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/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/5.5e Rules – Spells: Spirit Guardians!

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

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

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

So what does it do?

The spell says:

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

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

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

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

So when does it actually do damage?

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

The trigger is the potential target either

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

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

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

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

What about Line of Sight?

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

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

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

Any changes here in 5.5e?

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

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

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

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

So some changes here:

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

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

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

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

D&D 5e/5.5e Rules – Spells: Moonbeam!

A pale-glowing cylinder of DOOM!

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

In my most recent campaign, the Druid’s Moonbeam was colloquially known (well, at least by me) as the Orbital Death Laser of Doom.

It’s really not an exaggeration.

Let’s talk about Moonbeam

This is another one that has had some revising done on it since the original 5e release — so if you’re looking up material about it, make sure it’s referring to the “same” spell.

Here’s the official description for this Level 2 spell.

A silvery beam of pale light shines down in a 5-foot-radius, 40-foot-high Cylinder centered on a point within range [120 feet]. Until the spell ends, dim light fills the cylinder.

When a creature enters the spell’s area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, it is engulfed in ghostly flames that cause searing pain, and it must make a Constitution Saving Throw. It takes 2d10 radiant damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.

A Shapechanger makes its Saving Throw with Disadvantage. If it fails, it also instantly reverts to its original form and can’t assume a different form until it leaves the spell’s light.

On each of your turns after you cast this spell, you can use an action to move the beam up to 60 feet in any direction.

Moonbeam, like Lightning …

This one has some similarities to Call Lightning, but some significant differences.

Moonbeam (5' radius) AoE token — Moonbeam (5′ radius) AoE token for grid combat.

Like CL, the effect is a 5-foot radius centered on a grid intersection (i.e., 4 squares). The cylinder involved is 40 feet high, but there’s no verbiage (as in CL) to indicate that if you are not in a 40-foot tall room, you can’t cast it; the height seems primarily oriented toward cases of dealing with flying creatures.

While CL allows the target radius to be moved anywhere under the cloud on the caster’s turn, Moonbeam‘s cylinder can be moved by the caster (as an Action) in any direction 60 feet, as long as it remains within the 120 foot range from the caster on that turn. So while someone can run out from under CL‘s cloud (which is immobile), the Moonbeam caster could run after someone who was trying to get outside of that 120 range and move the beam on top of them again.

Moonbeam and damage

This is a little more difficult to glean from the spell description, and had to be more fully explained in an official Sage Advice Compendium. Damage is done to victims within the radius on their turn, not on the spell-caster’s turn, i.e.:

When a target begins their turn inside the cylinder.
When a target enters the cylinder during their turn (if they did not already start there).

But targets do not take damage when:

The cylinder is cast or moved onto the area where a target is standing.
The spell is moved across a target on its way to a different location.

Looked at another way, you’d generally see Moonbeam’s use as such:

The caster drops the Moonbeam on an opponent. The opponent takes no damage at that time.
The opponent’s next turn begins … and they take their 2d10 radiant damage (or Save). They presumably move away …
The caster’s next turn starts — and they move the Moonbeam atop the same target. Who doesn’t take damage right then, but …

Laser, move, repeat.

Note that targets can be involuntarily moved into the cylinder by some effect (a shove, a Thunderous Blast), and this does actually count as “enters the spell’s area for the first time on a turn.”.

Entering such an area of effect needn’t be voluntary, unless a spell says otherwise.

This same arrangement holds true for a number of other AoE hazards, e.g., Blade Barrier. If it moves onto you, you don’t take immediate damage. If you move into it (even against your will), you do. And, in such a case, you’ll end up taking damage twice — when shoved in, and then at the beginning of your turn.

Note that this, too, is a Concentration spell. Between that and having to use your Action to move the Moonbeam, use of this spell is pretty much a full-time job. But the orbital death laser’s damage potential, especially against mooks, or round-over-round against bigger targets, makes all that worth it.

Any changes in 5.5e?

This spell has some significant differences in 5.5e (2024), though in principle it is much the same.

A silvery beam of pale light shines down in a 5-foot-radius, 40-foot-high Cylinder centered on a point within range. Until the spell ends, Dim Light fills the Cylinder, and you can take a Magic action on later turns to move the Cylinder up to 60 feet.

So this part is much the same, just edited a bit and with the Magic action used for the targeting movement.

When the Cylinder appears, each creature in it makes a Constitution Saving Throw. On a failed Save, a creature takes 2d10 Radiant damage, and if the creature is shape-shifted (as a result of the Polymorph spell, for example), it reverts to its true form and can’t shape-shift until it leaves the Cylinder. On a successful Save, a creature takes half as much damage only. A creature also makes this Save when the spell’s area moves into its space and when it enters the spell’s area or ends its turn there. A creature makes this Save only once per turn.

So there are some significant differences here:

As you would intuitively assume (but was not the case in 5e), Save and damage rolls take place when the spell is first cast.
It also seems you can drag this spell across bad guys (“when the spell’s area moves into its space”), which is pretty nasty. You can only do it once (per turn), though, as damage is only taken when the Save is rolled, and the Save is only rolled once per turn. (A target could still be damaged multiple times a round if shoved into and out of the beam by different people on their turns.)
People in the beam take damage if they end their turn there (not start it).
Any sort of shape-shifted creature, is affected, though there is no mention of Disadvantage on the Save.

So before, Moonbeam lagged on causing damage until the start of a target’s turn. Now in 5.5e, it causes damage as soon as they enter the beam or the beam is cast/moved onto them, and if they remain standing in the beam, they take damage at the end of their turn.

This would seem to make Moonbeam a bit more powerful than in 5e, and the ability to march the Moonbeam down a row of bad guys on a turn potentially makes it much more powerful.

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

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

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

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

Let’s start with the description.

Range: 120 feet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Call Lightning vs. Fireball

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

Advantages of Call Lightning

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

Advantages of Fireball

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

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

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

Any changes in 5.5e?

