## dnd 5e – Does being “paralyzed” for an extended period of time grant the effects of a rest?

To begin with, we must understand that the 10-hour paralysis is a homebrewed effect, and such a condition was decisively not in view when the rules for resting were written, but we can try to surmise the interaction between the written rules and this homebrewed effect.

On the surface, the rules for long rests make no mention of the paralyzed or incapacitated conditions. So in the strictest RAW sense, there isn’t a reason why you wouldn’t benefit from a long rest.

But we can make some inferences from the description of long rests to rule the other way:

If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity — at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity — the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it.

I would argue that suffering from a particularly potent paralysis poison for ten hours is going to fall somewhere in this category of “strenuous activity”, but maybe that depends on how your DM wants the poison to paralyze you. Do you simply lose nerve function in your body and can’t move, or does the poison violently lock up your muscles?

To determine if this paralysis falls under strenuous activity, you would have to ask the one who invented it.

## dnd 5e – What would be the effects of changing the duration of a round from 6 seconds to 5 seconds?

### 1. Some encounters in published adventures are may be written assuming six seconds per round.

This is probably the most significant problem. I can give a couple examples. From Storm King’s Thunder, there is an encounter involving timed hazards:

Characters who have a passive Wisdom (Perception) score of 14 or higher notice gaps in the ceiling, suggesting the presence of two hanging blocks of stone. Characters who search for traps and succeed on a DC 14 Wisdom (Perception) check also notice these blocks, which constitute the temple’s outer defenses.

Each block is a 40-foot-tall, 40-foot-wide, 20-foot-thick slab held up by mechanisms buried in the mountainside. When the lever in area 2A is moved to the down position, the block of stone closer to the entrance (area 1) falls, sealing off the tunnel. When the lever in area 2B is moved to the down position, the inner block does the same thing. Each block takes about 6 seconds to drop to the floor, allowing time for creatures to get out of the way.

At 6 seconds per round, the party has a single turn each to get out of the way of the hazard. At 5 seconds per round, they potentially have two rounds (how are you going to adjudicate 1/5th of a round?).

We see a similar issue with an encounter in Tomb of Annihilation:

With a successful DC 15 Wisdom (Perception) check, a character discerns that the entire floor of the corridor is a single pressure plate. The adamantine propeller has AC 20, 30 hit points, and immunity to all damage except force damage. It thunders into motion whenever more than 20 pounds of pressure is placed on the corridor floor. Once activated, the propeller spins up to full speed in 6 seconds. If the weight is removed from the floor, the blades take a full minute to slow to a stop.

While the propeller is spinning up or slowing down, a creature can leap through a gap between two blades with a successful DC 20 Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. On a failed check, the character takes 33 (6d10) slashing damage as it passes through the blades.

Again, a timed hazard, where a 5 second turn potentially gives the party more time to avoid it.

### 2. It makes the Acquisitions Incorporated spell gift of gab a bit odd to rule:

When you cast this spell, you skillfully reshape the memories of listeners in your immediate area, so that each creature of your choice within 5 feet of you forgets everything you said within the last 6 seconds.

When used in combat, casting the spell would retcon anything you said on your last turn. If a turn is five seconds, now it can include words from the last two turns.

## dnd 5e – Does being “paralyzed” grant the effects of a rest

To begin with, we must understand that the 10-hour paralysis is a homebrewed effect, and such a condition was decisively not in view when the rules for resting were written, but we can try to surmise the interaction between the written rules and this homebrewed effect.

On the surface, the rules for long rests make no mention of the paralyzed or incapacitated conditions. So in the strictest RAW sense, there isn’t a reason why you wouldn’t benefit from a long rest.

But we can make some inferences from the description of long rests to rule the other way:

If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity — at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity — the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it.

I would argue that suffering from a particularly potent paralysis poison for ten hours is going to fall somewhere in this category of “strenuous activity”, but maybe that depends on how your DM wants the poison to paralyze you. Do you simply lose nerve function in your body and can’t move, or does the poison violently lock up your muscles?

To determine if this paralysis falls under strenuous activity, you would have to ask the one who invented it.

## mutants and masterminds 3e – How does “ranged” work for effects that don’t have an attack roll?

Generally, it does not apply. Area Attacks don’t have an attack roll. Dropping an object on someone doesn’t have an attack roll. You just use them at maximum range. Move Object is actually an interesting case in my opinion since it ought to be a Ranged attack (unless you take it to Perception level), but I could see an argument for someone using it as a Close attack, much like with Elongation. For Area attacks (including dropping a Created house on someone), you could treat the range penalty as penalty on the Dodge DC so that targets would be easier to hit, but that would be a houserule.

