I’ve followed the documentation on Unity regarding 2D lighting. It said to turn on Alpha blending in the options. But this is how it turns out: If Alpha blending is off:
If Alpha blending is on:
I’m not entirely sure why it’s turning black. These are my settings for the 2D light:
I’ve checked my layers, specifically the tile map floor, and it’s on the Default layer.
I just want my lights to blend well.
There are technically answers to this question both here, Sage Advice, a tweet by Jeremy Crawford, and this question here, but they still seem rather vague/non-descriptive enough.
Devil’s Sight (PHB Pg. 110)
You can see normally in darkness, both magical and nonmagical, to a distance of 120 feet.
But does "see normally" imply you see as though everything is naturally lit up by the sun; lit by a dim torch; still dark, but you can pick out clear images, shapes, and details; or something else entirely?
A long bow (1d8, 150/600 range), and a short bow (1d6, 80/320 range) benefit from "Extra Attack".
A light crossbow (1d8, 80/320 range), or a hand crossbow (1d6, 30/120 range), do not benefit from "Extra Attack".
A light crossbow is worse in terms of range, and damage (with Extra Attack) than the long bow. A light crossbow is on par for range with the shortbow, and worse for damage (with Extra Attack).
I understand that with Crossbow Expert Feat, you can make 3 attacks with hand crossbows at still a very short range of 30 feet.
Mechanically, I don’t see any benefit to a light crossbow if you have an Extra Attack. Is there some benefit to using a light crossbow I am missing?
Hiding on P177 PHB states
You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly.
Then Mask of the Wild PHB P24 indicates
You can attempt to hide even when you are only lightly obscured by foliage, heavy rain, falling snow, mist, and other natural phenomena.
So, can a wild elf in melee combat with a creature in a wooded area with light bushes around them simply take a move action, move 5 feet in a light foliage square, then use his action to hide right in plain sight of his opponent (5 feet away)? Then complete his movement using the cover of the light foliage to escape ?
I am looking for the RAW ruling on this no interpretations must be traced back to specific words in official written rules or official WotC rule clarifications
Reading the Bard wen in "Expertise" describes that one must choose 2 of your "Skill Proficiencies" does it include "Light armor proficiency"? And if it doesn’t, then what are the "Skill Proficiencies" I can add this to? Is there a list of them?
I have a question I’d hope someone can answer. I have the idea of going with 3 battle master and 8 Kensei. I want to use mainly my greatsword to attack, however, I have the idea of using a dagger as a kensei weapon to benefit from time to time from the +2 ac. In the future, I could use a venom dagger and well add and combine different features, since you need 2 hands to use a greatsword but not carry it, and I can have an interaction as a part of my action.
My question is: are scenarios possible?
A: Attack with dagger > sheath dagger as part of the action > attack with greatsword
B: 2 attacks with greatsword > unsheath dagger as part of the action (after the attacks)> use agile parry as bonus action > next turn > use action to poison dagger > action surge> 1 attack with dagger (while holding the greatsword on the other hand) > sheath dagger as part of the action > 1 attack with greatsword > flurry of blows as bonus action
I have a Light Domain Cleric who gets, as part of the Light Domain, the Burning Hands spell. Can I cast this spell while carrying a shield?
I subscribe to the idea that one physically must touch one’s thumbs together and spread one’s fingers per the spell as the somatic component of the spell. Is it reasonable to think that a Cleric with a shield strapped to their arm is able to make such a gesture and not burn their own shield?
The glyph created by the spell Glyph of Warding is hard to see:
The glyph is nearly Invisible and requires a successful Intelligence (Investigation) check against your spell save DC to be found.
If the glyph is in an area of dim light or light obscuration, is the check made with disadvantage?
Perception checks are usually made with disadvantage in such conditions, but it’s not clear to me if it also would apply to the investigation check to find the glyph.
I’m making a 2.5D game, where 2D sprites are in a 3D environment. I’m using URP and I have a problem with lighting the sprites. The sprites are lighting up from behind, and not front. I tried with directional, spot and point lights but the result is the same no matter what official shader I use they only light up when they receive light from behind. Front light has no effect whatsoever on the sprites.
I spent the entire day looking for a solution but I’ve got almost nothing. Only solution I saw someone else mention is making the game object with the "sprite renderer" on, a child of another gameobject and rotate it 180 degrees on Y. But that is not an option for me cause I’m using custom scripts to rotate that game object already.
So can there be a custom shader? Can one be created using shadergraph maybe? I know some others have faced the same problem but did anyone really solve it?
When playing RAW, the only simple melee weapon with the finesse property is the dagger (PHB page 149). Most other thrown weapons of this type (hand axe, javelin, and spear) all do 1d6 damage with a secondary property thrown in — hand axe is light, javelin has extended range, and spear is versatile. This makes the light hammer — 1d4, light, thrown — inferior to these other thrown weapons in damage, and short of the dagger in its lack of finesse. As written, I can’t see why anyone would choose it. Is this broken?
People elsewhere have discussed increasing light hammer damage to 1d6 as a possible homebrew fix. The typical objection I’ve seen is its potential for use against monsters vulnerable to bludgeoning attacks (e.g. skeletons). I am willing to concede this argument, though to me, the RAW light hammer still feels imbalanced vs. hand axe — most of the time, damage type just doesn’t matter.
The historically-appropriate change might be some kind of attack/damage bonus when hammers are used against solid armor types (breastplate, half plate, or full plate), but for this change to be meaningful you’d have to do the same for mace, war hammer, and maul — and none of those weapons need it.
My thought: could we instead assign it an additional weapon property to compensate for the lesser damage (perhaps as a race feature, if not for everyone)?
For characters of dwarven (and perhaps forest gnome?) ancestry, for example, it seems more race-appropriate to use light hammers in place of daggers, and if they were a finesse weapon, dexterity-based characters might do so. Is there anything specific to bludgeoning damage that would make this a bad idea? Dwarven rogues would thank you if it were done.