"Fan Errata": a Proposal to Rewrite Some of Poorly Worded Rules of 5e

[Merudo]

Although 5e is pretty damn good, I've notice a handful of rules that are either confusing, unclear, or where RAW & RAI are incompatible.

I therefore make the following proposal: we should make a "fan errata" to correct the worst of these rules, with the intent to make a strict reading of the text closer to RAI and to close some unintended loopholes.

Of course, each individual DM would be free to adopt the "fan errata" or not; but having it out there would simplify time for the busy DM who wants, say, workable Vision/Obscuration rules without having to analyze a lengthy discussion on this forum or on the RPG stack exchange (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/).

This "fan errata" would be reminiscent of fan patches that exist for computer games. These fan patches were created by gamers to correct existing bugs overlooked by the developers. The list of games with "fan patches" is numerous, and include games such as


Baldur's Gate 2
Dragon Age: Origins
Fallout 4
Final Fantasy 6
Skyrim
Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines


and many other games.

As a start, I've identified a few rules that I believe would benefit from a rewrite. I hope the proposed errata would unambiguously answer the following questions:


Vision & Obscuration: Can a creature see behind mundane darkness, fog cloud, & the darkness spell?
Rest: Under which conditions can a PC take a short or long rest, and can the two types of rests be combined?
"Enter the spell's area": What's the definition of "entering a spell's area" for spells such as Moonbeam & Cloud of Daggers?
Dropping a Weapon: Is dropping a weapon "free", or does it use the object interaction action?
Shield Master: When can the shield push be taken?
Surprise: What happens if a character only notices some of the threats, but not all of them?
Dead Creature: Is a dead creature still a creature, or is it an object?
Casting more than one spell: Under which conditions can a PC cast more than one spell during a turn?
Wild Shape: Which feature(s) can be used in Wild Shape?


In addition, the wording for some spells is plain confusing and should be improved upon. Examples: Awaken, Black Tentacles, Freedom of Movement, Goodberry, Shadow of Moil, Simulacrum, Wall of Fire, etc.

[Jerrykhor]

Needs to add the 'Melee Weapon Attack/Attack with Melee Weapon/Melee Attack/Natural Weapon/Unarmed Strike' thing.

[Malifice]

Vision & Obscuration: Can a creature see behind mundane darkness, fog cloud, & the darkness spell?

Fog cloud no, and magical darkness no (unless whatever is illuminating the thing on the other side is magical light of a higher level than the darkness). Non magical darkness, yes.

If some clown is standing 100 feet away from you with a lit torch you can see them, despite the darkness between you.


Rest: Under which conditions can a PC take a short or long rest, and can the two types of rests be combined?

Whenever they get 1 (or 8) or more uninterrupted hours of doing nothing else other than sitting quietly by the fire, sleeping, talking or light activity, and the DM doesnt exersize his veto.


"Enter the spell's area": What's the definition of "entering a spell's area" for spells such as Moonbeam & Cloud of Daggers?

When a creature enters the area, not the other way around.


Dropping a Weapon: Is dropping a weapon "free", or does it use the object interaction action?

You can interact with an object as part of the action you use the object for. Otherwise it's an action, unless there is no appreciable movement or time required (dropping something) in which case it's not an action at all.


Shield Master: When can the shield push be taken?


As a bonus action, after you take the Attack action.


Surprise: What happens if a character only notices some of the threats, but not all of them?


They're not surprised.


Dead Creature: Is a dead creature still a creature, or is it an object?


A corpse is an object, not a creature. It's also a 'dead creature' for the purposes of Raise Dead. It can be both.


Casting more than one spell: Under which conditions can a PC cast more than one spell during a turn?

Any time they havent cast a spell as a bonus action, in which case the only other spell they can cast that turn is a single cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.

Feel free to Fireball, Counter the counterspell flung at your fireball, and then [action surge] Fireball again all on your turn.


Wild Shape: Which feature(s) can be used in Wild Shape?


Every single class and racial feature, or feature from any other source, that is compatible with your new shape.


How are the above questions in any major doubt?

[Merudo]

Hi Malice. Although you are mostly right according to RAI, you might not be aware that some of what you said isn't supported by RAW. My proposal is to correct the wording of the rules so that RAI = RAW.

I'll take this opportunity to elaborate on what is wrong with the current rules.


Vision & Obscuration: Can a creature see behind mundane darkness, fog cloud, & the darkness spell?


Fog cloud no, and magical darkness no (unless whatever is illuminating the thing on the other side is magical light of a higher level than the darkness). Non magical darkness, yes.

If some clown is standing 100 feet away from you with a lit torch you can see them, despite the darkness between you.


By RAW, there is no distinction between mundane darkness, fog cloud, & magical darkness. All provide heavy obscuration, which block sight only when trying to look into the area (not behind it).



Rest: Under which conditions can a PC take a short or long rest, and can the two types of rests be combined?




Whenever they get 1 (or 8) or more uninterrupted hours of doing nothing else other than sitting quietly by the fire, sleeping, talking or light activity, and the DM doesnt exersize his veto.


One issue: by RAW you can take a short rest within a long rest, although that is not RAI.

Another: by RAW the Circle of Dreams Druid can gain a near permanent +5 to Stealth & Perception through Hearth of Moonlight and Shadow by constantly starting rests.



"Enter the spell's area": What's the definition of "entering a spell's area" for spells such as Moonbeam & Cloud of Daggers?




When a creature enters the area, not the other way around.


There is some ambiguity here regarding the definition of "enter".



Dropping a Weapon: Is dropping a weapon "free", or does it use the object interaction action?




You can interact with an object as part of the action you use the object for. Otherwise it's an action, unless there is no appreciable movement or time required (dropping something) in which case it's not an action at all.


By RAI, dropping an object is not intended to cost any action (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/03/29/what-are-the-rules-on-dropping-weapons/).



Shield Master: When can the shield push be taken?




As a bonus action, after you take the Attack action.


You might want to familiarize yourself with the flip-flopping of Jeremy Crawford on this issue.



Surprise: What happens if a character only notices some of the threats, but not all of them?




They're not surprised.


The text is "Any character or monster that doesn’t notice a threat is surprised", which can be interpreted as "If there exists a threat that isn't noticed by a character or monster, that character or monster is surprised.



Dead Creature: Is a dead creature still a creature, or is it an object?




A corpse is an object, not a creature. It's also a 'dead creature' for the purposes of Raise Dead. It can be both.


Revivify targets "a creature that has died", so the spell does nothing according to RAW.



Casting more than one spell: Under which conditions can a PC cast more than one spell during a turn?




Any time they havent cast a spell as a bonus action, in which case the only other spell they can cast that turn is a single cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.

Feel free to Fireball, Counter the counterspell flung at your fireball, and then [action surge] Fireball again all on your turn.


The rule is confusing: you can't both cast a Bonus Action spell & a reaction spell on the same turn, or a Bonus Action Spell & an Action Surge Fireball.



Wild Shape: Which feature(s) can be used in Wild Shape?




Every single class and racial feature, or feature from any other source, that is compatible with your new shape.


Of course. But it is often unclear what features are compatible with the new shape.

Cases in point: can a Lizardfolk benefit from Natural Armor while Wild Shaped into a Giant Constrictor Snake? And can a Druid speak Common while Wild Shaped into a Giant Elk?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Or people can drop the RAW fetish they have and play the game, making judgement calls per table as needed. RAW isn't a thing in 5e, not really. Worrying about "by RAW" gets in the way of figuring out what's best for the table and only promotes weaponization of text and rules lawyering. This goes for all sides. Treat the printed text as a starting point and hammer things out for yourself. You won't break anything[1], and you'll have much more fun than if you treat the printed text as some form of holy writ that must be adhered to by everyone or else bad things will happen <cue spooky music>.

[1] The only exceptions are (according to the DMG):
* Letting people attune to more than 3 items
* Letting people concentrate on more than one spell (or otherwise messing with concentration)
* one other I can't remember because I'm AFB.

[strangebloke]

I'd still argue thanks some rules are needlessly complex. Complexity should be in service to some design pillar.

I wouldn't see the whole "what counts as a long rest" debate as a problem because that to me reads as something that's intentionally keep vague.

