D&D 5e/5.5e Rules – Encumbrance and Carrying Capacity!

He ain’t heavy, he’s my backpack. Which is really heavy.

Know the Rules Part of an ongoing series of 5e (2014) and 5.5e (2024) Rules notes.

Everyone hates Encumbrance rules

That’s a generalization, so suspect, but in my multiple decades of playing and DMing D&D and other FRPG / TTRPGs, I have yet to find anyone who wants to keep track of all the things they are carrying and their weight and have that impact how their character performs. Conan and Legolas and [insert fantasy hero here] never worries about Encumbrance — why should I?

The only people who have any use for Encumbrance are GMs, as a check against player characters carrying around golf bags full of specialized magic swords (“Hmmm, a Flametongue for this encounter, I think”) and, more importantly, on player characters stripping the Temple of the Really Rich Lich of its 500,000 gold pieces and its diamond altar and the three giant jade statues with gems the size of toaster ovens for eyes.

In other words, Encumbrance is a tool for managing edge cases and, in some cases, exploits, and, frankly, can be skipped unless those come to pass.

Indeed, the D&D Rules themselves actually make that case. For 5.5e (2024), the PHB says on p. 20:

Carrying Objects: You can usually carry your gear and treasure without worrying about the weight of those objects. If you try to haul an unusually heavy object or a massive number of lighter objects, the DM might require you to abide by the rules for carrying capacity in the rules glossary.

The game should be fun. If a mechanic stops it from being fun, ignore the mechanic. But if lack of a mechanic stops it from being fun, be ready to use it when you need to.

So how about the rules?

The basic rules for Encumbrance are the same between 5e (2014) and 5.5e. The only difference in significance is that 5e calls it Encumbrance and 5.5e calls it Carrying Capacity.

The underlying numbers, though, are the same, just differing i how they are presented. 5e gives some formulae and then a series of exceptions and extrapolations. 5.5e presents a table, which is a much clearer way of doing it, so that’s what I’ll use here.

Creature Size	Carry	Drag / Lift / Push *
Tiny	STR x 7.5 lbs.	STR x 15 lbs.
Small/Medium	STR x 15 lbs.	STR x 30 lbs.
Large	STR x 30 lbs.	STR x 60 lbs.
Huge	STR x 60 lbs.	STR x 120 lbs.
Gargantuan	STR x 120 lbs.	STR x 240 lbs.

^{*If you are dragging / lifting / pushing a weight greater than you can carry, your Speed drops down to 5 feet. If the weight is beyond the D/L/P level, you cannot move it.}

That’s pretty much it: Size (basically your ability to balance a heavy load) and STRength (your ability to overcome inertia and gravity).

The numbers calculate the same between both 5e and 5.5e, so easy peasey.

(The variant rule in 5e, PHB 176, abut encumbering and heavy encumbering and their effects on your die rolls and speed, are not carried over in 5.5e, which is probably a good thing.)

The rules don’t explicitly state it, but presumably burdens can be shared. The math probably gets a bit dodgy, but I would let STRength be additive here, with some sort of proportion around the creature sizes of the folk sharing in the carrying.

Don’t ask me to factor in how having a wheeled setup (e.g., a cart, rollers, etc.) affects all of this if it’s the players pushing/pulling it.

A bit of science (maybe)

In real life, based on military studies:

Humans can carry around up to 20-25% of their body mass without incurring significant additional fatigue in combat.
Outside of combat, it can go up to 30%.

I’m not suggesting using that to craft your own Encumbrance rules, though — because everyone hates Encumbrance rules.

D&D 5e/5.5e Rules – Exhaustion!

Slaying dragons is tough. So are 12-hour days and burning heat and bitter cold. And those have consequences.

Know the Rules Part of an ongoing series of 5e (2014) Rules notes. See the end of the post for notes on 5.5e (2024) rules.

Exhaustion is a special set of escalating conditions that occur when rest or nutritional intake are inadequate, or when environmental conditions (heat, cold) are life-threatening.

Exhaustion consists of 6 levels:

Level	Effect (Cumulative)
1	DISADvantage on Ability Checks
2	Speed halved
3	DISADvantage on attack rolls and Saves
4	Hit point maximum halved (HP reduced, if necessary, to the new max)
5	Speed reduced to 0
6	Death

Yeah, not fun. The term “death spiral” literally fits here, since each level of Exhaustion can make it more difficult to remove oneself from the causes of the Exhaustion.

These effects are cumulative, e.g., a creature at Exhaustion level 2 has its Speed halved and a DISADvantage on Ability Checks.

If a creature that already has a level of Exhaustion suffers another effect that causes Exhaustion, its current level goes up by the number described.

A creature suffers the effect of its current level of exhaustion as well as all lower levels. For example, a creature suffering level 2 exhaustion has its speed halved and has disadvantage on ability checks.

Effects that remove Exhaustion reduce the level as they describe. When Exhaustion drops below 1, the creature is no longer exhausted.

A Long Rest will reduce Exhaustion by 1 level, as long as the resting creature has been able to eat and drink. Being raised from the dead also reduces Exhaustion by 1, though that’s kind of the hard way to do it.

Okay, how does this change in 5.5e?

Though the 5e (2014) rules are pretty simple, 5.5e (2024) makes them even simpler.

Exhaustion is cumulative / stackable. You still die if your Exhaustion level is 6. When you have any level of Exhaustion:

Your D20 Test rolls are reduced by (2 x elevel).
Your Speed is reduced by (5′ x elevel).

So, if you are at Exhaustion Level 3, your D20 rolls (attacks, saves, ability checks) are all reduced by 6, and your Speed is reduced by 15 feet per turn.

Exhaustion can be alleviated by finishing a Long Rest, which removes 1 level. When you reach level 0, you are no longer Exhausted.

D&D 5e/5.5e Rules – Conditions!

This shortcut for describing bad things that can happen to you is pretty handy.

Know the Rules Part of an ongoing series of 5e (2014) Rules notes. This also covers 5.5e (2024) rules.

D&D 5e uses common Conditions as a modular way of showing the results of various attacks, spells, environmental issues, etc. By defining what it means to be “Blinded,” the rules can say that Condition is applied to someone without explaining what it means.

5.5e (2024) continues this, but modifies some of the Condition meanings, as well as adding a few new ones. See here and here.

In the table below, 5e (only) notes are in black, 5.5e (only) notes are in red, and notes common in both editions are in blue.

Conditions in 5e and 5.5e — Click to embiggen

Note that for the Incapacitated-related action restrictions, while 5e did not specify “no Bonus Actions” in the Condition descriptions, elsewhere in the rules it did note that if Actions were not allowed, it was the same for Bonus Actions. The notes of this sort in italics are inheriting it from the Incapacitated Condition.

Note also that Exhausted is another type of Condition, and is the only one with effect that can stack.

D&D 5e/5.5e Rules – Weapon Juggling!

Drawing and sheathing weapons, whilst changing what weapon you are using, gets a little … complicated.

Know the Rules Part of an ongoing series of 5e (2014) Rules notes. See the end of the post for notes on 5.5e (2024) rules.

This is one that the tables of our gaming group generally do wrong — or, at least, not Rules as Written (PHB 190) for quite some time: what it takes, action-wise, to change from one weapon to another.

When describing what you can do on your turn, the rules say:

You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example […] you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack. If you want to interact with a second object, you need to use your action.

And, under the rule on interacting with objects around you, it says:

draw or sheathe a sword

In other words, you can on any given turn, for free, (a) draw a weapon, or (b) sheathe/put away a weapon … but not both. This means the (very common) “Hmmm, with which of my array of weapons am I attacking with on this turn?” maneuver doesn’t work (RAW).

Round 1 – I plonk the bad guys with my bow.
Round 2 – Ooh, a bad guy is in my face, I stab him with my sword.
Round 3 – I shoot the guy across the room with my bow.
Round 4 – I charge in and stab that guy with my sword.

Nope. Essentially, switching weapons takes a full Action (putting away one weapon for free, Use an Object for your Action to draw the other one), meaning no attack that round.

This also complicates life for thrown weapon players. If drawing one of your throwing daggers takes up your free object interaction, then even if you have multiple attacks for your Attack action, you won’t have a way to draw additional daggers / shuriken / etc.

A couple of ways around this if you want a quick weapon change (one-way):

Don’t put your weapon away. Just drop it (as you would a torch), which takes no time, and then lets you use your free interaction to draw your new weapon. Except in exceptional circumstances, there’s no call to worry about damage to the weapon. Dropping something takes no no time, and then you can draw your other weapon.
Getting that weapon back to use again in the battle seems like it would be dodgy, but the rules do let you pick something up just as easily as drawing from a sheathe, for that free object interaction. Of course, if you have to flee the battle, the weapon might be left behind. Or, more seriously, the bad guys could grab the weapon you dropped, too.
You can also, if you really don’t want to lose your weapon and maintain maximum flexibility, do something along the lines of (Turn 1) Attack-Sheathe then (Turn 2) Draw-Attack as a way of switching weapons, but it’s not something you can do every turn, and it does leave you empty-handed (for Opportunity Attacks) elsewhere in that turn.
Rogues (Thieves) can use Fast Hands on their Bonus Action to Use An Object. That totally works for this (free action to put away a weapon, FH>UAO to draw a new one, then Attack). That’s doubtless why Legolas took a couple of levels of Rogue at one point.

Frankly, all of this strikes me as Not Fun. Which is why we’ve tended to drop this from our games, as DMs are allowed to do. But that has some consequences. The design idea behind this restriction, among other factors, seems to be

Drawing that distinction between archery fighters and melee fighters, and balancing between them (archery fighting is generally considered a bit OP in 5e; this means archery fighters dealing with guys getting in their faces have to decide between retaining their bow and being at a Disadvantage for shooting at folk at 5 feet, or switching weapons and being slowed down after their attackers are gone before resuming plonking at range). It reduces the homogeneity of folk swapping instantly between being ranged fighters and melee fighters.
It also breaks the “video game weapon-swap” meme a bit.
And it addresses the RL aspect that sheathing a sword and unlimbering a bow and drawing and shooting really does take more than six seconds (though, of course, RL considerations only go so far).

Lastly, of course, there are Feats and Sub-Class Features that explicitly allow faster drawing / sheathing of weapons; playing without that restriction renders them less useful. (I.e., the game is already built around the restriction, so removing the restriction theoretically unbalances things.)

Would you like to know more?

dnd 5e 2014 – Drawing and sheathing a weapon in 5e, and the actions required – Role-playing Games Stack Exchange

Weapon jugging in 5.5e

5.5e (2024) shakes things up a bit here, by explicitly (PHB Appendix C, p. 361, and the Free Rules) allowing a draw or sheathe/stowing of a weapon as part of an attack within the Attack action, either before or after an attack, and not necessarily with the same weapon.

Equipping and Unequipping Weapons. You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action. You do so either before or after the attack. If you equip a weapon before an attack, you don’t need to use it for that attack. Equipping a weapon includes drawing it from a sheath or picking it up. Unequipping a weapon includes sheathing, stowing, or dropping it.

This lets you juggle weapons much more easily, especially as you get, e.g., Extra Attack, coming along.

It also appears that this Equipping / Unequipping rule is distinct from the Thrown property on weapons in 5.5e, which separately notes you can draw-and-throw as part of the attack. That means you could (if you can attack twice during your Attack action:

Attack 1:
- Attack with my sword.
- Sheathe my sword (Unequipping) for free after that first attack.
Attack 2:
- Draw-and-throw a dagger
- Draw my sword again.

Note that the previous free “interaction” from 5e has been, if not dropped, then scattered a bit. There is now an explicit Utilize Action for when an object requires an action to use it. If you are doing something with an object as part of a different Action, that interaction should be free, as with the Equipping / Unequpping text above.

That said, it does still exist, noted under Interacting with Things in combat:

You can interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe.
If you want to interact with a second object, you need to take the Utilize action. Some magic items and other special objects always require an action to use, as stated in their descriptions.
The DM might require you to use an action for any of these activities when it needs special care or when it presents an unusual obstacle. For instance, the DM might require you to take the Utilize action to open a stuck door or turn a crank to lower a drawbridge.

It’s unclear to me if you can do that free Interaction for an initial draw/sheathe of a weapon, which would make things even more flexible.

D&D 5e/5.5e Rules – Wands and Attacks!

Is attacking someone with a wand the same as casting a spell? Is it an attack? Or is it something else?

Know the Rules Part of an ongoing series of 5e (2014) Rules notes. See the end of the post for notes on 5.5e (2024) rules.

Use of a wand in combat is not an Attack, or a Weapon Attack, or anything you could put into the chain of attack actions that a higher level martial character (like a Fighter) can use.

The Magic Missile wand, for example (and other wands use similar language), says:

While holding it, you can use an action to expend 1 or more of its charges to cast the magic missile spell from it.

Using a wand is an Action (more specifically, a Use an Item Action). You get one Action per turn (and one Bonus Action and one Reaction), with very few exceptions.

This doesn’t come into play with the Fighter’s Extra Attack feature at higher levels. While the nomenclature is confusing, that lets a fighter do multiple attacks within a single Attack Action (it isn’t adding to the number of Actions, it’s adding to the, if I can coin the phrase, sub-actions under the Attack sort of Action).

