Commonly misunderstood rules [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Pleh

2020-03-23, 05:20 AM

I was watching on Youtube the recent Tulok the Barbarian episode on Building Character: How to play Doomslayer in D&D 5e, when I heard him mention that it was kinda pointless to give Light as a cantrip to a creature with Darkvision (since he was using Aasimar as a race).

It made me think he may not have realized that any time you actually use darkvision, seeing in the dark is equivalent to seeing in dim light for a normal creature without dark vision. That means that creatures who actually use their darkvision still have disadvantage on perception (for vision based checks).

It's understandable. Until my table decided to play a group of all drow doing all their adventures at night to maximize the advantage of their darkvision, I thought darkvision was normal sight without color. It wasn't until I started digging that I noticed they also have disadvantage.

Only really important if you have someone trying to sneak up on you in the dark, but that actually can come up a lot in D&D. Goblins are standard first encounter enemies who can use Hide as a bonus action, meaning if a party relies on darkvision while fighting them, the heroes have disadvantage to keep track of where the goblins are during the fight.

One Light cantrip can save a huge headache of disadvantaged rolling, especially because Light's range of effect is limited, but Darkvision also improves the cantrip's effectiveness, allowing a creature to treat dim light as bright light.

So, no, you don't need the cantrip to see in the dark and not stub your toe on the stone floor, but if you care about hidden traps or enemies, you are way better off having the cantrip (especially in those early levels).

So that's my story. What are some of the other often misunderstood rules you've noticed?

Galithar

2020-03-23, 05:46 AM

sithlordnergal

2020-03-23, 05:51 AM

Galithar

2020-03-23, 05:59 AM

Surprise. I just...5e Surprise is so dang clunky, I'm not surprised people get it wrong:

First, its a condition, not a "round"

Second, it only comes into play when you role initative.

Which means you can be 100% hidden, but if your target goes before you, they lose their condition and can react to you.

I feel like that for every person that misunderstands this one another is simply choosing to ignore it. My group falls in the misunderstanding the rule group. They argue with me if I try to get it ruled correctly, which I often try whether following the rule is in our favor or not (as a player, as a DM I have houseruled surprise rounds as a thing).

Lunali

2020-03-23, 06:20 AM

Cheesegear

2020-03-23, 06:41 AM

So that's my story. What are some of the other often misunderstood rules you've noticed?

- You can move through a nonhostile creature's space.
- You can move through a hostile's space only if it has two size categories' difference.
- Other creatures' space are difficult terrain.
I have had the conversation multiple times, where a player thinks that a friendly's space isn't difficult terrain.

'Bonus' means 'Extra'. You can have as many Bonus Actions in a turn as you want. No. You can't.
'Free' means 'Free'. You can have as many Free Actions in a turn as you want. No. You can't. That's also a holdover term from previous editions of the game. 5e never, not once, refers to 'Free Actions' being a Things That Exist.

Spellcasting Ability Modifier, and Spell Attack, are the same thing. "Look at the table!"
No. Have you tried reading the block text? It tells you what your spellcasting ability is... Twice!
"But the table says..."
...I've had this conversation three times with the same person, in as many weeks. :smallsigh:

"Magical Darkness, eh? I have Darkvision, so it's fine."
Read. The ****ing. Spell. Every time.

Any time a player uses a Racial or Class Feature that allows them to cast a spell without actually having a 'Spell List' (e.g; Shadow Monk); I'm not actually casting it, it's a bonus ability from my race/class. So you can't Counterspell or Dispel Magic.
...wat. You cast the spell, with certain caveats. Besides, Crawford already Sage'd it.

"Can I hide?"
The creature can see you.
"No, I mean, can I take the Hide Action?"
No.
"No. I know it can see me now. But what if I hide?"
That's not how object permanence works. The rules even say as much.

Roll a [Skill Check], please.
"Nat 20!"
...What'd you get?
"Nat 20. Crit."
:smallsigh: ...It's a skill check. What'd you get?

stoutstien

2020-03-23, 07:14 AM

Rolling a ranged attack while an enemy is within 5 feet of you gives you disadvantage regardless of what Target you pick.

Millstone85

2020-03-23, 07:50 AM

Chainlocks have advantage on saving throws against spells and other magical effects. Nope! When gaining an imp familiar through the Pact of the Chain warlock feature, you should not assume that it will be combined with the Variant: Imp Familiar optional rule from the MM. Same thing with a pseudodragon or a quasit.

The cranium rat, the crawling claw, and the gazer have been added to the list of possible forms for a chainlock's familiar. Wrong again! If you take the Variant: Familiars optional rule from the NPC sections of the MM and VGtM, and apply it to PCs, then these forms have actually been added to the find familiar spell itself, to the joy of tomelocks, wizards and anyone with Magic Initiate or Ritual Caster.

That Charmed does anything other than advantage on Charisma checks and prevents them from attacking you. Unless the effect that caused the charm condition explicitly says so, charmed doesn't do anything else.Which is a big problem for the goolock's Create Thrall feature. Even Mike Mearls made that mistake in one of his videos. No sir, it does not "give you a servant" in any way.

Spellcasting Ability Modifier, and Spell Attack, are the same thing. "Look at the table!"I don't understand. What are they trying to do? What table?

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-23, 07:56 AM

Rolling a ranged attack while an enemy is within 5 feet of you gives you disadvantage regardless of what Target you pick.

this one! last month, I found out that all my tables have been playing it wrong (including me) since 2016.

Chronos

2020-03-23, 08:16 AM

My group commonly ignores the rule that readying an action to cast a spell consumes the spell slot regardless of whether it's triggered or not. I think that most of the group ignores that rule because they don't know it. But I ignore it because I think it's a stupid rule (and I imagine the rest of the group would agree, if they did know).

Segev

2020-03-23, 08:25 AM

Chainlocks have advantage on saving throws against spells and other magical effects. Nope! When gaining an imp familiar through the Pact of the Chain warlock feature, you should not assume that it will be combined with the Variant: Imp Familiar optional rule from the MM. Same thing with a pseudodragon or a quasit.

The cranium rat, the crawling claw, and the gazer have been added to the list of possible forms for a chainlock's familiar. Wrong again! If you take the Variant: Familiars optional rule from the NPC sections of the MM and VGtM, and apply it to PCs, then these forms have actually been added to the find familiar spell itself, to the joy of tomelocks, wizards and anyone with Magic Initiate or Ritual Caster.

There’s probably an entire thread of discussion here. The Variant: Familiars rule sidebars don’t mention Find Familiar at all, though. Any spellcaster can have one of the sidebarred creatures as a familiar if they meet one and convince it (or it offers) to become their familiar. No Find Familiar spell required.

They’re also universally more powerful than either the spell-granted or the Chainlock-granted familiars. They retain all their own actions, potentially share traits not shared via even the Chainlock’s feature (e.g. the Imp’s magic resistance), and share their senses without action required of the master.

Now, they can quit any time, unlike spell-granted or Chainlock familiars, and you can’t dismiss them even temporarily, nor change their forms for the cost of 10 gp and 70 minutes of ritual casting. But they seem like the kind of thing that will make a caster feel like he’s wasted his resources getting a familiar via spell or Pact if these are an option.

da newt

2020-03-23, 08:26 AM

Rolling a ranged attack while an enemy is within 5 feet of you gives you disadvantage regardless of what Target you pick.

This one for me too - but especially for spells that use an attack roll.

As an aside - the logic that casting an attack roll spell can be adversely effected by a combatant in melee with the caster makes perfect sense to me - but then a saving throw spell can be cast with no issue under the same conditions defies logic.

I assume this was a game design choice to make it harder to nerf the finger wigglers than just stand next to them ...

Chad.e.clark

2020-03-23, 08:31 AM

stoutstien

2020-03-23, 08:34 AM

One that I misunderstood for the longest time was thinking attacking in Dim Light without darkvision meant you were attacking at disadvantage, because of the disadvantage on perception checks. Only been within the past month or so that I got that cleared up.

Disadvantage on perception checks have no barring on attack rolls. Attacks in some light are normal unless you include other factors.

Chaos Jackal

2020-03-23, 08:40 AM

Action Surge and Cunning Action allow someone to take a second bonus action in a round. I still get people insisting on this, sometimes the same people that me or someone else corrected six or twelve or eighteen months ago. I presume it's because nobody bothers with checking that, in fact, a character doesn't have a bonus action in the first place unless a feature explicitly grants them one to be used, but I'd still expect someone who has been playing this edition for years and has been told how the abilities work repeatedly to finally learn it.

Perception disadvantage when using darkvision. Nobody remembers that.

Drawing weapons. Not as common, but I often see people, especially in a pinch, throwing a weapon, then drawing and throwing another one, or switching from a bow to two-weapon fighting in one turn.\

Natural 20s and natural 1s on skills and saving throws being automatic successes/failures. No, they aren't.

CapnWildefyr

2020-03-23, 08:43 AM

Surprise. I just...5e Surprise is so dang clunky, I'm not surprised people get it wrong:

First, its a condition, not a "round"

Second, it only comes into play when you role initative.

Which means you can be 100% hidden, but if your target goes before you, they lose their condition and can react to you.

But at least they cannot act. So if they do not have anything that grants a reaction, they lose the whole round. Since the initiative roll should be triggered in this case by the party doing something, you could probably argue that the surprised guys did not have an action planned, which means they are essentially taking the "Ready" action of "I do nothing until After something happens," which would mean no reactions until AFTER the first PC finishes up. Ugh.

Pleh

2020-03-23, 08:52 AM

That Charmed does anything other than advantage on Charisma checks and prevents them from attacking you. Unless the effect that caused the charm condition explicitly says so, charmed doesn't do anything else.

This one came to me last week after listening to AllThingsD&D with the story about the paladin who got charmed by their evil party member into not stopping their villainy. Wish I could have been at the table to read the rulebook to them on that one.

Which means you can be 100% hidden, but if your target goes before you, they lose their condition and can react to you.

To clarify, they can react to you if they can find you, right? You said even if you're 100% hidden, but they have to know you're somewhere nearby to react to you, right?

- Other creatures' space are difficult terrain.
I have had the conversation multiple times, where a player thinks that a friendly's space isn't difficult terrain.

Oh, there's one I've definitely been doing wrong.

5e never, not once, refers to 'Free Actions' being a Things That Exist.

I noticed the other day when reading about Drop Prone rules that they were careful to say something like, "it's a movement that costs no move speed."

"Can I hide?"
The creature can see you.
"No, I mean, can I take the Hide Action?"
No.
"No. I know it can see me now. But what if I hide?"
That's not how object permanence works. The rules even say as much.

To clarify, you mean when they have no available sources of cover, right? Seems like Hide is very context sensitive is the point. Yes, object permanence, but we've all seen the tavern brawler duck behind the bar and crawl to the far end once out of sight to confuse their exact location?

My group commonly ignores the rule that readying an action to cast a spell consumes the spell slot regardless of whether it's triggered or not. I think that most of the group ignores that rule because they don't know it. But I ignore it because I think it's a stupid rule (and I imagine the rest of the group would agree, if they did know).

Further, you have to concentrate to hold it until the trigger. If you take damage while holding it and fail concentration, you lose it.

Thing here is, I think it's fair to houserule that you don't lose the spell as long as enemies benefit from this houserule, too. The DM should be free to have enemy casters free to ready spells without fearing losing slots for getting interrupted or missing the trigger.