I do see the the whole "weapon attack, attack with a weapon" thing as a problem because it's super confusing for no real reason.

[Max_Killjoy]

Or people can drop the RAW fetish they have and play the game, making judgement calls per table as needed. RAW isn't a thing in 5e, not really. Worrying about "by RAW" gets in the way of figuring out what's best for the table and only promotes weaponization of text and rules lawyering. This goes for all sides. Treat the printed text as a starting point and hammer things out for yourself. You won't break anything[1], and you'll have much more fun than if you treat the printed text as some form of holy writ that must be adhered to by everyone or else bad things will happen <cue spooky music>.


IMO, the text could also be written to avoid a lot of the battles in the first place... it seems like it was written with a very "whatever" attitude. There's a whole thread about Pact of the Blade that wouldn't be happening if the writers of 5e had spent 10 more minutes on the wording of those two paragraphs.




[1] The only exceptions are (according to the DMG):
* Letting people attune to more than 3 items
* Letting people concentrate on more than one spell (or otherwise messing with concentration)
* one other I can't remember because I'm AFB.


Something something action economy?




I do see the the whole "weapon attack, attack with a weapon" thing as a problem because it's super confusing for no real reason.


That's another good example of where it was needlessly sloppy.

[Max_Killjoy]

Although 5e is pretty damn good, I've notice a handful of rules that are either confusing, unclear, or where RAW & RAI are incompatible.

I therefore make the following proposal: we should make a "fan errata" to correct the worst of these rules, with the intent to make a strict reading of the text closer to RAI and to close some unintended loopholes.


Will this include getting the "fans" to agree on what the rules should actually be and say?

Because... good luck with that.

[jaappleton]

You should be able to do Shield Master's bonus action shove whenever you want during your turn.

[PhoenixPhyre]

IMO, the text could also be written to avoid a lot of the battles in the first place... it seems like it was written with a very "whatever" attitude. There's a whole thread about Pact of the Blade that wouldn't be happening if the writers of 5e had spent 10 more minutes on the wording of those two paragraphs.

Something something action economy?


People in a RAW-focused mindset will fight no matter what the wording is. I've seen fights over crystal clear wording. And crystal clear wording for complex subjects tends to be even more annoying to read for those who aren't in that mindset (ie most people). So you can remove a tiny fraction of the arguments (which don't really matter because they happen mostly on forums, not in play) at the cost of making the rules more of a slog for everyone.

I've seen suggestions to have a "defined words" marker and a glossary. Ok, then I have to cross-reference each time there's a defined word instead of using context clues, because it's signaled that the specifics matters. That's a huge time and attention cost. Same with having more tables. And unless you're loophole hunting, the specifics don't matter except for forum arguments.

And yes, that last one is about letting people take more than one bonus action or reaction on a turn. Thanks.

[Rukelnikov]

You should be able to do Shield Master's bonus action shove whenever you want during your turn.

Tbh, I disagree, it may be an unpopular opinion, but Shield Master requires you to take the Attack action in order to get the shield bash as a BA, if for whatever reason you are prevented from taking the action later on then you shouldn't have been able to perform the bash.

[Sigreid]

This reminds me of the rules supreme court thread from not long ago.

[jaappleton]

Tbh, I disagree, it may be an unpopular opinion, but Shield Master requires you to take the Attack action in order to get the shield bash as a BA, if for whatever reason you are prevented from taking the action later on then you shouldn't have been able to perform the bash.

Let 'em take it before the attack action. I'm fine with trying it to the attack action, but it should be able to be taken prior to rolling the attack.

"When you take the attack action, prior to rolling the attack, you can attempt to shove as a bonus action."

Works for me.

[PhantomSoul]

Tbh, I disagree, it may be an unpopular opinion, but Shield Master requires you to take the Attack action in order to get the shield bash as a BA, if for whatever reason you are prevented from taking the action later on then you shouldn't have been able to perform the bash.

The argument I've seen (and that does make sense) is that if you then don't or won't use your Action in the required way, the Shield Bash retroactively becomes your Action (or part of it, as possible) and you have the Bonus Action instead of the Action left.

[Misterwhisper]

They should have just said:

If you use the shove action while wielding a shield as part of the attack action, you may makes a melee weapon attack as a bonus action.

Everything works out.

[Pex]

What if someone disagrees with the Fan Errata interpretation of a rule? Is that someone wrong on the internet? Does he autolose the argument in the Forum? Are all disagreements made superfluous? This is the "Supreme Court" by another name.

I prefer 5E wasn't written with the vagueness in some areas and lack of rules altogether in others it has, but we're stuck with it until such time there's a hypothetical 5.5E or 6E in the future. We can agree or disagree with people's opinions of a matter, but that's all there is. Consensus does not make it truth.

[Theodoxus]

This is gonna be controversial, and a potential threadjack, so ignore it if need be, but this is one reason I went back to the 4E action conventions, and kept bonus action from 5E.

A bonus action in my homebrew (yeah, I haven't read that thread yet), requires an action to trigger it, else it's just a minor action. Shield Master's shield push is a perfect example. if you like being able to do it whenever, you'd make it a minor action. If you want it to only trigger after an attack, you keep it a bonus action.

Even MM stated he'd rethink the whole bonus action in a lot of cases - and I agree, so I did.

The vast majority of BAs in 5E are better off as a minor action. The few that remain in my homebrew are offhand attacks, quickened spells and things like flurry of blows.

I agree that the chassis of 5E is a work of art. The crap that got bolted onto it - especially the things that should have carried over from 4E, but didn't because, I don't know, fear of 4E or something... are an easy fix.

I've currently gone too far, bringing in all kinds of things I probably didn't need to - and I'm slowly rolling some stuff back, but actions? No way, I'm keeping them - they work so much better!

[Man_Over_Game]

What if someone disagrees with the Fan Errata interpretation of a rule? Is that someone wrong on the internet? Does he autolose the argument in the Forum? Are all disagreements made superfluous? This is the "Supreme Court" by another name.

I prefer 5E wasn't written with the vagueness in some areas and lack of rules altogether in others it has, but we're stuck with it until such time there's a hypothetical 5.5E or 6E in the future. We can agree or disagree with people's opinions of a matter, but that's all there is. Consensus does not make it truth.

I think it's important for a Fan Errata to express the difference between Designer Intent and Rule of Fun, and how often those clash. Focusing on Designer Intent provides a higher opinion, a foundation to base things off of. Rather than listening to the Fan Errata's opinion, or some random person on the internet, you can gain insight into the highest possible opinion on DnD 5e matters. Of course, you can disagree, but it keeps whatever interpretation is provided as the most "pure", before it gets dirtied by the opinions of others.

For example, Designer Intent states that you can "pop" from cover while hidden to make an attack, making it so you never left cover. However, if you ever do leave cover and enter a creature's line of sight, you are immediately spotted. This means that it's nearly impossible to melee attack while hidden (unless you can block Line of Sight somehow).
Designer Intent also states that you cannot Twin spells that magically affect more than one creature. Ice Knife, Dragon's Breath, etc, those spells all can magically affect more than one creature.

A resource like that is something I can use, comparing what the developer's planned and how people like to run things anyway.

[stoutstien]

This just seems like making house rules with extra steps.

[Sigreid]

I think it's important for a Fan Errata to express the difference between Designer Intent and Rule of Fun, and how often those clash. Focusing on Designer Intent provides a higher opinion, a foundation to base things off of. Rather than listening to the Fan Errata's opinion, or some random person on the internet, you can gain insight into the highest possible opinion on DnD 5e matters. Of course, you can disagree, but it keeps whatever interpretation is provided as the most "pure", before it gets dirtied by the opinions of others.

For example, Designer Intent states that you can "pop" from cover while hidden to make an attack, making it so you never left cover. However, if you ever do leave cover and enter a creature's line of sight, you are immediately spotted. This means that it's nearly impossible to melee attack while hidden (unless you can block Line of Sight somehow).
Designer Intent also states that you cannot Twin spells that magically affect more than one creature. Ice Knife, Dragon's Breath, etc, those spells all can magically affect more than one creature.

A resource like that is something I can use, comparing what the developer's planned and how people like to run things anyway.

I doubt designer intent is even possible at this point. Due to the way memory works and people develop it is more than likely even the designers cant be certain what their intent originally was.

