the wizard has on him (except clothing) would be damaged by the fireball. This is quite clearly not the intent of the designers. This problem only arises with your interpretation of the word carry, which means we can discard it for the purposes of these rules, since we have a different interpretation without this problem.

[RickAllison]

There is one other place that implicitly defines what you are carrying: "carrying capacity". I would judge that anything counting towards that is carrying by the rules.

[xanderh]

There is one other place that implicitly defines what you are carrying: "carrying capacity". I would judge that anything counting towards that is carrying by the rules.

I'd be inclined to agree with that as the definition of the word "carry" for the purposes of the game. I don't see any obvious problems with that definition, and it's supported by rules.

[EvanescentHero]

Common use definitions are not useful for discussions, since they are not defined formally anywhere, so anyone can claim that anything is a common use definition. In the variant of english I speak (english as spoken by Danes), the book carried on a chain is covered by the common use definitions of both wear and carry. I'd like to know what region you live in, where the act of having a book attached to your belt via a chain doesn't even qualify for carrying it.


It works that way in English as spoken by Englishmen as well. Well, it's arguable for wear, I would say the belt pouch is worn while the book is carried, but I would understand what was meant by something like 'wearing a book on his belt' to a good enough degree (although I'd personally use 'carrying the book by means of a chain attached to his belt').

As an American English speaker, I agree with both of you. If you wear a belt, you wear anything attached to the belt as well. Pouches, weapons, even books if that's how you roll.

[JoeJ]

As an American English speaker, I agree with both of you. If you wear a belt, you wear anything attached to the belt as well. Pouches, weapons, even books if that's how you roll.

Yes. But, interestingly, I wear a holster on my belt and I carry a gun in my holster.

[RickAllison]

Yes. But, interestingly, I wear a holster on my belt and I carry a gun in my holster.

I would say the reason for that is the sidearm is contained in the holster, but it isn't actually attached. This is in contrast to the book which is directly attached by a chain. A better analogy for the gun would be a bookmark in the book, as it is contained in it but not directly attached.

In contrast, a longarm in a harness could be considered worn as it is attached to the body via the harness.

[EvanescentHero]

Yes. But, interestingly, I wear a holster on my belt and I carry a gun in my holster.

Or you could shorthand it and say "he wore a gun on his hip." Fairly common and accepted, and everybody will understand what you mean.

[Clistenes]

A mule or a pony (CR 1/8) are more dangerous than a hyena (CR 0).
A horse or an elk (CR 1/4) are as dangerous as a panther (CR 1/4).
A warhorse (CR 1/2) is more dangerous than a panther (CR 1/4) and an equal to the reek shark (CR 1/2).

[JumboWheat01]

A Broach-ure?
A Coat-ex?
A Pant-phlet?

Or maybe a book is a creature instead of an object. After all it can have a jacket and it has a spine.

Horrendous puns aside... the potential for a living spell book... I'll have to think of that one. Might actually work best for a Tome Warlock, getting a "living tome" from their patron...

[LordVonDerp]

I have to say, I have not seen a single belt pouch that is fixed in a way that makes it impossible for it to slide around. The belt pouches I use for LARPing just have a way to attach to the belt. They generally don't slide around at all, and neither does my scabbard, which is attached by two hoops. If the belt is tightened properly, the pressure is going to hold the pouches in place.

And if your "common use" definition of the word carry excludes a book on a chain by the belt, there's no point in arguing further. Your understanding of the word is so far removed from my understanding, as well as the understanding of anyone I know who has ever used that word, that we may as well be speaking different languages.


"Slide off" , not "slide around".

At no point have I said that a conscious person cannot "Carry" a book by hanging it from their belt. They are not, however, "wearing" the book, nor can an unconscious person "carry" anything.

[xanderh]

"Slide off" , not "slide around".

At no point have I said that a conscious person cannot "Carry" a book by hanging it from their belt. They are not, however, "wearing" the book, nor can an unconscious person "carry" anything.

