An archer firing through an arrow slit has improved cover. Do his targets have cover?

I’m running a module that features a fort with arrow slits and murder holes, and I’m trying to figure out what the cover rules are for people on each side of them.

Under the Combat rules, the CRB states:

Improved Cover

In some cases, such as attacking a target hiding behind an arrowslit, cover may provide a greater bonus to AC and Reflex saves. In such situations, the normal cover bonuses to AC and Reflex saves can be doubled (to +8 and +4, respectively). A creature with this improved cover effectively gains improved evasion against any attack to which the Reflex save bonus applies. Furthermore, improved cover provides a +10 bonus on Stealth checks.

From this, it seems clear that the defending archers should have improved cover. This is reinforced by this section under Dungeon Environments:

Walls with Arrow Slits

Walls with arrow slits can be made of any durable material but are most commonly masonry, hewn stone, or wood. Such a wall allows defenders to fire arrows or crossbow bolts at intruders from behind the safety of the wall. Archers behind arrow slits have improved cover that gives them a +8 bonus to Armor Class, a +4 bonus on Reflex saves, and the benefits of the improved evasion class feature. (emphasis added)

The words "defenders" and "behind arrow slits" make me think that the cover is at least somewhat directional – the defending archers are meant to be at an advantage over the besiegers (which makes sense). However, the general cover rules seem to suggest that the besiegers might also have some cover:

Cover

To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).

When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from any corner of your square to the target’s square goes through a wall (including a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.

I think that the intent is that arrow slits would be at the corners of grid squares. RAW, I think that would give the besiegers no cover. However, on the map I’m using, the arrow slits are in the middle of the grid squares, which suggests that the besiegers also have at least cover, if not improved cover.

Distinct from this question (although related) in that this is about improved cover like arrow slits, whereas that was more a case of low cover.

Does Improved Abjuration affects spells that only offer an option of having an ability check?

Consider the Abjuration Wizard’s 10th level feature:

Improved Abjuration

Beginning at 10th level, when you cast an abjuration spell that requires you to make an ability check as a part of casting that spell (as in Counterspell and Dispel Magic), you add your proficiency bonus to that ability check.

Some spells, such as Telekinesis, include cases where an ability check is required, either as soon as the spell is casted, or later one.

If the object is worn or carried by a creature, you must make an ability check with your spellcasting ability contested by that creature’s Strength check.

  1. Does an Abjuration Wizard ever adds his proficiency bonus when casting Telekinesis?
  2. If so, does that only apply to the case where a check is made on the same turn as the casting?

Improved Divine Smite Differentiation

Improved Divine Smite (PHB, p. 85) says in part:

… Whenever you hit a creature with a melee weapon, the creature takes an extra 1d8 radiant damage. If you also use your Divine Smite with an attack, you add this damage to the extra damage of your Divine Smite

Emphasis to show the part I’m focusing on.

So it was my understanding that Improved Divine Smite deals an extra 1d8 Radiant damage whenever I swing on a creature with a Melee weapon and hit them, no matter what else I’m adding to the weapon attack (such as Searing Smite, Divine Smite, poison I put on my sword before combat, etc). This definition makes a purpose of differentiating what happens if I also use Divine Smite with my attack.

I am more than likely confused or reading too far into the definition but I’d like to know why the book is making such a differentiation. What is it saying? That if I make a weapon attack without Divine Smite, the extra (non magical?) 1d8 radiant is added to the weapon damage, but if I do include a Divine Smite on the end, then the extra (now magical?) 1d8 radiant is added to the smite damage instead?

Does that change anything at all? Is this differentiation important to some sort of tactic or resistance I’m not considering?

Does the Sneak Attack class feature of the Generic Classes stack with the improved and greater versions of it?

Generic Classes have the possibility to gain different class features in exchange of a bonus feat:

For the purposes of these classes, the following class features can be selected in place of bonus feats (unless noted, each may only be selected once).

The Sneak Attack class features that can be selected are:

Sneak Attack (Ex)

As the rogue ability, but +2d6 on damage rolls. Prerequisites: Hide 4 ranks, Move Silently 4 ranks.

Improved Sneak Attack (Ex)

Add +3d6 to your sneak attack damage. Prerequisites: Hide 11 ranks, Move Silently 11 ranks, sneak attack.

Greater Sneak Attack (Ex)

Add +4d6 to your sneak attack damage. Prerequisites: Hide 18 ranks, Move Silently 18 ranks, sneak attack, improved sneak attack.

Do these three class features stack together?

How does spellcasting interact with Improved Duplicity?

Trikery Clerics get this Channel Divinity option : Invoke Duplicity.

Starting at 2nd level, you can use your Channel Divinity to create an illusory duplicate of yourself. As an action, you create a perfect illusion of yourself that lasts for 1 minute, or until you lose your concentration (as if you were concentrating on a spell). The illusion appears in an unoccupied space that you can see within 30 feet of you. As a bonus action on your turn, you can move the illusion up to 30 feet to a space you can see, but it must remain within 120 feet of you. For the duration, you can cast spells as though you were in the illusion’s space, but you must use your own senses. Additionally, when both you and your illusion are within 5 feet of a creature that can see the illusion, you have advantage on attack rolls against that creature, given how distracting the illusion is to the target.

