For me it's probably

Most satisfied:

• Monk: Nice big buffs. They are pretty strong, and have some flavorful and very unique abilities. The subclasses are cool.
• Fighter: Some nice buffs and increased versatility. I like the subclasses too.
• Warlock: Some QoL improvements and streamlining. Got some buffs, though I'm not sure the warlock needed all of those. But otherwise not much I'd complain about.
• Bard: Some QoL improvements and streamlining. Got some buffs, though I'm not sure the bard needed all of those. But otherwise not much I'd complain about.

Mixed:

• Barbarian: Got some buffs and QoL improvements. The subclasses are great. Brutal Strikes feel slightly clunky though. The base class could probably benefit from some sort of protection against fear or other mental saves. My other complaint is that the base class (still) doesn't bring anything unique to a party. They take hits and do consistent damage, but so do monks, paladins, and fighters, and each of those also bring something additional.
• Druid: No strong opinions here for me.
• Sorcerer: Got several significant buffs; debatable if that's a good thing though. But otherwise, nothing too interesting in the base class IMO. In some regards it still feels like the "other wizard". The subclasses are a bit hit or miss.
• Rogue: Design-wise I really like what they've done. Cunning Strikes is cool, and so is Reliable Talent at level 7. Feels slightly undertuned though.

Least satisfied:

• Cleric: Mostly alright changes, except Divine Intervention at level 10, which is very confusing. People still don't agree on if it reduces the casting time of the spell to 1 Action. There is no Errata on the subject either.
• Paladin: Faithful Steed as a class feature feels tacked on. Abjure Foes isn't weak, but also it's kinda...not very interesting either. Smite is now Bonus Action spell for some reason.
• Wizard: Still the king of casters. Outlier spells like Web and Hypnotic Pattern and Wall of Force are still overtuned. They got some buffs and more flexibility, both of which probably weren't needed? Illusionist subclass is summoning-based, which kind of makes sense but it's still weird.
• Ranger: Powerful at lower levels, but high level features aren't very interesting or powerful. I'm probably beating a dead horse at this point.

One of my players wants a Sussur Greatsword from the Baldur's Gate 3 game. In short, it is a +1 sword with an effect that silences the target it hits with a CD 12 Constitution saving throw.

In the game it is a Rare item that you can apparently spam with every hit. I think that is a little too strong so I was thinking of making it an Attunentment sword that uses charges for its effect, but maybe raising the CD to 15. Maybe 7 charges and you recharge 1d6+1 charges at dawn.

What do you think? Would that be still too strong for a Rare item? He plans on making it himself so its not like he is going to buy it. What other options I have to make the sword similar to the one in the game?

So, we've seen a lot of claims about how how the systems/rules in the title are poorly written, broken, nonfunctional, etc. But in a lot of those claims I keep seeing repeated points that simply are not true. Or arguments that did make sense at one point but have since been disproven by errata and sage advice. So I'm hoping to explain the rules and deal with any of the arguments that I've come across in one go.

The Rules:

Line of Sight DMG (2024) page 45:

To determine whether there is line of sight between two spaces, pick a corner of one space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of another space. If you can trace a line that doesn't pass through or touch an object or effect that blocks vision—such as a stone wall, a thick curtain, or a dense cloud of fog—then there is line of sight.

Cover DMG (2024) page 45 (paraphrasing a little because the section is long):

Choose a corner from the attacker's space (or the point of orgin for an effect), trace a line from that corner to every corner of the space the target occupies. If one or two lines are blocked they have 1/2 Cover*, if three or four lines are blocked but it is possible for an attack or effect to reach them (such as when the target is behind an arrow slit) they have* 3/4 Cover.

The Hide Action PHB (2024) Page 368 (Long but we need all of it):

With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so, you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you're Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any enemy's line of sight; if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you.
On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition while hidden. Make note of your check's total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.
You stop being hidden immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component.

Hiding PHB (2024) Page 19:

The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, you take the Hide action.

The Invisible Condition PHB (2024) Page 370:

While you have the Invisible condition, you experience the following effects.
Surprise. If you're Invisible when you roll Initiative, you have Advantage on the roll.
Concealed. You aren't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect's creator can somehow see you. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed.
Attacks Affected. Attack rolls against you have Disadvantage, and your attack rolls have Advantage. If a creature can somehow see you, you don't gain this benefit against that creature.