Maybe.

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

The storm cloud:

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

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

The zorching:

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

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

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

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

D&D 5e Rules – Spells: Fireball!

“Ka-boom?”
“Yes, Rico. Ka-boom.”

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

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

So, what does that bad boy look like?

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

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

The fire spreads around corners.

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

Fire Ball Gif GIFs | Tenor From PHB 241.

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

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

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

So let’s talk about the rules.

The Rules of Fireball

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

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

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

Walls and doors, etc., block the effect.

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

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

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

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

AoE 20ft radius orange — Fireball AoE template

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

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

References: 1 2 3 4 5 6

So how about in 5.5e?

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

Here’s the write-up:

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

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

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

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

D&D 5e/5.5e Rules – Spells: Augury!

It’s the Poor Man’s Prophecy … but that doesn’t make it easy to adjudicate.

Part of an ongoing series of 5e Rules notes.

As a DM, I really dislike prophecy / fortune-telling / prognostication spells. Letting the players know something about what’s coming, when something is coming, feels like a horrible idea. And if I have to decided on the fly if something is going to be coming … then it’s even worse.

Don’t make me Augury. You wouldn’t like me when I’m Augury.

In the case of my most recent campaign, it was about our druid and his Augury spell (PHB 215-16):

By casting […] you receive an omen from an otherworldly entity about the results of a specific course of action that you plan to take within the next 30 minutes. The DM chooses from the following possible omens:

Weal, for good results

Woe, for bad results

Weal and woe, for both good and bad results

Nothing, for results that aren’t especially good or bad

The spell doesn’t take into account any possible circumstances that might change the outcome, such as the casting of additional Spells or the loss or gain of a companion.

We dithered a bit over whether this spell was focused on actions taken in the near term (or started in the near term?), the results in the near term, or both. A lot of people also have this problem, because it’s, honestly, a poorly worded spell.

Other groups have had questions come up around, say, results for whom (the caster? the party? an identified individual?). If going down this path is going to help the caster get their reward from the sheriff, but also lead to another party member’s arch-nemesis getting a shot at them, what should the results be?

Or results from the perspective of whom (the caster? the spell’s otherworldly entity?). If the party is thinking of attacking the, oh, let’s say a lich, a goal a LG deity might wholly support, even if it’s certain death for the players … how should Augury turn out?

There’s a lot of interesting meta discussion out there about Augury (for those who find such things interesting), but here’s where I fall:

Timing

The spell is about “the results of a specific course of action that you plan to take within the next 30 minutes“.

While some interpret this as “only things you are doing and have results in the next 30 minutes,” I think there is room there for not just actions, but a course of actions which is initiated within that 30 minutes. The course may not be completed in 30 minutes. The results may not be achieved or clear in the next 30 minutes. But Augury can, with increasing vagueness, deal with things beyond a half hour.

An (ironic) look to the past

Some folk note that the 3.5 rules were a lot more clear on this:

The augury can see into the future only about half an hour, so anything that might happen after that does not affect the result. Thus, the result might not take into account the long-term consequences of a contemplated action.

The rules lawyers then argue whether (a) that should help inform how to treat the 5e rules, or (b) the lack of such language in 5e means this restriction is no longer true. I would probably lean into the latter interpretation, as the rules are evolutionary, not de novo each edition. I think it also makes better story sense.

Some hypotheticals

For the otherworldly being (i.e., the DM), the more specific and bounded the course of action and timeframe are, the clearer the results. So, “Should we go through these doors and into the dungeon beyond?” is kind of open-ended … and the augury will be more approximate.

On consideration, the DM (the otherworldly entity) knows that

The dungeon is likely to take several hours.
The first room, even the first 30 minutes of rooms, are easy-peasy.
The dragon at the end will be hard, even dangerous, but the treasure is pretty awesome.

The Augury would probably show Weal, for that treasure that lies at the foreseeable end of the course of action you are beginning in the next thirty minutes, even if the road may be bumpy to get there.

But … if the dragon was knowably (by the otherworldly being) of a CR that would quite likely lead to a partial or total party kill, then even if the path to it was some hours long, an Augury should show Woe.

In other words, it’s not just a “am I safe for the next 30 minutes?” spell, but “are my plans being initiated right now leading to significant benefit or harm going forward.” The further forward, the more hazy. And it’s not open-ended: “Yes, if you set off on this quest in the next 30 minutes then, at the end of your life in fifty years, you will look back on this day in pride, and your deity will reward you in the afterlife” is beyond the spell’s scope.

So let me frame the generic question this way: “Will this specific course of action I am taking lead most proximately to my being benefited or harmed?” That proximity may be beyond the thirty minutes. And the coupling of the dragon and the treasure she sits on may lead to a Weal and Woe answer. But it won’t be a “Yes, you will get through rooms 1-5 of the dungeon and find 50gp there, so definitely Weal, but, whoa, room 6 is gonna be a hot mess for you, but that’s more than 30 minutes out, so further deponent sayeth not!”

Another example: “Should I pick up this idol?” The idol is secretly cursed to draw attacking undead to you at the next New Moon, which is a week away. What should the Augury say?

I’d have it say Woe, even if the results aren’t within the next 30 minutes. On the other hand, if the idol was necessary to get into the Castle Arrgh, the next big step on the quest, then I’d give a Weal and Woe result; I might even do that if the curse drew attackers right now, because the proximate Woe is balanced by a greater later Weal. (I might also phrase it as “Woe and Weal,” to give some sense of the sequence.)

What about results that depend on die rolls? That one gets (ha!) dicier. Some folk argue that the spell assumes success (“We are going to sneak past the guards and find the plans in the leader’s tent — Weal or Woe?”), but if the DM thinks that highly unlikely due to the factors unknown to the players (a guard with a really high Perception), what to do?

