Favorite Fiddly Rules?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

What's your "favorite" fiddly rule of 5e, one that you just wish they would change?

There are quite a few to choose from but I'm going to go with Attacks.

I would say that anything that causes a harmful or negative effect is an attack.

Types of attacks are...

(Ability Score) Weapon Attacks.
(Ability Score) Spell Attacks.

Advantage on your weapon attacks allow you to roll a second d20 and take the best result.
Disadvantage on your weapon attacks force you to roll a second d20 and take the worse result.

For spells it works the same way when you roll the d20.

For spells where you don't roll the d20, your advantage or disadvantage doesn't matter. The creature who is making the saving throw (rolling the d20) is all that matters.

Now for specific class features such as sneak attack or rage?

Sneak Attack: Whenever you make a Str or Dex weapon attack with a Rogue weapon you may apply sneak attack damage of you meet the following qualifications...

Rage: You gain a bonus to damage whenever you make a Str Weapon Attack using a Barbarian Weapon.

Class Weapon = any weapon that a class gains proficiency in at first level or through its subclass.

===

It may need some refining but... This allows for a bit more flexibility, less fiddlyness, but allows for the same situations (rogues using specific weapons, rage works with pure muscle and might).

Also, unarmed strikes and improvised weapons are weapons.

Unarmed strikes are light, finesse, d4 weapons.

Improvised weapons are weapons, but the type and damage is up to the DM.

[JackPhoenix]

I don't see how is that any better then the current mess...it sounds just as fiddly, if not more

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I don't see how is that any better then the current mess...it sounds just as fiddly, if not more

Because right now you have...

Melee weapon attack, strength weapon attack, finesse weapon attack, ranged weapon attack, melee strike (paladin), weapon attack, unarmed strike (which sometimes is and isn't a weapon), improvised weapon attack, thrown weapon attack, thrown improvised weapon attack, spell attack, melee spell attack, ranged spell attack, melee at range spell attack (thorn whip druid).

I'm sure I'm missing some... Oh, whirlwind attack which is multiple attack rolls but is considered one attack.

Then you have spell that are harming creatures, but aren't attacks. This game uses basic english...

And that's like saying that if I hit you with a flaming chair and you get set on fire its an attack... But if I use a flame thrower then I didn't attack you with a deadly weapon... So make everything that has a harmful effect be an attack.

Make things based off ability scores.

Base class features on using that class's weapons or spells, their proficiencies are there for a reason.

Advantage and Disadvantage works on whomever is rolling the d20 (so things actually stay the same on thisnissue).

[CantigThimble]

If I have both enlarge and bestow curse cast on me and someone uses dispel magic on me is it an attack?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

If I have both enlarge and bestow curse cast on me and someone uses dispel magic on me is it an attack?

Was it cast in order to harm you (remove enlarge)? Then yes.

Was it cast in order to heal you (remove curse)? Then no.

Just like in the real world, if I punch my friend in a playful way it isn't really an attack. Of I punch a random person in the same way, I'm liable to get my face knocked off and would be considered an attack.

One action can be both, depending on the outcome of said action. But generally this will be the rare case, the exception to the rule.

Most spells and abilities don't fall under this category in D&D. Not to many times will you sneak attack, fireball, or rage attack someone in a way that doesn't hurt them.

Note: the enlarge/curse thing, it depends on who used it in you and why. An ally isn't attacking you to help you but an enemy is attacking you to hurt you. Pretty simple.

[CantigThimble]

So, situation:

Fighter has Haste and Bestow Curse cast on him.

Rogue has a readied action to shoot the next person who attacks the fighter.

A wizard, whom neither of them recognizes, enters the room and casts Dispel Magic on the Fighter.

Does the rogue attack him?

Alternatively an enemy wizard successfully disguised as the party wizard does it for the purposes of dispelling the haste but incidentally dispels the Curse as well.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

So, situation:

Fighter has Haste and Bestow Curse cast on him.

Rogue has a readied action to shoot the next person who attacks the fighter.

A wizard, whom neither of them recognizes, enters the room and casts Dispel Magic on the Fighter.

Does the rogue attack him?

Alternatively an enemy wizard successfully disguised as the party wizard does it for the purposes of dispelling the haste but incidentally dispels the Curse as well.