Millstone85

2020-03-23, 09:06 AM

There’s probably an entire thread of discussion here. The Variant: Familiars rule sidebars don’t mention Find Familiar at all, though. Any spellcaster can have one of the sidebarred creatures as a familiar if they meet one and convince it (or it offers) to become their familiar. No Find Familiar spell required.There are four sidebars in the MM:

Variant: Quasit Familiar, page 63
Variant: Imp Familiar, page 69
Variant: Pseudodragon Familiar, page 254
Variant: Familiars, page 347

The first three are indeed based on the idea of meeting the creature and convincing it to form a bond with you. The last one, however, is about the find familiar spell.

Which once again shows that 5e has way too many different rules for familiars.

"Can I hide?"
The creature can see you.
"No, I mean, can I take the Hide Action?"
No.
"No. I know it can see me now. But what if I hide?"
That's not how object permanence works. The rules even say as much.
To clarify, you mean when they have no available sources of cover, right? Seems like Hide is very context sensitive is the point. Yes, object permanence, but we've all seen the tavern brawler duck behind the bar and crawl to the far end once out of sight to confuse their exact location?I agree.

Say Adrian is under fire by Babs the archer. He moves behind dense foliage, takes the Hide action, and his Dexterity (Stealth) check beats her Wisdom (Perception) check, meaning she fails to notice any further signs of his presence. Now, obviously, she doesn't forget he exists, and she knows that he is behind the foliage. Also, the foliage provides "obscurement", but no "cover", so her arrows can move right through it. However, there is enough foliage to hide four characters like Adrian. Where does Babs loose her next arrow? She has to guess his location, perhaps through the DM rolling a d4. Because yes, Adrian is hidden, both unseen and unheard, from her.

Ogeeogelthorpe

2020-03-23, 09:24 AM

stoutstien

2020-03-23, 09:39 AM

Catullus64

2020-03-23, 09:54 AM

So very often, players seem to expect that because they instigate a fight by casting a spell or making an attack, that spell or attack should happen before initiative. "But I cast it at him before we started fighting!" is the usual refrain, as if the ability to act before someone else can fight back isn't what the entire system of initiative is meant to represent.

Conversely, I've had DMs hit me and other players with hostile spells without rolling initiative, denying us the possibility to go first and react.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-23, 09:55 AM

One that I misunderstood for the longest time was thinking attacking in Dim Light without darkvision meant you were attacking at disadvantage, because of the disadvantage on perception checks. Only been within the past month or so that I got that cleared up.

the game got less fun once we realized that attack rolls weren't penalized. we realized that lighting didn't matter.
it should be harder to shoot something if you can't see as well.

stoutstien

2020-03-23, 10:08 AM

the game got less fun once we realized that attack rolls weren't penalized. we realized that lighting didn't matter.
it should be harder to shoot something if you can't see as well.

I think you misunderstand what levels of illumination dim light is representing. The easiest example to look at is probably the bright full moon. With that kind of lighting you could clearly see someone standing in the open but you probably will have a hard time identifying the exact color of their clothing.

Segev

2020-03-23, 10:19 AM

Drawing weapons. Not as common, but I often see people, especially in a pinch, throwing a weapon, then drawing and throwing another one, or switching from a bow to two-weapon fighting in one turn.
I'm pretty sure we do this one wrong at my table. Weapons are swapped around more or less at will. Nobody's swapped between weapons mid attack-routine, though, so we might be good? The free object interaction rules are a pain. I'm pretty sure the ranger has switched from bow to both short swords between rounds without any special extra action spent drawing the second one, though.

There are four sidebars in the MM:
Variant: Quasit Familiar, page 63
Variant: Imp Familiar, page 69
Variant: Pseudodragon Familiar, page 254
Variant: Familiars, page 347
The first three are indeed based on the idea of meeting the creature and convincing it to form a bond with you. The last one, however, is about the find familiar spell.
Which once again shows that 5e has way too many different rules for familiars.
Replied to this part here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?609187-Find-Familiar-Pact-of-the-Chain-and-Variant-Familiars). I felt this was moving into its own topic and getting off topic from misunderstood rules.

I agree.

Say Adrian is under fire by Babs the archer. He moves behind dense foliage, takes the Hide action, and his Dexterity (Stealth) check beats her Wisdom (Perception) check, meaning she fails to notice any further signs of his presence. Now, obviously, she doesn't forget he exists, and she knows that he is behind the foliage. Also, the foliage provides "obscurement", but no "cover", so her arrows can move right through it. However, there is enough foliage to hide four characters like Adrian. Where does Babs loose her next arrow? She has to guess his location, perhaps through the DM rolling a d4. Because yes, Adrian is hidden, both unseen and unheard, from her.
I assume here you're saying that the foliage, on a grid of 5 ft. squares, covers 4 such squares?

Cheesegear

2020-03-23, 10:22 AM

the game got less fun once we realized that attack rolls weren't penalized. we realized that lighting didn't matter.

For combat after it's started? No.

But if you're the DM, and you say "Everyone make Perception, at Disadvantage."
The party knows that they're about to be screwed by something. Lighting matters, before the fight has even started.

If the DM doesn't use enemies that Stealth, or traps...Then no, Lightning probably doesn't matter. But that's on your DM, not the game.

Of course, the players know that other creatures have Disadvantage on Perception, so when they Stealth, it's also easier, too.

Segev

2020-03-23, 10:30 AM

Millstone85

2020-03-23, 10:40 AM

I assume here you're saying that the foliage, on a grid of 5 ft. squares, covers 4 such squares?Yes, that is correct.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-23, 10:52 AM

Avonar

2020-03-23, 10:56 AM

"Can I hide?"
The creature can see you.
"No, I mean, can I take the Hide Action?"
No.
"No. I know it can see me now. But what if I hide?"
That's not how object permanence works. The rules even say as much.

Very much this. Just because you broke line of sight doesn't mean that the enemy forget you exist. It applies to general stealth rolls as well, the number of times that someone has said "I want to Stealth" then can't answer me as to HOW they are trying to sneak past is rather large. Saying you are stealthing and rolling a check means nothing if you have no legitimate way to do it.

Segev

2020-03-23, 10:59 AM

are you saying that it is just as easy to walk down a rocky path in moonlight as it is during broad daylight?

I don't see how this is a relevant question. There are no rules for having more difficulty moving over difficult terrain in dim lighting than bright lighting. Other than inability to see to avoid hitting walls and other barriers, I don't even know if there are rules other than "you move at half speed" when blind/in total darkness.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-23, 11:03 AM

For combat after it's started? No.

But if you're the DM, and you say "Everyone make Perception, at Disadvantage."
The party knows that they're about to be screwed by something. Lighting matters, before the fight has even started.

If the DM doesn't use enemies that Stealth, or traps...Then no, Lightning probably doesn't matter. But that's on your DM, not the game.

Of course, the players know that other creatures have Disadvantage on Perception, so when they Stealth, it's also easier, too.

eh, i disagree. stealth and traps aren't particularly effective against an elven rogue with observant. adding traps in that case generally means the rogue makes more rolls, while i go get a coke. i do like that not knowing a thing about my party or our games, you blamed the DM...

I don't see how this is a relevant question. There are no rules for having more difficulty moving over difficult terrain in dim lighting than bright lighting. Other than inability to see to avoid hitting walls and other barriers, I don't even know if there are rules other than "you move at half speed" when blind/in total darkness.

stout was justifying the combat rules based on real life "With that kind of lighting you could clearly see someone standing in the open but you probably will have a hard time identifying the exact color of their clothing."

i misunderstood, i thought stout mentioned that i can see someone in moonlight with respect to real life. no, he was just stating in the game rules that there is no penalty for combat in dim light.

i was pointing out that dim light should have an effect on combat in real life. thus justifying why i liked dim light affecting combat in the game.

Keltest

2020-03-23, 11:13 AM

I don't see how this is a relevant question. There are no rules for having more difficulty moving over difficult terrain in dim lighting than bright lighting. Other than inability to see to avoid hitting walls and other barriers, I don't even know if there are rules other than "you move at half speed" when blind/in total darkness.

Also, speaking from experience, yes. Under the light of a full moon or nearly full moon, the ground is quite visible. I wouldn't want to sprint across it, but I wouldn't want to do that in daylight either.

stoutstien

2020-03-23, 11:16 AM

are you saying that it is just as easy to walk down a rocky path in moonlight as it is during broad daylight?
In DND 5e? Yep just as easily.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-23, 11:22 AM

In DND 5e? Yep just as easily.

my bad, i thought your were saying that dim light wouldn't have any effect on combat by basing on real life. instead you are just stating the game rules.

yes, i am aware that the game rules do not have penalties for walking or combat in dim light.
i figured that was clear since i stated that i was aware of those rules.

i amended my previous posts to clarify that you weren't talking about the real world, just restating the game rules for some reason.

Man_Over_Game

2020-03-23, 11:34 AM

Action Surge [...] allow someone to take a second bonus action in a round. I still get people insisting on this, sometimes the same people that me or someone else corrected six or twelve or eighteen months ago.

Actually, the reason for that is a lot more complicated than you think.

Originally, Action Surge was printed with mentioning "Bonus Action", but not that it gave you one. It said something like "You get an extra Action, and you still get your Bonus Action". If I had to wager a guess, the pre-release Action Surge may have cost you your Bonus Action to use, and they later decided to change it and make sure Action Surge reflected that change.

The mention of a Bonus Action was removed in later printings...but the change was never mentioned in any Errata. So players with older books get something really ambiguous, and players with newer books think those other players are just crazy.

stoutstien

2020-03-23, 11:36 AM

my bad, i thought your were saying that dim light wouldn't have any effect on combat by basing on real life. instead you are just stating the game rules.

yes, i am aware that the game rules do not have penalties for walking or combat in dim light.
i figured that was clear since i stated that i was aware of those rules.

i amended my previous posts to clarify that you weren't talking about the real world, just restating the game rules for some reason.

Vision rules as a whole are a mess because they are all based on very vague parameters. Dim light does not interfere with attacking in the game because dim light is still enough illumination to make that attack but is dim enough to interfere with perception.

That volume of light is probably visualized at different levels for each person but the rules act as a guideline.

Keltest

2020-03-23, 11:37 AM

Demonslayer666

2020-03-23, 11:51 AM

Casting a second spell on your turn. I still can't get this one right.

Many actions from previous editions still trip up my group. They want to 5' step and act, or do stuff in place of their move action.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-23, 11:57 AM

Vision rules as a whole are a mess because they are all based on very vague parameters. Dim light does not interfere with attacking in the game because dim light is still enough illumination to make that attack but is dim enough to interfere with perception.

That volume of light is probably visualized at different levels for each person but the rules act as a guideline.

again, thanks for restating the rules.
for anyone who is still unsure: in 5e, dim light does not affect attack rolls, dim light does affect perception rolls.

Man_Over_Game

2020-03-23, 12:07 PM

Casting a second spell on your turn. I still can't get this one right.

Simply put, if you cast any spell with your Bonus Action, all other spells you cast in the same turn must be cantrips.

That's it. Anything using Sorcerer Metamagics or Action Surge all obey that one rule.

Demonslayer666

2020-03-23, 12:11 PM

Simply put, if you cast any spell with your Bonus Action, all other spells you cast in the same turn must be cantrips.

That's it. Anything using Sorcerer Metamagics or Action Surge all obey that one rule.

That makes it sound like you can cast any two spells you want using Action Surge, as long as you don't use a bonus action.

Ashrym

2020-03-23, 12:14 PM

Combining magical effects. -- 2 walls of fire or 2 spirit guardians in the same area do not do damage multiple times. The strongest version is the one that applies.

