Whether the damage can be redirected isn't crystal clear
Does redirecting damage to a new target count as "reducing" the damage that the original target would take? The rules use standard English and whether "can't be reduced in any way" accounts for redirections of damage is unclear and left to the GM.
Personally, I would rule that ...
You take 4d8 necrotic damage, which can’t be reduced in any way.
The spell description seems pretty unambiguous when it states:
You take 4d8 necrotic damage, which can’t be reduced in any way.
When you cast life transference, if the damage you take is anything less than the 4d8 result, you have reduced the damage in some way.
This is a case of specific ...
Usually, resistance is applied before vulnerability, because that's the order most beneficial to the creature.
In your example with 70 points of cold damage, the abyssal drake would take 75.
This problem isn't addressed in any published handbook, the answer comes from the 3.5 FAQ, which even though some regard it as an unreliable source because of some ...
It's important to find the fun for your table before putting much effort into mechanics
A key observation in this case is that D&D 5e doesn't simulate much around causing or spreading fires in combat, which matters because there aren't very many mechanics around those things. As you've noted, the core rulebooks generally only go as far as indicating that ...
Fun is subjective, but the rules supply a few tools that can be used to manage flammable objects intuitively and easily.
Let's start by acknowledging the elephant in this room: looking for rules to cover every detail regarding flammable objects is bound to be an exercise in disappointment. The rules don't spell out every interaction that can occur at your ...
I have seen the opposite argued convincingly, to wit [italics mine]:
Making an Attack
Whether you’re striking with a melee weapon, firing a
weapon at range, or Making an Attack roll as part of a spell, an
Attack has a simple structure.
Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature,
an object, or a location.
Determine modifiers. The ...
For your specific points:
Flammable is not the same as Vulnerable. Flammable means it can be set on fire without significant effort. Vulnerable indicates something especially damaging to the target. Wood-pulp paper is both flammable and Vulnerable to fire; humans are flammable but not Vulnerable; ice is not flammable but is Vulnerable to fire.
I think simple is best. The DM can decide what items are affected by the spell, and which of those items are flammable.
If it is a medium or smaller flammable object, I usually just treat it as if a flask of oil was poured and lit there. Maybe have it last only 1 round for a tiny object, or longer if it is more substantial (e.g. a wooden chest).
Spells only do what they say they do. Unless they say they ignite things on a miss, they don't.
In general, in DnD 5e, spells only do what they say they do, and no more. Unless they explicitly state that they'll light nearby objects on fire on a miss, they won't. If you attack a goblin with Fire Bolt and miss, it'll fizzle out, because it doesn't specify any ...
A 15x15 area of oil is made up of 9 5x5 areas of fire, each of which can deal damage
The oil flask item states (emphasis mine):
[...] You can also pour a flask of oil on the ground to cover a 5-foot-square area, provided that the surface is level. If lit, the oil burns for 2 rounds and deals 5 fire damage to any creature that enters the area or ends its ...
I would limit the damage to 5 points.
Bear in mind that oil in this context is generally slow-burning lamp oil, not any kind of modern refined petroleum product. From a game balance perspective, a flask available for one silver piece shouldn't compete in power with magic spells that do fire damage.
Here are the rules for oil flasks from the Player's Handbook:...
The answer is that
RAW cannot resolve this problem and you are sufficiently correct
. You must use RAI and your best judgement. Don't forget the Iron Golem's Magic Resistance which would give it advantage on the saving throw when you use your method to resolve the conflict. The significance of Magic Resistance becomes clear from an examination of previous ...
Your Interpretation is Correct
In D&D 5e specific beats general. That is:
If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.
In this case Damage Immunity: Fire is a general rule that applies to many creatures, allowing them to take no damage from fire. Fire Absorption is given in the monster's statblock and specifically describes ...
The intent is obvious.
Your interpretation is obviously correct. Obviously the feature does something, so there is no need to entertain the idea that it does nothing.
So naturally, we conclude that Fire Absorption works as described, being resolved prior to fire immunity. This answer is similar to another answer of mine, where I give more detailed exposition ...