In that case the DM should press to frame this into the specific questions, either (a) “We are going to sneak past the guards” → Woe) or (b) “We are going to look for the plans in the leader’s tent” → Weal.

In some cases, where everything hinges on a particular die roll (specifics good!), I might let the player make that roll in advance and so determine Weal or Woe. But in general, the spell itself demurs from “possible circumstances that might change the outcome”. The DM usually has to go with the probability curves. And if the players question it later when the Weal result turns pear-shaped? Well, even an otherworldly entity isn’t omniscient.

Lord Of The Rings Gandalf GIF - Lord Of The Rings Gandalf Indeed GIFs

Maybe a metaphor will help

Here’s a final metaphor: Weal or Woe is like an elevation rise on a road. “Will this road climb higher?”

The clearest answer is how the roadway is right now (you’re on a flat patch, on an upslope, on a downslope) … but there might be a hill in the near distance that’s visible, or a vale … and a taller mountain, seen hazily, beyond that.

The more explicit the question, the closer the proximity, the clearer the answer; the further away, the hazier the answer, so that specifics become generalities, and the chance of Weal and Woe (“you will go uphill, and you will also go downhill”) becomes greater.

So whose Augury is it, anyway?

Is the Augury from the perspective of the caster, the party, the otherworldly entity (patron? deity?) of the caster, or what? What determines a “good” vs “bad” result?

It seems to me that it’s from the perspective of the person casting the Augury. And it’s how they will feel about it at the time of the result, not some sort of objective measure (HP left, gold pieces in pocket, etc.). Maybe Weal means the player losing at a gambling bet, but learning that the loss goes to feed some orphans, evocative of the player’s origin story. Or maybe Weal means returning the artifact to their deity’s temple, even if they lost one of the party members along the way. Or Woe means losing that party member only to gain a treasure, and contemplating on the meaninglessness of gold against their value of friendship. (Or maybe those are a blend of Weal and Woe.)

Those are complex activities to fit in the scope of an Augury, but they are offered as edge cases.

That all requires a bit of understanding about the character. Do they value their deity’s goals above their own comfort, or even survival? How do they feel about loyalty to the party, vs personal gain? Ultimately, it’s about what they value.

So, yes, it’s more difficult than a simple XP/HP vs GP comparison, but that’s also life.

A couple more hypotheticals

Example. “Should we camp here where it’s safe, rather than keep going?”

Effects: The party is saved from a dangerous encounter down the road with orcs, but without the party’s intervention, the orcs kill their hostages, whose bodies will be found on the road the next day by the party.

Augury result: I would argue Weal and Woe … probably. If it’s an easy encounter, then it would be just Woe (the character was never in real danger, and something they would value, innocent lives, was lost). If it was a convention of liches, not orcs, and the hostages were dead regardless, it would be Weal (you’re alive, buddy, and can potentially do something about the bad guys later). A particularly Good-aligned caster might get results leaning to Woe (personal survival is less important than saving lives), while Neutral or Evil one might be focused on Weal.

Example: “Should the Rogue go into town to find out whether the caravan has come through?”

Effects: The Rogue is likely to be arrested upon setting foot in town for shenanigans the last time there, and be thrown into the clink overnight. The caster has previously opined that the Rogue needs a comeuppance. Also, in jail, the Rogue will find out about the caravan, before being released the next day.

Augury result: Weal. Yeah, the Rogue is going to be pissed at the outcome (“Even the bedbugs had bedbugs!”), but the caster is happy about both the poetic justice and the intel being gathered.

Does any of this become clearer in 5.5e?

No, not really. The language of the spell is pretty much the same in 5.5e (2024) as in 5e.

D&D 5e/5.5e Rules – Spell Scrolls!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What about Thieves?

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

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

This includes spell scrolls, per the Sage Advice Compendium:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does any of this change in 5.5e?

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

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

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

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

Great.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thief and Use Magic Device

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

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

D&D 5e/5.5e Rules – Swimming! And Drowning! And Water Combat!

Sooner or later, you end up fighting in the water. Or swimming. Or being held under the surface. So how does that work in 5e?

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 very much simplified (perhaps oversimplified, some argue) the issue of dealing with water as an obstacle, a location for fighting, and a danger. Always remember, D&D is not a physics simulator (or, as some have countered, it is a horrendously and hilariously bad physics simulator).

Note that there are a lot of exceptions below for creatures that have a Swimming speed in their stat block.

Movement in the Water

Water is basically considered Difficult terrain if you don’t have a native Swimming speed. That is, each foot moved costs two feet of movement. If the terrain within the swim is itself Difficult (e.g., a strong current, a kelp bed, etc.), this might increase to each foot moved costs three feet of movement.

You can, however, use any other movement speed (e.g., walking, flying) to swim with.

If the water is “rough,” making any progress swimming might require a Strength (Athletics) check.

There is (remarkably) no distinction in speed between swimming underwater or swimming on the surface.

Don’t forget the Dash action, if you are doing nothing but movement.

Long-Distance Movement in the Water

If you have a Swimming speed, you can swim all day without penalty; use Forced March rules from the PHB.

Otherwise (per DMG 116), you need to roll a CON Save vs DC 10 for each hour swimming. Failure means +1 level of Exhaustion. Beyond that, there is a cap on 8 hours of swimming per day.

Deep Water

The pressures and temperatures of deep water take their toll. Per DMG 116, for creatures lacking a Swimming speed:

if swimming over 100 feet deep, makes every hour count as two for Exhaustion checks and limits.
if swimming over 200 feet deep, makes every hour count as four for Exhaustion checks and limits.

Vision in the Water

Clear water, bright light — 60 foot visibility to notice an encounter
Clear water, dim light — 30 foot visibility to notice an encounter (Disadvantage to Perception).
Murky water / no light — 10 foot visibility to notice an encounter (Disadvantage to Perception).

The above presume light sources or Darkvision.

Doing Stuff in the Water

By which we mean, of course, combat and magic.