## unity – 3D visual effects on videos

I’m trying to get some hands-on experience with 3D visual effects on videos. Similar to those AR apps, I want to add a 3D model with effects, say a dragon, to a video. Something like this famous demo:

What’s the best way to do it? Do we have some free or open source tools or SDK to do it for videos?

## unity – Apply external effects to player movement

In a 2D downhill game with the following, custom movement code, how do I apply external effects to the player’s movement?

For example, when the player hits an obstacle, I want them to get bounced off the obstacle and briefly stop before they are able to continue moving. How do I best integrate those types of external effects into my movement code in a way that is scalable?

``````private void UpdatePlayerVelocity()
{
// Calculate the player's vertical movement speed
float speedY = maxSpeed.y * Time.fixedDeltaTime;

// Calculate the player's horizontal movement speed
float speedX = inputDirectionX * maxSpeed.x * Time.fixedDeltaTime;

// Set the player's new velocity
rb.velocity = new Vector2(speedX, speedY);
}
``````

My player-obstacle collision is handled in the obstacle class, and I am using an action to notify the player about the collision. So I have the ability to have a corresponding method in the player class that get’s called when the collision occurs:

``````public void OnPlayerCollidedWithObstacle(Vector2 collisionNormal)
{
// TODO:
// Integrate the following into the above movement code ???
// 1. Bounce the player off the obstacle
// 2. Briefly stop the player from moving
// 3. Continue moving when the player has tapped the screen
}
``````

As a first step, I am thinking to wrap my default movement code in a bool check, so that it doesn’t get run when the collision movement code is run.

However, I was hoping for a better, more scalable way?

PS: I would like to keep my movement code custom, so no Unity physics / AddForce / etc.

Update – Here is my attempt:

The following works. However, I am wondering if there is a cleaner / more systematic / more scalable way to handle this?

``````private void UpdatePlayerVelocity()
{
// If no player-obstacle collision
// and player has tapped to start/continue moving
if (obstacleCollisionTimer <= 0 && playerHasTapped)
{
// Calculate the player's vertical movement speed
float speedY = maxSpeed.y * Time.fixedDeltaTime;

// Calculate the player's horizontal movement speed
float speedX = inputDirectionX * maxSpeed.x * Time.fixedDeltaTime;

// Set the player's velocity
rb.velocity = new Vector2(speedX, speedY);
}
// If player-obstacle collision resolved,
// but player has not yet tapped to continue moving
else if (obstacleCollisionTimer <= 0 && !playerHasTapped)
{
// Don't move
rb.velocity = Vector2.zero;
}
// If currenty resolving player-obstacle collsion by bouncing player off
else
{
rb.velocity = new Vector2(-collisionNormal.x, -collisionNormal.y);

obstacleCollisionTimer -= Time.fixedDeltaTime;
}
}

public void OnPlayerCollidedWithObstacle(Vector2 collisionNormal)
{
// Collision normal will be used to bounce the player off the obstacle
this.collisionNormal = collisionNormal;

// Duration of the "bounce off" movement
obstacleCollisionTimer = 0.2f;

// The player needs to tap for movement to start again
playerHasTapped = false;
}
$$```$$
``````

## dnd 5e – Are there any RAW effects or attributes that give resistance to the Sleep spell?

The Sleep spell states:

This spell sends creatures into a magical slumber. Roll 5d8; the total
is how many hit points of creatures this spell can affect.

(PHB 276)

The sleep spell doesn’t deal damage directly, instead affecting a number of hit points (current hit points) and sending one or a number of creatures into magical slumber. Since this spell does not deal direct damage, I don’t believe there are any attributes, spells, or effects that can counter the Sleep spell’s effects, aside from the one caveat at the end of the spell description:

Undead and creatures immune to being charmed aren’t affected by this spell.

This, however, simply immunizes the creature from the effects of the spell entirely. I’d like to find a trait, spell, or other effect that is RAW and that lessens but does not necessarily entirely nullify the effects of the Sleep spell and other spells that affect hit point totals (e.g. Color Spray).

My motivation? I have a homebrew race that I’m developing for my campaign, and one of its defining characteristics is resistance to anything and everything magical (broken, but it fits the story). I’ve already given it resistance to all types of magical damage (except for force damage; I’ve made a racial feat for that) and the trait Magic Resistance. Primarily I’m using members of this race as enemy NPCs. I understand that a race like this is beyond overpowered, but that is the topic for another discussion.