I.e., a higher level Fighter may be able to swing a sword at an opponent three times in a round, but they can still only fire off a wand a single time.

Using a wand also not casting a spell. That is a particular type of action (quite literally, the Casting a Spell Action). If it were, then it would affect the limitations of only one leveled spell cast per turn. If a magic user uses a wand, they can still cast any level spell is cast as a Bonus Action.

The edge case exception here is that Action Surge gives a Fighter an extra Action — which Action could, in fact, be used for Using a [Magic] Item. I.e., getting two shots off the Magic Missile wand.

Wands and 5.5e

Things are mostly the same under the 5.5e (2024) rules, though with slightly different nomenclature.

Using a wand (or any magic item) is done as the newly named Magic Action, as is spellcasting and the like. Unfortunately, the new rules also are quite clear that you cannot use Action Surge to take an extra Magic Action, so we’re back down to a single use of the wand per turn.

On the other hand, allowing use of a wand as a Magic Action still doesn’t forestall using a leveled spell via a Bonus Action or Reaction (5.5e calls them “slotted spells”).

D&D 5e/5.5e Rules – Surprise!

Ambushes and surprises are a normal part of D&D sessions. How are they handled in the current rules?

Know the Rules Part of an ongoing series of 5e (2014) Rules notes. See the end of the post for notes on 5.5e (2024) rules.

Since it comes up periodically and I Here are my notes on how Surprise works in D&D 5e — at our table, at least, given the complexities of Active vs. Passive skills and variations under different DMs.

When Does Surprise Happen?

Surprise occurs when two parties (1+) meet and one of them is unaware of the other until action has begun.

Two thoughts on this:

A situation where there is obvious risk can’t engender surprise unless an attack comes from a completely unexpected direction. If are aware of danger, and are taking normal precautions for it, you cannot easily be surprised (you can be ambushed, but you won’t suffer the consequences of surprise).
Trying to be and stay aware has limitations. Even if you know you are in a combat zone, you can only spend so much time and energy watching for bad guys above, below, and in all directions.

Note that “action” usually means “combat,” given D&D’s proclivities, but it doesn’t have to.

The basics are encapsulated thus (broken into points for clarity):

So what happens when the parties meet?

The PHB says (broken into points):

The DM determines who might be surprised.

(Though he’ll try to be fair about it and as impartial as possible.)

If neither side is trying to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other.

E.g., “You round the corner and there is a party of dwarves walking toward you. Both sides stare at each other for a moment … but after that joint moment of, yes, startlement, each party remains on an even footing with each other.”

Or it’s even, both sides are approaching the corner, chatting with each other, hobnailed boots clattering, and they become aware of something around the corner at about the same time. In either case, surprise is moot.

Otherwise, the DM compares the Dexterity (Stealth) checks of anyone hiding [or otherwise trying to be stealthy] with the Passive Wisdom (Perception) score of each creature on the opposing side.

The caveat I added is important; the rules (and a lot of discussion) has to do with one party laying in wait for the other, but it could as easily be trying to creep up on another group. There’s also sort of an arbitrariness here — it’s easy to think of a situation where both sides are trying to be stealthy while listening for trouble … the thief sneaking up on a corner while a guard is waiting for someone to step around the corner, but is unaware of when it will happen. Who gets to make the Stealth check vs the Perception check? Hmmmmm …

Also, note that comment on Passive Perception. We’ll get back to that.

Any character or monster that doesn’t notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter. […] A member of a group can be surprised even if the other members aren’t.

There’s a bit of artifice here. While there is a remarkable amount of argument about “a threat,” essentially it means that if you hear any of the orcs who are laying in wait ahead, sufficient to put you on your guard, you will not be surprised by any of them — even, arguably, by the orcish assassin coming up from behind (because there’s no facing, so your presumed awareness is 360° once you’re on the alert).

This last is is important, and is further clarified in the Sage Advice Compendium :

You can be surprised even if your companions aren’t, and you aren’t surprised if even one of your foes fails to catch you unawares.

Surprise, then, is an individual thing for characters (and, to a more limited degree, for opponents): I, as a character, have to detect any of the other side to not be surprised (if I hear one person’s chain mail jingling, I become alert and won’t be surprised). But my not being surprised doesn’t affect my fellow players.

That can seem kind of weird, depending on the timing. But if we’re walking into a trap, my detecting someone is deemed a last-second thing; I can’t shout out, “Hey, it’s goblins! Don’t be surprised!” (Though circumstances can allow that — I’m trying to spot something on the trail ahead, and there’s a glint of metal three switchbacks up the hill … I am allowed to warn my friends in that case.

How Does Surprise Get Determined?

This starts getting into that whole Active and Passive Skill thing.

Active Skills are when you roll 1d20 and add your Ability and Skill Proficiency scores. They represent an active effort on your part (“I’m trying to do X”).
Passive Skills are just “what you do most of the time,” and they are served by basically replacing that d20 roll with a 10 (i.e., making it a perpetual average role).

Some DMs out there argue that it also represents the minimum you can get on an Active Skill roll, but I disagree; actively looking for things can allow someone to get distracted (while I’m focusing on telling whether that glint ahead on the trail is steel or a shiny rock, I miss the tripwire across the path I might otherwise have seen).

(See more on Passive Perception here.)

The problem with Passive Skills is that they are meant to represent two things: (1) the “average” background ability and (2) a way for the DM to save time. Rather than have everyone roll Perception (or the roll it themself behind the screen), it’s far easier (and less alerting to the players) for the DM to know that Bob’s Passive Perception is 12, so they will always see a hidden thing with DC10, and always miss one with DC15, unless they are actively searching.

Easier, but kind of dull. “Oh, this floor of the dungeon appears to be populated by DC10 traps. Bob strolls through it with no chance of being caught by any of them.”

And the “easy” aspect is dubious in Roll20 (or any VTT): I can click on a pre-set macro and roll everyone’s Active Perception any time I want. Not only is it hidden from the players, but it allows for variation — someone other than the highly perceptive Rogue can spot the trap once in a while (though, on average, it’ll still be the highly perceptive Rogue), and it means that if the highest Passive Perception is 15, DC20 traps aren’t automatic hits.

As a general rule, and for DM convenience, the “who rolls this, the Players or the Monsters” is usually focused on the Players (which is more fun for them, but also a lot easier for the DM). So a way to do this is that the Orcs, as they lay in wait, all use their Passive Stealth (effectively the DC number), while the Players all roll their Active Perception (or the DM rolls it for them) — or, if the ambush is on the other foot, the Orcs all use their Passive Perception and the Players all roll their Active Stealth. While the bad guys relying on Passives is kind if dull, it’s much simpler.

Two examples:

Characters Surprising Monsters

E.g., “Hey, here come some monsters, lets ambush them!” (Or perhaps, “There’s a monster camp up ahead, let’s creep up on them.”)

In its most basic form, the players prepare their ambush, and each rolls a Stealth check. It gets compared to the Passive Perception of the target monsters. The problem here is that the big fighter wearing plate mail is always going to have a crap Stealth roll, meaning the monsters (who all have the same Passive Perception) will always hear them.

An alternative, especially if the party has a chance to collaborate and plan and are aware of what the bad guys are doing, is to roll a Group Check (PHB 175, and more written here):

When a number of individuals are trying to accomplish something as a group, the DM might ask for a group ability check. In such a situation, the characters who are skilled at a particular task help cover those who aren’t.

To make a Group Ability Check, everyone in the group makes an Active Ability Check. If at least half the group succeeds, the whole group succeeds. Otherwise, the group fails. That lets the stealthy Rogue counter the noisy Fighter (“Pssst — watch out for that twig you’re about to step on!”). The success usually has to be against a unitary number/difficulty, though, e.g., the Passive Perception of the opposition.

Group Checks can be used for anything, but they’re really designed for when a single individual failure would mean the whole group fails.

Monsters Surprising Characters

This sounds like it should be the same thing, and, ideally, it is, but pragmatically, it’s usually handled a little differently.

So, for example, rather than the DM rolling (Active) Stealth for each of the monsters (fine for one or two, a real problem with twenty), the suggestion is to use the Passive Stealth (10 + DEX bonus + Stealth bonus).

The only problem with using the Passive Stealth there is that a Player who misses (either Passive Perception or an Active Perception roll) misses against all of them, and someone who makes the needed number succeeds against all of them. Unfortunately, that’s the kind of abstraction that is inevitable in this kind of simulation.

Using Active Perception rolls for the Players is probably better (and, if the DM has a macro set up for it, easy).

What Happens When Someone Is Surprised?

Pre-5e there was the concept of a “surprise round” — a round in which the surprisers get to act, and the surprised don’t.

5e changed this a bit. When the first action of an encounter takes place, Initiative gets rolled by everyone (even folk who are surprised). If you are deemed surprised, it means you:

cannot Move or take an Action (including a Bonus Action) on your first turn
cannot React until after your first turn

So the band of goblins gets the drop on all your party. Everyone’s initiative rolled and likely intertwined, but as each party member’s turn comes up in the first round, they cannot do anything during during that turn. But once each their turns has come up (and been squandered as they recover from surprise) they can React (e.g., take an Opportunity Attack, cast Shield, etc.).

E.g. Susan and Bob surprise Goblins 1 and 2. They all roll Initiative, and it goes in the order Susan, Goblin 1, Bob, Goblin 2.

Susan runs past Goblin 1 (who cannot React with an Opportunity Attack because they are surprised) and stabs Goblin 2.
Goblin 1’s turn comes up; they cannot take any Move or Action and just stand there, agog with surprise.
Bob decides to finish off Goblin 2. He runs past Goblin 1 … but since Goblin 1’s turn this first round has passed, Goblin 1 Reacts, taking an Opportunity Attack to stab Bob.
Goblin 2’s first turn comes up; they, too, cannot take any Move or Action … but once their turn is over, if Susan tries to run back to help Bob, Goblin 2 can try an Opportunity Attack, too. And when Goblins 1 and 2 come up in the next round, they will be Moving and Acting as normal.

Would you like to know more?

Surprise in 5.5e (2024)

We’ll evaluate at a later time all of the Active/Passive stuff above (the stuff that determines if there is surprise). The meat here is how the effects of surprise

Surprise in 5.5e has been significantly simplified — maybe a bit too much.

Surprised creatures roll Initiative at Disadvantage.

That’s it. No special Surprise Round. No differentiating between types of actions. Roll Init at Disadvantage. Quick characters will (likely) still be pretty high in the Initiative order (but maybe not).

Though it’s worth noting that if the attackers in ambush are successfully (through Hide (with Stealth) or Invisibility) hidden, they get Advantage on the Init roll. Which widens the gap in Init still more.

The upshot of this, though, is that Surprise matters a bit less. Everyone will get to do something Round 1; you won’t have surprisers who effectively get two attacks in, which, in an Action Economy, can be deadly. This is a Good Thing if it’s your party being surprised; it’s a Bad Thing if you’re doing the surprising.

Arguably, this almost takes too much of the sting out of Surprise. The surprisers will still get the first blows in, but the surprised will spring back quickly.

It will be interesting to see how folk end up in their evaluation of it.

Lurching toward D&D 2024 (5.5e)

Some thoughts on the new D&D semi-edition.

So I’ve been neglecting my work on this website for a while, and want to play a little catch-up, especially as our gaming group starts encountering the new semi-edition of D&D.

Branding Past

First, some nomenclature. The new semi-edition was originally called “One D&D,” so as to imply that it’s the system we would have forever. For some reason, that was then changed to calling it “D&D 5th edition (2024),” with the previous version now being referred to as “D&D 5th edition (2014)” (the parentheses indicating the year it first came out).

This is cumbersome, so most references are to just “2024” vs “2014.”

Personally, I think this is still kind of confusing, for two reasons:

“2014” and “2024” look very similar. They are the same length, 75% the same characters, and the only difference is in the same place. Easy for the eye to mistake them, and I find myself doing that almost every time.
These are not the same game.

Not that they aren’t very similar, mind you. And there is a very rough comparability between them. And you can do some mixing and matching — with work — between the systems. But the implication that these are both “5th edition” is a pleasant fiction design to deflect accusations that WotC just wants to sell more books.

So I’ll be generally using the alternate terminology that a number of sites have adopted of referring to the older semi-version as 5e and the new semi-version as 5.5e (see keen little icon I drew up to the right).

So from what I have read (and which we are now encountering in the Real World), here are the answers to some basic comparability questions.

Some questions

Can I use 5e characters in a 5.5e campaign?

In theory, yes, though there is a sense that 5e characters are a bit less powerful and usable than 5.5e, so doing a character built in 5e as a 5.5e character, without making any other changes, it’s suggested to just give them an extra feat.

But … it’s also clearly stated that if you run a 5e character in a 5.5e campaign, you really need to use as many of the 5.5e rules as possible; a 5e character in a 5.5e campaign must use the 5.5e rules on Surprise and Inspiration, etc. Just like a running an old 1950s Ford operating on a 2025 freeway, you can do it, but finding leaded fuel and a mechanic that can service it, etc., might be difficult, plus you run risks with not having a third brake light or daytime headlamps, let alone full-blown seat belts front and back (which you might be required to install after the fact). It’s a bit hazy what to do as your 5e character levels up — should they use 5e leveling rules for their class, or 5.5e?

