dnd 5e – Does the bonus action attack from Polearm Master receive the bonus to attack and damage rolls from a magic weapon?

All attacks with the weapon receive the bonus to attack and damage rolls.

The description for +1 weapons says (DMG, pg. 213):

You have a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with this magic weapon.

This does not discriminate between attacks made with the Attack action and attacks made via a feature granting a bonus action, or any other distinctions we might make, so all attack and damage rolls receive this bonus.

If DDB is not adding the +1 to the bonus action attack, this is indeed a bug. You can work around this by customizing the bonus action attack in DDB to have a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls.

pathfinder 1e – How does ‘Standard Action Attacking’ Work with the Big Cat animal companion?

I’m playing pathfinder with my friends as a hunter (ranged build) and I have an animal companion (the Big Cat animal companion archetype). We are currently level 5, and we started at level 4 and I am confused about how many attacks my companion gets.

I am unsure which of my Big Cat’s bite and claw attacks it can use as a standard action, or after moving, and whether or not it needs to use a full round action to full-attack (without moving more than a 5′ step) to use all of its attacks.


Let’s say I move 10 yards and then I want to attack an enemy:

How to add a custom action link in sharepoint onedrive personal site for Documents list using Elements.xml?

And here’s the element manifest for the ribbon custom action:

dnd 5e – Would it be balanced to introduce an “Aim Action” that uses the same mechanics as True Strike?

There are few things in D&D 5E on which the consensus is as overwhelming as on the fact that True Strike is an extremely poor cantrip. As discussed in many places, the main problem is the action economy. As this answer to a similar question puts it, casting True Strike is not so much a benefit as it is a trade off: You waste your action on one turn in order to gain advantage and thus use your action more effectively on your next turn. As has also been pointed out countless times, this is rarely optimal, as attacking twice without advantage still has a better chance of hitting at least once than attacking once with advantage.

The generic scenario in which True Strike actually helps is when a character needs to put all their focus into making sure that one crucial, strategically relevant attack actually hits. Putting it like that doesn’t let it sound particularly magical: the character just takes their time to aim. I really like the narrative and I could imagine very dramatic, epic, and satisfying game moments with this mechanic. However, they do not happen, since they alone are hardly a convincing reason to choose the otherwise almost useless True Strike as one of one’s limited cantrips.

Would it be balanced to introduce an Aim Action, that is available to everyone and does exactly what True Strike does (mechanically)?

One obvious implication ist that True Strike is now entirely pointless and hence is removed from the game. Since it’s almost never chosen anyway, I don’t see this as a problem.

Some additional context: I also noticed that the Unearthed Arcana Class Feature Variants include the “Cunning Action: Aim” for the rogue. Having a general Aim Action and allowing this feature variant would keep in line with the idea that the Cunning Action lets the rogue do things anyone can do, just quicker. It’s Unearthed Arcana, so this may not be a great argument, but I like how consistent it feels.

dnd 5e – Does the Witch Bolt spell end if you use a bonus action, reaction, or movement (remaining within the spell’s range)?

The obvious things are:

  • ending it voluntarily
  • losing concentration
  • breaking the tether with range or cover
  • using a normal action on your turn for something other than witch bolt

What isn’t specified is whether or not the spell ends when you use a bonus action, movement or reaction. I would assume that reactions would be fine because they are quick spells and not on your turn. Movement is generally not considered an action in 5e afaik, so it seems fine too. The description is less clear about bonus actions however, because they occur on your turn and witch bolt states

On a hit, the target takes 1d12 lightning damage, and on each of your turns for the duration, you can use your action to deal 1d12 lightning damage to the target automatically. The spell ends if you use your action to do anything else. The spell also ends if the target is ever outside the spell’s range or if it has total cover from you.

BUT Bonus actions are fast and often without a somatic/verbal component, and most cases in the PHB refer to the normal action as “your action”. Also, the action required for witch bolt is NOT casting a spell and so the “bonus spell + cantrip” rule is not applicable here. Witch bolt is presumably taking a mental effort to maintain, such that I wouldn’t be able to cast another normal action spell without losing focus on the beam, but for something like misty step, with only a verbal component and taking minimal effort (especially if it’s a wizard spell-mastery spell), it seems to me like it would be possible.