As a GM I would say that yes, the Rogue attacks the wizard in the first scenario. Even if it was a child throwing a water balloon at the fighter, the Rogue is split second reacting. What does the Rogue see? Some random dude attacking his ally.

This goes beyond the metgame ideology, what the Rogue sees, in game, is that a random dude is attacking his friendly neighborhood fighter man.

Second scenario...

After the wizard makes a deception or performance check to pass as their ally and look to not be attacking (assuming successful)... The rogue doesn't see an attack, the Rogue sees an ally dispelling a curse.

The rogue's ready action would be "I'm attacking the next creature/things that attacks my friend" or something similar. If the Rogue doesn't see an attack, be it because they don't register it as an attack or because the creature is hidden or even perhaps the Rogue is charmed... Then their ready action never happens.

You don't happen to live in Pittsburgh do you? This scenario is oddly familiar to one that happened in a 5e game I ran. An enemy disguised as an ally attacked a cleric with a spell and all the Rogue saw was a scuffle among friends (until the real ally showed up).

There are a ton of variables to this, I've seen this issue come up in 3e, 4e, and 5e.

[CantigThimble]

Does the rogue's player's interpretation of whether it was an attack or not affect the rules here?

And I haven't encountered any scenario like this, I'm just trying to break the system. (as you should if your goal is to create a good ruleset)

[JackPhoenix]

Because right now you have...

Melee weapon attack, strength weapon attack, finesse weapon attack, ranged weapon attack, melee strike (paladin), weapon attack, unarmed strike (which sometimes is and isn't a weapon), improvised weapon attack, thrown weapon attack, thrown improvised weapon attack, spell attack, melee spell attack, ranged spell attack, melee at range spell attack (thorn whip druid).

You're mixing and inventing your own terms. There's melee weapon attack, ranged weapon attack, melee spell attack and ranged spell attack.

strength weapon attack is something you're proposing
finesse weapon attack isn't anything, finesse is a weapon property
melee strike isn't anything...Divine Smite says melee weapon attack
unarmed strike is melee weapon attack, and it's never a weapon
improvised weapon attack doesn't exist, it's melee weapon attack
thrown weapon attack doesn't exist, it's a ranged weapon attack
thrown improvised weapon attack doesn't exist, it's a ranged weapon attack
spell attack on it's own doesn't exist, it's either melee spell attack or ranged spell attack
melee at range spell attack...wtf? Thorn Whip is a melee weapon attack, read the spell's description


snip

And all this is somehow suposed to be less fiddly then the current rules?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Does the rogue's player's interpretation of whether it was an attack or not affect the rules here?

And I haven't encountered any scenario like this, I'm just trying to break the system. (as you should if your goal is to create a good ruleset)

Oh yeah, I get what you are trying to do, it was just weird cause that happened relatively recently.

The rules right now are essentially the same way when it comes to ready actions. If your character doesn't see their trigger or doesn't notice their trigger happening, then it doesn't trigger.

Looking at rules without applying the characters perspective is way too meta-gamey for me. I like role-playing and immersion. This is how my groups have played 2e (before my time, but the group was huge into 2a before converting), 3e, 4e, and 5e.

If you don't let the player's view come into play, a Rogue readying an action to shoot the next creature to attack the fighter could and up killing an innocent kid, an employer (i got hit in the back of my head in a 3a game by a gnome for making a wisecrack during battle...), or an ally.

So while dominated you could see a friend as an enemy because you know right now they are an enemy (either through domination or through some other reason) even if you don't want them to be.


snip

Please go read the PHB again and tally up all the different attack types.

Generally, there will be two weapon attack types. Specifics are too numerous and purely speclative to get into (you could have a Cha weapon attack for warlocks).

Strength and Dexterity weapon attacks.

Three spell attack types.

Int, Wis, and Cha spell attacks.

And that's it. No fiddly is this an attack or is that an attack. No fiddly crazy number of the different type of attacks, which seriously go read the PHB).

Why is harming a creature no attacking the creature? Why do some spells need to state "attack or cast a spell...etc". You could just say "attack" and be done with it.

Casting a spell to harm someone and casting a spell to not harm someone is just different. Just like punching a friend in the arm and trying to knock someone out is different.

Whenever you make class features, you key them off the above and off their proficiencies.