An alternate option is to rebuild your 5e character in 5.5e. This is probably the cleanest solution, especially if you try to be diligent about keeping a similar growth path and set of options (which hopefully haven’t been annoyingly nerfed in 5.5e). It’s biggest advantage is that there is no question but that it is a 5.5e character when you are done, and you can easily move on from there.

UPDATE: In revising all of my 5e rules posts to also reflect 5.5e rules, my overall analysis is that while most of the major game subsystems are the same (sometimes a bit simplified), the biggest changes are in the details: Spells, Feats, etc. Any conversion from a 5e character to 5.5e is supposed to use the latter’s rules, which means reviewing all those spells very carefully and seeing what you maybe need to tweak.

Some sites that go into changes between the semi-editions:

Notable changes in 2024 D&D – Payton.Codes – highlights
Quick Reference: D&D 2024 Rule Changes – Dice Dungeons – highlights
DnD 5e to 2024 DnD Transition Guide and Change Log: Everything That’s Different in the New 2024 Player’s Handbook – extensive notes
Summary of D&D 2024 Rules Issues : r/KibblesTasty – extensive notes, focused on problems in the updated rules (and noting where they have been cleaned up in errata)
DnD quietly axed a stack of optional rules from its DM’s Guide – a number of optional rules that have vanished in the new DMG.
[OC] 5e 2014/2024 Conversion Guide – UPDATED! : r/DnD – some clever diagrams of how to convert 5e characters to 5.5e characters.

What if I am bringing over from 5e, or using from 5e, a class or subclass that 5.5e doesn’t support yet?

One of our players wants to run an Artificer in a new campaign. Artificers haven’t been formally added to the 5.5e rules yet (a play test draft has been released, but with unpleasant, I am told, differences from 5e, and further changes are expected until the new class is published). The same can be true for certain subclasses.

The guidance is if you are building fresh, you take the manual process of building the character as 5.5e one, with timing of class features as in 5.5e (subclasses always come in at 3rd level), but adding the spells and (sub)class features that 5.5e uses.

If converting over from 5e character, and you don’t want to rebuild the character … the rough guidance is to just give them an extra Feat. Talk with your DM.

What if I have a 5e character of a race (species) that hasn’t been written up for 5.5e yet?

The guidance here parallels that of class/subclasses that haven’t been converted over yet. Go ahead and use the 5e race with its features, but build it under 5.5e rules (regarding stat bumps, backgrounds, when species features come in, etc.). Talk with your DM first, of course. When WotC sells you a new book down the line with the revised version of the species, decide whether to backfill the new changes, or just stick with “classic.” It’s not going to break the game.

The exception here is for races that will not be converted, in particular, hybrids or “half-” creatures like half-elves and half-orcs, which WotC has decided are too problematic (not without some justification). The recommendation is to choose one thing or the other (make your half-elf either an elf or a human; make your half-orc either an orc or a human, etc.). If you need backstory around it, have them be adopted.

Here’s a nicely done guidelines of the “minor” things that have to be done differently to use 5.5e to build 5e characters, or 5e rules to build 5.5e characters. The author has a different threshold of what’s a significant compatibility problem (and glosses over some major spell changes), but it’s another way of looking at this information.

Using D&D 2014 and 2024 characters and rules together — A lot of red and orange there

Can I use a 5e scenario / module in 5.5e?

Yes, but …

The module materials will all be written up with 5e rules and versions of monsters and NPCs and 5e spell lists and 5e mechanics. You can Just Do It as written, or you might want to take the time and effort to update some or all of the material to take advantage of the new way 5.5e handles things like monsters that cast spells, monster races with multiple “classes”/roles, etc.

What about VTT issues?

This is where we get an added layer of complexity. I can’t speak to VTTs other than Roll20, but here’s what I’ve learned so far about 5.5e and that VTT. This centers on the character sheet system, as that is the only place where the system rules are embedded.

Implementation of 5.5e into Roll20 is still dodgy. Or so I’ve been told by at least one player. Not all species / classes / feats that have been brought into 5.5e have made it into the character sheet and advancement features in Roll20.
Working in a mixed campaign — one supporting 5e and 5.5e characters and/or NPCs — causes problems. This is because Roll20 implemented its 5.5e character sheets with a new tech stack, different from what was used with 5e. The new tech stack removes a ton of cruft from the old one, and is much more easily modifiable as 5.5e progresses, but it doesn’t have the same hooks and API variable names or exposure that the old 5e character sheet had. Thus, macros you have written for 5e may not work with 5.5e characters or NPCs (and vice-versa)

This last is particularly a problem when you want to run with 5.5e rules and characters, but are using a 5e module, as all of its NPCs will be using the 5e character sheet (for NPCs), which Roll20 will get indigestion over (and, again, some macro issues will crop up). Converting all the monsters to 5.5e would be a huge lift.

I spent about a week trying to overcome those issues. I didn’t come up with a great answer, most of the macro stuff can be worked around (esp. if the only 5e characters are NPCs, meaning the NPCs run with their own set of macros, which often happens). The best answer may be to hold off running a 5.5e set of characters until (a) more 5.5e material is published and brought into Roll20, and (b) Roll20 makes their 5.5e implementation more robust.

Net-net

All of the above issues are, fundamentally, compatibility issues. They are very similar to what came up when D&D went from 3.0 to 3.5, which is why it’s frustrating for WotC to pretend that there are no significant compatibility issues.

Mixing and matching 5e/5.5e stuff is going to be something of a pain for the next few years. Ultimately, the 5e stuff will die out or be successfully converted (for VTT purposes, if nothing else). For our table, at least, we’re just going to stick with 5e for the moment, and see where things are in a few years when the next campaign kicks off.

Is D&D 2024e backwards compatible? Call me dubious.

The 2024e edition is a new set of rules. WotC doesn’t want you to believe that.

Or whatever it’s being called this week

WotC has been insistent, insistent I say, that the new edition of D&D is not, in fact, a new edition. This is not D&D 6e! This is not even D&D 5.5e! This is …

Well, they call it 2024e, because that is not at all confusing with what 5e is being called now (2014e).

But, of course if it were not a new edition, why would we need to refer to it differently?

Or, to look at it another way, why not just call it D&D with new optional rules like have shown up in things like Tasha’s, etc.?

Because then they wouldn’t sell new books, amirite?

But we’re not to call it a new edition. It is simply rule changes that are completely compatible with the older, um, previous, er, differently-numbered-year edition not-an-edition set of numbers.

A Caveat

Note: the changes in rules from 2014e / 5e to 2024e are not necessarily bad. In fact, a lot of them sound kind of interesting. But are they backwards-compatible? Do they not imbalance encounters and conflicts in earlier modules? Will players in a given campaign be able to change to 2024e without making any difference? Will 5e characters be as good against new 2024e campaigns? If some players want to switch but others do not, will that work well? Will various Virtual Tabletops handle mixed parties and/or modules?

Two examples that got a fair amount of play in my reading today:

Surprise in 2024e

In 5e / 2014e, when a group or individuals are Surprised, they roll Initiative as normal, but are unable to take any Actions or Reactions or movement through their first turn, after which they can only React until their next turn.

So that’s pretty harsh. Surprised foes (or friends) are at a serious deficit here. In an Action Economy,

In 2024e, Surprised individuals … roll Initiative at Disadvantage.

That’s a much simpler mechanic, but it’s also a lot easier mechanic. Rather than missing out on an entire turn, you just tend to come late in a turn.

Either alternative is arguable. But are they the same? Can you have a mix of players choosing a different version, for themselves or their opponents? Can you seamlessly change the rule to match previous challenges? Does it just become another option? Is it a significant enough change to actually alter how an encounter ends?

Inspiration in 2024e

Inspiration is an optional rule in 5e / 2014e. The DM (with input from the players) can give someone up to 1 point of Inspiration. That Inspiration can be turned in (in advance) for Advantage on an attack roll, saving throw, or ability check.

Okay, pretty straightforward. A D20 roll can be rolled with Advantage.

The 2024e version changes the mechanic and the name. It’s now “Heroic Inspiration,” and it allows instead a re-roll on any roll a player makes — an attack, a damage roll, a healing roll, whatever.

A key here, from the designers, was the sense that too much adds Advantage. That’s kind of ironic, as Advantage was intended as a way of simplifying the endless plusses/minuses of 3e, 3.5e, and 4e. But there was here a sense that too much was being simplified and rolled into a trinary Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic.

In addition to that rather significant change, there are now a variety of mechanical ways to gain “Heroic Inspiration,” including a Fighter subclass that just basically gets their point refreshed every turn.

It’s an interesting design choice, and I can see a lot behind it. It can make for more ways to leverage Inspiration (through broader dice rolls, and also by taking out of the unstackable Advantage bucket). It also makes, through its expanded Inspiration, a more reliable way of getting it.

On the other hand, it introduces Yet Another Mechanic. And it weakens that RP focus of the current Inspiration mechanic.

Good? Bad? I can see arguments either way. But it’s a very distinct choice, and something a table will need to decide One Way or The Other. Unlike the Surprise mechanic, I don’t think it changes balance — but does that make it Backwards Compatible?

Just call it a new edition, fergoshsakes

People who have bought 5e, will have three choices.

Change to 2024e, either mid-campaign, or next time there’s a module change (and upgrade any 5e-era modules to use the new rules).
Stick with 5e, and hope they can “backwards compatible” the mechanics of 2024e-era modules into those rules.
Mix and match — in existing campaigns or in new ones, evaluate the 2024e rules that have changed and depending which ones to pull in and which to continue using (and where players can select different conclusions).

Option 1 is pretty standard for a new actual edition. Option 2 might be possible with an actual edition change, but it would be a bit of work. Option 3 only is possible if that “backwards compatible” notion is real.

These sneak peaks (the first 2024e volume only comes out in September) make me think that WotC has tried to come up with something better enough and different enough to justify getting a new set of books (or virtual add-ins to the VTT … or both!) while pretending that it’s just a set of optional improvements.

I resent that.

I will almost certainly get the new edition of books and rules and use them in the future. I will remain resentful that WotC has been playing games with the whole thing to make money and pretend like they aren’t.

D&D 5e/5.5e Rules – Spells and Exceeding Range / Line-of-Sight!

What happen if you cast an ongoing spell, then wander away?

Know the Rules Part of an ongoing series of 5e (2014) Rules notes. See the end of the post for notes on 5.5e (2024) rules.

The range and need of line-of-sight is pretty clear when spells are initially cast, but what happens if range is exceeded or line of sight is broken in a spell that lasts more than an instantaneous effect — in particular, with spells that require Concentration to maintain them?

(In the case that came up in my campaign, the party wanted to maintain a spell as they fled; a more common instance is the affected party fleeing the caster and breaking LoS or exceeding distance.)

The General Rule

It’s pretty straightforward: range and line-of-sight don’t matter once the spell has been cast. As PHB 203 puts it:

Once a spell is cast, its effects aren’t limited by its range, unless the spell’s description says otherwise.

So, as a general rule (and as confirmed by Jeremy Crawford and also confirmed by Jeremy Crawford), once you have successfully cast a spell on a spot or a target opponent, it will continue until it naturally ends (i.e., with a Concentration spell, until the time limit is passed or the character drops concentration), regardless of what the range or line-of-sight is. You are maintaining the spell, not the targeting.

Spells that say otherwise, of course, are otherwise (the specific overrides the general).

That said, if you and the target are beyond LoS, you don’t know what is going on there. Maybe the guy you threw Heat Metal on ran into the next room, took off the armor, and put it on an orphan waif, and your continuing the damage is killing an innocent. Ah, well …

What about in 5.5e (2024)?

The basics still look pretty much the same. The notes on spell range say:

If a spell has movable effects, they aren’t restricted by its range unless the spell’s description says otherwise.

Which kind of looks close to what was there before. It clearly encompasses spells that are described as moving (e.g., Flaming Sphere). Does that also include spells cast on a target that then moves away? What about the other way around — if the spell is cast on a fixed spot (or unmoving target) and the spell caster moves?

They would seem to apply from previous precedent, and because some spells explicitly in their description that they fade or end when a given range is exceeded (e.g., Mage Hand).

Similarly, from a line of sight perspective, the only mention is in the initial spell casting:

A Clear Path to the Target. To target something with a spell, a caster must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind Total Cover.

No mention is made of lingering effects after that, so, presumably, the same is true: a clear path is only needed during the initial casting (targeting).

Finally, the Sage Advice Compendium notes the following:

If you’re concentrating on a spell, do you need to maintain line of sight with the spell’s target or the spell’s effect?

You don’t need to be within line of sight or within range to maintain Concentration on a spell unless a spell’s description or other game feature says otherwise.

Those are the only rules or rulings on this that I can find for 5.5e. As things change and/or are pointed out to me, I’ll update this entry.

D&D 5e Rules – Spells: Wrath of the Storm! (and what kind of attack triggers it)

When you can React to attack depends on what kind of an attack it is.

Know the Rules Part of an ongoing series of 5e (2014) Rules notes. See the end of the post for notes on 5.5e (2024) rules.

