Pleading to higher powers.

Can Dragonborn have tails?

I say yes, see Arkhan the Cruel by @JoeManganiello @ChrisPerkinsDnD @JeremyECrawford @mikemearls #DnD

— Kristy 🔜 Animal Sidekicks on DMs Guild 11/4! (@Glassflippers) October 30, 2019

I think it’s up to your world & the DMs lore. In the dragon-centric home game I run, Half-Dragons & Dragonborn are the same & born of the Queen’s blessing & thus are related to dragons as are Draconic Sorcerers. I do give my Dragonborn/Half-Dragon NPCs more power to their breath.

— JOE MANGANIELLO (@JoeManganiello) October 31, 2019

…plus Draconic features… and that’s right, you guessed it, tails.

— JOE MANGANIELLO (@JoeManganiello) October 31, 2019

I love the idea of improving their breath weapons. I honestly wouldn’t mind if they could have their tail be an unarmed strike option with a damage boost. I only boost the NPC breath weapons in keeping with the established Half-Dragon stats. PC Dragonborns don’t get a boost or an extra tail attack. The tail and Draconic features are flavor only. BUT Perkins and I do agree that Dragonborn breath costs a bonus action not an action.

— JOE MANGANIELLO (@JoeManganiello) October 31, 2019

Customizing the look of your D&D character is a key part of the character-creation process (see PLAYER'S HANDBOOK, page 121). Check with your DM if you think a customization might go too far, but few DMs will object as long as a characteristic gives no new abilities. #DnD https://t.co/iVJgwKDzVJ

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) October 30, 2019

@JeremyECrawford I was wondering if I have read the rules correctly re: the web spell. If a huge creature fails it’s save and next round I cast fireball, will 27 cubes of web be in contact with the creature (in theory) meaning the creature would take an additional 54d4 damage?

— Richard Sturk (@RichardSturk) November 1, 2019

A spell tells you if a creature's size is relevant. It rarely is.

When I'm the DM, I wouldn't be interested in size-based damage rules—no time for that. But I think it's great if a group loves that sort of detail and home-brews appropriate rules. #DnD https://t.co/RaoVqdYZcK

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) November 6, 2019

Are they proficient? Is proficiency part of a monster stat block?

— Michael Andai (@MichaelAndai) September 16, 2019

A D&D monster is proficient with any equipment in its stat block. The DM decides whether a creature is proficient with anything else it might wear or wield during play.

For more info, see the "Armor, Weapon, and Tool Proficiencies" section of the Monster Manual (p. 9). #DnD https://t.co/z4AoL0vmKa

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) September 16, 2019

A DM can also decide that the creature is not proficient with what is in the stat block. Indeed.

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) September 16, 2019

In AL, most DM’s aren’t going to against what JC says.

People, including JC and i’m sure he understands this after the Corellon gender fluidity debacle, need to understand that just because something *can* be changed at the table doesn’t mean it *will* be changedThere was a Corellon debacle? What did Corellon do now?

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) October 26, 2019

Mostly because if Corellon is, in fact, fluid in all ways, then that technically includes gender fluidity, and IMO it would have been better to go with being a representation. But at least it’s not JK Rowling’s backwards way of doing it.Oof, i noticed a lack of clarity:

By fluid in all ways, I mean that Corellon is literally fluidity in the form of a god. I'm not referring to your statement that Corellon is "physically fluid."

Corellon is more than physically fluid.

— Lulululululu (@Dude_Brahmin) October 27, 2019

I love it when someone feels good about seeing a bit of themselves in a character. I myself identify with Corellon's fluidity.

That said, it's crucial to me, as a queer person, to state that we don't need a magical nonhuman to represent us. We're real and fully human.

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) October 27, 2019

Yeah, that doesn’t cut it for me. To me, that just says WotC is too afraid of writing a character that represents us. Because basically, what you’re saying is we don’t need representations in our media because we exist in real life.

You’re mentally gender-washing, to be blunt.How can you claim that we don't need anything to represent us when we don't have a lot of representation as it is? That's not very different from saying we don't a black Barbie, as a hypothetical analogy.

— Lulululululu (@Dude_Brahmin) October 27, 2019

We put queer characters in all our recent adventures, for us queer folk do need representation.

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) October 27, 2019

Yeah, but you won’t allow the god of fluidity to be non-binary, and his writing about such is poorly phrased. Corellon can be anything, including nonbinary.

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) October 27, 2019

Yet he can’t represent them, according to you. Corellon can represent a nonbinary experience, and I hope anyone else who feels fluid, as I do, enjoys seeing themselves in the god.

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) October 27, 2019

It was literally *that* easy. Thank you. My pleasure! I hope you're having a great weekend.

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) October 27, 2019

I'm getting things done around the house and glanced at my Twitter notifications. I think it's time to reiterate a few things I've tweeted before. Tweets incoming …

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) October 26, 2019

If a D&D rule has more than one sentence, all the sentences matter if you're interested in what the rule really says. No cherry-picking. #DnD

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) October 26, 2019

A rule in D&D does only what it says it does—nothing more. Beware of creating rules interactions that the rules themselves don't make. #DnD

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) October 26, 2019

Your DM decides how to use the rules in play, aiming to create as fun an experience as possible. #DnD

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) October 26, 2019

Having an enjoyable D&D session is more important than being correct. There's time between sessions to sort out how your group would like to use the rules. Spend the time during a session to create a rollicking good story! #DnD

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) October 26, 2019

More stories should feature hags riding unicorns. That is all.

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) October 26, 2019

I have a few questions
1) When attacking do you have to issue a command to any companion creatures to attack
2) Do you have to issue the command every turn
3) Does issuing said command(s) take your full action
4) Do any of these rules differ if it is a mount you are riding

— Kellender (@Kellender3) October 10, 2019

There are no general rules in D&D for commanding a companion creature. A creature either works like any other NPC/monster or follows special rules. For example, the find familiar spell gives you a companion and explains how to use the familiar. #DnD https://t.co/5hn1fN1qD8

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) October 10, 2019

Ranger pets seem like a touchy subject at a lot of tables I've been to. Players seem to feel like the pets are an extension of their character. DMs see them as NPCs they can use to get to the ranger. Definitely worth a session zero discussion.

— Nate (@renegadenate) October 10, 2019

Your companion creature in D&D—whether a familiar, a beast companion, or something else—is both a monster/NPC and an extension of your character. Whatever can happen to a creature—beneficial or harmful—can happen to your companion, unless a rule says otherwise. #DnD https://t.co/uatGyWhDia

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) October 10, 2019