Inspired by this answer, and to avoid lengthy back and forth comments, I decided to make this a question in itself.
You can put on your helmet for +1 AC and disadvantage on perception checks. In combat, this’ll likely mean -5 to your passive perception.
I believe that this is a pretty amazing trade, you are becoming a lot more difficult to hit because of bounded accuracy, and trading this for a minuscule chance that some enemy will be able to hide better from you to gain advantage.
Note that this is not, mathematically, the same as trading +1 AC for giving enemies advantage, as they will have to first take the hide action to even be hidden to get that advantage, they’re essentially sacrificing attacking twice to gain advantage.*
So the question is gaining +1 AC in combat by gaining disadvantage on perception checks a balanced trade?
Note: I am working under the assumption that you will simply take your helmet off again after the fight, so you are not walking into traps or ambushes with disadvantage, you are putting on your helmet as your free object interaction in the first turn. The penalty only comes in affect during combat, as does the +1 AC
*Unless they’re a rogue of sorts.
The Grappler Feat states:
You’ve developed the Skills necessary to hold your own in close-quarters Grappling. You gain the following benefits:
You have advantage on Attack rolls against a creature you are Grappling.
You can use your action to try to pin a creature Grappled by you. To do so, make another grapple check. If you succeed, you and the creature are both Restrained until the grapple ends.
The Restrained Condition states:
A restrained creature’s speed becomes 0, and it can’t benefit from any bonus to its speed.
Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature’s Attack rolls have disadvantage.
The creature has disadvantage on Dexterity Saving Throws.
If on the first turn I grapple a creature, I have advantage on attacks to the creature. On the second turn, I use my action to pin the creature and now we are both restrained.
On subsequent rounds, would I now have neither advantage nor disadvantage when attacking the creature?
The new Artillerist subclass for the Artificer has a feature that creates an Eldritch Cannon with one option for the cannon being to create a Force Ballista that can fire at enemies by making ranged spell attacks. Under what circumstances would the ranged attacks be made at disadvantage?
For example, if an enemy is within 5 ft of the cannon, would the attack be at disadvantage? What if the enemy is standing within 5 ft of the Artificer but not next to the cannon, would that be at disadvantage?
What if the cannon is surrounded by Darkness but the Artificer can see the target just fine. Would that be at disadvantage? Or vice versa?
I’d also be interested in knowing about other scenarios like these that I haven’t thought of.
Long story short, I was the DM running my adventure when one of the players asked if he could DM for a few session. In the last session, the level 6 party acquired a few magic items, one of them being:
Staff of Crowds
On a spell cast, you may impose that all enemies affected by that spell has disadvantage on ability checks made against that spell, once per day.
(By “ability checks made against that spell” he means saving throws)
This one worries me quite a lot. I’m thinking about only allowing the disadvantage against the damage from the spell, making an aditional normal roll if the spell has any secondary effects. As it is, this can be too much of a game changer if used with crowd control spells like hold person or high level charm spells.
Another thing is that this will probably be used by a druid, which means that if he uses the effect of the staff with say, a moon beam, he will probably stay the whole fight just moving the moon beam because that might be his best option to do lots of damage. I might be wrong here, but I don’t want to encourge him to bore himself out in a fight.
The party is only level six now but soon they’ll be seven, and with level 4 spells comes some pretty good AoE. This might not be a problem now but I think it’ll be soon.
Is this item balanced for a lvl 6-7 party with the adjustments I made?
I’m curious if there is a ruling on this topic. Specifically the debate was over whether a Loxodon Way of the Shadow Monk could benefit from the massive stealth advantages and ninja-teleportation. This would apply equally I presume for Centaurs and other larger (but still medium) playable races.
Speaking of “flavor” it seems a Loxodon/Centaur ninja would be highly ineffective. A 7ft tall 400lb elephant probably wouldn’t make a great ninja, right? It makes sense from a world concept level.
But is there actually anything in the rules that would give these large (but still Medium-sized) creatures disadvantage on Stealth checks?
Mathematically speaking, I’m trying to determine if Bracers of Defense (AC+2) is better than a Cloak of Displacement, which causes all attackers to have disadvantage on attack rolls against you.
If it’s pertinent, I’m a monk, my character level is 15, and my AC without the bracers is 18. I don’t have any other sources that will consistently impose disadvantage on my opponent’s attacks. I’m trying to choose between these two items and I’m trying to determine which one would ultimately result in less loss of HP.
It’s been too long since my high school statistics classes, so I’m finding the advantage/disadvantage statistics threads too hard to follow and don’t really take into account AC.
The Battle Master Fighter can choose the Sweeping Attack Maneuver which states:
When you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to attempt to damage another creature with the same attack. Choose another creature within 5 feet of the original target and within your reach. If the original attack roll would hit the second creature, it takes damage equal to the number you roll on your superiority die […]
So what happens if the Fighter has (dis)advantage on the attack against the first enemy but ordinarily wouldn’t have (dis)advantage with an attack made against the second enemy, or vice-versa? Does this simply get ignored because you have to use “the original attack roll”?
An example of how this could happen:
Your first target is invisible, giving you disadvantage, but the second target is visible; ordinarily an attack against them would not have disadvantage.
For the opposite direction, attack the visible creature first.
One of my players has a Cloack of Displacement, which grants, for every round, monsters have disadvantage attacks against the player until the first attack hits.
What follows from that power, is that I have to ask the player for every attack, if the monster has disadvantage or not. That is an extra effort I don’t want to do; the information about whether or not he has a benefit is on his side of the table. (Note: as a DM I always ask “does AC X hit you?”)
So, we want to change the Cloak; instead of granting the monster disadvantage on their attack, the Cloak offers him, for every round, a bonus to AC, until he is hit.
Here is my question; what bonus should the Cloak give to the player?
Assume the player is a level 12 PC with an AC of 16. If we need to take the attack bonus of the monsters into account; assume a master needs to roll a 10 to hit.
Do I understand the SR5 rules correctly that being prejudiced against real estate agents makes it easier to them to sell me a house overpriced?
This question already has an answer here:
- Does advantage negate disadvantage (for things such as sneak attack)? 1 answer
I am having a bit of an argument with my DM.
The rules say that you can have sneak attack if “you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll”.
If I have both advantage and disadvantage, that results in a straight roll when attacking. A straight roll suggests that sneak attack is allowed.
My DM interprets it as, if I have a source of disadvantage, regardless of weather I also have advantage or not, the fact I am being disadvantaged in some way prevents sneak attack from triggering.
Can someone please let me know who has the correct interpretation?