Combat in the Water

Underwater Knight — Note: breathing gear is cheating.

When fighting underwater, again unless you have a native Swimming speed:

Melee weapon attacks are at a Disadvantage (as you and/or your weapons are slowed by the drag of the water) …
- … except for a thrusting/piercing weapon like a dagger, javelin, shortsword, spear, or trident.

This melee weapon restriction Rule-As-Written would seem to apply to fighting while on the surface (swimming), or even while partially immersed (imagine fighting in waist-deep water); I’m not sure that last makes sense, and an appeal to the DM might be possible. (I can see any sort of melee weapon attack being at Disadvantage when standing in, but not under, water, as you are partially Restrained.)

Ranged weapon attacks are possible underwater, but they are at a Disadvantage …
- … except when using a crossbow, net, or a weapon thrown like a javelin, spear, trident, or dart.
- They are an automatic miss if beyond normal range.

Magic in the Water

Back to the Future - Enchantment under the Sea — Also known as …

You can cast spells underwater.

But if they have a Verbal component, you have stopped holding your breath and have gone into step 2 of Drowning (below).
Material components may be difficult to manipulate while swimming or immersed in water. Arcane/Spiritual Foci are your friends!
Somatic components aren’t a problem, as only a single hand is needed for them.

Spells that require a to-hit roll do so at a Disadvantage (if above water, because of aiming while trying to stay afloat; if underwater, because of the murk and visual distortion underwater, and drag on your body).

True Lies swimming under water fire — Great way to resist Fire damage, Harry!

When you are fully immersed in water, you have Resistance to Fire damage.

But aside from that, spells don’t do anything tricky. For example, lightning does not electrify the whole area. (Remember (a) Bad Physics Simulator, and (b) it’s not actual lightning, it’s magic acting like lightning (handwaves)).

Going “Prone” underwater

If something should knock you Prone while in the water, you are instead tumbling/floundering … but suffering the same status effects as being Prone condition (including slowed movement, Disadvantage to attack, Advantage to adjacent attackers) until you “stand up” / regain control with half your movement. (References 1, 2, 3).

Drowning

The rules here are essentially the same as suffocation rules:

You can hold your breath for (CON mod + 1) minutes (with a minimum of 30 seconds or five rounds).
After that you survive (CON mod) rounds (minimum of 1) without needing more air.
After that, you are at 0 hp and are unconscious and dying. You can’t stabilize or heal until you can breathe — even if you make your three successful Death Saves, you only erase any unsuccessful ones and start the process over. You can be magically healed, but that can only get you back up to Step 2 unless you are out of the water by then.

Example: A creature with CON = 14 (CON mod = 2) can hold their breath for 3 minutes (30 rounds). After that, they start drowning/suffocating, and have 2 rounds (12 seconds) to reach air before dropping to 0 hp.

Note that 3 minutes (or even 1 minute) is a ridiculous amount of time in the game. People tend to be terrified of their character running out of air … the first time they get into underwater combat. (It’s still a real danger, but not a present one.)

Workarounds

Various races can either breathe underwater, or (such as Lizardfolk and Tortles) can hold their breath for longer, as defined in their stat blocks.
Wild Shape and Polymorph can change folk into creatures that can swim or breathe in water.
Anything that magically gives you a Swimming speed will be useful in the above.
Water Breathing is a spell that literally lets you breathe underwater for 8 hours. It’s a 3rd level for Druids, Rangers, Sorcerers, and Wizards, can affect up to ten people, doesn’t require concentration, and can be done as a ritual. Alternately, Water Walk (same parameters) lets you walk on water and not worry about having to breathe it.

Wait, that’s it?

But aren’t there some classic tropes that these rule ignore?

Yes.

Drowning in armor — “A Drowning Viking, possibly Olav Trygvason (968-1000) of Norway at the Battle of Svold on 9th September 1000”

There’s no provision for heavy armor or a full backpack dragging you to the bottom, etc.; if you are strong enough to wear it, you are strong enough to swim in it (handwaves) … which is good, because it takes 5 minutes to remove heavy armor.
There are no provisions for using up breath faster if you are (slowly) flailing about with your greatsword instead sitting still and preserving oxygen.

Again, largely this is because D&D is a crappy physics (and biology) simulator, and intentionally so. The game design thought seems to be “Does this complication take away from the fun? Does it mean extra calculations, rolls, and otherwise bogging-down of the game? Then simplify or eliminate it.”

(Note to self: if I ever decide this is too simplified, this site has some interesting homebrewed additions.)

Any changes here with 5.5e?

The rules in 5.5e (2024) for swimming (and drowning) aren’t changed too much from 5e (2014).

One place there is more clarification seems to be with when these swimming rules come into play for movement and combat. The Difficult Terrain definition notes it applies in water between shin-deep and waist-deep. Water any deeper than that you are arguably either swimming (feet off the bottom) or most of your body is underwater and your movement (for moves and combat) are hampered enough that the swimming rules start to apply.

Swimming is defined in 5.5e:

While you’re swimming, each foot of movement costs 1 extra foot (2 extra feet in Difficult Terrain). You ignore this extra cost if you have a Swim Speed and use it to swim. At the DM’s option, moving any distance in rough water might require a successful DC 15 STRength (Athletics) check.

That’s pretty close to 5e, if a bit more simplified.

The drowning rules are a little different (though, as before, they come up under Suffocation as a Hazard):

A creature can hold its breath for a number of minutes equal to 1 plus its CONstitution modifier (minimum of 30 seconds) before suffocation begins.

So far, so same.

When a creature runs out of breath or is choking, it gains 1 Exhaustion level at the end of each of its turns. When a creature can breathe again, it removes all levels of Exhaustion it gained from suffocating.