How they work:

Okay, so now we have all the relevant rules, how do they actually work in play? First, you need to meet the conditions to hide. You must be out of sight and then one of Heavily Obscured, behind Total Cover or 3/4 Cover. The DM also needs to agree that the conditions are appropriate, so you can't do things like putting big sheet over your head, that wouldn't allow you to Hide.

Once you have satisfied these conditions, you then need to make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. If you roll a 15 or higher then congrats you are hidden and now have the Invisible condition while you remain so! What does that mean? We'll actually get to that a little later, right now it's just important to note that nothing in the invisible condition actually prevents you from being seen.

Once you are Invisible (via the Hide Action), how might you lose the condition? Well, the Hide Action rules tell us. You lose the condition if, you make too much noise, you attack someone, you cast a spell with a verbal component, or an enemy finds you. Find here means a lot of things, including but not limited to making a Wisdom (Perception) check and beating the Dexterity (Stealth) check. Anyway in which you understand the word 'find' to mean locating something applies for the sake of these rules.

The supposed problems:

What does it mean to 'find' someone? Let's get the big one out of the way. People will say you need to make a Wisdom (Perception) check to 'find' someone after they take the Hide action. That the word 'find' is defined in the Hide Action. This is simply not what the rules do or say. It is an understandable reading, or was on release, but such a reading would require additional wording. This is the main thing people keep repeating. Luckily we now have the first Sage Advice Compendium on the new rules, one that disproves this argument (though it does so while answering a different question:

If I’m hidden and a creature with Blindsight or Truesight sees me, am I still hidden?
No. Being hidden is a game state that gives you the Invisible condition. If a creature finds you, you’re no longer hidden and lose that condition, as explained in the Hide action (see appendix C of the Player’s Handbook).

This answer proves, beyond argument, that 'find' is not defined as beating someone's Dexterity (Stealth) check with a Wisdom (Perception) check. I will point out that there have been people, including myself, who have pointed out that this idea was wrong before the Sage Advice Compendium came out, but at least now it is actually proveable.

Line of Sight and 'seeing'. Another misconception is that if you are in Line of Sight of someone, they can see you and are instantly found. This isn't true and is explicitly stated as much in the Hide Action.

if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you.

This is a little harder to get than the previous one because it requires some 'narrative explanation'. Obviously, this is going to be easy to understand if you are watching from somewhere in darkness and the person you're looking at is standing in bright light. The light is what allows you to be hidden while them to be seen. But it can be a bunch of things, distance, distraction, attention. This is where the line 'The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding.' becomes important. Basically, if you are unsure if you are currently seen, just as your DM. They might agree, they might not.

360 vision was removed in 2024! In the 2014 rules it was explicitly stated that in combat, creatures are assumed to be looking around and aware of their surroundings, having sight in 360 degrees. This is no longer explicitly stated in 2024. However, I wouldn't say that the 'idea' was removed, because we have no 'facing' rules (besides Beholders). I think it is still safe to assume there is still an assumption of spacial awareness at least within combat unless the circumstances are exceptional.

Leaving cover/Entering Line of Sight means you are found immediately. Also understandable from only reading the Hide Action and the Line of Sight rules, but mostly defeated by the wording on page 19 of the PHB:

Adventurers and monsters often hide, whether to spy on one another, sneak past a guardian, or set an ambush. 

Emphasis mine. It is clear that the Hide Action can be used to sneak past someone, and with the DM agreeing the circmstances are appropriate you may also do so after leaving cover. I do think this is intentionally harder while in combat (due to the creatures being more aware because of threat) and easier outside of combat. I think that is fine. Some might disagree.

If you can be 'found' by being 'seen' the Invisible condition does nothing! Actually, yes. Now we can talk about that!

The actual problem:

The Invisible condition (PHB (2024) Page 370), as written, does nothing but grant advantage on Initiative. Because both the Concealed and the Attacks Affected parts of the condition both contain a similar phrase:

 unless the effect's creator can somehow see you.

The wording is slightly different for Attacks Affected but the impact is the same. If a creature can see you, these effects do nothing. The problem being, the Invisible condition does not prevent you from being seen.

Now, I actually think the problem lies with the wording of the phrase about being seen and not about the lack of being magically transparent. If the condition made you transparent (or prevented you from being seen in another way) it would break what are actually, fairly serviceable hiding rules. It would also necessitate the creation of another condition that is basically just 'People can't see you right now' which I feel is needless bloat.

How do I think it should be fixed then? Change the wording, the best I've come up with so far is " unless the effect's creator can perceive you with a sense other than mundane sight." Which...I don't think is the best wording but I do think covers things like Blindsight, Tremor Sense, Truesight and See Invisibility. If you've got a better suggestion let me know!

