Moving through the space of an invisible enemy creature in combat

In my last session the party was fighting some Wyverns. When one got near the sorcerer, he became invisible and moved out of its reach, but stayed between the Wyvern and the warlock. On its next turn, the Wyvern moved to attack the warlock, but to do so, it would have to move through the sorcerer’s space.

On page 191 of the Player’s Handbook, it states under “Moving Around Other Creatures”:

[…] you can move through an hostile creature’s space only if the creature is at least two sizes larger or smaller than you. Remember that another creature’s space is difficult terrain for you.

The Wyvern is a Large creature, so it can’t move through the space occupied by the sorcerer, but it would definitely try to do so to attack the nearest enemy.

What should be the proper resolution of this event according to the rules?

I made my call by letting the Wyvern, a Large creature, pass through the space and gave the sorcerer a choice to make a Dexterity saving throw to avoid being trampled, or a Strength saving throw to stop the creature’s movement. The PC chose Dexterity and failed, so he got trampled. I considered the space difficult terrain for the Wyvern, used 2d6+4 as trample damage (same as for its Bite attack), concluded the movement out of the square occupied by the PC, left him prone, and made only the Stinger attack to maintain the average damage output.

I let my group know that it was my call to avoid stopping combat and searching for rules, and that in the future, the same situation may be managed differently according to official rules, but what are those rules?

How to balance combat for a duet campaign with non-frontliner classes?

I’m in the process of creating a campaign and in the time leading up to it I’ve been running a few duets, or one-on-one, campaigns via a play-by-post format. I’ve been struggling though to create tense or threatening combat without being outright unfair. I’m used to creating combat encounters in which there is a full and diverse party, a couple casters, martials, and utility, but balancing combat for a single player is quite difficult, especially when one of my duets is with a Cleric, and another is with a Rogue.

The players are able to temporarily recruit companions during the Duet, which will usually just be NPCs or friendly creatures, using CR rather than essentially giving the player a second character (entering Trio territory). They will only ever be able to have one of these companions but will typically be alone.

I’m confident with creating encounters for a lone Fighter, Monk, Barbarian or other frontline class, but less so when it comes to pure casters and utility classes like Clerics, Rogues, Bards, etc.
If it helps, I am running a homebrew module and setting, so I have large amounts of flexibility when it comes to how I run the encounters. I also have access to most the official sources for creatures and will use a variety of them, including re-flavours to mimic combat diversity.

How do I balance the combat fairly in a duet campaign for non-frontline classes without diminishing threat or perceived threat?

What are the ramifications of a disarmed creature having to take the Search action to find their weapon in combat?

Disarming in D&D seems to be very trivial, as explained in this question. Rules as Written, disarming a creature does not prevent them from attacking you with that weapon on their turn as they can use their free object interaction to pick it up and take the Attack action with that weapon. To me, this seems like Disarm was added in as an afterthought, it appears to be near-useless because the disarmed creature can pick up their weapon immediately on their turn.

Over the years, numerous people have suggested using your own object interaction to get the weapon away from the enemy, including Jeremy Crawford suggesting this not once but at least twice.

Others have suggested creating a homebrew rule that allows for Opportunity Attacks against a creature that tries to pick up a disarmed weapon in combat.

Although, whilst both of these options serve to make disarming a creature more beneficial to the disarmer, one of them isn’t an official rule and the other isn’t exactly intuitive, forcing you to use your own interaction just to prevent the opponent from using theirs on their turn.


However, what if there already was a rule that made disarm better, but it was simply overlooked? If “searching for a disarmed weapon” was a feature of the Search action, all of a sudden Disarm becomes significantly more useful. If in order for a disarmed opponent to use their object interaction to pick their weapon up, they first had to use the Search action to find it, this would prevent them from taking the Attack action on that same turn, as per the action economy. Now, an opponent still could attack instead of searching for their missing weapon, however the disarmed weapon was likely their main one, meaning future attacks will likely do less damage. Eg, losing their 1d8 rapier and instead using their backup weapon, a 1d4 dagger. Essentially though, disarming your opponent might allow you to avoid, or at least reduce, their damage on their next turn.

As far as i am aware, there is no mention of the Search action being used in this way. However, the wording of the Search action would seem to allow for this and again, as far as i am aware, there is no published list of examples for what a search action can or can’t be used for.


