Common rule misunderstandings

[holywhippet]

What are some misunderstandings about rules that people have seen? A couple of come up in the last few sessions of the campaign I'm playing in. Another player, who also DMs his own campaign, said that his players were gearing up to fight something that inflicts poison (some kind of dragon IIRC) and bought up antivenom in preparation. But that doesn't neutralize poison, it only gives you advantage on saving throws against it.

Another one came up last session. We were facing undead and one of our clerics mentioned he'd prepared the daylight spell to use against them. I'd read the description of the spell recently since another player had gained an item that enacted that spell. After verifying my recollection I told him that the spell had no effect on undead at all - it is basically just a high powered light spell.

We also tried to find where a local fence lived by questioning one of the body guards of his we had killed. So we used the speak with dead spell - except it is apparently useless when you try it on anyone who wasn't a friend before they died (and if they were a friend surely you'd try to get them raised).

[DarkKnightJin]

We also tried to find where a local fence lived by questioning one of the body guards of his we had killed. So we used the speak with dead spell - except it is apparently useless when you try it on anyone who wasn't a friend before they died (and if they were a friend surely you'd try to get them raised).

I thought the body would be under no compulsion to tell you the truth, but it should work just fine on someone that wasn't a friend of your caster..

Then again, I've been watching a lot Critical Role, which is about my experience with how Speak With Dead works..

[Malifice]

We also tried to find where a local fence lived by questioning one of the body guards of his we had killed. So we used the speak with dead spell - except it is apparently useless when you try it on anyone who wasn't a friend before they died (and if they were a friend surely you'd try to get them raised).

Useless if they were hostile towards you, or recognizes you as an enemy. Which the bodyguard would (seeing as you were the ones that killed him).

Common rules misunderstandings is the rules for surprise. Im sick to death of seeing DMs screw it up. Its my pet bugbear, right next to Hiding/ invisiblity (and the two are often intertwined).

Roll initiative. Then creatures take turns in initiative order. Surprised creatures (who failed to notice a single creature when the DM called for initiative) cant move or act on turn 1 and cant take reactions till that turn ends.

If another DM tries to make an attack 'before initiative because you're surprised' or whatever, I'll scream.

[Chugger]

There's a ton of data to manage in 5e. You have to remember all the classes of creatures that have immunity (or resistance) to x.

I see players add Dex damage to a dual-wielded weapon all the time w/out the fighting style - or using non light weapons w/out the feat (or vice versa - going from memory here).

People get the one 1st lvl spell or higher per turn rule wrong all the time. If you bonus action healing word, say, you can cantrip on your action or do a melee attack - or I think use an item (I think). And you can cast a reaction spell as a reaction to something else that round (it's not on your turn).

People get illusions wrong all the time - or apply widely varying rules. Illusions are so messed up I don't even know what RAW is. Illusions like minor illusion or silent image almost never work, mostly because DMs don't want them to work and can't properly meta-play a monster suddenly seeing something bizarre enter its field of vision - somehow these monsters all right then and there "know" it's an illusion, even it's a dumb goblin. Makes me sick. Sick of arguing over it. Gave up on illusions. Every cast was a court battle - just awful - wasn't asking for miracles or easy street - was just asking the DM to put himself in the bugbear's shoes and make it react like it really would if it saw x. Nope! Not gonna do it. Nope. So screw illusions. Haven't yet run into one DM who will be even remotely objective on this topic.

[Saiga]

If another DM tries to make an attack 'before initiative because you're surprised' or whatever, I'll scream.

This is one of my pet peeves as well. We did a round robin DMing, and when it was my turn I pointed out the issues with this method of handling surprise - because it went both ways, the players end up being "shoot first, ask questions later" in ALL situations because the advantage of surprise is just too much. Our party would either be starting fights immediately, or being ambushed in a very contrived and unsatisfying way. It quickly turned into a murderhobo campaign, which no-one actually wanted to play.