As of now, this race is not resistant to the effects of spells that affect hit point totals. I’d like to find a way to mitigate the effect this category of spell has on this race without making it entirely immune.

## dnd 5e – Would a Periapt of Proof Against Poison nullify the effects of alcohol?

Both of these are DM calls.

So I’m wondering if a character could get drunk while wearing a PoPAP? There’s no “drunk” status condition in D&D 5e, but drunkenness is caused because you’ve consumed enough alcohol to poison yourself, however slightly.

The problem here is that (outside of things that deal Poison damage or grant the Poisoned condition) there isn’t any really great definition of poison. “The dosage makes the poison,” and even water can cause intoxication and death in sufficient doses.

We usually bunch things that kill us with a “small” dose into the poison category, and things that kill us with a “large” dose into the not-poison category, but there’s a lot of leeway in the middle.

Things that are immune to poison being immune to alcohol is a common trope. Alcohol isn’t necessary for us to live, and has a variety of negative consequences. Thus, poison.

On the other hand, the effects of alcohol are pretty mild in typical dosages. It’s unlikely to kill you, and may not even have a significant impact on you if you consume it slowly. Thus, not poison.

Which way the magic judges, is up to your DM.

Like for instance, if someone put spider venom in their food, would they know the food was poisoned when they ate it?

I think the general rule for spells applies well enough here. For spells, it works like this:

Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all. An effect like crackling lightning is obvious, but a more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature’s thoughts, typically goes unnoticed, unless a spell says otherwise.

So, does the spider venom have a specific flavor, smell, or texture? The character can still discern that. If not, then the character doesn’t get a “your amulet of poison has protected you” warning.

Of course, your DM could just as easily rule that you can feel the magic working. That there’s a tingle in your stomach as the poison is attacked, or that the periapt glows, or similar.

## dnd 5e – My players want extra effects from their attacks. What should I do?

### Make it expensive and not always worthwhile for special attacks like this

tl;dr: Game mechanics serve design purposes; the game itself is not a haphazard accumulation of specific mechanics. Your guiding principle should be how do I want the game to play out, with or without these special attacks, and how can the attacks fit that?. Game balance is strictly a DM’s responsibility.

Newer players have asked me for things like this pretty regularly. The big issues I’ve encountered are:

• The game doesn’t simulate those details very well outside of specific situations

It’s often stated (correctly) that D&D is not a reality simulator. Its game mechanics are simplified abstractions of reality, and this both makes the game playable as well as making a lot of plausible actions difficult to translate into the game.

What does it mean for an enemy to be blinded? Presumably we’re talking about the already-existing condition Blinded, which at a minimum grants advantage to every PC attack against the blinded enemy while also imposing disadvantage on every attack the enemy makes. That is a huge deal in game-mechanical terms, especially if it can be deployed for free and at will.

• Feats/spells/etc. often exist to do things like this

Status effects like Blinded do already exist in the game, and there are already ways to impose them on opponents. If a player has a Sorcerer PC and took the spell Blindness/Deafness, then a special talon attack that blinds foes steps on that player’s choice of class and spell– the choice of that spell becomes much less special, and in many cases is wasteful.

This is a serious problem, as PCs tend to specialize and letting other PCs encroach on those specializations for free can make a PC feel much less special and useful.

• Players have a film action hero-style idea of what things should work
and how

Most of the time I see requests like this are players wanting to use movie-style approaches to make the game easier. My most common (and hated!) example is

I’d like to hit the guard in the head and knock them out

It would drain much of the tension and challenge from the game if this were possible, as standing guards would become largely useless and players would gain a new, easy way to avoid encounters without expending any limited in-game resources (like potions, spell slots, feats, and so on) or even a risk of failure. Also, it’s totally unrealistic, but that’s beside the point.

The game is already generally balanced in favor of players. This makes special attack effects less necessary– how much of an advantage should blinding a foe grant to a PC that is expected to survive an additional seven battles before the next long rest?

None of that means you can’t have special attack effects from called shots or creativity, but as DM you alone will have to balance things.

• Is this a specialized version of an attack, or a free bonus effect to
a regular attack?
• How often will such an attack succeed, and how will that success
impact the fight?
• Under what conditions would the special attack be worth attempting,
and when might it not be wise to try? How often will either circumstance come up?
• Can enemies attack this way too? How badly would it impede the
players if so? If not, why not?
• How will fights change when these special attack effects are applied,
and can combat still be fun, interesting, and challenging for your
players afterwards?

