Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

[Kadesh]

Absolutely not ambiguous whatsoever. The two are incompatible with one another, as Protection Fighting Style requires it to target another creature, and Mounted Combatant changes the target to yourself. A target of an attack is chosen and declared before the modifiers to an attack roll are determined pg194.

One precludes the other.

[The Jack]

Given conflicting opinions, which may be a bit emotional (and also, i have access to a computer now so it's not a pain to write) I decided to really look at this myself.

Everything relevant that I know.

Whether you’re striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or Making an Attack roll as part of a spell, an Attack has a simple structure.

Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location.
Determine modifiers. The GM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, Spells, Special Abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your Attack roll.
Resolve the Attack. You make the Attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular Attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause Special effects in addition to or instead of damage.

Protection

When a creature you can see attacks a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on the Attack roll. You must be wielding a Shield.

Mounted Combatant
You are a dangerous foe to face while mounted. While you are mounted and aren't incapacitated, you gain the following benefits:

You have advantage on melee attack rolls against any unmounted creature that is smaller than your mount.
You can force an attack targeted at your mount to target you instead.
If your mount is subjected to an effect that allows it to make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half damage, it instead takes no damage if it succeeds on the saving throw, and only half damage if it fails.

First bit:
The attacker picks a target.
Second bit: all the complications
The attack was targeted at your mount, so you can apply disadvantage using your reaction.
You force the attack to target yourself (this needs no reaction)
Last bit: the attacker rolls the dice.

So, rules as written, we can conclude that yeah, you can do it.

I think it's got a nice image attached to it.
Someone swings for the your horse, you lean in with your shield to catch the projectile, risking yourself to save the mount.

The orc hurls his spear at screech,the giant bat, which twists in a barrel roll; the missile caught expertly by the rider's shield.

...also it's just one attack a turn, given only one reaction. It's not going to be broke.

[Kadesh]

Mounted Combatant triggers at Step 1, when a target is chosen. If it targets your mount it targets yourself instead. As soon as modifiers are determined (Step 2) and then when an attack is rolled (Step 3), you are then no longer able to change the target of the attack (as it is no longer "When") the target is chosen.

You not liking the rule, or thinking it won't be broken doesn't change the fact that it is nothing but a houserule and thus outside of the scope of this thread.

[No brains]

Re 155
This topic should probably get its own thread. It's not so simple anymore.

Q 156
A creature with blindsight doesn't need to see creatures to attack without disadvantage and can use effects that require you to 'see' a target, right?

[The Jack]

Mounted Combatant triggers at Step 1, when a target is chosen.

The target is chosen by the attacker. They're making the attack roll.
The target changing is a modifier.

[Kadesh]

The target is chosen by the attacker. They're making the attack roll.
The target changing is a modifier.

At which point there is a new set of modifiers and it is ineligible for previous applied modifiers to be applied or else you end up going recurse.

The rules and logic do not support your interpretation.

[The Jack]

You're... invested in this.
But the attacker choosing would be step one.
The redirection would be step two, as it's not the attacker choosing the target. Step one does not come into this.
The disadvantage will be step two, relating to step one. and as the character tried to attack the close person. They are inclusive.

RAW, it works.

[Kadesh]

You're... invested in this.
But the attacker choosing would be step one.
The redirection would be step two, as it's not the attacker choosing the target. Step one does not come into this.
The disadvantage will be step two, relating to step one. and as the character tried to attack the close person. They are inclusive.

RAW, it works.

No, it doesn't. When you determine a target of the attack, you back to Step 1 and determine effects based on that.

You not liking the rules doesn't change them.

[AHF]

You're... invested in this.

You’ve previously called him emotional and now in this latest post implied he is biased due to how invested he is in this. That is super strange given that you are the one wanting to run this and he is just giving his neutral reading of the rules. I don’t see how he has a stake in the game on this.

[The Jack]

Tone. He comes off as furious at the cheese. It's one thing to say no and another to do it with capitals, everyone else has given far more measured responses.

Me? I'd player and gm this. It keeps squishy mounts alive with excellent riders, and from a player perspective it requires a deal of investment that should pay off: a skill, a fighting style and an asi (plus mounts are expensive early on)
But hey, having protection and MC, but not being able to use them at the same time, is not a gigantic loss.

[Kadesh]

?

You do you, man, and you read what you want to. It still doesn't make it RAW. It is a RAW discussion.

[Man_Over_Game]

Q 157

Can you release a grapple after using half of your movement and then move the rest of your Speed?

Q 157a

If so, can I grapple the creature and move half of my speed again?

[LtPowers]

A157

You can release a grapple at any time, just like dropping an item.