Thankfully, the group eventually seemed to understand us, and in our new campaign the DM ended up explaining this to a new player who thought they'd get to go first if they declared an attack before initiative had been rolled. They're sticking to it, which I'm happy for, because the only thing that bothers me more than the NPCs making attacks out of initiative is the pressure for players to do it.



People get illusions wrong all the time - or apply widely varying rules. Illusions are so messed up I don't even know what RAW is. Illusions like minor illusion or silent image almost never work, mostly because DMs don't want them to work and can't properly meta-play a monster suddenly seeing something bizarre enter its field of vision - somehow these monsters all right then and there "know" it's an illusion, even it's a dumb goblin. Makes me sick. Sick of arguing over it. Gave up on illusions. Every cast was a court battle - just awful - wasn't asking for miracles or easy street - was just asking the DM to put himself in the bugbear's shoes and make it react like it really would if it saw x. Nope! Not gonna do it. Nope. So screw illusions. Haven't yet run into one DM who will be even remotely objective on this topic.

That's definitely not a rule misunderstanding, since the RAW does not detail what happens in those cases.

[Contrast]

I see players add Dex damage to a dual-wielded weapon all the time w/out the fighting style - or using non light weapons w/out the feat (or vice versa - going from memory here).

I had to remind a number of players in my group the other day about that multiple times. I'm not the DM so I think I'll just give up in future :smalltongue:


People get the one 1st lvl spell or higher per turn rule wrong all the time. If you bonus action healing word, say, you can cantrip on your action or do a melee attack - or I think use an item (I think). And you can cast a reaction spell as a reaction to something else that round (it's not on your turn).

You can use your action to do anything (attack, use an item, help, dodge, dash, disengage, etc) except cast a spell of 1st level or higher (note, this also disallows readying to cast a spell as technically you cast the spell that turn and then concentrate on holding the spell until it is released with your reaction).

My personal bugbear is people not knowing what their spells do. We were using torches and the cleric said 'I use Sacred Flame to light up the passage' or a couple of times our bard has used Prestidigitation like Minor Illusion. You can't just skim the description or guess from the name what the spell does.

[Chugger]

That's definitely not a rule misunderstanding, since the RAW does not detail what happens in those cases.

It's a lack of understanding and in many cases, yes, it is a rule misunderstanding - too complex for me to detail each instance - and yes overall the problem is that the rules aren't clear enough - and yes I went a bit outside the topic but so what? It's a related problem. And it needs fixing - at the top. Like other rules we're talking about needed clarification - and you only get RAI from JC or Mearl or someone.

[Chugger]

I had to remind a number of players in my group the other day about that multiple times. I'm not the DM so I think I'll just give up in future :smalltongue:



You can use your action to do anything (attack, use an item, help, dodge, dash, disengage, etc) except cast a spell of 1st level or higher (note, this also disallows readying to cast a spell as technically you cast the spell that turn and then concentrate on holding the spell until it is released with your reaction).

My personal bugbear is people not knowing what their spells do. We were using torches and the cleric said 'I use Sacred Flame to light up the passage' or a couple of times our bard has used Prestidigitation like Minor Illusion. You can't just skim the description or guess from the name what the spell does.

Right. And Sac Flame is radiant iirc - seen players trying to get fire vuln increase damage off it.

[bulbaquil]

Most rule misunderstandings I see in 5e are carryovers from 3.5/Pathfinder, from players used to that system.

Trying to make attacks of opportunity in situations where Pathfinder allows them but 5e doesn't, for instance.

Same-name spells - especially when the spell is either a must-have spell or a common utility spell in Pathfinder, like speak with dead - are a minefield of rules mistakes.

[Unoriginal]

People get illusions wrong all the time - or apply widely varying rules. Illusions are so messed up I don't even know what RAW is. Illusions like minor illusion or silent image almost never work, mostly because DMs don't want them to work and can't properly meta-play a monster suddenly seeing something bizarre enter its field of vision - somehow these monsters all right then and there "know" it's an illusion, even it's a dumb goblin. Makes me sick. Sick of arguing over it. Gave up on illusions. Every cast was a court battle - just awful - wasn't asking for miracles or easy street - was just asking the DM to put himself in the bugbear's shoes and make it react like it really would if it saw x. Nope! Not gonna do it. Nope. So screw illusions. Haven't yet run into one DM who will be even remotely objective on this topic.





