Can the 5th lvl ‘Dream’ spell contact a petrified creature?

A player would like to cast ‘Dream’ spell on an ancient statue of a petrified hero. Thematically this is wonderful, sure – but is it RAW?

Here are possible answers we discussed / lacking backing:

1/ Rule of Cool: A creative and fun use of the spell! Advances the plot. Not abusable. Why not? Find out if statues dream of stone sheep

2/ Incapacitated people sleep… why not statues?: As 5e lists ‘petrification’ as being incapacitated (‘no actions / reactions’) and is ‘not aware of the space around them’. Sleep = ‘unaware of time’s passage’. Thus all petrified creatures default to a place resembling sleep. Besides, the Dream spell is powerful magic – this isn’t just shaping biological dreams, it is providing a telepathic uplink between 2-3 creatures for an eight hour span.

3/ Bricks Do Not Dream! One cannot attain REM-state nor entertain any neurobiological capacity whilst granite. As solid stone, one is not Han in carbonate! Just like an elf that can not sleep, neither can a statue. Even if you successfully cast a Sleep spell on such a person-statue, such a creature cannot even entertain this rest-state unless Greater Restoration is used.

We are sure that that the first answer is by FAR the most magical, thematic &/or fun (R.A.F.). As a DM i also fear that the last answer is most logical &/or closest to ‘R.A.W.’ Still, we would like your collective perspective on this, with thanks.

Long story short: Is there any ruling, be that a tweet from Mr. Crawford (or other such source) that might suggest use of Dream on petrified creatures?

What does “Summoned creature has maximum hit points” actually mean?

So, I’m running Princes of the Apocalypse for my group, they’re about to encounter their first elemental prince, Yan-C-Bin, and I see that he has the following ability:

The part I’m confused about is “maximum hit points.” Air elementals have their hit points listed as “90 (12d10+24)” in their stat block. Is this line meant to make sure people are deploying a fully-healed air elemental as opposed to one with 30 HP (regardless of whether they use the average hit points or they actually roll their hit dice), or is it meant to convey that these are extremely robust air elementals and each should have the maximum possible hit points as decided by the hit dice, 144 (120+24), and the fully-healed part is implied?

Does a creature know that it is hidden?

When a creature attempts to Hide it makes a Stealth check, which is compared to the passive Perception of opposing creatures that may notice it, or a group check if there is more than one.

Does the creature attempting to Hide know whether or not is has successfully hidden?

If an opposing creature decides to take the Search action, making a Perception check to attempt to detect the hiding creature, does the hiding creature know if they have remained hidden? Does the hiding creature know that the Search action has been taken?

Does a creature know that Suggestion was cast on it?

I have a problem about the spell Suggestion. One of my players wants to use it on an NPC and the NPC fails the save, does the ‘thing’ he is told to do and now ____. Does the NPC ‘magically’ forget about the spell? Or in other words, can someone remember that a spell was cast on them (specifically Suggestion)?

Here is something I thought about with regards to the Friends spell (PHB P.244):

…When the spell ends, the creature realizes that you used magic to influence its mood and becomes hostile toward you…

So, Suggestion doesn’t have that in its description, neither does it have something similar. Does that mean this is just not the case with Suggestion? And if so, with every other spell, where said sentence or a similar are not stated?

Or did they just attached this sentence to the spell Friends to clarify ‘If he wasn’t your enemy before, he is now’.

So, here again the question is: Are you able to recognize that a spell is being cast on you after you’ve fulfilled your ‘suggested’ task via the spell Suggestion (or a similar Spell)?

Using water whip to pull a creature being restrained

Here’s the situation:

An ally is being restrained, and grappled by a NPC. The NPC is dragging the character.

My character, seeing this, decides to use Water Whip on the ally. He’s going to take some damage, but since he’s restrained, he will automatically fail the Dexterity saving through and I will be able to retrieve him.

Water Whip states:

You can spend 2 ki points as an action to create a whip of water that shoves and pulls a creature to unbalance it. A creature that you can see that is within 30 feet of you must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, the creature takes 3d10 bludgeoning damage, plus an extra 1d10 bludgeoning damage for each additional ki point you spend, and you can either knock it prone or pull it up to 25 feet closer to you. On a successful save, the creature takes half as much damage, and you don’t pull it or knock it prone.

Since this situation is somewhat different, my DM ruled that there would be a “tug of war” that took place instead of the typically Dexterity saving throw. The NPC dragging the character would instead make a Strength saving through against my Ki Save DC. Essentially turning my Water Whip into a lasso.

His logic was that you couldn’t make a Water Whip to a creature restrained, and chained, to a wall and expect it to work.

So, essentially my question is:

Is it reasonable to make Water Whip a tug of war, requiring a Strength saving throw against my characters’ Ki Save DC, in situations where a target is being restrained?

Can you shrink down then teleport inside an enemy using alter size and then Again to expand yourself and explode the creature?

So my party is playing a god campaign and my character has divine rank 1. I’ve chose alter size as my divine ability, but one of the perks of being literal god is I can teleport at will as a free action. So my question is, during combat, if I use alter size to shrink down to the size of a pin head, and teleport INSIDE an enemy, then use alter size again to expand myself enough to basically explode their body… how would you calculate that exactly……

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?

What happens when the Immolation spell is cast on a creature immune to fire damage?

I am already aware of the question “Does a creature that is immune to all outcomes (conditions, damage, etc.) of an effect still make a saving throw?” and also “Is a creature immune to a spell’s damage type immune to the spell’s other effects?” but I’m unsure how to tell if effects of a spell are “linked” or not. For example there have been the questions “How does a ghost’s Horrifying Visage aging interact with immunity to the frightened condition?” and “Does immunity to fear prevent a mummy’s Dreadful Glare from paralyzing a character?” where it is contentious whether or not the effects are linked and even whether or not the target makes a saving throw at all.

And thus I am wondering about the immolation spell which states:

[…] The target must make a Dexterity saving throw. It takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. On a failed save, the target also burns for the spell’s duration. The burning target sheds bright light in a 30-foot radius and dim light for an additional 30 feet […]

Assuming the target is immune to fire damage, what happens when they are targeted by immolation? Do they shed light if the fail the saving throw? Do they make a saving throw at all?

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?”