[Rukelnikov]

Let 'em take it before the attack action. I'm fine with trying it to the attack action, but it should be able to be taken prior to rolling the attack.

"When you take the attack action, prior to rolling the attack, you can attempt to shove as a bonus action."

Works for me.

I imagine this works fine in 99% of the cases or more, but it feels kinda out of place in the 5e system, its a rule that can only be interpreted from a meta perspective, since in game, there's no such thing as an Attack action, so you are basically making a shield bash and attacking afterwards.


The argument I've seen (and that does make sense) is that if you then don't or won't use your Action in the required way, the Shield Bash retroactively becomes your Action (or part of it, as possible) and you have the Bonus Action instead of the Action left.

I've heard that one before, while in practice that may solve most of the situations that may arise, it feels too much like a patch for me, no other part of the system works like that, so I don't completely like it.


They should have just said:

If you use the shove action while wielding a shield as part of the attack action, you may makes a melee weapon attack as a bonus action.

Everything works out.

Yeah, this should have been the feat. The only reason I can think of for them not making it this way, is because they specifically didn't want you to benefit from the advantage on attacks.

[Bloodcloud]

This reminds me of the rules supreme court thread from not long ago.

Honestly, if the designers/wotc employees would take a few questions every once in a while and produce detailed decision explaining their reasoning on the matter, that would be great.

And by detailed decision I mean not fire off on Nerull-damned twitter.

[Sigreid]

I imagine this works fine in 99% of the cases or more, but it feels kinda out of place in the 5e system, its a rule that can only be interpreted from a meta perspective, since in game, there's no such thing as an Attack action, so you are basically making a shield bash and attacking afterwards.



I've heard that one before, while in practice that may solve most of the situations that may arise, it feels too much like a patch for me, no other part of the system works like that, so I don't completely like it.



Yeah, this should have been the feat. The only reason I can think of for them not making it this way, is because they specifically didn't want you to benefit from the advantage on attacks.

I've been in fights, some of them more serious than I'd ever like to get into again, and I can tell you it is absolutely possible, and frequently necessary to fully commit to a sequence of actions before starting, without any chance to alter the plan mid sequence.

[PhantomSoul]

Yeah, this should have been the feat. The only reason I can think of for them not making it this way, is because they specifically didn't want you to benefit from the advantage on attacks.

It could also be that their design concept was "more uses for the Bonus Action" and so a simple (and utterly delightful) solution didn't get considered because of the starting point.

[Zhorn]

Oh no... someone mentioned Shield Master... This will not end well. And by that I mean it just will not end.

There are a few rulings I do agree would greatly benefit from an updated errata to reword rules into a more clear and concise format with less reliance on clarification. But any document, be it published by the fans or by WoTC directly, is going to have some group denounce it as being wrong, a huge mistake, and not official based solely on having rulings they disagree with.

Shield master is THE prime example.
Doesn't matter that "if x then y" has been clarified as "do x first, then you can do y"
It doesn't matter that it is a simple and consistent rule to apply to multiple abilities that share similar conditional wording.
It doesn't matter that WoTC has released a document they label as being the official clarification on the ruling.
It doesn't matter that the feat in question is thematically a defensive feat, not an offensive feat.
NONE of that matters.
All that matters is there is a vocal group (not all players, not a majority, not a minority... we cannot quantify what percent of the population) who don't like that ruling and want it ruled their way.

I'll agree with Stoutstien;
This just seems like making house rules with extra steps.

[Willie the Duck]

People in a RAW-focused mindset will fight no matter what the wording is. I've seen fights over crystal clear wording. And crystal clear wording for complex subjects tends to be even more annoying to read for those who aren't in that mindset (ie most people). So you can remove a tiny fraction of the arguments (which don't really matter because they happen mostly on forums, not in play) at the cost of making the rules more of a slog for everyone.

Clearly the designers had making the game accessible to newcomers as a higher priority than airtight, completely inarguable, unambiguous text. It was a move which has rewarded them with a very successful edition, and most groups have managed to find a way through any issues. That said, there are some places where the could have been clearer, or at least explained their goals.

Still, you are absolutely correct that there is no such thing as a ruleset so exacting that people indoctrinated into the RAW mindset will not have problems with (and honestly, if there were, it would probably be terrible as an actual game).


Honestly, if the designers/wotc employees would take a few questions every once in a while and produce detailed decision explaining their reasoning on the matter, that would be great.

And by detailed decision I mean not fire off on Nerull-damned twitter.

Or if they went the complete opposite route and made blanket statements staying consistent to the rulings-over-rules and natural-language focus of the edition. Either would be preferable to the status quo. But yes, just tell us what you had in mind, what your concerns are, and where you think the game is best served by going, and people would probably bend over backwards to propose errata-worthy wording to accomplish that goal.

[Man_Over_Game]

Oh no... someone mentioned Shield Master... This will not end well. And by that I mean it just will not end.

There are a few rulings I do agree would greatly benefit from an updated errata to reword rules into a more clear and concise format with less reliance on clarification. But any document, be it published by the fans or by WoTC directly, is going to have some group denounce it as being wrong, a huge mistake, and not official based solely on having rulings they disagree with.

Shield master is THE prime example.
Doesn't matter that "if x then y" has been clarified as "do x first, then you can do y"
It doesn't matter that it is a simple and consistent rule to apply to multiple abilities that share similar conditional wording.
It doesn't matter that WoTC has released a document they label as being the official clarification on the ruling.
It doesn't matter that the feat in question is thematically a defensive feat, not an offensive feat.
NONE of that matters.
All that matters is there is a vocal group (not all players, not a majority, not a minority... we cannot quantify what percent of the population) who don't like that ruling and want it ruled their way.

I'll agree with Stoutstien;

JC does regularly state that if you don't like his rulings, then to not listen to them. 5e is about making the game your own, and sometimes you want to know what the alternatives are.

It took me about 2 hours of research just to find some semi-official statement about what happens when you move out of a hiding spot.

Naturally, everyone can come to their own conclusions, but it'd be nice to have a resource that made all of the relevant information on the topic in one, concise location.

[Rukelnikov]

I've been in fights, some of them more serious than I'd ever like to get into again, and I can tell you it is absolutely possible, and frequently necessary to fully commit to a sequence of actions before starting, without any chance to alter the plan mid sequence.

But its not always possible, and that's where the problem comes from.


JC does regularly state that if you don't like his rulings, then to not listen to them. 5e is about making the game your own, and sometimes you want to know what the alternatives are.

It took me about 2 hours of research just to find some semi-official statement about what happens when you move out of a hiding spot.

Naturally, everyone can come to their own conclusions, but it'd be nice to have a resource that made all of the relevant information on the topic in one, concise location.

I'm up for a FAQ thread, that could probably help a lot of users that end up posting here. Otherwise an "Ask a simple question, get a simple answer" thread could be made, but those become to clunky after a while IMO.

[Sigreid]

But its not always possible, and that's where the problem comes from.

But when it's not possible you've still fully committed and you cant really change your choices.

[Rukelnikov]

But when it's not possible you've still fully committed and you cant really change your choices.

So, you can only be fully commited if you take shield master? I assume most PCs would face the same situation.

[Zhorn]

@Man_Over_Game
Whole heartedly agree on both the usefulness of the documents, and the encouragement for players to play their games at their tables using the versions of the rules they enjoy the most.

My comment was just that any document produced will be looked upon as being wrong by some portion of the fan base.

I like to keep the latest versions of Erratas and the Sage Advice Compendium on my computer as a reference for clarifications, because I view them as WoTC's attempt at doing what is being asked for.

If there is something in there I don't agree with, I'll be sure to mention any alternate rulings I'll be running to my players at the start of a campaign so they'll not be blindsides by houserules. But I'll still recognise that the clarifications presented by WoTC are the OFFICIAL rulings.

[Max_Killjoy]

People in a RAW-focused mindset will fight no matter what the wording is. I've seen fights over crystal clear wording. And crystal clear wording for complex subjects tends to be even more annoying to read for those who aren't in that mindset (ie most people). So you can remove a tiny fraction of the arguments (which don't really matter because they happen mostly on forums, not in play) at the cost of making the rules more of a slog for everyone.