That's definitely not a rule misunderstanding, since the RAW does not detail what happens in those cases.


It's a lack of understanding and in many cases, yes, it is a rule misunderstanding - too complex for me to detail each instance - and yes overall the problem is that the rules aren't clear enough - and yes I went a bit outside the topic but so what? It's a related problem. And it needs fixing - at the top. Like other rules we're talking about needed clarification - and you only get RAI from JC or Mearl or someone.


Actually, the RAW is pretty clear:


Minor Illusion

If a creature uses its action to examine the sound or image, the creature can determine that it is an illusion with a successful Intelligence (Investigation) check against your spell DC. If the creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the illusion becomes faint to the creature.


Silent Image:

Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it. A creature that uses its action to examine the image can determine that it is an illusion with a successful Intelligence (Investigation) check against your spell save DC. If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the creature can see through the image.


So this is 100% the DMs messing up.

[DanyBallon]

I think one of the most common rule misunderstanding, is skill ability checks. And the misunderstanding is most common with players having played 3.P for a long time.

There is no such thing a skill checks for a given task in 5e. Instead the player should describe what their character is trying to do (the more details you provide, the easier it is for the DM) then the DM decides if an ability check is needed or not, and if one is needed, set a DC on how difficult the task your character is trying to do is, then pick an ability and ask you to roll against the DC. The DM may allow or/and suggest you to pick a skill in which you are proficient that would be appropriate for the task. And as a player, you have the right to ask the DM (the DM may say no, but your still in your rights to ask) if another ability-skill combo would do best based on your character.

This is completely different from 3.P where opening every locked door or climbing anything needed a skill check.

To some it may feel the same, just worded differently, but the intent is different. In 5e the ability check (and the DC related) is based on what the characters are trying to do, while in 3.P the skill check is based on the object your character is interacting with.

[Specter]

- After a long rest, you recover half of your spent Hit Dice, not all of them.

I've forgotten about this one so much, even after reading it, that I think it's the most notable one.

[Theodoxus]

Most rule misunderstandings I see in 5e are carryovers from 3.5/Pathfinder, from players used to that system.

Trying to make attacks of opportunity in situations where Pathfinder allows them but 5e doesn't, for instance.

Same-name spells - especially when the spell is either a must-have spell or a common utility spell in Pathfinder, like speak with dead - are a minefield of rules mistakes.

This. So much this. When my group first switched to 5E, and I was point man on the conversion - a running mantra was "this is not Pathfinder" and "forget what you knew, learn the new rules, pretend they have nothing in common with 3.P".

I've been playing with new to me players who mostly have a 3.P background and I've been finding the need to resurrect that mantra... even after all this time, people are still trying to do a 5' move out of melee range; maneuvering into flanking for advantage (we don't use that DMG variant); not groking the movement cost for standing from prone... that was just last night (so fresh in my mind).

I've been running a 'new to D&D' game for the last few months, and it's refreshing to not have to deal with people trying to unlearn old rules. Though one guy is a Critical Roll fanatic, so I have to sometimes correct the Mercerisms that pop up from time to time that aren't 5E RAW compliant... (I haven't watched a ton of CR, but I'm assuming the rogue tries to literally backstab folk? Cuz the guy has a rogue hireling and he's always trying to move around behind folk in order to sneak - despite me telling him multiple times what the requirements for sneaking are...)

[Sir cryosin]

I see people getting grapple wrong. When you grapple someone only thing that happens is there movement speed is now zero. They can still attack you. You don't get advantage on attacks.

Now the only place we can find were you can restrained someone is through the grappler feat.

[Naanomi]

How invisibility works has come up a few times at our table... trying to use it as a free successful stealth roll and all that.