Slide off, slide around, you know what I meant.

And why is being conscious a requirement for carrying something? It's not a requirement for wearing anything. All dictionary definitions describe it as just having it on your person, so being unconscious doesn't stop you from carrying it. And you're the only one here arguing your definition of carrying that excludes unconscious creatures from carrying something, which means it is not the common use definition of the word either.

But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that your definition is correct. Would that make everything in your backpack vulnerable? What about the contents of your belt pouches? Or the whip you carry by the hip? Basically, if you were the DM, would being unconscious make everything but the clothing you're wearing and your armour vulnerable to a fireball the instant you go unconscious? Because that is not a game I would enjoy playing in. It doesn't make much sense, either. When you're completely surprised, but conscious, all of your stuff is invincible even though you did nothing to protect it. But if you're unconscious, the stuff is suddenly vulnerable, even though you're not protecting it any less than you were before.
Your definition of the word carry has issues that the definition everybody else is using doesn't have. Maybe you should consider using the definition used by more than one person that doesn't have issues associated with it.

[LordVonDerp]

A mule or a pony (CR 1/8) are more dangerous than a hyena (CR 0).
A horse or an elk (CR 1/4) are as dangerous as a panther (CR 1/4).
A warhorse (CR 1/2) is more dangerous than a panther (CR 1/4) and an equal to the reek shark (CR 1/2).

Hyenas are pack hunters, so nothing too strange with them.
Panthers tend to sneak up on things, so they'd likely get the first strike, so again not too big of a concern with them.
Sharks are really only dangerous in the water, where most people have trouble fighting.
Have you ever been kicked by a horse? They're very dangerous creatures.

[LordVonDerp]

Slide off, slide around, you know what I meant.



Then why did you use it in a way that is completely inconsistent with what you meant?

If want to play a game where unconscious people can still protect there stuff and people can carry an object without being able to support its weight, then go ahead. But that is some cheesy nonsense.

[xanderh]

Then why did you use it in a way that is completely inconsistent with what you meant?

If want to play a game where unconscious people can still protect there stuff and people can carry an object without being able to support its weight, then go ahead. But that is some cheesy nonsense.

Sliding off the belt does require that it can slide around on the belt. I haven't seen a belt pouch, or scabbard, slide around on a belt, and I certainly haven't seen it slide off.

And people are just as capable of protecting their equipment when unconscious as they are when caught off-guard (that is to say, not at all). Do you also allow equipment damage if the person carrying an item is surprised? If not, why not? They're just as unable to protect the equipment.

And I'm not saying that people can protect their stuff when unconscious. I believe the "worn or carried" clause is there purely because it's not fun as a wizard to lose your spellbook every single time you meet a hostile spellcaster. Losing your equipment permanently rarely adds fun factor to the game, and is usually pretty detrimental. Especially for a wizard and his spellbook. If the character can't afford a backup spellbook at a home base, you've basically reduced him to only the spells he currently has prepared.

We need to agree on a definition of the word "carry". Since you're not in any way a recognized authority on definitions of words, we'll have to resort to a dictionary that is descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive). Something like the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. The simple definition is:
1: To move (something) while holding and supporting it
2: To contain and direct the flow of (water, electricity, etc.)
3: To have (something) with you or on your body.

The full definition has all of these, and a bunch more.
Your definition looks like it's limited to the first of these, but the actual definition of the word is more broad. Just because you don't acknowledge a definition doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means that you disagree with an internationally recognized dictionary on what the definition of that word is.
And going by the third definition, anything on your person is carried by you, which would include anything attached to your belt. There is no requirement in that definition of actively supporting the weight (which you would technically still be doing if you were lying on your back with the book on top of you), all that is required is that it is on your person, which a book carried on a chain by the waist most definitely is.

[Knaight]

Hyenas are pack hunters, so nothing too strange with them.
Panthers tend to sneak up on things, so they'd likely get the first strike, so again not too big of a concern with them.
Sharks are really only dangerous in the water, where most people have trouble fighting.
Have you ever been kicked by a horse? They're very dangerous creatures.

