dnd 5e: Can a druid be copied wildly with polymorph or wild form?

Ironically, it is a very simple reason: a creature affected by Polymorphic organism it must have a CR or level greater than or equal to the Challenge Index of the creature in which they are being transformed; and the player characters have no challenge classifications. And since they do not have the same statistics on whatever they have been transformed, it is not appropriate to simply paste the CR of the form into them.

Therefore, a druid who has taken the form of a black bear, without a challenge rating, would not be eligible to be the type of animal to which an objective creature Polymorphic organism could become

The main restriction in Polymorphic organism it is "a beast with CR equal to or less than that of the target", without the same stipulation found in Wild form That has to be a beast that the caster has seen before. Because the Druid NPC has a CR, and presumably it was calculated with alternative forms that it could take into account, the real questions are whether

  • The Druid NPC counts as a beast while in that form, and
  • the Polymorphic organism the spell allows the target to polymorph into a "specific" version of a beast, and not just the platonic ideal of a beast, and
  • The changed-shape Druid NPC represents a specific version of a beast, and not its platonic ideal

For the first question, I think the answer is yes, in fact they count as a beast, given the answers to questions that are based on a similar logic.

For the second question, I think the answer is also yes, it allows the target to become a specific animal. There is no text that contradicts this, and even the specific non-demicanonic beasts found in the Adventure Modules have a Challenge Classification associated with them, and are generally valid targets for Wild Shape and Polymorphic organism.

Then the last question remains: does a Druid NPC changed form represent a specific version of the beast whose form they have taken, or do they represent a generic version of the beast whose form they have taken? And I think the answer here is also yes: they represent a specific version of the beast. They are a beast with the same statistics as the form they have taken, except with (presumably) higher mental statistics.

As far as I'm concerned, it's legal Polymorphic organism a creature in a druid with a changed form or with a wild form (NPC), and in doing so, the polymorphized creature will inherit the mental statistics of the druid.

At my table, because of this decision, I think I would extend that to allow this to be valid if the Druid is a player character; but as I said, I don't think it's valid according to the rules as they are written.

dnd 5e – How to deal with a homophobic PC

Explain to them as he explained to use, "it bothers me and I think it will bother the other players" is a perfectly valid reason to veto a character.

It may also be worth saying that you prepare another character "just in case" and mention your character concept in the zero session, the other players may agree with it, explore things in a game that would not be acceptable in the real world to You can often be fun depending on how the player handles it. You can say "If the other players agree, I will allow it, but if you push it too much and that makes someone (including you) feel uncomfortable, then the character leaves and brings your spare, no questions asked."

Other players may be fine with this, this may be affected by how "real" they play fanaticism and how real the settings are, a cartoon can be fun. I had a lot of fun playing a racist lizard (clado-ist?) Who did not like mammals "Everyone hangs things," (genitals, breasts, hair) "and their fluids always dripping, it is just strange" . He still saved the world with a group of mammals and the other players also had fun with him, especially because he was killing (and eating) mammalian humanoids, but he did his best not to harm intelligent reptiles. The fact that it was a bit monstrous (he really ate like a dozen people throughout the campaign) made it more fun and unreal enough not to feel uncomfortable. But I also talked to all the other players in the zero session to make sure they were fine with that beforehand, and these were players who knew me and knew I was just playing a monster.

dnd 5e: What are the limitations of Keen Mind Feat?

The next point came when I gave my D&D group their choice of feats. One of them chooses Keen Mind as described in the PHB:

Sharp mind

He has a mind that can track time, direction and details with amazing precision. You get the following benefits …

You can accurately remember anything you have seen or heard in the last month.

Because I only skipped the exploits beforehand and only explicitly blocked the Lucky Feat, some problems followed immediately after. As a homebrew rule, I established that the players themselves should (should) take notes on what happened, where, by whom, etc. They are absolutely free not to, but I clearly stated that this can have negative effects on the story.

Now they reached the point where it is (or better) necessary to know certain things that happened to my players. As the last benefit says:

You can accurately remember anything you have seen or heard in the last month.

Hence a small problem arose regarding my DM management. And therefore some questions:

  • What is the limiting factor of this benefit? (Ie: does the player recognize any small details of a room he went through or can he recite a conversation with an important NPC word by word?)
  • Is it reasonable to say: "I received this feat, so now you (the DM) have to tell me what I heard? If so, how do I put this in balance?

These are the main points that happened last Saturday in our session. I will be honest, this broke a part of my narrative because my players did not correctly remember an important point of the plot (since last December) and because of this this feat I had to confuse the reaction of the archmage who asked them what happened.

