They can shield bullets ? and a shot seems to be much stronger than a expelliarmus
26686
We know that wizards in the Harry Potter universe are subject to regular physical harm (e.g. witness injuries from being hit by Bludgers or just colliding with things when playing Quidditch).  Therefore, it's almost a certainty that an average wizard would be vulnerable to, say, a bunch of bullets.   There may likely be spell(s) to protect from projectiles - witness Dumbledore's  deployed when Voldemort sent a bunch of glass at him during the  at the end of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (according to , possibly an unusually powerful Protego or the Silver shield).   But:   those spells obviously take effort/energy/time to cast (not everyone's Dumbledore) AND more likely than not most Death Eaters wouldn't recognize a Muggle gun for a threat (or realize what kind of threat) till too late.   So, the guns should at best allow an over-matched OotP member (e.g. Harry or Hermione) to greatly equalize the power between any regular Death Eaters and themselves, and even perhaps help against Voldemort (who can't be killed with a bullet, but, at best, would need to expend magical energy and time into conjuring a shield, and, at worst, be stopped/interrupted/driven off).  So I'm looking for an explanation - ideally in-universe, but possibly just some statement by JKR - of why the Muggle-born OotP - who are likely very much at ease AND familiar with Muggle technology and live in the late 20th century - do not use guns. Or, for that matter, ANY Muggle technology of the late 20th century? Cue Arthur C. Clarke's "indistinguishable from magic" meme.  Even if they are on some kind of idiotic moral crusade to never kill their opponents (even the Jedi aren't this dumb), given the time-frame, non-lethal weapons would have already existed, such as rubber bullets and tasers.  NOTE: Please don't offer the "if they do it, Death Eaters would start using guns as well" theory. First, Death Eaters would have used the guns if they knew how to, anyway. Second, the guns, like any "secret weapon", could be reserved for strategic battles, say the defense of Hogwarts in Deathly Hallows.    The origin of the question stems from two things.  First, Harry's fascination with all things that are different in the magical world (e.g. moving photographs), based on his knowledge of the Muggle material world, as well as the somewhat amusing cluelessness of the "Muggle artifacts" expert, Mr. Weasley, regarding Muggle items and how they work.   Basically, from the books, it's clear that the Wizarding world wouldn't know details about guns or what they are for or how they work.  The second thing is it's clear, at least initially, that wizards are afraid of Muggles finding out about them. Hence all the efforts to cloak their society (basically, do you REALLY want every Muggle gunning for you, even with Magic)? The idea of how control over the Muggle world seems to be more indirect, by Death Eaters asserting mind-control over the government. This means there's an implicit understanding by Death Eaters that they don't stand a chance against armed Muggles even given the magical disparity.  Considering Harry and Hermione's overall adaptability and inventiveness (and brains in the latter case), it's mind-boggling that the idea of fighting Death Eaters with modern technology completely slipped their mind. I mean, it's a basic part of human myth (see Steel vs. Magic themes in Conan books, or Beowulf, or heck, A Yankee in King Arthur's Court). So it's not like the idea of using technology against magic would be impossible to come up with. The question begs itself - why not? Considering the fact that Rowling generally tried to be logical and consistent in building the HP universe, I feel like there must be some in-universe explanation for this that I just didn't notice.   (in-universe answers only unless there are some authoritative out-of-universe statements that are part of canon).
118294
The new Baldur's Gate - Descent into Avernus hardcover features a brand new mechanic: Infernal War Machines! A few things caught my eye - first off, that they have a stat block:     An infernal war machine's statistics function like those for creatures   Then, that their opportunity attack mechanics function a lot like those of mounts:     Infernal war machines provoke opportunity attacks as normal. When an infernal war machine provokes an opportunity attack, the attacker can target the vehicle or any creature riding on or inside if that doesn't have total cover and is within reach.   Also, that their driver can control their movement much like a mounter controls a (non-intelligent) mount's movement:     While the vehicle is moving, the driver can steer it along any course.   And that they can make the vehicle Dash/Disengage (in a similar but different manner that a mounter commands a mount to do so):     As a bonus action, the driver can do one of the following: […] Cause the infernal war machine to take the Dash or Disengage action while the vehicle's engine is running.   In summary, Infernal War Machines seem similar, in certain points at least, to mounts. What I'm wondering here is: how would a driver with the Mounted Combatant feat interact with these Machines? Would the feat's benefits work with the Machines or not?  Reminder on the Mounted Combatant feat:     You are a dangerous foe while mounted. While you are mounted and aren't incapacitated, you gain the following benefits:         You have advantage on melee attack rolls against any unmounted creature that is smaller than your mount. You can force an attack targeted at your mount to target you instead.   You can force an attack targeted at your mount to target you instead.   If your mount is subjected to an effect that allows it to make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half damage, it instead takes no damage if it succeeds on the saving throw, and only half damage if it fails.      From a thematic standpoint, I think it would make sense for a specialized "Helldriver", so to speak, to gain benefits from that feat while driving an Infernal War Machine, but actual-mechanics-wise, I am unsure.