Our Tempest Cleric had the Wrath of the Storm class ability (strictly speaking, not a spell), and endlessly enjoyed using it. Even when she took a bigger smack than her attacker did in turn, she just enjoyed the free combat.

It is, in fact, pretty cool:

Also at 1st level, you can thunderously rebuke attackers. When a creature within 5 feet of you that you can see hits you with an Attack, you can use your Reaction to cause the creature to make a DEXterity Saving Throw. The creature takes 2d8 Lightning or Thunder damage (your choice) on a failed Saving Throw, and half as much damage on a successful one.

So in one game, a Smoke Mephit did its ash breath on the cleric from from the adjoining square. This isn’t a To-Hit roll Attack, but an AoE Affect. Should it trigger Wrath of the Storm?

So, is an AoE “attack” an actual attack?

The answer seems to be NO. Because the AoE weapon isn’t, strictly speaking, hitting with an Attack. The key here is “hits you with an Attack.” And the PHB (p. 194) is clear what that all means:

When you make an attack, your attack roll determines whether the attack hits or misses. To make an attack roll, roll a d20 and add the appropriate modifiers. If the total of the roll plus modifiers equals or exceeds the target’s Armor Class (AC), the attack hits. The AC of a character is determined at character creation, whereas the AC of a monster is in its stat block.

Attacks are made with a d20 roll against a target’s AC. But that’s not what happens with the Smoke Mephit’s breath, or a Dragon’s breath weapon, etc. Those:

are not targeted at someone
don’t require an attack roll
aren’t defended by AC

Instead, AoE attacks create a condition in a certain area of squares, and if someone is in that area, they automatically have to make a Saving Throw to determine the severity of the conditions that ensue (which may or may not include damage; the Smoke Mephit’s ashy breath caused blindness).

(This is part and parcel of why an AoE attack from an adjoining square doesn’t trigger any Disadvantage, either — because there’s no attack roll to Disadvantage.)

If there’s no attack roll (and, as part of it, a hit caused by a successful attack roll), Wrath of the Storm does not trigger. That would include attacks with Magic Missile, Hold Person, or even Wrath of the Storm itself:

A consequence of this is that if two tempest clerics are fighting one another, and Ann smacks Bob with her mace, Bob may use Wrath of the Storm on Ann as a Reaction, but Ann cannot retaliate in turn, even though she might have a Reaction available, because Wrath of the Storm does not qualify as an attack.

Does any of this change in 5.5e?

Pretty much nope.

The Tempest Domain for Clerics has not (yet) been ported over to 5.5e (2024), so theoretically it continues to exist as it did in 5e, with Wrath of the Storm acting as above.

The rules over what an “attack” is remain pretty much the same, too.

When you take the Attack action, you can make one attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.

The more elaborate PHB definition echoes this:

When you take the Attack action, you make an attack Some other actions, Bonus Actions, and Reactions also let you make an attack. Whether you strike with a Melee weapon, fire a Ranged weapon, or make an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has the following structure: […]

3. Resolve the Attack. Make the attack roll, as detailed earlier in this chapter. On a hit, you roll damage unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise.

So, as with 5e, an attack made through an Attack action (or, in this case, a Magic action) is only considered an attack if there is a to-hit D20 Test by the attacker. In the case of an AoE, there is no such role made, the Area gets an Effect automatically, and the only rolling is to see if creatures in the Area manage to dodge, block, or otherwise fend off all or part of the damage or other conditions taken.

D&D 5e/5.5e Rules – Spells: Thunderwave! (and other cubical-AoE range-Self spells)

Wherein we handwave about a fine spell, and instead talk about Range Self Cubic AoE spells.

Part of an ongoing series of 5e (2014) Rules notes. See the end of the post for notes on 5.5e (2024) rules.

So Thunderwave (PHB 282-83) is a pretty cool spell, and usually ends up in a lot of parties’ repertoire (also in the repertoire of a lot of enemy parties). It does decent damage, an AoE, a push, and the CONstitution Save it carries makes it most useful against spellcasters. It does make a godawful racket (carrying 300 feet away, which any DM should take advantage of), but it also scales damage by spell slot.

Overall, a nifty spell. But we’re not going to talk about any of that.

Thunderwave and its Area of Effect

This came up in a game, so afterwards I did some looking into the odd Area of Effect world that is Cubes and Thunderwave.

(There’s a lot about 5e that I respect, but their AoE stuff is kind of janky in general and then the fit onto a grid map — which 5e really sort of dislikes on principle but cannot ignore because a lot of tables really love it, like ours — is even more janky.)

Thunderwave has Range: Self (15-foot cube). “A wave of thunderous force sweeps out from you. Each creature in a 15-foot cube originating from you …” blah blah effects.

So, what does that mean? How does the cube relate to the caster? You would think a Cube AoE would be easy. Yet some of the writing on it approaches being Talmudic in its intricacies to figure out what RAW means here. This is my current interpretation:

Putting together the Self and the Cube AoE

Range of Self

AoE spells that have a range of Self have a point of origin starting from the caster (PHB 202).

Cube AoE

Here’s the PHB 204 on Cube AoE (emphasis mine):

You select a cube’s point of origin, which lies anywhere on a face of the cubic effect. The cube’s size is expressed as the length of each side.

A cube’s point of origin is not included in the cube’s area of effect, unless you decide otherwise.

AoE and Grid Maps

DMG 251 notes the following on “Areas of Effect” in relation to grid maps:

The area of effect of a spell, monster ability, or other feature must be translated onto squares or hexes to determine which potential targets are in the area and which aren’t. Choose an intersection of squares or hexes as the point of origin of an area of effect, then follow its rules as normal.

And Xanathar’s echoes this, speaking of “Area of Effect on a Grid”:

Choose an intersection of squares as the point of origin of an area of effect, then follow the rules for that kind of area as normal (see the “Areas of Effect” section in chapter 10 of the Player’s Handbook).

This is one that drives me bats as DM, because everyone wants their spell to be centered in in the center of a square (in origin, in target, in range calculations), and the rule are very clear that is not the case: for where spells start from, land (if not targeting a creature), and calculating the range, it’s all about intersections.

(If you look at how Cover works on a grid, too, it’s much the same thing.)

Put it all together …

So, standing in a 5×5 grid square, any of the four corners of the square / intersections of the grid are at a range of “self” and are corners that could be the face of the cube you are going to create (including a cube that you are part of, if you are touching the outside face from the inside). Here then would be the possible arrangements I can see:

Any of the above can be rotated in increments of 90 degrees.

I.e., you can be on any of the squares outside of the cube, or on the inner squares of the cube, wherever one of the corners of your square touches (red blips) part of the perimeter (side) of the cube. But not in the very center, because you can’t reach that outer face from there.

I’ve not seen anyone actually include the bottom left “corner” example, but it seems to fit the rules to my eyes.

Insider Casting

There is some debate as whether being on the inside of the cube (bottom right-hand two examples) is allowed. I don’t read anything in the above, though, that says it isn’t. That might mean including yourself in the spell effect (but hold that thought for a moment).

Note that though you can be within the cube, for the Thunderwave spell, “the thunderous force sweeps out from you,” so you yourself are not affected when you cast it, even if you are in the area. (Which is a fancier way of saying that you, as the point of origin, are not affected by spells that have a point of origin; a point is not dimensionless, in this case.)

(But Dave, you might be saying, if the point of origin is the grid intersection you are casting from, then doesn’t the thunderous force emanate from that and, if you are inside the AoE, affect you, too? To which I say (1) remember how I said some of this stuff gets Talmudic? and (2) go away, boy, you bother me.)

When would you use a case, of being inside (not the center!) of the cube? Two use cases I can think of:

To reduce the effective effective range to 10 feet rather than 15 feet (potentially important in an indoor combat).
To include a tiny opponent in your own square (an edge case, but a potentially helpful one).

To sum up

So, unless anyone has any objections, that’s how I consider the area for Thunderwave to work.

So what about with 5.5e?

I’m still trying to figure that out.

Remember that in 5e (2014), grid-based combat is an optional rule. The default is Theater of the Mind, where the DM gets to be constantly juggling where everything and everyone is in order to convey it to the players so that they have some idea of what’s going on …

Sorry. Betraying my wargaming prejudices here.

Grid-based tactical maps are referenced in the 5.5e (2024) PHB, but, in more detail, in the 5.5e DMG, p. 44. These largely parallel the 5e rules (along with the confusing “well, here’s what you can do with these things, but you don’t have to, you can just use rulers and pipe cleaners and sticky notes,” but I digress).

The key here is that under “Areas of Effect,” the DMG rules say:

If the area has a point of origin, choose an intersection of squares or hexes to be the point of origin, then follow its rules as normal.

As well as:

If an area of effect covers at least half a square or hex, the entire square or hex is affected.

This is basically the same as the 5e rules. Whether a line, a cube, a sphere, or a cone, everything anchors off a grid intersection.

Except …

Emanations are weird. In 5e, these were basically “range = Self” radiused AoEs, but it was still easy enough to say, “Well, sure, choose one of the four intersections [assuming a square grid] around your character and anchor the effect there.

But while 5.5e has “range = Self” rules, a lot of those lean on Emanations, which make corner-based AoEs a bit harder to swallow:

An Emanation is an area of effect that extends in straight lines from a creature or an object in all directions. The effect that creates an Emanation specifies the distance it extends. […]

An Emanation’s origin (creature or object) isn’t included in the area of effect unless its creator decides otherwise.

That really sounds like they want an Emanation AoE to center on the focal square, not on an intersection next to it. Given the AoE definition above, that sounds incorrect, but it’s still an uncomfortable definition.

That said, I’d still require an Emanation to hook off of one of the target’s adjoining intersections, and treat it different from a sphere AoE, etc., by being mobile with the creature or object it emanates from. That keeps things consistent, if marginally janky.

But what about Thunderwave?

Well, what about it?

Oh, as a spell? It’s written up pretty much the same as the 5e version.

D&D 5e/5.5e Rules – Spells: Spike Growth!

A diabolical spell that can not only manage crowds at low levels, but actually eliminate them.

Know the Rules Part of an ongoing series of 5e (2014) Rules notes. See the end of the post for notes on 5.5e (2024) rules.

It’s the damaging, crowd-controlling, Area of Effect spell that keeps on giving. You thought Entanglement was a pain in the ass? Try something (if you are a Druid or Ranger) that doesn’t prevent the target from moving, just slows them down and damages them when they try to move: Spike Growth!

So what does it say?

The ground in a 20-foot radius centered on a point within range twists and sprouts hard spikes and thorns. The area becomes difficult terrain for the duration. When a creature moves into or within the area, it takes 2d4 piercing damage for every 5 feet it travels.

So we really have two effects here over the Concentration / 10 minutes of the spell:

The area of the spell is Difficult Terrain.
The area of the spell causes 2d4 piercing damage per 5 feet travelled.

This 2nd level spell would be somewhat effective at crowd control if all it did was slow the bad guys down. Causing 2d4 damage for every 5 feet (one square on a normal grid) traveled is murderous at early levels. A figure with a 30-foot move will be slowed to 15 feet (Difficult terrain), and take 6d4 (6-24) points of damage, with no AC or Save to mitigate it, each turn. And that applies to everyone within the spell area.

No, honestly, I have seem very large early mobs gutted by a well-positioned use of this spell.

This spell is particularly deadly because, while most “this area causes you damage” spells affect someone once per turn (e.g., Moonbeam), Spike Growth will mess them up for every square they move through. Plus, there’s no save.

Plus, it’s Sneaky

The spell notes:

The transformation of the ground is camouflaged to look natural. Any creature that can’t see the area at the time the spell is cast must make a Wisdom (Perception) check against your spell save DC to recognize the terrain as hazardous before entering it.

So you can set it as a trap for pursuers. If they don’t see it cast, they require a save to spot it before they blunder in.

Pushing In

There are a variety of ways of pushing or dragging folk into a Spike Growth spell area, from a Shove attack to Thorn Whip to Thunderwave to Thunderous Smite. It’s not always clear with these effects whether a target is dragged at ground level (in which case they would take damage each square of Spike Growth they were moved through) or somehow hurled through the air (in which case only the target square would cause damage).

The DM will have adjudicate based on the specific spell / effect and the circumstances it occurs in, to see how much damage the target takes.

Getting Out

The old saying of “Getting out means going through” is a losing proposition with Spike Growth. Going through means taking more damage.

Tactics for those caught in the spell:

Wait it out. Yeah, that’s not likely over 10 minutes, but one of your comrades might disrupt the Concentration of the caster.
Remove Yourself (Usually Vertically). A long jump away, a high jump to grab something above, or, of course, some sort of teleport or flight can get you out of the area.
Enjoy the melee cover. If you are a spellcaster or ranged weapon person, being stuck in Spike Growth isn’t nearly as problematic. Stand there and ranged-attack your opponents (maybe particularly the caster), knowing that the opposition melee fighters will likely not be charging you.

Limits of Growth

Spike Growth does not scale. Even with no save, at some point in the leveling/CR equation, 2d4 damage per square does not daunt in quite the same way.

Sure, it creates Difficult Terrain (always a good thing), and 2d4 over enough squares starts to add up, but a 15th Level character will be a lot less worried over it (or have ways around it) than a 2nd Level character.

