@JeremyECrawford if a creature is swimming, hovering or is otherwise unable to fall (e.g. chained to a wall), does knocking them prone actually inflict the prone condition?
— Armando Doval (@armando_doval) February 2, 2018
If it's physically impossible for you to be prone, you're not subject to the prone condition. #DnD https://t.co/5lJTjq4Rli
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) February 2, 2018
Another piece of D&D data: a majority of D&D characters don't use feats. Many players love the customization possible with feats, but a larger group of players is happy to make characters without feats. Feats are, therefore, not a driving force behind many players' choices. #DnD https://t.co/G8nX6t5jj3
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) March 1, 2018
I'm curious if you think this is because players aren't interested in/don't think about feats or if they see an ability score increase as too valuable to pass up?
— Andrew C (@sky713) March 1, 2018
Really? Wow. I find feats a better customization than a boat-load of subclasses, and my players love them. I would have thought that to be more common.
— Greg Brown (@PaddlerPoet) March 1, 2018
On the other hand, I was initially very skeptical of feats and it took some play to persuade me. Now I love the feats and the variety they bring. I'm glad you're enjoying them! Feats are a handy tool for certain character concepts.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) March 1, 2018
Are you saying the majority of the people playing DnD are playing for fun story creation and roleplaying and not for min-maxing, strategizing, and rule-picking? I am indeed!
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) March 1, 2018
I think it’s pretty obvious that you’re misreading your data. You should open this stuff up to a public API. Feats are rarely chosen because a) Characters generally don’t get to level 4, a) Variant human is a minority race choice, and c) ASIs are often mechanically more valuable I'm fascinated to find out how you think I'm reading the data, given the fact that, in the tweet you're responding to, I give no explanation for why I think feats aren't chosen by a majority of players.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) March 1, 2018
You’re using the data to support the general argument that players don’t like mechanical complexity as an expression of power. The tweet sounded a lot like “We have data indicating that players don’t like feats as a game mechanic.” – All I want is to challenge that assessment. I pointed out that a majority of characters don’t use feats, yet many players love feats. I’ll repeat: many players love feats. They’re a fun part of the game, and they’re here to stay.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) March 1, 2018
D&D is a large tent, with room for players & play styles of many sorts. Yesterday I shared the data that characters who use feats are in the minority. A key takeaway: different players like different things. And feats will continue to be a fun option for those who like them. #DnD https://t.co/DFowAe7d2o
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) March 2, 2018
With all due respect… I did read that earlier and even made another comment in response to your original post conceding the fact. It doesn’t change that the implied conclusion that feats aren’t popular because race/class/subclass/background provide sufficient options is flawed My conclusion is that there's room for characters with feats and there's room for characters without them, and we'll continue to make room for both types of characters.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) March 2, 2018
I appreciate that(really). However, my intent was to ask you to entertain the notion that feats seem *relatively* unpopular for the same reason non-complimentary attribute race/class combos are seemingly unpopular. I’m giving this one up though. Apologies for pestering. I have considered many possible reasons for why feats are used in some cases and why they’re not used in others. I haven’t gotten into any of those reasons on Twitter, but it would be a fun thing to chat about on our podcast or at a convention.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) March 2, 2018
“Well MY group always uses…”
“ALL the players I know use…”People really don’t like finding out they’re not typical. Typical or not, there's room for them in the D&D tent!
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) March 2, 2018
I like feats a lot as a core element of D&D, but often don’t take them because the way they’re implemented in 5e, so other interpretations of the data are possible. My interpretation is this: different players like different things, and we’ll continue to support play styles of various sorts.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) March 2, 2018
What about shields? Spiritual weapon is a bonus action so does that mean you can only cast it and then a cantrip?
— Erin Ramsay (@Rawr0924) February 4, 2018
If you cast a spell that has a casting time of 1 bonus action, you follow the rule on casting a spell with a casting time of 1 bonus action (PH, 202). #DnD https://t.co/dpnTxb7F8S
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) February 4, 2018
@JeremyECrawford Grapple Q: What is intended way to throw target over cliff? Grapple + move + release OR Grapple + Shove A creature? THX!
— Brian Dunn (@wheelmanforhir1) November 7, 2017
AKA you’re free to flavor text it any way you like, but generally grabbing and throwing a person off a cliff would entail a grapple action unless you can initiate some sort of “knockback” situation. I'm referring to the shove option, not the grapple option.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) December 19, 2017
@jeremyecrawford I thought this was answered somewhere but my search skills are failing. Is Eyes of the Rune Keeper intended to let you read/understand codes, such as numeric ciphers or Thieves' Cant jargon?
— Dan Dillon (@Dan_Dillon_1) December 14, 2017
Eyes of the Rune Keeper lets you read all writing. That doesn't mean you understand a secret code being delivered by that writing. For example, you might read, "Sunset Dog Potato," and have no idea that's code for something. #DnD https://t.co/MAYJZOZnLH
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) December 15, 2017
@SageAdviceDnD @JeremyECrawford @mikemearls What if the Witch bolt crited? Since there's no attack roll for the subsequent damage, would it roll only the first as a crit or all of them as crits? (I assume only the first one, but eh)
— JD 🇨🇦 (@VeerJD) November 27, 2017
Witch bolt's initial attack can, indeed, crit, but the damage delivered via actions on subsequent turns is unaffected by the crit. A crit isn't intended to affect the damage of other actions/reactions/attacks. #DnD https://t.co/RMj1GRDPpv
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) November 27, 2017
Via reactions? Was witch bolt errataed and no one told us? The spell hasn't changed. Corrected the tweet!
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) November 27, 2017
@JeremyECrawford question good sir if you get grappled by a creature that then wants to release that grapple can the player that was grappled maintain that grapple with a check and when would said check happen. Signed the goliath barbarian who wants to play.
— knatatatatat777 (@knat777) December 19, 2017
If you want to grapple someone who's grappling you, you follow the normal rules for initiating a grapple. #DnD https://t.co/16eaFQA3tJ
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) December 19, 2017
@JeremyECrawford
Is there a difference between a "creature" and a "monster" when dealing with spells like resurrection?
It specifically says it can resurrect a creature, but I am wondering if that includes something lie a dragon.— El Rey del Sol (@Hardwarp_Ent) January 10, 2018
See the Monster Manual: “A monster is defined as any creature that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed. Even something as harmless as a frog or as benevolent as a Unicorn is a monster by this definition.” This confuses me because then you have "Hold Monster" and "Hold Person." The former works on "creatures" while the latter is "humanoids."
Wouldn't this mean Hold Monster works on humanoids as well?— El Rey del Sol (@Hardwarp_Ent) January 11, 2018
Hold monster works on any type of creature except undead. Hold person works only on humanoids. Humanoids are a type of creature, so hold monster works on them too. #DnD https://t.co/CD6WGVhn4M
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) January 11, 2018
Thematic or mechanical reason that undead are excluded from Hold Monster, (out of sheer curiosity)?
— Slight Misplay (@slightmisplay) January 11, 2018
Hold monster originally worked on creatures of any type, in both 1st and 2nd Edition. In 3rd Edition, undead were made immune to many things, including this spell. That peculiarity made its way into 5th Edition mostly by accident. #DnD https://t.co/VKKFbqf1Jd
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) January 11, 2018
How do you accidentally write in an explicit exception? I’m kind of curious. By referring to the 3E version of the spell without also referring to the previous versions.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) January 11, 2018
Looking through the statblocks, it seems that about 50% of undead already preclude being paralyzed. Seems to me this exception was indeed accidental Yes, the relevant stat blocks already do the work.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) January 12, 2018