Keltest

2020-03-23, 12:15 PM

That makes it sound like you can cast any two spells you want using Action Surge, as long as you don't use a bonus action.

More simply put: You get one non-cantrip spell per turn, period, no matter how many actions you get, or of what kind of action.

DarknessEternal

2020-03-23, 12:23 PM

Very much this. Just because you broke line of sight doesn't mean that the enemy forget you exist. It applies to general stealth rolls as well, the number of times that someone has said "I want to Stealth" then can't answer me as to HOW they are trying to sneak past is rather large. Saying you are stealthing and rolling a check means nothing if you have no legitimate way to do it.

I think you're misunderstanding how hiding works in 5e. It's not some kind of vanishing invisibility.

In 5e rules, if you hide when someone knows you're there. They still know you're there. They simply have disadvantage on attack rolls against you while you have advantage on attack rolls against them (in combat). Hiding in combat rules in 5e exist explicitly to allow Rogues to sneak attack.

MaxWilson

2020-03-23, 12:28 PM

That makes it sound like you can cast any two spells you want using Action Surge, as long as you don't use a bonus action.

You can. You can also cast a Reaction spell + Action spell. (Hold Monster + Counterspell, or Dimension Door + Feather Fall, etc.)

But you cannot cast a Reaction Spell + Bonus Action spell. No justification is given, but you can't, unless the DM decides that is dumb and changes the rule.

More simply put: You get one non-cantrip spell per turn, period, no matter how many actions you get, or of what kind of action.

That is not the rule.

Keltest

2020-03-23, 12:33 PM

I think you're misunderstanding how hiding works in 5e. It's not some kind of vanishing invisibility.

In 5e rules, if you hide when someone knows you're there. They still know you're there. They simply have disadvantage on attack rolls against you while you have advantage on attack rolls against them (in combat). Hiding in combat rules in 5e exist explicitly to allow Rogues to sneak attack.

So, kinda sorta. If you successfully hide from somebody, they don't know where you are. They can guess and deduce, and if they happen to guess right, they can make their attack with disadvantage, but if you duck behind a hedge, hide, and they assume youre continuing to move along the hedge when youre actually standing still and shoot where you aren't, theyre never going to hit you.

The DM decides what circumstances are appropriate for hiding, so if youre on a flat plane that is well lit and has one visual obstacle, you may be able to hide behind it, but theyre still going to know where you are, and no DM will let you sneak out from behind that blocker unless youre literally invisible. But if its a cluttered area and you can duck behind things without making a sound, then you can theoretically move around skyrim style without them knowing where you are at all.

Man_Over_Game

2020-03-23, 12:39 PM

Segev

2020-03-23, 12:42 PM

I think a better way of describing "Hiding" is that you're just taking action to hide what you're doing. That might mean you get Advantage on your next attack, or that you've moved to another location, or that you've made yourself scarce.

But overall, it just means that the enemy doesn't know what you're doing next. Hiding doesn't interact with anything you or your enemy did do, only what they will do.

It's pretty clear that Hiding makes them not able to see you. Or pick out your presence by hearing or other senses, for that matter. They might still know (or at least suspect) you're around. They might guess - even possibly accurately - where you're hiding. But they can't perceive you.

Pex

2020-03-23, 12:43 PM

Keltest

2020-03-23, 12:49 PM

Proficiency in a skill is not permission to use said skill. You may perform the skill even when you don't have proficiency. Also, please, don't only have the PC with the highest modifier make the check. If you want to do something, do it. Don't ask who is better then sigh and have that player roll. Not everything in the game is DC you'll never make it if you don't have a high plus number. DCs can be 10 even your measly +1 to a skill means you have a decent chance to succeed when a roll is called.

So, if youre trying to pick a lock, theres no reason at all to let anybody besides the proficient rogue with the highest dex in the party do it, if theyre there to try. That's what you brought them for. Making a medicine check? Let the party doctor do it. Tracking? Let the ranger do it. Having the wizard try to track something just because they were the one who thought of it is silly, you have experts in these skills for a reason.

MaxWilson

2020-03-23, 12:50 PM

It's pretty clear that Hiding makes them not able to see you. Or pick out your presence by hearing or other senses, for that matter. They might still know (or at least suspect) you're around. They might guess - even possibly accurately - where you're hiding. But they can't perceive you.

Yes, otherwise traits like Wood Elf Mask of the Wild are useless.

So, if youre trying to pick a lock, theres no reason at all to let anybody besides the proficient rogue with the highest dex in the party do it, if theyre there to try. That's what you brought them for. Making a medicine check? Let the party doctor do it. Tracking? Let the ranger do it. Having the wizard try to track something just because they were the one who thought of it is silly, you have experts in these skills for a reason.

If a fighter and a thief who both know lockpicking are both breaking into a castle and casing the joint and the fighter finds a locked bedroom, what is the harm in the fighter quietly attempting to pick the lock before bashing the door down or calling the thief over just because he has Expertise? There may not even be anything interesting in the bedroom, and if it turns out to be unexpected difficult to open you can always call the thief's attention to it.

If a wizard is conversing with an NPC and she seems reticent to speak of a matter, what's the harm in gently cajoling her to share her thoughts instead of calling over the party bard to cajole her for you? The wizard may not be a dashing Romeo but he's not a leper or a social outcast either, and he's already in the conversation.

There's value in autonomy and getting to just declare actions that interest you, even if someone else would have been statistically better at those actions had they chosen to do them instead.

Segev

2020-03-23, 12:53 PM

Proficiency in a skill is not permission to use said skill. You may perform the skill even when you don't have proficiency. Also, please, don't only have the PC with the highest modifier make the check. If you want to do something, do it. Don't ask who is better then sigh and have that player roll. Not everything in the game is DC you'll never make it if you don't have a high plus number. DCs can be 10 even your measly +1 to a skill means you have a decent chance to succeed when a roll is called.

By the same token, DMs should be encouraged to just allow things to succeed if there's no compelling reason why they shouldn't. There's a judgment call here, of course, but even if there's a reasonable chance of failure, if the failure is just a frustration, don't bother with it.

They should also consider, sometimes, just allowing those proficient in appropriate things to succeed for being proficient.

Garfunion

2020-03-23, 12:59 PM

Spellcasting Ability Modifier, and Spell Attack, are the same thing. "Look at the table!"
No. Have you tried reading the block text? It tells you what your spellcasting ability is... Twice!
"But the table says..."

I think I may need a little more of an explanation on this. What was the player trying to do?

MaxWilson

2020-03-23, 01:01 PM

I think I may need a little more of an explanation on this.

Do you need an explanation of the spell attack rules, or an explanation of how anyone could possibly misunderstand the spell attack rules?

I might need the latter...

Garfunion

2020-03-23, 01:03 PM

an explanation of how anyone could possibly misunderstand the spell attack rules?
This right here

I might need the latter...
This is also worrisome.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-23, 01:07 PM

Combining magical effects. -- 2 walls of fire or 2 spirit guardians in the same area do not do damage multiple times. The strongest version is the one that applies.

whether one creatures can be charmed by 2 different creatures at the same time.
please don't argue it in this thread.

Chaos Jackal

2020-03-23, 01:35 PM

Actually, the reason for that is a lot more complicated than you think.

Originally, Action Surge was printed with mentioning "Bonus Action", but not that it gave you one. It said something like "You get an extra Action, and you still get your Bonus Action". If I had to wager a guess, the pre-release Action Surge may have cost you your Bonus Action to use, and they later decided to change it and make sure Action Surge reflected that change.

The mention of a Bonus Action was removed in later printings...but the change was never mentioned in any Errata. So players with older books get something really ambiguous, and players with newer books think those other players are just crazy.

Oh, I am fully aware. It used to be "you can take one additional action on top of your regular action and a possible bonus action". The wording is ambiguous. The text is the most common argument I've heard. However, there's no ambiguity left once you check the bonus action rules, as there's actually no reading of the sentence that can lead to two bonus actions (a bonus action might be available, hence the "possible" part, but you don't have one by default, so no extra from Action Surge either).

I'd expect people who have been playing this game for years to have finally understood how bonus actions work, or have asked/checked online or whatever and get over said ambiguity. But very often I see that they don't.

And let's say Action Surge is kind of justifiable. Kind of. But the amount of times I've had to mention that Cunning Action doesn't allow you to disengage on top of attacking with your offhand weapon is unreal. Hell, I've even had a DM once who insisted on it, finally came around and then, a few months later, when a new rogue player joined, started preaching about it all over again.

Keltest

2020-03-23, 01:55 PM

Oh, I am fully aware. It used to be "you can take one additional action on top of your regular action and a possible bonus action". The wording is ambiguous. The text is the most common argument I've heard. However, there's no ambiguity left once you check the bonus action rules, as there's actually no reading of the sentence that can lead to two bonus actions (a bonus action might be available, hence the "possible" part, but you don't have one by default, so no extra from Action Surge either).

I'd expect people who have been playing this game for years to have finally understood how bonus actions work, or have asked/checked online or whatever and get over said ambiguity. But very often I see that they don't.

And let's say Action Surge is kind of justifiable. Kind of. But the amount of times I've had to mention that Cunning Action doesn't allow you to disengage on top of attacking with your offhand weapon is unreal. Hell, I've even had a DM once who insisted on it, finally came around and then, a few months later, when a new rogue player joined, started preaching about it all over again.

That one, I think, is more to do with attacking as an off hand weapon being a bonus action, which I personally think is a little silly. Let us get one swing with the off hand weapon as part of the attack action.

Segev

2020-03-23, 02:03 PM

MaxWilson

2020-03-23, 02:09 PM

Segev

2020-03-23, 02:13 PM

Is a bonus action precisely because you don’t get one unless something gives it to you. And you get at most one.

Ashrym

2020-03-23, 02:20 PM

Keravath

2020-03-23, 02:22 PM

But at least they cannot act. So if they do not have anything that grants a reaction, they lose the whole round. Since the initiative roll should be triggered in this case by the party doing something, you could probably argue that the surprised guys did not have an action planned, which means they are essentially taking the "Ready" action of "I do nothing until After something happens," which would mean no reactions until AFTER the first PC finishes up. Ugh.

If they are surprised then they can't take any actions including the Ready action. However, after their turn has passed in the initiative order they can take reactions which could include shield, counterspell, opportunity attacks and similar abilities.

Segev

2020-03-23, 02:27 PM

47Ace

2020-03-23, 02:28 PM

That one, I think, is more to do with attacking as an off hand weapon being a bonus action, which I personally think is a little silly. Let us get one swing with the off hand weapon as part of the attack action.

A bit off topic but, Why? Why do people insist on handing out a 5th level fighter feature to commoners as long as they are willing to look stupid by walking around with (presumable) two equal length weapons. Even the bonus action version is stupid, attacking is a full body action and there is nothing about having a weapon in your other hand that lets you move your body faster. Its like if the game included a non magical hot pink dress (with an unflattering cut) that any one could buy for 2gp (the same as a dagger) that let you cast fireball twice a day. Sure it would only be 4-5d6 and 15 foot radius but, it's still handing a 5th level wizard feature to a commoner at the low cost of looking silly. The base rule should have been if you have a light weapon in your off hand you gain +1 to AC so rapier and dagger works. Then as a feat you could get you extra attacks (because fantasy and special training) something comparable to GWM damage like -5 to hit take twice as many attacks.

Keravath

2020-03-23, 02:30 PM

There were some arguments regarding spells and bonus actions.

"A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven’t already taken a bonus action this turn. You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."