So now a sneak attack works with any rogue weapon that uses Str or Dex. You don't have to worry about it being a melee, thrown, ranged, finesse, improvised, a strike or whatever else. It stays balanced because you control what weapons a Rogue can use with sneak attack via proficiency. If you later become proficient with Polearms, you can't sneak attack with them because they aren't a Rogue weapon.

Paladins can smite with Strength or Dex paladin weapons, control with what weapons a Paladin gains (perhaps no ranged weapons such as crossbow or long bow) and then you don't have to worry about all the fiddly melee attacks or melee strikes.

Simplified and streamlined.


===
Edit

Instead of ally and enemy, you could use the terms hostile and non-hostile when talking about readied actions.

The next hostile creature that attpacks my fighter friend, yeah, I will shoot them in the face.

So if someone attacks the fighter, but itsnt really being hostile, such as a kid throwing a water balloon or and ally attacking them, your ready action doesn't go off. It gives you a bit wiggle room.

Of course, GMs have a lot of say with readied actions, so maybe you do shoot your gnomish employer who needs to learn not to hit people.

[krugaan]

yeah, I dunno man. I think your 5 types system makes less sense than the 4 types the PHB uses. There are more kinds of attacks than 4, but they're related to one of the 4 and make little to no difference mechanically.

Finesse is an attribute of melee weapons, not attack in and of itself.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

yeah, I dunno man. I think your 5 types system makes less sense than the 4 types the PHB uses. There are more kinds of attacks than 4, but they're related to one of the 4 and make little to no difference mechanically.

Finesse is an attribute of melee weapons, not attack in and of itself.

There aren't 4 types in the game. Because features call out specific types, there will never be just four types.

If features would call out out those four types then yeah sure, but you then have more fiddly.

And yeah weapon attributes are types of attacks because features call out specific type of attacks instead of general.

Finesse Weapon Attack =/= Weapon Attack, or else a Rogue could sneak attack with any weapon.

Barbarians can't flip/throw tables at an enemy to keep their rage going. Because thrown improvised weapons (str) aren't (str) melee attacks.

There are tons of types of attacks on 5e, simplifying them down to 5 and then have class features reference class weapon + ability score attack is much less fiddly.

Fine tuning what weapons to allow for each classes helps too, instead of giving broad categories.

[JackPhoenix]

Please go read the PHB again and tally up all the different attack types.
I did: Melee weapon attack, ranged weapon attack, melee spell attack, ranged spell attack.

Please go read the PHB and quote other types of attack.

Melee weapon attack with a finesse weapon is still a melee weapon attack
Throwing an improvised weapon is still a ranged weapon attack.

I think you're misunderstanding and mixing attack mechanic with other stuff (weapon properties, specific class abilities, etc.) that are NOT attack types. By your logic, greatsword melee attack is somehow different type of attack from a whip melee attack (or to be more general, two-handed melee weapon attack compared to one-handed reach weapon attack)

Generally, there will be two weapon attack types. Specifics are too numerous and purely speclative to get into (you could have a Cha weapon attack for warlocks).

Strength and Dexterity weapon attacks.

Three spell attack types.

Int, Wis, and Cha spell attacks.

And that's it. No fiddly is this an attack or is that an attack. No fiddly crazy number of the different type of attacks, which seriously go read the PHB).

Why is harming a creature no attacking the creature? Why do some spells need to state "attack or cast a spell...etc". You could just say "attack" and be done with it.

Casting a spell to harm someone and casting a spell to not harm someone is just different. Just like punching a friend in the arm and trying to knock someone out is different.

Whenever you make class features, you key them off the above and off their proficiencies.

So now a sneak attack works with any rogue weapon that uses Str or Dex. You don't have to worry about it being a melee, thrown, ranged, finesse, improvised, a strike or whatever else. It stays balanced because you control what weapons a Rogue can use with sneak attack via proficiency. If you later become proficient with Polearms, you can't sneak attack with them because they aren't a Rogue weapon.

Paladins can smite with Strength or Dex paladin weapons, control with what weapons a Paladin gains (perhaps no ranged weapons such as crossbow or long bow) and then you don't have to worry about all the fiddly melee attacks or melee strikes.

Simplified and streamlined.

I see. You're trying to fix a percieved problem, but you're doing by making the thing that's not a source of that problem more complex (why is there a need to differentiate between int, wis and cha based spell attacks?) while missing the problem itself.