I've seen suggestions to have a "defined words" marker and a glossary. Ok, then I have to cross-reference each time there's a defined word instead of using context clues, because it's signaled that the specifics matters. That's a huge time and attention cost. Same with having more tables. And unless you're loophole hunting, the specifics don't matter except for forum arguments.

And yes, that last one is about letting people take more than one bonus action or reaction on a turn. Thanks.

I am in a rotten mood for reasons totally unrelated for this thread, so all I'm going to say is that there are arguments, such as that ridiculous Pact of the Blade thread, where a bit more effort on the part of the writers would avoid the grounds for disagreement, at which point someone arguing that the written text said anything other it said would have zero ground to stand on (as opposed to multiple people screaming at each other than the other supposedly has no grounds to stand on, when they're both half-right).

[Man_Over_Game]

@Man_Over_Game
Whole heartedly agree on both the usefulness of the documents, and the encouragement for players to play their games at their tables using the versions of the rules they enjoy the most.

My comment was just that any document produced will be looked upon as being wrong by some portion of the fan base.

I like to keep the latest versions of Erratas and the Sage Advice Compendium on my computer as a reference for clarifications, because I view them as WoTC's attempt at doing what is being asked for.

If there is something in there I don't agree with, I'll be sure to mention any alternate rulings I'll be running to my players at the start of a campaign so they'll not be blindsides by houserules. But I'll still recognise that the clarifications presented by WoTC are the OFFICIAL rulings.

I get there's this weird bias against houseruling with TTRPGs, especially considering that 5e is designed for it.

It gets really weird when people have a problem with official ruling (See: Shield Master), but they don't feel comfortable about backing up their own houserule opinion because they're afraid it'll hold no merit. Rather, it seems like most people would just rather say that the official ruling is wrong, and anything that's claimed as "official" needs to burn in a fire, despite malleability being one of the design goals.

Like people listen to these opinions of the experts, while the experts say "sure, we're experts, but don't listen to us if you don't want to". Then, rather than making their own decisions and backing them, people would rather yell at the experts.

I've seen it with Shield Master, Twinned Spell, Unarmed Attacks + Finesse, you name it. It's....really odd to me.


If someone's really interested in going down a rabbit hole, look up Tome of Ancient Secrets (the Warlock Invocation), and tell me how a Warlock is supposed to read those rituals? Make sure to read up on this question (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/129292/what-would-a-warlock-understand-from-written-spells-outside-of-their-class-via) and the links it provides.

Because hell if I know.

[Sigreid]

So, you can only be fully commited if you take shield master? I assume most PCs would face the same situation.

You can only do the bonus action shove if you take shield master. If you dont have it I would rule you can use one of your attack actions attacks to make a shove. That part of shield master just lets you do it without spending one of your attacks.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I get there's this weird bias against houseruling with TTRPGs, especially considering that 5e is designed for it.

It gets really weird when people have a problem with official ruling (See: Shield Master), but they don't feel comfortable about backing up their own houserule opinion because they're afraid it'll hold no merit. Rather, it seems like most people would just rather say that the official ruling is wrong, and anything that's claimed as "official" needs to burn in a fire, despite malleability being one of the design goals.

Like people listen to these opinions of the experts, while the experts say "sure, we're experts, but don't listen to us if you don't want to". Then, rather than making their own decisions and backing them, people would rather yell at the experts.

I've seen it with Shield Master, Twinned Spell, Unarmed Attacks + Finesse, you name it. It's....really odd to me.

I very much agree with you here. I tend to blame it on people wanting to use rules as weapons to win arguments, which requires there be a "right" answer. But for them to win, the "right" answer has to match their answer. Does it agree with me? Then it's right. Does it not agree with me? Then it's WRONG!.

[Max_Killjoy]

I very much agree with you here. I tend to blame it on people wanting to use rules as weapons to win arguments, which requires there be a "right" answer. But for them to win, the "right" answer has to match their answer. Does it agree with me? Then it's right. Does it not agree with me? Then it's WRONG!.

Which just uncharitably presumes that anyone trying to figure out what the rules actually say, or asking for the rules to be clearly written, must be a "weaponizer", rather than someone trying to just get a *** **** straight answer. :smallmad:

[Man_Over_Game]

Which just uncharitably presumes that anyone trying to figure out what the rules actually say, or asking for the rules to be clearly written, must be a "weaponizer", rather than someone trying to just get a god damn straight answer. :smallmad:

Sometimes, the answer is simple (like the official process of Shield Master and Twinned Spell). The problem comes in when that's not enough, and it becomes a war involving trolls and fire.

[Zhorn]

It's....really odd to me.
I think the most odd dealing I had with that was a few weeks back.
Paladin and Rogue each rolled crits in a round, I (as DM) said they can roll their dice and double the number, or roll double the total dice.
Another player jumped in saying that "only the base attack dice get doubled, and add-on like smits and sneak attacks are not"
Not wanting to start a debate about exact rulings as per the book, I just casually said "my table, I'll allow it as a house rule in the spirit of fun". At that point I had 'house ruled' to use the RAW interaction of crits and smites/sneak attacks (the book even specifies sneak attacks as an example).
odd times...

[Max_Killjoy]

Sometimes, the answer is simple (like the official process of Shield Master and Twinned Spell). The problem comes in when that's not enough, and it becomes a war involving trolls and fire.

I understand why they wanted Shield Master to be a "bonus follows attack, not the other way around" ruling -- it's very easy to imagine a player who just goes around shield-bash shoving before actually attacking to try to gain Advantage on their attacks, all the time.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sometimes, the answer is simple (like the official process of Shield Master and Twinned Spell). The problem comes in when that's not enough, and it becomes a war involving trolls and fire.

Yeah. Asking questions is fine, we all can read things in screwy ways (whether or not they're actually clear). But then insisting that the official answer given must be wrong because raisins[1] or that the official developers are stupid and incompetent because they don't agree with you is a sign (to me) of someone who's gone beyond good faith questioning and into weaponization (or other forms of bad faith).

I've read reports (that I can't find on a quick google search, so they may be apocriphal) of college-level Technical Writing professors assigning the 5e PHB as a good example of technical writing.

[1] inside joke from another forum.

[Unoriginal]

If someone's really interested in going down a rabbit hole, look up Tome of Ancient Secrets (the Warlock Invocation), and tell me how a Warlock is supposed to read those rituals? Make sure to read up on this question (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/129292/what-would-a-warlock-understand-from-written-spells-outside-of-their-class-via) and the links it provides.

Because hell if I know.

As the Book of Ancient Secrets' description clearly states:



On your adventures, you can add other ritual spells to your Book of Shadows. When you find such a spell, you can add it to the book if the spell's level is equal to or less than half your warlock level (rounded up) and if you can spare the time to transcribe the spell. For each level of the spell, the transcription process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp for the rare inks needed to inscribe it.

You CANNOT use Eyes of the Rune Keeper to read scrolls of spells (meaning, activate the scrolls) that are not on your spell list. Magical writings aren't in a language, they're mnemonic gibberish forming a cipher, as pointed out in the thread you linked.

HOWEVER, if you find a spell with the ritual tag, be it in a book of rituals from the Ritual Master feat, a wizard's spellbook, a scroll, or any similar form, you CAN add it to your Book of Shadows via the transcription method, which involves you transforming the text's magic gibberish cipher into your own magic gibberish cipher (as you reinvent a personal method to use the ritual, which only works for you and only as long as you're holding your Book of Shadows).

You can't unlock the scroll's magical charge, but you can decode the method to make your own which will give the same effects.

There's nothing ambiguous about it, to me.

EDIT:

Also, no, there is no chance that the Warlock cannot know what is on the scroll. As the rules make plainly clear, any magic item can be identified during a short rest.

[Max_Killjoy]

If someone's really interested in going down a rabbit hole, look up Tome of Ancient Secrets (the Warlock Invocation), and tell me how a Warlock is supposed to read those rituals? Make sure to read up on this question (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/129292/what-would-a-warlock-understand-from-written-spells-outside-of-their-class-via) and the links it provides.

Because hell if I know.

1) The idea that all written magic is in some sort of unreadable hash / cypher appears to be nothing more than a retro-justification for certain restrictions on reading and using spells.