If the character uses a bonus action spell then according to that rule the character cannot cast a spell with a casting time of a reaction on that turn. Technically "a cantrip" means one even if using action surge for another action. Ignoring that (because I don't think it's RAI), action surge is an action on the same turn. It does not stipulate only casting a cantrip like a bonus action spell does, so if an eldritch knight casts a spell then action surges another spell can be cast, but if the eldritch knight can cast whatever spell. If the eldritch knight uses a bonus action he or she is then limited to cantrips of 1 action.

That's how I interpret this. Is there something I might be missing here?

You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.

Combat is divided into rounds in which creatures actions are resolved in initiative order. A creature takes their turn when their initiative comes up.

If a creature casts ANY spell with a casting time of a bonus action then the ONLY other spells that can be cast on their turn (not round) are cantrips with a casting time of 1 action.

If a character uses action surge then they have TWO actions. Both of these can be used to cast a leveled spell as long as the character does not cast a bonus action spell.

If the character chooses to cast a bonus action spell (even a cantrip - e.g. via quicken) then no matter how many actions the character has, if they choose the Cast a Spell action, these spells are limited to a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.

Keltest

2020-03-23, 02:36 PM

A bit off topic but, Why? Why do people insist on handing out a 5th level fighter feature to commoners as long as they are willing to look stupid by walking around with (presumable) two equal length weapons. Even the bonus action version is stupid, attacking is a full body action and there is nothing about having a weapon in your other hand that lets you move your body faster. Its like if the game included a non magical hot pink dress (with an unflattering cut) that any one could buy for 2gp (the same as a dagger) that let you cast fireball twice a day. Sure it would only be 4-5d6 and 15 foot radius but, it's still handing a 5th level wizard feature to a commoner at the low cost of looking silly. The base rule should have been if you have a light weapon in your off hand you gain +1 to AC so rapier and dagger works. Then as a feat you could get you extra attacks (because fantasy and special training) something comparable to GWM damage like -5 to hit take twice as many attacks.

By default, you can only dual wield two light weapons, so without a feat you aren't ever going to go around dual wielding longswords. Your bonus action attack with this weapon also comes with an additional penality: you cant add your stat bonus (whichever is appropriate) to the damage. Youre also limited to one attack with this weapon per turn, ever, currently, even if you action surge. Its silly IMO that a level 20 fighter could conceivably attack 8 times with his main weapon in a turn, and an almighty one with his off hand.

Darc_Vader

2020-03-23, 02:56 PM

By default, you can only dual wield two light weapons, so without a feat you aren't ever going to go around dual wielding longswords. Your bonus action attack with this weapon also comes with an additional penality: you cant add your stat bonus (whichever is appropriate) to the damage. Youre also limited to one attack with this weapon per turn, ever, currently, even if you action surge. Its silly IMO that a level 20 fighter could conceivably attack 8 times with his main weapon in a turn, and an almighty one with his off hand.

Well to be fair, there’s nothing stopping that Fighter from making 5 attacks with their ‘main’ weapon and 4 with the other. The intent behind the twf rule seems to be that having a second weapon just lets you sneak in one additional (weaker) attack on top of your other ones.

Ashrym

2020-03-23, 02:58 PM

Don’t confuse “turn” and “round.”

Reactions almost never happen on your turn.

I'm not confused. Counterspelling a counterspell is when it comes up. The bonus action spell has no bearing on someone else's turn.

Ashrym

2020-03-23, 03:00 PM

You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.

Combat is divided into rounds in which creatures actions are resolved in initiative order. A creature takes their turn when their initiative comes up.

If a creature casts ANY spell with a casting time of a bonus action then the ONLY other spells that can be cast on their turn (not round) are cantrips with a casting time of 1 action.

If a character uses action surge then they have TWO actions. Both of these can be used to cast a leveled spell as long as the character does not cast a bonus action spell.

If the character chooses to cast a bonus action spell (even a cantrip - e.g. via quicken) then no matter how many actions the character has, if they choose the Cast a Spell action, these spells are limited to a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.

Yes, that's how I interpret it, thank you.

Segev

2020-03-23, 03:02 PM

I'm not confused. Counterspelling a counterspell is when it comes up. The bonus action spell has no bearing on someone else's turn.

Fair enough. In that case, yes, it would seem that the RAW are that, if you've cast a bonus action spell, and somebody counterspells it, you cannot counterspell the counterspell. Nor can you counterspell their counterspell if you cast a bonus action spell and they're counterspelling your normal-action cantrip. Of course, if they're counterspelling a cantrip....

Man_Over_Game

2020-03-23, 03:05 PM

Lol. If you want to get really weird about it, is a Counterspelled spell count as being cast or not?

47Ace

2020-03-23, 03:08 PM

By default, you can only dual wield two light weapons, so without a feat you aren't ever going to go around dual wielding longswords. Your bonus action attack with this weapon also comes with an additional penality: you cant add your stat bonus (whichever is appropriate) to the damage. Youre also limited to one attack with this weapon per turn, ever, currently, even if you action surge. Its silly IMO that a level 20 fighter could conceivably attack 8 times with his main weapon in a turn, and an almighty one with his off hand.

I am aware or the TWF damage limitations that's why my proposed fireball did less damage and have a smaller radius then a true fire ball. Yes TWF scales poorly (my proposal would scale) I just dislike any proposed solution that buffs it a low levels where the current rules are fine or too strong and even if it is fine at low levels I am apposed to handing out a gimped version of a higher level feature to everyone if they just look silly. I will also add that a 20th level fighter can attack 9 times total in any subdivision between their two weapons as long as at least one attack is made with each weapon.

Segev

2020-03-23, 03:08 PM

Lol. If you want to get really weird about it, is a Counterspelled spell count as being cast or not?

You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. If the creature is casting a spell of 3rd level or lower, its spell fails and has no effect. If it is casting a spell of 4th level or higher, make an ability check using your spellcasting ability. The DC equals 10 + the spell's level. On a success, the creature's spell fails and has no effect.

I see where the question arises from the first sentence, but it does say that if you succeed at counterspelling it, "the spell fails and has no effect." That suggests it was, in fact, cast...and failed. Not that the spellcaster failed to cast it. If it said, "The spellcaster fails..." or even better, "The spellcaster fails to cast the spell and it has no effect," then you'd be right. But it doesn't. So the spell is cast and countered, so it has no effect.

Lyracian

2020-03-23, 03:37 PM

That paralysis gives auto crits to melee attacks. It makes any attack within 5 feet a critical hit. That means a melee Reach attack is not a crit, but standing next to someone with a Longbow, even if the attack roll has disadvantage (which would be a straight roll due to the advantage of paralyzed condition) would be a critical.

The amusing thing about this being a topic of misunderstood rules is you are not attacking with disadvantage.

Paralyzed (page 291) also makes the creature incapacitated.
Ranged Attacks in Close Combat (page 195) say disadvantage if within 5 feet of an enemy "who can see you and who is not incapacitated"

MaxWilson

2020-03-23, 03:46 PM

The amusing thing about this being a topic of misunderstood rules is you are not attacking with disadvantage.

Paralyzed (page 291) also makes the creature incapacitated.
Ranged Attacks in Close Combat (page 195) say disadvantage if within 5 feet of an enemy "who can see you and who is not incapacitated"

You might not have disadvantage, but you may not have advantage either for various reasons (e.g. there's another non-incapacitated hostile within 5' of you), and that makes it quite interesting to still have an auto-crit if it hits.

Pex

2020-03-23, 03:56 PM

So, if youre trying to pick a lock, theres no reason at all to let anybody besides the proficient rogue with the highest dex in the party do it, if theyre there to try. That's what you brought them for. Making a medicine check? Let the party doctor do it. Tracking? Let the ranger do it. Having the wizard try to track something just because they were the one who thought of it is silly, you have experts in these skills for a reason.

It is specifically mentioned that Tool Use requires proficiency. Thieves' tools are Tools. Tool Use is not the same thing as a Skill Check though both are Ability Checks.

No player should be shut down from trying something just because another character has a higher plus number.

KorvinStarmast

2020-03-23, 03:58 PM

No player should be shut down from trying something just because another character has a higher plus number. This is a good point.

Pleh

2020-03-23, 04:20 PM

I think you misunderstand what levels of illumination dim light is representing. The easiest example to look at is probably the bright full moon. With that kind of lighting you could clearly see someone standing in the open but you probably will have a hard time identifying the exact color of their clothing.

This is good. I'm gonna have to save this for later.

Also, speaking from experience, yes. Under the light of a full moon or nearly full moon, the ground is quite visible. I wouldn't want to sprint across it, but I wouldn't want to do that in daylight either.

Vision rules as a whole are a mess because they are all based on very vague parameters. Dim light does not interfere with attacking in the game because dim light is still enough illumination to make that attack but is dim enough to interfere with perception.

That volume of light is probably visualized at different levels for each person but the rules act as a guideline.

So, kinda sorta. If you successfully hide from somebody, they don't know where you are. They can guess and deduce, and if they happen to guess right, they can make their attack with disadvantage, but if you duck behind a hedge, hide, and they assume youre continuing to move along the hedge when youre actually standing still and shoot where you aren't, theyre never going to hit you.

The DM decides what circumstances are appropriate for hiding, so if youre on a flat plane that is well lit and has one visual obstacle, you may be able to hide behind it, but theyre still going to know where you are, and no DM will let you sneak out from behind that blocker unless youre literally invisible. But if its a cluttered area and you can duck behind things without making a sound, then you can theoretically move around skyrim style without them knowing where you are at all.

I feel like the rules about attacking creatures while hidden from them also helps understand the RAI.

"If you are hidden - both unseen and unheard - when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."

The act of attacking alerts the target that something in your location is attempting to attack them. This implies there is no way to make a subtle attack (unless there's a character option somewhere I don't know about).

But attacking only gives away your location, it doesn't necessarily mean the target can now fully perceive you.

Like, if you were under a Bright Moon for Dim Light, Lying Prone on a hill overlooking a patrolling guard, the guard likely isn't trying to be stealthy, but perceptive. You've got probably 3/4 cover and Dim Light gives him Disadvantage (unless he's got Darkvision). Firing a crossbow will tell him exactly where you are when you fired, but it doesn't mean he can suddenly see you. He's probably entitled to an active Perception check (still at disadvantage) to try to spot you immediately, but failing that, he would probably need to try to reach your position to find you. Assuming you get a chance to move before he can get close enough for a second look, you should be entitled to attempting to move with a Dex Stealth check to relocate without letting him know where you've gone.

I think a better way of describing "Hiding" is that you're just taking action to hide what you're doing. That might mean you get Advantage on your next attack, or that you've moved to another location, or that you've made yourself scarce.

But overall, it just means that the enemy doesn't know what you're doing next. Hiding doesn't interact with anything you or your enemy did do, only what they will do.

It's pretty clear that Hiding makes them not able to see you. Or pick out your presence by hearing or other senses, for that matter. They might still know (or at least suspect) you're around. They might guess - even possibly accurately - where you're hiding. But they can't perceive you.

Yeah, "it just means that the enemy doesn't know what you're doing next" sounds an awful lot like you're talking about Feinting, which isn't a Rogue thing anymore. That's now a Battlemaster maneuver that Rogues can get with a feat. I don't think hiding has anything to do with "hiding (intentions) in plain sight."

Rather, it means any Rogue has their own special mini-game: constantly look for opportunities to hide. You keep track of locations that could give a reasonable amount of cover to hide behind, track the shadowy corners of a tavern where Dim Lighting may give enemies disadvantage to notice you, interactable objects that could be turned into a distraction (giving an opportunity to hide).

