What's Wrong NOW?—The Dysfunctional Rules Thread for 5e

[Zweisteine]

To continue the tradition (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?333789-Dysfunctional-Rules-Thread-V-Dysfunctions-All-the-Way-Down) of hunting down dysfunctional rules, I have started this thread.

I don't know how well I'll be able to catalog all of the dysfunctions, because I might not have time to format and edit new stuff into this post. If I haven't updated for a while, someone PM me a formatted list of things I've missed, and I'll add it (and say you'll do it, so I don't get spammed).



Citations
Here's a guide to citations:
PH# — Player's Handbook
MM# — Monster Manual
DMG# — Dungeon Master's Guide

HotDQ# — Hoard of the Dragon Queen

B1V # — Basic Rules version 1
B2V # — Basic Rules version 2
DM1V # — DM's Basic Rules version 1
ALPG# — Adventurer's League Player's Guide (if it ever comes up)

If you bring up anything, try to have a citation. If it is in the Basic Rules or any of the other public documents, please include citations for those as well.

If a dysfunction is fixed in any official document, take note of the fix.



Dysfunctions


1st-level characters can't regain hit dice naturally (PH186, B1V 67).
A character regains half of their level in hit dice on a long rest, which, for a 1st-level character, is 0 hit dice regained.

This dysfunction was fixed in the second version of the basic rules (B2V 67) by adding "(minimum one)" to that sentence.

Passive advantage/disadvantage is better/worse than active.
Having (dis)advantage only gives an average of ±3.82, but is treated as a ±5, if the passive perception rules are anything to go by.

I'm not sure this is a dysfunction or a rules choice on the part of the designers, but I think it's worth noting.

Reach weapons give you permanently longer arms (PH147, B2V 47).
"Reach.This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it."

If your reach is 5' you can only attack targets 5' away, ergo you can't get the extension to attack a target 10' away.
However, this adds to your reach without expiring, so every time you attack you get +5 reach on future attacks. Attack trees for awhile... and then you can hit the moon with a club or whatever.

And even if you replace "when you attack" with "while attacking," you can only make 5' attacks.

Con artists can't play outside their cons (PH128).
The Charlatan gets to choose a gaming set as part of their con, but receives no proficiency with the kit.

This means that a soldier who plays in their spare time will be better at dice than a person who makes their living scamming people off it.

[pwykersotz]

Can you please elaborate on that second one? According to the multiclassing rules you only combine your levels in all your Spellcasting classes to determine spells. Rounding errors wouldn't apply by taking a level in Fighter, since Fighter has no casting and thus it's a straight port of spells.

If you are a level 3 Fighter you can select Eldritch Knight as a path, and then you qualify to add 1 level (3 divided by 3) to your spell table which should result in no reduction of spells.

I think the relevant line is "if you have the Eldritch Knight or the A rcane Trickster feature." on page 164, first paragraph under Spell Slots.

This all appears RAW, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Totema]

Yeah, I'm not understanding the logic of the second one either. Multiclassing rules state roughly that your spell slots are determined from each class as though they were taken individually; a Paladin 5/Fighter 1 should still be able to cast as a Paladin 5.

[Symphony]

Yeah, I'm not understanding the logic of the second one either. Multiclassing rules state roughly that your spell slots are determined from each class as though they were taken individually; a Paladin 5/Fighter 1 should still be able to cast as a Paladin 5.

That is very much not the case. Spells known/prepared are determined by each class as though they were taken individually, but spell slots are specifically not determined that way.

The first paragraph of Spell Slots on p.164 of the PHB notes that if multiclassed, you determine spell slots using full caster levels + half-caster/2 (rounded down) + third-caster/3 (rounded down). The second notes that "if you have more than one spellcasting class, this table might give you spell slots of a level that is higher than the...", making it seem (to me), that you are assumed to consult this table even if you only have a single spellcasting class.

If you look at the Paladin or Ranger Spell Slots level, it's absolutely clear that they should be determined by rounding up. A Paladin 5 has the same spell slots and levels as a Wizard 3, and this is consistent throughout their entire progression.

The same is true of the Eldritch Knight/Arcane Trickster. Their spellcasting progression is also rounded up in their class tables.

In some way or another, this is an oversight. Either you don't consult the table for spellcasting slots unless you have more than one spellcasting class, or partial casters should round up.

[ambartanen]

Once you have the spellcasting feature from more than one class, use the rules below.
I don't see any problem with the rules as stated. You never get less casting than you should have.

[Zweisteine]

Can you please elaborate on that second one? According to the multiclassing rules you only combine your levels in all your Spellcasting classes to determine spells. Rounding errors wouldn't apply by taking a level in Fighter, since Fighter has no casting and thus it's a straight port of spells.

If you are a level 3 Fighter you can select Eldritch Knight as a path, and then you qualify to add 1 level (3 divided by 3) to your spell table which should result in no reduction of spells.

I think the relevant line is "if you have the Eldritch Knight or the Arcane Trickster feature." on page 164, first paragraph under Spell Slots.

This all appears RAW, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
I hadn't seen the line that says you only use those rules if you have levels in more than one spellcasting class.
This made me think for a minute. I then concluded that it was still a dysfunction. Then I went to the book to come up with a better example. I then concluded that, while not a dysfunction, it doesn't make sense that multiclassing rules bring down a multiclass caster's abilities from that class. Then I realized that the levels in the second casting class would negate that increase without exception. So, rather than a mistake, it was an intentional decision, and one that provides a good deal of balance.

So you are correct.

I wonder, though, if the line "a third your fighter or rogue levels" creates any dysfunctions. A strict reading of that line means that only one of the two can advance your casting. I think that counts.

This also means that, depending on when in your career you multiclass, adding levels of a given casting class may or may not get you new slots.

Does anyone else have any dysfunctions to add? There have to be more than two and a half!

[Kornaki]

I don't think "fighter or rogue" is a dysfunction, because I don't think it excludes using both. For example if someone said "give me any red or green dice you have" you wouldn't think you get to pick whether you give them red dice or green dice. The word or is ambiguous as to whether it is exclusive, and it is determined from context whether it is. In this case it is clear that it is not exclusive.

[Symphony]

I don't see any problem with the rules as stated. You never get less casting than you should have.

Well, I missed that. I guess there is no issue that I can see, then.

[kieza]

I don't think "fighter or rogue" is a dysfunction, because I don't think it excludes using both. For example if someone said "give me any red or green dice you have" you wouldn't think you get to pick whether you give them red dice or green dice. The word or is ambiguous as to whether it is exclusive, and it is determined from context whether it is. In this case it is clear that it is not exclusive.