So, my question is “what are the ramifications of requiring a creature who has been disarmed having to Search for their weapon before being allowed to use an object interaction to pick it up?”

What are the manacled or shackled combat modifiers?

Two fighters escape from a prisoner transfer. They are essentially identical, except one has manacles around his wrists while the other has shackles around his ankles.

What are the modifiers to the attack roles for each fighter? Are they the same modifier?

Do both fighters have the Entangled condition? The Grappled condition? Some other condition?

Slaad Chaos Phage: Weak Combat Ability?

Slaad Chaos Phage seems like an odd ability in 5e. They offer no real disadvantages to the party that forces them to expend resources because they require days to take effect: Red Slaad Tadpoles kill whoever they infect in three months while Blue Slaad plague causes maximum HP reduction per day until the target is turned into a Slaad.

In short, as far as I can see, a Slaad infection doesn’t seem to be increase the fighting proficiency of the Slaads in anyway.

Which then brings up the question of how are they supposed to work towards increasing the difficulty of an encounter, since Slaad infections are diseases, and Lesser Restoration is a fairly low level spell.

  1. A party without access to it is unlikely to survive the Slaad in the first place.
  2. A party that is sufficiently high leveled to take down a Slaad would probably have lesser restoration on hand, which they can cast and then long rest to regain all their spells.

The alternative would be keeping infections a secret and the party suddenly wake up one day with a member-turned-Slaad trying to eat their face off. This though seems to be a power move with no counter and extremely unfair for the party, especially for Blue Slaad phage since it means one character is automatically removed from play with no hope of reversal unless someone has Wish handy. At least someone killed by a Tadpole can still be revivified.

Wouldn’t a Slaad infection that causes creatures to turn before the day ends or even mid encounter (A la XCOM Chryssalids) be a more sensible flavor ability? This infection would force players to expend potions/spells slots in the encounter and serves a point to effectively deplete player resources.

Does using a crossbow with the Sharpshooter feat change its range in underwater combat?

The Underwater Combat section of the Combat chapter (PHB p.198) reads:

A ranged weapon attack automatically misses a target beyond the weapon’s normal range. Even against a target within normal range, the attack roll has disadvantage unless the weapon is a crossbow, a net, or a weapon that is thrown like a javelin (including a spear, trident, or dart).

The Sharpshooter feat (PHB p.170) reads:

Attacking at long range doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls.

With both of those in mind, would a PC with a Hand Crossbow and the Sharpshooter feat be able to shoot further than 30 feet underwater?

Is there a proper way to handle large combat engagements with party members involved?

For instance, a party of four player characters raise a force of 30 militia men to go take a bandit camp. When they get there the bandit camp has 40 men, and none of them notable.

For the sake of simplicity, both the 30 men and the 40 bandits are armed with long swords, and wearing leather armor.

Is there a proper way to handle combat between the 30 man militia and the 40 bandits while also incorporating our four player characters? If no “proper” way exists, is there a generally accepted “best” way?

How does Monks’ Improved Unarmored Movement work out of combat?

At 9th level, Monks gain an improvement of their Unarmored Movement feature:

At 9th level, you gain the ability to move along vertical surfaces and across liquids on your turn without falling during the move.

Searching on the site for an answer, I only found ones related to turns in combat. I’m wondering what happens outside of it. If I have 50 ft. of speed, I can only move up to 50 feet during a turn, that’s clear.

But how does this work out of combat, when movement isn’t forcefully split up because of turns? Do I fall after 50 feet, or can I move on vertical surfaces and across liquids indefinetely?

[ Global Warming ] Open Question : Presidential Democratic candidate Marianne Willamson calls for conscription to combat “climate change.” Will her idea catch on?

Marianne Williamson wants a national mandatory service for people ages 18-26 to combat climate change —– Jeanine Santucci, USA TODAY Published 3:22 p.m. ET Sept. 19, 2019 Passage from article….. “At a presidential climate change forum on Thursday, author and Democratic presidential hopeful Marianne Williamson floated the idea of a national mandatory year of service for young adults to tackle climate change. “I would like to ask your opinion, I think during the ‘season of repair,’ we should have a mandatory national service, one year, for people between 18 and 26 because we need you,” Williamson said. “We need to fix this climate. We need to fix this country.” https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/09/19/marianne-williamson-proposes-mandatory-national-service-climate-forum/2376414001/