That list seems pretty okay in general. Horses are big and dangerous animals, and so are elk. People tend to think of them as basically deer but a bit bigger, but the deer most people are more familiar with are generally only 150 pounds or so, while elk are usually upwards of 700 and much more willing to use their antlers violently. Sure, they don't tend to pick fights, but that doesn't mean they can't win them against a lot of other animals.

[Clistenes]

Hyenas are pack hunters, so nothing too strange with them.
Panthers tend to sneak up on things, so they'd likely get the first strike, so again not too big of a concern with them.
Sharks are really only dangerous in the water, where most people have trouble fighting.
Have you ever been kicked by a horse? They're very dangerous creatures.

A Wolf is CR 1/4, and a Hyena (CR 0) is at least as dangerous as a wolf. They are bigger on average (specially females) and have stronger jaws.

Look, people taking down adult wild horses with their bare hands (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iciwBcayVbs)... would they dare do it with a panther?

A Shark out of the water wouldn't be CR 1/2; it would be CR 0, since it couldn't move. The CR 1/2 is for Sharks in the water, and Reef Sharks can be 3 meters long. They should be at least as dangerous as Lions.

[Dr. Cliché]

If you're a Warlock and you regret selling your soul, make sure you learn True Ploymorph as your Level 9 spell. Casting it on yourself will instantly end your pact.

[xanderh]

If you're a Warlock and you regret selling your soul, make sure you learn True Ploymorph as your Level 9 spell. Casting it on yourself will instantly end your pact.

How so? I'm curious for the reasoning here.

[Dr. Cliché]

How so? I'm curious for the reasoning here.

When you True Polymorph yourself, you lose all your class levels and abilities. RAW the pact itself is a class feature. Hence, when you stop being a Warlock, the pact goes away. :smallbiggrin:

[Oramac]

When you True Polymorph yourself, you lose all your class levels and abilities. RAW the pact itself is a class feature. Hence, when you stop being a Warlock, the pact goes away. :smallbiggrin:

But that pretty much also means you become a commoner, right? I mean, if you stop being a warlock, and you're not any other class, you're basically just some guy standing around.

[Dr. Cliché]

But that pretty much also means you become a commoner, right? I mean, if you stop being a warlock, and you're not any other class, you're basically just some guy standing around.

If you choose to polymorph yourself into a human, sure.

However, given that you're looking at about Lv17+ to cast True Polymorph, you could just as easily turn yourself into a Planetar or an adult dragon. Not just some guy now. :smallamused:

[xanderh]

If you choose to polymorph yourself into a human, sure.

However, given that you're looking at about Lv17+ to cast True Polymorph, you could just as easily turn yourself into a Planetar or an adult dragon. Not just some guy now. :smallamused:

It's worth mentioning that your former patron is probably going to be pretty angry with you for forcefully backing out of a deal that granted you a lot of power, so will probably hunt you down. Even if it didn't lose the soul you gave to it, it may still want to teach you a lesson about being "clever" about deals made with extra-planar entities.

[Dr. Cliché]

It's worth mentioning that your former patron is probably going to be pretty angry with you for forcefully backing out of a deal that granted you a lot of power, so will probably hunt you down. Even if it didn't lose the soul you gave to it, it may still want to teach you a lesson about being "clever" about deals made with extra-planar entities.

Oh, indeed.

It just amuses me that you can end the pact with Polymorph. :smalltongue:

[Zalabim]

A pact ended by polymorph or true polymorph will be reinstated by a sufficiently powerful dispel magic.

Somatic and Material components of spells require you to have a hand free to perform and interact with these components. This technically requires you to not be holding the wand, staff, orb, rod or other focus you're using to replace material components when you want to cast a spell, or else have the other hand free.

[Dr. Cliché]

A pact ended by polymorph or true polymorph will be reinstated by a sufficiently powerful dispel magic.

Does that work even when the True Polymorph is permanent?

