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.

D&D 5e Rules – Spells – Spell Components (and Conspicuous Consumption)!

We are living in a Material world!

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.

Even though it was pretty late in my first big campaign, the cleric’s acquisition of Heroes’ Feast prompted a bit more research on my part about spell components, particularly consumable ones.

I’ve never been a huge fan of spell components because they are, in normal usage, a Pain in the Ass. Like Encumbrance rules, they are only of play value in edge cases. So using Holy Symbols and Arcane Foci and Component Pouches are a useful way around that.

Usually.

Components

There are three basic aspects of spell components.

Verbal (V)

Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren’t the source of the spell’s power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion. Thus, a character who is gagged or in an area of silence, such as one created by the silence spell, can’t cast a spell with a verbal component. (PHB)

Practically speaking, Verbal components only come into play in circumstances when something interferes — Silence spells, the need to be Stealthy, casting underwater, gags, etc. The rest of the time, we ignore them.

Somatic (S)

Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures. (PHB)

Again, at my table we only worry about this for cases where something is getting into the way of that “free hand” thing — being bound or restrained, paralysis, etc. I’m sure there are gaming tables where a sword-and-board-wielding Cleric would have difficulties (and, in fact, the Warcaster feat has a feature to overcome this), but mine is not one of them.

Material (M)

Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell.

If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell. A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell’s material components — or to hold a spellcasting focus — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components. (PHB 203, emphasis mine)

More specifically answered in the Sage Advice Compendium:

Does a spell consume its material components? A spell doesn’t consume its material components unless its description says it does. For example, the pearl required by the Identify spell isn’t consumed, whereas the diamond required by Raise Dead is used up when you cast the spell.

If a spell’s material components are consumed, can a spellcasting focus still be used in place of the consumed component? No. A spellcasting focus can be used in place of a material component only if that component has no cost noted in the spell’s description and if that component isn’t consumed.

Keeping Focus

So here’s the rub. Spell foci / arcane foci do a lot of cool things — no need to collect components — but they do not substitute for priced consumables. There is no gold coin slot in the side of your holy symbol to consume the cost of such spells. The actual component is needed.

Focuses are spelled out here. Note that I tend not to worry about the holy symbol, etc., being something actually manipulated. Rule of Cool fantasy means that the glowing holy symbol engraved on your shield is just fine (as long as a Rust Monster doesn’t consume your shield). But consumables are the edge case.

Consumables

And, in particular, they are the edge case because they restrict “free” use of very powerful and potentially unbalancing spells. Heroes Feast is an example — its effect can be profound and, as such, is not designed for casual, everyday use. “Every day is a Heroes’ Feast day” is not a common D&D trope, for just that reason. Every cleric at 11th Level has a holy symbol focus, and thus without a consumable restriction, Heroes’ Feasts would (with sufficient treasure) be a daily thing for every hero. It’s not.

Here is a fun database someone worked up of expensive components and when they are consumed. Interestingly enough, while there are a number of spells so identified, most of them use individual items — a diamond, e.g., for Raise Dead.

Note that, again, magic doesn’t let you use 500gp instead of a 500gp diamond. And Heroes’ Feast is special in having a “Gem-encrusted specially crafted bowl” worth 1000gp; you can’t just substitute 1000gp of miscellaneous booty.

jewel-encrusted bowl — A gem-encrusted bowl, for example

(Btw, this also explains why, except in powerful bad guy or rich heroic dude lairs, you don’t find Continual Flame on everything — it literally costs a consumed 50gp ruby.)

But that’s no fun!

It does make a few things more fiddly, which, to my mind, is, I agree, not fun. But the spells we are talking about are — well, if not game-breakers, then close to it. Heroes’ Feast is an incredible spell, as I think everyone admits. Its recipients get for the day (aside from “this complete breakfast”):

Cured of all diseases
Cured of all poisoning
Immunity to poison
Immunity to fear
Advantage on all WISdom saves
+2d10 HP and HP Max

On reflection, that simply can’t be party SOP; it’s effectively a level-up, and could be literally dungeon-breaking (“Module 12: The Tomb of the Venomous Lords of Terror!”). Grinding 1000gp a day for that seems a significant expense, but, at at the level the spell is available, still relatively trivial. The cost (aside from burning your daily 6th Level spell) needs to include a resource restriction.

In fact, it’s more than just “a 1000gp gem-encrusted bowl” which, presumably, one might find in a dungeon stash of royal crockery: the spell notes it must be specially crafted for the purpose of this spell.

I might allow someone in the party with the proper jewelry crafting skills to actually create such a bowl from suitable materials (and, no, the average character can’t just glue some gems to a bowl and call it good).

Alternately, in the proper setting, I can imagine such a crafted item being found in a dungeon or ruined castle. King Flamebeard would, when riding with his knights against their foes, partake of a special magical breakfast meal to guard them from harm … and if you search around real carefully, you might find the hidden crockery cupboard where a Heroes Feast-intended bowl or two were stashed away …

Any differences here in 5.5e?

In the latest version of D&D, 5.5e (2024), things are pretty much the same. I would expect any major changes to be in particular spell needs — if you are moving between systems, don’t assume anything!

Focusing just on Material Components here, the definition comes in the PHB (p. 237):

A Material component is a particular material used in a spell’s casting, as specified in parentheses in the Components entry. These materials aren’t consumed by the spell unless the spell’s description states otherwise. The spellcaster must have a hand free to access them, but it can be the same hand used to perform Somatic components, if any.

Okay, that’s pretty much like 5e.

If a spell doesn’t consume its materials and doesn’t specify a cost for them, a spellcaster can use a Component Pouch (see “Equipment”) instead of providing the materials specified in the spell, or the spellcaster can substitute a Spellcasting Focus if the caster has a feature that allows that substitution. To use a Component Pouch, you must have a hand free to reach into it, and to use a Spellcasting Focus, you must hold it unless its description says otherwise (see “Equipment” for descriptions).

Okay a bit more nitpicky in having that free hand stuff (it’s a mini-Somatic inside of the Material Component). At my table, I don’t worry much about that, unless, maybe, the character is bound or paralyzed or something.

Here are links to the 5.5e Arcane Foci and ~~Sacred Foci~~ Holy Symbols.

Special note: The new PHB has a sidebar for creating your own Verbal Components to speak at the table. Which … is a bit too immersive gameplay for me.

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 – 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 Rules – Spells: Spiritual Weapon!

It’s a spirit! It’s a weapon! It’s a dessert topping! It’s … kind of a messy spell that people make bad assumptions about.

Part of an ongoing series of 5e Rules notes.

Since I’ve had players pick this, because it sounds very cool (and it can be), I had to do some digging into some of the aspects of Spiritual Weapon that are not completely obvious.

Spiritual Weapon is weird

No, seriously. But that’s because people see “weapon” and try to (incorrectly) apply all sorts of melee combat weapon rules and assumptions to it. It’s not:

Spiritual Weapon is a multi-round melee attack spell
that looks like a weapon because that’s really cool.

If you just keep that in mind, you can ignore the whole rest of this post.

The Nuts and Bolts

Base spell:

Casting Time: 1 Bonus Action
Range: 60 feet

Spiritual Weapon token

You create a floating, spectral weapon within range that lasts for the Duration or until you cast this spell again. When you cast the spell, you can make a melee spell attack⁠⁠ against a creature within 5 feet of the weapon. On a hit, the target takes force damage equal to 1d8 + your Spellcasting Ability modifier.