Which upgrades when they reach a high level : Improved Duplicity.

At 17th level, you can create up to four duplicates of yourself, instead of one, when you use Invoke Duplicity. As a bonus action on your turn, you can move any number of them up to 30 feet, to a maximum range of 120 feet.

How does spellcasting interact with Improved Duplicity ? In other words, could the spell originate from multiple (perhaps all four) duplicities at the same time, or only one ? I suppose only one, but it’s best to check.

Does Improved Grab pull in the grappled regardless of weight?

Reviewing the choker I noticed the default strength is only 16. It caused me to wonder if an improved grab can pull a creature up in the air even if the strength does not have enough to carry (envision either a very heavy character or a magically strength reduced choker if you need to).

Improved grab itself seems silent on the issue, though it does mention weight when talking about moving the creature being grabbed which makes me suspect it would be limited:

It can even move (possibly carrying away the opponent), provided it can drag the opponent’s weight.

When you cast Flock of Familiars, is your regular familiar’s telepathy improved to match the others?

My problem is with the D&D 5e paradigm ‘spells do only as they say they do’ which if I am reading flock of familiars correct means that already possessing a familiar weakens this spell to the point where you’d have been better off not having that original familiar.

The spell description of the flock of familiars spell states (emphasis mine):

If you already have a familiar conjured by the Find Familiar spell or similar means, then one fewer familiars are conjured by this spell.

Familiars summoned by this spell can telepathically communicate with you and share their visual or auditory senses while they are within 1 mile of you.

Whereas the spell description of the spell find familiar states (emphasis mine):

While your familiar is within 100 feet of you, you can communicate with it telepathically. Additionally, as an action, you can see through your familiar’s eyes and hear what it hears until the start of your next turn, gaining the benefits of any special senses that the familiar has. During this time, you are deaf and blind with regard to your own senses.

This makes it seem as if the familiars summoned by flock of familiars are much, much stronger than those summoned by the regular find familiar because (1) their range is increased from 100 foot to 1 mile and (2) the flock of familiars does not state that one would be deaf and blind to their own senses. However, possessing a regular familiar does cause the Flock of Familiars spell to summon one familiar less effectively turning three strong familiars into two strong familiars and one weak familiar.

I very strongly doubt that this is the RAI and if this comes up on my table – which it might since I plan to take this spell when my wizard levels to lvl 3 – I, for one, will be arguing to give the regular familiar the same benefits for as long as flock of familiars lasts, but is this correct RAW or is it just wishful thinking of a player planning to use the spell? And is the not deaf and blind part supposed to be a benefit of flock of familiars (allowing you to see through all three’s senses at once) or is it an ommision on Wizard of the Coast’s part?

EDIT: Before anyone makes any wrong assumptions, I am not trying to rules lawyer my DM. If she says I cannot, I will not. However, we are on very good footing and I dare believe that if I ask her for those benefits that she will instantly say yes. I just don’t want to ask for those benefits unless they are actually RAI and if they are even RAW, all the better.

Can I have a magic bow as my pact weapon without getting the Improved Pact Weapon Eldritch Invocation?

The Warlock’s Pact of the Blade feature specifies that you can only create melee weapons, but you can also turn a magic weapon into your pact weapon (without specifying that it’s only melee weapons). Can I have a magic bow as my pact weapon without getting the Improved Pact Weapon Eldritch Invocation?

In 5th ed would a bard who multi-class as a life domain cleric have his bard healing spells improved? [duplicate]

I have a 9th level bard. Hypothetically, if when I reached 10th level I took a level in cleric and chose the life domain, so I would be bard 9/cleric 1.

The multi-classing rules state "When you gain a new level in a class, you get its features for that level" and then lists a bunch of exceptions, none of which apply to this situation.

In the cleric class, at level 1 you take a domain. The life domain has an ability called disciple of life which reads

Also starting at first level, your healing spells are more effective. Whenever you use a spell of 1st level or higher to restore hit points to a creature, the creature regains additional hit points equal to 2 + the spell’s level."

Note that it says healing spells, not specifically cleric ones.

It would seem the RAW here is that this would apply to my bard spells as well. So my mass cure wounds (which is 5th level and I would not be able to know as a cleric spell but which I do know as a bard spell), would heal everything an additional 7 points.

Is this how multiclassing works? It seems like my best multi-class option if it does (although I’d probably wait until 11th level since level 10 bards get awesome stuff). Am I missing something?

Does the artificer’s Enhanced Weapon stack on top of hexblade’s Improved Pact Blade?

I play a hexblade warlock with an Improved Pact Blade longsword. I like the idea of the eldritch tinkerer, who builds his patron’s gifts into his gadgets, which fits in a warlock/artificer multiclass. The artificer’s Enhanced Weapon infusion would be very nice with the warlock if it stacks with the Improved Pact Blade bonuses, but I can’t tell if it does from the class descriptions. Do these features stack, or do I need to rethink this build?