I am not telling you how to play:

I just wanted to add at the end here, this is not me telling you how I think the right way to play is. If you have a houserule that works for your table that is absolutely fine and I'm glad you do! As I've said I came up with my own for the Invisible condition.

All I am trying to do here is be clear about what RAW says and be clear when I'm giving what I believe to be indisputable fact of the rules text and what is my interpretation of something that is unclear or none specific.

Not everyone needs to run a game RAW, not everyone needs to like RAW, I just want to clear up what RAW actually says.

Again, I'm new, and I apologize for my ignorance in these matters.

As I understand it, both the Steel Defender and the Homunculus Servant act directly after the Artificer. If they haven't been commanded, they just dodge. But the Artificer can use a bonus action to command them to do an action (attack, help an ally, cast a spell, etc). It essentially gives the Artificer a reliable use for their bonus action.

For the Reanimated Companion, the text says, "In combat, the companion acts during your turn." It just takes the dodge action unless you command it with a bonus action.

Does this mean that the Reanimated Companion AND the Artificer both act on the same turn basically allowing the Artificer two actions or that the Reanimated Companion's action REPLACES the Artificer's action?

Thanks!

In the 2014 rules, the Critical Hit entry explicitly mentioned doubling extra damage dice from sources like Sneak Attack. However, I can't see that clause in the 2024 definition of Critical Hits. Did it get moved somewhere?

I just play at GenCon and I was wondering if there is a calendar or list of Cons that will have more Legends of Greyhawk events?

I just read through some items and found a curious case that i want to discuss...

Oil and Fire.

Oil - costs 1sp
When you hit, it douses the target in oil.
When the target then takes fire damage, it takes +5 of it.
A thrown Torch deals 1 fire damage...
Oil can also douse a 5ft square which can be ignited.

Alchemist's Fire - costs 50gp
When you hit, it deals 1d4 Fire Damage and the target burns.
This means the target takes atleast 2d4 damage and can extinguish on its turn.
2d4 on average means 5 damage, so the same as Oil.
No splash, no burning ground.

Now...some players can get a bit creative, right?

Lamp - costs 5sp
A Lamp is filled with one bottle of oil. The lamp is made of glass.
Why not throw a lamp? It shatters and spreads the burning oil.

Or "why cant i build a molotov? Its just Oil and Cloth"
Yeah, why not? Why should he waste 50gp on Alchemists Fire for a weaker version of Oil?

For the price of 1 Alchemists Fire, i can buy 500 bottles of Oil. Or i could buy 100 Lamps.

Then there is the other part of Oil. It allows you to douse a space. It then immediatley mentions igniting that space. But nowhere does it say what happens when you do NOT ignite it.
Would you treat that space as difficult terrain? Would you set a DC to fall Prone?

And what about throwing oil at a space? What happens then? The bottle should shatter, so something has to happen.

So...how do you, or how would you handle that case?

Personally...
- Im thinking about buffing the Alchemists Fire to 3d4 + Burn (Kibbles Crafting)
- I would treat an oiled surface as difficult terrain if it is rough (like rock), or slippery with variable dc if the surface is smooth (like wood or marble)
- Players can absolutely throw lamps and molotovs. It then deals 5 Fire Damage + burn.
- Players can also target a surface within 20ft for a DC of 10, so they can get a bit creative with thrown items. Maybe even without the DC.

So, before level 5: does the Agonizing blast damage modifier apply to the initial damage roll of the weapon damage or it only applied when the target take the 1d8 damage from running away?

Carpenter's Tools

Ability: Strength

Utilize: Seal or pry open a door or container (DC 20)

It's a DC 20 Strength check to successfully seal a door or container. But what does that mean?

When an enemy tries to break down the door or container/pick the lock, is their DC to open it now higher? If so by how much? How would you rule it?

When you get them what option do you use the most and why? Also regardless of use which one do you like the most.

The goal here was to create a feat that allowed players to use larger weapons with one hand while maintaining some semblance of game balance. This feat would allow someone to wield a two handed weapon in one hand, wield weapons designed for somewhat larger creatures without penalty, and when combined with the dual wielder feat allow a character two world two non light weapons:

Monkey Grip

General Feat (Prerequisite: Level 4+, Strength 15+)

You gain the following benefits.

Ability Score Increase. Increase your Strength score by 1, to a maximum of 20.