As a Bonus Action on your turn⁠, you can move the weapon up to 20 feet and repeat the attack⁠ against a creature within 5 feet of it.

The first confusion comes when wondering whether on Round 1 you simply cast it as your BA, and then need to take a regular Attack action to wield it, or not. The consensus wisdom out there is “or not”: the attack is also part of the Bonus Action (as it is in subsequent rounds), which means the following “what can you do with it when?”:

Round 1: As a Bonus Action: cast up to 60 feet away + attack.

Rounds 2ff: As a Bonus Action: move it up to 20 feet + attack.

And that lasts either until you dispel it or 1 minute (10 rounds).

These Are Not the Weapons You’re Looking For

“But! But!” people sputter, “It’s a weapon attacking! That has to happen during a normal Action as an attack! You can’t have a spell doing a weapon attack and then do a different weapon attack or even a spell-cast, on the same turn!”

Yes. Yes you can. Because what you see isn’t what’s really happening. It’s not actually a weapon, not matter what it says in the name.

Think of the Spiritual Weapon as a deconstructed magical attack spell. Nobody would question the ability to manifest a magical zap spell and attack with it that very same Bonus Action. Which is what you’re actually doing with Spiritual Weapon, but the magical zap spell looks and moves like a weapon, which confuses the heck out of people, because they want to treat it as a glowing animated physical weapon that does physical damage.

But it’s not. It is, quite literally “a floating, spectral weapon” that does “force damage” — and the likelihood of hitting with it has nothing to do with your physical melee abilities (Strength and Dexterity), but your melee spell abilities.

So while you’re doing Spiritual Weapon, what else can you do?

Well, on the round you cast it, that only burns your Bonus Action. So you have your full normal Movement and an Action to work with.

Except, regarding casting multiple spells in a turn, remember …

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 on that initial round when you cast the Spiritual Weapon, you can’t do any other spells except a 1-Action casting time Cantrip. You can still move around, shoot your bow, swing your sword, Hide, etc.

On subsequent rounds, though, you can be casting spells during your normal Action, because the move-and-attack of the Spiritual Weapon is not a casting of a spell. As noted in the Sage Advice Compendium (p. 12)

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.

In that same context, also note that Spiritual Weapon is not a Concentration spell. So even if the caster is attacked or otherwise distracted, that does not affect the spell, and casting the Spiritual Weapon does not interfere with other Concentration spells you already have up. (One could even argue that, should the caster go unconscious, the Spiritual Weapon would simply remain there, floating — it can’t attack without command — until the caster was revived if within the 1 minute spell duration.)

There Are No Stupid Questions About Spiritual Weapon

Well, maybe a few.

Does moving away from a Spiritual Weapon trigger an Opportunity Attack?

No. The Spiritual Weapon is not a creature of itself (it has no volition or reaction). And it only attacks during a Bonus Action: Opportunity Attacks are a Reaction.

Is this a magical weapon I see before me?

No, because it’s not a physical object, thus not actually a weapon.

Again, from the spell text:

Clerics of deities who are associated with a particular weapon (as St. Cuthbert is known for his mace and Thor for his hammer) make this spell’s effect resemble that weapon.

“Effect resemble.” The shape and appearance of the SW is a “spell effect,” not actual substance.

Also, it’s an Evocation spell, one to “manipulate magical energy to produce a desired effect”; it is not a Conjuration which “involve the transportation of objects” or a Transmutation which can “change the properties of a … object.” Again, no object, just effect.

Remember that deconstruction mantra? If this was summoning a magical zap bolt that flitted about the field of combat, it would clearly not be thought of as a magical weapon. That’s basically what Spiritual Weapon is, a spell that resembles an actual weapon because that’s cool.

Can someone hold onto the Spiritual Weapon as it’s moved and essentially fly like Thor?

(People have actually asked this question.)

No. As just noted, the SW is a spectral weapon. It has no substance to grasp or hold onto. It invokes Force damage, but you can’t grab onto that.

Can a person move through the square occupied by a Spiritual Weapon?

Yes. The rules about moving through squares occupied by other creatures only apply to creatures. The Spiritual Weapon is not a creature. It has no substance to block someone, only doing Force damage when it attacks (which, to make it worse, it can’t do during the part of a round when someone would be moving through its square).

Now, that said, a lot of people would be naturally hesitant to do such a thing, even if they knew the spell. So there’s some role-playing involved here, and I’d suggest the average peasant / Kobold / etc. would just sort of naturally avoid running through a square occupied by a mystical floating weapon (or a spectral appearance of same) unless they had no other choice.

For that matter, there’s nothing to stop a person (friend or enemy) from ending or pausing movement in the same square as the weapon, nor from the caster from moving it into an occupied square (again, either by a friend or an enemy). It would not make attacks by the Spiritual Weapon any more likely or powerful, though it might be kind of distracting.

D&D 5e Rules – Skills – Group Checks!

Everyone wants to roll their own Skill check. Sometimes, that’s not the best idea.

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 actually an interesting and (at my table) rarely used game mechanic: dealing with skill checks as a group, rather than as individuals. It not only can save time, but it can get around some of the problematic aspects of Skill checks.

Group Skill Checks

The rock chimney needs to be ascended — not by an individual, but by the whole party.

The goblin encampment needs to be snuck past — not just by the rogue, but by that jingling oaf of a fighter, too.

The suspicious guard is eyeballing everyone who passes — and the whole party has cultist robes, hoping they can slip by.

5e includes a method for groups, as a whole, to make an Ability or Skill check. As laid out in PHB 175:

To make a group Ability Check, everyone in the group makes the Ability Check. If at least half the group succeeds, the whole group succeeds. Otherwise, the group fails.

The idea here is that more experienced or skillful players are helping the less experienced or skillful ones to succeed.

“Put your feet right where I put mine … there you go, that’s it, great!”

“Watch out for that stick there — don’t step in it because it will snap and make a loud nose and ruin our chance to sneak by.”

“I wish you peace, diligent guardian of the temple, as do all my friends, riiiiiight?”

Group checks are useful where all the characters are

doing the same thing,
against
a challenge with a single DC value
and will
succeed or fail as a group.

Some examples:

Does the group get through a swamp without running into quicksand or a similar hazard? Roll as a group on Wisdom (Survival) vs a DC.
Does the group sneak by the observation post without being heard? Roll as a group on Dexterity (Stealth) vs a standard passive Perception value.

This mechanic works less well when there are multiple values in the challenge/opposition, and where an individual can potentially shine.

As well, the mechanic’s applicability is limited. You could use it, in theory, for spotting traps, for example, but it makes a lot more sense that the rogue is looking for traps and that their Perception is what makes or breaks the deal, rather than have them succeed personally, but then have the group fail as a whole because presumably a bunch of people did poorly and distracted the rogue from a trap they should have found.

Helping someone else

This is related, but similar. Note that someone can do a Help action in combat to give a person making the Skill or Ability Check do so with Advantage (if the helper can explain how it is they are helping, of course). That’s how this all functions tactically in a battle.

The Ranger’s background gives her a lockpicking ability to Help with — not as good as the Rogue’s, who’s frantically working with his tools against the lock, while the other party members fend off the guards, but good enough to offer useful advice, hand the correct next pick to the Rogue, and overall give the Rogue an Advantage in trying to get the door open.

In theory, it works that way for other activities. So, under the rules for Working Together:

Sometimes two or more characters team up to attempt a task. The character who’s leading the effort—or the one with the highest Ability Modifier—can make an Ability Check with Advantage, reflecting the help provided by the other characters. In combat, this requires the Help action (see chapter 9).

