What balance problems arise by allowing grappling as an option for an Opportunity Attack?

In our last session (with me as the DM), a creature was surrounded by the party and was trying to flee. She cast Levitate on herself to try to float up and get away. As she was going up and thereby out of reach of several party members, they each got an Opportunity Attack against her. Several of them wanted to use this opportunity attack to try to grapple, holding on to her to keep her from getting away, rather than a more traditional melee attack. I wasn’t sure whether this was an allowed way to take an Opportunity Attack, but the scene of her floating up with one of the player characters grabbing onto her legs as she went up was pretty neat, and I figured via Rule of Cool that I should just allow it. And it did lead to a really fun encounter, with the character dangling off the legs of this creature in midair trying to slap some manacles on her to prevent further spellcasting.

Now, after the session, I figured I’d look up the actual rules, and sure enough by the book Opportunity Attacks only allow for a melee attack, not a grapple. So I guess my question is, what issues might I encounter if I maintain this precedent of allowing a more generous set of actions as Opportunity Attacks? It sure seems that trying to tackle or trip somebody as they run past you could make for some fun scenes, and it feels more “realistic” in some sense than only allowing for a melee attack.

I’m a relatively novice DM, and am thus hesitant to go very far outside of the standard rules.

If I just allow for this — substitute in a Grapple for a melee attack during an Opportunity Attack — will this create balance problems?

Does the increased travel pace from the Elk option for the Totem Warrior barbarian’s Aspect of the Beast feature apply to combat?

So I have been looking into the various ‘Aspect’s of the Beast’ you get from the Totem Warrior Barbarians in 5e, as my own character is about to hit that level I am looking for clarification in regards to the rules associated with the wording for the ‘Elk’ aspect.

In the Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide, pg. 122 it states:

Elk. Whether mounted or on foot, your travel pace is doubled, as is the travel pace of up to 10 companions while they’re within 60 feet of you and you’re not incapacitated (see chapter 8 in the Player’s Handbook for more information about travel pace). The elk spirit helps you roam far and fast.

And then referring to Chapter 8: Adventuring, Pages 181-182 it states:

While traveling, a group of adventurers can move at a normal, fast, or slow pace, as shown on the Travel Pace table. The table states how far the party can move in a period of time and whether the pace has any effect. A fast pace makes characters less perceptive, while a slow pace makes it possible to sneak around and to search an area more carefully (see the “Activity While Traveling” section later in this chapter for more information).

Now does this increase movement also apply to in combat? I believe it does not but the term Travel could be interpreted into all movement. Again I do not believe this to be the case as it would then make my character’s movement in Combat 90ft without dashing or spells.

When choosing payment options during checkout, should the Paypal option go directly to Paypal, or show a “continue to Paypal” link?

I currently have 2 payment options during checkout: Credit Card and Paypal. Currently, clicking on the Credit Card option will reveal a credit card form, and clicking on the Paypal option will take the user to Paypal checkout (on the Paypal site).

I have also seen it where sites such as Netflix, will show a “continue to paypal” link after selecting the Paypal payment method, instead of going straight to Paypal (shown below)

Payment Options

Paypal option selected

Is the “continue to paypal” link helpful to the user, or does it just add an extra step/confusion (because the user isn’t taken straight to Paypal after selecting the Paypal option)?

When do objects take damage from being inside the Whirlpool option of the Control Water spell?

The control water spell allows you to create a whirlpool which includes the following in its description:

[…] The first time each turn that an object enters the vortex, the object takes 2d8 bludgeoning damage; this damage occurs each round it remains in the vortex.

I understand that an object takes damage on any turn that it enters the vortex, even if it does so multiple times in a single round. But when exactly is “each round”; when does the re-occurring damage for remaining in the vortex actually happen; when does an object inside of a whirlpool actually take the 2d8 bludgeoning damage?