Agreed. If you view it as "all levels taken in the fighter or rogue class" it makes more sense. (That is, use OR instead of XOR.)

[Demonic Spoon]

Having (dis)advantage only gives an average of ±3.82, but is treated as a ±5, if the passive perception rules are anything to go by.

I'm not sure this is a dysfunction or a rules choice on the part of the designers, but I think it's worth noting.


At the time that someone is actively attempting to search for someone hiding, they also have gotten the ability to see them with passive perception. The active search is an 'extra' chance to find them, then, so it doesn't change much if passive perception is better then.

[Zweisteine]

Until you realize that the sentence immediately preceding that one says "paladin and ranger levels."

But yeah, it'll cut it out. It's pretty obvious.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Anybody with half a drop of good sense knows damn well you'd add (EK Fighter/3) + (AT Rogue/3) and those that claim otherwise are just lying about it to be bothersome, feel superior, and bother the DM. They just need to add a line at some point in the DMG or a future printing "these rules are guidelines not computer code, language is an imprecise tool and this an imprecise game, if we screwed up the logic slightly go with what you damn well know was actually said" and these sorts of things would be even more officially wrong.

However on the subject of silly pedantic nonsense with which to bother the DM:

"Reach.This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it." - PH 147 and B2V 47

Problems:
1) If your reach is say 5' you can only attack targets 5' away, ergo you can't get the extension to attack a target 10' away. Reach doesn't work!
2) This adds to your reach without expiring, every time you attack you get +5 reach on future attacks. Attack trees for awhile... and then you can hit the moon with a club or whatever.

[Totema]

That is very much not the case. Spells known/prepared are determined by each class as though they were taken individually, but spell slots are specifically not determined that way.
Thanks for pointing that out, I did in fact get mixed up in the terminology. But it's interesting to note that the rules don't make any mention of modifying spell slots when you dip into a completely non-casting class. Since a Fighter 1 would not have access to the Eldritch Knight feature, making a 1-level dip into fighter really oughtn't change your paladin's spell slots.

[Demonic Spoon]

Anybody with half a drop of good sense knows damn well you'd add (EK Fighter/3) + (AT Rogue/3) and those that claim otherwise are just lying about it to be bothersome, feel superior, and bother the DM. They just need to add a line at some point in the DMG or a future printing "these rules are guidelines not computer code, language is an imprecise tool and this an imprecise game, if we screwed up the logic slightly go with what you damn well know was actually said" and these sorts of things would be even more officially wrong.


I'm fairly certain that no one is posting in this thread to suggest that these rules are actually going to break real games. It's a fun thought exercise based on the way that the rules are written.

[TripleD]

PH128 - The Charlatan gets to choose a gaming set as part of their con, but receives no proficiency with the kit.

This means that a soldier who plays in their spare time will be better at dice than a person who makes their living scamming people off it.

[Zweisteine]

PH128 - The Charlatan gets to choose a gaming set as part of their con, but receives no proficiency with the kit.

This means that a soldier who plays in their spare time will be better at dice than a person who makes their living scamming people off it.
Well, the Charlatan isn't playing the game, really. They're cheating. They just have to know The rules and have proficiency with deception, which they have.

This and the reach thing are great. I'll add them to the OP as soon as I'm on a proper computer (tomorrow).

[da_chicken]

That is very much not the case. Spells known/prepared are determined by each class as though they were taken individually, but spell slots are specifically not determined that way.

The first paragraph of Spell Slots on p.164 of the PHB notes that if multiclassed, you determine spell slots using full caster levels + half-caster/2 (rounded down) + third-caster/3 (rounded down). The second notes that "if you have more than one spellcasting class, this table might give you spell slots of a level that is higher than the...", making it seem (to me), that you are assumed to consult this table even if you only have a single spellcasting class.

If you look at the Paladin or Ranger Spell Slots level, it's absolutely clear that they should be determined by rounding up. A Paladin 5 has the same spell slots and levels as a Wizard 3, and this is consistent throughout their entire progression.

The same is true of the Eldritch Knight/Arcane Trickster. Their spellcasting progression is also rounded up in their class tables.

In some way or another, this is an oversight. Either you don't consult the table for spellcasting slots unless you have more than one spellcasting class, or partial casters should round up.

I disagree. The rule says "round down" to discourage people getting benefits from gaming the math. A Ranger 3/Eldritch Knight 4 shouldn't have the same casting as a Ranger 4/Eldritch Knight 6. Furthermore, it could easily be an intentional penalty to multiclassed spellcasters. You shouldn't be able to multiclass and get ahead of a single classed spellcaster unless you're a half caster picking up full casting.

[Zweisteine]

I disagree. The rule says "round down" to discourage people getting benefits from gaming the math. A Ranger 3/Eldritch Knight 4 shouldn't have the same casting as a Ranger 4/Eldritch Knight 6. Furthermore, it could easily be an intentional penalty to multiclassed spellcasters. You shouldn't be able to multiclass and get ahead of a single classed spellcaster unless you're a half caster picking up full casting.
I disagree. The rounding down is to balance it. Rounding down makes multiclassing from secondary or tertiary casting classes give you less magic ability than you otherwise would have. It acts as the penalty for multiclassing. A Ranger 3/Druid 1 has level 2 casting, not level 3, which helps provide a bit of balance there. Between full casters, the penalty for multiclassing is lost or delayed high-level spells.

[Soras Teva Gee]

@Charlatan Background:

Okay I checked and while still a bit odd it has not been accurately reported.

PHB 128 lists the equipment as "tools of the con of your choice" not a gaming set explicitly. It then provides in parenthesis a number of examples including bottles of colored liquid and a fake signet ring alongside weighted dice and marked cards. So whatever you recieve you nominally should be proficient in because you'll be using your provided skill proficiencies.

To the Soldier being better... while there is still potential oddity I think this is helped by remembering that you only apply Proficiency once, so if the Charlatan can contrive Deception or Sleight of Hand (the skill profs) as applying to any sort of game then this equalizes out. And of course, sometimes the guy that plays the game for real IS better then the cheating bastard.

[Vhaluus]

That reach rule is only an issue if you read it a very specific, odd way.

If you assume you declare attack and then pick a target then it is clearly written just fine. It could be cleared up with the text "for that attack"

But really I think you're just trying to find an issue there when there isn't one.