A character can only provide help if the task is one that he or she could attempt alone. For example, trying to open a lock requires proficiency with thieves’ tools, so a character who lacks that proficiency can’t help another character in that task.

Moreover, a character can help only when two or more individuals working together would actually be productive. Some tasks, such as threading a needle, are no easier with help.

So, for example, when searching the room for something, a pair is actually better off with the best-Perception person doing the search, and someone else assisting them (for Advantage) than both people doing the search roll (because rolling with the highest Skill twice gives you a better chance than rolling once with a high Skill and once with a lower one).

Notes:

So does any of this change under 5.5e?

Not really. The new half-edition, 5.5e (2024) still has the Group Check mechanism, but it’s in the DMG (p. 28), and more examples are given for its use.

One note: the everyone-sneaking-past-the-guard scenario I suggested above is explicitly called out as not a good time to be using this mechanic.

Group checks aren’t appropriate when one character’s failure would spell disaster for the whole group.

So, it notes, one character being noisy would get the guard’s attention, no matter what the sneakier people in the group did.

It also notes that when a single check is sufficient (e.g., finding a hidden compartment with a WISdom (Perception) check; only one person needs to be successful, not everyone.

Other examples given (my titles):

Group Research: Everyone does an INTelligence (Investgation) roll in the library to see if everyone fanning out and skimming through books (once the Wizard has told them what to look for) successfully finds the information being sought.

Mountain Climbing: The group is roped together climbing a dangerous mountain. One person failing a STRength (Athletics) check is okay — they have other team members to brace themselves as the rope draws taut. But if over half the party slips …

The Big Party: Someone in the group insulted a noble as a big to-do, and he’s demanding the whole party gets kicked out. Doing a group CHArisma (Persuasion) check might make more sense than just relying on the Bard.

Helping Someone Else

This is talked about more in the Help article, but not much has changed in 5.5e, except that helping (in or out of combat) requires some sort of applicable Proficiency, not just arguable backstory as to how you are helping.

(By implication, if you are using the Help Action in combat, you must be using a skill or ability or tool/weapon that you have Proficiency in, like, say, a weapon. Just shouting and waving your arms doesn’t do anything to distract if you don’t have Intimidation or Performance or something.)

D&D 5e/5.5e Rules – Skills – Abilities, and Mixing and Matching!

Understanding how Abilities connect to Skills is important. Understanding how you can change that connection is priceless.

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.

5e has a system that interestingly modular, providing for a lot of flexibility, and occasional confusion.

5e has also given terminology a big stir, so sometimes folk (especially those coming from earlier editions, homebrews, or variant systems) get a little mixed up as to what’s being referred to as what. So forgive me if I digress a bit first …

Everything starts with Abilities

Abilities are your five primary statistics (and some people still refer to them as your stats):

STRength, measuring physical power
DEXterity, measuring agility
CONstitution, measuring endurance
INTelligence, measuring reasoning and memory
WISdom, measuring perception and insight
CHArisma, measuring force of personality

Everything you as a character can do stems from or is primarily influenced by these stats. (And, just to start there, I remember back in the good old days when they were a bit more nonsensically ordered STR, INT, WIS, DEX, CON, and CHA — so D&D has shown a bit of rational evolution there.)

Your level as a Player Character in each of these Abilities is from 3-20, though, depending on how you build them at character creation, it’s rare you’ll start off above 18.

(And, yes, I am also old enough to remember when stats capped at 18 — or, rather, went to 18 plus a fraction. Strange days.)

Based on the level of the Ability, you get an Ability Modifier:

Score	Modifier
1	-5
2-3	-4
4-5	-3
6-7	-2
8-9	-1
10-11	+0
12-13	+1
14-15	+2
16-17	+3
18-19	+4
20-21	+5

In many ways, the actual Ability Score is meaningless; it’s the resulting Modifier that ultimately impacts the game mechanics, as modifying D20 die rolls associated with that Ability. Indeed, many character sheets emphasize the Modifier vs the Score (which begs the issue of why, aside from legacy / nostalgia reasons, we still need the Ability Score itself any more … but that’s a change for the next edition).

You could (and some systems can) run quite neatly with just these Abilities dividing up all your capability into six buckets. But since the golden days of D&D, people have wanted a bit more.

Skills!

Those Abilities are a bit broad for the level of tactical and adventuring crunchiness that D&D players consider the sweet spot. So long ago, lists of skills were developed that people could specialize in through some mechanic, influenced primarily by the Ability they are associated with.

So, for example, Sleight of Hand is a very different skill than, say, Acrobatics. Both are clearly associated with the Dexterity (“measuring agility”), but you can easily think of someone who would be mediocre at one but dazzling in the other.

The normal 5e Skill list is alphabetical, but you can also break it out by the Abilities they traditionally align with:

Strength

Athletics

Dexterity

Acrobatics
Sleight of Hand
Stealth

Intelligence

Arcana
History
Investigation
Nature
Religion

Wisdom

Animal Handling
Insight
Medicine
Perception
Survival

Charisma

Deception
Intimidation
Performance
Persuasion

(There are no Skills based on CONstitution.)

The modifier on the D20 roll for any given skill starts with the modifier for the Ability it’s associated with. You can also have special Proficiency in a given skill (usually from your Class, or from a Feat, or even from a Race), which means you add your Proficiency Bonus in.

So with the character in question, when they make an Acrobatics roll, they roll a D20, add in their DEXterity Ability Modify (+1), and then (because it’s checked off as a Proficiency), their Proficiency Bonus (+2) — 1d20+3.

Mixing and Matching Abilities and Skills

You will almost never see a Skill written in official material like this:

Athletics

Instead, it will be written as

Strength (Athletics)

But why? Doesn’t Athletics imply Strength?

Not necessarily.

There are a couple of ways of looking at this. You are actually always rolling these checks on an Ability — this is a STRength check, this is a CONstitution check, this is an INTelligence check, etc. The Skills listed are only to help you narrow down which Ability you are rolling (“Oh, I’m trying Sleight of Hand, so this is going to be a DEX-based roll) or to indicate a specific proficiency in the technical aspects of what is essentially a Sub-ability, a Skill.

swimming — What is the pertinent Ability here?

But sometimes that technical training and experience of a Skill can be applied to different Ability at its base. Let’s say you have been thrown overboard from a ship by pirates, and you need to swim to an island you can barely see in the distance.

Okay, well, clearly, Athletics is going to be the technical Skill set. But what the Ability is is what actually matters. This isn’t a race across the pool where STRength is the deciding factor. This is going to be all about endurance … so you’re going to be using CONstitution as the active Ability.

So, yes, you will be rolling Constitution (Athletics).

To use the character sheet bits above, you’ll make a roll of 1d20 + 3 (CON modifier) + 2 (Proficiency Bonus for Athletics), for a 1d20 + 5.

(Yes, yes, the character in question has the same STRength and CONstitution, which means the die roll is the same in this one particular case, but I hope you see the point.)

So, yeah, sure, STRength normally powers Athletics, and WISdom makes sense with Perception … but it doesn’t have to be that way. The rules treat those as the default. If you can make a cogent argument for it to the DM, you can use any ability to power a skill, such that the skill roll becomes:

1d20 + (the chosen Ability modifier) + (your Skill Proficiency Bonus)

(If you are not using a VTT like Roll20, you’ll have to calculate this manually, but it’s pretty easy.)

