@Wizards_DnD @JeremyECrawford The PHB gives a list of special familiars for the warlock's Pact of the Chain. Will this list be updated for the Undying, Celestial and Hexblade patrons?
— Kevin Lajoie (@KevinLajoie6) August 8, 2018
The warlock's Pact Boon feature, and its three variants, aren't specific to any patrons. #DnD https://t.co/HGXcZfjrNY
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) August 8, 2018
The wind walk spell says you assume a gaseous form and then explains what the effects of that form are.
The spell does not also give you the effects of the gaseous form spell. Whenever the rules confer the effects of a spell, the rules are explicit about that fact. #DnD https://t.co/mapNVq1ge1
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) September 6, 2018
Thank you so much for your answer, this generated a bit of a debate with my druid player and he insisted that the spell did both, I ruled that it didn’t but I wanted to make sure. My pleasure!
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) September 6, 2018
@JeremyECrawford DMG section on magic items with spells says "The spell … requires no components unless the item’s description says otherwise." Does this mean no material, or no components at all? If so, spells from items aren't counterable unless item says they have V/S comps?
— Matt Katzenberger (@matthileo) August 30, 2018
“No components” means no components—no verbal, somatic, or material.
“No material components” means no material components. #DnD https://t.co/ayZH7ILdDP
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) August 30, 2018
wait I think we need a meeting to go over this one. Real brain burner.
— Mike Mearls (@mikemearls) August 31, 2018
@JeremyECrawford Does the carrying capacity of a mount include the rider or is it in addition to the rider?
— Richard Durocher (@rdurocher) August 20, 2018
Carrying capacity applies to whatever you're bearing, whether it's a creature or an object. #DnD https://t.co/yeRNVSznn8
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) August 20, 2018
@JeremyECrawford @mikemearls If I’m reading the PHB right, a player can NOT use “unarmed attack” as their second attack after a light weapon, because your unarmed self is not classified as a Light Weapon. Is that the correct ruling and reasoning? Thanks! 😀
— Marcian Tobay (@MarcianTobay) August 24, 2018
Your unarmed strikes have no weapon properties. As a result, unarmed strikes don't qualify for anything that requires a weapon property. #DnD https://t.co/Zp4irWMoY7
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) August 24, 2018
That seems illogical though that you can't stab someone and then punch them. It might be what the rules say, but I'd wonder if this might be a rules oversight.
— Michael Holt (@ilionblaze) August 24, 2018
If you’d like to attack with a weapon and punch someone on the same turn, you can do so easily with the Extra Attack feature. And that combo is even easier for you if you’re a monk.
The two-weapon fighting rule has no bearing on this combo. #DnD https://t.co/09jcsT1M8b
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) August 24, 2018
Yes. But the problem is there is no rule that you absolutely must take a long rest. If a PC uses a week of downtime to take nothing but successive short rests they'll generate a minimum of 112 spell slots to use on their next adventure. And that can't possibly be RAI.
— Brianna_Heine (@Call_Me_Be_Be) August 14, 2018
Warlock/sorcerer using their lock slots to make sorc points, use sorc points to make generic slots, short rest, repeat. That's the combo I'm guessing they mean, but I don't like to assume.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) August 14, 2018
DMs, if you allow multiclassing in your game and someone is tempted to abuse the combination of Flexible Casting and Pact Magic, remember this: one way to read the multiclass rules is that your Pact Magic slots are useless for any non-warlock thing besides casting spells. #DnD https://t.co/bfEt5Zp2UF
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) August 14, 2018
If someone’s trying to abuse a “coffeelock” as in that tweet, seems simpler to enforce the exhaustion penalties if someone isn’t taking long rests. Or even better, explain that it’s a problem out of game. Yes, I did, indeed, write that in 2015. Pointing out that you can read the multiclass rule in a new way doesn’t counter what I said then.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) August 14, 2018
I cast Tremor to damage the spiders and knock them off the stone wall and ceiling. Per @jeremyecrawford I *and only I* take 1d6 damage and everything else is immune because only The orc and I am on “ground”, and the orc has full cover. WTH?!?
— Jason White (@enthusiasmshare) August 17, 2018
My rulings don't run D&D. Your DM runs D&D.
That important point aside, what ruling did I make that influenced that absurd situation?
Also, earth tremor doesn't affect the caster.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) August 17, 2018
Earth tremor causes a tremor in the ground within 10 ft. of you. Each creature, other than you, on that ground must make a save, even if behind a barrier; being on the ground is the key.
Side note: "ground" means what it means in English, unless your DM decides otherwise. #DnD https://t.co/fw9qloy9yf
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) August 17, 2018
So this spell is totally worthless because we’re not on soil? That the orc is immune because we’re in a building and not on the grounds around the building? This is a horrible spell! It’s totally up to an interpretation. But hey I’m sure it has some great use in making coffee! "Ground" has many meanings, only one of which is soil.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) August 17, 2018
Rather than hint around about what it MAY mean, perhaps it would be helpful to state which exact meaning 5e D&D is using in regards to the spell so its not up to interpretation? Are you saying it would affect the spiders on the wall and ceiling in the spell’s area of affect? As DM, I would rule that the spell affected everything within 10 feet of you on the ground (aka floor).
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) August 17, 2018
Don't get me wrong. I love the game, and I personally am fine with just ruling on most things on a table by table basis, but semiofficial rulings go a long way when they are well explained (like in the rules clarifications articles on the website or on Dragon Talk)
— David Coffron (@dcoffron) August 18, 2018
If you'd like rules clarifications from D&D's lead rules designer—that's me—tune in every other Tuesday on Dragon+, when @bart_carroll and I explore the design of the game's rules. #DnD https://t.co/zDARmZzThs
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) August 18, 2018