[Tasvel]

I'd like to add my counterspell woes:


It seems weird. It's a reaction, and only bonus actions have the limitation of "one spell per round." That means that I can spend all of my spell slots countering every single spell that the leader of the cultists casts, but he can do the same to me. I can use my reactions on my own turn, though, so can I counter a counterspell to a spell I'm casting? Does that make high level mage combat into "I cast fireball and use my reaction to counterspell the counterspell he's obviously going to cast" once per round? RAW, I think I'm right - please tell me I'm not.

It race to junk spell slots at higher levels, if played optimally (specifically, a prisoner's dilemma). If I'm within 60 feet of an enemy spellcaster and he casts a spell that will cause damage to my group, I can counter it. But then he can counter my counter. This has to happen once every round for anything to happen as long as two spellcasters remain within 60 feet of one another and both are playing optimally.

[Malifice]

But then he can counter my counter.

Cool. Youve now used up his reaction which he wont get back until its his turn again.

You get another turn yourself before he gets his reaction back.

His turn, he casts; you counter. He counters your counter (using up his reaction till the start of his next turn).

Now its your turn. You cast. He cant counter as he doesnt have a reaction left.

[Tasvel]

Cool. Youve now used up his reaction which he wont get back until its his turn again.

You get another turn yourself before he gets his reaction back.

His turn, he casts; you counter. He counters your counter (using up his reaction till the start of his next turn).

Now its your turn. You cast. He cant counter as he doesnt have a reaction left.

I'm not saying that nothing gets done. Indeed, you both cast as normal... it just costs you double the spell slots to be able to keep up (unless you're against an abjuration specialist, then you're kinda ****ed). You can choose to not play the game and refuse to spend two 7th level spell slots to cast one level 7 spell, but then he CAN play that game and you don't get to cast anything at all while he goes crazy (unless you use your reaction on your turn to use your remaining spell slot to counter his spell, and then neither of you do anything for your turns).

It's a prisoner's dilemma, and it only goes away when you come to a gentleman's agreement with the other spellcaster 60 feet away to not waste spell slots together. Probably not what was intended.

[Soras Teva Gee]

That reach rule is only an issue if you read it a very specific, odd way.

If you assume you declare attack and then pick a target then it is clearly written just fine. It could be cleared up with the text "for that attack"

But really I think you're just trying to find an issue there when there isn't one.

Oh the intent is obvious and every DM knows damn well what's supposed to happen, the 'computer code' approach just doesn't get there.

It shouldn't be tied to attacks which are discrete events but to wielding which is more general:

"Reach: While wielding this weapon you add 5' to your reach."


I'm not saying that nothing gets done. Indeed, you both cast as normal... it just costs you double the spell slots to be able to keep up (unless you're against an abjuration specialist, then you're kinda ****ed). You can choose to not play the game and refuse to spend two 7th level spell slots to cast one level 7 spell, but then he CAN play that game and you don't get to cast anything at all while he goes crazy (unless you use your reaction on your turn to use your remaining spell slot to counter his spell, and then neither of you do anything for your turns).

It's a prisoner's dilemma, and it only goes away when you come to a gentleman's agreement with the other spellcaster 60 feet away to not waste spell slots together. Probably not what was intended.

Your dilemma exists only because you are operating from the automatic position that anything not explicitly prohibited is automatically allowed allowing you to insert of your own accord putting a reaction inside of an action no matter how counter-intuitive. I might wonder how you are performing the Somatic components of both spells do you need both hands free to do that? But really if you start with needed to be prohibited you need a whole list of things like say not being allowed to play a custom race/class you made up on the spot just to reach the normal status quo of official race/classes. That's not how the rules are really written you've just added to them with interpretation.

In either case though both interpretations of the rules essentially function. The results may not be optimal for what you want, but neither really creates errors. I seem to recall MtG very much allowing for whole chains of countering the counterspell the process works just fine.

[Tasvel]

Your dilemma exists only because you are operating from the automatic position that anything not explicitly prohibited is automatically allowed allowing you to insert of your own accord putting a reaction inside of an action no matter how counter-intuitive. I might wonder how you are performing the Somatic components of both spells do you need both hands free to do that? But really if you start with needed to be prohibited you need a whole list of things like say not being allowed to play a custom race/class you made up on the spot just to reach the normal status quo of official race/classes. That's not how the rules are really written you've just added to them with interpretation.

In either case though both interpretations of the rules essentially function. The results may not be optimal for what you want, but neither really creates errors. I seem to recall MtG very much allowing for whole chains of countering the counterspell the process works just fine.

I agree it's quite ridiculous by RAW, but isn't that the point of this thread?

And the difference here is that you never run out of counterspell "cards." It would be as if blue decks could counter freely by paying 2 more mana at any time, but only once per turn, and could only counter other blue decks in this manner. How would it look? Would it be intended?

[TripleD]

To the Soldier being better... while there is still potential oddity I think this is helped by remembering that you only apply Proficiency once, so if the Charlatan can contrive Deception or Sleight of Hand (the skill profs) as applying to any sort of game then this equalizes out. And of course, sometimes the guy that plays the game for real IS better then the cheating bastard.

That's an elegant solution to the problem. My original homebrew was to give the charlatan advantage on intelligence checks for the game; the charlatan then seems to get "lucky" more than they should. But yours dovetails much more nicely with what the character is actually doing.

[1337 b4k4]

Oh the intent is obvious and every DM knows damn well what's supposed to happen, the 'computer code' approach just doesn't get there.

It shouldn't be tied to attacks which are discrete events but to wielding which is more general:

"Reach: While wielding this weapon you add 5' to your reach."


Of course, if you accept the current implementation of the rule as a defect (which it isn't and anyone at your table who insists otherwise should be summarily ejected and forced to pay for all the food), your implementation suffers from the same no limit problem. Every time you pick up the weapon after putting it down your reach increases by 5'

[Giant2005]

Passive advantage/disadvantage is better/worse than active.
Having (dis)advantage only gives an average of ±3.82, but is treated as a ±5, if the passive perception rules are anything to go by.

I'm not sure this is a dysfunction or a rules choice on the part of the designers, but I think it's worth noting.
This isn't exactly true, not in all respects at least. If you have huge bonuses and a low DC target, you are better off with the Advantage (if you need to roll a 6 or higher to succeed, they both have the same chance of success anything less than 6 and you are better with the Advantage than a flat +5) and if your bonuses are low and the DC target high enough that the +5 is irrelevant, then you are better off with the Advantage than a flat bonus.

[Soras Teva Gee]

I agree it's quite ridiculous by RAW, but isn't that the point of this thread?

And the difference here is that you never run out of counterspell "cards." It would be as if blue decks could counter freely by paying 2 more mana at any time, but only once per turn, and could only counter other blue decks in this manner. How would it look? Would it be intended?

