Would an anti-magic field block targets of Dragon’s Breath spell user?

Consider someone has dragon’s breath cast on them.

Until the spell ends, the creature can use an action to exhale energy of the chosen type in a 15-foot cone.

What happens if this creature exhale energy on targets inside an antimagic field?

Does the effect pass through as if it were a dragon’s breath weapon?

Is a homebrew item which gives disadvantage to all targets of spell once per day balanced?

Long story short, I was the DM running my adventure when one of the players asked if he could DM for a few session. In the last session, the level 6 party acquired a few magic items, one of them being:

Staff of Crowds

On a spell cast, you may impose that all enemies affected by that spell has disadvantage on ability checks made against that spell, once per day.

(By “ability checks made against that spell” he means saving throws)

This one worries me quite a lot. I’m thinking about only allowing the disadvantage against the damage from the spell, making an aditional normal roll if the spell has any secondary effects. As it is, this can be too much of a game changer if used with crowd control spells like hold person or high level charm spells.

Another thing is that this will probably be used by a druid, which means that if he uses the effect of the staff with say, a moon beam, he will probably stay the whole fight just moving the moon beam because that might be his best option to do lots of damage. I might be wrong here, but I don’t want to encourge him to bore himself out in a fight.

The party is only level six now but soon they’ll be seven, and with level 4 spells comes some pretty good AoE. This might not be a problem now but I think it’ll be soon.

Is this item balanced for a lvl 6-7 party with the adjustments I made?

How should I use the target’s customers in penetration tests? [on hold]

This question concerns both physical and non-physical pentests.


Should I used customers’ accounts to pwn? (Assuming I’m not given an account by the employer/target for the engagement)

I may somehow manage to grab credentials of a customer of the target. The customer may not be mentioned in the scope. Using their account/credentials may negatively affect them personally so I think it should be avoided. However, I believe adversaries usually would directly target the customers to either just steal the customers’ credentials and assets or (somehow) use a customer account to get more information on the target or as an attack vector (a customer may be a VIP with extra functions).


In a physical pentest, we may come in contact with the employer/target’s customer (i.e. normal people in a company building, people touring the place, shoppers in a mall). Should we attempt to extract information from them or even social engineer them to use them as a help (get some people to swarm in front of a door) without them knowing?


This, I believe, mainly depends on ethics (we probably shouldn’t use patients in hospitals) and collateral damage (people having their data touched even just from us logging in as them).

(Please simple don’t say “it depends on the scope”. That’s always a big element but I’d like to learn about pentesting in general – rules that can apply to most engagements, or at least specified details on how the scope may greatly change this aspect of a pentest)

Does the Scatter spell actually scatter the targets?

Based on the spell’s name, you would think that all of the targets would end up all over the playing field, but per the Scatter spell description:

The air quivers around up to five creatures of your choice that you can see within range. An unwilling creature must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw to resist this spell. You teleport each affected target to an unoccupied space that you can see within 120 feet of you. That space must be on the ground or on a floor.

But there are two ways to read this;

  1. This is a many-to-one reading. Each of the up to five creatures are teleported to an unoccupied space. So all five go to one space.
  2. Each is for both target and destination. Each target is teleported to each target’s unique designated unoccupied space.

My issue is, that the first interpretation is more “plain English” whereas the second is “loosely based”.

So does Scatter really scatter, or does Scatter just teleport up to 5 people as a cluster to a single location?

-sn works when a single target is specified, but, not when multiple targets are

When I specify an individual target,

 >nmap -v3 -sn 172.18.188.209 

I get the correct and expected nmap response

 Starting Nmap 7.70 ( https://nmap.org ) at 2019-11-08 11:16 India Standard Time Initiating Ping Scan at 11:16 Scanning 172.18.188.209 [2 ports] Completed Ping Scan at 11:16, 1.00s elapsed (1 total hosts) Initiating Parallel DNS resolution of 1 host. at 11:16 Completed Parallel DNS resolution of 1 host. at 11:16, 5.62s elapsed DNS resolution of 1 IPs took 5.62s. Mode: Async [#: 4, OK: 1, NX: 0, DR: 0, SF: 0, TR: 3, CN: 0] Nmap scan report for raspberrypi-dQ2XyAPpB6.dhcp.XXXX.com (172.18.188.209) Host is up, received conn-refused (1.0s latency). Read data files from: C:\Program Files (x86)\Nmap Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 6.70 seconds 

However, when I specify a range,

 >nmap -v3 -sn 172.18.184,186,188.0-255 

I get,

 . . Nmap scan report for YYYY.dhcp.XXXX.com (172.18.188.208) Host is up, received syn-ack (0.0010s latency). Nmap scan report for 172.18.188.209 [host down, received no-response] Nmap scan report for 172.18.188.210 [host down, received no-response] . . 

I’m running Windows 10 version 1809 build 17763.737 and Nmap 7.70

Additional info if it helps

 >nmap -version Nmap version 7.70 ( https://nmap.org ) Platform: i686-pc-windows-windows Compiled with: nmap-liblua-5.3.3 openssl-1.0.2n nmap-libssh2-1.8.0 nmap-libz-1.2.8 nmap-libpcre-7.6 WinPcap-4.1.3 (packet.dll version 10 nmap-libdnet-1.12 ipv6 Compiled without: Available nsock engines: iocp poll select 

Is this a bug, or am I missing something in the switches ?