This is both good story-tellilng — using the appropriate Ability for a given test — but it’s also something the the Players can use to their advantage (leaning into their stronger Abilities) or the DM can use to mix things up a bit.

Tear phone book in half — Using Strength for Intimidation

As another example, from the PHB, you usually use CHArisma as the basis for your Intimidation rolls — bringing your force of personality to play in beating down their resistance. But if you’re some savagely-strong looking barbarian, maybe you just show your target how you can snap them in half as easily as this thick log waiting to go into the fireplace, with a Strength (Intimidation) roll.

Your intent here is still to intimidate, but rather through word and body language (CHArisma), you’re using force of sinew (STRength). But Intimidation as a skill has its own goals and techniques; if you have proficiency in them, you should be able to use them different ways.

Indeed, I can easily imagine other types of intimidation —

Intelligence (Intimidation): showing off your vast knowledge to cow a sage
Constitution (Intimidation): demonstrating how nonchalant you are standing in a bed of coals to make your torturers quail
Dexterity (Intimidation): plucking flies out of the air to daunt some fellow thieves

Yes, you could argue in that last case what you are really doing is Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) — but it’s not, because your purpose in the scene is not actually to catch flies, but to completely unnerve the person you are engaged with, to break their will and intent: thus Intimidation.

This Reddit thread has some other fun examples. If you’ve got a high CONstitution, you could argue for using it with a variety of non-CON-associated Skills:

Constitution (Deception): You jump into near-freezing water, but want to convince the others to Come on in, it’s fine, no, no, not cold at all, do you see me shivering?
Constitution (Sleight of Hand): You have the duke’s large signet ring hidden in your mouth, but the guards are checking everyone. Can you swallow it without anyone noticing?
Constitution (Animal Handling): Wrangling … that damned … cat … who is very liberal … with use of … teeth and claws …

Not all combinations are easy to think of examples for (Strength (History) … maybe something about how you were the only person back at the monastery strong enough to get Abbot Shang’s Book of Exceedingly Great Dimensions down from the shelf to study from it). But figuring out a way to lean a higher Ability into a Skill roll can give you a real boost … if you can talk the DM into it.

So does 5.5e change any of this?

The new 5.5e (2024) release includes some changes, but they are mostly cosmetic.

Unlike 5e, the default 5.5e character sheet [PHB 34] now lists skills under the abilities they are usually associated with. I think that’s a nice improvement.

In combat, the skills associated with some of the abilities get their own named Action types:

Search – for usually WISdom-based skills
Study – for usually INTelligence-based skills
Influence – for usually CHArisma-based skills (plus WISdom (Animal Handling).)

Mixing and matching Abilities and Skills is still included in the rules, in a sidebar on PHB 14.

Each skill proficiency is associated with an ability check. For example, the Intimidation skill is associated with Charisma. In some situations, the DM might allow you to apply your skill proficiency to a different ability check. For example, if a character tries to intimidate someone through a show of physical strength, the DM might ask for a Strength (Intimidation) check rather than a Charisma (Intimidation) check. That character would make a Strength check and add their Proficiency Bonus if they have Intimidation proficiency.

One thing that strikes me is that, in a lot of areas, 5.5e has pivoted from rolling against Ability (Skill) to just rolling Ability checks, while at the same time really focusing on Proficiency as what reflects greater skills (this was mechanically true in 5e, as well, but not quite as prominently).

It’s also moved from a lot of contests (a character and opponent both roll their skill, the one with the highest final number wins) to checks of Skills and Abilities against a fixed DC. If that seems weird, though, consider that that is exactly what normal combat is (rolling a check of your weapon skill against a fixed AC, rather than a contest where the defending character gets to roll to dodge or deflect the blow).

D&D 5e Rules – Skills – Retrying!

If at first you don’t succeed … can you try, try again?

Part of an ongoing series of 5e Rules notes.

Rolling skills to get something done can be a tense moment. The whole campaign might depend on how well you can sneak, or spot someone sneaking, or open that lock, or disarm that trap.

And, since a D20 provides a linear distribution of results, it’s quite possible to fail that roll.

Then what?

How to Succeed at Skill Rolls while Trying A Whole Bunch

So, what is a Skill (Ability) Check? Well, per PHB 174:

To make an Ability Check, roll a d20 and add the relevant Ability modifier. As with other d20 rolls, apply bonuses and penalties, and compare the total to the DC. If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check is a success — the creature overcomes the challenge at hand. Otherwise, it’s a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the GM..

What happens when you fail a Skill / Ability roll? Can you try again? How many times?

Can you try, try again?

Interestingly enough, there’s no easy answer there. I’ve read DMs assert that they only let a single roll happen; if you fail, that shows it’s just not doable (by you, at least). I’ve read others say you can only retry if the circumstances or your approach explicitly changes.

(I’ve also seen guidance that rolls should only be asked for if the results of failure are significant or interesting. So there’s that, too.)

To my mind, a lot depends on what it is you are trying to do (duh). As much as D&D tries to make all skills identical in their structure and use, they really aren’t. Some skills, in their application or in the circumstances at hand, lend themselves more or less to retries.

“I search the room.” Okay, you blew your Perception roll. Can you search it again, search it harder, search it in a way you didn’t before? Sure. Tell me what you’re doing differently.
“I try to convince the guard to let us pass.” Okay, you blew your Persuasion roll. Can you try again? Well, certainly not the same way or with the same line of argument. I mean, if she didn’t believe the Captain sent you when you said it once, she’s not going to believe it a second time.
“I try to remember my History to see if I know of the dread Egnarts.” If you fail, chances are you’re not going to succeed in “remembering” again, without explaining a very different approach.

In some cases, letting an attempt be retried is just fine. In other cases, retrying at a Disadvantage seems to make sense (“Oh, did I say the Captain? I meant the Duke, my uncle …”).

What does “failure” mean?

We tend to think of “failure” as “What I asked for didn’t happen.”

The lock didn’t pop open.
The guard wasn’t convinced.
The mule refuses to move.

But look at that definition of an Ability Check again, particularly on the “failure” part:

Otherwise, it’s a failure which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective …

Okay, that’s what we usually think of failure like.

… or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM.

Which is very modern “failing forward” game design for something like D&D, and, frankly, is something I never thought of for this system — and it’s something that makes sense, esp. if (a) the DM wants to move things along, and/or (b) you just barely missed your roll.

You hear a couple of tumblers in the lock move, but it doesn’t open; your next attempt will be at Advantage … but that will take more time.
You got the lock open … and the door opens wide, to reveal the room full of guards.
You got the lock open, but broke your favorite lockpick, putting you at Disadvantage in picking locks until you can get it replaced.
The guard grudgingly lets you pass, but sends a runner to check with the Captain, just in case.
The mule moves, but quite intentionally steps on your foot in doing so.

Those are all legitimate things for me as the DM to do (or you as the player to suggest).

Can’t I just “Take 10” or “Take 20”?

So those are D&D 3.5e rules, but 5.0 kinda-sorta has them. Kinda-sorta.

Taking 10 in 3.5e usually just meant “Act like I rolled a 10” so as to avoid the chance of a low roll (when a high roll wouldn’t really be needed).

This is mathematically the equivalent of using a Passive Skill in 5e. Which seems a little weird (“I’m searching the room … passively”).

Taking 20 was the interesting one in 3.5e:

When you have plenty of time (generally 2 minutes for a skill that can normally be checked in 1 round, one full-round action, or one standard action), you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20. In other words, eventually you will get a 20 on 1d20 if you roll enough times. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20.

Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes twenty times as long as making a single check would take.

