The True Strike cantrip provides:  You point a finger at a target in range. Your magic grants you a brief insight into the target's defenses. On your next turn, you gain advantage on your first attack roll against the target, provided that this spell hasn't ended.  There's another  on this site discussing the cases in which casting this spell might make sense. Implicit in these arguments seems to be the idea that the &quot;brief insight&quot; granted by the spell is not useful in itself. It occurred to me that such insight could be useful in itself if it granted knowledge of specific details that might be useful for higher-order tactical or strategic planning outside of just getting Advantage on the next turn. Does the brief insight granted by True Strike provide access to specific details about the target's defenses, or is the language simply an explanation of how the player gains Advantage? An example could be where I don't particularly need to gain Advantage on my next roll, but I want to know whether that bandit over there is concealing any weapons or wands underneath his cloak. If the first case is true, a DM might report,  Ok, you cast True Strike at the cloaked bandit. He has knives hidden in each of his boots, and is carrying two wands of Fireball and one of Magic Missile in the sack over his shoulder. The walking stick he is carrying conceals a three-foot double-edged sword. He is resistant to lightning damage though a spell that seems to have been cast on him, but you would need a more powerful spell than True Strike to identify the exact spell or source. If you still have concentration at the start of your next turn, you will have Advantage in attacking.
120409
The part of the True Strike spell I am concerned with reads:     Your magic grants you a brief insight into the target’s defenses.   I'd always considered this to be flavor text. But a friend of mine disagreed. He argued that this meant that the DM should give the player some insight into the target's defenses.  For example, the DM might say "You sense that the dragon is fortified against fire."  The thing is, I'm not sure he is wrong. Is this interpretation correct?
115947
I was thinking about creating a wizard character. Reviewing the spellcasting rules, I saw this:  Most spells that require attack rolls involve ranged attacks. Remember that you have disadvantage on a ranged attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature that can see you and that isn't incapacitated (see chapter 9).  There are a lot of occasions that might arise that would make this a problem, or at least a bit of a hindrance. So as a D&amp;D player normally would when they wanted to break a rule without actually cheating, I went to a list of feats and found Crossbow Expert:  Thanks to extensive practice with the crossbow, you gain the following benefits: You ignore the loading quality of crossbows with which you are proficient. Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls. When you use the Attack action and attack with a one handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a hand crossbow you are holding.  I may be (am) overthinking things, but does this apply to magic attacks, such as cantrips like Eldritch Blast or Fire Bolt? The literal meaning of the feat says that I can, but it could also imply by the title and also the effects of the feat that this only applies to crossbows, or any other ranged weapon, excluding magic. The strongest evidence that it might not affect ability with ranged magic attacks is:  Thanks to extensive practice with the crossbow  With a crossbow, not with magic.
91876
If a mage casts a spell within 5 feat of a character with the Mage Slayer feat, does the reaction of attacking the casting character go off first, or does the spell go off first?  The  feat (PHB, p. 168) says:     When a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell, you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against that creature.   So which happens first?  Another reaction, the  spell, says that when you are hit by an attack, you get +5 AC against all attacks, including the triggering one - but if the attack didn't hit then the reaction couldn't have been triggered. So I assume both interrupt the triggering action, and are then treated as occurring before the trigger.
97542
I was reading a closed question that proposed different rulings on Disarm, and it leads me to ask a proper question about the disarming abilities in 5th Edition.  The Battle Master maneuver Disarming Strike is among the best example, but in all instances; when you succeed at disarming someone the weapon simply drops to the target's feet.  Is this redundant in that the same creature can then JUST bend over and pick it up again when it's their turn, as a free object interaction, that costs them nothing in the grand scheme of the combat action economy?  Or is there something I am missing in how this can be effective in combat as opposed to just a slight annoyance?  I understand it MIGHT potentially rob them of opportunity or reaction attacks until they can pick up the weapon, provided it's the only weapon they have to make such attacks with; but there must be more to it, yes?
19115
I was looking at the Player's Handbook and I saw that there are 3 different types for Spell Sniper.   Simply put, does choosing all three of them create an 8 times multiplier?  For example, say that a Level 10 Arcane Trickster rogue were to use the three Ability Score Improvements they had to take three feats instead.   The feats taken (in no particular order) are Spell Sniper (Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock), Spell Sniper (Cleric, Druid), and Spell Sniper (Wizard).  Does the range benefit of each version of the feat stack, multiplying the range of any spell that requires an attack roll by a total of 8?  (I just inputted the values on D&amp;D Beyond, and it seem like they added the multipliers together for 6 times multiplier. Fire Bolt has a range of 720 ft and Thorn Whip has a range of 180 ft. This is increased from 120 ft and 30 ft. Is this correct on their part?)
62434
I've just recently started playing D&amp;D 4e through the Red Box, and I am confused about how to fill in the power cards.  So, take Nimbus of Holy Shielding for instance. I understand the Target and Hit components as well as the effect, but my question is about the Attack component. It reads:     Attack: Wisdom vs Will.   Does the mean whatever my Wisdom score is, without the modifier, is compared to the Will score of the enemy? Would I then not even have to roll a d20 to see if it works?
16010
The War Caster feat allows a single-target spell ("must target only that creature") to be cast instead of a melee strike for an opportunity attack.  Green-Flame Blade appears to have a single target, and then some damage "leaps" onto a creature 5 feet away. The other creature is never referred to as the target, or even "a target".  I'm pretty sure this is solid from the RAW perspective. Is this legit from a RAI perspective?
