How does a Battle Master’s Parry work with multiple damage types? [duplicate]

Suppose an attack does 5 piercing and 5 poison damage (or 5 slashing and 5 fire, etc.) and the player parries the attack, and rolls to reduce 6 points of damage. Which type of damage is reduced first? Would the answer be different if it were 9 weapon damage and 1 elemental, or vice versa?


When another creature damages you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction and expend one superiority die to reduce the damage by the number you roll on your superiority die + your Dexterity modifier.

This matters if, for example, the character has resistance to one of the damage types.

The kindest interpretation (and one that does make some “sense”) would be that it reduces weapon damage first, and if it reduces the weapon damage to zero, none of the additional damage is done either, but that seems over powered. Unless someone can unambiguously point me to rules that support this interpretation, I prefer an interpretation where the total damage reduced is as rolled.

Variant rule: how can we lighten the cost of chugging potions in battle? [closed]

So, we know how this works: potions are listed as magic items in the DMG, and to use a magic item, one must use activate magic item, which costs one action and, to the best of my knowledge, there’s no way to relieve such cost (a thief’s fast hands don’t apply since, again, this is a magic object and for some reason it’s wholly different).

Now, I’m sure most of us can relate to this this situation" you find yourself in the midst of a bloody battle, half-dead and surrounded by enemies, when a hope shines through the perils: your bag full of refreshing healing potions, which beg to be savored by your dusty lips. You extend your empty hand (or drop whatever you were holding since only one free interaction is allowed per turn and tidily stowing your sword consumes it… the ancients would say junky lex, sed lex), grab a delicious 4d4+4 health potion and prepare to consume your action in the process… "But wait" I hear you say, "Doesn’t it heal an average of 14Hp?" Indeed. "And don’t my enemies dish out an average of -whatever number higher or equal to 14-"? Right on the money. "So I can’t move or I’ll trigger free opportunity attacks – and the hostile creatures will still be able to reach me (if they have at least my speed) – but I can’t disengage or do any evasive meneuvers or I won’t be able to drink… So I can only chug and deplete my precious potions while they gank on me till they’ll inevitably reduce me to a pulp?" Bingo.

Healing potions are scarcely useful in battle, even compared to healing spells: despite being limited -to the number of spell slots left-, they also offer several ductile options: most are available from level 1 (healing word, cure wounds) and therefore ever more plentiful, they can be upcast (while one cannot chug more than one potion per turn), some cost a bonus action (healing word), and the strongest have an AoE healing (mass cure wounds*). The scale is so tipped in favor of spellcasters that even in campaigns with regular supplies of cheap, high level potions, they rarely compare to the dreaded healbot. How can we houserule more versatility and usefulness out of potions and rely less, possibly not at all, on healers?

Most common solutions I found were:

  1. Drink healing potions as a bonus actions, which definitely helps and resembles healing word, but, seems e bit too much and inconsistent (I mean, what about other potions?);
  2. Dodge&drink, a solution Hipsters&Dragons came up with, which lets you take the dodge action freely when you drink a potion (, which is neat, but won’t save you from any save-throw imposing moonbeam;
  3. If you retrieve a healing potion this turn and drink it the next one (with two separate free interactions), you don’t need to waste any action since drinking only takes a free interaction". Crawford debunked this possible solution (, and didn’t the DMG establish that potions are magic items and you need to, somehow, activate them? Inconsistencies aside, this interpretation doesn’t really help in the heat of battle, does it?

So, what do you suggest?

Does Battle Cry happen before or after Initiative is rolled?

The Feat Battle Cry reads

When you roll initiative, you can yell a mighty battle cry and Demoralize an observed foe as a free action. If you’re legendary in Intimidation, you can use a reaction to Demoralize your foe when you critically succeed at an attack roll.

There are similar abilities, such as Hobgoblin Generals’ General’s Cry.

Do effects like this occur before or after initiative is rolled; specifically, does this (potentially) affect the target’s Initiative roll?

Damage Output of Lightning Recovery (Tome of Battle Maneuver)

Lightning Recovery is a Tome of Battle maneuver that allows a reroll on an attack d20 if it misses, along with an additional +2 on the second attempt. How can I calculate the value of the damage added per round? Here are some figures we can use:

Rapier Attack: +10/+5
Base Damage: 1d6+2
Extra feat damage: 2d6
Critical: 18/x2
Battle Ardor (warblade ability): +2 to confirm critical threat
Target AC: 20

How much damage per round does the use of this maneuver Lightning Recovery add? I’m guessing it’s an array of spread due to the 5e ‘advantage’-like nature of the maneuver mechanic? Could that even be averaged?

Can I pump my damage repeatedly when using the ‘Burned Over’ battle move?

Here’s the do battle move from the Burned Over hackbook:

When you do battle with someone, exchange harm, but first roll+Hard. On a 10+, you hold 4 against your enemy. On a 7–9, you hold 3 against them. On a miss, you hold 1 against them. If a PC, your enemy rolls simultaneously to do battle with you. If an NPC, your enemy holds 2 against you on any hit, and 3 against you on a miss.

To conduct the battle, spend your hold on the following. Commit to your spends without knowing your enemy’s.