2) Why would the warlock write down the ritual in a format that they, the warlock, could not read? Intensely silly to assume otherwise, and again, trying to fit within some wacky retro-justification for other system corners they painted themselves into at various times.

[stoutstien]

I understand why they wanted Shield Master to be a "bonus follows attack, not the other way around" ruling -- it's very easy to imagine a player who just goes around shield-bash shoving before actually attacking to try to gain Advantage on their attacks, all the time.

Is that such a bad thing? I mean it is a feat and nowhere near the power level of PaM(especially if you follow RAW and allow one handed),GWM, SS, or even the potential power of war caster.
Shield master is one of the few ways that a Marshal can provide constant support to the other party members and people don't like it then they wonder why everybody goes out of the way to make selfish high damage characters.

[Unoriginal]

1) The idea that all written magic is in some sort of unreadable hash / cypher appears to be nothing more than a retro-justification for certain restrictions on reading and using spells.

Yeah, as far as justifications go, I'd say that "has been part of D&D since the first edition" is quite retro.



2) Why would the warlock write down the ritual in a format that they, the warlock, could not read?

*sigh*

The retranscription process in the Book of Shadows *is* writing down the ritual in a format that they, the warlock, and only they can understand. That's the whole point.

"Reading a scroll" means activating it. It is only possible if the spell on said scroll is in your spell list. Transcribing a ritual from a scroll into your Book of Shadows does *not* involve activating the scroll, it involves you understanding and re-inventing the ritual for your own needs.



Intensely silly to assume otherwise, and again, trying to fit within some wacky retro-justification for other system corners they painted themselves into at various times.

Yes, it is silly. Which is why they NEVER did it, and there is no "corners they painted themselves into" regarding it.



Seriously, Max_Killjoy, we get that you don't like 5e. It'd be nicer for everyone if you didn't bring up things that aren't actually in the game as if they were the game's flaws. Or imply that some of the most coherent pieces of lore between editions was just 5e justifying its competence post-facto.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yeah, as far as justifications go, I'd say that "has been part of D&D since the first edition" is quite retro.



*sigh*

The retranscription process in the Book of Shadows *is* writing down the ritual in a format that they, the warlock, and only they can understand. That's the whole point.

"Reading a scroll" means activating it. It is only possible if the spell on said scroll is in your spell list. Transcribing a ritual from a scroll into your Book of Shadows does *not* involve activating the scroll, it involves you understanding and re-inventing the ritual for your own needs.



Yes, it is silly. Which is why they NEVER did it, and there is no "corners they painted themselves into" regarding it.



Seriously, Max_Killjoy, we get that you don't like 5e. It'd be nicer for everyone if you didn't bring up things that aren't actually in the game as if they were the game's flaws. Or imply that some of the most coherent pieces of lore between editions was just 5e justifying its competence post-facto.


Did you even bother reading the post I wrote that in response to, and the stuff it linked to... or are you just eager to engage in a little fanboy gatekeeping?

[Unoriginal]

Did you even bother reading the post I wrote that in response to, or are you just eager to engage in a little fanboy gatekeeping?

Given that I've responded to the post in question before you did, addressing the specific issue Man_Over_Game wrote he didn't know the answer of, then I can say than I did with empirical evidences.

Also, for the sake of completeness, I have to point out that telling someone that it'd be nice if they didn't pretends that X thing is a flaw of Y product when X isn't in said product isn't gatekeeping. Gatekeeping is when you tell someone that they are not allowed to use Y product because said someone supposedly does not meet Z standards.

But don't let that get in the ways of your insults.

[Cynthaer]

Hi Malice. Although you are mostly right according to RAI, you might not be aware that some of what you said isn't supported by RAW. My proposal is to correct the wording of the rules so that RAI = RAW.

I'll take this opportunity to elaborate on what is wrong with the current rules.
The problem, Merudo, is that you seem to view it as the designers' responsibility to stop you from finding a way to interpret the text that yields a nonsensical result.

Most of these supposed ambiguities are things where there is one clear and intuitive interpretation, and then another interpretation that either (A) makes no sense at all, or (B) is less intuitive, but works fine if you really want to rule that way. In either case, "resolving" the ambiguity is unnecessary and deeply uninteresting.

The rest are mostly places where the "RAW" simply has nothing to say, and expects the DM/players to make their own choices.


By RAW, there is no distinction between mundane darkness, fog cloud, & magical darkness. All provide heavy obscuration, which block sight only when trying to look into the area (not behind it).
The current PHB text:


A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area.
The section explaining "heavily obscured" draws no distinction between darkness, fog, and leaves, this much is true. It only describes the effect of trying to see something "in that area".

So, now we have a choice. One way to read this is that it intentionally only addresses scenarios where a creature is actually within an obscured area, because you don't need a rule to tell you that you can't see through opaque things like buildings or fog or walls of fire.

The other way to read it is that because they say both dark areas and foggy areas are "heavily obscured", they must be the same in all respects, which yields a ludicrous result no matter how you read the rest of the rule.

Even if we agree that "blocks vision" is a weird way to describe darkness, the second reading is nonsense and there's no reason to use it when the first is right there.


One issue: by RAW you can take a short rest within a long rest, although that is not RAI.
That sentence is nonsensical under any straightforward concept of what a "short rest" or a "long rest" is. I'm not aware of any scenario where it would even matter outside of gimmick builds that rely on a bunch of other nonsense readings of the rules.

The actually interesting, relevant question is whether a party whose long rest is interrupted should get the benefits of a short rest. I'd say the most common, intuitive, and fun ruling is "yes", but if you rule the other way I honestly don't care.


Another: by RAW the Circle of Dreams Druid can gain a near permanent +5 to Stealth & Perception through Hearth of Moonlight and Shadow by constantly starting rests.
The idea that a person can be in a perpetual state of "starting a rest" that they never intend to actually take is nonsense.


There is some ambiguity here regarding the definition of "enter".
One reading is straightforward and balanced: Moonbeam deals damage when a creature "enters the spell's area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there", allowing you to consistently deal out 2d10/round by bringing the beam to the enemy if the enemy won't come to the beam. It even lets you double-dip for 4d10/round if someone can force the enemy into the beam.

The other reading (the spell moving to the creature counts as the creature "entering") isn't complete nonsense on its face, but it's also obviously not the intended reading because it makes the damage numbers completely out of line with other spells at these levels. There's no reason to use this reading.


By RAI, dropping an object is not intended to cost any action (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/03/29/what-are-the-rules-on-dropping-weapons/).
Who's saying otherwise?


You might want to familiarize yourself with the flip-flopping of Jeremy Crawford on this issue.
This is the one actually ambiguous scenario you've managed to find. No matter our position on what the text (A) should say or (B) actually says, I think we all agree that this should have been written differently to clarify the intent and execution.


The text is "Any character or monster that doesn’t notice a threat is surprised", which can be interpreted as "If there exists a threat that isn't noticed by a character or monster, that character or monster is surprised.
That requires an awkward reading that's less intuitive than the clearly intended one. Why would I be compelled to let you walk up and slap me in the face because your friend is hiding in the shadows?

There's no reason to use this reading.


Revivify targets "a creature that has died", so the spell does nothing according to RAW.
Literally every person who speaks fluent English understands what this means, including you. There is no reason to use a less intuitive reading that yields nonsense.


The rule is confusing: you can't both cast a Bonus Action spell & a reaction spell on the same turn, or a Bonus Action Spell & an Action Surge Fireball.
It's a little odd, arguably, and a perfectly valid target for a houserule. But it's not "ambiguous".


Of course. But it is often unclear what features are compatible with the new shape.

Cases in point: can a Lizardfolk benefit from Natural Armor while Wild Shaped into a Giant Constrictor Snake? And can a Druid speak Common while Wild Shaped into a Giant Elk?
The designers made a deliberate choice to give broad guidelines for deciding what features carry over into a new shape, and leave it there. They would never be able to get more specific without creating a million loopholes, because the list of potential Wild Form shapes and the list of potential player character features are constantly growing—and that's only counting official materials.

My ruling for your questions are no ("natural armor" is clearly part of the lizardfolk body) and no (elk can't talk), but that's just my ruling. Every DM can and should make that decision on a case-by-case basis, and every player should engage in good faith and not try to demand unreasonable things.