Blowing out the lights and hiding to get the upper hand is a classic Rogue Trope.

You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.

Combat is divided into rounds in which creatures actions are resolved in initiative order. A creature takes their turn when their initiative comes up.

If a creature casts ANY spell with a casting time of a bonus action then the ONLY other spells that can be cast on their turn (not round) are cantrips with a casting time of 1 action.

If a character uses action surge then they have TWO actions. Both of these can be used to cast a leveled spell as long as the character does not cast a bonus action spell.

If the character chooses to cast a bonus action spell (even a cantrip - e.g. via quicken) then no matter how many actions the character has, if they choose the Cast a Spell action, these spells are limited to a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.

This is... unfortunately convoluted. Seems like the game makers stumbled a bit on the way to making things streamlined.

Segev

2020-03-23, 04:34 PM

Rather, it means any Rogue has their own special mini-game: constantly look for opportunities to hide. You keep track of locations that could give a reasonable amount of cover to hide behind, track the shadowy corners of a tavern where Dim Lighting may give enemies disadvantage to notice you, interactable objects that could be turned into a distraction (giving an opportunity to hide).

Blowing out the lights and hiding to get the upper hand is a classic Rogue Trope.

I like the mental image this evokes. The rogue is playing at being the horror monster. Attacking and fading away.

Millstone85

2020-03-23, 04:54 PM

It is specifically mentioned that Tool Use requires proficiency.It is not. You need not be proficient with a tool to use it. That just lets you add your proficiency bonus to the ability check.

Now, in the case of picking a lock, specifically the lock you can purchase as adventuring gear in the PHB, you do need proficiency with thieves' tools. I thought it extended to all locks, but apparently not (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1073993027557806080).

Misterwhisper

2020-03-23, 05:02 PM

Finding someone hidden is not free.

There is no: perception check to find the hidden enemy.

It is: i spend my action to make a check to find the hidden enemy.

———————————

Using movement is not an action, nor is it part of an action.

———————————

By the book performance does almost nothing.
Playing an instrument is tool use and dex not performance.
Trying to use performance to distract someone is deception not performance.
Convincing people to do what you want through a speech is persuasion not performance.

———————————

Being trained in a skill more than once gives you training in another skill, it does not give you expertise.

———————————

Common one: invisibility does not make you hidden.

———————————

You can only ready one attack not one attack action.

———————————

Opportunity attacks happen when the enemy leaves your range not leave a square in your range.

Doug Lampert

2020-03-23, 05:02 PM

HiveStriker

2020-03-23, 05:17 PM

When I run AL games I get a lot of players that don't understand crossbow master. It's like they assume that it turns your hand crossbow into a semi-auto with an extended magazine. "But it gets rid of the loading property, so I don't have to load it!" is something I hear a lot, then I have to tell them to re-read the section in the PHB about it and explain that they still need an empty hand to load it.
"But I can dual-weild hand crossbows!"
Ok, but how do you reload them? You get the same number of shots with 2 hand crossbows - 1 action hand crossbow attack, 1 bonus action hand crossbow attack.

Mage hand might enable this. The Arcane Trickster's class feature making mage hand even better definitely should. Load the crossbow(s) with the mage hand.
Also true; it's only if you're trying to dual wield them that this becomes an issue. And, since you cannot have more than one bonus action, dual wielding doesn't stack with Crossbow Master's bonus action attack.

I sadly don't think it's a good idea at all.
Loading is an object interaction.
Mage Hand requires either your bonus action (Arcane Trickster) or Action (everyone else) to manipulate something through the hand.

So I don't see how you could use it: Rogue has only one attack in the first place, only an Arcane Trickster could benefit from it because he didn't pick Crossbow Expert but he did Haste himself.
Every other people would need to use their Action on Mage hand instead of their Attack, thus denying themselves both Extra Attack and bonus action from Crossbow Expert.

HOWEVER...
I could see a case made with Unseen Servant!
It does require a bonus action from you to give a command but...
- "The servant can perform simple tasks that a human servant can do like fetching things"
- "Once you give the command, the servant performs the task to the best of its ability until it completes the task then wait for next command".

So you *could* argue that something like "reload my crossbow as needed until I say stop" would work. I mean, it's kinda lenient on the DM part, I'm not sure I would allow it myself for reload on a Figher's Extra Attack for example (loading a crossbow in a split second requires imo an impressive skill, especially if you are not the one wielding it, so I would personally not qualify it as "a simple task", but I could understand different opinion).

I would certainly allow it to reload once per round though under that formulation, but that makes it fairly limited in use... ^^ Maybe for non Arcane Trickster Rogues? Or ranged Clerics that love their shield but expect using bonus action on other things past first round?

...
...
Let's be honest: just keep a hand free it will always be the best option. XD

I'm pretty sure we do this one wrong at my table. Weapons are swapped around more or less at will. Nobody's swapped between weapons mid attack-routine, though, so we might be good? The free object interaction rules are a pain. I'm pretty sure the ranger has switched from bow to both short swords between rounds without any special extra action spent drawing the second one, though.

Replied to this part here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?609187-Find-Familiar-Pact-of-the-Chain-and-Variant-Familiars). I felt this was moving into its own topic and getting off topic from misunderstood rules.

I assume here you're saying that the foliage, on a grid of 5 ft. squares, covers 4 such squares?
I don't recall if you're supposed to get a free object interaction off-turn, but you get only one on your turn at least.

And drawing OR sheathing take individual object interaction EACH.

So technically you shouldn't be able to put back your lonbow on your back while drawing a shortsword without using your action (or bonus action if Thief) on top of the free one, unless a) you picked Dual Wielder and b) your DM is not psychorigid enough to consider you can either draw two or "sheathe" two at the same time, but not draw one and sheathe one (this would be a really stupid interpretation. I did see it occasionally though).

But yeah, overall, those drawing/sheathing rules are essentially an artificial nerf to throwing weapons. I still follow the rule (notably to keep Dual Wielder and a few other features relevant without tweaks) but I would completely understand DMs ditching it. I simply don't see any use-case where this would threaten or break the balance...

By the same token, DMs should be encouraged to just allow things to succeed if there's no compelling reason why they shouldn't. There's a judgment call here, of course, but even if there's a reasonable chance of failure, if the failure is just a frustration, don't bother with it.

They should also consider, sometimes, just allowing those proficient in appropriate things to succeed for being proficient.
I hope I don't open a tangent topic here, but I really wanted to say, that's probably the hardest thing I find to do when I DM... "Should that obstacle be complex enough to warrant a check? Is it logical/justified from the context I gave? Is there any interesting/fun/important consequence that a fail could bear?"

When you're following print adventure, it's manageable enough: just tweak sometimes because party pushed in a slightly different way than the authors expected. In a free-form evolving world when you often have to think on the fly? Am I the only one feeling that it's much much harder in those circumstances? ^^

MaxWilson

2020-03-23, 05:28 PM

But that would be too much like 4th edition, and we couldn't have that.

Maybe so. I hated fourth edition too much to play it extensively, so I remember much about its terms. The main thing is to avoid being misleading, and this whole notion of "you don't have a bonus action unless something gives you something, but you can only receive one per turn" thing is clearly misleading because it misleads people. "Secondary action" wouldn't have that problem because you naturally think "secondary = singular", but "minor action" might be just as good especially if you phrase it as "you can do XYZ as your minor action" instead of "as a minor action".

HiveStriker

2020-03-23, 05:35 PM

They never should have named it "bonus action" because that's entirely misleading. It should have been "minor action" or something, and there should have been a clear description in the combat chapter of what you normally can do on a turn:

1.) One action
2.) One minor action
3.) One object manipulation
4.) Movement up to your current speed
5.) Anything additional which your class features grant you.

Then if it were me writing the rules I would also have written:

In addition, no matter whose turn it is, you may:

1.) Cease concentrating on a spell
2.) Communicate briefly: shouting a warning, identifying a hidden enemy, offering surrender, etc.

but it's probably controversial as whether #2 was actually intended by WotC to be legal.

-Max
You mean, like in 4E?

I know many people dislike 4E but I think some hate is unjustified.
I do largely prefer 5E for the balance it striked between simplicity and richness in many aspects (not all admitedly, but off-topic) but the vocabulary 4e used to describe game mechanics was imo much better.

And although 5e system is nice and spell slots would have been otherwise complex to make fit into, I do miss that simple and elegant balance of at-will / encounter / daily powers of 4e...

Finding someone hidden is not free.

There is no: perception check to find the hidden enemy.

It is: i spend my action to make a check to find the hidden enemy.

Well... There is actually. Seems you forgot about passive checks, among which Perception is probably the most used one. :)
It's just less efficient that dedicating your focus on it with your action. ^^

greenstone

2020-03-23, 05:52 PM

If I can be picky (I figure this is a rules thread, so being picky is needed).

You can only ready one attack not one attack action.
You can ready any action, which includes the Attack Action.

What I think many people miss is that features like Extra Attack almost always apply only on your turn, so you don't get to take advantage of them on someone elses turn when your readied action happens.

Millstone85

2020-03-23, 05:53 PM

By the book performance does almost nothing.
Playing an instrument is tool use and dex not performance.By the PHB, "Your Charisma (Performance) check determines how well you can delight an audience with music, dance, acting, storytelling, or some other form of entertainment". It could very well apply to your performance with a musical instrument.

And yes, this creates a problem for tool proficiencies, which they acknowledged in a later book. Tools and Skills Together, page 78 of XGtE, outright asks "Thus, why would a character who has the opportunity to acquire one or the other want to gain a tool proficiency instead of proficiency in a skill?". They then offer the optional rule that if a skill and a tool both apply to an ability check, and you have proficiency with both, the check is done with advantage.

Man_Over_Game

2020-03-23, 06:02 PM

If I can be picky (I figure this is a rules thread, so being picky is needed).

You can ready any action, which includes the Attack Action.

What I think many people miss is that features like Extra Attack almost always apply only on your turn, so you don't get to take advantage of them on someone elses turn when your readied action happens.

If you want to get really weird about it:

Your Mount and You have different turns, but the same initiative value.

You can Ready an Action on your turn to attack, and get all of your attacks as normal. However, if you Ready your Action to attack and the trigger occurs while your Mount is moving, it only gets the single attack, since you two don't share the same turn.

If the Mount is Readying its movement, it doesn't have the Disengage Action, and having a way to use the Disengage effect from the player has no impact on the mount's movement. As a result, there's no real way of making a 'hit-and-run' attack, unless the player Readies his action to do a single attack on a creature that the Mount passes by on the Mount's turn, taking place immediately after the character's turn with the same initiative value, but on separate turns.

Not really sure why I decided it was necessary to mention. To add more chaos, I guess?

sithlordnergal

2020-03-23, 06:14 PM

But at least they cannot act. So if they do not have anything that grants a reaction, they lose the whole round. Since the initiative roll should be triggered in this case by the party doing something, you could probably argue that the surprised guys did not have an action planned, which means they are essentially taking the "Ready" action of "I do nothing until After something happens," which would mean no reactions until AFTER the first PC finishes up. Ugh.

Ehh, I wouldn't buy that argument...I doubt players would buy that argument either if it were used on them. That said, the biggest issue isn't that they spend their turn doing nothing. Its that once you lose the surprise condition, any ability that needs Surprise, or for you to go before a target, to work no longer works. The most well known ability is the Assassin Rogue's Assassinate ability. You you happen to go last in combat for some reason, which I have seen happen to rogues due to poor rolls on the player's part, they lose that entire ability.