But it’s good while it lasts.

Any changes to this spell in 5.5e?

There are only minor changes to this spell in 5.5e (2024).

The basics of the spell, while edited for 5.5e jargon, are the same:

The ground in a 20-foot-radius Sphere centered on a point within range sprouts hard spikes and thorns. The area becomes Difficult Terrain for the duration. When a creature moves into or within the area, it takes 2d4 Piercing damage for every 5 feet it travels.

The only difference is in the camouflage aspect:

The transformation of the ground is camouflaged to look natural. Any creature that can’t see the area when the spell is cast must take a Search action and succeed on a Wisdom (Perception or Survival) check against your spell save DC to recognize the terrain as hazardous before entering it.

This is a lot more harsh. First, taking the Search action is specifically called out (no Passive Perception pertains). On the other hand, Survival is also allowed as an optional Ability Check … but, still, unless you are expecting someone to put down Spike Growth, who would ever dream of taking your Action to Search for it?

D&D 5e/5.5e Rules – Spell: Create Bonfire!

A fire suddenly shooting up around you can be … disconcerting.

Know the Rules Part of an ongoing series of 5e (2014) Rules notes. See the end of the post for notes on 5.5e (2024) rules.

In the most recent campaign I ran, this spell was a go-to for our Druid all the way up the level progression. It damages, it illumines (maybe), it pretty much does it all.

Let’s talk about Bonfire

Create Bonfire is a pretty straightforward spell, so much so that it can be easily overlooked, even as it’s accessible by Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard, or Artificer players.

Here’s what it does:

You create a bonfire on ground that you can see within range. Until the spell ends, the magic bonfire fills a 5-foot cube.

The bonfire ignites flammable objects in its area that aren’t being worn or carried.

The Bonfire does 1d8 damage to start with, scaling up by character level (not class level). The save for fire damage is a DEXterity roll, which is often easily made by enemies (resulting in no damage, as Cantrips usually do), but not always. Overall, damage is not amazing, but not for nothing.

The Movable Bonfire

Wait, you might say — a Bonfire can’t be moved.

True. Unlike, say, Moonbeam, there are no movement rules for Create Bonfire.

But they aren’t needed. This is a Cantrip. You can cast it every single turn. It’s a Concentration spell, but that doesn’t matter here. If your Bonfire is burning there, you can easily simply recast it on your turn to be there.

When does the damage occur?

Here’s the tricky part that makes Create Bonfire interesting.

Any creature in the bonfire’s space when you cast the spell must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d8 fire damage.

A creature must also make the saving throw when it moves into the bonfire’s space for the first time on a turn or ends its turn there.

So the check for damage takes place in three situations:

If the target is in the square where the Bonfire is cast.
If the target moves (or is moved) into the Bonfire square on a given turn.
If the target ends its turn in the Bonfire square.

This gives the spell a scosh more flexibility than, say, Moonbeam. It immediately attacks when cast.

Also, as noted, a target can be moved into the Bonfire and immediately have to check for damage. This could be with a Shove attack, a Thorn Whip, or some other means. This can actually be done to a target multiple times per round (the restriction is only once per given character turn).

It burns!

While the damage done by the Bonfire is not tremendous, as a DM, I’d also factor in the psychological aspect — stepping into/through fire, or standing in fire, even if the damage being done isn’t overwhelming, is still not easy to do. I’d suggest that that most mooks will run around the Bonfire, or will try to step out of it if they can, rather than take the 1d8 each turn.

It’s a floor polish and a dessert topping!

While we tend to think of most spells in terms of combat effect, Create Bonfire can also do something as simple as it says outside of combat, too, as it will set any flammable material on fire. And, as a cantrip, there’s no effective cost to starting the party’s campfire each evening once someone has gathered some wood.

Looking at an alternate use, interestingly enough, there is some intense debate out there whether the Bonfire, which clearly emits heat (because it does burn damage), actually emits light. In the campaign I ran, the Druid often used the spell to illumine dark rooms for the darkvisionally challenged.

Why it might not create light: The spell itself does not list it as an effect, as some other fire-based spells do. Compare the text above for Create Bonfire to this for Flaming Sphere:

The sphere ignites flammable objects not being worn or carried, and it sheds bright light in a 20-foot radius and dim light for an additional 20 feet.

Why it clearly creates light: It is a Conjuration of a bonfire, and that seems to be fairly clear in intent.

I leave it to the DM to make this particular ruling, though I find the idea of a non-light-emitting bonfire, even if magical, to be baffling.

Anything different in 5.5e?

Create Bonfire appears to have been introduced in the Princes of the Apocalypse module, and was later picked up in Xanathar’s Guide to Everything. Notably, it does not show up in the 5.5e (2024) Player’s Handbook.

So, is it still a legit spell? Does it grandfather into 5.5e like anything else that isn’t specifically updated or changed? I suppose so. But since the text has not changed, all of the above still pertains.

D&D 5e/5.5e Rules – Spells: Thorn Whip!

What is it, really? How does it work? How is it even possible? It’s magic!

Part of an ongoing series of 5e Rules notes.

Our party’s Druid (it’s also available for Artificer) had this spell and used it pretty constantly from the time it arrived to the time the campaign ended at Level 13.

The damage from Thorn Whip is okay, maybe a bit better in the early days when damage is hard to come by, though it scales nicely (something 5e has done well with cantrips). But its true utility comes with its ability to shove people around the battlefield.

The Spell

Here is the spell description:

You create a long, vine-like whip covered in thorns that lashes out at your command toward a creature in range [30 ft]. Make a melee spell attack against the target. If the attack hits, the creature takes 1d6 piercing damage, and if the creature is Large or smaller, you pull the creature up to 10 feet closer to you.

This spell’s damage increases by 1d6 when you reach 5th level (2d6), 11th level (3d6), and 17th level (4d6).

That’s actually pretty cool. A 30-foot range magical attack (requiring an actual attack roll) that does decent damage and lets you yoink people around the game map (at least closer across the game map) by up to 10 feet.

And it’s a cantrip, so you can be playing with this every single round, if you are so inclined.

Note also that, as a (30-foot reach) melee attack (not a ranged attack), the caster takes no Disadvantage using it while standing next to an opponent. The caster is still at Disadvantage vs prone targets over 5 feet away (the rules don’t differentiate between melee and ranged attacks there). Cover effects also still apply.

Finally, in visualizing this spell, most people imagine the caster holding the whip and swing it themselves. However, there’s nothing in the spell that actually says that — it could be floating in mid-air, erupting from the ground — whatever, and because it’s a spell attack, not a weapon attack — you don’t dexterously swing it, but “command it to lash out.” It’s magic!

Moving the target around

Those words “pull the creature up to 10 feet” are important, because they make it clear that the caster has a choice about whether to move the target at all or how much. It can be left just as a 1d6 damage attack, with the target still standing where they were, or they can be moved 5 feet or 10 feet (or whatever increments your battle grid has, within that 10 foot limit).

But what does closer mean here? Because of the limited distance being moved, I would (in lieu of a more informed reading) argue that each square needs to be toward the caster, reducing the overall distance each step.

 x  x  x  x  x
 x  x  T  x  x
 x  5  5  5  x
10 10 10 10 10
 -  -  -  -  -
 -  -  C  -  -

So, in the case above, the (C)aster could move the (T)arget into each of the numbered points at 5 feet; if moving 10 feet, they would have to got to one of the 10 foot marks. They could not shift into a different 5 foot mark, and definitely not into any of the (x) squares because the move to those is further or the same distance from the Caster.

(Note: Some of this may depend what rule you are using to judge distance on a grid.)

(Also Note: A little flexibility here from the DM can fulfill the Rule of Cool.)

Kind of a drag

A lot of questions are raised by the pulling aspect of Thorn Whip (is the victim dragged? catapulted? floated through the air? teleported? and why is there no Strength Save?), but a main use for this power is dragging someone into a hazard — off a cliff, into a Bonfire spell, into a Moonbeam spell, into a Spirit Guardians spell, into a Spike Growth spell, up to the immobilized Barbarian, etc.

Is this legit? And (when) does the victim take damage from those hazard areas? The answers are, “Yes” and “It depends.”

Let’s start off by noting that Opportunity Attacks will not be triggered by being yoinked away by a Thorn Whip. That’s pretty much straight out of the book:

You also don’t provoke an Opportunity Attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your Movement, Action, or Reaction. For example, you don’t provoke an Opportunity Attack if an explosion hurls you out of a foe’s reach or if gravity causes you to fall past an enemy.

Since being yoinked by a Thorn Whip doesn’t use your Movement, Action, or Reaction, no OA is triggered.

That said, it is considered completely legit to involuntarily move someone into a hazard (p. 19) through a spell or force like Thorn Whip:

Entering such an area of effect needn’t be voluntary, unless a spell says otherwise. You can, therefore, hurl a creature into the area with a spell like Thunderwave. We consider that clever play, not an imbalance, so hurl away!

The subject in that ruling is on spells creating …

… an area of effect that does something when a creature enters that area for the first time on a turn or when a creature starts its turn in that area.

That includes things like Blade Barrier, Cloudkill, Spirit Guardians, and Moonbeam. While “creating an area of effect on the creature or moving it onto the creature doesn’t count,” involuntarily entering the area does.

One caveat there:

Keep in mind, however, that a creature is subjected to such an area of effect only the first time it enters the area on a turn. You can’t move a creature in and out of it to damage it over and over again on the same turn.

(Remember, too, that a round in 5e consists of a sequence of each combatant taking their turn. While a round is about 6 seconds, a turn is some (overlapping) slice of that period, ordered by initiative, but not a defined period of time.)

So given a Moonbeam occupying four squares, you could not force an attack from the spell for each square you used Thorn Whip to drag the target through (i.e., if you dragged them through two squares of it, the 5 foot and 10 foot marks of the spell), just for the initial entry square on your turn.

An exception here (of course there is an exception) is something like Spike Growth. Unlike spells like Moonbeam that trigger “when a creature enters the spell’s area for the first time on a turn,” Spike Growth states:

When a creature moves into or within the area, it takes 2d4 piercing damage for every 5 feet it travels.

Within and every 5 feet it travels are the keys here. You can Thorn Whip someone through two squares (10 feet) of Spike Growth and it will take the 2d4 piercing for each of those squares.

Thorn Whip: It’s Magic!

The magical nature of the pulling done by Thorn Whip is interesting. As described:

If the creature is Large or smaller, you pull the creature up to 10 feet closer to you.

So, note first, this targets creatures. You cannot Thorn Whip over to you the idol sitting on the pedestal over there, or Thorn Whip away the sword in someone’s hand (or that they dropped on the floor).

Second, within the parameter of “Large or smaller,” the target gets no choice or control in the matter of being moved. Standing there slack-jawed or holding onto a support beam for dear life with a STRength of 20, the creature doesn’t even get a Save — they just come. It’s magic!

How does the targeted creature actually move? Fly through the air? Dragged along the ground? It’s not just a teleport because they can take damage from environmental and magical conditions each step of the way. But the spell also doesn’t tie into movement or movement obstacles — it stays nothing about being “slowed” by Difficult Terrain, for example.

I dunno. It’s magic!

Can you Thorn Whip someone through another creature’s square? If you have defeated the cover that other creature is providing, then the answer would seem to be yes, even if it’s an enemy of the target; the only things the rules don’t permit is leaving them in another creature’s square unless it fits other movement/size rules.

What about other obstacles? Assuming you can see past/around them, can you pull a Thorn Whipped person through an obstacle they couldn’t move through themselves? I’d say not, as a general rule; they’ll have to be pulled around. (But hold this thought for a moment …)

Showing Restraint vs Thorn Whip

What if the target is restrained in some way — grappled, or Entangled, or held by Black Tentacles, or even shackled to a wall? Can Thorn Whip just pull them over regardless? Remember, the individual creature is powerless to stop themselves from being pulled by the spell. But can outside forces prevent it?

Boy, can you find a lot of online argument about that!

General conclusions I’ve drawn on these questions:

Thorn Whip breaks a grapple, because the grapple rules literally allow for the grapple to be broken by some outside force.
Against spells that Restrain, like Entangle or Black Tentacles, two alternatives are suggested and, to be honest, I vacillate between them as I reductio ad absurdem each case:
- Being Restrained does not prevent Forced Movement unless the cause says so (maybe the Entangling vines aren’t deeply rooted). So Thorn Whip will pull an Entangled character from the point where they were Restrained (and ignoring the Difficult terrain), but they will remain Restrained where they land.
- Being Restrained should resist against Forced Movement. In which case, turn it into a spell contest by the Thorn Whip caster versus the Entangled caster — e.g., the Thorn Whip exerts a “Strength” for the Entangle spell’s Strength Save of d20 + proficiency + stat bonus. This makes logical sense, but (a) isn’t RAW, and, more importantly (b) starts implying that strength of some sort can counter Thorn Whip, and it’s clear (from lack of a Save against being yoinked) that’s simply not true.
Against actual physical restraints (being shackled to the wall) … well, it works like the spells mentioned above: either Thorn Whip just moves the target creature regardless of the shackles (because it’s magic!), or make the Thorn Whip save with the spell strength vs a DC 20 for the manacles.
- In either case, no additional damage should be done to the target. It’s only a freaking cantrip, fergoshsakes.

