Simple RAW for 5e V: The Disadvantage Strikes Back

[Narbaculus]

Q370

The damage reduction of Uncanny Dodge and Rage stack, right? Uncanny dodge halves the damage and rage provides resistance to the damage, so these are different effects that can both be applied to a single attack, right?

A370

Right.

[Psyren]

Q371: Can a Zealot Barbarian die from massive damage while using Rage Beyond Death? Same for a Samurai using Strength Before Death?

[Dukehammer]

Q371: Can a Zealot Barbarian die from massive damage while using Rage Beyond Death? Same for a Samurai using Strength Before Death?

A371
A Zealot Barbarian will still die from massive damage while using Rage Beyond Death. The ability says you still "suffer the normal effects of taking damage while at 0 hit points". Instant death is one of the possible effects of taking damage while at 0. (PHB 197, under Death Saving Throws, "Damage at 0 Hit Points")

Strength Before Death is a little less explicit how it interacts with instant death. It specifically calls out that the triggering hit must not kill you outright, but isn't specific about damage taken on the extra turn. Given that the ability does not change the effects of damage at 0 hit points (it only delays falling unconscious) and that three death saving throw failures are still fatal, a simple RAW reading suggests that massive damage will cause instant death as normal.

[ReallySeamus]

A371
A Zealot Barbarian will still die from massive damage while using Rage Beyond Death. The ability says you still "suffer the normal effects of taking damage while at 0 hit points". Instant death is one of the possible effects of taking damage while at 0. (PHB 197, under Death Saving Throws, "Damage at 0 Hit Points")

Strength Before Death is a little less explicit how it interacts with instant death. It specifically calls out that the triggering hit must not kill you outright, but isn't specific about damage taken on the extra turn. Given that the ability does not change the effects of damage at 0 hit points (it only delays falling unconscious) and that three death saving throw failures are still fatal, a simple RAW reading suggests that massive damage will cause instant death as normal.

RE: Q371 & A371

I agree with this reading of Rage Beyond Death, instant death being a potential normal effect of taking damage while at 0 hit points. While this may not be RAI, I agree that it is the simplest interpretation of the RAW.

However, I think the wording of Strength Before Death is meaningfully different and, especially because these two features come from the same sourcebook, it would be reasonable to conclude that the different phraseology means different consequences. It does not include the key phrase "you suffer the normal effects of taking damage while at 0 hit points." Rather, it states, "taking damage causes death saving throw failures as normal." I read the language in Strength Before Death to mean that taking damage ONLY causes death saving throw failures because it is the only thing within the Damage at 0 Hit Points rule identified as happening as normal during this special circumstance. In fact, taking damage at 0 hit points can only have two effects: death saving throw failure(s) or instant death. Specifying that one of two possible effects apply strongly suggests that the other does not.

If anyone is interested or thinks there's more to unpack, I would suggest starting a thread to discuss it further.

[Millstone85]

Q372 If you forgo starting equipment in favor of starting wealth by class, does that involve renouncing equipment and wealth from your background?

[Dualight]

A372: Yes.

[T2334]

Q372: I'm playing an 11th level AT and looking at multiclassing 2 levels into wizard/bladeslinger. When I do, I would get access to a 3rd level spell slot. I know I cannot select a 3rd level spell as a wizard however could I pick a 3rd level spell from my AT (Illusion/enchantment)?

[Chronos]

A 373:

When you gain a level as a wizard, you learn new spells that you could learn from your wizard levels. If you only have two wizard levels, you can only learn first-level wizard spells.

[Gurgeh]

A273, clarification:
Multiclass spell slots are calculated by the total levels of your spellcasting classes, but spells known are calculated separately for each class. The only way to get a third-level spell as an Arcane Trickster would be to take further levels in the class.

Your new third-level slot can only be used to cast lower-level spells (some of which might be possible to upcast).

[Dualswinger]

Q. 373

Dndbeyond got me mistrusting myself now.

I have a warlock who has a Rod of the Pact Keeper +2, and a Rod of the Pact Keeper +3. Since they're not technically the same magic item, would the bonuses stack?
DNDBeyond seems to think they do but I thought I'd check with you guys.

[Psyren]

A373: They're listed under the same entry which suggests they would run afoul of the "cannot attune to more than one copy of an item" clause.