Here’s where things get interesting (and simpler in a useful way) in 5.5e. Rather than have a final CON-based seconds to get to air and then dropping to 0 hp, you “simply” start accruing Exhaustion each round, i.e.,

Your D20 Test rolls are reduced by (2 x Exhaustion level)
Your Speed is reduced by (5′ x Exhaustion level)

This is fully reversable, instantly, upon being able to breathe again.

But, if it goes on 6 rounds (6 levels of Exhaustion), you are dead. Not dying. Dead. No Death Saves or Stabilizing.

Simpler. Not necessarily more or less dangerous.

The rules on combat underwater remain the same as far as disadvantages and weapon / range limitations if you don’t have a Swim Speed. I could not find any commentary on spellcasting underwater, but presumably it is much the same.

There is still no distinction made for hauling around massive weight or armor and how well you can swim (or sink). There is also still no modification in the drowning rules for minimizing activity.

Deep Water swimming has been modified (DMG 68). Only a 100 foot level is specified; after swimming an hour at that depth or below, creatures without a Swim speed need to succeed on a DC 10 CONstitution Save or take a level of Exhaustion.

If water is particularly “frigid” (DMG 68), then creatures can be immersed in it up to CON minutes; after that, each minute requires a DC 10 CONstitution Save or take a level of Exhaustion.

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.

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 – Moving Through a Hostile Creature’s Space!

Sometimes you need to get past an enemy without taking the time to kill 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.

There are a number of rules that deal with the basic question of “How do I get past that guy?” Note that all the below observations are caveated by class or racial powers that may say otherwise. Monks and rogues and some smaller creatures get special abilities to do some of this stuff.

Note also that if you use any of these, you still run the risk of an Attack of Opportunity if, once past, you continue running beyond someone’s reach.

Also, if the either of the opponents here is one of those that does damage to a melee attacker “within five feet,” I would as DM incur that penalty to these maneuvers as well (even if they are not, strictly speaking, melee attacks). In other words, if you are shoving, shoving past, or even tumbling around that flaming guy, you’re going to get burned (and if it’s the flaming guy trying to move through an occupied hex, the target’s going to get burned, regardless of whether the attempt was successful).

The Magic of the Five Foot Square

Okay, if you are doing Theater of the Mind, more power to you. I run on a 5-foot square grid.

Obviously a Medium creature (as most players and many opponents are) does not fill the entire square, like some sort of gelatinous cube. Instead, the square represents what war-gamers would call a “zone of control.” A player in a 5-foot square can be anywhere (and, in a sort of quantum fashion, everywhere) within it. Even if you are leaning waaaaaaaay over to one side to shoot arrows at that goblin behind partial cover, you are still blocking that orc from traipsing through the other side of your 5-foot square.

The basic rules of 5e (and D&D in general) is that, with some identified exceptions and weird edge cases, opposed beings cannot occupy the same 5-foot square. So, other than slaying that enemy in your way, how can you get past them?

Here is a summary of the ideas spelled out below …

If you are _____ than your opponent …	… then consider _____.
Bigger	Overrunning
Bigger (a lot) or Smaller (a lot)	Moving Through
Stronger	Shoving, Shoving Aside, or Overrunning
More Agile	Tumbling Past

Moving Through

You can move through a hostile creature’s space only if the creature is at least two Sizes larger or smaller than you. Remember that, even in those cases, another creature’s space is Difficult Terrain for you.

Cost: Difficult Terrain movement.

Shoving

There are a couple of possibilities here — a bog-normal Shove attack, or an optional Shove Aside.

Note that in neither case do you need to worry about “Difficult Terrain” as you are never deemed to be in the same square as the enemy (don’t think about it too hard).

If we think of You (Y) doing one of these attacks against the Enemy (E), here is where they would end up with a Shove (S) or an (optional) Shove Aside (A)

S  S  S 
A  E  A
   Y

Shove

You can use a Shove as an attack in the round, pushing the target away from you 5 feet (think of the offensive line in a football game). Once you push them away, you can step into their space and then beyond.

“Away” on a square grid would be straight back or diagonally back. (The DM might want to opine on that one, but Jeremy Crawford says diagonal counts as “away”. More discussion here.)

For a Shove, the target can’t be more than one Size larger. You as the shover make a Strength (Athletics) roll vs. the target’s (choice of) Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics).

You could also knock them Prone with a Shove attack but that doesn’t clear out the space for you to move through.

Cost: One Attack.

Shove Aside

This is an Optional Rule on DMG 272: Rather than using a Shove to move someone back (or Prone), you use Shove to move them to the side.

Essentially, this is a more difficult Shove attack (shifting someone at a 90 degree angle), with the same skill comparison, so you as the shover roll at Disadvantage. If successful, the opponent is shoved 5 feet to the side, meaning you can move through their square at no additional movement penalty.

As a DM, the added difficulty seems quite fair and I wouldn’t hesitate to allow this Optional Rule.

Cost: One Attack.

Tumbling Past

This is another Optional Rule, so check with your DM first. DMs, this can provide color, but it can also make your sneaky rogue types (who probably have a high DEX) a lot more dangerous.

This can be found in the DMG, page 272: As an Action or Bonus Action, you roll Dexterity (Acrobatics) vs the Dexterity (Acrobatics) of the one you’re trying to Tumble past; if you win, you can move through (but not stop in) the hostile creature’s space (as difficult terrain).

There’s no specific penalty for failure here — except that you’ve burned an Action or Bonus Action, successful or not.

Costs: Action or Bonus Action; Difficult Terrain movement.

Overrunning

Yet another Optional Rule, on DMG page 272, this is basically just shoving your way past the opponent (or using your Strength to do a Move Through).

As an Action or Bonus Action, you roll a Strength (Athletics) check vs the defender’s Strength (Athletics). You are at Advantage if of a larger Size, or Disadvantage if of a smaller Size. If successful, you can move through the square (as Difficult terrain).

Cost: Action or Bonus Action; Difficult Terrain movement

But what about Jumping Over them?

The Jumping rules really don’t allow this. Or don’t work well with it.