Speak to the Dead isn't all that bad... lots of minions have no reason to protective of their masters once dead (goblins love screwing over the boss, mercenaries have no reason to lie once they arn't getting paid)... I also allow Insight checks to tell when the corpse is lying

[DarkKnightJin]

This is completely different from 3.P where opening every locked door or climbing anything needed a skill check.

To some it may feel the same, just worded differently, but the intent is different. In 5e the ability check (and the DC related) is based on what the characters are trying to do, while in 3.P the skill check is based on the object your character is interacting with.

Case in point: Rogues and Expertise.
After 10th or 11th level, when they gain Reliable Talent.. I'm pretty sure any lock with a DC of 20 or lower might as well not be locked when they approach.

The "Is the door lo-Wait, I'm a Rogue. I check for traps. If there are none, I open the door." thing.

[DanyBallon]

Case in point: Rogues and Expertise.
After 10th or 11th level, when they gain Reliable Talent.. I'm pretty sure any lock with a DC of 20 or lower might as well not be locked when they approach.

The "Is the door lo-Wait, I'm a Rogue. I check for traps. If there are none, I open the door." thing.

Reliable talent and Expertise don't change anything to the design intent. It's just that a rogue will have a higher success rate when a task/action they want to do/perform is deemed challenging enough by the DM to requires an ability check.
If the DM decided that the door that lock away the treasure should be a challenge for everyone trying to open it, then he set the DC based on the challenge. If the character is good enough to auto-succeed because of his features, then it work as intended, the features were meaningful.

[Gwalchavad]

I've been running a 'new to D&D' game for the last few months, and it's refreshing to not have to deal with people trying to unlearn old rules. Though one guy is a Critical Roll fanatic, so I have to sometimes correct the Mercerisms that pop up from time to time that aren't 5E RAW compliant... (I haven't watched a ton of CR, but I'm assuming the rogue tries to literally backstab folk? Cuz the guy has a rogue hireling and he's always trying to move around behind folk in order to sneak - despite me telling him multiple times what the requirements for sneaking are...)
Odd. That's not a Mercerism - the CR rogue is pretty good about (at least after the first few episodes where they were still getting used to the 5e rules) checking for and forcing the conditions for Sneak Attack RAW. They do play a little fast and loose with the hiding rules, sometimes, but that's about it.

If it wasn't a "new to D&D" game, I'd suspect you have a grognard from the OD&D/AD&D days when instead of Sneak Attack it was Backstab. I do not miss the days of having to roll three different percentile checks and take up three turns just to get 4x damage on a dagger.

[Tanarii]

Common rules misunderstandings is the rules for surprise. Im sick to death of seeing DMs screw it up. Its my pet bugbear, right next to Hiding/ invisiblity (and the two are often intertwined).

Roll initiative. Then creatures take turns in initiative order. Surprised creatures (who failed to notice a single creature when the DM called for initiative) cant move or act on turn 1 and cant take reactions till that turn ends.

If another DM tries to make an attack 'before initiative because you're surprised' or whatever, I'll scream.
Yeah things that bother me, all related to surprise:
Perception rolls to spot something before a surprise check, doubling the number of 'surprise checks' required to get surprise. If something is attempting ambushing it should automatically go to surprise checks. (And IMO to surprise distance for the encounter, regardless of success or failure.)

Even worse, one successful perception letting the entire party know the enemy is there, before official surprise checks happen.

Ready actions, or surprise first attacks, or 'they initiated combat so logically they should attack first' first attacks, before combat actually begins.

Don't tell me I'm surprised by 3 of the 6 Kobolds ambushing me. To be surprised, a creature must fail to detect ALL creatures on the other side.

[DarkKnightJin]

Yeah things that bother me, all related to surprise:
Perception rolls to spot something before a surprise check, doubling the number of 'surprise checks' required to get surprise. If something is attempting ambushing it should automatically go to surprise checks. (And IMO to surprise distance for the encounter, regardless of success or failure.)

Even worse, one successful perception letting the entire party know the enemy is there, before official surprise checks happen.

Ready actions, or surprise first attacks, or 'they initiated combat so logically they should attack first' first attacks, before combat actually begins.

