The spell motivational speech (Acquisitions Incorporated, pg. 77) says:
For the duration, each affected creature gains 5 temporary hit points and has advantage on Wisdom saving throws. If an affected creature is hit by an attack, it has advantage on the next attack roll it makes. Once an affected creature loses the temporary hit points granted by this spell, the spell ends for that creature.
So when the effected creature is hit by an attack, the spell grants the creature advantage on their next attack. But getting hit by an attack is going to be accompanied by damage – and 5 points seems like it will very often be gone with a single attack.
Does a creature hit by an attack still get advantage on its next attack if that attack dealt 5 or more damage? Or does the spell end for them immediately and they do not get advantage on the next attack?
It just seems like this effect is going to be self-defeating a lot of the time – the thing that grants the advantage is the thing that takes it away. Am I missing something?
Note, temporary hitpoints are always lost first, so no holding on to them while subtracting damage from your standard hitpoint pool. Sorry Jim, it was a clever thought.
How to make sure that a player that rolled awful stats will still have an awesome time at the table? What possibilities are available for the DM? Would it feel cheap to find stat-boosting items? What can players do to make sure that player is still having fun?
The simple solution of re-rolling the stats is out of the question. The adventure has already begun and it would feel very unsatisfying if the original rolling carried no weight at all.
Starting a new adventure, we all decided to roll stats (highest 3 of 4d6) for our new characters. Most people rolled stats close to what one would get with point-buy, but one player had all stats in the range 8 to 11 and averaged below 10 (which is worse than a commoner).
The players are all quite new to the game and it is the debut for the GM. We all had some laughs on the horrible rolls and everyone is still having fun. The player has not complained yet, but my worry is that it will feel less fun in the long run.
The player picked druid, so they can wild-shape away the physical stats at level 2.
If it can be proven that Trump knew that Russia had been paying Taliban fighters to kill US troops, then by the legal definition of the crime, Trump would have committed treason.
(This question is a comparison to 3.x, though things might have been different in 4e)
In 3.5e there is a large power and capability gap between fighters and wizards that fighters couldn’t hope to close, even in their nominal area of excellence. Is this problem still around?
Or are they just pretending to think that in order to manufacture a fake grievance?
I have a Microsoft Account linked to a Microsoft Authenticator app for 2FA purposes. Every time I log in, it first sends me the Authentificator request, but I can always click "Other ways to sign in" and then choose "Use my password instead", which then prompts me for the good old password, and logs me in successfully.
But doesn’t that negate the point of having the 2FA at all?
I wouldn’t expect this mix of a cargo cult meets security theater from a major corporation. Or did I misunderstand something?
When signing up for the playtest, you sign an agreement that basically says you can’t quote or share material from the playtest packet.
However, recently, Wizards of the Coast has started to sell modules and the Ghost of Dragonspear castle book, which comes with a rule set for DnDNext. When purchasing this module, it does not ask you to click to agree to any playtest rules, or similar thing.
Additionally, officially the “public playtest has been completed.”
Does this mean that I can quote rules from the rules which comes with the modules, or are am I still bound by the agreement for the public playtest?
At 11th level, monks gain immunity to poison. The Poison Healer feat lets you restore hit points when you “succeed on a Fortitude save against a poison”. Can monks chug poison to heal themselves, or do they not actually make the saving throw?
(There seem to be similar questions for other editions, but I can’t find one specifically for 3.5e)
Is $ NC_1$ vs PP still an open problem? I done a few searched but I can’t find an answer.
What decision problems are their that are outside of ELEMENTARY but still decidable? I’m curious about problems that are still solveable, but take a very long time to do so.