This escalating conflict between the Thorn Whip‘s clear it’s magic! nature, which is baked into the language the spell, and the voice of reason as restraints become bigger and more powerful, can only end in things like “I try to Thorn Whip the target through the bars of the jail cell,” and what silliness that results in. At some point the DM has to step in and adjudicate something that feels right while fitting the Rule of Cool.

One final weird factor in all of this is that the duration for Thorn Whip is “instantaneous.”

Many spells are instantaneous. The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object in a way that can’t be dispelled, because its magic exists only for an instant.

That is, it’s not faster than the eye (you can see the whip, you can see it strike, you can see the yank, you could theoretically Counterspell it), but it happens faster than can be addressed or exploited by, for example, a Dispel Magic (or cutting the whip with your sword, or using the whip to make a gibbet, etc.).

Bearing in mind that D&D is not a tool for modeling physics, Thorn Whip is a spell whose nature and execution does not bear too close an examination. Take it as written. It’s magic!

Is Thorn Whip a magical weapon or not?

I keep saying “it’s magic,” but when does it count as magic? This question can come up in a number of circumstances — in my game, it was when the Druid used Thorn Whip on a Gargoyle, which is “resistant to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing from nonmagical weapons.” Does Thorn Whip qualify, or not? Is Thorn Whip a magical weapon?

As one commenter summarized the argument:

YES: It’s created by a spell, it uses a melee spell attack to hit, and the spell damage increases with level.

NO: The spell description only mentions piercing damage, from an object created by the spell, not from the spell directly.

Arguments for Yes, it’s a magic attack

Because it’s a melee spell attack roll, not a normal melee weapon attack roll, the resistance to weapons doesn’t apply. Melee spell attacks follow the same rules as melee attacks; in this case, a melee attack with a 30 foot range. But it uses the spell attack modifier (spellcasting ability + proficiency) to hit, so, again, it’s a spell attack and ignores the resistance.
The Sage Advice Compendium notes (p. 21), in determining if something is magical, qualifying questions would include “Is it a spell? … Is it a spell attack?” This is a spell, and uses a melee spell attack.
Mike Mearls (one of the 5e designers) agrees that “any piercing, bludgeoning or slashing damage from spells count as magical in nature.”
The Monster Manual notes “Particular creatures are even resistant or immune to damage from non-magical attacks (a magical attack is an attack delivered by a spell, a magic item, or another magical source).” This attack is delivered by a spell.
The whip both magically appears and disappears. That indicates it’s not some sort of physical item being created, but a magic construct (that looks like a vine-like whip in some fashion).
The whip not only does damage, it magically lets you pull something closer to you without any additional roll (or save). Thus the overall attack is magical.

Arguments for No, it’s a non-magical weapon attack

The name of it is a weapon. And the spell actually creates a whip, which is a weapon. So it’s a weapon, crafted by non-conventional means.
The spell itself doesn’t do the damage; the whip created by it does. Again, the spell doesn’t indicate it creates a magical whip, just a long, vine-like whip that the spell allows you to commend.
And it does piercing damage, like a weapon, not magical damage (force, radiance, necrotic, etc.).
That the damage increases with level doesn’t mean it’s additional magical damage, but could be additionally pointy / strong non-magical thorns.

Conclusion

Net-net, I am persuaded that Thorn Whip is a magical / spell attack (i.e., textualist arguments aside, the vine-like whip is an embodied spell, following the arguments around Spiritual Weapon), so it would defeat non-magical weapon resistance or immunity.

Of course, as an extension of that, something like an Antimagic Field would affect the vine reaching a target within it (even if the caster was outside of the field). It could also be countered, as noted, by a Counterspell.

Because … it’s magic!

So what about in 5.5e?

The spell looks to be identical in the new 5.5e (2024) edition to what was in 5e. It’s still magic!

D&D 5e Rules – Spells: Stinking Cloud!

So, how does Tear Gas work in D&D?

Know the Rules Part of an ongoing series of 5e (2014) Rules notes. See the end of the post for notes on 5.5e (2024) rules.

The first time I DMed this, I did it wrong. Which, given it was an NPC I had thought I had well in hand, is not a cool move on my part.

So here it is, done right.

Tear Gas Effects: Symptoms, Complications, Treatment & Prevention

Here’s the core of the spell’s effect:

Each creature that is completely within the cloud at the start of its turn must make a Constitution Saving Throw against Poison. On a failed save, the creature spends its Action that turn retching and reeling.

When I first played with this, I ruled that this still allowed Movement (since that isn’t mentioned), but, just as anything that takes away your Action also takes way your Bonus Action, the only thing you could do was retching and reeling.

But that’s not what it says. The Stinking Cloud doesn’t take away your Action, it dictates your Action (retching and reeling). I.e., your Action is set, but you still have your Bonus Action (and Reaction, for that matter).

Or, as the Sage Advice Compendium puts it:

The stinking cloud spell says that a creature wastes its Action on a failed Save. So can it still use a Move or a Bonus Action or a Reaction?

Correct. The gas doesn’t immobilize a creature or prevent it from acting altogether, but the effect of the spell does limit what it can accomplish while the cloud lingers.

Movement is a bit problematic, of course. The area covered by Stinking Cloud is Heavily Obscured.

A heavily obscured area–such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage–blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area.

Or, presumably, out of that area. Blinded, in turn:

A blinded creature can’t see and automatically fails any Ability check that requires sight.

Attack rolls against the creature have Advantage, and the creature’s attack rolls have Disadvantage.

Note the offsetting penalties — trying to Attack someone inside the cloud has to deal with Heavily Obscured conditions, and so is at Disadvantage (as though Blinded). But the target is, themselves, Blind to the attack, putting them at a Disadvantage. That makes, even without all the loud retching sounds, attacks on a figure within a Stinking Cloud even money. (A figure inside the cloud can’t Attack if they fail their Save, except through a Bonus Action, but with that Bonus Action, or if they make the Save, theoretically, they are also a wash to attack a target outside the cloud, unless that target is using Stealth or a Dodge or something of that sort.)

I might House Rule that, combined with the Retching and Reeling, being Blinded in such a circumstance would lead to disorientation — perhaps another Save (Intelligence?) to move in a desired direction?

As a final note, the rules say “completely within the cloud” for the nausea effect. So if you are playing on a grid, and are using a true circle for your template (physically or on a VTT), any one in a partially covered circle isn’t affected. Which is why I prefer to have a template that fills in complete boxes on the grid, to avoid the ambiguity.

Any changes here in 5.5e?

The rules in 5.5e (2024) contain several changes to Stinking Cloud:

You create a 20-foot-radius Sphere of yellow, nauseating gas centered on a point within range. The cloud is Heavily Obscured. The cloud lingers in the air for the duration or until a strong wind (such as the one created by Gust of Wind) disperses it.

Two changes here: first, there’s no mention of the cloud spreading around corners (though that seems like something still to naturally consider; a cloud of gas doesn’t respect cover). Second, only a “strong wind” now disperses it, but apparently that’s instantly, not after a number of rounds.

Each creature that starts its turn in the Sphere must succeed on a Constitution Saving Throw or have the Poisoned condition until the end of the current turn. While Poisoned in this way, the creature can’t take an Action or a Bonus Action.

The requirement to be completely within the cloud to be affected is gone, which increases the radius a bit and also helps with Large creatures. The “retching and reeling” color text is, alas, gone, but we now have the Poisoned condition explicitly called out and Bonus Actions have now been sealed off, too.

Also, there’s no mention of the 5e “creatures that don’t need to breathe or are immune to poison” auto-saving. The latter would still (kind of by definition) be immune (suffering only from the Heavy Obscurement and effective Blindness), but the former are, like tear gas victims, deemed Poisoned (if they fail their Save) by contact with the gas, not just inhalation.

Overall, an increase in impact for using the spell.

D&D 5e/5.5e Rules – Spells: Spirit Guardians!

Also known as the “Faerie Buzz Saw of Death.”

Know the Rules Part of an ongoing series of 5e (2014) Rules notes. See the end of the post for notes on 5.5e (2024) rules.

This was another player favorite in my Princes of the Apocalypse campaign, for very good reasons: it’s pretty damned deadly.

So what does it do?

The spell says:

You call forth spirits to protect you. They flit around you to a distance of 15 feet for the duration. If you are good or neutral, their spectral form appears angelic or fey (your choice). If you are evil, they appear fiendish.

Okay, that’s nice color text. I also played with it a bit in the campaign: when the player of the cleric started being affected by a magic item she was carrying, it had an impact on the appearance of her spectral spirits.

When you cast this spell, you can designate any number of creatures you can see to be unaffected by it. An affected creature’s speed is halved in the area, and when the creature enters the area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, it must make a Wisdom Saving Throw.

On a failed Save, the creature takes 3d8 Radiant damage (if you are good or neutral) or 3d8 Necrotic damage (if you are evil).

So when does it actually do damage?

One question that immediately comes up about SG is when it actually attacks. It’s easy to mistakenly assume the answer is “right away,” but … nope.

The trigger is the potential target either

entering into the AoE (voluntarily or involuntarily), or
being within the AoE when their turn starts.

This is similar to Moonbeam, along with a number of other spells.

You don’t take immediately damage if the spell is cast on you (i.e., with you in the area of its casting) or if it is moved over you (if the spellcaster runs up to you). As Crawford says, “creating an area of effect on a creature’s space isn’t the same as the creature entering it.”

But you do take damage if you enter the spell while it is in place, or are inside of it when your turn starts. And “entering the spell” does not have to be voluntary — a Shove or a Thunderwave can push you into the zone, and that’s considered not only legal, but, “We consider that clever play, not an imbalance, so hurl away!” Indeed, such a maneuver would lead to the target being hit twice by Spirit Guardians: once when pushed in, then again when their turn starts (unless someone yoinks them out again in the interim).

What about Line of Sight?

Spirit Guardians respects Line-of-Sight and Total Cover rule. I.e., if the circle extends through a wall, or any other cover, it is blocked.

Unlike Fireball or Stinking Cloud, which specifically call it out, Spirit Guardians will not go around a corner: they are not actual creatures flying around (which is why they can’t be attacked), but a magical effect emanating from a point (one of the corners the caster chooses). Anything not visible from that point is protected. If a potential target has only partial cover, though, they are affected (and the cover does not improve the saving throw).

Reference: dnd 5e – Can Spirit Guardians affect enemies through walls? – Role-playing Games Stack Exchange

Any changes here in 5.5e?

There are some revisions, akin to Moonbeam, in this spell in 5.5e (2024).

Protective spirits flit around you in a 15-foot Emanation for the duration. If you are good or neutral, their spectral form appears angelic or fey (your choice). If you are evil, they appear fiendish.

This is pretty much the same, though using the new Emanation terminology.

When you cast this spell, you can designate creatures to be unaffected by it. Any other creature’s Speed is halved in the Emanation, and whenever the Emanation enters a creature’s space and whenever a creature enters the Emanation or ends its turn there, the creature must make a Wisdom Saving Throw. On a failed Save, the creature takes 3d8 Radiant damage (if you are good or neutral) or 3d8 Necrotic damage (if you are evil). On a successful Save, the creature takes half as much damage. A creature makes this Save only once per turn.

So some changes here:

First, designating unaffected creatures no longer has the restriction of being able to see them. If you fire this spell off inside a room before all of your team has entered, you can now exempt them. That’s helpful.

Second and more important, the trigger for a Save (and therefore damage) has changed. Before it was (1) entering the area or (2) starting a turn in the area. Now it’s (1) entering the area, (2) ending a turn in the area, or (3) being in a space where the area enters.

This is a major change, as it means the caster can simply run through the field doing damage to everyone they get within 15 feet of (and if they keep their distance, there’s no Opportunity of Attack worries) in addition to any other spells or attacks they want to make. True, targets only Save / take the damage once per turn (but, with Shove and Thorn Whips and the like, they could be moved into, out of, and back into the area on different characters’ turns during a round), but the number of targets has just climbed substantially.

So, overall, this spell, like Moonbeam,has gotten significantly more powerful. DMs beware!

D&D 5e Rules – Spells: Call Lightning!

Summoning lightning sounds really cool. And it is. Under the right circumstances.

Know the Rules Part of an ongoing series of 5e (2014) Rules notes. See the end of the post for notes on 5.5e (2024) rules.

I won’t say that Call Lightning is an overrated spell, but it’s a spell that sounds a lot more cool and flexible and awe-inspiring than it actually turns out to be when you try to play with it (properly). It comes across as an alternative to Fireball for Druids, also a 3rd Level Conjuration, but it most certainly is not.

Let’s start with the description.

Range: 120 feet

A storm cloud appears in the shape of a Cylinder that is 10 feet tall with a 60-foot radius, centered on a point you can see within range directly above you. The spell fails if you can’t see a point in the air where the storm cloud could appear (for example, if you are in a room that can’t accommodate the cloud).

When you cast the spell, choose a point you can see under the cloud. A bolt of lightning flashes down from the cloud to that point. Each creature within 5 feet of that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 3d10 lightning damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. On each of your turns until the spell ends, you can use your action to call down lightning in this way again, targeting the same point or a different one.