Don't tell me I'm surprised by 3 of the 6 Kobolds ambushing me. To be surprised, a creature must fail to detect ALL creatures on the other side.

I thought it was that the PCs that make their Perception checks can act normally during the 'surpise' round. Or Barbarian of they announce a Rage to gain the benefits of their Feral Instinct (?)

[Tanarii]

I thought it was that the PCs that make their Perception checks can act normally during the 'surpise' round. Or Barbarian of they announce a Rage to gain the benefits of their Feral Instinct (?)
If their passive perception equals or beats just one creature's stealth check from the ambushing creatures, a PC is not surprised.

(The converse of that is their passive perception must fail to equal or beat ALL ambushing creature's stealth checks for a PC to be surprised.)

Edit: there is no surprise round. There is only the first round of combat. That's another one rules misinterpretation / holdover that bugs.

[Malifice]

Yeah things that bother me, all related to surprise:
Perception rolls to spot something before a surprise check, doubling the number of 'surprise checks' required to get surprise. If something is attempting ambushing it should automatically go to surprise checks. (And IMO to surprise distance for the encounter, regardless of success or failure.)

What is a surprise check?


Even worse, one successful perception letting the entire party know the enemy is there, before official surprise checks happen.

A successful perception check from a player character only means that player character is not surprised when the combat starts.


Ready actions, or surprise first attacks, or 'they initiated combat so logically they should attack first' first attacks, before combat actually begins.

Readied actions outside of turn order in the initiative and combat sequence are my personal bugbear.

I had a fighter over the other day try doing that. He wanted to ready a bow shot for when he saw the first monster.

I responded by telling him that every single monster in the game universe takes the ready action to attack him before he shoots them.

I then suggested we just resolve attaks in initiative order as the rules tell me to. He preferred that option.


Don't tell me I'm surprised by 3 of the 6 Kobolds ambushing me. To be surprised, a creature must fail to detect ALL creatures on the other side.

Yep; the three you failed to notice just begin turn one hidden.

[Tanarii]

What is a surprise check?Common shorthand for the specific check made to determine surprise when creatures are attempting to ambush you. Which is a Stealth (Dexterity) vs Passive Perception opposed check. /rhetorical

I agree that's part of the problem. :smallwink: And why some DMs require a check to approach Stealthily first, then a 'surprise check' when actual surprise is being determined. :smallmad:

[Malifice]

Common shorthand for the specific check made to determine surprise when creatures are attempting to ambush you. Which is a Stealth (Dexterity) vs Passive Perception opposed check. /rhetorical

I agree that's part of the problem. :smallwink: And why some DMs require a check to approach Stealthily first, then a 'surprise check' when actual surprise is being determined. :smallmad:

Cool. I get it now.

[Pex]

A Natural 1 is not an autofail for a saving throw. It usually is a fail, but a scenario can happen where it's not such as for Concentration. A Concentration check is a Constitution saving throw.

A Natural 20 is not an autosuccess for a saving throw. It usually is a success, but a scenario can happen where it's not. Experienced this once casting Banishment on a construct type creature. DM rolled a Natural 20, but the creature had a minus on its Charisma large enough to fail the save for my character's DC.

Rolling low on an opposed check or even against a flat DC is not an autofail. The opponent can roll low as well or the DC is low. DC 10 is a thing. Last game I rolled an athletics check to grapple. I had +4 to the roll, rolled 5 for a total of 9. Opponent has +7 acrobatics. A 1 on his roll would have me succeed. He rolled a 1.

Dragonborn do not have darkvision.

Half-elves do not trance.

[Demonslayer666]

Previous edition rules are a big one. Going to 0 HP knocks you out, you are not still conscious (staggered). There's no 5' step. Readying uses your reaction.

Not a misunderstanding, but everyone forgets concentration checks when they take damage, including me as the DM - even with a big note taped to my DM screen. :P

[Saiga]

Odd. That's not a Mercerism - the CR rogue is pretty good about (at least after the first few episodes where they were still getting used to the 5e rules) checking for and forcing the conditions for Sneak Attack RAW. They do play a little fast and loose with the hiding rules, sometimes, but that's about it.