[Max_Killjoy]

Given that I've responded to the post in question before you did, addressing the specific issue Man_Over_Game wrote he didn't know the answer of, then I can say than I did with empirical evidences.


Then you saw what I was responding to, and had zero reason for the comment you directed at me.




But don't let that get in the ways of your insults.


At least you've mastered unintentional irony.


PS: what I don't like is D&D, as in any of the past editions... it's the game I gave up on, completely, washed my hands of it, in the early-mid 90s. 3x/PF, just more of the same, 4e was like the misbegotten tabletop offspring of D&D and an MMO. I got dragged back in because I was trying to help someone with a project, and based on a few things 5e has fixed from the messes of previous editions, I had hoped that D&D had finally shed all that baggage.

But when I talk about "retro-justifications" and such, I'm just as likely to be talking about things that were ridiculous and convoluted in the original versions of the damn game.

[Unoriginal]

Then you saw what I was responding to, and had zero reason for the comment you directed at me.

Aside from the fact that you called how magical writings work "nothing more than a retro-justification for certain restrictions on reading and using spells" and how warlocks with Book of Ancient Secrets can transcribe spells from scrolls they are unable to activate "trying to fit within some wacky retro-justification for other system corners they painted themselves into at various times"? Which is what I commented on?




At least you've mastered unintentional irony.

It is neither unintentional nor ironic. Telling you that it'd be nicer if you didn't present things that are not in the game (as can be factually observed) as if they were flaws of the game is not an insult.



PS: what I don't like is D&D, as in any of the past editions... it's the game I gave up on, completely, washed my hands of it, in the early-mid 90s. 3x/PF, just more of the same, 4e was like the misbegotten tabletop offspring of D&D and an MMO. I got dragged back in because I was trying to help someone with a project, and based on a few things 5e has fixed from the messes of previous editions, I had hoped that D&D had finally shed all that baggage.


Fair, allow me to amend my statement, then.

Seriously, Max_Killjoy, we get it that you don't like D&D.


Honest question, though: since you now have seen that 5e isn't what you hoped for, and you presumably don't need to come here to help the project, why do you still come to this subforum?

And this is a question because I'm interested in the answer, not "gatekeeping".

[Merudo]

Needs to add the 'Melee Weapon Attack/Attack with Melee Weapon/Melee Attack/Natural Weapon/Unarmed Strike' thing.

Quick question: does any rule or spell effect use the "attack with melee weapon" language?

[Max_Killjoy]

It is neither unintentional nor ironic. Telling you that it'd be nicer if you didn't present things that are not in the game (as can be factually observed) as if they were flaws of the game is not an insult.


I didn't "present them as part of the game", the commentary I was responding to did.

And like I said, ironic, since you didn't let that stop you from engaging in a string of dismissive insults as if I had no idea what I was talking about.

[stoutstien]

Quick question: does any rule or spell effect use the "attack with melee weapon" language?
Yes.
Melee cantrips
Barbarian rage
Battle master maneuvers (some do some don't)
Divine smite
And so on. it's actually quite a long list. I had it written down somewhere
*Some of these are in non-english reference books so may just be a translation issue.

[Man_Over_Game]

Yes.
Melee cantrips
Barbarian rage
Battle master maneuvers (some do some don't)
Divine smite
And so on. it's actually quite a long list. I had it written down somewhere
*Some of these are in non-english reference books so may just be a translation issue.

There's a bit of a difference between "Attack with a Melee Weapon" and "Melee Weapon Attack".

A Melee Weapon Attack is any physical attack that requires a strike, usually involving your reach. A Punch is a melee weapon attack, as is using a Whip with Reach. Rage damage bonus only applies to these attacks.

An Attack with a Melee Weapon is explicitly regarding Weapons that are in the Melee section of the Weapon list. Dueling only applies to Melee Weapons, but you can still throw them as a Ranged Weapon Attack and gain the bonus (since they never cease to be a Weapon under the Melee list). Rogues similarly can land sneak attacks with weapons with the Finesse trait (which are usually Melee Weapons). A Pact Weapon must be a Melee Weapon.

----------

Honestly, they should have just changed Melee Weapon Attack to Striking Physical Attack, and changing Ranged Spell Attack to Projectile Magic Attack, and it would have cleared up any kind of confusion that this terrible syntax has caused.

[Unoriginal]

I didn't "present them as part of the game", the commentary I was responding to did.

And like I said, ironic, since you didn't let that stop you from engaging in a string of dismissive insults as if I had no idea what I was talking about.

You literally wrote "the idea that all written magic is in some sort of unreadable hash / cypher appears to be nothing more than a retro-justification for certain restrictions on reading and using spells" and that the idea of the warlock writing spells they couldn't read (as the link in the post you replied to was talking about) was "trying to fit within some wacky retro-justification for other system corners they painted themselves into at various times.

Which is presenting this "spell-writing what you can't read" as being something the system is at fault for, since otherwise qualifying it as a justification to get out of a corner of the system they painted themselves into wouldn't make any sense.


I'd be curious what you consider to be "a string of dismissive insults" in my posts, though.

[Phoenix042]

All that matters is there is a vocal group (not all players, not a majority, not a minority... we cannot quantify what percent of the population) who don't like that ruling and want it ruled their way.

I think a big part of the reason for this is simply that, if shield master allows you to shove a creature prone and then attack them, it's balanced well, and if it doesn't allow you to shove them down until afterwards, it's situational and under-balance for the system as a whole.

If you ask "should?" for a moment, and forget about asking "does?", shield master SHOULD allow you to push people prone first, because this makes it a fun and thematic feat that makes you feel like you're intermixing your shield and weapons in combat, and because it makes the feat functionally on par with many other good feats.

I like more content in my games. I prefer content that is well balanced and fun both in theory and in play. My group did a natural reading of the feat without any internet biases and all came to the conclusion that you, obviously, could shove before actually making any attacks. Jeremy Crawford backed that interpretation up for a long time, then backed out of it.

I'm still seeing that section where it says I can take my bonus action "whenever I want unless the timing is specified" and waiting for someone to tell me why that doesn't let me interrupt another action that's currently happening.

[Max_Killjoy]

Honest question, though: since you now have seen that 5e isn't what you hoped for, and you presumably don't need to come here to help the project, why do you still come to this subforum?


Good question.

I think I'm going to close the tab for this subforum on my browser on this computer, and do the same when I get home and get on the desktop.

[Unoriginal]

I think a big part of the reason for this is simply that, if shield master allows you to shove a creature prone and then attack them, it's balanced well, and if it doesn't allow you to shove them down until afterwards, it's situational and under-balance for the system as a whole.

That's only an opinion, though.



If you ask "should?" for a moment, and forget about asking "does?", shield master SHOULD allow you to push people prone first, because this makes it a fun and thematic feat that makes you feel like you're intermixing your shield and weapons in combat, and because it makes the feat functionally on par with many other good feats.


What "should" exist is, again, an opinion. Not everyone share it.

Thankfully, 5e has for fundamental principle that if someone prefer their version of the rule than the one in the book, they should use theirs.

So any attempt to justify something as RAW or to make other forum goers recognize something as what "should" be is, fundamentally, empty, as "I prefer X so I do X" is what the game not only allow, but encourage.



Good question.

I think I'm going to close the tab for this subforum on my browser on this computer, and do the same when I get home and get on the desktop.

Sincerely, I wish you best of luck for your future endeavors, and hope that you have many game sessions with the RPGs you do enjoy.

It's really not worth it to get wound up about games one considers to be bad. I had to learn that.

[RSP]

I imagine this works fine in 99% of the cases or more, but it feels kinda out of place in the 5e system, its a rule that can only be interpreted from a meta perspective, since in game, there's no such thing as an Attack action, so you are basically making a shield bash and attacking afterwards.



I've heard that one before, while in practice that may solve most of the situations that may arise, it feels too much like a patch for me, no other part of the system works like that, so I don't completely like it.


Technically, players describe what they want their characters to do on their turn, and then the DM determines how those actions are resolved. So, from a RAW perspective, there’s room for a DM to determine the Player’s stated actions constitute “taking the Attack Action on their turn” before any attacks are resolved, thereby fulfilling the requirement and allowing the resolution of the BA Shove prior to the resolution of the attack action.