[Parra]

Q. 374 - Wall of Force, what can and cant pass through it.

Disintegrate destroys it, the various teleport spells allow you to bypass it. All attacks are blocked by it. But what about others spells and effects?

For examples:

Fireball - "A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range" - Is blocked, which makes sense.
Sacred Flame - "Flame-like radiance descends on a creature that you can see within range." - Where does it descend from, and can that 'from' be within a wall of force?
Evards Black Tentacles - "Squirming, ebony tentacles fill a 20-foot square on ground that you can see within range." - Would seem to imply that you can make it appear inside of the wall

I guess the question boils down to, if a spell spontaneously appears at a location, can that be within a wall of force?

[Psyren]

A374: The rule you're looking for is on PHB 204:

TARGETS

A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below).
...
A CLEAR PATH TO THE TARGET

To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover. If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.

Unlike prior editions, there is no "Target" line in 5e spell descriptions; what this means is that every spell that requires you to select a creature, object, or point in space is a "targeted spell" and thus subject to the above rule. In other words, none of these spells* can be cast through cover, including that provided by a Wall of Force. This also means that none of the spells you listed could be cast through a wall by someone who can see through the wall, such as by a Warlock using Ghostly Gaze or by a Wizard using Clairvoyance. Conversely, spells that can be cast through such a wall include teleportations spells like Misty Step or Dimension Door.

*specifically, Fireball and Black Tentacles both require you to select a point of origin, and Sacred Flame requires you to target a creature.

[Wacky89]

Q. 375
If you are hidden using stealth behind an object and an enemy walks past you or in line of sight of you.
Are you still hidden? Or are you revealed since you have nothing to hide behind?

[Millstone85]

A375 You are revealed, although DMs are encouraged to make exceptions.

In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen.

[da newt]

Q376:

In a published AL module it states that a Marilith will teleport into the midst of the party and use it's truesight to do as much damage to the party as she can before they discover she is being protected by a visible magic - the entire area of the encounter is under the effect of a persistent FOG CLOUD spell.

Truesight doesn't allow a creature to see through heavy obscurement (FOG CLOUD), right? Teleport requires she can see her aim point ...

Is this just another example of the writers not knowing the rules or am I missing something?



The same TACTICS paragraph goes on to say that the Shadow Deamons will make use of the fog and dim light for hit and run tactics. Using Incorporeal Movement and Shadow Stealth, they attempt to gain advantage on their attacks. Seriously, do the publishers not understand that the shadow deamons can't see through the fog? I mean if someone dispells it, then the area is dim (unless the PCs have a light source) so they can try to hide and hope a PC is within reach when it's their turn ...

[Arkhios]

Q377:

Echo Knight's Echo, when manifested, essentially threatens the squares around it.

a) If the optional rule for Flanking is in use, would the Echo and the Echo Knight's allies also benefit from Flanking from Echo's position?

b) If the Echo benefits from Flanking, can the Echo Knight flank with themselves thanks to the Echo?

[No brains]

Q 378a: Can a spell be used with a Shield Guardian's Spell Storing ability if the spell cannot be cast in a way that targets the Shield Guardian? Strictly speaking, the spell doesn't have to 'target' the Guardian, only be cast 'on' it. However, the phrasing that the caster "must" cast the spell on the guardian implies that if a spell cannot be cast on the Guardian, it is an ineligible effect for the ability.

Q 378b: Can a spell be used with a Shield Guardian's Spell Storing ability if the spell would not work on the Guardian? Could you store a Cure Wounds or Charm Person in it?

Outside RAW, I like to imagine you fulfil 'casting a spell on the guardian' by standing on the guardian while casting the spell.

[Hof]

A377: An Echo is not a creature and thus cannot grant flanking. But when making attacks from the echo's location, as per Manifest Echo, you could benefit from flanking granted by another ally. You cannot flank with yourself.

While I get the 'essentially threatens the squares around it' conclusion, the Manifest Echo feature rules are quite explicit in what they allow. If it isn't there, it is not granted.

I hope I don't sound too harsh, I get your point. But I don't think the rules support echo flanking.

[Chaos Jackal]

Q376:

In a published AL module it states that a Marilith will teleport into the midst of the party and use it's truesight to do as much damage to the party as she can before they discover she is being protected by a visible magic - the entire area of the encounter is under the effect of a persistent FOG CLOUD spell.