If it wasn't a "new to D&D" game, I'd suspect you have a grognard from the OD&D/AD&D days when instead of Sneak Attack it was Backstab. I do not miss the days of having to roll three different percentile checks and take up three turns just to get 4x damage on a dagger.

They do occassionally use flanking rules in CR, so that might be what the Rogue has been picking up from there - expecting to flank the enemy to get advantage and trigger sneak attack.

[DarkKnightJin]

They do occassionally use flanking rules in CR, so that might be what the Rogue has been picking up from there - expecting to flank the enemy to get advantage and trigger sneak attack.

Not that the (optional) Flanking rules are needed for SA. If you would qualify for Flanking advantage, you already satisfied the requirement for Sneak Attack.
Sure, the Advantage might mean you get a crit somewhat more easily, but that's it.

[Blacky the Blackball]

If their passive perception equals or beats just one creature's stealth check from the ambushing creatures, a PC is not surprised.

(The converse of that is their passive perception must fail to equal or beat ALL ambushing creature's stealth checks for a PC to be surprised.)

I use the "Group Checks" rule for that - if at least half the ambushing creatures make their stealth checks then the group is considered to have successfully surprised the PC. If fewer than half make their stealth checks then the PC is not surprised.

[guachi]

Thinking once per turn means once per round.

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

There's a ton of data to manage in 5e. You have to remember all the classes of creatures that have immunity (or resistance) to x.

I see players add Dex damage to a dual-wielded weapon all the time w/out the fighting style - or using non light weapons w/out the feat (or vice versa - going from memory here).

People get the one 1st lvl spell or higher per turn rule wrong all the time. If you bonus action healing word, say, you can cantrip on your action or do a melee attack - or I think use an item (I think). And you can cast a reaction spell as a reaction to something else that round (it's not on your turn).

People get illusions wrong all the time - or apply widely varying rules. Illusions are so messed up I don't even know what RAW is. Illusions like minor illusion or silent image almost never work, mostly because DMs don't want them to work and can't properly meta-play a monster suddenly seeing something bizarre enter its field of vision - somehow these monsters all right then and there "know" it's an illusion, even it's a dumb goblin. Makes me sick. Sick of arguing over it. Gave up on illusions. Every cast was a court battle - just awful - wasn't asking for miracles or easy street - was just asking the DM to put himself in the bugbear's shoes and make it react like it really would if it saw x. Nope! Not gonna do it. Nope. So screw illusions. Haven't yet run into one DM who will be even remotely objective on this topic.

This. My long time DM...literally a score of years, can't do illusions. And has trouble with the hide rules.

Thinks once something is seen it can't ever become hidden again. Not being a prick, honestly thinks that.

[Tanarii]

I use the "Group Checks" rule for that - if at least half the ambushing creatures make their stealth checks then the group is considered to have successfully surprised the PC. If fewer than half make their stealth checks then the PC is not surprised.Interesting. That makes surprise a lot more common and ambushing a lot easier. Do you find this is better for the PCs, better for the enemies, or a wash? What's the primary purpose behind ruling it this way?

[Demonslayer666]

This. My long time DM...literally a score of years, can't do illusions. And has trouble with the hide rules.

Thinks once something is seen it can't ever become hidden again. Not being a prick, honestly thinks that.

Not to be mean, but that's not unrealistic in many situations. When you watch a rogue walk behind a pillar 10' away from you, you know exactly where they are even though they broke line of sight.

One would have to be very distracted in order for that to work, so distracted that they didn't notice where the rogue moved to, but only noticed that they are now gone.

I'm not saying it's impossible, it is with enough cover, concealment, or distraction.

[Eric Diaz]

A Natural 1 is not an autofail for a saving throw. It usually is a fail, but a scenario can happen where it's not such as for Concentration. A Concentration check is a Constitution saving throw.