The problem isn't in the 4 types attacks, the problem is in the other abilities.

Instead of having Sneak Attack as a melee or ranged weapon attack with a weapon with finesse or ranged property, you want it to be a Str or Dex weapon attack with a weapon with "rogue" property. It works the same, only you have changed two game mechanics to end up with a slight modification to one of them (some weapons can't be used with Sneak Attack anymore, some that couldn't be used before can)...and change to more "basic" mechanic of attacks now needs change to class specific mechanics dependant on it.

You want to allow barbarian to use Rage with any weapon by changing both core attack mechanic and the class-specific Rage mechanic to include ranged and finesse weapons (by replacing "melee weapon attack using strength" by "Str or Dex weapon attack using barbarian weapon"). But because you've changed how the core attack mechanic works, for that one thing that could've been houseruled as "Rage damage bonus applies to all weapon attacks", you now must rework the class-specific mechanics of monk, rogue, paladin, and fighter too (possibly even more).

You're changing the one of the core mechanics in game for the sake of changing it, with the same net result.

(it's 3 AM here and I'm tired, so I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself or making my meaning unclear)


There aren't 4 types in the game. Because features call out specific types, there will never be just four types.

If features would call out out those four types then yeah sure, but you then have more fiddly.

And yeah weapon attributes are types of attacks because features call out specific type of attacks instead of general.
Not really, weapon properties are weapon properties, and types of attack are types of attack. You're mixing apples and oranges (or however that metaphor is in english) and misunderstanding the rules


Finesse Weapon Attack =/= Weapon Attack, or else a Rogue could sneak attack with any weapon.

Finesse weapon attack is nowhere in the game...there's a melee weapon atack, and weapon with finesse property. By the same logic, in your system, you'll have category "rogue dex or str weapon attack" somehow different from "barbarian dex or str weapon attack", "paladin dex or str melee weapon attack", "paladin dex or str ranged weapon attack" (if you decide to allow Divine Smite only with melee weapons


Barbarians can't flip/throw tables at an enemy to keep their rage going. Because thrown improvised weapons (str) aren't (str) melee attacks.
Is throwing table at an enemy attacking a hostile creature? Hm, it is ranged weapon attack with an improvised weapon...what a surprise, it works just fine!


here are tons of types of attacks on 5e, simplifying them down to 5 and then have class features reference class weapon + ability score attack is much less fiddly.

Fine tuning what weapons to allow for each classes helps too, instead of giving broad categories.

There are 4 types of attack, you're just misunderstanding the rules

[REVISIONIST]

I thought general beats specific? But I kinda get where you're going with the fiddly bits. I think. Have more effects be tied to the weapons action than the player action.

edit. spelling and ninja'd by JackPhoenix post better summed.

[MeeposFire]

Personally I like to keep the current rules but I consider improvised weapons and unarmed attacks as weapons when used as one so we do not have to worry about the weapon/weapon attack issues we currently have.

The only change I would make is that if there is any ability that I do not want to work specifically with improvised weapons or unarmed strikes then I specify that it works only with a manufactured weapon (with manufactured weapon being defined as an object built specifically to be used as a weapon so a chair would not count even if used as a weapon because it was not created to be a weapon and an unarmed attack does not count because it was not built nor really an object).


As for my favorite rule that needs a change is the bonus action casting a spell rule. Right now order is important and prevents the use of reaction spells on your turn. For instance if I cast shillelagh I cannot cast shield if I get attacked by an opportunity attack and I then cannot cast a leveled spell, but if I cast spiritual weapon I get to cast a cantrip. Notice in the first case I cannot cast a leveled spell but in the second I cannot. Lastly if you are really being unfair you can make an argument that if you cast the action spell first then you can cast any bonus action spell due to the wording (though nobody should play that way).

My fix for this is to change the rule to what I think they were trying to do. The new rule is this- On any turn in which you will cast a bonus action spell and another spell in the same turn at least one of the spells must be a cantrip. This fixes all of my given problems while being much more intuitive IMO and does not really make casters much stronger (it technically does but only in a very niche situation).