Anyone know if there’s an official ruling for this, or is it entirely up to the DM? If I were a DM I’d rule that it’s allowed, since it requires giving up your standard action, and you’re still limited to the 30ft tether AND line of sight, AND concentration, AND spell slots if you’re not a lvl 18 wizard. Compared to a high level blastlock hitting for 4d10+20+knockback with eblast each turn, with a cantrip that would allow a bonus spell on your turn and a reaction spell on someone else’s turn, witch bolt with bonus action and reaction (now that I think about the math) still seems underpowered at high levels. (especially now that I realize that subsequent turns don’t add the extra damage from a higher lvl spell slot. A lot of text for something not terrible useful. Still curious though.

TL:DR Can I maintain witch bolt on a target and move normally and use my bonus action to teleport around with misty step (provided I maintain line of sight and tether range), while using my reactions on enemy creature’s turns for counterspell or shield?

dnd 5e – Does a Fighter’s Action Surge stack with the Haste action?

A fighter, once per rest, can use Action Surge to gain an additional action on his turn.

The target of a Haste spell also gains an additional action on his turns (until the spell ends).

If a fighter is Hasted by a fellow mage and then uses his Action Surge, does he gain two additional actions on his turn (for a total of 3 actions, plus the eventual bonus action & reaction) ?

dnd 5e – Do you have to take the Attack action before you can make the bonus-action attack from the Crossbow Expert feat?

You can’t take the bonus-action attack before the Attack action, because it is conditional on you taking that action.

Rules designer Jeremy Crawford addressed the same general issue in a tweet on May 11, 2018 (prompted by the similar wording of another feat):

Clarification about bonus actions: if a feature says you can do X as a bonus action if you do Y, you must do Y before you can do X. For Shield Master, that means the bonus action must come after the Attack action. You decide when it happens afterward that turn.

This ruling on Shield Master and similarly worded feats/features was then formalized in the 2019 Sage Advice Compendium, which mentions that “the same sort of if-then setup” appears in other rules:

The Shield Master feat lets you shove someone as a bonus action if you take the Attack action. Can you take that bonus action before the Attack action?

No. The bonus action provided by the Shield Master feat has a pre-condition: that you take the Attack action on your turn. Intending to take that action isn’t sufficient; you must actually take it before you can take the bonus action. During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action.

This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The “if” must be satisfied before the “then” comes into play.

(Notably, the first page of the 2019 Sage Advice Compendium also indicated that now, none of Crawford’s tweets are considered official rulings. Since I’ve noted it here, I’ll avoid reiterating their unofficial nature in the rest of the answer.)

Crossbow Expert’s third bullet point is worded in the same fundamental way as the first benefit of Shield Master. Since the bonus-action attack granted by Crossbow Expert is predicated on you using the Attack action (specifically attacking with a one-handed weapon as part of it), then by the same logic as above, you can’t take that bonus-action attack until after you have actually taken the Attack action.

As Crawford explained in another tweet from May 25, 2018:

D&D combat doesn’t have an action-declaration phase. Things happen in order, and you can be interrupted at any moment by a reaction, trap, or the like. You can say, “I plan to take the Attack action,” but that has no rules relevance until you’re actually taking the action.

This revised ruling contradicts a previous tweet by him in January 2015, in which he stated that, “As with most bonus actions, you choose the timing, so the Shield Master shove can come before or after the Attack action.” Crawford acknowledged this change in this tweet from May 11, 2018:

In 2017, I changed the ruling on bonus action timing because the old ruling was illogical. The original ruling failed to account for the fact that X relying on Y is a form of timing. The new ruling corrects that oversight.

And further explained his reasoning in another tweet later the same day:

The old ruling on bonus action timing didn’t quiet questions on that timing. Instead, the illogical ruling fueled questions, and it even inadvertently led some fans to think our choice of words like “if” or “when” had super-precise meanings in bonus actions. They don’t.

Since the bonus-action attack from the Crossbow Expert feat is reliant on taking the Attack action and making an attack with a one-handed weapon as part of it, that bonus-action attack can’t be made until you’ve already made an attack with a one-handed weapon as part of the Attack action.

Notably, if you’re able to make multiple attacks as part of the Attack action, it might be possible to interrupt the Attack action to make Crossbow Expert’s bonus-action attack, since it’s reliant specifically on attacking with a one-handed weapon as part of the Attack action – rather than on the Attack action as a whole. However, that should probably be asked as a separate question if it’s unclear.

dnd 5e – With Crossbow Expert feat – can you Bonus Action attack on your turn, and then use a readied action to attack on someone else’s turn?