Since taking 20 assumes that the character will fail many times before succeeding, if you did attempt to take 20 on a skill that carries penalties for failure, your character would automatically incur those penalties before he or she could complete the task. Common “take 20” skills include Escape Artist, Open Lock, and Search.

5e doesn’t have this … precisely. But on DMG 237, “Multiple Ability Checks,” there’s a “Take 20”-like mechanism:

Sometimes a character fails an ability check and wants to try again. In some cases, a character is free to do so; the only real cost is the time it takes. With enough attempts and enough time, a character should eventually succeed at the task. To speed things up, assume that a character spending ten times the normal amount of time needed to complete a task automatically succeeds at that task. However, no amount of repeating the check allows a character to turn an impossible task into a successful one.

So in cases where failure doesn’t incur a penalty (except burning time), you can spend ten times the normal amount of time (ask your DM for a SWAG) and just assume a success if the task is possible (which I read to mean, if rolling a 20 on the skill would allow it to succeed). This is a bit looser and more cinematic than 3.5’s rule, but there you go.

It does mean that, if the party is willing to take the time, the DM can dispense with Perception rolls in each room and just say, “After about an hour, you find the hidden compartment under the book case. And, no, that doesn’t count as a Short Rest.”

Is that a good thing? That’s up to you to decide.

Is there any change or clarification in 5.5e?

A bit. The intent is still there, it’s just made a little looser.

On DMG 28, “Trying Again”

Sometimes a character fails an Ability check and wants to try again. In many cases, failing an Ability check makes it impossible to attempt the same thing again. For some tasks, however, the only consequence of failure is the time it takes to attempt the task again. For example, failing a Dexterity check to pick a lock on a treasure chest doesn’t mean the character can’t try again, but each attempt might take a minute.

If failure has no consequences and a character can try and try again, you can skip the Ability check and just tell the player how long the task takes. Alternatively, you can call for a single Ability check and use the result to determine how long it takes for the character to complete the task.

The language is similar; the biggest difference (besides leaning on how it might not work) is that in 5e you could just assume “ten times the normal amount of time” would succeed, and in 5.5e, the DM gets to make the duration up.

D&D 5e Rules – Size!

Size matters! Though … maybe not as much as it once did.

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.

If we all remember the Golden Rule of D&D Rules — This Is Not A Physics Simulator — then the weirdities of how 5e runs “Size” will … be a little less weird.

Let’s Start with a Table!

Size	Space	Example	HD
Tiny	2.5 x 2.5 feet (4/sq)	Imp, Sprite	d4
Small	5 x 5 feet (1 sq)	Giant Rat, Goblin, Halfling, Gnome	d6
Medium	5 x 5 feet (1 sq)	Orc, Werewolf, Human, Elf, Dwarf, Dragonborn	d8
Large	10 x 10 feet (2×2 sq)	Hippogriff, Ogre	d10
Huge	15 x 15 feet (3×3 sq)	Fire Giant, Treant	d12
Gargantuan	20 x 20 feet (4×4 sq) or larger	Kraken, Purple Worm	d20

So that shows all the size categories, the space they take up on a (square) battle map grid, and some examples … as well as what, in general, their Hit Dice look like.

Most Player Characters are Medium in size — though some races drop down to Small, and a couple of outliers are Large.

How About Some Pictures?

Yes, that’s straight out of the book, but it is so pretty. I will take it down if Hasbro asks me to.

Size and Space

The space described in the table above is that personally controlled by the creature. A human is not actually 5×5 feet, but effectively occupies that space, and rules on passing into or through space apply to all squares so controlled.

You can pass through an enemy creature’s occupied space (ducking past them, under their legs, etc.) if you are 2+ sizes smaller than them. Note that it’s still considered Difficult terrain (double cost), and if you continue on past their reach they will get an Opportunity Attack. So Halflings can duck past an Ogre this way, while Humans could dodge around a Fire Giant’s legs.

Note also that some creatures (typically those larger than Medium) may have physical melee attack reach of more than the normal five feet.

Surrounded!

Spaces taken by creatures cannot overlap. That means, for example, if you as a Medium humanoid are surrounded by enemies, how many enemies that is depends on their size. You could be surrounded by eight Medium enemies, but only four Large enemies could surround you. Similarly while you and your Medium friends could surround a Medium Orc with only eight of you, that Large Ogre would need to be surrounded by twelve Medium opponents.

Grappling and Shoving

You only grapple something no more than 1 size larger than you. When grappling, your speed is halved unless the grappled creature is 2+ sizes smaller than you.

Thus, as a Medium Human, you could grapple an Ogre, but not a Treant. Similarly, an Ogre could grapple a Halfling and move off with them at full speed.

You can also only try to Shove something no more than 1 size larger than you.

Getting Small

A creature can squeeze into a space one size category smaller. So a Large creature could squeeze through a 5 ft square opening or 5 ft wide corridor.

When doing so, it counts as Difficult terrain (double movement cost), and the squeezing-through creature has Disadvantage for attacks and Dex saving throws, and attackers have Advantage on attacking them.

What Else Does Size Do?

Not a whole heck of a lot. In 3.5e, small creatures got an AC boost, larger creatures an AC deficit, but this no longer exists in 5e.

Size does have an impact on the Encumbrance load that can be carried, but I try to avoid Encumbrance rules.

How about with 5.5e?

Not a lot of differences here. The lovely size comparison drawings are lost, alas, though the table of what sizes mean still remains.

Movement

There is a note that “A creature’s space is the area that it effectively controls in combat and the area it needs to fight effectively,” which is useful clarification.

Cover

The squares with the diagrams are also missing on 5.5e (which seems to not like visual rules). Instead, we have a table to define it:

Half – Offered by another creature or an object that covers at least half of the target.
Three-Quarters – Offered by an object that covers at least three-quarters of the target.

One could argue that’s the same as obscuring 1-2 (half) of the square corners of the target, or 3 (three-quarters_ of the corners, but it’s still a bit loosey-goosier. (I will probably continue to use the corners picture).

Grappling and shoving

Grappling remains only possible if the target is no more than one size larger than the grappler. The same is true for Shoving.

Getting Small

While moving through a space “sized for a creature one size smaller than you” remains Difficult Terrain, there is no mention made of combat Advantage or Disadvantage around it. This might be because the rule was moved into the Glossary for “Difficult Terrain,” but it seems an odd change. It might be implied by Size language around the space needed to combat effectively.

D&D 5e/5.5e Rules – Rolls, High and Low!

Yay! I rolled a 20! That means I win everything, right? Right?

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 another thing that can engender confusion until it gets spelled out plainly, especially since it’s about something that has changed over various D&D editions, varies with other D20-based games, and has been house-ruled for eons.

What happens when you roll a natural (that’s the face showing on the die) 20 on a d20? What happens when you roll a natural 1?

When is a die roll a different die roll?

There are, in 5e, three types of d20 rolls:

Attack rolls — rolls you make to successfully hit with an attack (against a given Armor Class (AC)).
Ability Checks — rolls you make to check against an ability or skill to see if you succeed in your attempt (against a given Difficulty Class (DC)).
Saving Throws — rolls you make to avoid or minimize the effect of a spell or other environmental hazard (against a given DC).

These are all done with a d20, but, despite that, each is treated independently in the rules.

For example, the Rogue’s Reliable Talent class ability (PHB 96) says “Whenever you make an ability check that lets you add your proficiency bonus, you can treat a d20 roll of 9 or lower as a 10.” That applies only to Ability Checks, not Saves or Attacks.