[JackPhoenix]

Does that work even when the True Polymorph is permanent?

Permanent until dispelled: If you concentrate on this spell for the full duration, the transformation lasts until it is dispelled.

[Vogonjeltz]

Sure. But in 5E, the spellbook is still harder to set fire to in your backpack even if you are unconscious at the time.

Technically it requires the item to be worn or carried, both of which are active voice; an unconscious character is incapable of taking actions ergo they are not technically capable of actively wearing or carrying items.

Which is not to say the items aren't still in their backpack, nor that their body is not in their clothes, only that they can't "wear" or "carry" them (because both are verbs, and the unconscious character is incapable of verbing.

So, using some rational sense, I'd allow the firebolt to set something on fire that is flammable provided nobody is going to try and stop that from happening.

[JumboWheat01]

(because both are verbs, and the unconscious character is incapable of verbing.

Considering the amount of rolling, talking, shifting and various other things I do when I'm asleep (and during that time, I'm sure I can be classified as dead since I sleep so deeply and have no conscious reaction to the outside world,) I'd say someone unconscious is VERY capable of verbing. Just not capable of correcting improper verb usage.

[MaxWilson]

Technically it requires the item to be worn or carried, both of which are active voice; an unconscious character is incapable of taking actions ergo they are not technically capable of actively wearing or carrying items.

Which is not to say the items aren't still in their backpack, nor that their body is not in their clothes, only that they can't "wear" or "carry" them (because both are verbs, and the unconscious character is incapable of verbing.

So, using some rational sense, I'd allow the firebolt to set something on fire that is flammable provided nobody is going to try and stop that from happening.

So in your interpretation, sleeping people never wear clothes?

I don't buy that, especially given this (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/04/19/can-you-take-a-unconscious-target-with-you-using-dimension-door/) bit of metaphysics from Jeremy Crawford, but hey, it's your table. Run your game the way that makes sense to you.

[lperkins2]

So in your interpretation, sleeping people never wear clothes?

I don't buy that, especially given this (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/04/19/can-you-take-a-unconscious-target-with-you-using-dimension-door/) bit of metaphysics from Jeremy Crawford, but hey, it's your table. Run your game the way that makes sense to you.

Oh gosh that's a particularly bad call. Not what you're saying, what Crawford said. Anyone who dimension-doors should die some short number of days later: the multitude of small creatures you're carrying, which help maintain homeostasis, cannot be willing and must be left behind, leaving the poor traveler to sicken and die, or at least lose the ability to digest many foods. A better way to handle dimension-door would be to say that an unwilling creature cannot be moved, or more mechanically, save: will negates (DC 0). This would imply that an unconscious creature can be transported via DD, since they're not awake to resist the process.

[pwykersotz]

Oh gosh that's a particularly bad call. Not what you're saying, what Crawford said. Anyone who dimension-doors should die some short number of days later: the multitude of small creatures you're carrying, which help maintain homeostasis, cannot be willing and must be left behind, leaving the poor traveler to sicken and die, or at least lose the ability to digest many foods. A better way to handle dimension-door would be to say that an unwilling creature cannot be moved, or more mechanically, save: will negates (DC 0). This would imply that an unconscious creature can be transported via DD, since they're not awake to resist the process.

Homeowhatsis? Read a book, son. There ain't no critters in a man. Just good and provable earth, fire, air, and water, with a touch of the balance of life and death o'course. If there is anything in me, it's probably some kinda Slaad or Illithid and needs to be left behind anyhow.

[MaxWilson]

Oh gosh that's a particularly bad call. Not what you're saying, what Crawford said. Anyone who dimension-doors should die some short number of days later: the multitude of small creatures you're carrying, which help maintain homeostasis, cannot be willing and must be left behind, leaving the poor traveler to sicken and die, or at least lose the ability to digest many foods. A better way to handle dimension-door would be to say that an unwilling creature cannot be moved, or more mechanically, save: will negates (DC 0). This would imply that an unconscious creature can be transported via DD, since they're not awake to resist the process.