Thanks !

Does Enthrall make targets require perception checks to perceive anything other than the caster?

From the description of the enthrall spell (emphasis mine):

You weave a distracting string of words, causing creatures of your choice that you can see within range and that can hear you to make a Wisdom saving throw. […] On a failed save, the target has disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks made to perceive any creature other than you until the spell ends or until the target can no longer hear you. The spell ends if you are Incapacitated or can no longer speak.

Our group is divided on the how this should affect situations that wouldn’t normally require a perception check (e.g. someone coming up to talk to the affected character). Here are the possibilities we came up with:

  1. Things that would normally not require perception checks now do, and such rolls are made with disadvantage.

  2. Things that would normally not require perception checks still don’t.

An Internet search hasn’t turned up anything on this specifically.

What are all the cases where a single attack targets multiple creatures?

The slow spell states:

[…] Regardless of the creature’s abilities or magic items, it can’t make more than one melee or ranged attack during its turn […]

I realized that one way around this restriction is to use attacks that target multiple enemies. For example the Hunter Ranger’s Whirlwind Strike and Volley features. The answer to the linked question explains Volley which Jeremy Crawford, lead game designer, has tweeted matches the intended reading:

Like Whirlwind Attack, Volley is a single attack with multiple attack rolls.

Regarding Whirlwind Attack, the Sage Advice Compendium explicitly states:

[…] Whirlwind Attack is unusual, in that it’s a single attack with multiple attack rolls […]

Another feature I’ve found that does this is the Battle Master Fighter’s Sweeping Maneuver:

When you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to attempt to damage another creature with the same attack. Choose another creature within 5 feet of the original target and within your reach. If the original attack roll would hit the second creature, it takes damage equal to the number you roll on your superiority die. The damage is of the same type dealt by the original attack.

Here a single attack is targeting multiple creatures and thus it could be used while under the effects of slow.

There is also the green-flame blade spell:

As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell’s range, otherwise the spell fails. On a hit, the target suffers the attack’s normal effects, and green fire leaps from the target to a different creature of your choice that you can see within 5 feet of it. The second creature takes fire damage equal to your spellcasting ability modifier. This spell’s damage increases when you reach higher levels.

Here a single attack is made and two creatures end up being damaged from it, but they are not both being damaged by the attack. I would like to avoid cases like green-flame blade as I’m afraid it may unbound this list quite drastically (it at least would add in ice knife). If this is not the case I can remove this restriction.

Are there other examples of things like this, where a single attack targets multiple creatures. Note I do not care about situational things such as “if the enemy has warding bond I would damage two creatures”. I want these to be options available to the attacker.

Does Blood Biography depend entirely on the target’s knowledge?

In the Pathfinder setting, hags and worshipers of Gyronna sometimes replace babies with changelings. I’m considering an adventure in which the PCs defeat a Gyronnan cult and find a kidnapped baby in their lair. This raises the question of how the PCs can find the family of a pre-verbal infant.

One solution I’ve considered is the spell Blood Biography. However, looking over the text of the spell, I’m not sure it would work (important parts highlighted):

You learn the answers to a specific set of questions about a creature so long as you have access to at least one drop of its blood. You can cast this spell on the blood of the living or the dead, but living or undead creatures are entitled to a Saving Throw to resist the spell. You can cast the spell on dried or fresh blood. Once you cast the spell the answers to the following four questions appear on any flat surface you designate (a wall, a piece of paper, and so on).

  • Who are you? (The name by which the creature is most commonly known)
  • What are you? (Gender, race, profession/role)
  • How was your blood shed? (Brief outline of the events that caused its wound, to the best of the victim’s knowledge)
  • When was your blood shed?

These answers always appear in a language you can read even if the creature cannot speak that or any language.

Clearly, the answer to the question “How was your blood shed?” depends on the target’s knowledge. However, the same text isn’t present for any of the other questions. So the question is, does the baby have to know its own name in order to answer “Who are you?”

The phrasing “The name by which the creature is most commonly known” makes me think that it doesn’t matter if the baby knows her own name. However, I’m not sure because spells like Speak with Dead definitely do depend on the target’s knowledge.

Penalty for switching targets?

I’m playing a fighter with the two weapon fighting style. Several times in the game tonight, I killed my target with my first attack, and so wanted to use my bonus attack to go at one of the other monsters in the room. Once, I hadn’t moved yet & so used my movement to close with the second monster, and another time the second target was already in range without me needing to move.

Each time, however, our DM made me take a -3 to my hit roll on the second attack (not even like roll with disadvantage, just an arbitrary number he pulled out of his ass) and said it was because I was switching targets.

I played a little of older versions of dnd growing up, but only really got into it a few years ago with 5e. Is this some old school rule the DM is citing? I’ve seen discussions online saying you can move between attacks but haven’t been able to find anything to suggest you take a penalty for switching to a new target.

This DM also isn’t just capricious or vindictive – he always happily relents if we show him a rule in the PHB that goes against what he’s saying, for example, and any homebrew/house rules get discussed beforehand. This is just the first time I’ve ever encountered this sort of penalty, and I’ve played with TWF with other DMs in the past…