First, High Jumps don’t help, since they are only up-and-down, according to the rules. (Yes, Olympic High Jumps involve some horizontal distance, though often not much, I don’t think anyone is envisioning jumping backwards over an orc and then landing on their own back on a huge fluffy pad.)

Second — this is not an easy thing to do. Even under highly controlled non-combat situations.

You just can’t jump high enough on a Long Jump to reliably get over an opponent’s head. The height you achieve on a Long Jump, with a successful Strength (Athletics) check vs DC10, is (distance/4) feet; assuming the space a Medium creature controls space is not just 5×5, but 5x5x5, you would need a distance jumped of 20 feet (20/4=5) to get past them (i.e., with a Running Long Jump, that means you’d need a STR of 20).

Magic might help: a Jump spell (or Ring of Jumping) triples your jumping distance, thus your someone with a STR of, say 16, would theoretically be able to Jump 48 feet, clearing 12 feet high …

… although the irritating Jumping rules still, even with a spell, restrict your Jumping distance to your Speed. If your speed is 30, you can only jump 30 feet (or 20 if you are doing a Running Long Jump that takes a 10 foot run-up). That still lets you clear that 5 foot height (20/4), and it means you only need a Strength 10 to (barely) jump over an opponent. (Speed magic would help here even more.)

That said … is a 5 foot height being the vertical control zone actually a real thing? Eh … given that D&D tends to be a bit vertically challenged in terms of accommodating things that are above ground level, you could argue it for most Medium characters (esp. as weapons and armor aren’t generally pointed at / oriented toward / limber regarding upward attacks). If you remember the Golden Rule that D&D is not a physics simulator (it’s not even a combat simulator), it kinda-sorta works fine.

Since you would be flying over the enemy’s head, there is no Difficult Terrain consideration. Thank goodness for that.

Taller creatures will tend to be Large in Size, and thus fill up (or control) a 10-foot square space (a lot more to jump over), but even if they don’t, maybe the best way to handle it is with a higher DC on that Strength (Athletics) check (DM discretion).

What does happen if that Strength (Athletics) check to jump over something fails? In theory, just as with a non-opponent Long Jump, the jump fails at that point, and you end up, probably Prone, in the square in front of the enemy you tried to jump over. But we’ll leave those esoterica as an exercise for the student.

But Don’t Forget …

The Rule of Cool.

Sliding past/under, or jumping up-over, a bad guy is a pretty bad-ass cool move, the sort of thing that will have characters (or their players) bragging about over beers for months or years to come.

Which means, on an exceptional basis (e.g., in a boss fight) the DM should probably be willing to bend the rules at least a bit to allow such an attempt, even of the numbers don’t quite work out. The rules are there to let you know what should normally work and what normally shouldn’t. But ultimately, that judgment belongs to the DM — and a balls-to-the-wall unexpected heroic attempt … should get at least a bit of latitude.

Any changes here with 5.5e?

Why yes. Yes there are — fairly significant ones.

First, though it doesn’t apply specifically to this post’s topic, while in 5e moving through a friendly character’s square was considered Difficult Terrain, in 5.5e, it’s not — just a normal space to move through. This makes stack-ups at doorway a lot less painful.

Similarly, you can move through, at speed square of a Tiny creature.

It remains Difficult Terrain to move through the square of an Incapacitated creature (which as a house rule we include dead bodies), or of a creature that is two Sizes larger/smaller than you.

While in 5e you could not end movement in the same square of another creature, 5.5e allows it if it is an involuntary action (e.g., being hurled there telekinetically). If you find yourself unwillingly end your turn in such a square, you are Prone unless you are Tiny or are a larger Size than the other creature. Even if you go prone, the other creature is not affected unless it ends its turn in the same square.

A Shove is now a form of Unarmed Strike in 5.5e. Rather than doing an Athletics vs. Athletics/Acrobatics contest (5.5e really doesn’t like contests), instead, the shover just says they are doing so, and the target must make a

STRength or DEXterity Save (their choice)
vs.
DC = (8 + shover’s STRength mod + shover’s Proficiency Bonus)

A Shove is only possible if the target is no more than one Size larger than the shover.

The new 5.5e rules make no mention of the previously optional Overrun or Tumble Past or Shove Aside rules. The same is true for a lot of the Optional Rules in 5e’s DMG; whether these are a permanent simplification or wil be reintroduced in a later supplement remains unknown.

Jumping rules are pretty much the same as in 5e.

D&D 5e/5.5e Rules – Mounted Combat!

Sooner or later, either the good guys or the bad guys are going to charge in on a mount.

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 came up in my Princes of the Apocalypse game, related to Earth cult Burrowshark riders atop Bulettes, but the questions discussed apply to random folk on horseback just as much.

An historic note that may be of interest or illumination to some of the questions here: it is said that when the early indigenous peoples of the horse-less Americas — including in the sophisticated realms of the Aztecs and Incas — first saw the Conquistadors on horseback, they thought they were seeing some horrifying human-animal hybrid. The dividing line between the Rider and the Mount is the focus of most of the rules in 5e around mounted combat. As you might expect, the answers are not always intuitive ones, otherwise “anyone could do it.”

Main Caveat

As noted endless times before, D&D 5e is not an accurate simulator of reality; it’s a fairly effective (usable with minimal fiddling) simulator of reality, with just enough verisimilitude to make it both fun and grokkable. Also, even though it’s derived originally from military miniatures combat rules, Napoleon’s Old Guard didn’t have to deal with gigantic flying dragons with Liches piloting them, so its miniature/grid rules sometimes get weird.

Second Caveat

A lot of the below also depends on playing on a grid (square or hex; the examples I’ll give are for squares). If you are running Theater of the Mind, you can rule on this however you like, and nobody can say you nay (or neigh).

In other words …

In other words, Rules As Written (RAW) are pretty crappy (or, to be more delicate, inadequate to the task) on this overall subject. Let’s look at them — Mounted Combat rules (PHB 198).