[Pex]

I think it's important for a Fan Errata to express the difference between Designer Intent and Rule of Fun, and how often those clash. Focusing on Designer Intent provides a higher opinion, a foundation to base things off of. Rather than listening to the Fan Errata's opinion, or some random person on the internet, you can gain insight into the highest possible opinion on DnD 5e matters. Of course, you can disagree, but it keeps whatever interpretation is provided as the most "pure", before it gets dirtied by the opinions of others.

For example, Designer Intent states that you can "pop" from cover while hidden to make an attack, making it so you never left cover. However, if you ever do leave cover and enter a creature's line of sight, you are immediately spotted. This means that it's nearly impossible to melee attack while hidden (unless you can block Line of Sight somehow).
Designer Intent also states that you cannot Twin spells that magically affect more than one creature. Ice Knife, Dragon's Breath, etc, those spells all can magically affect more than one creature.

A resource like that is something I can use, comparing what the developer's planned and how people like to run things anyway.

Already I disagree because Dragon's Breath normally only targets one person. so you can twin it. It gives the recipient the ability to breathe a cone of energy. It doesn't matter what is in that cone. Right there we won't have consensus. I even disagree Dragon's Breath was written vaguely or poorly worded in the first place to need a fan errata. I don't need the internet's permission to declare you can twin Dragon's Breath or even Ice Knife since it too is only one target as specified. Creatures within 5 ft are not targeted. Some people may want to debate this in another thread, but the point is the premise of wanting a Fan Errata fails before it starts.

[Kane0]

I'm in favor of the idea and would support it, but if I were to contribute I'd go straight down that slippery slope into houserules and homebrew.

Which is fine, but not what people would come to see.

[Ganders]

I think the following wording would mostly end the Shield Master issue, without even having to change the wording of Shield Master itself:

The 'prone' condition takes effect at the end of your turn. The relevant text could be added to either the "Shoving a Creature" section or to Appendix A, or both. In fact, if added to the beginning of Appendix A, it could apply to all conditions applied on any turn, not just Prone.

It's a pretty big adjustment, as it also affects people who don't have the Shield Master feat. But it is simpler. And it's quite consistent with the idea that action and bonus action (and movement for that matter) are actually happening together, simultaneously, not one after the other (even if we do resolve them one at a time for simplicity's sake).

[Malifice]

By RAW, there is no distinction between mundane darkness, fog cloud, & magical darkness. All provide heavy obscuration, which block sight only when trying to look into the area (not behind it).

By RAW magical darkness can only be dispelled by magical light of an higher level slot. Non magical light wont penetrate it. You therefore cant see a torch held by someone on the other side.

Non magical darkness doesnt have this problem. Just like in the real world, you can see light hundreds of meters away when there is darkness between you and the torch.

As for fog or other obscurement, do you really need 'RAW' to tell you that you cant see on the other side of it, if you cant see things inside it?

Like, that's just common sense.


One issue: by RAW you can take a short rest within a long rest, although that is not RAI.

You can short rest after 1 hour of a long rest. In fact, any rest of more than 1 hour is a short rest. If your rest lasts 8 hours or more, it's a long rest.


Another: by RAW the Circle of Dreams Druid can gain a near permanent +5 to Stealth & Perception through Hearth of Moonlight and Shadow by constantly starting rests.

So? You're either resting or you're not.

Has this EVER been a contentious issue in your games? Whether or not you're resting, or you arent?


There is some ambiguity here regarding the definition of "enter".

No, there is not.

Enter means enter. Its an object or creature that enters something else. I dont enter a sword when I'm stabbed with one, it enters me. Ditto if I race over and leap on it.


By RAI, dropping an object is not intended to cost any action (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/03/29/what-are-the-rules-on-dropping-weapons/).

Which is what I said, and what the RAW says. It's not a meaningful (in terms of time or effort) activity, so it's not an action at all.

Other examples are speaking a word, or a quick flourish of your weapon.


You might want to familiarize yourself with the flip-flopping of Jeremy Crawford on this issue.

I get that, but the wording is clear. You need to take the Attack action to use the bonus action shove.

I personally have no issue with when you sequence it (and allow the Attack action afterwards), and wish the actual RAW was tidied up to reflect that.


The text is "Any character or monster that doesn’t notice a threat is surprised", which can be interpreted as "If there exists a threat that isn't noticed by a character or monster, that character or monster is surprised.

Exactly. Its totally clear.

If you fail to notice a threat (of all those present) at the start of combat, you're surprised. If you notice at least one threat, you're not surprised.


Revivify targets "a creature that has died", so the spell does nothing according to RAW.

'Creature that died' isnt a game jargon term. It's plain english.

Do you ever find it confusing as to whether a potential target is a 'creature that has died'?

Like seriously man. Common sense.


The rule is confusing: you can't both cast a Bonus Action spell & a reaction spell on the same turn, or a Bonus Action Spell & an Action Surge Fireball.

The rule isnt confusing. If you cast a spell on your turn using a bonus action, the only other spell you can cast that turn is a single cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.

So no Shield spells or Counterspells as a reaction for you that turn, and no Action surge doubled spells.

If you havent used your bonus action to cast a spell of 1st level or higher, you dont have to worry about the rule at all.


Of course. But it is often unclear what features are compatible with the new shape.

Thats what the DM is for.


Cases in point: can a Lizardfolk benefit from Natural Armor while Wild Shaped into a Giant Constrictor Snake?

No; you dont have your Lizard scales anymore. Use the Snakes AC.


And can a Druid speak Common while Wild Shaped into a Giant Elk?

No. Elks dont have adequate vocal cords to emulate human speech.

However they can maybe 'moo' or 'grunt' some roughly intelligible sounds, like Scooby Doo.

[Phoenix042]

That's only an opinion, though.

Not quite! The question of balance involve mathematical analysis, and math isn't really a matter of opinion. When I say "balanced" I usually mean quantifiably so.

In the case of shield master, mathematical analysis demonstrates quite well that it holds up better compared to similar feats if the shove can happen first.




What "should" exist is, again, an opinion. Not everyone share it.

Also very true, but there's this idea people have that everyone's opinion is equal, as long as it all comes down to opinions. I think the point of this thread is to hand everyone a game developer hat and ask them to try to answer these "should" questions together, regardless of the "does?" ones that we keep getting hung up on.

In that light I'd like to think we really can have a conversation where we weigh the merits of each others opinions and distill whatever parts we can that we can answer objectively. For example, you might think it's a matter of opinion that great weapon master is fun and effective, but it's definitely not a matter of opinion that it makes a 1st level V. Human about 60% more likely to kill a zombie in two rounds, or about 20% more likely to defeat that zombie in a fight (already a pretty high chance though).

So when we say "I think this is balanced" and you say that's a matter of opinion, I'd say yea, sort of, but that doesn't mean we can't have a meaningful discussion about whether that opinion has more weight to it than the contrary position.




Thankfully, 5e has for fundamental principle that if someone prefer their version of the rule than the one in the book, they should use theirs.

I love this just as much as you, but it's too often used as a way to shut down discussions of balance and grounding on these forums.

Raw matters to me because, while I modify the rules at my table, I want to fully understand the baseline off of which I modify them.

Similarly, questions of "should" may just seem to you to be completely arbitrary, but I personally am genuinely concerned about matters of balance and robust rules at my table, which is why I tend to think a carefully measured and considered opinion is more important to me than a flippant or careless one.


If someone says "At my table, we make ki a long rest resource because four elements monks are too OP otherwise," that person is welcome to their opinion and can play however they want, but that's not the same as saying their opinion should be taken just as seriously on these forums or at my table as, say, the guy arguing that four elements needs a buff.



It's really not worth it to get wound up about games one considers to be bad. I had to learn that.

I prefer to keep trying to improve my games rather than just continually saying "well, to each his own" and then ignoring the collective wisdom and reasoning power of the hundreds of people who regularly discuss the rules on this forum.

Not everyone's opinion is helpful to me, but that doesn't mean these discussions are so deeply worthless as you seem to think.

[Zhorn]

I think a big part of the reason for this is simply that, if shield master allows you to shove a creature prone and then attack them, it's balanced well, and if it doesn't allow you to shove them down until afterwards, it's situational and under-balance for the system as a whole.