Note, that if they instead had said “each turn” then these objects would be taking damage multiple times per round. I hesitate a guess that some of the unusual wording here comes from the fact that objects don’t even have turns of their own so they couldn’t have used the wording they usually do for creatures.

Homebrewing a Naga: Is this option a balanced substitute for Magical Resistance?

I am homebrewing a Naga PC and using the Yuan-Ti Pureblood (Volo’s Guide to Monsters, Page 120), but I felt that Magical Resistance (below quote) was a little too strong and didn’t fit what I was going for.

Magic Resistance: You have advantage on saving throws against spells and other magical effects.

I am interested to know if this ability would be an acceptable and balanced substitute for Magical Resistance:

Serpent’s Tail: The Naga’s tail is a natural weapon. A Naga can smack an opponent with its tail to deal 1d6 + STR Bludgeoning damage. In addition, if the Naga hits, it can to attempt a Grapple against an Opponent. If the grapple succeeds, the Opponent is Grappled. While Grappled this way, the opponent is Restrained, and the Naga can use an attack on subsequent turns to Constrict the target, dealing 1d6 + STR Bludgeoning Damage to them and the target cannot breathe. This attack does not require free hands, but the Naga can only grapple one target at a time.

Also, I should note that the Naga as I have it loses most of the Innate Spellcasting from the Pureblood, except for the Poison Spray Cantrip.

Are these two abilities balanced when compared to lost Innate Spellcasting and the loss of Magical Resistance?

Can Nystul’s Magic Aura’s False Aura option be used on creatures?

This question was inspired by a question on whether detect magic can sense feign death. I believe it would, which raises the question of how you could foil detect magic in this case. The obvious solution would be use to Nystul’s Magic Aura (also known as Arcanist’s Magic Aura), which is designed for concealing magic.

However, as I read the spell more closely, I noticed an issue. Magic Aura can be used on both creatures and objects. Magic Aura has two options: False Aura and Mask. Mask is used to disguise a creature’s type or alignment. False Aura is used to disguise whether or not the target is magical and the school of magic of its aura. Therefore, if I want to make my creature under the influence of a spell appear to not be under the influence of a spell, I would want the False Aura option.

But there is a problem. False Aura starts by saying

You change the way the target appears to spells and magic effects, such as detect magic, that detect magical auras.

Great, that’s exactly what I want to do. However, the rest of the paragraph refers to this option’s effects on objects, not creatures. One could read this as meaning that the False Aura option has no effect on creatures and is meant to be used only with magic items. However, Magic Aura also says

When you cast this spell, choose one or both of the following effects.

Mask clearly applies to creatures and has no benefit for objects (since they have neither type nor alignment). Thus, if False Aura only worked on objects, they would have no reason to let you use both Mask and False Aura on a single object (save for some extremely niche cases where the target could alternate between being an object and a creature). This implies that maybe False Aura can work on creatures, and they just used the object case as an example.

But there’s another complication. Even if I can use the False Aura option on a creature, it is unclear whether False Aura will conceal spells which are affecting the target or whether it only disguises magic which is intrinsic to the target (such as from any creature summoned by a conjure spell). I am interested in the former case, where the target is not intrinsically magical but is under the effect of spells.

Can I use Magic Aura to conceal or disguise magical effects on a creature?

In a booking confirmation page, is it good UX to tell the user they have an option to cancel once they have booked?

We want to keep the page as simple as possible with the appointment schedule, booking fee and payment method.

But when keeping in mind a user-centric approach, a problem that might arise would be:

What if the user wants to know if they can still cancel the booking?

Would it be a distraction to the main flow(booking) if we explain to them the cancel policy in the confirmation page?

The policy goes something like :

“You may cancel at least 24 hours before the appointment schedule to get a 100% rebate.”

Take note that this app only charges the booking fee and a rebate would be given after they have cancelled, the payment for the service would be done after the service has been made.

One of the stakeholders also said that: “It would give the idea that we aren’t confident of our bookings because we give the users an idea that they can cancel”