Did the UA “revised” Beastmaster Ranger make it into any official source book?

There was "The Ranger, Revised" pdf in the 2016 playtest material. A Beastmaster Ranger was considered the weakest class by many GMs and players, which apparently caused the need for a "revised" version.

However, I’ve never heard how exactly the playtesting ended. Googling "ranger revised" gives me the same 2016 pdf and nothing more.

What happened to the "revised" ranger from the Unearthed Arcana? Was it renamed from "revised" to something else? Was it published in any official source book, changed or unchanged? (I don’t have access to all of them so I can’t check it myself for now) Or was it abandoned by WoTC?

This is probably a duplicate of this question, which was answered in 2017, but things could change in 2021.

What is the source of the “spells do only what they say they do” rules interpretation principle?

Every time somebody asks a question like "can I use X spell for doing Y" the answer is usually "no" because spell descriptions are very short in 5e, and usually they don’t explicitly say a spell can do Y.

These answers are based on the "spells do only what they say they do, nothing more" principle.

What is the source of this premise?

Related question: Is there a rule for how to handle creative use of spells?

I’m asking this as a DM. My first thought was "well it is obvious, why should spells do something more". But the more I dig into this topic, the more contradictory arguments I find. I’ve gathered all thoughts down below, if anyone is interested (upvoted comments indicate that people are).

DMG examples

The Dungeon Master’s Guide has examples of spells doing things out of their originally described scopes:

An area of desecrated ground can be any size, and a detect evil and good spell cast within range reveals its presence. (p.110)

An identify spell reveals that a creature is inside the flask (p.178)

one torch can burn a Huge tapestry, and an earthquake spell can reduce a colossus to rubble (p.247)

Other factors might help or hinder the quarry’s ability to escape, at your discretion. For example, a quarry with a faerie fire spell cast on it might have disadvantage on checks made to escape (p.253)

RPG.SE answers

There are highly upvoted answers, implying creative spell usage is a thing in 5e:

Your players are using spells creatively…
That is exactly what D&D 5 encourages.

Open-ended spell descriptions

Some spells have quite open-ended wordings, like Prestidigitation:

harmless sensory effect, such as a shower of sparks, a puff of wind …

Other spells descriptions aren’t very detailed in 5e (compared to systems like Pathfinder), I guess that means it is the DM’s job to ultimately say what happens when somebody use a spell in an unusual way.

DMG supports this with its common principle, in Chapter 8: Running the Game (page 235):

Rules enable you and your players to have fun at the table. The rules serve you, not vice versa.

Trusted third-party sources

Some third-party sources encourages stretching spell limitations. See Geek&Sundry "How Watching Critical Role Made Me Better At D&D":

A spell is typically written vague enough that you don’t have to worry about specific limitations unless you’re trying to stretch them. When in doubt, explain to the DM what you want to do and see if they’d be game

See also The Rule of Cool by Matthew Mercer.

Common sense

The strict "spells never do anything their description doesn’t mention" principle simply doesn’t work. When a player asks "Is Grease flammable?" they already challenge the frame, regardless of the answer. If the DM says "yes", you can ignite the grease. If the DM says "no", you can extinguish flames using the grease.

Of course, since "spells do only what they say they do", DM might say "no" to both assumptions, but this effectively turns a tabletop role-playing game into a pen and paper computer game, boring and awkward. I don’t think this is actually RAI.

It seems a DM is supposed to resolve an unusual spell application case, using the intent behind the spell, rather its literal description. For example, it seems reasonable you should be able to use any fire-producing spell to light a torch in a non-combat situation, even when its description doesn’t explicitly say that it "ignites flammable things". It heavily depends on the particular DM’s style, like many other things in 5e.

What is the source of the "spells do only what they say they do, nothing more" principle?

Where is the source material that reads there is not limit to the number of artifacts a character may have?

I have read elsewhere for Numenera and the Cypher System as a whole, that there are no limits on the number of artifacts a character may possess. However, I have both the Discovery and Cypher System rulebooks and have yet to identify the source for this rule. Does anyone know where this rule comes from? Also, without limits, how does a GM know how to balance access to artifacts with Tier level?

Is it a game breaking house rule, if all in combat healing source heals the rollable maximum?

In the next week I will start a new campaign where I will be the DM. The players will be totally new to the DnD World, and because of that, I want to let them to freely choose the class and race which they want to play, but it seems like there will be no healer PC, just damage dealers and some kind of PC which maybe will have some healing.