[Theodoxus]

My favorite fiddly rule is putting ASIs onto class levels, rather than character level. I'm not even sure, other than to differentiate editions, why it was done. It'd be easy enough to simply grant Fighters an ASI at 6th and 14th and Rogues an ASI at 10th - but leave everything else based on character level. It works that way for Proficiency, so it's not like everything is 100% class based. It's an artificial construct to limit (and in essence punish) multiclassing for no reason other than to limit (and punish) multiclassing.


Please go read the PHB and quote other types of attack.

"Attack" - pg 5 "Players roll dice to resolve whether their attacks hit or miss..."
"Attack rolls" - pg 7 "Ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws are the three main kinds of d20 rolls..."
"Attack rolls" - pg 12 "Attack rolls using weapons..."; "Attack rolls with spells..."
"Attack with a weapon" - pg 14 "...calculate the modifier you use when you attack with the weapon..."
"Attack with melee weapons" - pg 14 "For attacks with melee weapons, use your Strength modifier..."
"Attack with ranged weapons" - pg 14 "For attacks with ranged weapons, use your Dexterity modifier..."
"Melee weapon attack" - pg 41 "When you score a critical hit with a melee weapon attack..."
"Melee attack" - pg 49 "...when determining the extra damage for a critical hit with a melee attack."
"Opportunity attack" - pg 50 "...have disadvantage on opportunity attack rolls against you..."
"Spell attack" - pg 53 "Spell attack modifier = your proficiency bonus..."
"Weapon attack" - pg 55 "...you can make one weapon attack as a bonus action."
"Ranged weapon attack" - pg 78 "...when you are hit by a ranged weapon attack."
"Ranged attack" - pg 79 "...spend 1 ki point to make a ranged attack..."

Those the are unique Attack types, per a quick scan of the PDF. The only thing of note I found, was Divine Strike works with weapon attacks - I always assumed it was a melee attack for some reason. This makes a MC Cleric/Ranger quite scary...

[CantigThimble]

The other reason ASIs are tied to class level is so there is always something to motivate you to take the next level in a class, there's never a level that does literally nothing that you're just taking to get to the next one.

[JackPhoenix]

All right...we've got main d20 rolls...those fall under 3 cathegories:
Ability Checks
Saving Throws
Attacks
Now, we aren't talking about first 2 categories, so we'll get to Attacks. Now, Attacks can be sorted according to two criterias: either
Melee attacks
Ranged rangedor
Weapon attacks
Spell attacks
In any case, these criteria can be combined to give us 4 categories of attacks:
Melee weapon attacks
Ranged weapon attacks
Melee spell attacks
Ranged spell attacks
Now, while these categories aren't specifically listed in PHB, they are referred to all through it. But to actually see this, you must open MM. Every creature's attack in the book fits into one of these 4 categories. There are no further subcategories: attack with a greatsword is a melee weapon attack, as is wolf's bite or monk's unarmed strike, despite the fact they are not using actual, manufactured weapons. And you can make ranged weapon attack with a handaxe (melee weapon) by throwing it. While that terminology is kinda stupid (melee weapon attacks without a weapon? ranged weapon attacks with melee weapon? And that's not getting into spells), it's pretty clear. It would be better if they would use something like "martial attacks", but WotC weren't ever considered masters of naming things

[Theodoxus]

That's all well and good - except each of those over-categories: melee attack, ranged attack, weapon attack, spell attack - are also viable without further clarification. So, while you see 4, there are really 8 attack categories.

Where they interact, gets kinda goofy, as you mentioned. So, yeah, Spawns is correct - and we probably only need 2 actual categories. Melee and ranged - though it would add a lot of verbiage, as you'd need to specify what attribute modifier you were using in each specific case. Though it should be rather intuitive... if you're making a ranged attack with a weapon, you'd use Dex. If you're making a ranged attack with a spell, you'd use your classes casting stat. If you're making a melee attack with a weapon, you'd use Str (unless the weapon is finesse, then you could choose Dex, if you wanted to)...

You can't make a ranged unarmed attack... and any non-thrown specified weapon would be an improvised ranged attack.

I can't really see, other than that tiny specificity, why we'd need more granularity. But I'm happy to be shown why I'm wrong.

[Kane0]

I'm not seeing the fiddliness sorry. If anything, its the traits and abilities that add into the four kinds of attacks that makes thing all messy. All it'd take is a little rewording and maybe some homebrew changes.