You can still only have as 1 Counterspell per caster per round because reactions are limited, and you only have so many spell slots.

And I believe 5E should be taken as an opportunity to define "RAW" as "the rules write out how this works" not "the rules don't explicitly disallow it" as it is too often used. The whole point is to shift emphasis from books to DM adjudication, though there are ample places where the answer should be the same every time like how do you modify an attack, etc. Where the rules tell you directly how something works not how you can juxtapose the them that is RAW. Expansion is your own thing.

So nothing says you can interrupt a reaction with a reaction or even if you can do so while maintaining the action of casting your original spell? Its thus purely hypothetical and up to the DM if it exists.


Of course, if you accept the current implementation of the rule as a defect (which it isn't and anyone at your table who insists otherwise should be summarily ejected and forced to pay for all the food), your implementation suffers from the same no limit problem. Every time you pick up the weapon after putting it down your reach increases by 5'

"While wielding"

Makes it present tense only right? Everything else is thus conditional on that.

Obviously everyone knows how it works and claiming otherwise means you're lying, but I just can't find any way around this one other then "yeah yeah, but we know what they meant" here because its very confined and direct. I'd love someone to extricate that, I just can't in this case.

[Demonic Spoon]

Monks RAW can use a quarterstaff two-handed for a d8 damage die, which makes the use of non-quarterstaff monk weapons pretty much pointless.

[Grynning]

Monks RAW can use a quarterstaff two-handed for a d8 damage die, which makes the use of non-quarterstaff monk weapons pretty much pointless.

Spear works too.

[Tengu_temp]

Oh the intent is obvious and every DM knows damn well what's supposed to happen, the 'computer code' approach just doesn't get there.

That's because the "computer code" approach to RPG rules is ridiculous. People who seriously use it in a game think they're being smart and finding clever loopholes in the system, while in reality they're being obnoxious nitpickers who miss the point of rules in a roleplaying game and make the DM want to strangle them.

[Malifice]

Monks RAW can use a quarterstaff two-handed for a d8 damage die, which makes the use of non-quarterstaff monk weapons pretty much pointless.

Until you get to 1d8 MA damage.

[Malifice]

Spear works too.

Ive got a monk who uses a spear refluffed to 'the Green destiny sword'.

You see where I'm going with this character.

[Anubis Dread]

I found kind of an interesting one I think - the Ranger's animal companion takes an action to command. However, there's no requirement for line of sight, line of effect, and there's no range on the feature itself. This means that a ranger can hide three rooms over while the rest of his team is fighting and command his animal from there in (relative) safety, so long as he can get some general ideas of what to command his animal to it.

This is a bit more silly and gets into far more iffy territory, but it also doesn't say the animal needs to HEAR you either - it just says that you must spend an action to command it. This mans that if a ranger chilling back at the inn while their companion is out fighting giants, it can command it to make an attack as long as they have some idea of what's going on. If you can get some kind of telepathic link or the like, Rangers effectively become Shadowrun Riggers commanding their drones from back in the van.

[1337 b4k4]

"While wielding"

Makes it present tense only right? Everything else is thus conditional on that.


The current rule is also present tense only: "This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it."

When you stop attacking, the weapon stops adding to your reach. As I said, any failure of the current rule is equally applicable to your version. The only version that would work would be:

"While you wield this weapon to make attacks with this weapon, your reach is extended by 5 feet. If you ever stop wielding this weapon to make attacks with this weapon, your reach returns to its original length."

Which is a complete waste of text and space designed only to satisfy those for whom gaming is practice for the bar exam.

[Soras Teva Gee]

I found kind of an interesting one I think - the Ranger's animal companion takes an action to command. However, there's no requirement for line of sight, line of effect, and there's no range on the feature itself. This means that a ranger can hide three rooms over while the rest of his team is fighting and command his animal from there in (relative) safety, so long as he can get some general ideas of what to command his animal to it.

This is a bit more silly and gets into far more iffy territory, but it also doesn't say the animal needs to HEAR you either - it just says that you must spend an action to command it. This mans that if a ranger chilling back at the inn while their companion is out fighting giants, it can command it to make an attack as long as they have some idea of what's going on. If you can get some kind of telepathic link or the like, Rangers effectively become Shadowrun Riggers commanding their drones from back in the van.

Umm PHB 93... yes it does.

The first sentence of the second paragraph under "Ranger's Companion" doe just say "obeys your commands as best as it can" but the actual action commanding in the following sentences note you must verbally command actions.

[1337 b4k4]

Umm PHB 93... yes it does.

The first sentence of the second paragraph under "Ranger's Companion" doe just say "obeys your commands as best as it can" but the actual action commanding in the following sentences note you must verbally command actions.

But in the spirit of reading the rules are literally as possible and not allowing for any human contextual interpretation, does it specify that they must be able to hear the command? Remember, spells have verbal components, but that doesn't require the target of the spell (or heck, even the wizard themselves) to be able to hear those components. Heck, even the power words don't require the opponent to be able to hear the words spoken.

[hawklost]

We also have to ask that since the animal companion "obeys your commands as best as it can" to the best of its ability that if you say something like "Kill him" do you really need to tell your companion the next round to kill him again or does he '"obeys your commands as best as it can"' and attack him until he is dead and you get all your normal actions now?

Edit: changes "Faithfully executes your commands" to "obeys your commands as best as it can"

[Anubis Dread]

Hm, that does put a damper on the second usage, but that just means you need the Thuamaturgy cantrip (amplifies your voice) and to be within yelling distance. Which depending on terrain is either a couple of rooms in a dungeon, several miles in an open field, or many many miles in say the Underdark.

Alternatively if you can communicate verbally from a distance that would also work. I'm not sure of any spell that can do so, but it seems natural that 'magic walkie talkies' will probably be one of the example magic items in the DMG.

Actually, if it IS verbal this present another little dysfunction - a Ranger can choose an aquatic animal companion just fine I believe, but cannot command that companion while it's underwater as it can't hear him.

EDIT: Rather, the last is dysfunctional not because the ranger can't be heard on land while the companion is in the water, but because if both are underwater the ranger can't command the animal at all as the ranger can't speak their commands.