If you ask "should?" for a moment, and forget about asking "does?", shield master SHOULD allow you to push people prone first, because this makes it a fun and thematic feat that makes you feel like you're intermixing your shield and weapons in combat, and because it makes the feat functionally on par with many other good feats.

I like more content in my games. I prefer content that is well balanced and fun both in theory and in play. My group did a natural reading of the feat without any internet biases and all came to the conclusion that you, obviously, could shove before actually making any attacks. Jeremy Crawford backed that interpretation up for a long time, then backed out of it.

I'm still seeing that section where it says I can take my bonus action "whenever I want unless the timing is specified" and waiting for someone to tell me why that doesn't let me interrupt another action that's currently happening.
Jeremy Crawford gets a lot of undue flack for changing opinions, and it's pretty unfair on him for people to keep throwing that up to invalidate his current rulings. A good deal of players that try their hands at homebrewing change and tweak their own rulings over time as they gain more understanding about their interactions in play. It's just natural for views and opinions to evolve over time with experience and hindsight. Think back on yourself a few years back? Did you have different opinions then that you do now? Does that invalidate your current opinion?

How about other rules and errata that have changed. They were one way then, and another way now. Because they used to be one way in the past, does that make their current state wrong on all fronts?

I fully get why you like the shield master shove before attacks. It is offensively superior to shoving after your attacks. I am in full support of you playing it at your table the way you want.

I understand there is a portion that goes by needing complete/end the Attack Action before the Bonus Action shove, in keeping with
https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/995024061267767298?lang=en
No general rule allows you to insert a bonus action between attacks in a single action. You can interrupt a multiple-attack action with a bonus action/reaction only if the trigger of the bonus action/reaction is an attack, rather than the action.As the wording in the feat says "take the attack action" and not "make an attack"

I myself rule at my table that the Bonus Action shove can happen anywhere inside the Attack Action AFTER the first attack without interrupting/ending the Attack Action sequence to do so, because that what I prefer. But I still recognise that what I'm doing it a table ruling.

I never had any issue with people playing the game how they want, be it strictly RAW or fully house ruled.
I'm also willing to hear about how people want to alter/deviate from RAW to make it work for them (I've half a dozen myself I've post on these forums to discuss).
But on the matter of RAW, if someone asks "how does Q work", I'll point them towards official clarifications, with more current being higher priority. This isn't some refusal to consider merits of alternate house rules, it just answering the question.

[Pex]

Jeremy Crawford gets a lot of undue flack for changing opinions, and it's pretty unfair on him for people to keep throwing that up to invalidate his current rulings. A good deal of players that try their hands at homebrewing change and tweak their own rulings over time as they gain more understanding about their interactions in play. It's just natural for views and opinions to evolve over time with experience and hindsight. Think back on yourself a few years back? Did you have different opinions then that you do now? Does that invalidate your current opinion?



However, for some people his opinion on a matter holds weight. He only has as much power on a particular game as the DM lets him if he even knows him, but when it comes to discussions here people use his words to claim someone is wrong on the internet. They'll dismissively say someone is making a house rule when they do something Crawford says is a no-no.

[Hail Tempus]

However, for some people his opinion on a matter holds weight. He only has as much power on a particular game as the DM lets him if he even knows him, but when it comes to discussions here people use his words to claim someone is wrong on the internet. They'll dismissively say someone is making a house rule when they do something Crawford says is a no-no. I look at rulings by the game designers the way a higher court looks at lower court decisions. They're persuasive, but not binding.

To be fair, I've agreed with Crawford the large majority of times. You'd have to be a fool to argue that he doesn't have a highly intricate understanding of D&D 5e rules. But, he's flubbed it a few times (e.g., his opinion that you roll only one die for Magic Missile and that's the damage for each dart is truly silly). And, in terms of interpreting ambiguous or badly written rules in the PHB or elsewhere, Crawford (and anyone else at WoTC) isn't any better qualified to parse the meaning of the relevant text than anyone else who is proficient with the English language.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I look at rulings by the game designers the way a higher court looks at lower court decisions. They're persuasive, but not binding.


Heck, I look at the rules text itself that way. The only binding thing is what the table itself decides.

[Man_Over_Game]

Already I disagree because Dragon's Breath normally only targets one person. so you can twin it. It gives the recipient the ability to breathe a cone of energy. It doesn't matter what is in that cone. Right there we won't have consensus. I even disagree Dragon's Breath was written vaguely or poorly worded in the first place to need a fan errata. I don't need the internet's permission to declare you can twin Dragon's Breath or even Ice Knife since it too is only one target as specified. Creatures within 5 ft are not targeted. Some people may want to debate this in another thread, but the point is the premise of wanting a Fan Errata fails before it starts.

JC always says that Designer Intent is not binding. Why should the Fan Errata? You're allowed to disagree and make your own choices - that's the universal goal of 5e in the first place - but a Fan Errata would be a good way of compiling all of the relevant information into one location.

Specifying Designer Intent, and the most commonly used alternative interpretation, would be a perfect way of compiling all of that info. You don't have to like the Designer's choice, but more knowledge is never worse than less. Pretending the Designer say it is much less constructive than making an active decision to rule against it.

The Fan Errata shouldn't be used for "Permission". It should be used to make tables better, and that's best done with more knowledge.

[Unoriginal]

JC always says that Designer Intent is not binding. Why should the Fan Errata? You're allowed to disagree and make your own choices - that's the universal goal of 5e in the first place - but a Fan Errata would be a good way of compiling all of the relevant information into one location.

Thing is, any kind of info in it would only be relevant to those who wish to make it relevant.



The Fan Errata shouldn't be used for "Permission". It should be used to make tables better, and that's best done with more knowledge.

Well, since yesterday several people have expressed their support for this idea, and one obviously doesn't need universal approval to do it, so trying to convince more people isn't important.

Are you, Merudo or the others who were interested in it going to write this Fan Errata?

[Sigreid]

On a positive note, if a group wants to give themselves a name and post their opinions, ok. Whatever. No reason for anyone to care who doesn't want to.

[Mjolnirbear]

Already I disagree because Dragon's Breath normally only targets one person. so you can twin it. It gives the recipient the ability to breathe a cone of energy. It doesn't matter what is in that cone. Right there we won't have consensus. I even disagree Dragon's Breath was written vaguely or poorly worded in the first place to need a fan errata. I don't need the internet's permission to declare you can twin Dragon's Breath or even Ice Knife since it too is only one target as specified. Creatures within 5 ft are not targeted. Some people may want to debate this in another thread, but the point is the premise of wanting a Fan Errata fails before it starts.

I just thought of something interesting. Aren't there abilities which you can use if you're the target of a spell, unless it's an AoE where you're not specifically (or uniquely the only) target?

Given that, it seems only fair it works the same way for spells like Dragon's Breath.

Back to the thread: I'd read such a document with interest, and it might influence me to change the way I rule things, but any such contentious issues I've likely already ruled on in a way that makes sense to me. Why put in the effort?

[Unoriginal]

On a positive note, if a group wants to give themselves a name and post their opinions, ok. Whatever. No reason for anyone to care who doesn't want to.

Precisely and exactly.

[Merudo]

Are you, Merudo or the others who were interested in it going to write this Fan Errata?

I am. As a first step, I wrote a correction to the vision rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?586510-My-Suggested-Changes-to-the-Vision-Rules).

It's a first draft, and any suggestion on how to improve the wording is welcome.

[Man_Over_Game]

Thing is, any kind of info in it would only be relevant to those who wish to make it relevant.

Which shares the spirit of DnD, in a way. Or the forum. Or any piece of literature.

[Unoriginal]

I am. As a first step, I wrote a correction to the vision rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?586510-My-Suggested-Changes-to-the-Vision-Rules).

It's a first draft, and any suggestion on how to improve the wording is welcome.

Are you going to make several threads for it? I thought you meant to regroup all of it.

[Merudo]

Are you going to make several threads for it? I thought you meant to regroup all of it.

I'll only make separate threads for the most tricky rules.

[Merudo]

The first draft of my errata is available here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?586640-Merudo-s-Unofficial-Errata-amp-Compendium).

Feel free to leave any comment, & to point out if I left out anything.