MaxWilson

2020-03-23, 06:25 PM

I assume you're talking about an uncontrolled or independent mount because "A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it," i.e. it acts on the rider's turn. Therefore:

If the Mount is Readying its movement, it doesn't have the Disengage Action, and having a way to use the Disengage effect from the player has no impact on the mount's movement. As a result, there's no real way of making a 'hit-and-run' attack, unless the player Readies his action to do a single attack on a creature that the Mount passes by on the Mount's turn, taking place immediately after the character's turn with the same initiative value, but on separate turns.

Do it the other way around: Mount goes first, moves up to the enemy, and readies a move away from the enemy when the rider gives a signal. Rider makes a bunch of attacks and gives the signal (tugging on the reins?).

If the mount is fast enough and the rider is using a reach weapon, this is a genuine hit-and-run attack which may not even result in eating any opportunity attacks.

Man_Over_Game

2020-03-23, 06:26 PM

Ehh, I wouldn't buy that argument...I doubt players would buy that argument either if it were used on them. That said, the biggest issue isn't that they spend their turn doing nothing. Its that once you lose the surprise condition, any ability that needs Surprise, or for you to go before a target, to work no longer works. The most well known ability is the Assassin Rogue's Assassinate ability. You you happen to go last in combat for some reason, which I have seen happen to rogues due to poor rolls on the player's part, they lose that entire ability.

Note to self: Alert on Assassin Rogues.

As for the mount thing, a Reach weapon would definitely work.

MaxWilson

2020-03-23, 06:27 PM

Note to self: Alert on Assassin Rogues.

Further note: Assassins are terrible, even with Alert.

Man_Over_Game

2020-03-23, 06:29 PM

Further note: Assassins are terrible, even with Alert.

I'm of the opinion that DMs make Surprise way too darn hard to get. If we relaxed on how difficult stealth/surprise was we'd see a lot more people using it, and probably a much better stance for Assassin Rogues (and Rogues in general).

I try to find reasons why they aren't Surprised. It certainly makes things a lot more interesting.

MaxWilson

2020-03-23, 06:38 PM

I'm of the opinion that DMs make Surprise way too darn hard to get. If we relaxed on how difficult stealth/surprise was, we'd see a lot more people using it.

Even with a DM who's relaxed about surprise, you're better off just having a druid or ranger or shadow monk in the party so everyone in the party can get their free virtual Action Surge (i.e. act while the enemy is surprised), every combat. Having e.g. a 9th level Assassin who adds an extra 5d6 (17) damage per combat on top of that is... rather sad, frankly.

I want to like the Assassin, especially their 9th level Infiltration Expertise ability (which maybe would be worth more than I think it would in a pulpy campaign like Eberron). But it's paying a very steep cost for that extra crit once per combat, and all you get in return is something which anyone with the Charlatan background can pretty much create for themselves anyway: fake documents and the ability to lie your head off.

Misterwhisper

2020-03-23, 06:39 PM

Further note: Assassins are terrible, even with Alert.

Rogues in general are pretty terrible

Ashrym

2020-03-23, 06:56 PM

Finding someone hidden is not free.
By the book performance does almost nothing.
Playing an instrument is tool use and dex not performance.
Trying to use performance to distract someone is deception not performance.
Convincing people to do what you want through a speech is persuasion not performance.

Emphasis mine.

I think there's a misconception on the rules in the bolded statement. Proficiencies are used when the DM determines whether extra training or focus would benefit the player's actions in the event a roll is required (specifically that the outcome is in doubt).

If there are no actions for performance to be relevant it's because players are not taking actions that would cause the DM to make that determination.

If I want to lighten the mood of a crowd then a performance would be a valid approach. There's no deception or persuasion going on. I just want them happier or to view me without being hostile. Changing the NPC attitude first sets up a better favor for the persuasion check.

It also gives me a job where I can live in luxury and meet people whom I can rob so I can live in greater luxury. ;-)

XGtE has an example as well. Compose a catchy tune that quickly spreads. Whether that catchy tune makes someone look bad or good is part of what makes it useful. Rumormongering people's rep ftw. ;-)

But that would be too much like 4th edition, and we couldn't have that.

4e is the debil. I heard it from a reliable source on the internet. ;-)

By the PHB, "Your Charisma (Performance) check determines how well you can delight an audience with music, dance, acting, storytelling, or some other form of entertainment". It could very well apply to your performance with a musical instrument.

And yes, this creates a problem for tool proficiencies, which they acknowledged in a later book. Tools and Skills Together, page 78 of XGtE, outright asks "Thus, why would a character who has the opportunity to acquire one or the other want to gain a tool proficiency instead of proficiency in a skill?". They then offer the optional rule that if a skill and a tool both apply to an ability check, and you have proficiency with both, the check is done with advantage.

That and DEX on the instrument is playing a technical piece. Good in a "devil went down to Georgia" musical duel as a distinction but it's not required to provide an entertaining performance. There was a book I read many years ago that I'm trying to recall now that demonstrated it. Two performers were competing with an audience and one played better but the other involved the audience more and ended up winning the contest even though the other actually played better.

The way I see it, I have a choice in how I entertain people.

MaxWilson

2020-03-23, 07:40 PM

That and DEX on the instrument is playing a technical piece. Good in a "devil went down to Georgia" musical duel as a distinction but it's not required to provide an entertaining performance.

FWIW if I'd been judging that contest, Johnny would have lost. The other guy's music was much more interesting. : )

Tanarii

2020-03-23, 08:05 PM

Pex

2020-03-23, 08:34 PM

It is not. You need not be proficient with a tool to use it. That just lets you add your proficiency bonus to the ability check.

Now, in the case of picking a lock, specifically the lock you can purchase as adventuring gear in the PHB, you do need proficiency with thieves' tools. I thought it extended to all locks, but apparently not (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1073993027557806080).

Mandela effect maybe, or it was changed in a reprinting. I know it once said you need proficiency in Herbalism kit to create healing potions. Xanathar mentions special uses of tools if you're proficient. There's the aforementioned locks. It gets specifically mentioned for particular tools you need proficiency to do something. Maybe it's for those specific cases rather than tools in general.

If anything it reinforces the original point that was being objected to: Proficiency is not permission to use a skill. You don't need proficiency in something to try it.

MaxWilson

2020-03-24, 12:20 AM

It's probably called a bonus action because it gets created by having something that gives you one. You don't get a minor action every turn. But if you have some thing(s) that let you take some thing as a bonus action, you get one bonus one (and only one).

I'm not sure why that's important off the top of my head, but I vaguely remember it being relevant that you don't get one unless something gives you one.

I can't see how. You have an object interaction every turn, but unless you have an object to spend it on it doesn't matter. How's that meaningfully different from bonus actions?

kazaryu

2020-03-24, 12:45 AM

That paralysis gives auto crits to melee attacks. It makes any attack within 5 feet a critical hit. That means a melee Reach attack is not a crit, but standing next to someone with a Longbow, even if the attack roll has disadvantage (which would be a straight roll due to the advantage of paralyzed condition) would be a critical.
.

close, but even a longbow attack roll would be at advantage under those conditions. you're only at disadvantage if you're within 5 feet of a creature that isn't incapacitated. which the paralyzed condition includes.

Aiming a ranged attack is more difficult when a foe is next to you. When you make a ranged attack with a weapon, a spell, or some other means, you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn’t incapacitated.

Cheesegear

2020-03-24, 01:44 AM

If anything it reinforces the original point that was being objected to: Proficiency is not permission to use a skill. You don't need proficiency in something to try it.

Furthermore, and I get this a lot...You don't need proficiency in a skill in order assist or Help.

"I roll Animal Handling to see if I can help us not die."
Does...Anyone else want to help? Give you advantage?
"No-one else is proficient, it's just me."
...That's not how the rule works.

Further, you can't Help someone if they can't use your Help:

"Oh, I want to Help the Wizard think hard about what he learned in Arcana School. He get Advantage on his Arcana."
You talking to him, doesn't actually help the Wizard remember what he may never have learned in the first place.

JackPhoenix

2020-03-24, 01:53 AM

Being trained in a skill more than once gives you training in another skill, it does not give you expertise.

Half true. Getting proficiency in the same skill twice only allows you to pick a different skill when you're picking a background (which comes after picking a class and selecting your skill proficiencies based on that). It does not work in any other circumstances, unless the rule specifically says otherwise.

FWIW if I'd been judging that contest, Johnny would have lost. The other guy's music was much more interesting. : )

Of course, the other guy had a choir of demons helping him, that's cheating.

Galithar

2020-03-24, 02:12 AM

close, but even a longbow attack roll would be at advantage under those conditions. you're only at disadvantage if you're within 5 feet of a creature that isn't incapacitated. which the paralyzed condition includes.

You're making the assumption that the Paralyzed target is the only enemy present and that you can see them. What if they are under Greater Invisibility cast by another? Or their ally is standing next to you? I said "even if the attack has disadvantage" not that it would have disadvantage.

In a white room you're right of course, but realistically there are a lot of ways disadvantage could still apply to the attack. It just wouldn't be caused by being within 5 feet of the target.

JackPhoenix

2020-03-24, 02:21 AM

You're making the assumption that the Paralyzed target is the only enemy present and that you can see them. What if they are under Greater Invisibility cast by another? Or their ally is standing next to you? I said "even if the attack has disadvantage" not that it would have disadvantage.

In a white room you're right of course, but realistically there are a lot of ways disadvantage could still apply to the attack. It just wouldn't be caused by being within 5 feet of the target.

And you're needlessly adding extra circumstances to what's a simple rules question and white room scenario.

Galithar

2020-03-24, 02:39 AM

And you're needlessly adding extra circumstances to what's a simple rules question and white room scenario.

Sure, sure. Because not fully comprehending the possibilities of a situation has never caused a rule to be misunderstood.

The simple fact is that I said one thing. Someone tried to tell me I'm wrong and I proved otherwise. That's not needless. Don't tell me I'm wrong if you don't expect me to defend my words. I said them the way I did intentionally. Overlooking interactions with different scenarios is one way that common rules get misunderstood. Because maybe in the most common situation, X applies. But when you take X out of the situation the normal rule says something different.

kazaryu

2020-03-24, 03:45 AM

And you're needlessly adding extra circumstances to what's a simple rules question and white room scenario.

The simple fact is that I said one thing. Someone tried to tell me I'm wrong and I proved otherwise.

*shrug* tbf, galithar is right. i mean, i didn't misread the situation, as presented. but i did slightly misinterpret what they'd said. But it was an important distinction that i missed. i'd have objected as well, i may have phrased it differently, but nothing wrong with defending themselves. with that being said:

You're making the assumption that the Paralyzed target is the only enemy present and that you can see them. What if they are under Greater Invisibility cast by another?

actually im explicitly not making the assumption that anyone else is present based on the situation presented. as i said above, i did misread what you wrote, but thats not a reason to misread what i wrote.

moving one
1. greater invisibility has a range of self, it can't be cast by another. however thats a minor point becuase regular invisibility would be functionally equivalent, and there's no reason greater would need to be cast by other. however;
2. the stipulation is that they can see you, invisibility doesn't really matter in this scenario. as the person themselves being visible doesn't really factor into granting disadvantage. only their location. and;
3. this is particularly true because, as you pointed out, the original scenario didn't explicitly state that the paralyzed person was the only person present. So a hidden enemy is unnecesary for making your point.

Darc_Vader

2020-03-24, 10:31 AM

Half true. Getting proficiency in the same skill twice only allows you to pick a different skill when you're picking a background (which comes after picking a class and selecting your skill proficiencies based on that). It does not work in any other circumstances, unless the rule specifically says otherwise.