[Janus]

PHB p___ (don't have the book with me)
Basic Rules v2, p47
"An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). "

The rules say nothing about the DM having to make the call on whether or not an object could feasibly do damage in the first place.
Allow me to share a bloody, tragic tale of this rule being taken to its inevitable end. (http://janus3003.deviantart.com/art/Aggressive-Pillow-Talk-478991088)

[DrLemniscate]

PHB p___ (don't have the book with me)
Basic Rules v2, p47
"An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). "

The rules say nothing about the DM having to make the call on whether or not an object could feasibly do damage in the first place.
Allow me to share a bloody, tragic tale of this rule being taken to its inevitable end. (http://janus3003.deviantart.com/art/Aggressive-Pillow-Talk-478991088)

You mean even as a Sandwich, I could still do damage if my allies threw me?

[pwykersotz]

You mean even as a Sandwich, I could still do damage if my allies threw me?

Technically on page 185 you have this lovely piece:


The DM determines an object’s Armor Class and hit points, and might decide that certain objects have resistance or immunity to certain kinds of attacks. (It’s hard to cut a rope with a club, for example.)

So it's DM's call if the thrown sandwich can do damage.

Regarding pillow death, if you want to be super technical, it says certain objects have resistance or immunity, but the point is pretty clear that pillows probably aren't lethal. Except when they are. Like when you smother someone. Still, since when does RAI get in the way of silliness? Never, and rightly so.

[DrLemniscate]

Still, since when does RAI get in the way of silliness? Never, and rightly so.

I love it.

You should always allow a little lee way, at least for ye olde natural 20.

Say you swing a club at a piece of rope. The last Orc you killed with it was kind enough to leave behind a piece of his skull that snags at just the right spot to tear the rope.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Now this is what I'm talking about people, this is silliness enabled not by the rules "failing" to explicitly bar some silly thing, but directly creating it where it wouldn't have been...


PHB p___ (don't have the book with me)
Basic Rules v2, p47
"An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). "

The rules say nothing about the DM having to make the call on whether or not an object could feasibly do damage in the first place.
Allow me to share a bloody, tragic tale of this rule being taken to its inevitable end. (http://janus3003.deviantart.com/art/Aggressive-Pillow-Talk-478991088)

This plus Assassin Rogue plus Tavern Brawler = Bullseye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullseye_(comics))

[Inevitability]

I think it is at least slightly weird that a dragonborn sorcerer can have two 'Draconic Heritages', each being from another type of dragon. Bonus points if the dragons are of opposed alignments.

Not really dysfunctional, but it will make quite a few DM's go :smallconfused:.

[Anubis Dread]

I think it is at least slightly weird that a dragonborn sorcerer can have two 'Draconic Heritages', each being from another type of dragon. Bonus points if the dragons are of opposed alignments.

Not really dysfunctional, but it will make quite a few DM's go :smallconfused:.

"When a white dragon, a gold dragon, and a human all love each other very much and are open to experimentation..."

[Gnomes2169]

The half gold dragon red dragonborn sorcerer of amethyst draconic bloodline which was once a half shadow and fang dragon before being cast down by Bahamaut is disapproving of your lack of dragon. :P

[Giant2005]

I think it is at least slightly weird that a dragonborn sorcerer can have two 'Draconic Heritages', each being from another type of dragon. Bonus points if the dragons are of opposed alignments.

Not really dysfunctional, but it will make quite a few DM's go :smallconfused:.

A Dragon-Blooded, Half-Dragon Dragonborn takes it a step further with three Dragon relatives!

[Anubis Dread]

It's like a turducken! Except it's all dragons, so like a dragdragon? That's only two though, hm :smallconfused:

[cobaltstarfire]

I think it is at least slightly weird that a dragonborn sorcerer can have two 'Draconic Heritages', each being from another type of dragon. Bonus points if the dragons are of opposed alignments.

Not really dysfunctional, but it will make quite a few DM's go :smallconfused:.

The dragonborn are supposed to so removed from actual dragons and so mixed up genetically that their scale color has no baring on their elemental affinity or their alignment. It could just be that a dragon born has a strong bloodline from both parents (who also have different elemental affinities), and got some perks from both.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

However on the subject of silly pedantic nonsense with which to bother the DM:

"Reach.This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it." - PH 147 and B2V 47

Problems:
1) If your reach is say 5' you can only attack targets 5' away, ergo you can't get the extension to attack a target 10' away. Reach doesn't work!
2) This adds to your reach without expiring, every time you attack you get +5 reach on future attacks. Attack trees for awhile... and then you can hit the moon with a club or whatever.
Y'know, you may as well go full hog and apply the same logic to damage roll bonuses. "Add +2 to damage rolls." Even better: it doesn't specify a trigger! You can add +2 to damage rolls whenever you want.

INFINITE OREGANO DAMAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Soras Teva Gee]

Y'know, you may as well go full hog and apply the same logic to damage roll bonuses. "Add +2 to damage rolls." Even better: it doesn't specify a trigger! You can add +2 to damage rolls whenever you want.

INFINITE OREGANO DAMAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well damage rolls are not an ongoing trait, you always have a reach. Also you really need just the right phrasing, certain conditional statements like the "When" in the Dueling Fighting style for example ruin it.

Now something like "upon use add +1 to all damage rolls" maybe.

Might be out there. But if you want you can do 1d4+Stat with oregano, add sneak attack and be an Assassin to make it a critical hit. Wouldn't be infinite but you could kill somebody with it.

[DDogwood]

I think it is at least slightly weird that a dragonborn sorcerer can have two 'Draconic Heritages', each being from another type of dragon. Bonus points if the dragons are of opposed alignments.

Not really dysfunctional, but it will make quite a few DM's go :smallconfused:.

I know a dragonborn's colour isn't required to be related to his heritage, but I still want to create an angry pink dragonborn sorcerer descended from red and white dragons.

Edit: or maybe Bar'ni, the purple dragonborn sorcerer/bard with red and blue ancestors... who loves everyone.

[Kaww]

Has anyone noticed that a cleric can turn undead without HD restriction?
Is that a bug or a feature?

[cobaltstarfire]

Has anyone noticed that a cleric can turn undead without HD restriction?
Is that a bug or a feature?

I think it might depend on whether all undeads wisdom goes up with their HD? Does look a little bit like an oversight.

[Gnomes2169]

It's based on CR instead, since monsters tend to have hella higher HD pools in 5e than they did in 3.5. Scaling off of hit die doesn't really work when your zombies and skeletons have double your cleric's HD until level 3... :P

[cobaltstarfire]

Destroying undead is based on CR, all that the rules says about turning them is that they must make a wisdom save.

So I guess replace the "HD" in the question with CR.

[Composer99]

I know a dragonborn's colour isn't required to be related to his heritage, but I still want to create an angry pink dragonborn sorcerer descended from red and white dragons.