Or, maybe D&D humans aren't made out of cells and don't have gut bacteria in them.

It's a DM call really. I would make a different call than Crawford when it comes to Dimension Door, but this is a thread about RAW and Crawford's interpretation here does conform with RAW, so at least as far this thread goes his call is valid here, IMO. Do you disagree?

[Logosloki]

Oh gosh that's a particularly bad call. Not what you're saying, what Crawford said. Anyone who dimension-doors should die some short number of days later: the multitude of small creatures you're carrying, which help maintain homeostasis, cannot be willing and must be left behind, leaving the poor traveler to sicken and die, or at least lose the ability to digest many foods. A better way to handle dimension-door would be to say that an unwilling creature cannot be moved, or more mechanically, save: will negates (DC 0). This would imply that an unconscious creature can be transported via DD, since they're not awake to resist the process.

This actually opens up a multitude of questions. Are gut flora and fauna seperate from their host or is there no host, that every being is its own symbiotic colony? I'm not sure percentagewise but some gut flora and fauna are unique to humans and or hominids, passed on via placenta and milk.

Or maybe gut flora and fauna are special beings that exist to tie us to all that is around us. Maybe a high concentration of particular species gives beings magic.

[hymer]

All this talk reminds me suspiciously of midi-chlorians. Let's not go down that dark road, eh? :smallyuk:

[Telok]

This actually opens up a multitude of questions. Are gut flora and fauna seperate from their host or is there no host, that every being is its own symbiotic colony? .

It occurs to me that this also cures all infections and diseases related to other critters on/in your body. Rot grubs, green slime, malaria, disentary, and the various supernatural parasites and egg layers. All become trivial threats to a magic user with Dimension Door.

Are intelligent magic items considered separate entities? Never mind, those are intelligent and can give consent.

[TheFlyingCleric]

Permanent until dispelled: If you concentrate on this spell for the full duration, the transformation lasts until it is dispelled.

Actually, it just says the transformation becomes permanent. Not the duration becomes permanent (in which case it could be dispelled), nor does it say it's permanent until dispelled. Just permanent. The only way to revert it is with another True Polymorph, or of course wish.

[Anonymouswizard]

Actually, it just says the transformation becomes permanent. Not the duration becomes permanent (in which case it could be dispelled), nor does it say it's permanent until dispelled. Just permanent. The only way to revert it is with another True Polymorph, or of course wish.

My copy says permanent until dispelled :smallconfused: can somebody check the errata, this might be addressed in it.

[xanderh]

My copy says permanent until dispelled :smallconfused: can somebody check the errata, this might be addressed in it.

Fifth printing says "if you concentrate on this spell for the full duration, the transformation lasts until it is dispelled"

[Dr. Cliché]

My copy doesn't have the 'until dispelled' addendum, but I've no idea if it's an early or late printing.

Regardless, if the spell becomes permanent, does it still end when the creature is reduced to 0hp?

[xanderh]

My copy doesn't have the 'until dispelled' addendum, but I've no idea if it's an early or late printing.

Regardless, if the spell becomes permanent, does it still end when the creature is reduced to 0hp?

You can check if it's the corrected printing on the copyright page, opposite the table of contents.
If it's the non-corrected printing, it will say "First Printing: August 2014" near the bottom, left of the massive CE
If it's the corrected one (fifth printing or later), it will say "First Printing: August 2014 (This printing includes corrections to the first printing)" instead.

And in terms of your question, it doesn't seem so. The relevant text is "The transformation lasts for the duration, or until the target drops to 0 hit points or dies. If you concentrate on this spell for the full duration, the transformation lasts until it is dispelled"
To me, that implies that it lasts until the caster stop concentrating or the creature drops to 0 HP/dies, unless the caster concentrates for the full duration, in which case it is permanent until dispelled.
But if the creature drop to 0 and is then dispelled, the creature would revert to their normal form with the HP they had when they were originally polymorphed.