If you are outdoors in stormy conditions when you cast this spell, the spell gives you control over the existing storm instead of creating a new one. Under such Conditions, the spell’s damage increases by 1d10.

This one is a bit more complex than it seems, and it “suffers” by having had its text significantly updated some time into the 5e era; a lot of websites discussing the spell (from when 5e first launched) do not have the spell described correctly . The original text got confusing about the height of the cloud.

So, you need to be in a room or area that has at least ten feet of clearance (to accommodate the height of the cloud). As an example, my kitchen/family room ceiling is only 8 feet high. So this will be most useful out of doors, in tall caverns, or in Intentionally Impressive Rooms (throne rooms, cathedrals, etc.).

(I have seen suggests that if the room is only 10 feet high then the area concerned is all in cloud and thus can’t be seen into. That effect is not explicitly called out, and, frankly, gets into complications I’d rather avoid. If I were to do it, rather than blocking vision I’d make the area into a Dim situation, impacting Perception checks in and out, but not much more).

You don’t need quite this much space, but almost.

The rules indicate the room/space must accommodate the cloud. That means an interior room has to be not just tall enough, but wide enough to accommodate a 60-foot radius, i.e., 120 feet wide.

The cloud gets centered on a point no more than 120 feet away (a grid intersection, not a square, if you are playing on a grid), and as noted, has a radius of 60 feet.

On each turn, the caster can choose a point (again, a grid intersection, not a square), and everyone in a 5-foot radius of that point (i.e., the four squares around that intersection) get zorched. The point can be anywhere under that 60-foot radius cloud, and can be moved around (as an Action) each turn. (I would rule that any area to be zorched must be under the cloud.)

It’s a Concentration spell, so you can keep it going for up to 10 minutes, or until someone figures out you’re the one doing it and starts trying to break your concentration.

Call Lightning vs. Fireball

I mean, this doesn’t have to be a competition … but, frankly, the subject is going to come up.

Advantages of Call Lightning

Lasts for 10 minutes (of Concentration)
You can hit the same target every. single. round. That’s a lot of 3d10s over 10 minutes.
Works anywhere under a 60 foot radius
Range is only 120 feet, but with a 60 foot radius from that point.
Lightning damage is less resisted than fire.

Advantages of Fireball

8d6 beats 3d10 (the first time).
Can be cast anywhere, not just in a space that will fit a cloud 10 feet high and 120 feet across.
Hits its entire area upon casting.
Range is 150 feet (but only a 20 foot radius from that point).
LoS not necessary for effect; can affect targets around a corner.
Can set stuff on fire.

Call it anecdata, but during a 2½ year weekly campaign, our Druid had an opportunity to cast Call Lightning maybe … twice? Whereas our Sorcerer let loose with a Fireball at least every second or third session.

That said, if the opportunity does arise, and if it’s thematically proper to the character, Call Lightning can be a ton of fun to cast.

Any changes in 5.5e?

Maybe.

The basic language of the spell is fairly similar in 5.5e (2024):

The storm cloud:

A storm cloud appears at a point within range that you can see above yourself. It takes the shape of a Cylinder that is 10 feet tall with a 60-foot radius.

Here’s the main difference: there’s no longer any language about the spell failing if the room is not large enough to accommodate such a cylinder. Does it? Better ask your DM first to make a ruling before you assume it does (or doesn’t). If the limitation has actually been eliminated, this is a much more useful spell.

The zorching:

When you cast the spell, choose a point you can see under the cloud. A lightning bolt shoots from the cloud to that point. Each creature within 5 feet of that point makes a Dexterity saving throw, taking 3d10 Lightning damage on a failed save or half as much damage on a successful one.

Until the spell ends, you can take a Magic action to call down lightning in that way again, targeting the same point or a different one.

While edited a bit from the 5e text (and calling in the new Magic action), everything else here is the same. The spell also has the added language for using a natural storm out of doors.

So, is there a change? There’s probably someplace in the 5.5e rules I haven’t run across about how AoEs that don’t fit in the space work. Barring that (and not seeing any commentary online), I would, again, discuss it with your DM about whether they want to allow you to blanket any 60-foot radius area with four-squares-at-a-time lightning bolts for ten minutes. As far as I can tell,

D&D 5e Rules – Spells: Fireball!

“Ka-boom?”
“Yes, Rico. Ka-boom.”

Know the Rules Part of an ongoing series of 5e (2014) Rules notes. See the end of the post for notes on 5.5e (2024) rules.

It’s a classic, so much so that it’s inspired a dozen memes. It’s every magic-user’s favorite 3rd Level spell: Fireball!

So, what does that bad boy look like?

A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame.

Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.

The fire spreads around corners.

It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried.

Fire Ball Gif GIFs | Tenor From PHB 241.

What’s not to like? Hitting everyone in a large radius with 8d6 of fire damage? It is Teh Awesome.

Of course, Fire is one of the most commonly resisted damage types (largely “thanks” to Fireball), and the save is on DEXterity, which is something a lot of bad guys have in abundance.

But, still, it’s pretty damned amazing. No wonder all the spellcasters cannot wait to get it, and then to use it.

So let’s talk about the rules.

The Rules of Fireball

Fireball has, traditionally in D&D, been a debate about physics, calculating the volume of the fireball, then the volume of the room, then figuring out the blowback if the latter is smaller than the former, etc.

5e has simplified this. Though the spell talks about an “explosion of flame,” the consensus is that, RAW, it acts more like a volume that is suddenly filled with roiling flame, as long as there is an open channel within range.

There’s no ka-boom that roars down the hallway like in Backdraft.

Walls and doors, etc., block the effect.

All this does mean that Fireball can affect folk out of line of sight. The following picture (source unknown) illustrates:

The magic user on the steps casts Fireball in the middle of the corridor ahead. (Properly speaking, spells should anchor on an intersection, not in the middle of a square or an edge. But I digress.)

The lady around the corner gets hit, even though she’s out of Line of Sight from both the caster and the center of the spell, because the fireball spreads around the corner — within the 20 foot radius.

The figure in the room, though, is not hit because the doors are all closed. If the upper door by the lady was open, though, that figure would get hit, even if it’s a lot longer to walk from the center of the spell to that figure than 20 feet.

AoE 20ft radius orange — Fireball AoE template

(I’ve seen some suggestion that the line-of-explosion has to go through full squares; that seems to be a DM call, though. Under that suggestion, the figure in the room would not get hit if the upper door was open, because the effect has to go through half-squares. This gets solved, though, by using a squares template, especially on a VTT, rather than drawing a circle.)

(And, no, we’re not going to worry, for purpose of area of effect, whether the doors catch on fire and burn through.)

References: 1 2 3 4 5 6

So how about in 5.5e?

There’s been a significant change in how Fireball works in 5.5e (2024). Fireball now respects cover.

Here’s the write-up:

A bright streak flashes from you to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into a fiery explosion. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius Sphere centered on that point makes a Dexterity saving throw, taking 8d6 Fire damage on a failed save or half as much damage on a successful one.

Flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried start burning.

This is almost precisely the language 5e uses, but leaving out the very significant “the fire spreads around corners” verbiage. The implication is that total cover from the point of the explosion (not the PoV of the caster) shields the target. It’s no longer an instantly roiling sphere of flames; it’s an explosion (as the text has always implied).

Fireball remains a very nifty spell, don’t get me wrong. But 5.5e gives it a small nerf for cover.

D&D 5e/5.5e Rules – Spells – Spellcasting per Turn!

So how many spells can you actually cast in a turn, or a round?

Know the Rules Part of an ongoing series of 5e (2014) Rules notes. See the end of the post for notes on 5.5e (2024) rules.

So how many spells can you cast in a turn?

The answer? Everyone say it together: It depends!

But first, a minor digression (that isn’t)

Terminology:

Round: A cycle round the table, ordered by Initiative, during which each PC/NPC takes a turn.

Turn: A PC/NPC’s spot, ordered by Initiative, when the PC/NPC can move and take actions. Each PC/NPC gets one turn per round.

So, each round, your character gets to take their turn. There are parts of the round that are not your turn (but during which you may React).

This is important in understanding the below.

Okay, let’s answer the question

Let’s start with the Sage Advice Compendium:

Is there a limit on the number of spells you can cast on your turn? There’s no rule that says you can cast only X number of spells on your turn, but there are some practical limits. The main limiting factor is your Action. Most spells require an Action to cast, and unless you use a feature like the Fighter’s Action Surge, you have only one action on your turn.

By default, you can, pragmatically, cast one normal spell per turn, using the Cast a Spell Action. Most spells have a casting time of 1 Action. Easy peasy, right?

But what about spells that you can cast as a Bonus Action? There aren’t many, but they say it right in the spell timing. (It’s worth noting “Action” and “Bonus Action” are not interchangeable; if something is one, it cannot be done as the other.) So if you cast a Bonus Action spell, can you then cast a regular Action spell?

Yyyyeah, but it creates some limitations:

Bonus Action
A spell cast with a Bonus Action is especially swift. You must use a Bonus Action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven’t already taken a Bonus Action this turn. You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 Action.

and

If you want to Cast a Spell that has a casting time of 1 Bonus Action, remember that you can’t cast any other spells before or after it on the same turn, except for cantrips with a casting time of 1 Action.

So, if you cast a spell, such as Healing Word, with a Bonus Action timing, you can cast another spell with your Action, but that other spell must be a cantrip, not a levelled spell.

But what about Sorcerers?

Sorcerers have a metamagic tool, though, called Quickened Spell.

Quickened Spell
When you Cast a Spell that has a casting time of 1 Action, you can spend 2 Sorcery Points to change the casting time to 1 Bonus Action for this casting.

So that lets you cast a levelled spell of 1 Action casting as a Bonus Action instead. But that doesn’t get rid of the limitation above: “If you want to Cast a Spell that has a casting time of 1 Bonus Action, remember that you can’t cast any other Spells before or after it on the same turn, except for cantrips with a casting time of 1 action.”

Again, this is confirmed in the most recent Sage Advice Compendium:

Does Quickened Spell allow a sorcerer to cast two spells a round of 1st level or higher?
No, the sorcerer must follow the rule for casting a spell as a Bonus Action and casting another spell on the same turn; the other spell must be a cantrip with a casting time of 1 Action.

Along this line, there is an Epic Boon that allows a spell you know to be turned into a Bonus Action spell permanently. But we needn’t delve into that right now …

To sum up …

So, what are valid combos?

YES: Cantrip @ 1 Action + Spell @ 1 Bonus Action
YES: Cantrip @ 1 Action + Cantrip @ 1 Bonus Action
NO: Spell @ 1 Action + Spell @ 1 Bonus Action
NO: Spell @ 1 Action + Cantrip @ 1 Bonus Action

Unless noted otherwise, the Bonus Action can go before or after the Action, but remember that you can only cast something as a Bonus Action if that’s its timing in the spell book, or if you use Quickened Spell to cast it.

But what about spells that give Bonus Actions?

If a spell gives you a Bonus Action, using that Bonus Action does not trigger this limitation effect (because you aren’t casting the spell in the Bonus Action). For example.

The rule on casting a spell as a Bonus Action (see PH, 202) applies only on the turn you cast the spell. For example, Spiritual Weapon can be cast as a Bonus Action, and it lasts for 1 minute. On the turn you cast it, you can’t cast another spell before or after it, unless that spell is a cantrip with a casting time of 1 Action.

Until Spiritual Weapon ends, it gives you the option of controlling its spectral weapon as a Bonus Action. That Bonus Action does not involve casting a spell, despite the fact that it’s granted by a spell, so you can control the weapon and cast whatever spell you like on the same turn.

But what about Action Surge?

One further edge exception to this is if you are a spellcaster who’s taken a couple of levels of Fighter (or are doing the Eldritch Knight fighter subclass).

Action Surge
Starting at 2nd Level, you can push yourself beyond your normal limits for a moment. On your turn, you can take one additional Action.

As noted by the Sage Advice column, using Action Surge would give you two Actions on that turn, and both of them could be Cast a Spell. And that wouldn’t be limited to cantrips:

If you cast a second spell using Action Surge, you aren’t limited to casting a cantrip with it.

If you also cast a Bonus Action spell of some sort, though, those regular Action spells would be limited to cantrips (both of them). Because, again,

If you want to Cast a Spell that has a casting time of 1 Bonus Action, remember that you can’t cast any other spells before or after it on the same turn, except for cantrips with a casting time of 1 Action.

Well, then, what about Reaction Spells?

The rules about spellcasting actions also get bumped about by Reaction spells. Some spells (such as Shield) can be cast as a Reaction. You only get one Reaction per round, and Reactions (to others’ actions) usually take place outside of your turn. But … not always.

Reaction Timing
Certain game features let you take a special action, called a Reaction, in response to some event. Making Opportunity Attacks and casting the Shield spell are two typical uses of Reactions. If you’re unsure when a Reaction occurs in relation to its trigger, here’s the rule: the Reaction happens after its trigger completes, unless the description of the Reaction explicitly says otherwise.

Once you take a Reaction, you can’t take another one until the start of your next turn.

and

Reactions
Some spells can be cast as Reactions. These spells take a fraction of a second to bring about and are cast in response to some event. If a spell can be cast as a Reaction, the spell description tells you exactly when you can do so.