92866
Can I use the Catapult spell from the  to launch ammunition (like bolts, arrows, and sling stones) and weapons within the weight requirements? Would the damage still be bludgeoning if I used a weapon with a different damage type?  My DM does not believe that I can use this spell to temporarily substitute for my missing heavy crossbow. Since the spell says that the object launched flies in a straight line, I think things like spears, arrows and bolts should be able to deal piercing damage when launched by the spell.  I'm playing an Assassin 5, Sorcerer 4 and I plan on using this spell as part of an assassination attempt. I plan on hiding a crossbow bolt inside a long sleeve of a shirt and whistling as the Somatic component. If I did this, would it count as a surprise attack to the target, allowing me to get the automatic crit with the crossbow bolt, sneak attack damage dice, and the 3d8 piercing/bludgeoning from the spell itself?
70754
The topic pretty much sums up my question. I have not yet figured out how the gun operates aside from the fact that it creates Portal portals. The weapon description indicates that it deals 250+ base damage, but how is that damage applied to the monsters?
20244
Why do airplanes experience negligible Coriolis force while bullets experience the Coriolis force in long range shooting, even though the mass of airplane is much bigger than a bullet?
56734
The second benefit of the  feat says (PHB, p. 168):        You can force an attack targeted at your mount to target you instead.       I was playing a campaign, and my DM attacked the mount. Imagine this is the battlefield (seen from above); I was on the C, my mount is large (A), and the monster is M:  # # # # # # # # # # A C # # # # # A A # # # # M # # # # # # # # # # #   When I said "I deflect the attack to me," the DM said "But the foe does not reach you, which means you can't pull the attack to yourself." That got me thinking. I'm wanting to know how this works in this situation.  How does the attacker's reach interact with Mounted Combatant's ability to force an attack against the mount to target the rider instead?
8217
For example, I am vulnerable to fire and have an item that gives resistance to fire. Do the two cancel each other out, or does one supercede the other?
114878
A lot of the spells in Harry Potter, including just about every offensive one like Stupefy are what I would call "missile" spells (if there's a better term for it, please tell me). That is, they basically involve shooting a spell out of your wand like a missile, as opposed to an "area of effect" form (a protective spell like Muffliato) or no really perceivable form at all (like Accio).   Do such directed spells have a limit to their range? Or will they travel until they hit something?   I'm interested because if spells have virtually infinite range and high accuracy (which is another matter), then there should be "snipers" in battles that fire curses from long range, and it would be possible to "assassinate" somebody like Voldemort or Dumbledore given appropriate conditions. Of course, people may see the spell coming, but if they're distracted enough or if there's enough interference (a firework show, for example), then this could be a very effective means of killing people from afar.
32975
It was noted that the Terminators (T101) were infiltrator units, designed to infiltrate the resistance.  Given the ragged undernourished humans of the time, wouldn't making an infiltrator body into the hulking over-built Conan The Destroyer frame be something totally illogical if your goal is to blend in?   Why not use a more "normal" body? Robots already have metal frame and super-strong muscles, so size wasn't required to bump the combat capacity as with flesh and bone humans.
65636
Can a level 3 fighter use their shield as an improvised weapon and attack using their bonus action on top of their regular attack?
84492
What happens if I equip my      Juggernaut can't be blocked by Walls.   with a      Equipped creature can't be blocked except by Walls.   or if I enchant my      Charging Rhino can't be blocked by more than one creature.   with a ?     Enchanted creature gets +3/+3 and has menace.   From , I'd say they're both unblockable, but I'm wondering if the word "except" allows the blocker to block if he or she satisfies the "except" condition.