While the rule for that is under the Backgrounds section, the way it's worded actually reads to me as not being limited to this circumstance.

If a character would gain the same proficiency from two different sources, he or she can choose a different proficiency of the same kind (skill or tool) instead.

If it were meant to be limited only to the skills gained from your background I don’t think they’d have been as general as they were. Probably something more like ‘if a character had already gained one of the proficiencies granted by your selected background from a different source, he or she...’ instead.

Pex

2020-03-24, 01:01 PM

I can't see how. You have an object interaction every turn, but unless you have an object to spend it on it doesn't matter. How's that meaningfully different from bonus actions?

There's a distinction but for a different reason. There's a Use an Object action. It's not always clear what's object interaction and what's Use An Object. Taking out your weapon is interaction to make life easy for warriors. Opening or closing a door I've seen be both depending on the DM though mostly interaction. Taking something from a fellow PC or giving a PC something has also been both but mostly Use An Object. Pouring a healing potion down a PCs throat is Use An Object. It gets confusing in games I've played, but fortunately the DMs have been reasonable even if they rule what ever the thing is costs the Action.

Furthermore, and I get this a lot...You don't need proficiency in a skill in order assist or Help.

"I roll Animal Handling to see if I can help us not die."
Does...Anyone else want to help? Give you advantage?
"No-one else is proficient, it's just me."
...That's not how the rule works.

Further, you can't Help someone if they can't use your Help:

"Oh, I want to Help the Wizard think hard about what he learned in Arcana School. He get Advantage on his Arcana."
You talking to him, doesn't actually help the Wizard remember what he may never have learned in the first place.

I like to think of it as two people discussing the matter which causes one to be reminded of a fact they had forgotten, but I see your point.

Keravath

2020-03-24, 01:24 PM

Furthermore, and I get this a lot...You don't need proficiency in a skill in order assist or Help.

"I roll Animal Handling to see if I can help us not die."
Does...Anyone else want to help? Give you advantage?
"No-one else is proficient, it's just me."
...That's not how the rule works.

Further, you can't Help someone if they can't use your Help:

"Oh, I want to Help the Wizard think hard about what he learned in Arcana School. He get Advantage on his Arcana."
You talking to him, doesn't actually help the Wizard remember what he may never have learned in the first place.

Not quite correct. The rule is : PHB 175

"WORKING TOGETHER
Sometimes two or more characters team up to attempt a task. The character who's leading the effort—or the one with the highest ability modifier—can make an ability check with advantage, reflecting the help provided by the other characters. In combat, this requires the Help action (see chapter 9). A character can only provide help if the task is one that he or she could attempt alone. For example, trying to open a lock requires proficiency with thieves' tools, so a character who lacks that proficiency can't help another character in that task. Moreover, a character can help only when two or more individuals working together would actually be productive. Some tasks, such as threading a needle, are no easier with help."

- some tasks require proficiency - a non-proficient character can't help in these circumstances (picking some locks could be an example) - the DM could also designate other tasks as not being possible without proficiency in the skill.
- some tasks aren't any easier with help - trying to remember something may be in such a category though it is also possible for the other character to say something that would jog the other characters memory so it is ultimately a DM call.

Keravath

2020-03-24, 01:35 PM

...

moving one
1. greater invisibility has a range of self, it can't be cast by another. however thats a minor point becuase regular invisibility would be functionally equivalent, and there's no reason greater would need to be cast by other. however;
2. the stipulation is that they can see you, invisibility doesn't really matter in this scenario. as the person themselves being visible doesn't really factor into granting disadvantage. only their location. and;
3. this is particularly true because, as you pointed out, the original scenario didn't explicitly state that the paralyzed person was the only person present. So a hidden enemy is unnecesary for making your point.

Not getting involved in a "discussion" ... just fixing a little mistake.

Greater invisibility has a range of Touch (not self) and can most certainly be cast on others (it is one of the more popular twin options for some sorcerers).

If you can't see an invisible creature then you will have disadvantage ... if they are paralysed, blinded, in darkness or fog cloud then they can't see you either and any attacks will be a straight roll without either advantage or disadvantage. If they happen to be paralysed and are hit then the hit is considered a critical no matter what the circumstances.

Chronos

2020-03-24, 01:59 PM

Yes, I know that you don't have a bonus action to spend unless something explicitly gives you one. That's the rule. But the rule accomplishes nothing except to cause confusion. If they instead made the rule "You can make one minor action every turn", and then listed minor actions, the effect would be exactly the same, and a lot more easily understood. OK, so some turns, you'll end up with a minor action available, but no way to use it. So what?

This may or may not be similar to what 4e did. But while I think that 4e overall was a bad D&D game, that does not imply that everything ever done in 4e must necessarily have been bad.

MaxWilson

2020-03-24, 02:40 PM

While the rule for that is under the Backgrounds section, the way it's worded actually reads to me as not being limited to this circumstance.

If it were meant to be limited only to the skills gained from your background I don’t think they’d have been as general as they were. Probably something more like ‘if a character had already gained one of the proficiencies granted by your selected background from a different source, he or she...’ instead.

You guys are aware that players can customize backgrounds at will, right? Even if you don't have the same skill from your class and your background, you can still change your background skill to whatever you want. The suggested backgrounds in the PHB are just that, suggestions to give you ideas. If you want a Noble with Stealth and Perception because she comes from a ninja clan, you can make one, no questions asked.

Yes, I know that you don't have a bonus action to spend unless something explicitly gives you one. That's the rule. But the rule accomplishes nothing except to cause confusion. If they instead made the rule "You can make one minor action every turn", and then listed minor actions, the effect would be exactly the same, and a lot more easily understood. OK, so some turns, you'll end up with a minor action available, but no way to use it. So what?

This may or may not be similar to what 4e did. But while I think that 4e overall was a bad D&D game, that does not imply that everything ever done in 4e must necessarily have been bad.

I recently realized that they could have avoided a lot of confusion if they had just phrased the rules differently, even if they didn't change the name. Compare the current rules for e.g. Monk:

Open Hand Monk RAW:
When you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn, you can make one unarmed strike as a bonus action.
Immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn, you can spend 1 ki point to make two unarmed strikes as a bonus action.

Verdict: misleading. Leads some players and DMs to believe incorrectly that a 3rd level monk can make 4 attacks in one turn, which leads to further discussions about how OP monks are.

Potential Open Hand Monk revision:
When you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn, you can make one unarmed strike as your bonus action.
Immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn, you can spend 1 ki point to make two unarmed strikes as your bonus action.

Desired outcome: By speaking of "your bonus action" as if there's only one, might lead players to seek clarification in the Combat Chapter and realize you only have one bonus action each turn. Needs testing to see if that would actually happen, but there's actually no downside to this change except the 3 extra letters.

prabe

2020-03-24, 02:51 PM

You guys are aware that players can customize backgrounds at will, right? Even if you don't have the same skill from your class and your background, you can still change your background skill to whatever you want. The suggested backgrounds in the PHB are just that, suggestions to give you ideas. If you want a Noble with Stealth and Perception because she comes from a ninja clan, you can make one, no questions asked.

That's true, but I still think it's a good idea to talk to your DM about doing so, both to make sure that (to use your example) ninja clans exist in the setting, and to keep your character's non-standard skillset from being a surprise. I suppose making sure your DM is comfortable with your building your own background is a consideration too, I suppose.

Segev

2020-03-24, 02:52 PM

I honestly think it's only confusing because people are coming into it from 3e and 4e, where the rule WAS phrased as "you have one swift/minor action per turn."

5e deliberately avoided that. You have one action per turn. You can move a certain amount of distance per turn. Some things give you bonus actions, specifying what you can do with them; you may only take one bonus action per turn, no matter how many things try to grant them to you. A bonus action is just that: a bonus. You don't normally have one. For players who aren't coming into this with a 3e or 4e mindset of a list of action types, the notion that you have only one action, and that sometimes, you are given a bonus action, probably makes plenty of sense.

MaxWilson

2020-03-24, 02:55 PM

That's true, but I still think it's a good idea to talk to your DM about doing so, both to make sure that (to use your example) ninja clans exist in the setting, and to keep your character's non-standard skillset from being a surprise. I suppose making sure your DM is comfortable with your building your own background is a consideration too, I suppose.

Agreed, that is indeed a good idea.

I honestly think it's only confusing because people are coming into it from 3e and 4e, where the rule WAS phrased as "you have one swift/minor action per turn."

5e deliberately avoided that. You have one action per turn. You can move a certain amount of distance per turn. Some things give you bonus actions, specifying what you can do with them; you may only take one bonus action per turn, no matter how many things try to grant them to you. A bonus action is just that: a bonus. You don't normally have one. For players who aren't coming into this with a 3e or 4e mindset of a list of action types, the notion that you have only one action, and that sometimes, you are given a bonus action, probably makes plenty of sense.

That can't be the case, because I never played 3E or 4E, and I still find the wording misleading.

Segev

2020-03-24, 03:01 PM

Agreed, that is indeed a good idea.

That can't be the case, because I never played 3E or 4E, and I still find the wording misleading.

I'll take your word for it, then.

I did play 3e - still do, in fact - and found that accepting the paradigm 5e presents for turn structure makes it make sense to me. *shrug*

One...possibly honorable mention, because I don't know that it's misunderstood, is regarding potions. They were largely worthless in 3e. Not as loot - free spells are free spells - but nobody would ever make one when you can do the same with a trinket of a wondrous item.

5e introduces an interesting new wrinkle, though: potions tend to grant their effects without requiring the imbiber to Concentrate on them. So those lovely Concentration-duration buffs you would love to have, but either can't stack or can't afford to be spending your Concentration on rather than BFC? You can get them through potions.

MaxWilson

2020-03-24, 03:10 PM

I'll take your word for it, then.

I did play 3e - still do, in fact - and found that accepting the paradigm 5e presents for turn structure makes it make sense to me. *shrug*

I expect that's probably because you read the whole book all the way through or something before you started playing the game. Someone else might read the Monk section and seeing all the bonus actions you can get, for example, and mentally stacking them on top of each other, which makes perfect sense... but you probably kept reading until you hit the Combat chapter where it explains that you can only have one bonus action per turn, and then you went back and re-read Monk with that in mind.

If I'm wrong and you immediately assumed "can't stack Martial Arts with Flurry of Blows" the instant you read the Monk chapter, well, then I'll be surprised.

Anyway, having relevant information buried in a later chapter is a misleading thing that 5E does quite a lot (see: Great Old One/Create Thrall and the charmed condition). Once you know the rules it's not an issue, but it doesn't make them easy to learn.

Segev

2020-03-24, 03:26 PM

I expect that's probably because you read the whole book all the way through or something before you started playing the game. Someone else might read the Monk section and seeing all the bonus actions you can get, for example, and mentally stacking them on top of each other, which makes perfect sense... but you probably kept reading until you hit the Combat chapter where it explains that you can only have one bonus action per turn, and then you went back and re-read Monk with that in mind.

If I'm wrong and you immediately assumed "can't stack Martial Arts with Flurry of Blows" the instant you read the Monk chapter, well, then I'll be surprised.

Anyway, having relevant information buried in a later chapter is a misleading thing that 5E does quite a lot (see: Great Old One/Create Thrall and the charmed condition). Once you know the rules it's not an issue, but it doesn't make them easy to learn.