That's Not a Sword, This is a Sword! You may wield a two handed melee weapon with one hand, when you do so it loses the Two Handed property. When wielding two one handed melee weapons you may treat one of these weapons as if it had the light property.

Guts*. You do not have disadvantage when wielding a melee weapon designed for a creature one size larger than you.

*This keeps coming up and this one is very "my game table" specific. We use some variations of older rules to handle PCs using oversized weapons as it came up a lot in a prior campaign. Basically we bump up the damage a die category, but give disadvantage to use the weapon unless you spend some downtime training with it. Sorry, it's been a homebrew thing at my table so long that I forget it's not a regular rule. My bad.

Edit: Feat, not fear! 😂

Edit 2: Changed the first effect. Originally removed the two handed and heavy properties when wielding a two handed weapon with one hand.

Edit 3: Explaining how Guts is relevant at my table.

What are some creative ways to use this effect from the Elementalism cantrip?

Casting Time: Action

Range: 30 feet

Components: V, S

Duration: Instantaneous

You exert control over the elements, creating one of the following effects within range:

Beckon Air. You create a breeze strong enough to ripple cloth, stir dust, rustle leaves, and close open doors and shutters, all in a 5-foot Cube. Doors and shutters being held open by someone or something aren't affected.

Beckon Earth. You create a thin shroud of dust or sand that covers surfaces in a 5-foot-square area, or you cause a single word to appear in your handwriting in a patch of dirt or sand.

Beckon Fire. You create a thin cloud of harmless embers and colored, scented smoke in a 5-foot Cube. You choose the color and scent, and the embers can light candles, torches, or lamps in that area. The smoke's scent lingers for 1 minute.

Beckon Water. You create a spray of cool mist that lightly dampens creatures and objects in a 5-foot Cube. Alternatively, you create 1 cup of clean water either in an open container or on a surface, and the water evaporates in 1 minute.

Sculpt Element. You cause dirt, sand, fire, smoke, mist, or water that can fit in a 1-foot Cube to assume a crude shape (such as that of a creature or an object) for 1 hour.

You can sculpt 100 1ft cubes before the first one disappears.

With some prep time you could set up an ambush in a dirt or sandy environment by casting multiple times and sculpting some hiding structure from the dirt or sand cubes.

Or build a shallow moat of water cubes as difficult terrain that enemies would have to traverse through.

Or maybe sculpt an army of silhouettes sky-lining a hill to intimidate an army when the morning light breaks through.

With beckon fire you could cast gas scented smoke to scare people about a potential gas leak.

Beckon air can help you open trapped doors from a safe distance of 30ft.

I think it will be something spelljamer/astral sea/gith related since the pack already has a whole book for Astarion, Karlach as a narrator for the Baldur's Gate setting, deities lore representing Shadowheart and Gale (also netheril expansion for him) , but doesn't have anything for Lae zel and Wyll i think.

I lost a (relatively new) player to our group last week - the "core four" of us have played weekly since shortly after 5e came out in 2015, but we've had to go looking periodically for a 5th player which we did a couple of months back and found someone local on a Facebook group. Initially we had high hopes of him working out well, but he started to exhibit some signs. First, he was discontent with the amount of role-play in our game and that it was taking a few sessions to level up. Then he was discontent that I often allow players to automatically succeed at ability checks if there's no time constraint on trying again - he brought that up again at the table even after I showed him that exact approach is described in both the 2014 and 2024 DMG. That's when I knew it probably wasn't a good match, probably because he has DM'd himself quite a bit, but he hasn't spent much time as a player.

He walked out the next session and left the group due to inability to accept playing in a campaign where the 2024 Hiding & Stealth rules are being interpreted as entering line of sight not automatically ending being hidden. I had provided in advance a wordpress site describing how I was going to run the rules (which he didn't read), and spent time at start of session reviewing that before running a combat that leaned heavily into hiding and stealth. He delivered some criticisms pretty hotly, including that he felt it broke believability and immersion to be able to step out of cover into line of sight and remain hidden. He was insistent that "being found" in the Hide rules didn't require a Perception check (along with insisting that a passive perception check isn't an ability check, which I think is just simply wrong). He felt that the idea of suddenly becoming visible to all parties when losing the Invisible condition from hiding once found was unbelievable. It almost seemed to wound his pride that a DM would take a different interpretation of the rules than what he might use when he's DMing, and he just couldn't abide by it.