Right. Time for my interpretation.

So here’s my first question: Where is the rider on their larger mount, and how does that attack the rider’s reach and the reach of those around the mount?

Where is the Rider on the Mount?

So, take the image to the right:

The Bulette is a Large creature, and so “occupies” a 10×10 space (4 squares). The Rider is a Medium creature, and so “occupies” a 5×5 space (1 square).

(Note that this would work the same for a Horse — a Large creature — and its Medium Rider.)

So some questions:

In which of the four squares of the Bulette does the Rider actually sit?
How does that affect the Rider’s ability to attack (their reach)?
How does that impact Area of Effect spells that only partially overlap the Mount?
What about Opportunity Attacks against the Bulette — will they also reach the Rider, or only if the Rider is “adjacent” to the attacker?

In the picture, I have the Rider in the upper right corner of the Bulette. The Rider is a 5 foot reach from Initiate 1, but 10 feet from Initiate 2. So …

Can Rider only attack Initiate 1?
Can Initiate 2 only attack the Bulette, not the Rider?
If the Rider wanted to attack Initiate 2, can the Rider just move to the lower left-hand corner of the Bulette? If so, does that cost Movement for the rider, and does it provoke an Opportunity Attack from Initiate 2?
If the Bulette moves one square diagonally down-right, both Initiates could presumably Opportunity Attack the Bulette, and Initiate 1 could Opportunity Attack the Rider … but could Initiate 2 Opportunity Attack the Rider?

On the last question, as noted above, the rules actually answer it:

If the Mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the Mount.

But how can that be?

It can be, because where your token is in your occupied area, regardless of size, is only an approximation.

As a Medium creature, you “occupy” five feet square of space. But you don’t really occupy that space like a 5×5 wood frame.

There’s a lot of space there to shift around in. Heck, if on the opposite sides of the squares, those guys couldn’t even reach each other with swords.

Put another way, a Bulette is not really a circle with a radius of 5 feet. It does not actually occupy a 10×10 foot square.

A Burrowshark (Bulette rider) on a Bulette.

So looking at the picture, a Bulette is pretty wide. But not square. And that’s even more the case for horse. A horse is a Large (10×10) creature for game purposes, but for real purposes it should be more like 5×10.

The area a Large creature takes up (ditto for even bigger categories, but let’s keep it “simple”) is the area it “controls” in game terms, such that you cannot stop within it unless you are two size categories smaller or more. In a quantum sense, the creature exists within that area as an abstraction, a probability field, moving and shifting and occupying all that space such that a horse (or Bulette) can be attacked with 5-foot reach weapons from either side.

(Remember the Main Caveat about D&D rules, above.)

The same is true for the Rider, who exists as an abstract occupant of the entire area of their Mount, moving around and leaning as the Mount moves around, attacking and attacked by all 12 adjacent squares. That’s the only way of rationalizing “If the Mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the Mount” (or the Mounted Combatant feat that lets the Rider force an Opportunity Attack to be on them, not their Mount).

Again, think of a knight on horseback in combat. He’s not sitting there like a 5×5 lump on a 10×10 bigger lump. The horse is wheeling around, rearing, as the knight guides it forward and back and side-to-side and about in circles, bending and leaning, raining blows in all directions.

Remember, Facing is an optional rule. If in a six second turn, a creature can attack both front and back, without spending any movement to do so, than the Rider on that creature can do the same.

So to go back to my questions above. In my informed opinion:

The Rider can attack both Initiate 1 and Initiate 2 — and be attacked by them.
If the Rider has the Bulette withdraw, both the Bulette and the Rider can potentially take an Opportunity Attack by either or both Initiates.

Now, as you can imagine, this is not immediately obvious, and not well-spelled out by the rules, and is subject to a lot of varying opinions. D&D 5e Designer Jeremy Crawford has provided a number of guidances here that don’t necessarily agree with my opinion.

Crawford does note that a Rider can be considered to be on any square of their Mount (though that is not the same as saying all squares of it). Indeed, Crawford suggests that Riders can “move” from one square of their Mount to another using movement rules — which opens things up to that whole Opportunity Attack question again (if I shift from one side of my Bulette to another, does the foe on that one side get an OA on me? Madness!)
Crawford also notes that being on a Mount doesn’t change a Rider’s size. Which I’m okay with, for effects that are determined by size/mass. A Medium Rider doesn’t really become Large, I am just considering them to be anywhere within the Large space occupied by their Mount.

Aura issues get weird — if the Rider has an aura extending ten feet away from them, is their abstracted location all-encompassing (the aura extends from the full Mount, not just a square (the rider) within it? Or do we still pick a square? I don’t have a good answer for that.

AoE issues are also weird — if that Fireball hits one, two, three squares of that four-square mount, does the Rider have to make a save? Or maybe a save at Advantage? Well, the Mount takes full damage and has to make its save. I would suggest that the Rider has to do the same. .

This gets even weirder when you consider long weapons, like lances, which explicitly Disadvantage you if you are attacking a creature five feet away. The only ruling that makes any sense to me here is that if there is a square within the area of the Mount that is ten feet away, then you can control the Mount to be there so that you are not at Disadvantage.

(Note that I keep referring to “you” as the Rider. The rules also apply when Uzbarkh the Unholy is the Rider bearing down on you.)

Does this begin to break down when you consider Huge Mounts or above — a character flying on an ancient red dragon is not going to simultaneously be on every square the dragon takes up, for attack or defense right? Except, again, the figures are shown on a grid as squares/circles, which means there’s a presumption of movement within the space, and if a dragon can bite in every direction on its turn, presumably the Rider on its neck can do the same with their sword.