75134
So this is something I just found out about that I find odd:   Opportunity attacks—trigger off of movement that uses the creatures movement (action, move action, bonus action, reaction.)  Sentinel—Whenever a creature within 5 ft of you makes an attack at a creature other than you.   Booming blade—If the target willingly moves.   Mental Prison spell—if it moves, attacks through it, or reaches any part of body out of it.   So the “willingly” is different than other rulings for how effects related to movement works. However what exactly fits willing?   Cause fear—nope magic is having them move. Dissonant whispers—same thing. They have to immediately move.   So the creature has to want to move completely of its own accord.   Crown of Madness—Humanoid creature you choose must make a wisdom saving throw. On a fail it is charmed by you. (Next is flavor text so skipping.) While charmed in this way the target must make an attack on a creature other than itself that you mentally choose on each of its turns before moving.  It can act normally if you choose no creature or if none are within reach.   Crown of madness isn't making them move but doesnt specifically say willing.  And if the ruling for willing is movement not caused by magic what about magic causing situations where you take damage if you don't move. Would a creature shimmering with evocation energy be spared because he moved out of the magical blender that is cloud of daggers? If no, then what is the go-to rule for willing movement that I should be using?  In short, what movement counts as willing, and where can it be found? Is moving out of obvious danger caused by magic, willing? Is moving away from an ally so you don't hit them, willing?   If there isn't any actual ruling on willing, that's fine; I'll go back to running it with my interpretation, so that it has same wording as AOO. If there is an actual 5e term or explanation for willing (that isn't Sage Advice), please let me know. I just don't see why it was necessary to put a term in the spell that isn't used anywhere else. I understand it could have been overlooked since it was in a splatbook or has just been ignored since most people probably assume that there is "Forced " and "Willing" movement, with the willing being defined as: any movement from an action, move action, bonus action, or reaction. In same way AOO work.
79079
Some class features, monster traits, and feats allow you to take a −5 to your attack roll in order to gain a +10 to your damage roll. At first glance this looks really good, but when will it deal more damage than not using it on average?  For instance if you have a total attack bonus of +8 and you deal 1d12 damage. You have to roll a 7 to hit an AC of 15. If you take the −5 that makes it where you have to roll a 12. That's going to reduce your average damage by a lot.
12637
When casting a spell as a bonus action, you can't cast another spell on the same turn except a 1-action cantrip - can the order be "reversed"? Can you cast a cantrip first as a bonus action, then any other spell? If not, would it be broken to allow it?  I'm thinking a Sorcerer casting a Quickened true strike, then casting a leveled spell requiring a touch attack. Seems like a great use of the cantrip + Metamagic feature, but it seems like it is not allowed.
87817
says:     You create three glowing darts of magical force. Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range.    says:     You create the image of an object, a creature, or some other visible phenomenon....   If one caster creates an illusory creature with silent image what happens when another caster targets that illusory creature with magic missile?  Assuming of course that the mm caster is shooting first and asking questions later, ie, rather than using his or her action to investigate the illusion is simply choosing to attack it.  Or I suppose the magic missile caster might have failed the investigation check.  Either way, the magic missile caster believes the illusion to be real.  My own inclination would be to rule that magic missile would in fact appear to hit the illusory creature, but I can't find much to either support that conclusion, or to support another.
119023
So me and a group of friends recently started to play D&amp;D. I became a sorcerer. My question is: can the enemy I am attacking, no matter what spell I use, make a saving throw for half damage or does that only apply for certain spells?  For example, when I use my cantrip fire bolt, does the targeted opponent get to roll a saving throw for half damage against the spell, even though the description doesn't say anything about saving throws?
52004
If this has been asked, I could not find it. My Sorcerer has the sword burst cantrip, and I'm thinking of taking the 'Distant Spell' metamagic option. Will it change the range to 10 feet?  Similar to  but not quite answered, though Crawford's tweet seems to imply it would work.  Although the spell has a range of 5 feet, it seems like Distant Spell would increase the area of effect in this case. So RAW it works, but likely shouldn't?
35835
In the D&amp;D campaign I am currently participating in, I am playing as a level 5 high elf champion (I actually just reached level 5 at the end of the last session).  As a High Elf, I got a free cantrip at first level, and chose the firebolt cantrip.  Here's what I'm wondering now: for the purposes of the extra attack feature, does firebolt (and similar cantrips) count as an attack?
33040
Can you cast one cantrip, modifying it with "Twinned Spell" (Fire Bolt) to target 2 creatures, and then cast another cantrip as a Bonus Action (Fire Bolt), using "Quickened Spell" to target one of the previous creatures or another creature?
75530
Can you using these three feats, take more then one five foot step per round?   From Robilar's Gambit:     In return, they provoke attacks of opportunity from you each time they swing   From Evasive reflexes:     When an opponent gives you a chance to make an attack of opportunity, you can instead immediately take a 5-foot step.   In RAW you can only make one 5-foot step per turn, this does not specifically state that you can take more but this suggests that you can.   If this combination doesn't, would the stance Shifting Defense from setting sun work?     While you are in this stance, you can make an immediate 5-foot step each time an opponent attacks you. Moving in this manner consumes one of your attacks of opportunity in the current round
87472
This has been a point of some controversy within our local AL community, with different DMs giving different rulings. From what I could see, this site has only touched on the Maneuver/Smite issue, with, according to some of my DMs, an out of date answer.  This also leaves the problem of extra dice on magical weapons such as an Ild rune or Hazirawn, maneuver damage dice given by another player through Commander's Strike, damage dice given by a College of Valor bard, Sneak Attack dice, and likely others which currently escape my mind.  Which damage dice exactly does the Great Weapon Fighting fighting style allow you to reroll?