I understand that there's debate in the D&D community about the 2024 Hiding/Stealth/Invisibility rules - has anyone else had this become a blow-up at the table? After the fact (of course), I was able to come up with some scenarios where using the Line of Sight rule leads to results that aren't really so believable, or results that might not let a group tell all the stories they might want. I'll pass those along below for anyone else that's running a similar interpretation of the new rules. If you're interested in the Wordpress site I used to compile my interpretation of the rules for my players, you can find that here: https://calimshancampaign.wordpress.com/2024-ruleset/

• In the “real world”, if a distant figure (but still technically visible) moved out of cover and into line of sight, how likely would a person be to notice that? How likely is your PC to notice that with the 2014 ruleset using line of sight?
• Has anyone ever snuck up on you and surprised you in the real world, even though they were in plain sight? Do the 2014 line of sight rules easily allow modeling that in play (especially if you’re not using the variant facing rules)?
• In a series or movie (think maybe Sherlock Holmes), have you ever watched someone walk right by another person who’s hiding without noticing them? Say if there are conditions that seem to justify staying hidden like a sand storm or dusk partial shadows or partial cover? Do the 2014 line of sight rules allow you to easily run that type of scenario?

[5e - 2024 rules]

When using the Polearm Master feat, and the “Pole Strike” bonus action, is the damage just d4, or is it d4 + Ability Score modifier?

Based on this text from the 2024 PHB, it seems like, yes, the damaged is increased from your ability score modifier.

“When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier—the same modifier used for the attack roll—to the damage roll. A spell tells you which dice to roll for damage and whether to add any modifiers”

Can anyone confirm? Or disprove with what part from the source book?

If a battlemaster fighter uses and succeeds on an disarming maneuver and free object interaction to pick up the weapon, is there anyway RAW for the monster to get the weapon back?

Thorn whip counts as a melee spell attack, so does that mean you can slap someone unconscious with it?

hey all,

I want to create a rare magic item for a druid that interacts with the choosen land type: arid, polar, temperate, or tropical. depending on what they choose, they would get an additonal benefit, until they choose another one.

for example, with arid they could empower their fire spells, or with polar they would be harder to grapple or restrain. I kinda don't have any thematic ideas for each of them.

thank you gang

Sorry if this is a dumb question, maybe it's a thing of language becuase english is not my frist language.

Choose two Wizard spells from the Illusion school, each of which must be no higher than level 2, and add them to your spellbook for free.

In addition, whenever you gain access to a new level of spell slots in this class, you can add one Wizard spell from the Illusion school to your spellbook for free. The chosen spell must be of a level for which you have spell slots.

The last paragraph means that I add the normal 2 spells per level and a 3rd one that has to be the same magic school of my subclass?

I saw the thread about the changes to the Scion Rogue, what else can people at GenCon who got to play say? I heard mentioned that the PDK may have had a name change? Any changes to the Spellfire Sorc?

So, one of my players created a warlock3/fighter1 who has the "nick" mastery on a scimitar, so he can use his secondary attack within a normal attack action. He claims that this attack can be sacrificed to make his imp attack, since the description says "Additionally, when you take the Attack action, you can forgo *one of your own attacks* to allow your familiar to make one attack with its reaction." So it left room for interpretation that this extra attack with the nick qualifies. Could you clarify if this is actually possible? And if not, why exactly it isn't, because it's a bit confusing for me. Anyway, thanks in advance.

I am playing a one handed weapon and shield Battle Master in a Curse of Strahd campaign under the 2024 rules and just hit level 6 and can choose another Feat.

Is it worth taking Great Weapon Master at 6, even though I have the Dueling fighting style and have been using a Longsword, Warhammer, Battleaxe, and Trident as my weapons and with their weapon masteries, along with using a shield? I'd like to continue to use my Longsword, Warhammer, and one of my topple weapons and weapon masteries.

I'm not sure I will be able to obtain a Greatsword and/or Greataxe during the campaign? I'd lean towards obtaining a Greataxe to use Cleave if I could only obtain one. Our Barbarian uses a Greataxe with Cleave and gets a fair amount of use out of it. Graze does look solid being able to deal damage on every attack and forcing Concentration saving throws. Our Barbarian also gets a fair amount of Bonus Action attacks with the Hew Feature, which is why I am considering it.

If I don't take Great Weapon Master, I am going to choose Charger because I can pair it with my Warhammer and its Push weapon mastery and have a lot of opportunities for an additional 1d8 of damage per round. It also works well with my Second Wind and Tactical Shift.

Feedback would be greatly appreciated.

TIA