Some pertinent articles:

Riders, mounts and weapon reach
4e rules on the matter — not dictating 5e, but a good example

Controlling Mounts and Attacks

I didn’t do this well when I was overseeing that Bulette battle. Going back to the mounted combat rules in the PHB:

While you’re mounted, you have two options. You can either control the Mount or allow it to act independently. Intelligent creatures, such as dragons, act independently.

You can control a Mount only if it has been trained to accept a rider. Domesticated horses, donkeys, and similar creatures are assumed to have such training. The initiative of a controlled Mount changes to match yours when you mount it. It moves as you direct it, and it has only three action options: Dash, Disengage, and Dodge. A controlled Mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it.

An independent Mount retains its place in the initiative order. Bearing a Rider puts no restrictions on the actions the Mount can take, and it moves and acts as it wishes. It might flee from combat, rush to attack and devour a badly injured foe, or otherwise act against your wishes.

So, first off are Bulette’s intelligent creatures? The general threshold for Intelligent creatures is INT 4 (Animal Friendship, Awaken, and Detect Thoughts all fail if INT is higher than 3). Bulettes (and Horses) are INT 2, so they are not intelligent.

The Wisdom (Animal Handling) skill can come into play here (bulletizing mine):

When there is any question whether you can

calm down a domesticated animal

keep a Mount from getting spooked

intuit an animal’s intentions

the GM might call for a Wisdom (Animal Handling) check. You also make a Wisdom (Animal Handling) check to:

control your Mount when you attempt a risky maneuver.

Note that AH is not actual training. You can only control your unintelligent Mount if it has been trained. And for combat purposes, a Mount really needs to be trained to the noise, smells, and pain of combat, otherwise it will be uncontrolled and probably try to run unless you’re spending all your actions on AH (to an unintelligent, untrained Mount, anything in combat is a “risky maneuver”).

To break the above down into a matrix:

	Controlled Mount	Independent Mount
Unintelligent Mount	Requires training/AH to accept a Rider. Use Rider’s Init. Moves as directed (may need AH for dangerous sitches). Can only Dash, Disengage, Dodge as actions.	Requires some training/AH to accept a Rider. Has its own Init. Can move and act as it pleases, including attacks. With training/AH, can be guided by the Rider.
Intelligent Mount	N/A. Intelligent Mounts are always Independent	Has its own Init. Can move and act as it pleases. As it is intelligent, it may coordinate with the Rider if training or communication is possible.

So if we assume that the Burrowsharks have trained their Bulettes to combat (they have, plus there’s some mystic ju-ju going on), then they have two choices:

Keep the Bulette under control. Initiative is synchronized. The Bulette will only Dash/Disengage/Dodge, but is unlikely to break, flee, etc.
Let the Bulette be “independent” under its combat training. The Bulette and its Rider have different Initiatives (requiring more coordination), but the Bulette can Attack (no small thing). Note that it may sometimes choose to Attack (or Dodge, or whatever) differently than the Rider wants. (This is a bit more fuzzy when the GM is running both characters.)

D&D 5e does not, btw, demand DEX (or Athletics) saves for Riders whose Mounts do something the Rider doesn’t expect.

When I first did this kind of thing, I allowed the Bulette to act independently, but synced its Init with the Rider. I also had their attacks probably more coordinated than they should have been (combat training will let the Rider guide the attacks of their unintelligent Mount, just as the Rider can guide their movement, but the Mount remains independent and more likely to snap at what attacks it).

Something else to note here: the restrictions on a Controlled Mount are to Actions. One can posit that a Controlled mount should still have access to Bonus Actions (very rare) and Reactions, including Opportunity Attacks.

Pertinent link: When is a mount considered too intelligent to be controlled?

Falling Off Mounts

This didn’t come up last I ran mounted combats, but it could have. For the record:

If the Mount is moved against its will by an outside force (e.g., a Thunderwave spell), the Rider must make a DC 10 DEX save, or else fall off.
If the Rider is knocked Prone by an attack/spell/effect, the Rider must instead make a DC 10 DEX save, or else fall off.
If the Mount is knocked Prone, the Rider can use their Reaction to dismount as it falls and land on their feet, or else fall off.

Fall off = land Prone on a space within 5 feet of the mount. The RAW does not address the (very real in historic terms) danger in that last instance of having your mount fall atop you, probably doing substantial damage.

Surely they have improved this in 5.5e, right?

Given that 5.5e (2024) is a distillation of everything WotC and the community have learned over the last decade (since 2014) to improve any weaknesses in the fundamental engine, this would seem like a huge place to make changes and improvements.

Nope.

In fact, as far as I can tell, things here are worse. Less space is allocated, but the same text is used, such that some things have been clipped out:

There is now no provision for using your Reaction to save and land on your feet if the Mount is knocked Prone. In fact, it doesn’t actually address the issue of what happens if you make (or don’t make) your save if your Mount is knocked prone. The language has been simplified, and something has been lost.
The distinction between an Independent vs Controlled Mount is still there, but the definition between the two has been significantly cropped.
The language about when the Mount triggers an Opportunity Attack the Rider can be targeted is also gone. Intentional change, or editing oversight?
The Mounted Combatant feat has changed slightly. In 5e it said that an attack targeted on the Mount could be redirected to target the Rider; in 5.5e, it says an attack that hits the Mount can instead be redirected to hit the Rider, meaning a mounted combatant has no better AC than their mount does, regardless of the Rider’s armor.
I suspect that one will be errataed away pretty quickly, but it hasn’t yet.) Or maybe it’s to make up for now getting a 1-point ASI with that feat.

The one place where maybe the 5.5e rules are better is on when a Controlled Mount acts. In 5e, its initiative is synced with the Rider, but it was still ambiguous as to whether the Mount’s actions took place simultaneous with the Rider’s, or as its own turn (immediately before or behind). In 5.5e, the Rider and Mount clearly share the same turn (“it moves on your turn as you direct it”), making things a bit more flexible.

Net-net, the 5.5e rules aren’t very good, but the 5e rules aren’t either. It would be nice to see that addressed some time.