Edit: or maybe Bar'ni, the purple dragonborn sorcerer/bard with red and blue ancestors... who loves everyone.

Truly, a frightening - nay, terrifying - prospect.

[Kaww]

Destroying undead is based on CR, all that the rules says about turning them is that they must make a wisdom save.

So I guess replace the "HD" in the question with CR.

I believe I will wait with house rules until MM comes out. If a lvl 1 cleric can still turn a dracolich 50% of the time I guess I will have to brew something up...

[Gnomes2169]

I believe I will wait with house rules until MM comes out. If a lvl 1 cleric can still turn a dracolich 50% of the time I guess I will have to brew something up...

Um... You can turn CR 4 undead as a level 17 cleric. A level 1 cleric can't even turn undead (you get the ability at level 5). What the hell kind of CR 4 dracoliches do you think will pop up? O-o

Based on the general CR rating, the massive iconic monsters (Such as liches and dracoliches) will proooobably be hitting somewhere around CR 20-26, so you don't have to worry too much about turn undead...

Edit: Ah, sorry, you can only destroy undead of CR 4 or lower. Turn can be used on anything... But it's a wis save, and a DC 13 one at level 1, maximum (unless you roll instead of using pb). Preeeetty sure most powerful undead will laugh at it and then procceed to eating your tasty flesh.

[Kaww]

Edit: Ah, sorry, you can only destroy undead of CR 4 or lower. Turn can be used on anything... But it's a wis save, and a DC 13 one at level 1, maximum (unless you roll instead of using pb). Preeeetty sure most powerful undead will laugh at it and then procceed to eating your tasty flesh.

Dracolich has wisdom 13, I think, meaning it has to roll 12+ or run from a lvl 1 cleric...

[Gnomes2169]

Did they put out a dracolich preview while I wasn't looking? Because I don't remember there being a dracolich preview... And all monsters at that point seem to have a proficiency bonus to their wisdom saving throws. (Also, being a dracolich, aka, a lich dragon of incredible eldrich power, I would be appaled if it didn't get legendary resistance...)

[Totema]

Here's one I just came across, though it's conceivable that it's less of a bug and more of a feature.

If you take the Martial Adept feat after gaining the Fighter's Battle Master archetype, you gain a superiority die based on your progress in Battle Master. This is fine and makes sense and is good. However, if you take Martial Adept before gaining the Battle Master archetype, your bonus superiority die remains a d6 and does not progress (until you reach Fighter 10, which then turns all your dice into d10s). The Martial Adept feat features no language to suggest that anything about it changes right when you get that Battle Master archetype.

Again, I think it's arguable that this isn't really a rules dysfunction. But come on, what DM in their right mind wouldn't let that extra die turn into a d8 so it can play with all its friends? At the very least it's sloppy writing.

[archaeo]

Here's one I just came across, though it's conceivable that it's less of a bug and more of a feature.

If you take the Martial Adept feat after gaining the Fighter's Battle Master archetype, you gain a superiority die based on your progress in Battle Master. This is fine and makes sense and is good. However, if you take Martial Adept before gaining the Battle Master archetype, your bonus superiority die remains a d6 and does not progress (until you reach Fighter 10, which then turns all your dice into d10s). The Martial Adept feat features no language to suggest that anything about it changes right when you get that Battle Master archetype.

Again, I think it's arguable that this isn't really a rules dysfunction. But come on, what DM in their right mind wouldn't let that extra die turn into a d8 so it can play with all its friends? At the very least it's sloppy writing.

At least this isn't likely to come up often; the only way to get a feat at level 1 by RAW is by playing the variant human, who will be likely to want something other than Martial Adept anyway if they're playing a Fighter.

But yeah, this does seem like a fiddly bit of rules minutiae that falls more on the bug side than the feature side. If variant humans are supposed to get gimped feats when taking them at level 1, you'd want it to be applied more widely; I bet this rules interaction just didn't occur to them. Best to just do like what you say, and make that d6 a d8 for level 3 Battle Masters.

[Inevitability]

At least this isn't likely to come up often; the only way to get a feat at level 1 by RAW is by playing the variant human, who will be likely to want something other than Martial Adept anyway if they're playing a Fighter.

But yeah, this does seem like a fiddly bit of rules minutiae that falls more on the bug side than the feature side. If variant humans are supposed to get gimped feats when taking them at level 1, you'd want it to be applied more widely; I bet this rules interaction just didn't occur to them. Best to just do like what you say, and make that d6 a d8 for level 3 Battle Masters.

Or you multiclassed, taking 4 levels in class X first and not going fighter until level 5.

[archaeo]

Or you multiclassed, taking 4 levels in class X first and not going fighter until level 5.

Oops, yeah. I mean, that seems even less likely than the variant human method (why would you take Martial Adept if you're going to multiclass into Battle Master anyway?), but you'd definitely still run into this rules weirdness.

[Giant2005]

I think I have found another one which imo is the most dysfunctional of rules.
If you haven't taken damage, suffered exhaustion, or used any resources that renew upon healing, you don't need to rest...ever.
Resting decreases your exhaustion but a lack of resting doesn't increase it so during your downtime or whatever, your character can go years at a time without rest and be perfectly fine.

[FadeAssassin]

But when would you not be taking damage or wanting to regain spell slots? It's highly unlikely unless your party is in downtime and not adventuring.

Also:

Heroic though they might be, adventurers can’t spend every hour of the day in the thick of exploration, social interaction, and combat. They need rest—time to sleep and eat, tend their wounds, refresh their minds and spirits for spellcasting, and brace themselves for further adventure.

(PHB 186)

[Lokiare]

(dis) advantage is between +2 and +6 and the bonus depends on what you need to roll on the d20 to be successful. So their ruling is fine. Of course without doing a lot of math no one will know which is better to take.

[Envyus]

Dracolich has wisdom 13, I think, meaning it has to roll 12+ or run from a lvl 1 cleric...

Dracolich has whatever dragon it's based on's wisdom.

Given the one Dragon in the book that was given as an example of the template was an Ancient Blue. An Adult Blue has +7 to Wis saves. Normal Liches have Turn resistance as well if I remember correctly.

[Kurald Galain]

The Bardic Ultrahorse clearly belongs in this thread:
http://s4.postimg.org/5yeempcn1/Bardic_Ultrahorse.png

Also for consideration, since it now has a 15-page discussion on it, is the fact that an Intellect Devourer has the ability to reduce a PC's intelligence to zero with one failed saving throw. The monster is CR 2, but the condition doesn't go away naturally, and by RAW this cannot be undone short of a Wish, making it harder to cure than actual death. It's arguably dysfunctional that an at-will save-or-die effect appears as early as that.

