Wall of Force vs Teleport spells.

Can any of these help me escape a wall of force?
1. Shadow Step
2. Misty Step
3. Teleport
5. Teleportation Circle
6. Dimension Door

I believe the reasoning there is that Dimension Door is intended to ignore total cover. I believe the ruling I was thinking of at the time was related to Prismatic Wall’s forbiddance on casting spells through it That's exactly right. Dimension door ignores total cover, like the cover created by a wall of force. The prismatic wall spell is a different animal, messing with spellcasting itself.

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) April 19, 2020

ok, here’s a question for #dnd5e rules buffs

the rules sometimes use the term ‘living creature’ but I’m not sure how that is actually defined because for things like golems, devils or animated tables this is weird territory is it creatures with a soul, because that's one thing, and what about creatures that are pure soul, or have no soul

what about revenants. they are undead but canonically have their souls

or is it just sentient beings, because at what point is the intelligence cut-off

— Oliver Clegg 🌈 (@deathbybadger) June 22, 2020

In D&D, “living creature” means a creature that isn’t dead, regardless of the creature’s type.

See the “Dropping to 0 Hit Points” section in the “Player’s Handbook” for the rules on dying in the game (p. 197–8). #DnD To be clear, "living creature" almost never appears in 5th-edition D&D. A few times, the term has appeared accidentally—a ghost of a previous edition of the game—and other times, the term is used for a corner case in the rules.

The term has no special meaning in the game. #DnD

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) June 22, 2020

So an undead creature would be considered “a living creature”

Is this why some spells/abilities that talk about creatures as targets specifically rule out undead and constructs? Yes.

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) June 22, 2020

So there is no difference between “Creature” and “Living Creature” then? The bag of devouring is one of the only places in the game where "living creature" appears intentionally in a rule. The effect isn't triggered if you put the arm of a corpse into the bag, for instance.

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) June 22, 2020

So earlier it was mentioned that after it’s dead, the corpse is an object.

Revivify works only on a *creature* that’s been dead for up to 1 minute. If it’s become an *object*, it means the spell can’t work.

Def a great example of RAW/RAI.

/1 In a D&D rule, all the words work together. For example, targeting "a creature" is different from targeting "a creature that has died within the last minute."

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) June 22, 2020

In D&D, making multiple attacks with weapons, fists, claws, horns, and the like is usually done via the Extra Attack feature and the Multiattack action.

The two-weapon fighting rule in the Player's Handbook (p. 195) is a very specific bonus action, nothing more. #DnD

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) April 17, 2020

5e still not corrected this. Fighters NEED multiple( not 2) attacks to combat wizards progression. Bows need 2 arrows/round basic. Look at 1e/2e and learn Mr. Crawford The fighter’s Extra Attack feature gets better as the fighter reaches higher levels, leading to 4 attacks per turn. And that’s on top of any bonus action you might have. And you’ve got Action Surge too.

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) April 18, 2020

@JeremyECrawford Here's one for ya.Not sure I ruled right on this.

PC has Helm of Comprehend Languages. He wargs into his familiar Owl. Owl flies ahead, sees writing in Infernal. Can the PC read that via the Helm?

Or does that only work when PC is looking through his own eyes?

— Craig Mazin (@clmazin) April 8, 2020

To read something via the comprehend languages spell, you must be touching the surface that bears the writing. So it doesn't work if you're using remote viewing, such as through a familiar.

Also, anyone reading this, go watch Chernobyl. It's amazing. #DnD https://t.co/HP8S995aMp

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) April 9, 2020

Question for #SageAdvice:

RAW: The Horn of Valhalla summons Beserkers

However, as the text describes them as spirits, could/should they be treated as Undead rather than Humanoids, in the same manner as to how Conjure Animals summons Fey Beasts?@JeremyECrawford @SageAdviceDnD pic.twitter.com/FC582dh5nH

— DM Refgemlin 🎲 🍷 🏳️‍🌈 (@DiceRefgemlin) March 24, 2020

The berserkers summoned by the horn of Valhalla in D&D are not undead. They use the berserker stat block as is.

"Spirit" has no universal meaning in D&D. We use the word for all sorts of entities, and a rule tells you if "spirit" has special meaning in that rule. #DnD https://t.co/K9NFQv2HnQ

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) March 24, 2020

@JeremyECrawford
Hi Jeremy. I see that features from Way of the Sun Soul has different writing on Xanathar's. I know there's an errata for the Sword Coast's version, but it still have different text and "balance".
Should we take the Xanathar's version as the most important one? pic.twitter.com/CteqIIXKtX

— Moses Lord (@MosesLord777) April 18, 2020

Sometimes when we reprint something in D&D, we refine the wording, adding clarifications and whatnot. If those clarifications result in no mechanical change, we often don't include them in an errata document.

In the examples below, the features are functionally identical. #DnD https://t.co/mhl1LlErOF

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) April 18, 2020

I wasn't aware that negative and positive energy are not considered magical. Would you apply the same rules to Negative Energy Flood? Assuming magic only directs the energy itself, which would be unaffected by antimagic.

— Gilded (@GiIded) April 20, 2020

Positive & negative energy are part of the D&D multiverse's very fabric. For more information, see "Positive and Negative Planes" in the Player's Handbook (p. 300).

The negative energy flood spell is an example of magic using negative energy, just as fireball uses fire. #DnD https://t.co/MMn011Xkj9

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) April 20, 2020

I’ll take that to mean that it follows the standard rules for spell effects in a magical field despite using negative energy. Thanks for the answers! That's correct. And you're welcome!

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) April 20, 2020