If a character with the Unarmoured Defence class feature casts Mage Armour, what is their AC? Do they choose which ‘base’ AC they take, or do they stack somehow? Is there rules text that explains this conflict?
If there is a level 3 Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer, with a level in Barbarian for Unarmored Defense, and another level in Monk, for a 5th level character in total, would their total AC be 13 + CON + DEX + WIS? What if this character was also a warforged, with +1 to AC, +2 to Constitution, and +1 to Intelligence, Strength, or Dexterity?
Could a 5th level character do that in the first place? If so, does Unarmored Defense stack in that way?
I am doing my graduate thesis, working on the WEP attack by S.Fluhrer, I.Mantin, and A.Shamir (FSM). I know this attack is aimed at the weak IV vector. I want to ask FSM’s attack defense method, and related documents. Thank you!
When Damaging Objects, considered to be Defenseless:
Inanimate objects are defenseless by definition and therefore subject to finishing attacks (see the Finishing Attack maneuver): essentially, you can choose between making your attack on the object as a routine check or, if you make the attack check normally, gaining an automatic critical hit if your attack hits, for a +5 bonus to effect.
This is all fine and good, except that the last time I had to adjudicate this, with someone trying to kick a door down, they objected to me starting with the Base 10 defense for the door, namely they chose to Power Attack, and where already damage shifted, and completely missed the door. I can kind of see their point that a door shouldn’t be that easy to miss hitting. I think I described it as more of a "glancing blow", that they were trying so hard to hit it hard that the blow just skidded off of it. But the question does remain, should a Defenseless object the size of a door start with a defense of 10 such that the average bystander has a little more than a 50/50 chance of actually hitting it if they’re trying to hit it hard? Am I reading the rules wrong? Did the player maybe just get a little too greedy in trying to do more damage?
This is a fun one…DND 5E session.
Assume a 5′ corridor that if 25′ long leading to a dead-end (5 squares), and 5 party members (all medium size) fill each of those squares. A well armored tank as at the front, trying to defend the party. This is the scenario a party has encountered a bunch of times fighting various creatures. But never against incorporeal creatures.
The party is trying to hold off 7 specters being controlled by a Wraith.
Since the Specters are incorporeal and can pass through one another, as well as the players, as difficult terrain, are they limited to attacking the front-line only? I would rule yes, in theory, because you can’t attack from an occupied space:
What happens when allies occupy the same space?
That rule is a fundamental aspect of the tunnel defense / choke-point strategy, and in theory even works for these non-corporeal creatures, preventing them from being able to infiltrate the middle of the party, as there is no unoccupied space for them to attack from. The PC’s literally fill every available 5′ square. Pretty simple and clear cut I think.
But then, there’s the fact that the Specters can pass through walls…and that’s where they fun begins. They have 50′ of movement, so even through walls they can move 25′, attack blindly through the wall, and then return 25′ back. Muahhahaha. They could easily reach PC #2 and PC #3, although the two way in the far back would be safe (unless the Specter was willing to end it’s round in the wall and take the 1d10 Force damage).
Seem legit? I ruled that they would NOT take the 1d10 Force Damage for stopping to attack from inside the wall, because they did not "end their turn" on that space. That’s straight from the rules on Incorporeal Movement in their stat block. Do others agree? A few players weren’t happy lol.
However, things quickly got so crazy complicated from here, I quickly whiched that I had ruled they simply couldn’t do it. 😉
If allowed to attack, would they attack at Disadvantage since the specter can’t "see" through the wall? I ruled yes. However, since the PC can’t see the attacker (it’s in a wall!), the attack should be at Advantage, thus cancelling each other out!
But what if the PC saw the hand coming? You could offer a Perception vs. Stealth to see if the PC see’s the "hand reaching out", and if they did, then Disadvantage would be re-asserted, right? And if so, what if that PC is also Dodging and sees the hand come out? Should the attack then be at super-disadvantage (which we don’t have as a house rule and I avoid like the plague, although this one tempted me big-time).
The way I ruled it is those who were Dodging gained Advantage on their Perception check to see the hand coming. If successful, then the attack happened at Disadvantage. Therefore, there was a benefit to foregoing an attack to Dodge. However, even those who used their Action to attack still had a chance to see the hand coming if they made their Perception check, and if they did, the Specter attacked at Disadvantage. If they didn’t see it coming, the Specter attacked normally as it’s Advantage (attacking a creature who can’t see you) and Disadvantage (blindly attacking a creature you can’t see) cancelled each other out.
I’m really curious to see how others would have handled this. The party was quite shocked when their tried and true tunnel defense imploded upon them.
Also, this didn’t come up, but what if a PC in the back cast Daylight? I would have ruled that the Specters in the walls would not have suffered Disadvantage on attack from it, because they couldn’t see the light (it wouldn’t penetrate the walls). Only the specters attacking from up front would have been at disadvantage. This would have in turn driven them all to enter and start attacking through the walls (INT 10 after all)! Major backfire potential there!
For science I made a level 1 monk and level 1 barbarian character. Set all the stats to 18. So according to monks unarmored defense your ac = 10 + dex + wis. Then with the barbarian it adds con. Yet the ac was still only 18. Is this intended or is this a bug with dndbeyond?
So, Qstaff is versatile and can be used one-handed. Can you have it in one hand, and an ACTUAL physical shield in another hand? Say I have 16 dex, mage armor. The staff, and a shield. Would that be 13+3+1+2 for AC?
A champion fighter gets a second fighting style at 10th level. Can the 2 different martial fighting styles be used together at the same time? For example protection and defense from a champion fighter, would it gain both bonuses?
My player is asking me if he could use this ability to run his full movement speed down a vertical surface, and then have gravity kick in. So his fall damage if he were running down a cliff wouldn’t start until after the first 120 feet of movement (if he dashes first) instead of starting from the top of the cliff.
Is this a viable use of this ability? I imagine the ability working like running on walls. Going straight up is fine. But straight down? Seems like it shouldn’t work this way.
(sorry for my possible bad english i’m a french canadian haha)
I try to create a lvl 4 character with a lot of AC. I’m not sure if it’s ”légal”
So here it is:
-Dex mod : +3
-Stutted leather armor : +12 AC
-Shield + 2 AC
-Figther Devensive style : +1 Ac
-Feat Defensive Duelist : +2 AC (In reaction with Finnsse weapon)
-Also use Shield spell sometimes if possible? : +5 AC
So what do you think?