From what I see, this can really break some narrative elements of my game even more. Therefore, I need some measures to prevent abuse (or a rather vague approach) of this benefit.

Game Maker: the easiest way to make a button in Gamemaker Studio 2 (DnD)

Use the event pressed to the left:

enter the description of the image here

In this way, the action will only be performed if the mouse is clicked on the object (in this case, the button). The click area will match exactly the size of the sprite.

Out of curiosity / information:

As you want to know the easiest way to do this and not the most optimized / functional way, the image shows how to do what you want. This case specifically (by clicking a button) is quite simple to convert to GML.

dnd 5e – Can a shield be an effective weapon?

Just thinking about: is there any way to create an effective first-line melee fighter (maybe with some spells, such as the Eldritch Knight or Ranger), which for some reason uses the shield (or a pair of shields) as the main weapon? I guess the tavern fight feat must have one. Perhaps some multi-class combination can make this construction somehow effective?

Is there any way to make an effective melee fighter in the front line using a shield (or shields) as a weapon?

dnd 5e – Misty coming out of the Bilarro Iron Bands?

Bands do not prevent teleportation

The limitations of Misty Step are clear:

you teleport up to 30 feet to one unoccupied space that you can see

The only way the Iron Band could interfere with any of these if it obstructed the view of the target. There is no trace of this in the description.

The bands could teleport with you

Wise advice:

In your opinion, could a wizard who is bound (but not gagged) launch Misty Step to break free?
It depends on the DM. I would say that you can teleport out of the links that are attached to a wall or the like.

My opinion

Misty Step is magical, and you pay the price, you spend a spell space and an action. You can clearly Get out of a fight with Misty Step, and the shackles seem even simpler things. Once the Bands caught you, they are no different from the shackles.
So I would let Misty Step get you out of it.

dnd 5e: What spells are in the ranger spell list and not in the druid spell list?

As I have requested in this question, what spells are on the ranger spell list and not on the druid spell list?

I am more interested in the basic rule books. Unofficial material and unearthed arcana must not be included.

This should only include base spell lists; no discussion about subclass expanded spell lists is necessary

dnd 5e – Is it possible to filter the spells in DNDBeyond negatively?

No, it is not possible to search DND Beyond for spells available to Rangers that are not also available to Druids.

DND Beyond allows you to filter spells by class. The various classes can be included in the search results or can be exempted from them by checking the check mark of the corresponding option button.

d & d beyond

However, a Google search for "Ranger Spells Only" yielded useful results.
Google search

dnd 3.5e – What is the story of "WotC resigned to fix Polymorph"?

It is well established that Polymorph is broken. However, I often see the claim that "WotC gave up fixing Polymorph." Is there any kind of story in this? From what I've gathered, it seems they must have gone through multiple mistakes before giving up completely, but I don't think I've seen any evidence of this. The only thing I know for sure is that Shapechange received a strong nerf between 3.0 and 3.5e and that there are some dead links that are supposedly posts on the WotC blog about Polymorph.

To be explicit, I am asking for the Polymorph story between its printing in the 3.0 PHB at the end of 3.5e and I hope this story explains where and why "WotC stopped fixing Polymorph." I suspect that the other spells at Polymorph will appear in this story, but other than making fun of the original Shapechange, I don't think they are necessary.

dnd 5e: Are spells that cause punctures, punches, or knife damage considered magical damage?

Play as you like (Rules and Rules)

In your question, you clearly present two possible ways of interpreting the damage of these types of spells. In the absence of general rules related to this, I would say both interpretations of the rules are possible resolutions.

As the PHB says:

The types of damages do not have their own rules (PHB 196)

In the same way there are no general rules for spell damage, so each DM and group has to read and interpret the specific spell and resistance descriptions when they come into play.

As there is no distinction in 5e between flavor text and spell mechanics, there is a wide range of possible interpretations. In this case, the interpretation depends on the answers to the following questions:

  • Does Thorn Whip, Ice Knife and Earth Tremor create weapons, or a naturally harmful phenomenon, or is the damage a magical version of the type of damage given?
  • If you create weapons, are these weapons magical?

Other spells are more specific about the magical nature of their damage (for example, magic missile) or the fact of creating a magic weapon (Alter Self). In the absence of such specificity in the three spells you mention, and of any general rule about spell damage, it depends on the discretion of DM or what the group decides.

Personally, I would go for a "low magic" reading of the spells: Thorn Whip and Ice Knife create non-magical weapons, earth tremor Causes a natural disaster – emphasis according to the writing of the spell – which means that the resistances in question would apply. But this is just my reading of spells, and 5e D&D is designed to allow a multiplicity of play styles.