73463
Reinhardt's main strength is his shielding abilities and the protection he provides for his team, but Are there any abilities that cannot be blocked by Reinhardt's barrier field?
51802
(This question is related to , and was originally posted as an answer there, but it's not the same)    In , the Empire attacks Rebel Echo Base located in Hoth. The Rebels are alerted before the attack, and raise some sort of shield to prevent orbital bombardment of their base. The Empire is then forced to deploy land forces to first disable the shield generator, before destroying the base. Presumably, the Imperial forces are deployed using dropships.  My question is about how the Rebel shield generator works, and how the Imperials manage to bypass it.  I think the shield generator is something of a plot hole. At first I incorrectly thought it was a planetary shield (i.e. a shield around all of Hoth) preventing orbital bombardment, and also preventing any dropships (with their AT-AT payload) from landing, but I think : the  states it is an energy field around just an area of Hoth, presumably Echo Base:     VEERS: My lord, the fleet has moved out of light-speed. Com-Scan has   detected an energy field protecting an area around the sixth planet of   the Hoth system. The field is strong enough to deflect any   bombardment.   So my initial objection ("how did the Imperial dropships bypass the shield?") has been answered: they didn't. They landed outside the energy field to deliver the AT-ATs. But now I have another question: does an AT-AT have to walk inside the field to fire at the generator, or can it fire into the field from outside?  Maybe the field simply cannot stop matter, only energy weapons (therefore preventing orbital bombardment), in which case the AT-ATs would be able to just walk inside. However, the script also states:     LEIA: All troop carriers will assemble at the north entrance. The   heavy transport ships will leave as soon as they're loaded. Only two   fighter escorts per ship. The energy shield can only be opened for a   short time, so you'll have to stay very close to your transports.   So it's clear that the energy field is also capable of stopping matter, in this case troop transports and fighters. It follows that it should also prevent AT-ATs from walking through it. So the only way I can see the walkers disabling the generator is by firing into the energy field!  This would mean the field is strong enough to stop matter such as ships and fighters, and energy weapons used for orbital bombardment (and also the Ion Cannon the Rebels use as an anti-orbit battery: Leia also states they must lower the shield to use it), but not able to stop whatever energy weapons the AT-ATs use!  So how on Earth did Imperial Walkers manage to disable the shield generator?
81371
If a creature is knocked prone, can it still make opportunity attacks?
101049
What prevents ships firing phasers and photon torpedoes through a cloak? I have yet to see a episode where this is brought up. It may have been mentioned in The Undiscovered Country, as I know there is a kingon ship that does it, but I have not seen that movie in years. Is it addressed there or somewhere in one of the series'?
101437
So I've watched pretty much all the Star Treks and from what I've seen, Star Trek officers don't wear any protective gear! Why don't they wear any kind of armor like the Klingons? Is it because the weapons are so powerful that it doesn't matter if you wear armor or not? Ex: You're shooting antimatter so it doesn't matter if you have matter type armor?  But then again, the Borg. They have personal shields, but everyone else doesn't for some reason. Why can't Geordi or Data figure out how to create portable force fields by putting down things similar to those power poles placed in a triangular formation when they need to teleport into an "interfering" atmosphere?
47121
Consider a gun or rifle fired directly upwards. My original question was what speed would be required to escape the Earth.  The escape velocity from the surface of the Earth is the classic $$v_e = \sqrt{ 2GM \over r } \approx 11,000 \text{ m/s}$$ and bullets typically (see ) leave the muzzle with a maximum speed one order of magnitude lower, ~$1,000$ m/s. Terminal velocity of bullets in STP is another magnitude lower, ~$100$ m/s.  Even if a bullet were fired with speed $v_e$ that of course would not be sufficient due to drag which would slow the bullet down. So a theoretical required speed  $v_T &gt; v_e$.   If the bullet were fired with anything close to $v_e$ or $v_T$, would it would burn up very rapidly in STP? I understand that rockets typically don't achieve anything like $v_e$ until they are high in the atmosphere at least in part for this reason And hence is there no speed possible in realistic conditions with which a bullet could be fire and escape the Earth? If it is possible, what model of drag should one use to calculate $v_T$ and concretely,  does anyone have an estimate of its value?