Speed changing in the middle of a turn, after movement's already been taken, is not well defined in the rules. If it's a numeric bonus, like casting longstrider, I think it's pretty clear you immediately get the extra ten feet to use, even if you used your full movement previously. But for this case, where you're halving your movement and then returning to your normal amount... I don't think there's a RAW answer.

Extrapolating from the longstrider example, it would seem that you could grapple, move 15 feet, release the grapple, and move another 15 feet. But I don't think a DM that ruled otherwise would be wrong, per se.

Note, though, that the wording of the grapple mechanic ("your speed is halved") is different from other similar effects (like difficult terrain: "Every foot of movement in difficult terrain costs 1 extra foot"). That could point to the designers intending it to work differently from difficult terrain, and thus allowing the extra 15 feet of movement you propose.

A157a

Assuming you move a grappled creature 15 feet, release it, then move another 15 feet, then grapple another creature... you would still be out of movement. You would have used 30 feet of movement and your total movement while grappling is 15 feet.


Powers &8^]

[Erys]

Q 156
A creature with blindsight doesn't need to see creatures to attack without disadvantage and can use effects that require you to 'see' a target, right?

A156: As long as the target in question is in the blindsights range (and there is nothing in effect that would negate it), yes. That is correct.

Q 157

Can you release a grapple after using half of your movement and then move the rest of your Speed?

Q 157a

If so, can I grapple the creature and move half of my speed again?

157 and 157a: No.

Your speed is halved when you grapple an opponent- meaning your move goes from (usually) 30' to 15'. If you move those 15' you are now out of move and letting go of your victim does not change that.

If you two move only 5' and then let go of your prey you could move another 20' without grappling someone- but if you grab him (or someone else) again you are back down to having half your remaining move (i.e. your remaining 20' once again become 10').

[LtPowers]

Your speed is halved when you grapple an opponent- meaning your move goes from (usually) 30' to 15'. If you move those 15' you are now out of move and letting go of your victim does not change that.

You seem certain of your answer, so I'm curious where you find the rule that says when your speed increases from 15 to 30, you have to count the 15' you already moved as having moved 30'. It seems a reasonable reading to say now that your speed is 30', and you've only moved 15' (albeit while your speed was 15), you now have another 15' to move.

Consider the converse situation: I move 20' then grapple someone, dropping my speed to 15. Would you say that I could then move another 5 feet while grappling even though I've already used 20' of movement? Is there textual support for this interpretation?

Like I said in my reply, I don't think a DM would be wrong to rule this way, but I am not clear where your certainty is coming from.


Powers &8^]

[AHF]

LtPowers - Under your read, if someone moves 5 feet and grapples then you would say they can only move 10 more feet because you don’t view the half as having a formulaic value and instead view it as a state of either 15 or 30?

I read Erys as using a formula and therefore your question to him will be a “yes” and he would also say the person can still move 12.5’ in response to my question.

[Arkhios]

LtPowers - Under your read, if someone moves 5 feet and grapples then you would say they can only move 10 more feet because you don’t view the half as having a formulaic value and instead view it as a state of either 15 or 30?

I read Erys as using a formula and therefore your question to him will be a “yes” and he would also say the person can still move 12.5’ in response to my question.

Technically, both are correct by RAW. The RAW defaults to not using grid, but also mentions how the rules interact with a grid in use.

LtPowers is correct if you use a grid, such as a battlemap, or whatever substitute you prefer, where each square (or hex) defaults to 5 feet by 5 feet, unless mentioned otherwise. Anything less than 5 ft. (including movement) is technically irrelevant on a grid.

[LtPowers]

LtPowers - Under your read, if someone moves 5 feet and grapples then you would say they can only move 10 more feet because you don’t view the half as having a formulaic value and instead view it as a state of either 15 or 30?

R157

This is becoming more than simple RAW and if you want to discuss it further I think we should move it to another thread. Unless someone has found a more definitive rule in the books somewhere, I think the answer is "RAW is ambiguous".


Powers &8^]

[Man_Over_Game]

Q 158: If I have a non-climbing speed, the rules state I can spend my non-climbing speed at double the rate to climb. However, if I also have a climbing speed, can I climb up to my climbing speed, and then use the remainder of my non-climbing speed at double the rate to climb an additional distance?

For example, say I have 60 walking speed and 20 climbing speed (say from being a Tabaxi or something). Can I climb 20 feet, have 40 walking speed left and use it to climb an additional 20 feet?