I want to play with them in a relatively long campaign (I’m planning from level 1 to 20) and because of that, I really want to give them more opportunity to overcome the missing healing power. Will it break anything, if I let the semi-healer PC to heal the maximum roll-able number with any healing skill, which he/she uses in combat? For short rest I wouldn’t allow this house rule, so I really want to know, if it would be too powerful in combat house rule or not, and why?

What are good options for a frontline melee with very limited source material?

I recently entered a Planescape campaign with a very rules heavy DM. I rolled stats in order, and now I have to make a character. As long as it stays within these sourcebooks and is neither a druid nor a full cleric (which my party already has) I’m open to options. Here’s the situation:

  • We are currently level 13, no LA buyoff possible.

  • I have 17 str, 15 Dex, 13 Con, 15 Int 15 Wis and 13 Cha.

  • I want to fill the role of a tank/melee combat controller. (I was considering maybe a trip oriented build?)

I have these options available:

  • PHB I
  • DMG I
  • MM I
  • Book of Exalted Deeds
  • Planar Guidebook
  • Tome of Magic
  • Guidebook to the Planetouched

Does rogue’s vest bonus damage apply separately for each precision damage source?

Rogue’s vest (MiC 130) grants users with "the skirmish, sneak attack, or sudden strike ability" an extra 1d6 damage "when making such an attack"

Does this mean that, for example, a scout 1/rogue 1/ninja 1 that moves 10 feet and attacks a flat-footed opponent (who lacks uncanny dodge) deals 1d6 base skirmish damage plus 1d6 extra damage because they made "such an attack", as well as 1d6 base sneak attack damage plus 1d6 extra damage for making "such an attack" and 1d6 base sudden strike damage plus 1d6 extra…For a total of 6d6 precision damage? Or is the "attack" only granted the item’s bonus damage once, for a total of 4d6 precision damage?

cannot scrape any proxies (all fail from Scrapebox provided source)

Am I suppose to use a proxy when scraping proxies, all of them failed


This is method I used. Nothing else And this is fresh install of Scrapebox

I went ahead an checked if my ip is blacklisted anywhere I don’t think it is.

Is there a way I can export these results to have you take a look?

Can the frightened condition stack if it’s caused by the same source?

Say Faendal the Fallen Aasimar Paladin uses his Necrotic Shroud racial ability (Charisma saving throw, an affected creature can repeat the saving throw on subsequent turns to end the effect), and a target fails the saving throw and is frightened. On his next turn, while the target is still frightened, Faendal uses Wrathful Smite, which also causes the frightened condition, on the same target and they fail the saving throw (Wisdom saving throw, an affected creature can make a Wisdom check to end the effect).

Does this mean that the target must succed on both the Charisma saving throw and the Wisdom check to end the effect on their turn? Meaning that should one of them fail, the target is still frightened?

Does a player know the source of an unseen force attempting [and failing] to act upon their mind? More in description

If a creature attempts to Dominate, deal save-or-suck psychic damage, or otherwise psychologically influence a PC, what do they know about the attempt? Both RAW and opinion answers acceptable, just specify what you’re giving.

Obviously the player themselves know when I ask "Make an x save".

But does the character know? Furthermore, what if it is a visible target. I don’t know if "Mind Blast" is visible, as an example, but ASSUMING it isn’t, say a PC angers a Mind Flayer, and they fail to deal damage to a PC because of a successful saving throw, does the PC know? "The Mind Flayer gives you an unsettling glare. Make an Intelligence saving throw. PC succeeds" Does the character itself know their mind was assailed in some capacity?

Lastly, suppose a PC is immune to a specific effect. I.e. being innately immune to Sleep effects.

Do they know if a creature attempted to use some magical ability to attempt to put them to sleep?

Data Schema For Stock Control / Multi Source Inventory

I’m working on a project that involves stock control with multiple stock sources and sales channels. The overall hierarchy I’ve got so far looks like this;

Sales Channels <---- Allocated Stock Sources <---- Stock Locations (warehouses) <--- Stock Sub Locations <---- Shelf / Bin Locations 

As far as rules go for how these entities relate to each other I’ve come up with this;

The system must have one or more sales channels, each sales channel must have 1 or more stock sources, a stock source must have 1 or more stock locations (warehouses / buildings / distribution centres ), a stock location may have 1 or more Bin/Shelf locations.

A product may have 1 or more stock locations, may have one or more sub locations in those stock locations and may have one or more Shelf / Bin location.

First off, is this a solved problem where some reference schema exists I could utilise and save myself some headaches?

If there isn’t a reference design for this situation, Am I best to build a 1 to Many relationship to assign stock to a sub location(s) and another 1 to Many relationship for Shelf Locations (if exists)