[Totema]

I think I have found another one which imo is the most dysfunctional of rules.
If you haven't taken damage, suffered exhaustion, or used any resources that renew upon healing, you don't need to rest...ever.
Resting decreases your exhaustion but a lack of resting doesn't increase it so during your downtime or whatever, your character can go years at a time without rest and be perfectly fine.

Honestly you should be glad that D&D (at least since 3.0, can't speak for earlier editions) isn't so simulationist that it demands a long rest to simply stay alive.

[Ferrin33]

Honestly you should be glad that D&D (at least since 3.0, can't speak for earlier editions) isn't so simulationist that it demands a long rest to simply stay alive.

Don't speak too soon, DMG is still coming.

[Gnomes2169]

The Bardic Ultrahorse clearly belongs in this thread:
http://s4.postimg.org/5yeempcn1/Bardic_Ultrahorse.png

Also for consideration, since it now has a 15-page discussion on it, is the fact that an Intellect Devourer has the ability to reduce a PC's intelligence to zero with one failed saving throw. The monster is CR 2, but the condition doesn't go away naturally, and by RAW this cannot be undone short of a Wish, making it harder to cure than actual death. It's arguably dysfunctional that an at-will save-or-die effect appears as early as that.

Stat damage will likely be covered in the MM, since that is where it is introduced in 5e, after all. Also, it's only wish-worthy if it gets into the character's head and eats their tasty, tasty brain meats (of which, a wizard has higher quality than your average fighter peasant swill. :p) Though yes, there being no reliable way to fix it at level 2 is just obnoxious, and likely a massive oversight on WotC behalf.

[Occasional Sage]

That reach rule is only an issue if you read it a very specific, odd way.

If you assume you declare attack and then pick a target then it is clearly written just fine. It could be cleared up with the text "for that attack"

But really I think you're just trying to find an issue there when there isn't one.

The rule as written makes opportunity attacks wonky too; an enemy would trigger from one distance and when you attack your reach would lengthen, removing the trigger. This rewording would not fix that.


Oh the intent is obvious and every DM knows damn well what's supposed to happen, the 'computer code' approach just doesn't get there.

It shouldn't be tied to attacks which are discrete events but to wielding which is more general:

"Reach: While wielding this weapon you add 5' to your reach."


This one would though.

[Inevitability]

Animate Dead can be cast upon Small and Medium humanoid corpses. However, the resulting Zombie or Skeleton is always medium. I wonder why the spell adds flesh to small bodies?

And it gets even worse. Imagine Bob the halfling rogue dies. His necromancer buddy raises him as a zombie. The dwarf cleric of goodness and compassion politely disagrees and kills both the zombie and the necromancer. Afterwards, the cleric raises Bob.

You now have a halfling who used to be small and died, leaving a small corpse. Then he was raised as a zombie and killed again, leaving a medium corpse. Finally, he was raised as a small creature again.

[Gnomes2169]

... I think logic fixes that one. XD Well, logic and assuming that the stat nlock for zombies/ skeletons is for a human zombie or skeleton, and adjusting size/ appearance accordingly when you have a new race.

[Inevitability]

... I think logic fixes that one. XD Well, logic and assuming that the stat nlock for zombies/ skeletons is for a human zombie or skeleton, and adjusting size/ appearance accordingly when you have a new race.

Shut your mouth! These are the GitP forums, logic has no place here! :smallwink:

[Durazno]

Would that make skeletons and zombies like the "job" monster entries, which you modify with racial stats?

[Inevitability]

Would that make skeletons and zombies like the "job" monster entries, which you modify with racial stats?

Yeah, except that you are now houseruling (as no mention of this is made anywhere) to have things make sense, so still a dysfunction.

[Easy_Lee]

I think the rules for opportunity attacks count.

"In a fight, everyone is constantly watching for enemies to drop their guard" -PHB 195. But it then goes on to state that you may make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. And even Sentinel doesn't add opportunity attacks for people who are already within your reach dropping their guard. That means that there's basically no end to the list of things you can do without "dropping your guard":

Cast a ritual spell
Show off some epic dance moves
Run straight up to your spear-weilding foe whilst waving your privates
Casually walk a circle around the demon lord, laying dust for an evil-containing barrier
Sit down an have a picnic


Seems silly to me. I expect a lot of people to house rule AOOs back to how they were in 3.5.

[Sartharina]

Stat damage will likely be covered in the MM, since that is where it is introduced in 5e, after all. Also, it's only wish-worthy if it gets into the character's head and eats their tasty, tasty brain meats (of which, a wizard has higher quality than your average fighter peasant swill. :p) Though yes, there being no reliable way to fix it at level 2 is just obnoxious, and likely a massive oversight on WotC behalf.

Actually, according to the illithids controlling Mike Mearls&Company, more intellectual+active minds are less delicious than simpler sentient ones.

[Gnomes2169]

I would just like to poibt out that casting a ritual spell for the full 10 minutes while in melee will kill you dead, with or without it provoking an Opportunity Attack. :P



Actually, according to the illithids controlling Mike Mearls&Company, more intellectual+active minds are less delicious than simpler sentient ones.

Ah, but you see, the ones with the developed brain meats also tend to go down when you poke them hard enough with your mind stabby murder weapon, so they are still valid targets (seeing as a wizard who has a +1 con and who takes the better than average hp progression will have 11 hp by level 2, and the intellect devouerer deals 11 damage on average... ;3)).

After all, you can have your tasty underdeveloped minds easier after you take out those dangerous developed brain meats. :P

[XmonkTad]

I'm playing a Diviner now, and I found an annoyance, though perhaps not a dysfunction.

Rary's Telepathic Bond (PHB 270) is a divination spell, but Telepathy (PHB 280) is evocation.

There are no 7th or 8th level divination spells, I guess they thought Expert Divination was too strong.

[Sartharina]

I think the rules for opportunity attacks count.

"In a fight, everyone is constantly watching for enemies to drop their guard" -PHB 195. But it then goes on to state that you may make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. And even Sentinel doesn't add opportunity attacks for people who are already within your reach dropping their guard. That means that there's basically no end to the list of things you can do without "dropping your guard":

Cast a ritual spell
Show off some epic dance moves
Run straight up to your spear-weilding foe whilst waving your privates
Casually walk a circle around the demon lord, laying dust for an evil-containing barrier
Sit down an have a picnic


Seems silly to me. I expect a lot of people to house rule AOOs back to how they were in 3.5.Those all require your action and movement, and several turns worth of actions. They don't need to use Opportunity Attacks because they have normal attacks.

