The Eldritch Maul ability says:
each of your melee attacks with a weapon or an unarmed strike can reach a target up to 15 feet away from you, as inky tendrils launch toward the target. In addition, your melee attacks deal an extra 1d6 force damage on a hit.
So, let’s say that I’m using the Eldritch Maul ability with a normal shortsword to melee attack a target that is 15 feet away. Is it only the inky tendrils that hit the target, dealing just 1d6 force damage, or should I also factor in the 1d6+STR/DEX piercing damage of the shortsword as if it hit the target as well?
Follow-up question: If the weapon was magical, would its magical properties factor into the attack?
For example: Would your attack with the Eldritch Maul ability benefit from a +1 weapon?
In another example: Would a Dagger of Venom’s poison property proc on a melee hit from 15 feet away while using the Eldritch Maul ability?
Dagger of Venom says:
You can use an action to cause thick, black poison to coat the blade. The poison remains for 1 minute or until an attack using this weapon hits a creature.
First-timer over here!
Domain for the buggered website (you’ll see what I mean!) http://www.clarkephotographic.co.uk/
URL I am using to try to login to WordPress backend to fix the issue http://www.clarkephotographic.co.uk/wp-login.php
So, when I enter my username, password and then proceed to login, I get the following error message "ERROR: Cookies are blocked due to unexpected output"
The problem I have is that in order to resolve the issue in the first place I would need to login, but as you can see I’m in a bit of a loophole.
Can anyone offer, in as simple terms as possible, any advice on how to get around this, as currently, anyone visiting the site would most likely move onto something that doesn’t look like a piece of $ hit. I’m planning on closing the site down as covid has dried up that little avenue of pleasure. Onto another project that is more pandemic proof!
Many many thanks in advance
So my first game of Dungeon World has hit the ground and we’re all having fun, but something seems off in handling Bonds at the end of session.
One of my players has the bond, "Able always has my back when things go wrong." while another has the bond, "I am working on converting Baker to my faith." And these are great, the players are having great fun in exploring them and acting on them, etc.
But then we get to the end of session move:
When you reach the end of a session, choose one of your bonds that you feel is resolved (completely explored, no longer relevant, or otherwise). Ask the player of the character you have the bond with if they agree. If they do, mark XP and write a new bond with whomever you wish.
This seems like it favors the bond with Baker, because that appears to be a goal with a more-or-less well-defined metric for completion. I can easily understand how this bond can resolve in a way the players are happy with.
In contrast, the bond with Able is more of an existing, recognized status, almost more like an alignment to be acted on than a bond to resolve (and in fact Able’s alignment is to protect those weaker). I can’t really see how this one can properly resolve if it’s getting acted on constantly, which seems to put them at a disadvantage, denying them both the xp and the chance to establish new bonds with the party.
How do I handle these bonds that don’t seem to lend themselves to any kind of resolution?
So I think I’ve read somewhere that spells that cost 1 action to cast are resolved in the beginning of your next turn and you make any sort of attack roll then. But I’m not so sure of it and I couldn’t find a definitive answer in the player’s handbook.
When does the spell resolve if its casting time is 1 action? And when do you make the roll for any effect it makes? I would like your source on this so I can reference in the future as well. Thank you 😀
I have a graph like this that starts from one top node and has cycles:
I need to write an algorithm to figure if
node1 depends on
node2. The most primitive algorithm I’ve written simply starts with
node1 and recursively follows all available edges looking for
node2 starting from
node1. It’s very inefficient because I traverse the graph over and over again. I’m wondering if there’s an algorithm I can look at that caches nodes and dependencies it already walked through so that I don’t go through paths I’ve walked once and can figure if there’s a dependency or not from cache?
For example, if I’m given node
D and the question is whether it depends on node
F, I’ll walk
D->E->F, and when next time I get the question if node
E depends on
F, I’ll get that from cache without walking the graph.
Thanks for any ideas and suggestions!
The cover rules in the PHB say:
There are three degrees of cover. If a target is behind multiple sources of cover, only the most protective degree of cover applies; the degrees aren’t added together. For example, if a target is behind a creature that gives half cover and a tree trunk that gives three-quarters cover, the target has three-quarters cover.
However the DMG (250/251) appears to have an alternate method for resolving multiple sources of cover:
To determine whether a target has cover against an attack or other effect on a grid, choose a corner of the attacker’s space or the point of origin of an area of effect. Then trace imaginary lines from that corner to every corner of any one square the target occupies. If one or two of those lines are blocked by an obstacle (including another creature), the target has half cover. If three or four of those lines are blocked but the attack can still reach the target (such as when the target is behind an arrow slit), the target has three-quarters cover.
The only case I can think where these might collide is something like the following:
Individually T would not get cover from D1 or D3 and only get half cover from D2. The DMG seems to indicate T might get full cover since all 4 lines would be blocked. However if you use the guidance from the PHB (as shown above) T would only have half cover.
Seems to me it’s just a judgement call which interpretation is correct. Anyone know of any rules that clarify this other than a judgement call?
Willem Renzema’s answer to "Can you Investigate the same room twice?" and abalonemacaroni’s answer to "I failed to open a lock. Now what?" seem to lean towards the idea that if an ability check can be repeated indefinitely given enough time, a drawback should occur on each failed attempt to offset that.
But how can I resolve a repeatable skill check when there’s no time constraint or clear drawback from repeating it?
For example, making a History check in a library, lockpicking a safe that you’ve already stolen and brought back to your hostel, or making an Investigation check on an emptied dungeon, etc.
Basically, it feels like they are going to succeed in both cases, and the roll looks useless.
I use Minions in my 5E campaign at times. I use them as canon fodder and their hit points are non-existent. Meaning, they have an AC of X and if the PC lands any hit, they are dead.
(I read that in 4E that Minions had only 1 hit point.)
What are the ways I could resolve the Sleep Spell action if the PC’s snuck up on a campsite or cave with multiple Minions who were unaware of their presence?
Looking for Rules as Intended. (only because I don’t believe their is RAW)
Can I use Wireshark to see what websites are visited on my network? I’m just looking for the domain name, and not a full url or any credentials. Would I need any additional tools such as sslstrip to see this? Would getting the DNS query be easier?
Thank you in advance for any help.