When is a crit not a crit?

This has a more global aspect. On Attacks (only!),

a naturally rolled 20 is always a hit (and a critical hit, at that), regardless of modifiers or the target’s Armor Class.
a naturally rolled 1 is always a miss, regardless of modifiers or the target’s Armor Class. (5e does not have a “fumble” rule.)

This auto-hit or auto-miss rule, though, does not apply to Saves or Ability Checks. For example, a natural 20 on a Saving Throw does not guarantee success. In fact, it just means that you have met or beat any DC of 20 or below. If the DC is 25, it doesn’t, Rules-As-Written, mean a thing other than you did not save.

That said …

Most DMs will do something to recognize a natural 20 (especially if it’s called to their attention), and sometimes a natural 1 as well, on a Save or Ability Check, even if the RAW doesn’t call for it.

This might be as simple as something narrated, calling out (without game effect) the natural beauty of the thing you did that you rolled a nat 20 on … or the gob-smacking ineptitude of the thing you did that you rolled a nat 1 on.

You dive for cover from the dragon’s breath, but mis-judge and fly through its center instead. You take [the standard] damage, but you can hear the dragon actually laughing at you.

Sometimes they may even given you a partial success for that nat 20.

You don’t manage a clean landing — but you’re on your feet, even if you’re going to be at half-speed next round.

Your valiant effort doesn’t succeed, but it came closer than you thought it would — take an Inspiration.

But don’t count on that, unless the DM is house-ruling something of that sort as a normal case.

What about in 5.5e (2024)?

Not a lot has changed in 5.5e, besides some nomenclature.

Ability checks, attack rolls, or saving throws, all of which involve rolling a D20, are now called “D20 Tests.” Certain spells and circumstances are called out in the rules for affecting D20 Tests, and thus they affect those three different types of rolls.

That said, crits still only happen with a nat 20 on an attack roll, and a nat 1 on an attack roll is still always a miss. Rolling a nat 1 or nat 20, as with 5e, has no rules-based effect if you are rolling for ability checks or saves.

Roll20 – Area of Effect templates

A home-made game aid for Roll20 that makes life (for me, at least) a lot easier.

For my Princes of the Apocalypse game (which we ran on Roll20 with a standard 5-foot grid), I built some Roll20 AoE templates for spells, to make it easier to see and use the AoE and to provide a longer lasting way to show a still-active area spell.

So why is this needed?

There are ways to show the area of a spell. At a minimum, you can draw something on the screen — but that gets messy and not always easily movable. It’s also hard to draw some shapes, like cones.

Also, even if you draw something with the circle tool, you have two problems — precisely knowing the center point to anchor it on, and, more importantly, clarity on what squares are affected by the spell or not. Yes, you can interpolate (“I think that’s less than half the square”), but that’s just argument fodder.

Roll20 and various adjuncts to it provide area tools for AoEs (Roll20’s native tools have improved dramatically of late), but they still have a couple of problems. First, again, they are actual geometric figures (e.g., circles), so interpolation is still needed. Second, they are non-persistent — you can set them to Linger, but a player can only have one up at a time (I’m not sure if two players can have theirs up simultaneously); you can maybe eke by for that initial Fireball, but if you have a Spike Growth that stays up for a long time, you’re back to drawing a circle on the map.

What I wanted was a way that players could express a proper spell area (cones, squares, circles, even rectangles) in full squares, that they could move as needed for placement, and that would let me (as the DM) resolve the effects on those within the area, whatever the shape, and that could be left on the map for non-instant duration spells.

The answer: AoE templates.

Now coming to a marketplace near you

You can buy spell templates in the Roll20 marketplace. In fact, I did.

Unfortunately, the ones I bought turned out to be one or more of:

Obtrusive (covering up too much of the underlying terrain).
Ugly (a judgment call on my part, to be sure)
Wrong (there are different ways of calculating a 15-foot or 20-foot radius circle on a grid, partly based on whether you are centering on a square middle or on a square corner. Who knew?) (And D&D 5e renders cones differently from other editions or systems.

I wanted something that would be:

Largely transparent — clear enough to be visible, but not blocking the map people were on.
Reasonably attractive
Correct, based on my reading of how (especially) cones and circles/spheres work, including anchoring on a grid vertex (corner), not (except in rare, specified occurrences) on the centers of grid squares.

So, after a couple of failed tries, I decided to roll my own.

Rolling my own

I used a drawing program I have to basically build up a sample AoE as a drawing, trimmed to the edges, with transparency on anything outside of the borders. There would be a grid within the AoE, with solid borders along the grid, and the squares inside tinted but mostly transparent, with a slightly thicker border around the edges to make its boundary clear. I sized it to fit a 70 pixel cell grid.

For a given shape (a 20-foot radius circle, for example), I usually started with something gray. I could then use the color select / color dump functions to remake it into different colors based on the type of spell — orange for a Fireball, green for a Spike Growth, etc.

Once I had a drawing how I wanted it, I uploaded it to my Art Library in Roll20. Then I created an NPC character named, for example, “Fireball (20r)”. I assigned the drawing to it as its image and as its token.

I dragged out a token, sized it to the grid properly, made it into a drawing, and then reassigned that as the token. Lastly, I assigned that character to be seen and controlled by the mage who could throw fireballs.

AoE 20ft radius orange — 20-foot radius orange circle

Now when that mage wants to throw a fireball, they can see in an “AoE” folder in their Journal “Fireball (20r)”. They can then drag that out onto the map, move it to where they want their fireball to off, and say, “Hey, DM, your orcs are on fire.” I can easily see the orcs in question, push the fireball token to the “bottom” of the token layer (something which Roll20 does not allow players to do, for some reason) so that I can click on each of those orcs, and start rolling saves …

And, once the excitement is over, I or the mage can easily delete the AoE. Or, if it were a more persistent spell, leave it there for people to see.

Embellishments and Edge Cases

Moonbeam (5' radius) AoE token — Moonbeam (5 foot radius) AoE token

For some spells, I felt the need to decorate. So, for example, my Moonbeam template has a little Crescent moon in it. And, yes, I did it as a circle, rather than filling up the squares, largely because it’s a small template, and there’s no question which four squares are encompassed by it.

Similarly, for the Dust Devil’s radius of effect, I included a little Dust Devil icon in the center.

AoE 10ft radius Dust Devil — Dust Devil (10ft radius) AoE token

The biggest hassle are cones, both because of 5e’s rules, and because the vary in shape depending on the direction they are cast. Which left me, for example, with these two templates for a 15 foot cone.

Yes, this is all about the confusion of trying to fit a cone cross-section onto a square grid.

Both of these can be rotated, by the player or DM, in increments of 90 degrees and still line up

The orthogonal one includes a bunch of question marks because of 5e’s cone rules. The basic rule there is that the cone is as wide at a given point as it is long. That means at ten feet away, it’s ten feet wide, etc. But you have to then ask “is that ten feet leaning to the left or to the right?” because, for symmetry, at ten feet away orthogonally, it’s actually a potential range across fifteen feet. So for the diagonals, the player has to say “This cone includes the questionable squares on the left, not on the right” or vice-versa. The alternative is to have two orthogonal templates, and that would be kinda crazy.

The diagonal one doesn’t suffer from that, though it does dredge up the concerns about how diagonals are counted distance-wise on a grid in D&D. In 5e, the basic rule is that a diagonal is as long as an orthogonal — vertical or horizontal — distance, which is nonsense, but quite easy to work with, and the rule we use at my table. Other folk use the older 3.x rule (given as an option in the DMG) that the first diagonal is five feet, the second is ten feet, then five, then ten; under that rule, my diagonal template would need to be changed.