A Natural 20 is not an autosuccess for a saving throw. It usually is a success, but a scenario can happen where it's not. Experienced this once casting Banishment on a construct type creature. DM rolled a Natural 20, but the creature had a minus on its Charisma large enough to fail the save for my character's DC.

Also, no "fumbles" on a natural 1 (thankfully) and no auto-hit or auto-fail on ability checks.


I see people getting grapple wrong. When you grapple someone only thing that happens is there movement speed is now zero. They can still attack you. You don't get advantage on attacks.

Now the only place we can find were you can restrained someone is through the grappler feat.

Also, most people miss that you should make them prone - and then they cannot move because speed is 0, and then you DO get advantage.

[lunaticfringe]

Many, many, things that can all be paraphrased: Read the Goddamn Spell description!

The biggest piece of that has to be components. Hey genius you can't cast Absorb Elements while holding a Sword & Shield w/out War Caster RAW (I actually think this is dumb and we house ruled it be V but it's a popular spell so good for the EX.)

[Blacky the Blackball]

Interesting. That makes surprise a lot more common and ambushing a lot easier. Do you find this is better for the PCs, better for the enemies, or a wash? What's the primary purpose behind ruling it this way?

It seems to even itself out pretty much - although since I've always done it that way I've no basis for comparison. On reflection, I suppose the PCs are surprised more often than they surprise enemies - but that's more a function of the fact that they're the targets of ambushes much more frequently than they're the ambushers.

My reason for doing it is simply that it's a situation where a group are doing something together; and the "Group Checks" rule was designed to cover situations where a group are doing something together; so it seemed "obvious" that it was the RAI way to do it. It's not something where I've compared results with those gained using other methods.

[LordVonDerp]

This is completely different from 3.P where opening every locked door or climbing anything needed a skill check.


Technically one shouldn't be doing that in any edition.

[Malifice]

Technically one shouldn't be doing that in any edition.

Especially not third edition with its rules for taking 10 and taking 20.

[mer.c]

Not a misunderstanding, but everyone forgets concentration checks when they take damage, including me as the DM - even with a big note taped to my DM screen. :P

As someone who started DMing 2 years ago, I'm blessed with a completely new player who always remembers concentration rolls for her PCs and for monsters (along with reminding our Sorcerer to roll her Wild Magic surges).

At the same time, somehow, she seems to forget every session that concentrating on a spell doesn't mean you're shut off from casting spells. :P

[DanyBallon]

Especially not third edition with its rules for taking 10 and taking 20.

Taking 10 and taking 20 is still a skill check. You just don't need to roll, but you still need to make a skill check for everything...

[LordVonDerp]

Taking 10 and taking 20 is still a skill check. You just don't need to roll, but you still need to make a skill check for everything...
Again, that only applies if the GM decides to make you roll skill checks for everything.

[DanyBallon]

Again, that only applies if the GM decides to make you roll skill checks for everything.

Which was the norm in 3.P and isn't in 5e...

[Malifice]

Taking 10 and taking 20 is still a skill check. You just don't need to roll, but you still need to make a skill check for everything...

You're not making a check really though are you.

The DC to climb a rope is 5.

Every single PC does it (no check required) by taking 10. So the DM doesnt ask for a check (knowing that all PCs succeed automatically).

[Pex]

You're not making a check really though are you.

The DC to climb a rope is 5.

Every single PC does it (no check required) by taking 10. So the DM doesnt ask for a check (knowing that all PCs succeed automatically).

Some people are bothered the rules justify the no need to roll. They want the DM to say they don't need to roll, but depending on who is DM that day . . . you know the drill. :smallbiggrin:

[Malifice]

Some people are bothered the rules justify the no need to roll. They want the DM to say they don't need to roll, but depending on who is DM that day . . . you know the drill. :smallbiggrin:

Its just a convoluted way of saying 'no check required, you pass'.

Same deal when a PC wants to climb a tree. 'You climb it; dont roll'.

Now if he wants to climb that tree in a hurry, while being chased by Wolves, and badly injured...

[Saeviomage]

Not to be mean, but that's not unrealistic in many situations. When you watch a rogue walk behind a pillar 10' away from you, you know exactly where they are even though they broke line of sight.