I am playing a crossbow expert ranged rogue and trying to maximize my sneak attack capabilities in order to remain competitive with regard to DPR (Paladin and Fighter in the group).

I am wondering if by RAW, I can use the bonus action attack provided by this feat first and then if it is successful, ready my regular attack to trigger on someone else’s turn – essentially allowing me a chance at two sneak attacks within the round.

I am solo-classed, so I don’t have access to Extra attack and not looking to abuse Haste. I am wondering if this is in DM-rule territory or if there is some source I can point to that would allow something like this?

dnd 5e – Drop an Item Action

Focusing specifically on your use case, where you have 2 full hands, and want to cast a spell with a material component requirement.

I don’t think that your DM’s ruling is supported by the rules in 2 ways. The first is that dropping an object does not appear to use up your free object interaction. Jeremy Crawford has tweeted

The intent is that letting go of something requires no appreciable effort. But picking it up does.

Also, Basic Rules page 73 or PHB page 190 has a callout box “Interacting with Objects Around You” with a quite extensive list of “the sorts of thing you can do in
tandem with your movement and action”. One of these items is “pick up a dropped axe”, but not “drop an axe”. Combined with Crawford’s tweet, RAI (if not RAW) is that you can drop the object without using up your object interaction.

Regarding then casting the spell, here’s what the rules (Basic Rules 83, PHB 203) say about Material Components:

A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these
components—or to hold a spellcasting focus—but it can
be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic

If you want to cast using a spellcasting focus that you are not currently holding, you most likely need to use the object interaction to draw it, the same as a weapon. (An exception would be a Cleric who has a holy symbol which is an amulet or an emblem. The rules give “wear it visibly” as an option for using a Holy Symbol. PHB 151)

However, nothing in the rules indicates that casting a spell with components from a component pouch uses up that object interaction.

The “Interacting with Objects Around You” list again does not list “accessing components in a component pouch”. I think it would be reading a lot into the rules to interpret “must have a hand free to access these components”, as requiring the object interaction. If you were required to already be holding the component it would say so, because this sentence has been “eratta’d” to say that about the focus. They would have said it about the components if it was intended.

There are also spells that such a requirement would make almost impossible to cast. For example, Feather Fall(PHB 239) can be cast as a reaction, but has a material component.

A couple of quick notes about the rest of your points:

You cannot use a Bonus Action unless it is granted to you explicitly by a class feature or feat etc. For example, to take an extra “Use an Object” action like you are suggesting, you would need to be a 3rd level Thief:

Fast Hands

Starting at 3rd level, you can use the bonus action
granted by your Cunning Action to make a Dexterity
(Sleight of Hand) check, use your thieves’ tools to disarm
a trap or open a lock, or take the Use an Object action.

A component pouch is not a spell focus. However the component pouch, Focus, or explicitly having the component in question are all ways to satisfy the material component requirement.

dnd 5e – 5e Drop an Item Action

Interacting with one item is free. Interacting with two items is not. This leads to the odd case that if I have an apple in one hand and a flagon in the other I can drop either but not both.

Disclaimer: I newly come to 5e from Pathfinder.

I’ve been searching for possible workarounds RAW which may or may not be legal:

  1. Dropping an object is not an object interaction (DM says otherwise but if someone can find something RAW that supports the premise I’d like to hear about it).
  2. Drop the apple as part of a move, drop the flagon as part of the action. This uses up both object interactions so don’t plan on picking up that drumstick.
  3. I get a third object interaction with use of a bonus action. Since actions can be used in any order I can still cast my spells.
  4. Use an object allows me to drop or stow both but now I’ve wasted my action which obviates the point.
  5. Having a component pouch is considered a spell focus and it’s not necessary to interact with it as an object.
  6. Use of a component pouch to cast a spell is not an object interaction, its an integral and indivisible part of casting the spell.
  7. Drawing a spell focus to cast a spell is not an object interaction, its an integral and indivisible part of casting the spell.

Use case is I have a torch and a map in my hands. I want to cast a spell with a material component. I need to drop the map to free up a hand to cast the spell.

Use case 2 is I have a torch and a map in my hands. I want to cast a spell with a spell focus. I need to drop the map to free up a hand in order to grab the spell focus.

I encourage opinion or unofficial comments but for a solution I need something official in writing with reference link.