Truesight doesn't allow a creature to see through heavy obscurement (FOG CLOUD), right? Teleport requires she can see her aim point ...

Is this just another example of the writers not knowing the rules or am I missing something?



The same TACTICS paragraph goes on to say that the Shadow Deamons will make use of the fog and dim light for hit and run tactics. Using Incorporeal Movement and Shadow Stealth, they attempt to gain advantage on their attacks. Seriously, do the publishers not understand that the shadow deamons can't see through the fog? I mean if someone dispells it, then the area is dim (unless the PCs have a light source) so they can try to hide and hope a PC is within reach when it's their turn ...

A376 Truesight indeed does not see through the fog. It's either an oversight of the writer or lack of comprehension on their side.

[Hairfish]

Q 378a: Can a spell be used with a Shield Guardian's Spell Storing ability if the spell cannot be cast in a way that targets the Shield Guardian? Strictly speaking, the spell doesn't have to 'target' the Guardian, only be cast 'on' it. However, the phrasing that the caster "must" cast the spell on the guardian implies that if a spell cannot be cast on the Guardian, it is an ineligible effect for the ability.

Q 378b: Can a spell be used with a Shield Guardian's Spell Storing ability if the spell would not work on the Guardian? Could you store a Cure Wounds or Charm Person in it?

Outside RAW, I like to imagine you fulfil 'casting a spell on the guardian' by standing on the guardian while casting the spell.

A378: Since the wording avoids the use of "target", it's up to DM interpretation. My take is that any 4th-level or lower spell could be stored this way. Just note that "the spell has no effect" on the initial cast if used in this manner, not "the spell has no effect on the guardian". So the amulet wearer can't Fireball the party fighting the guardian and include the guardian in the blast zone to get a second Fireball.

There's nothing specifying the spell to be stored must be able to affect the guardian, nor that the guardian has to use the stored spell to target itself (unless the amulet wearer set up a contingency to do so). Though if you're going with the strict interpretation that the initial cast must target the guardian, then Cure Wounds can target the guardian (it just can't affect it normally, either) but Charm Person cannot (the target must be a humanoid).

[No brains]

Q 379 How does a Hellfire Engine's Flesh-Crushing Stride (and similar abilities of other creatures) interact with normal movement? Can an Engine move out of a straight line before and after the straight line move?

[Psyren]

A379: Flesh-Crushing Stride involves movement, but it is an Action; the Engine would need to either move normally before initiating that action, or complete the action before it can move normally. (Note that actions that give you multiple attacks, such as Extra Attack or Multiattack, are common exceptions to this rule, but FCS isn't.) Most other actions only let you break up your move "around" them.

This means that the movement the Hellfire Engine gets during the FCS action must be in a straight line, and it can then move however it wants once the action is complete (or before initiating it.) It cannot deviate from that straight line during the action.

(Note: above is based on the MPMM version, though I think the legacy version of this ability works the same)

[No brains]

Q 380 There are no extra types of extradimensional items in this edition, right? I think there is only Bag of Holding, Hweard's Handy Haversack, and Portable Hole without any size variations of any of these.

[Chaos Jackal]

Q 380 There are no extra types of extradimensional items in this edition, right? I think there is only Bag of Holding, Hweard's Handy Haversack, and Portable Hole without any size variations of any of these.

A 380 If you're talking about stuff like Type I, II, III Bag of Holding etc., then you're correct, there are no such variants in 5e.

[Necrosnoop110]

A381: Any ways for a PC to regularly get advantage on slight of hand?

[Psyren]

Q381: Any ways for a PC to regularly get advantage on slight of hand?

A381: An easy way is the Help Action, from an ally or familiar if you want to do it solo.

(If you're after a truly exhaustive list, you may want to start a thread.)

[No brains]

Q 382: Is there anyway to cast a spell with a casting time longer than one action as an action without the use of items?

[PhoenixPhyre]

A 382: only general purpose way I'm aware of is wish

[Chaos Jackal]

Q 382: Is there anyway to cast a spell with a casting time longer than one action as an action without the use of items?

A 382: only general purpose way I'm aware of is wish

A 382 addendum The Chronurgy wizard subclass feature Arcane Abeyance is another way of doing so, to an extent. You still need the full casting time, but you can do so at a convenient point and actually do the casting as an action when you need to, like the oft-cited combat casting of Leomund's tiny hut.