The entire point of the stealth check is that they did it while you weren't looking.

https://youtu.be/_bbUOJggN_c

I mean sure, he takes a really long look at that chopper, but it's still under 6 seconds.

And if you just walk behind a pillar, how does the stealth check help you at all? They don't forget you went behind the pillar, so on their turn they can just walk around it and see you. You have to break cover to attack them, so you don't get a benefit.

[Slipperychicken]

One would have to be very distracted in order for that to work, so distracted that they didn't notice where the rogue moved to, but only noticed that they are now gone.

I'm not saying it's impossible, it is with enough cover, concealment, or distraction.

Distraction? Like the intense rush of emotions from being caught up in the middle of a violent life-or-death struggle where your coworkers are being mercilessly slaughtered with each passing second?

[Tanarii]

Some people are bothered the rules justify the no need to roll. They want the DM to say they don't need to roll, but depending on who is DM that day . . . you know the drill. :smallbiggrin:
Yeah. A major difference being the players know in advance what they can do etc etc. :smallyuk:

Oh wait, we're doing this again? Yay! :smallbiggrin:

The other difference being the players won't try to do anything that's not on the skill tables. Or the tables assuming every rope and tree and cliff and whatever is the same. :smallyuk:

Or else the players just say what they want to do, and the DM has to make up a DC. Or else the DM has to vary from the preset DCs as circumstances vary in the game world, and make up a DC. And we're back to where we are now. :smallamused:

What it really boils down to is: The problem with a system flexible enough to meet the needs of different tables & allow the DM to adjudicate almost anything, is it causes table variation & holds strong potential for DM inconsistency. The advantages come with disadvantages, and different people will hold which are important differently.

[DanyBallon]

You're not making a check really though are you.

The DC to climb a rope is 5.

Every single PC does it (no check required) by taking 10. So the DM doesnt ask for a check (knowing that all PCs succeed automatically).

The point is that in 3.P climbing a tree has a DC based on the object (and conditions) itself, where as in 5e if there is a DC it's based on the action the character is trying to do.

In both system, if the action is simply to climb a tree the result would be the same, but if instead, the action is to climb a tree in a hurry, with both leg injured, while carrying something heavy and reciting Hamlet, then in 3.P it becomes a pain of looking for the right modifiers, while in 5e the DM set the DC on how difficult he think the task is.

That's the big difference on how the two systems handle "skill" checks, and there is a common misunderstanding, mostly from 3.P players, on how 5e works in regard to it.

[Zalabim]

You're not making a check really though are you.

The DC to climb a rope is 5.

Every single PC does it (no check required) by taking 10. So the DM doesnt ask for a check (knowing that all PCs succeed automatically).
Except the Cleric wearing heavy armor and possibly a shield.

[Pex]

Except the Cleric wearing heavy armor and possibly a shield.

Yeah, it becomes an amusing anecdote. Players describe how they help the cleric and give the cleric player a ribbing.

You never want to piss off the healer so any chance you get to tease him and he has to take it you don't want to pass up.

[Telok]

Yeah, it becomes an amusing anecdote. Players describe how they help the cleric and give the cleric player a ribbing.

Although a cleric in heavy armor is probably better at climbing than a Str 10 monk who is completely unencumbered.

I've seen the jumping rules pretty well mishandled. Everything from "It's a dc 10 to jump the chasm" to jumping 5' farther than your strength score being anything from dc 'yes' to dc 5, to dc30, to dc 'no'. Gotta love those clear and useful jumping rules.

[Pex]

Although a cleric in heavy armor is probably better at climbing than a Str 10 monk who is completely unencumbered.

I've seen the jumping rules pretty well mishandled. Everything from "It's a dc 10 to jump the chasm" to jumping 5' farther than your strength score being anything from dc 'yes' to dc 5, to dc30, to dc 'no'. Gotta love those clear and useful jumping rules.

You misunderstood. The conversation sidetracked to 3E skill resolution and Take 10.

However, lets get back to topic.