First things first, though: Crossbow Expert is borderline useless to a rogue.
Crossbow Expert has three main bonuses: Ignore the loading property of crossbows, remove the disadvantage penalty for making ranged attacks in melee, and getting an extra attack as a bonus action.
The ability to ignore the loading property is entirely irrelevant to a mono-class ...
Ultimately, the errata clarifies Snap Kick so we don’t have to worry about this any more. With the errata, the feat’s benefit reads:
Whenever you initiate a strike or use the attack or full attack action, you may take a −2 penalty to attacks made this round gain an additional attack at your highest attack bonus (the −2 applies to this attack as well). This ...
It is never better than Medium Weapon with GWM
Taking disadvantage on all attack rolls is a pretty large penalty. Generally this is a worse idea than using the other abilities available to you.
Taking a level 1 barbarian with a strength of 16 wielding a medium or large great axe I created the chart below. (Charts ignores critical hits)
As you can see from ...
When you already have Disadvantage anyway
It doesn't stack with itself, so if you have Disadvantage, you get a free bonus to your damage if you happen to have an oversized weapon.
When your target has truly abysmal AC
I'm talking "below 10" levels of AC, where you are almost guaranteed to hit anyway. Double chance of rolling a 1 is still just ...
DM guidance for building custom monsters has nothing to do with player characters.
The intro to the section you quote says:
The Monster Manual contains hundreds of ready-to-play monsters, but it doesn’t include every monster that you can imagine. Part of the D&D experience is the simple joy of creating new monsters and customizing existing ones, if for ...
Your DM created a custom monster.
A custom adamantite flying sword that is immune to fire is reasonable. It wouldn't even have that much impact on its challenge rating.
OTOH, if the DM instead was simply looking for an excuse for a given tactic of a PC to not work on the fly, that is often a bad habit.
As the creator of a world, deciding things don't work ...
There is no clear rule that an adamantine animated sword can or can't take damage from magical fire. Reasonable people may disagree as to whether it should, but absent a specific rule, it is at the discretion of the the DM.
The ruling "has a basis in fact" insofar as the DMG account of how objects are effected by different damage types is extremely ...
Yes and no.
When the DM is writing up a custom monster stat block -- often by modifying a monster that's in one of the books already -- he can of course add (or remove) any damage resistances or immunities that seem appropriate. We can argue about whether or not the logic behind those immunities is valid, but it's entirely the DM's right to make such ...
This ruling isn't "standard" D&D5e. (Assuming the GM was using the Flying Sword as presented in the Monster Manual.)
(Of course, this effectively is a homebrewed animated sword. In which case the GM is free to give it whatever damage immunities they would like.)
The Flying Sword (MM p.20) has no immunity to fire. (It is immune to poison and ...
The creature expands into the space of the other creatures
A medium creature surrounded by 8 small/medium creatures will occupy its original space and the spaces of 3 of the surrounding creatures in one of the corners.
The rules state:
Whether a creature is a friend or an enemy, you can’t willingly end your move in its space.
There is no prohibition on ...
If possible, the creature grows and is squeezing. When it grows, its weapons grow accordingly.
Let's say a Medium creature is in a 5ft-wide tunnel, and is Enlarged. Then it is now Large and squeezing:
A creature can squeeze through a space that is large enough for a creature one size smaller than it. Thus, a Large creature can squeeze through a passage that'...
This is a case of "specific beats general".
As you noted, the description of the steam mephit's Death Burst trait says:
When the mephit dies, it explodes in a cloud of steam.
However as, the spell you reference, conjure minor elementals, clearly states:
An elemental summoned by this spell disappears when it drops to 0 hit points or when the ...
ranger is undoubtedly not as good without ua or xanathar's, but it can still be sort of viable.
im going to assume that said ranger is going all out on damage and ignoring all other aspects such as ooc utility or survivability.
assuming a point buy system, and the half-orc race,
our strength should be 17 and our wisdom 15 at base
in this scenario we'...