• Fight for blood: Spend 1 to inflict +1harm.

• Fight defensively: Spend 1 to suffer -1harm.

• Fight opportunistically: Spend 1 to inflict harm on an additional enemy.

• Guard someone: Spend 1 to protect an ally from 1-harm.

• Seize initiative: Whoever spends more to seize initiative, does.

[Initiative rules omitted for brevity]

Can you pump damage or defense by choosing the same "fight for blood" / "fight defensively" option multiple times? (You can’t using AW2e seize by force, but that is a "choose" move whereas this is a "spend your hold" move.)

How can you use a healing surge during battle?

In the PHB it says:

Even in a heated battle, you can heal. You can heal yourself by using your second wind (see page 291), an ally can use the Heal skill (see page 185) on you, and an ally can use a healing power on you.

But I want to know if there is a way to just use a healing surge as a standard action.(by the book)
Can you just use a healing surge without it being triggered by any of the above stated actions?

Thanks in advance!

Installing modifications on Battle Smith’s Steel Defender (5e)

I’m currently playing an artificer in a homebrew campaign and looking at the SD’s stat block, as well as other people’s opinions, it’s pretty much just a tank with its damage being negligible at best, so I was wondering if there are any balanced homebrew rules someone has made to install modifications on the SD, because that just seems to be the natural thing to do for a class called the Battle Smith. I’m not talking about putting infusions or magic items on the SD, but adding/swapping on its abilities and stats.

Of course my aim isn’t to make it OP, but more on to customize how I want it to be as well as make it scale better. I could just talk this out with my DM but I don’t want to have her make an entire ruleset on Steel Defender modification from scratch.

At what distance can an Artificer Battle Smith command his Steel Defender?

The Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything brings the most recent version of the Artificer and the Battle Smith subclass, who gains a companion called Steel Defender at level 3. In the description of the Steel Defender ability, there is a part of the text that states:

[…] In combat, the defender shares your initiative coutn, but it takes its turn immediately after yours. It can move and use its reaction on its own, but the only action it takes on its turn is the Dodge action, unless you take a bonus action on your turn to command it to take an action. […]

Altought it states that you have to take an bonus action on your turn to command it to take an action, there is no limitation regarding the distance between the two. Since nothing restricts regarding this condition, by RAW you could command it whenever you are by taking a bonus action. But this sounds off in some cases, like when they are really far apart from each other (miles away for example).

Is there any other official rules that could be used to support a maximum distance between then for the artificer be able to command it?

The BBEG wants to delay the party in the final battle… (narrative delay?)

I have thought of a few methods they might accomplish this. In this question, I am wondering about a potentially more controversial option. I am considering having them attempt to monologue or engage the PC’s in dialogue (e.g. offer for them to join his side, explain his plan, answer questions, etc) with a timer running, then increase the battle rounds based on the amount of time they were able to enthrall the PC’s with their speech.

I can see some problems with this:

  • I haven’t used this "on the clock" method before and the players may not recognize what’s happening (kind of the point?); I’ve loosely enforced limiting speech to your turn to maintain a suspension of disbelief
  • This could cause balance issues with planning the time depending on if they catch on quickly or not as all (see below)
  • It would require significant setup, coordinating clues that may let them read into what is happening while also maintaining a monologue
  • Our game is online, so it may be more difficult to implement this strategy

Some details about the campaign/fight (major spoilers for Paizo’s Ruins of Azlant AP)

The party will already be in initiative when they arrive in his area (they have to fight or bypass a couple ‘mooks’ before reaching him) but in our circle of gamers there is a precedent for NPC’s to interrupt combat rounds with speech. In this campaign, that even includes the players taking up another potential enemy’s offer of working together instead of fighting. In the past, however, it hasn’t been relevant that the clock continues moving.

My goal is to cost them a handful of rounds if they are willing to listen to the creature, who is manipulative by nature. I feel this is thematic but unlikely to make the difference in their success or failure in regards to the creature’s plan, but I think it would be an epic moment if it does (or comes down to the line).

Is this a bad idea? Has anyone had success doing something like this, and what was needed to pull it off?

Directly related to my question about doing it with spells.

Reminder: per "Good Subjective, Bad Subjective", to answer this question, one would either need direct experience using such a delay tactic or have experienced a GM doing so with them as a player.

Can magic tattoos be used by warforged, or other constructs such as the battle smith artificer’s steel defender?

Magic tattoos all say things akin to the following:

To attune to this item, you hold the needle to your skin where you want the tattoo to appear, pressing the needle there throughout the attunement process. When the attunement is complete, the needle turns into the ink that becomes the tattoo, which appears on the skin.

They each appear on the skin, they are applied by being held to the skin. Can the metal body of a warforged use it? If so, the only other item I am aware of that has race specific requirements is the dwarven thrower.

It dawned on me that warforged aren’t considered constructs in 5e (at least I don’t think there is a distinction made for what player characters are). However, I think it should be considered that what would bar constructs from being able to use the tattoos is that the tattoos specifically say how you apply it to the skin, or how it appears on the skin. I think this would be the same disqualifying factor for warforged, or for other ‘constructs.’