There are some weird edge cases where you might end up using a Reaction spell on your own turn. E.g., on my turn …

I Cast a Spell Fireball at the orcs.
I take a step forward, coming into range of the enemy wizard.
The enemy wizard fires off his Readied action of “Cast a Spell Magic Missile If I Step Within Range.”
I React with a Shield spell.

I react on my own turn, and that’s fine. And there’s no problem with effectively my casting two spells (my Action and my Reaction) because there’s no limitation on that; none of the conditions discussed above come into play because this doesn’t involve a Bonus Action.

But consider this case:

I use a Bonus Action to cast a Shillelagh cantrip.
I Cast a Spell Flame Bolt cantrip at the orcs (since I have already cast as a Bonus Action, I can only do a cantrip as my Cast a Spell action).
I take a step forward, coming into range of that enemy wizard.
The enemy wizard fires off his Readied action of “Cast Magic Missile If I Step Within Range.”
I React with a Shield spell … but I can’t.

Because Shield is not a cantrip and because I cast a Bonus Action spell and I can’t cast another leveled spell on my turn once I’ve done that. Again, as the rules say, once you’ve cast a spell as your Bonus Action, “You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.” That includes Reactions on my turn, just like it includes the second Action in an Action Surge.

If the enemy wizard acted right after my turn and fired the Magic Missile, then the Shield could be cast as a Reaction just fine, because I would not be Reacting on the same turn as when I cast a Bonus Action spell. Zany, but true.

As a further note, I am not sure if there are any Reaction Cantrips. As of 2014, at least, Jeremy Crawford was able to say:

Casting a Bonus Action spell does preclude casting a Reaction spell on the same turn.

In short …

So the answer to “How many spells can I cast on a turn?” seems to be:

Three levelled spells (Cast a Spell, Action Surge+Cast a Spell, Reaction) or
Three spells (Cast a Spell cantrip, Action Surge+Cast a Spell cantrip, Bonus Action)

If you don’t want to get into Action Surge, it looks like the number is two.

Bonus Action spells are really powerful in the flexibility they provide (more than one spell in a turn!), but they also gum up what else you can do, spellcasting-wise. Caveat incantor.

Any changes in this with 5.5e?

In theory, 5.5e (2024) has the same basic restrictions. In actuality, some wording alterations may (or may not) fundamentally changed things. (Remember, when in doubt, The Rule of Cool as well as The DM can dictate how they want rules to work.)

One terminology change: there is now a Magic Action for players to use, which combines casting spells with using magical items. Such things usually will note that they require a Magic Action.

One other terminology change. Instead of referring to “levelled spells” (for any spells with a level number, or over a Cantrip), 5.5e works off of “spell slots” or refers to spells that require a spell slot to use. That sounds similar, but there’s one key difference.

In the 5.5e PHB (p. 236) the rules note:

One spell with a Spell Slot per Turn
On a turn, you can expend only one spell slot to cast a spell. This rule means you can’t, for example, cast a spell with a spell slot using the Magic action and another one using a Bonus Action on the same turn.

Which sounds like the 5e rules, except that it doesn’t take into account spellcasting that doesn’t use spell slots, like using magic items, including scrolls, or species magic features or class magic features. All of those are tracked and expended in a different way (e.g., species X can cast spell Y once per day). But they still don’t use spell slots — so are they legal to be stacked as a Bonus Action with a spell-slotted spell in the Magic action? Or to use as a Magic action spell alongside a Bonus Action slotted spell?

More importantly, was this change intentional, or an inadvertent result of the terminology change?

For the moment, consult with your DM.

Note that 5.5e’s Sage Advice Compendium includes the following:

Is there a limit on the number of spells you can cast on your turn?

There’s no rule that states you can cast only X number of spells on your turn, but there are some practical limitations. The main limiting factor is your action. Many spells require an Action to cast, and unless a feature says otherwise, you only have one Action on your turn. You also must abide by the rule of only expending one spell slot to cast a spell on your turn.

So, for example, if you take your Bonus Action to cast Healing Word using a spell slot, you can also take the Magic action to cast Vicious Mockery—a cantrip which doesn’t require a spell slot.

D&D 5e/5.5e Rules – Spell Scrolls!

Spells Scrolls aren’t spells, but they aren’t magic items, but they are actually both, which, yes, is sometimes confusing.

Know the Rules Part of an ongoing series of 5e (2014) Rules notes. See the end of the post for notes on 5.5e (2024) rules.

The basic rule: you can only use a spell scroll if you are in a class that has the spell on its spell list.

Things seem pretty simple if you just look at the DMG’s description of Magic Items: Scrolls (DMG 139):

The most prevalent type of scroll is the spell scroll, a spell stored in written form …. A scroll is a consumable magic item. Unleashing the magic in a scroll requires the user to read the scroll. When its magic has been invoked, the scroll can’t be used again. Its words fade, or it crumbles into dust.

Unless the scroll’s description says otherwise, any creature that can understand a written language can read the arcane script on a scroll and attempt to activate it.

However, under Spell Scroll (DMG 200), the process is much more elaborate and restrictive (and in D&D, specific beats general):

A spell scroll bears the words of a single spell, written in a mystical cipher.

If the spell is on your class’s spell list, you can read the scroll and cast its spell without providing any material components. Otherwise, the scroll is unintelligible.

Casting the spell by reading the scroll requires the spell’s normal casting time. Once the spell is cast, the words on the scroll fade, and it crumbles to dust. If the casting is interrupted, the scroll is not lost.

If the spell is on your class’s spell list but of a higher level than you can normally cast, you must make an ability check using your spellcasting ability to determine whether you cast it successfully. The DC equals 10 + the spell’s level. On a failed check, the spell disappears from the scroll with no other effect.

That page also includes a table for determining the saving throw DC and attack bonus:

Spell Level	Rarity	Save DC	Attack Bonus
Cantrip	Common	13	+5
1st	Common	13	+5
2nd	Uncommon	13	+5
3rd	Uncommon	15	+7
4th	Rare	15	+7
5th	Rare	17	+9
6th	Very rare	17	+9
7th	Very rare	18	+10
8th	Very rare	18	+10
9th	Legendary	19	+11

Spell scrolls can also serve as fodder for a spell book.

A wizard spell on a spell scroll can be copied just as spells in spellbooks can be copied. When a spell is copied from a spell scroll, the copier must succeed on an Intelligence (Arcana) check with a DC equal to 10 + the spell’s level. If the check succeeds, the spell is successfully copied. Whether the check succeeds or fails, the spell scroll is destroyed.

If you want to read a discussion of whether Spell Scrolls need to actually be scrolls, check here.

What if I just want to know what is on the scroll, just not cast it (yet)?

Since we don’t have Read Magic any more in D&D, how do we know what is on a scroll? That’s actually … a question without a very clear answer.

The Identify spell will do it. But short of that, the answer is, “It depends.”

If the spell scroll is just a recipe for the spell, then the normal rules of (1) reading scrolls and (2) identifying what it does apply:

you need to be able to read
you need to be able to cast the spell in order to read it (i.e., it has to be in your class spell list)
and you need to spend a Short Rest trying to puzzle it out, just like any other magic item.

A beneficent, organized, communicative spellcaster, in forming the scroll, might have put a label on it (“Spell of Fireball” in plaintext). In which case you’d have a pretty big clue as to what it is and does, assuming you could find a beneficent, organized, communicative spellcaster’s works. And that you could actually trust that was what it does.

In theory, you could just cast the spell by reading it for the first time, without actually knowing what it does until the very end. A charitable GM might even let you make some sort of roll (e.g., Intelligence (Arcana) vs 10 + spell level) if, as you realize at the last moment what it does, you wanted to abort casting it. (It would still suck up a turn’s Action, though, as a minimum cost.)

I would also be willing to entertain the idea that, if you simply spend a Short Rest focusing on a scroll, you should be able to get an impression of what it does even if you could not use it and/or read it. A sense of the type of magic (necromantic, evocation), aspects of it (heat, cold, water, steel), colors, a usable class (choirs singing, the smell of damp earth), that sort of thing.

Or maybe not. Since you cannot actually read the scroll without being able to cast it, it sort of plays like “language” (“Crap, this thing is in German. Anyone know German?”) … but it’s definitely not a language. I mean, it’s possible to have a scroll that is usable (intelligible) to a druid and a sorcerer, and second one to a sorcerer and a wizard, and a third to a wizard and a druid, and language simply doesn’t work like that. Instead, it’s as though the words and formulae tie into some sort of internal mindframe, some perception of reality, that is shared within some magic-using classes in some ways, but not non-magic-using classes (except, sorta, Rogues).

So more like, “Crap, this one is giving me a migraine looking at it, someone else want to give it a go?” Which might be the quickest way to deal with spell scrolls when found during an adventure, just having the various magic-users in the party pass each of them around until someone can read it. That is, you can quickly (if maybe painfully) tell if your class can use the spell, though you’ll need to spend that Short Rest to determine what precisely it is.

(Some interesting discussion here about this whole sub-question.)

What about Thieves?

Thieves are (in some cases) a weird exception to the above. At 13th level, Thief Rogues get “Use Magic Device” ability (PHB 97), giving them access to magical devices they would not be able to otherwise access.

By 13th level, you have learned enough about the workings of magic that you can improvise the use of items even when they are not intended for you. You ignore all class, race, and level requirements on the use of Magic Items.

This includes spell scrolls, per the Sage Advice Compendium:

Does the Thief’s Use Magic Device feature allow them to use spell scrolls? Yes. The intent is that a Thief can use spell scrolls with Use Magic Device

The thief would still have to make the ability check to actually cast the spell successfully, with the spellcasting ability = 0 (vs a DC of 10 + spell level), and without any proficiency bonus added in (basically a straight d20). If the spell requires a further spell attack roll, again the spellcasting ability is 0, but proficiency bonus does apply.

Do I have to Concentrate if I use a Spell Scroll to cast a spell that requires Concentration?

Yes. As the basic rules say (emphasis mine):

Some magic items [such as spell scrolls] allow the user to cast a spell from the item. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell level, doesn’t expend any of the user’s spell slots, and requires no components, unless the item’s description says otherwise. The spell uses its normal casting time, range, and duration, and the user of the item must concentrate if the spell requires Concentration. Many items, such as potions, bypass the casting of a spell and confer the spell’s effects, with their usual duration. Certain items make exceptions to these rules, changing the casting time, duration, or other parts of a spell.

So scrolls give you the advantage of no components and no spell slots required. But you still have to concentrate/control the spells they cast.

Does any of this change in 5.5e?

The 5.5e (2024) edition rules do change some of the above.

Scrolls are now cast using the Magic Action in combat (which lets you cast a spell, or use a feature or magic item that requires a Magic action to activate).

The DMG (216) defines magical scrolls (beyond their physical description) as:

The most prevalent scroll is the Spell Scroll, a spell stored in written form. However, some scrolls, like the Scroll of Protection, bear an incantation that isn’t a spell.

Great.

Just like in 5e, when reading the scroll to unleash its power, the scroll itself (or the writing on it) is destroyed. The section concludes (on DMG 217; emphasis mine):

Any creature that can understand a written language can read a scroll and attempt to activate it unless its description says otherwise.

That sounds like the wide-open-reading clause in the 5e DMG. However, if you look up Spell Scroll in the 5.5e PHB under (ch. 6) Equipment > Adventuring Gear, you find …

If the spell is on your class’s spell list, you can read the scroll and cast the scroll using its normal casting time and without providing any Material components. If the spell requires a saving throw or attack roll, the spell save DC is 13, and the attack bonus is +5.

There’s nothing about spell scrolls in the Magic Items section of the PHB (p. 233), but in the Crafting rules right afterwards, it does talk about creating spell scrolls, much more clearly than 5e did.

A table is provided showing the time and cost of doing so (based on the spell level).
The scribe has to have Proficiency in Intelligence (Arcana) or in Calligrapher’s Tools, and must prep the spell each day while they are writing the scroll.
Any material items are consumed when the scroll is completed.
For leveled spells, the Scroll’s spell uses Spell Save DC and Spell Attack Bonus of the scribe. For cantrips, the Scroll’s spell works as though the caster were the scribe’s level.

Spell Scrolls also come up in the Wizard class description [PHB 167], talking about expanding a Wizard’s Spellbook:

You could discover a Wizard spell on a Spell Scroll, for example, and then copy it into your spellbook. […] When you find a level 1+ Wizard spell, you can copy it into your spellbook if it’s of a level you can prepare and if you have time to copy it. For each level of the spell, the transcription takes 2 hours and costs 50 GP. Afterward you can prepare the spell like the other spells in your spellbook.

Unlike in 5e, so far as I can tell, no Arcana roll is needed, nor is the Spell Scroll destroyed by doing so.

Thief and Use Magic Device

For this completely reworked Level 13 subclass feature, it notes (among other things):

You can use any Spell Scroll, using Intelligence as your spellcasting ability for the spell. If the spell is a cantrip or Level 1 spell, you can cast it reliably. If the scroll contains a higher-level spell, you must first succeed on an Intelligence (Arcana) check (DC 10 plus the spell’s level). On a successful check, you cast the spell from the scroll. On a failed check, the scroll disintegrates.