I don’t know a generic answer to these questions. Overall, I suggest the same approach I take to homebrewing game features in general:

• Establish a cost for making such an attempt, and think through how
fights will change due to the special attack effects to determine the
cost.

If it’s just flavor for an otherwise normal attack which happens to confer the special effect, then the special attack is free and your players will probably never use a regular attack again. If, instead, it costs a reaction or bonus action to even make the attempt, suddenly the player has other factors to consider.

One approach I don’t recommend is a bonus to the target’s AC. It’s an appealingly intuitive mechanic, but can be tricky. Higher AC means fewer hits, and that means that fights will tend to last longer, which will deplete PC resources (spell slots, HP, etc.). It also makes the benefit hard to set– if you’re accepting a 25% reduction in your likelihood to hit, you really need to get something useful in exchange for that extra risk.

That benefit is also highly variable. In a boss fight that will already probably take a long time to win, permanently blinding the boss confers an enormous advantage to the players for however long the fight lasts (the blindness won’t just expire, as it would with a spell). In many lesser fights the blinding simply seems cool, but is really irrelevant to the outcome– it might be more favorable to simply land more hits, as most fights rarely last long enough for the more hits/blindness effects tradeoff to be valuable.

• Consider gating these types of abilities behind a feat (or feats)

Taking a feat represents a high opportunity cost, since you could have taken a different feat or an ASI instead. That expense makes more spectacular effects more reasonable, though all balancing concerns within individual combats still exist. Think of it this way: if casually blinding an opponent is so easy for a PC to do, why would it not be the case that all combatants always do so? Feats are a decent way to square that circle.

• Keep it rare and roll-limited

Players declaring the result of an action is always problematic, and these sorts of requests tend to be in that category. “I want to rake at his eyes with my talons” is an interesting flavor description, while “I want to rake at his eyes with my talons and blind him” is a player dictating results beyond what player mechanics really allow.

PCs are always trying to hit enemies in combat, and the d20 and damage dice together describe how successful they are. A miss might be due to an enemy dodging, their armor deflecting a blow, or the attack simply not dealing any meaningful damage (a flesh wound!). A hit might be due to good maneuvering on the attacker’s part or blundering on the target’s part. A hit with a low damage roll might be a relatively ineffective strike, while high damage might be the opposite.

You can relegate the special attacks to dice roll results in the same way. If a PC can impose a special effect, like blinding, only on a critical hit, then that takes care of many of the “called shot” problems. And it works well with other limitations, such as requiring a feat first, trading off the bonus damage dice, or anything else. It’s still possible, but not available to players at their whim.

When considering how to grant this player request, game out the mechanical consequences of any possible system and see if you think it supports a fun play experience for your players. You’re always free to reverse an attempt that didn’t work out the way you’d hoped, but understanding how the game will change (and how you and your players will respond to those changes) is the only way to keep the game from breaking.

## This doesn’t work (Option 3*).

The provisions you mention for Teleportation Circle and Guards and Wards are part of the spell effect, not a requirement to cast the spell. You aren’t casting a different spell or even a different mode of spell when you cast it that final, 365th time. Rather, you cast the spell as normal, and then because of when and where you cast it (in a place where that same spell had been cast 364 times before), something extra happens on top of the normal spell effect.

You could almost certainly create a permanent portal or warded area using the open-ended version of Wish, though of course that would entail the 33% chance of not being able to cast it again as usual.

As for casting the spell through Wish, that wouldn’t work by RAW. By the wording on Wish, you aren’t actually casting Teleportation Circle or Guards and Wards, you are casting Wish, with the effects of the other two spells swapped in. “this spell” will refer to Wish when you duplicate it this way.

*However this does open up an extra method. If you cast Wish in a location every day for 364 days, then you can use it to cast Teleportation Circle and/or Guards and Wards on the 365th (or later) day to get the permanent effects of those spells. Notably, it doesn’t matter what spell you use Wish to cast, as long as you cast some spell each day. You could even use the non-duplicating version of Wish if you so choose, as long as you don’t lose the ability to cast it of course.

So for example, you could spend 364 days using Wish to cast Wall of Stone on the same spot, creating a wizard fortress, and then on the 365th and 366th day use Wish to cast Teleportation Circle and Guards and Wards to permanently create those effects in your new home. You could even keep casting these on later days to set up additional Guards and Wards and/or Teleportation Circles if you wish, as long as you cast them from the same position.