[Inevitability]

I'm playing a Diviner now, and I found an annoyance, though perhaps not a dysfunction.

Rary's Telepathic Bond (PHB 270) is a divination spell, but Telepathy (PHB 280) is evocation.

There are no 7th or 8th level divination spells, I guess they thought Expert Divination was too strong.

It's even worse with the 'come back to life' spells. Raise Dead is Necromancy, Revivy is Conjuration, and Reincarnate is Transmutation. Yeah...

[Fwiffo86]

It's even worse with the 'come back to life' spells. Raise Dead is Necromancy, Revivy is Conjuration, and Reincarnate is Transmutation. Yeah...

Traditionally, these were known as spells of immortality. But agreed... pick a school people.

[Kurald Galain]

It's even worse with the 'come back to life' spells. Raise Dead is Necromancy, Revivy is Conjuration, and Reincarnate is Transmutation. Yeah...

Well, Revivify is basically CLW on steroids, so that makes a certain amount of sense. Reincarnate is basically a polymorph spell.

...I can't imagine with Telepathy has to do with evocation, though. At a guess, spells were written by several separate designers who didn't copyedit each others' work.

[Sartharina]

But isn't Cure Wounds back to being Necromancy again?

[Inevitability]

But isn't Cure Wounds back to being Necromancy again?

Nope: Evocation. Which only makes things more complex.

[Kurald Galain]

But isn't Cure Wounds back to being Necromancy again?
If I recall correctly, in one of the playtests it was necromancy, yes.


Nope: Evocation. Which only makes things more complex.
Ok, so some spells assume that cure = conjuration, others think that cure = evocation, and yet others believe that cure = necromancy. Yeah, that's definitely dysfunctional :smalltongue:

[Gnomes2169]

The spell section (when it comes to organization and labeling) is bad, and it should feel bad. We can all agree on this, yes? XD

[Easy_Lee]

Those all require your action and movement, and several turns worth of actions. They don't need to use Opportunity Attacks because they have normal attacks.

True, but opportunity attack is an attack made when the target let its guard down, according to the text. My point was that absolutely anything can be done without letting your guard down, other than running away, as per RAW.

[Sartharina]

True, but opportunity attack is an attack made when the target let its guard down, according to the text. My point was that absolutely anything can be done without letting your guard down, other than running away, as per RAW.

RAW says you provoke an attack of opportunity when you let your guard down, and merely only explicitly states you let your guard down if you retreat without using the Withdraw action. If you take another action, it's assumed you don't let your guard down. But, if you take an action that deliberately lets your guard down, you provoke an attack of opportunity for doing so.

[Easy_Lee]

RAW says you provoke an attack of opportunity when you let your guard down, and merely only explicitly states you let your guard down if you retreat without using the Withdraw action. If you take another action, it's assumed you don't let your guard down. But, if you take an action that deliberately lets your guard down, you provoke an attack of opportunity for doing so.

That's a house rule (a good one), but it's not stated in RAW.

[cobaltstarfire]

It's even worse with the 'come back to life' spells. Raise Dead is Necromancy, Revivy is Conjuration, and Reincarnate is Transmutation. Yeah...

I dunno, somehow Reincarnate makes sense to me as transmutation, since you're creating a random new body, and then stuffing the soul into it.

Resurrection and True Resurrection are necromancy spells too aren't they?

[SaintRidley]

Revivify: "Hey, our buddy's soul's escaping! Oh no you don't, get back in there!"

Raise Dead, Resurrection, True Resurrection: "So she's been cold for a while. Time to contact the dead soul and invite it back."

Reincarnate: "Ah screw it, you're a moose now."

[Inevitability]

I dunno, somehow Reincarnate makes sense to me as transmutation, since you're creating a random new body, and then stuffing the soul into it.

Resurrection and True Resurrection are necromancy spells too aren't they?

1. Then again, Creation, which can create a random pile of rock, is Illusion.

2. Yes they are.


Also, it is kind of weird that Reincarnation can change your mental ability scores. I don't see how an elven cleric suddenly becomes less wise when he/she reincarnates as a mountain dwarf, and how half-orcs who become half-elves instantly become charismatic. From a balance perspective, it makes sense, but it doesn't from a IC perspective.

[Kornaki]

Also, it is kind of weird that Reincarnation can change your mental ability scores. I don't see how an elven cleric suddenly becomes less wise when he/she reincarnates as a mountain dwarf, and how half-orcs who become half-elves instantly become charismatic. From a balance perspective, it makes sense, but it doesn't from a IC perspective.

Because dwarves don't have the same distributed three-brain system that elves do.

[Sartharina]

Also, it is kind of weird that Reincarnation can change your mental ability scores. I don't see how an elven cleric suddenly becomes less wise when he/she reincarnates as a mountain dwarf, and how half-orcs who become half-elves instantly become charismatic. From a balance perspective, it makes sense, but it doesn't from a IC perspective.
This:

Because dwarves don't have the same distributed three-brain system that elves do.

But seriously - changes in the neurochemical and physical structure changes in the brain between the races.

[XmonkTad]

Here are 2 fun ones with spells:
Wizard spell list includes "Trap the Soul" (PHB 211). No such spell exists.
Similarly, Paladin Spell list has "Destructive Smite" (PHB 209) as a 5th level spell. No such spell exists. In this case, there is a spell called "Destructive Wave" (PHB 231) that is a 5th level spell, and could be what they meant to say.

Credit goes to Ari (http://mouseferatu.com/index.php/news/august-8-2014-a-special-gift-for-my-fellow-dd-fans/).

[Totema]

Here are 2 fun ones with spells:
Wizard spell list includes "Trap the Soul" (PHB 211). No such spell exists.
Similarly, Paladin Spell list has "Destructive Smite" (PHB 209) as a 5th level spell. No such spell exists. In this case, there is a spell called "Destructive Wave" (PHB 231) that is a 5th level spell, and could be what they meant to say.

Credit goes to Ari (http://mouseferatu.com/index.php/news/august-8-2014-a-special-gift-for-my-fellow-dd-fans/).

Mearls has stated (http://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/09/16/destructive-smite-spell/) that Destructive Smite is supposed to be Destructive Wave. A typo rather than a real dysfunction.

[Zweisteine]

I would like to compile the dysfunctions you've all found so far, but I am a bit too busy to be going through the thread and formatting stuff.

If someone would be so kind as to bring all the dysfunctions and mistakes not already in the opening post into a single post (along with the citations, if possible), I should be able to edit them in.