Lastly, cones don’t need to be shot as a straight orthogonal or diagonal — they can be further canted. Fine, whatevs. Since I don’t want to force the players to pick from dozens of templates, they can just rotate one of these partially and we’ll interpolate. The “it’s as wide as it is long” rule makes that a bit easier.

In conclusion

Anyway, this works for my virtual table, and it’s pretty easily extensible as people level up and get new AoE spells of different shades and shapes.

I’ve made a bunch of the ones I crafted early days available here, for you to copy, recolor, and have fun with. Some of them are a bit rough, but that’s what you get for free, and, honestly, the roughness is very rarely visible one the Roll20 desktop.

D&D 5e/5.5e Rules – Ranged Attacks and Relative Height!

Combat is not always on the same level, no matter how two-dimensional the map looks.

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 discussion has very little Rules-as-Written (RAW) basis; RAW really don’t address this.

This actually doesn’t come up very often, unless you have flying characters (insert cat hissing here). But sooner or later, at the very least you will encounter flying enemies — or else you’ll have people shooting down (or up) at you from a ledge in a big chamber, or things like that.

And inevitably the question will be asked: “How far away are you?”

D&D 5e has, as a design goal, relative simplicity, at least from older editions. It’s very easy to add a lot of complexity over a relatively niche cases, but this really does feel like something that we should be able to come up with a way to approach it. It strains (my) suspension of disbelief to ignore altitude differences, and it’s just the sort of thing that players will raise at the moment it becomes contentious that you probably don’t want to improv.

So let’s consider a couple of home-brew approaches, since the question of how to deal with it is, again, not addressed in RAW that I’ve been able to find.

How far away are you?

Let’s assume you are:

shooting at something that is
A feet away from you horizontally, and
B feet above you (or below you) vertically.

For range purposes, what is the actual distance C you are firing/throwing?

1. Pythagoras

Huzzah for ancient Greek geometers! The actual distance C is the square root of (A² + B²).

This is geometrically accurate, but also requires a pocket calculator (or an online right angle calculator).

2. Diagonals

This is actually a pretty clever workaround: C = (A + (B/2)).

This “works” from extending the grid system and using the DMG 252 optional rules for diagonal movement (treat the first diagonal as 5 feet, the second as 10 feet, etc.).

In my games, we don’t use that style of movement because it’s a PitA and the basic grid rules on PHB 192 are fine enough — but for these purposes it makes for an easy head calculation.

But there’s a problem here we’re not talking about (yet)

This is all cool if you are just shooting lasers (or firing spells) — weapons that ignore gravity.

But a lot of these use cases are for when you twang with your bow, or throw something (often pointy).

Gravity is your enemy if you are twanging/throwing upward. It’s your friend, to a degree, when twanging/throwing downward.

Amusing memes aside, the high ground does carry an advantage. But beyond that, aiming at things above you (or below you) isn’t something that most people train on.

So that brings us another suggestion:

3. Simple Math

If you are twanging/throwing at something higher than you, the effective distance C is (A + B).

If you are twanging/throwing at something lower than you, the effective distance C is the greater of A or B.

This takes into account that gravity is a bitch (harder uphill ranges), while keeping things easy and rewarding the high ground.

4. Just fudge something

We’ve focused on figuring out range. A lot of tables just ignore that aspect, count the horizontal squares/hexes/distance (to see how it fits into the weapon range factors), and then apply a modifier to the attack based on high ground or low ground. In 3.5e, height advantage provided a +1. Some tables, in 5e, just apply Advantage for being higher, or Disadvantage for being lower (a rather extreme plus/minus, but 5e is about simplicity).

That’s a bit of a fudge that gives some feel and is easy to do, but it strikes me as a little too simple.

Let’s Test It

Target	1. Pythagoras	2. Diagonals	3. Simple Math
100 ft away, 30 ft up	104	115	130
30 ft away, 100 ft up	104	115	130
100 ft away, 80 ft up	128	140	180
100 ft away, 100 ft down	141	150	100

Which is “best”? Whichever one is easiest and feels right. My house rule inclination is to go with Option 3 for everything, or, if you are feeling a bit more adventuresome, use Option 3 for thrown/twanged attacks, Option 2 for magic attacks.

Note that this affects the Bad Guys as much as it does you.

How about 5.5e?

The 5.5e (2024) rules really don’t change any of this. You can find plenty of discussion about house rules for this through your favorite search engine.

Princes of the Apocalypse, Session 10: “River of Danger”

Wherein the players, having infiltrated Rivergard Keep, decide to make an action-adventure escape movie.

This is part of a series about my DMing Princes of the Apocalypse, a D&D 5e adventure by and copyright Wizards of the Coast.

Table of Contents. The Party.

There will be SPOILERS. If you are playing in a PotA game, please don’t read this. If you are DMing a PotA game, or are a DM who wants to see what the ride was like … read on!

GM Recap

Session 10 (Day 17)

The party asked Jolliver Grimjaw of Rivergard Keep for transportation up the river so they could (cough) travel to Beliard, offering lots of gold. Jolliver, who said his castle protected the river traffic from bandits, pirates, and monsters, opined that for lots of gold, they might get to take his patrol boat upriver when it returned in a few days.
Ensconced in the barracks, having been warned to keep their noses clean, Faith, Nala, and Theren promptly started a fight in the chapel (which was decorated with the cryptic Symbol at Rivergard Keep) with Drosnin the priestess and her two assistants. The trio ducked out under magical fog, and, after rejoining with Moony and William, everyone decided to get out of Rivergard … by stealing a boat, shattering the harbor chain, making a great wind, enduring withering crowsbow and javelin fire, absorbing many magic missiles, and watching Moony on the verge of death five times.
They drifted down the river, on their small stolen boat, recovering hit points, and trying to figure out how they’d back north, past Rivergard Keep, to the mysterious Sacred Stone Monastery. …

Player Recap

“Who the devil are you?”

Jolliver Grimjaw, seated in a large chair in front of table littered with used plates and papers. Theren tries to convince him to take us North on the river. He is hesitant to trust us. Theren tells how Moony has experience as a sailor and the rest can help protect the ship and general grunt work. Won’t have a ship leaving for a couple of days. Keep your noses clean until then and we will see.

Holger brings the group to the barracks, boots a couple of men out of the first two bunk and leaves the group with the disgruntled arms men. William tries to make amends and gives the Reaver who was displaced some silver and tell him to have a beer on us. He accepts with a little less coldness in his voice. Moony pulls out his bedroll and curls up to nap. One of the armsmen looks at him in disbelief, “What the hell are you?” Moony just fixes him with a cat-like stare. William stays with Moony, while the others head to the chapel with Faith.

As they approach the chapel, they hear a voice saying “…and that is why what has been imparted is so important…” As Faith enters, the voice says, “Hello, is anyone there? Come in.” The altar is blank but there is a symbol of an X with a bar at the bottom.

Drosnin the priestess demands that they respect her authority and not disrupt her service. When Faith approaches the altar and drops to pray, Drosnin tells her to return to the pews and instructs the guards to keep her in-line. Faith sits and continues her prayers and pays no attention to the priestess. Drosnin is not amused and commands the Reavers to “discipline” Faith. The Reavers approach. Nala places herself between one Reaver and Faith and says, “You really have no cause to interfere” He says “I’ve been given orders, that is all the cause I need,” but he does not approach further.