[Kornaki]

Technically it requires the item to be worn or carried, both of which are active voice; an unconscious character is incapable of taking actions ergo they are not technically capable of actively wearing or carrying items.

Which is not to say the items aren't still in their backpack, nor that their body is not in their clothes, only that they can't "wear" or "carry" them (because both are verbs, and the unconscious character is incapable of verbing.

So, using some rational sense, I'd allow the firebolt to set something on fire that is flammable provided nobody is going to try and stop that from happening.

"He sleeps in the bedroom". Is that sentence wrong? Because it has an unconscious person verbing.

He lays in the coffin has a dead person verbing!

This line of argument is absurd.

[Scaleybob]

Just noticed this one now - a suit of Barding weighs and costs the same no matter what creature wears it.

A suit of Armor for a Mastiff weighs and costs the same as one for an elephant. :smallconfused:

[Fighting_Ferret]

Spears aren't considered polearms, but quarterstaves are...

[JumboWheat01]

Spears aren't considered polearms, but quarterstaves are...

What others have argued in the threads I've read is how spears pretty much require a thrusting motion, which doesn't allow for proper momentum to smack things around, while a quarterstaff relies on a swinging motion, which allows momentum to carry the stave around so you can smack things with the other end.

Though why it does less damage still eludes me. Quarterstaves should be the same on each end, unlike say a halberd or a glaive, and thus do the same damage no matter which end you smack someone across the face with.

[MaxWilson]

Spears aren't considered polearms, but quarterstaves are...

According to the improvised weapons rules, the DM is within his rights to rule that a spear can be used as a quarterstaff, which is a polearm.

[RickAllison]

What others have argued in the threads I've read is how spears pretty much require a thrusting motion, which doesn't allow for proper momentum to smack things around, while a quarterstaff relies on a swinging motion, which allows momentum to carry the stave around so you can smack things with the other end.

Though why it does less damage still eludes me. Quarterstaves should be the same on each end, unlike say a halberd or a glaive, and thus do the same damage no matter which end you smack someone across the face with.

The way I see it is that the bonus action is due to conserving the motion of the attack. With the quarterstaff, it is the same striking surface but has slightly less leverage behind it.

[Knaight]

The way I see it is that the bonus action is due to conserving the motion of the attack. With the quarterstaff, it is the same striking surface but has slightly less leverage behind it.

You also generally don't hold them in the middle, particularly with a style that emphasizes striking predominantly with one end, so the shorter end has a lot less force behind it near the end. That part actually makes a decent amount of sense.

The continued spin concept on the other hand, is dubious at best.

[RickAllison]

You also generally don't hold them in the middle, particularly with a style that emphasizes striking predominantly with one end, so the shorter end has a lot less force behind it near the end. That part actually makes a decent amount of sense.

The continued spin concept on the other hand, is dubious at best.

I like the continued spin represented as essentially using TWF with reduced damage. So a spinning quarterstaff to me is more like taking a d4 damage but otherwise making use of the TWF rules (so you get a bonus of not having to juggle to use those rules and have a free hand, but you lose damage comparatively)

[Easy_Lee]

So in your interpretation, sleeping people never wear clothes?

I don't buy that, especially given this (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/04/19/can-you-take-a-unconscious-target-with-you-using-dimension-door/) bit of metaphysics from Jeremy Crawford, but hey, it's your table. Run your game the way that makes sense to you.

Given that, it seems dimension door is a suitable way to perform an exorcism.

Here are some of mine:
Moving Whirlwind - by RAW, Whirlwind attack from hunter 11 makes X separate attacks against targets within 5'. As per the PHB, you can move between attacks. So, hunters can move while performing Whirlwind attack. It's unclear whether this potentially increases the number of targets.

Mounts Commanded More Easily Than Companions - by RAW, a beast master Ranger must give up his action to command his beast to dodge, disengage, etc at low levels. Unless he rides the companion, in which case these things can be done freely. Additionally, if a druid casts Awaken on the companion, AND the Ranger rides it, then it can now act freely as per the rules on intelligent mounts.