The main concern is the fact that the rules only state I can use my non-climbing speed to climb if I don't have a climbing speed. So...if my climbing speed is 0, does that count as not having a climbing speed?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Q 158: If I have a non-climbing speed, the rules state I can spend my non-climbing speed at double the rate to climb. However, if I also have a climbing speed, can I climb up to my climbing speed, and then use the remainder of my non-climbing speed at double the rate to climb an additional distance?

For example, say I have 60 walking speed and 20 climbing speed (say from being a Tabaxi or something). Can I climb 20 feet, have 40 walking speed left and use it to climb an additional 20 feet?

The main concern is the fact that the rules only state I can use my non-climbing speed to climb if I don't have a climbing speed. So...if my climbing speed is 0, does that count as not having a climbing speed?

A 158: As I understand it, you can only move up to the least of the speeds involved in that particular movement. So if you are climbing, the cases break down as follows:

* Climb speed > 0: Use it till its gone at a 1:1 movement/distance covered ratio.
* Climb speed == 0 or UNDEFINED: Climb using walking speed at 2:1 movement/distance covered ratio.

So a 30-ft climb speed/40-ft walk speed lets you climb 30 ft (climb speed) or 20 feet (walk speed at 2:1 ratio). But once you're out of climb speed you can't switch speeds and keep climbing. Thus, having 0 climb speed is equivalent to having a climb speed of (walking speed / 2).

The example given is with flying: a 40' fly speed and a 30' walk speed means that if you fly 40' and land, you must subtract the motion from your walking speed and can't move further. Here, you have (climb speed) and (walk-speed / 2), so if you run out of one, you have to subtract the distance covered from your next allowed movement.

Speed is not reduced by movement, speed sets your allowed movement for the turn. Thus, even after you've climbed X, you still have a climb speed of Y. You just only have (Y-X) movement left.

[Man_Over_Game]

So, to put simply, the answer to Q 158 is Yes?

[terodil]

No, 0 is not <nil>.

If your climbing speed is, for whatever reason, explicitly given as 0, and not just not given, I would rule that you cannot climb at all: The general rule allows you to use your normal speed to climb at half its rate, but the specific rule sets climbing speed to 0 -- so no climbing.

IMO.

[Derpy]

Q159
Can a warlock with witch sight (PHB pg. 111) see the trueform of a projected image(PHB pg 270), or that it is an illusion?

[E’Tallitnics]

Q159
Can a warlock with witch sight (PHB pg. 111) see the trueform of a projected image(PHB pg 270), or that it is an illusion?

A159 No. “Witch Sight” allows you to see the true form of a shapechanger, or any creature concealed by Illusion or Transmutation magic.

“Project Image” isn’t a creature, nor is it a shapechanger.

[Kadesh]

Q 158: If I have a non-climbing speed, the rules state I can spend my non-climbing speed at double the rate to climb. However, if I also have a climbing speed, can I climb up to my climbing speed, and then use the remainder of my non-climbing speed at double the rate to climb an additional distance?

For example, say I have 60 walking speed and 20 climbing speed (say from being a Tabaxi or something). Can I climb 20 feet, have 40 walking speed left and use it to climb an additional 20 feet?

The main concern is the fact that the rules only state I can use my non-climbing speed to climb if I don't have a climbing speed. So...if my climbing speed is 0, does that count as not having a climbing speed?

No. The rules are very easy to understand here:

While climbing or swimming, each foot of movement costs 1 extra foot (2 extra feet in difficult terrain), unless a creature has a climbing or swimming speed.

If you have a Climbing speed you use that. If you don't, you calculate it based on your movement speed. Even if your Climbing Speed is 0 ft (how?), you still have a climbing speed.

[Dmdork]

Q160 Leomund's Tiny Hut says basically says my allies and their objects within the dome can move through. Does that mean when in combat, allies can for example fire their bows from the hut, while enemies outside could not fire back?

[E’Tallitnics]

Q160 Leomund's Tiny Hut says basically says my allies and their objects within the dome can move through. Does that mean when in combat, allies can for example fire their bows from the hut, while enemies outside could not fire back?

A160: From the spell description: “Creatures and objects within the dome when you cast this spell can move through it freely. All other creatures and objects are barred from passing through it.” (Emphasis mine.)

So as long as the creature, and all of the components of their ranged attack(s), are inside the dome’s area when the spell is cast, they can freely move through its barrier.

[Dmdork]

A 160 so, yes?

[Dalebert]

Q160 Leomund's Tiny Hut says basically says my allies and their objects within the dome can move through. Does that mean when in combat, allies can for example fire their bows from the hut, while enemies outside could not fire back?

Smart enemies might realize they could take the arrows that didn't break and fire them back in, at disadvantage of course.

[No brains]

Q 161 Does knocking a creature out prevent instant death from massive damage?