The second Reaver places his hand on Faith’s shoulder to grapple her. A booming thunder strikes the Reaver. Faith resists the grapple and jerks away. Theren releases the fire bolt he had held. At the same time Drosnin, attacks Faith, who resists. Next she raises her hands gesturing at Theren and a shard of ice flies at him. His shield spell deflects the shard, but it explodes and damages everyone in range. The group decides that it is time to leave. Faith casts fog as the party leaves heading towards the barracks.

When Theren arrives at the barracks, the party quickly packs their belongings and heads for the docks. Shouts meet them and armsmen race to intercept. A battle ensues on the docks and boat, as the group attacks the heavy chain blocking the channel out of the port. Faith shatters the chain as Moony and Nala race for the boat. The mercenaries and Reaver attack from the parapets with crossbows, as more race to join the fray. William creates a square of thorns and vines to slow the advancing attackers. Nala is last to board and Faith uses a giant gust of wind to push the boat off. Captain Moony gets the ship moving and the group is supporting by rowing and keeping the attackers at bay.

William attacks one of the mercs with a whip and pulls them off of the parapet and into the water. Theren throws spells at an amazing rate, disabling the Reaver trying to catch the boat. Moony and Theren at the back of the boat are taking the brunt of the attacks. Faith heals Theren and continues to use the wind to push the boat farther into the river. Moony falls to a barrage of Magic Missiles from Drosnin. Suddenly a surprised William starts glowing brightly. There are stars at his joints in the shape of a chalice. He reaches for Moony and heals him. Then Theren is also healed.

A water serpent appears and tries to encoil Nala. She dodges and attacks with her sword. It is a mighty blow, but does not damage the serpent greatly. Theren attackes the sea serpent. The Bugbears reach at the end of the parapet and start to pepper the boat with arrows. (Bugbears? Where did they come from?) Moony goes down again. The ship continues into the river being pulled by the currents. Many attacks and heals later, the boat moves out of range down stream.

Game Notes

Hilarity ensues.

So the Campaign as Written (CAW) for Rivergard Keep suggests the players infiltrate, learn stuff, and then start carefully, methodically, killing bad guys.

Instead, the party infiltrated, then punched bad guys, then fled ahead of all the bad guys coming after them.

Sigh.

That said, in a role-playing game, people are going to play their roles in ways that don’t necessarily chart the most optimal course to success. So Faith is going to insist on going to the chapel (even when it’s suggested they stay put), and is going to act rudely to the rite and instruction going on there, and is going to punch the high priestess in the snoot.

Then the whole party is going to have to flee, like Indy away from the natives he was trying to steal the gold idol from. Because that’s just what the CAW planned for (rolls eyes).

Indy and the Hovitos — It really did have this vibe.

I ran the flight from the barracks down to the boat as legit as I could, as the different internal castle defenses came into play. Mages. Bugbears. Water Serpents. Lots of mooks. Things got dicey at times (the unarmored Tabaxi who happens to be the only one with sailing experience, manning the tiller at the end of the boat, is going to be a natural target, every time he gets brought back from the near-dead), but they managed to, somehow, escape.

And there I was, back at the same conundrum as after Feathergale Spire. The group had hardly defeated Rivergard Keep, but were maintaining a steady course for Sacred Stone Monastery. Rivergard Keep’s fall was a milestone for 5th Level. What to do?

I decided, this time, to not award the milestone. At least, not yet.

Bits and Bobs

The chapel clearly had the Water Cult (Crushing Wave) sigil painted on the wall. A clue! A clue!

Again, it’s easy enough to blame the player for having their character act so fractiously. But Faith was a contradiction in terms as a character — simultaneously a naif and someone who would jump off a cliff if you told her you didn’t want to. Running into an imperious Cult “Priestess” (the players noted that the spells Drosnin was casting were magical, not clerical, generally true for all the ostensible worshippers of the Princes) was just the sort of thing that would set her off, aided and abetted by the Sorcerer who’d just as soon blow everything up as not. The brief attempt at diplomacy from the Dragonborn fighter simply wasn’t (yet) up to the task.

Not surprisingly, I had no idea this would happen (the CAW didn’t, either). Thus, I had no plans for how the small boat worked that they took, and as we were playing, I (and players) were frantically looking up how small watercraft work. Yeah, team!

(I didn’t even actually have a boat figure to use, because nobody is expected to be fleeing from the Keep on a boat. There’s a boat embedded on the map, but you can’t actually move it. I think I eventually created in Roll20 a rectangle 10×15 and sat the players down in that and moved it around on the map as they escaped. After the game, I crafted a boat for them next episode to use as they were on the river, which they promptly abandoned. Sigh.)

The party’s ability to zap the chain blocking the harbor exit was genius on their part. Using Gust of Wind to propel the craft was also pretty clever.

There was a small ship in the inner harbor of the Keep, owned and operated and occupied (below deck) by Shoalar Quanderil, a very interesting Genasi pirate. All sorts of fun stuff happens if the players attack the boat.

But, since nobody attacked his ship, or offered to pay him for going after the escapees, he remained below deck. He would be planned for a reappearance multiple times in the future, though only managing once on stage for quite some time.

Water Serpent token (in lieu of a token that has the text “WATER SERPENT”)

The water serpent (a transmogrified Raesh the Fathomer) was the first “magic weapons only” critter they’d run into. It would not be the last.

Jolliver didn’t do his own personal magical thing, largely because he had an entire castle of mooks and followers running off to do it for him.

Rivergard Keep SE — Shoalar’s (big) boat. The party’s escape (little) boat.

The Keep map is actually pretty cool, and the keep’s defenses (including the Bugbears, which kind of provoked a “Whoa, these guys really are the bad guys, not just reacting to Faith’s attacking them” reaction) were actually pretty spiffy. They took arrow fire, and magic fire, from different locations, and barely managed to make it out (pumping as many healing spells into Moony as they had available). I’ve seen the map for Rivergard Keep repurposed into other campaigns, and it’s definitely suitable for that, even if the main building gets a little difficult (in its open balconies) to manage.

That said, I did end up writing notes to myself all over the map to note things like “this is where the Portcullis is controlled from” or “Guards here respond to battle in K19, K21.”

Prototype Crushing Wave Cultists, also the basis for all their art assets.

Add this place to all the others where the generic cultist fighters (Reavers) were drawn up using artwork that in the actual books is labeled as “prototype” or experimental or “We played with the idea of doing crazy shit like this, but eventually decided against it.” I.e., the Roll20 art elements were pretty darned sketchy.

Similarly, Jolliver. He is (SPOILER!) a wereboar (not for any particular story-related reasons). His token has three alternates: full wereboar, transitional wereboar … and a token that has the text “Jolliver Grimjaw” written on it. (Mutter mutter.) So I had to craft a token to look like him in his human form, which I was happy to do, but don’t feel like, for the price of all this stuff, I should have had to.

For much of the campaign I made up titles for each session. Eventually I decided just to use the dungeon name, part X. But I was still doing the titles here, and, in keeping with that Quinn Martin motif, I could just hear the announcer intoning, “Tonight’s episode … River of Danger!”

So there’s two of the Haunted Keeps encountered and left behind, relatively intact. But the fate of Feathergale Spire and Rivergard Keep would be quite different, as the story was improvised forward by me. And while I’d had much, much less chance to do more human interaction with the water cultists at Rivergard than with the air cultists at Feathergale, there would eventually be some connections made that would last through the game.

<< Session 9 | Session 11 >>