Bladelock Weapon Stow - this has been retconned, but by original RAW, a blade pact warlock could declare his own body (unarmed strike) as his pact weapon. If he then found a way to make his body non-sentient, such as by storing his soul, he could use a blade pact feature to store his "weapon" in a pocket dimension which no one else can access. He would then be permanently stuck, as there would be no way to retrieve himself short of teleportation or other tricks.

Dwarven Red Rover - lay a metal bar across the shoulders of several dwarves in a line, as many as you can without their combined weight exceeding anyone's carry capacity. On each dwarf's turn, he lifts the bar while the others cling to it, then takes his move action, a bonus action dash, and sets the others down. With properly strong and lightweight dwarves, great speeds can be achieved.

[Fighting_Ferret]

According to the improvised weapons rules, the DM is within his rights to rule that a spear can be used as a quarterstaff, which is a polearm.

But then the spear isn't really a spear either is it... so as a spear it doesn't qualify.

It's also funny that a quarterstaff wielded one-handed has better damage than a club and is the equal of the flanged mace, or that when wielded two-handed, is the equal of the great club.



Moving Whirlwind - by RAW, Whirlwind attack from hunter 11 makes X separate attacks against targets within 5'. As per the PHB, you can move between attacks. So, hunters can move while performing Whirlwind attack. It's unclear whether this potentially increases the number of targets.

A better reading of whirlwind says that you make a (as in one) melee attack against multiple targets.



Mounts Commanded More Easily Than Companions - by RAW, a beast master Ranger must give up his action to command his beast to dodge, disengage, etc at low levels. Unless he rides the companion, in which case these things can be done freely. Additionally, if a druid casts Awaken on the companion, AND the Ranger rides it, then it can now act freely as per the rules on intelligent mounts.

You are discussing 3 different things here. The mount can do those things, because it cannot do anything other than carry you otherwise. The ranger's companion also has the option to assist in combat via the attack or help action (essentially keeping the ranger at a safe distance). An awakened or intelligent (independent) creature/mount operates as an npc, and thus has it own initiative, movement, and action, as well as agenda, alignment, and thoughts.



Bladelock Weapon Stow - this has been retconned, but by original RAW, a blade pact warlock could declare his own body (unarmed strike) as his pact weapon. If he then found a way to make his body non-sentient, such as by storing his soul, he could use a blade pact feature to store his "weapon" in a pocket dimension which no one else can access. He would then be permanently stuck, as there would be no way to retrieve himself short of teleportation or other tricks.

My version may have the edit, but it says for pact blade: "You can use your action to create a pact weapon in your empty hand." That is pretty clear that it has to be a weapon... not your body.



Dwarven Red Rover - lay a metal bar across the shoulders of several dwarves in a line, as many as you can without their combined weight exceeding anyone's carry capacity. On each dwarf's turn, he lifts the bar while the others cling to it, then takes his move action, a bonus action dash, and sets the others down. With properly strong and lightweight dwarves, great speeds can be achieved.
Not sure why dwarves are required for this... all I can find that makes dwarves different is this in the race section: "Your speed is not reduced by wearing heavy armor." I'm taking it that we are going by their lift capacity (30*STR) which is the max limit that they can push/pull. Your speed would be 5 feet. Your average dwarf is going to way 165 lbs with no gear, so a dwarf with a 20 STR can lift 3 other dwarves and move 5 feet. That is true using that rule, or the rules for encumbrance, which would qualify you as heavily encumbered (10x your STR score up to Max lifting (30x your STR) and results in your 25 ft of movement being reduced by 20ft. You are using wrong wording for the move/dash. The question here is would picking the bar up count as an action (let's say no) so he uses his 1 item interaction to lift the bar, he then moves 5 feet, using his action to dash for a total of 10 feet of movement. Given our 4 dwarf limit, they can move 40 feet per round doing this, whereas a single dwarf could have moved 50 feet.