That is a good point I hadn't really thought about. The organization of the rules does leave a lot of confusion. I know enough from playing RPGs for more than half my life that I need to check for every seeming-keyword and how it is defined when it shows up in the rules before I know what it does. I do understand why they put races, then classes, then backgrounds, then equipment, then multiclassing and feats, then core rules. It's a hook. "Here's what you can play," and "here's how you make a character." But you're quite right that leaving all the rules lying around without defining the majority of key terms and explaining what they mean is...confusing.

When I read 5e, I do remember thinking, "okay, remember that for later when you get to the boring rules section that explains what it means," an awful lot.

I'm honestly not sure how I'd change it, either. Just moving the basic rules up to the front could actually do more harm than good, marketing-wise, as people will not know why they should care yet.

Maybe a more in-depth example of play, with the rules for basic combat actions right off the bat explained as they're used? That is going to feel forced, though.

Thrall caught me up, though. I was looking for what the Charmed condition did for a while, and was still stunned at how useless it was. To the point that I briefly thought Thrall must have had charm person's clause about them being Friendly towards you in it after reading it and being surprised when I went back and saw that it did not.

The organization is not well-designed to learning the game. It's okay for building a character quickly, and for referencing, but not great for referencing.

8wGremlin

2020-03-24, 03:41 PM

That is a good point I hadn't really thought about. The organization of the rules does leave a lot of confusion. I know enough from playing RPGs for more than half my life that I need to check for every seeming-keyword and how it is defined when it shows up in the rules before I know what it does. I do understand why they put races, then classes, then backgrounds, then equipment, then multiclassing and feats, then core rules. It's a hook. "Here's what you can play," and "here's how you make a character." But you're quite right that leaving all the rules lying around without defining the majority of key terms and explaining what they mean is...confusing.

When I read 5e, I do remember thinking, "okay, remember that for later when you get to the boring rules section that explains what it means," an awful lot.

I'm honestly not sure how I'd change it, either. Just moving the basic rules up to the front could actually do more harm than good, marketing-wise, as people will not know why they should care yet.

Maybe a more in-depth example of play, with the rules for basic combat actions right off the bat explained as they're used? That is going to feel forced, though.

Thrall caught me up, though. I was looking for what the Charmed condition did for a while, and was still stunned at how useless it was. To the point that I briefly thought Thrall must have had charm person's clause about them being Friendly towards you in it after reading it and being surprised when I went back and saw that it did not.

The organization is not well-designed to learning the game. It's okay for building a character quickly, and for referencing, but not great for referencing.

A lot of this could be alleviated with a move to a different medium - say online, with on-hover over KEYWORDS.

Segev

2020-03-24, 04:08 PM

A lot of this could be alleviated with a move to a different medium - say online, with on-hover over KEYWORDS.

Well, yes, but that's not really a viable solution when you're marketing a tabletop game. And I will say that, no matter how convenient for referencing in front of a computer, there's nothing like having a book in-hand to page through and bookmark when running a game at-table. Tablets just don't cut it. Neither does my laptop.

MaxWilson

2020-03-24, 04:24 PM

I'm honestly not sure how I'd change it, either. Just moving the basic rules up to the front could actually do more harm than good, marketing-wise, as people will not know why they should care yet.

Some specific suggestions I'd have for them include:

Change the wording on bonus actions to make it more clear that you only get one. Instead of "as a bonus action", say "as your bonus action".

Put keywords in typographically distinct font to make it clear they are not not colloquial English. Charmed for example, and attack, and reaction. The first time a keyword is used in a given section, include a page reference to where it is defined.

The result would look something like this (page references are made up):

Martial Arts
At 1st level, your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use unarmed strikes (pg. 113) and monk weapons, which are shortswords and any simple melee weapons (pg. 113) that don’t have the two-handed or heavy property.

You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren’t wearing armor or wielding a shield:

You can use Dexterity instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of your unarmed strikes and monk weapons.

You can roll a d4 in place of the normal damage of your unarmed strike or monk weapon. This die changes as you gain monk levels, as shown in the Martial Arts column of the Monk table.

When you use the Attack action (pg. 74) with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn, you can make one unarmed strike as a bonus action (pg. 70). For example, if you take the Attack action and attack with a quarterstaff, you can also make an unarmed strike as a bonus action, assuming you haven’t already taken a bonus action this turn.

Certain monasteries use specialized forms of the monk weapons. For example, you might use a club that is two lengths of wood connected by a short chain (called a nunchaku) or a sickle with a shorter, straighter blade (called a kama). Whatever name you use for a monk weapon, you can use the game statistics provided for the weapon in the Weapons section.

Man_Over_Game

2020-03-24, 04:29 PM

Write them using the same style as a textbook for school.

When you come across a keyword, it's highlighted, and then a small column or note on the side reminds you what those keywords do or mean and how they play into the grand scheme of things. Take a look at what they did with Xanathar's comments in his own books, then replace that with actually useful knowledge.

Millstone85

2020-03-24, 04:36 PM

Put keywords in typographically distinct font to make it clear they are not not colloquial English. Charmed for example, and attack, and reaction.And then watch players make up their own typography. Like how everyone here always writes Spell Name, when in the books it is spell name.

You are right, though. Those words should be in a distinct font.

Pex

2020-03-24, 04:52 PM

Not quite correct. The rule is : PHB 175

"WORKING TOGETHER
Sometimes two or more characters team up to attempt a task. The character who's leading the effort—or the one with the highest ability modifier—can make an ability check with advantage, reflecting the help provided by the other characters. In combat, this requires the Help action (see chapter 9). A character can only provide help if the task is one that he or she could attempt alone. For example, trying to open a lock requires proficiency with thieves' tools, so a character who lacks that proficiency can't help another character in that task. Moreover, a character can help only when two or more individuals working together would actually be productive. Some tasks, such as threading a needle, are no easier with help."

- some tasks require proficiency - a non-proficient character can't help in these circumstances (picking some locks could be an example) - the DM could also designate other tasks as not being possible without proficiency in the skill.
- some tasks aren't any easier with help - trying to remember something may be in such a category though it is also possible for the other character to say something that would jog the other characters memory so it is ultimately a DM call.

There! Not part of my conversation but coincidentally about it. It's sentences like that one dispersed among the rules that has me thinking you need proficiency in a tool to use it. Anyway that conversation is concluded. Carry on. :smallsmile:

Segev

2020-03-24, 04:57 PM

Some specific suggestions I'd have for them include:

Change the wording on bonus actions to make it more clear that you only get one. Instead of "as a bonus action", say "as your bonus action".

Put keywords in typographically distinct font to make it clear they are not not colloquial English. Charmed for example, and attack, and reaction. The first time a keyword is used in a given section, include a page reference to where it is defined.

The result would look something like this (page references are made up):

Martial Arts
At 1st level, your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use unarmed strikes (pg. 113) and monk weapons, which are shortswords and any simple melee weapons (pg. 113) that don’t have the two-handed or heavy property.

You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren’t wearing armor or wielding a shield:

You can use Dexterity instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of your unarmed strikes and monk weapons.

You can roll a d4 in place of the normal damage of your unarmed strike or monk weapon. This die changes as you gain monk levels, as shown in the Martial Arts column of the Monk table.

When you use the Attack action (pg. 74) with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn, you can make one unarmed strike as a bonus action (pg. 70). For example, if you take the Attack action and attack with a quarterstaff, you can also make an unarmed strike as a bonus action, assuming you haven’t already taken a bonus action this turn.

Certain monasteries use specialized forms of the monk weapons. For example, you might use a club that is two lengths of wood connected by a short chain (called a nunchaku) or a sickle with a shorter, straighter blade (called a kama). Whatever name you use for a monk weapon, you can use the game statistics provided for the weapon in the Weapons section.
A good idea. One their campaign books (or at least Storm King's Thunder and Tomb of Annihilation) do a little bit of, but not all of. They have monsters bolded, so you know WHAT to look up. But they don't label the difference between "in this book" and "in the Monster Manual," so you have to check both (if you don't guess right the first time).

More complete annotation definitely would help. (I understand word-count is often at a premium, though, so I wonder how much of the lack of such things is due to that.)

And then watch players make up their own typography. Like how everyone here always writes Spell Name, when in the books it is spell name.

You are right, though. Those words should be in a distinct font.

I, personally, try very hard to use itallics for spell names on this and other forums when discussing D&D. I don't always do it when on my phone, though; it's a lot harder to get the tags in.

MeeposFire

2020-03-24, 05:00 PM

More simply put: You get one non-cantrip spell per turn, period, no matter how many actions you get, or of what kind of action.

That is not actually the rule. The rule only gives a restriction when you cast a bonus action spell on your turn. So for examples...

1. Your EK could cast fireball and then action surge and cast fireball using that action surge action. There is no rule restricting this.

2. Your EK could not cast a fireball at all if you used your bonus action to cast shillelagh either with your normal action or using your action surge action.

The reason 1 is different from 2 is due to the rule stating that if you cast a bonus action spell you cannot cast any other spells except cantrips that use your action. Also note that it did not matter that the bonus action spell is a cantrip so even if you use a cantrip as your bonus action you still have to make your action spells be cantrips too.

3. Your EK cast fireball, action surge fireball, and then walks away from an adjacent enemy using the spell shield as a reaction to prevent getting hit.

4. Your EK could not use shield when walking away on your turn if you used shillelagh that turn because that is not a cantrip using an action. Note that even if you had a cantrip that could be used as a reaction you still could not use it because the rule states it must be a cantrip used as a reaction.

I am still trying to see why it matters whether you gain the bonus action from abilities that require them or you have a bonus action but unless you have something to use it on you won't be able to use it.

MaxWilson

2020-03-24, 05:08 PM

There! Not part of my conversation but coincidentally about it. It's sentences like that one dispersed among the rules that has me thinking you need proficiency in a tool to use it. Anyway that conversation is concluded. Carry on. :smallsmile:

That is a fantastic example of a buried rule. Well spotted, sir!

A good idea. One their campaign books (or at least Storm King's Thunder and Tomb of Annihilation) do a little bit of, but not all of. They have monsters bolded, so you know WHAT to look up. But they don't label the difference between "in this book" and "in the Monster Manual," so you have to check both (if you don't guess right the first time).

More complete annotation definitely would help. (I understand word-count is often at a premium, though, so I wonder how much of the lack of such things is due to that.)

You're not wrong. There's a lot of other text I would cut first though before I'd cut page references to add clarity--and even if you did cut those at least you'd still have the distinct font for game jargon.

Segev

2020-03-24, 05:13 PM

That is not actually the rule. The rule only gives a restriction when you cast a bonus action spell on your turn. So for examples...

1. Your EK could cast fireball and then action surge and cast fireball using that action surge action. There is no rule restricting this.

2. Your EK could not cast a fireball at all if you used your bonus action to cast shillelagh either with your normal action or using your action surge action.

The reason 1 is different from 2 is due to the rule stating that if you cast a bonus action spell you cannot cast any other spells except cantrips that use your action. Also note that it did not matter that the bonus action spell is a cantrip so even if you use a cantrip as your bonus action you still have to make your action spells be cantrips too.

3. Your EK cast fireball, action surge fireball, and then walks away from an adjacent enemy using the spell shield as a reaction to prevent getting hit.

4. Your EK could not use shield when walking away on your turn if you used shillelagh that turn because that is not a cantrip using an action. Note that even if you had a cantrip that could be used as a reaction you still could not use it because the rule states it must be a cantrip used as a reaction.Yeah, I think they wrote the rule about bonus action spellcasting trying to prevent some sort of cheese, and failed to close other potential loopholes AND overestimated the problem. Action economy was clearly on their mind, though, in the design of a lot of PHB classes and rules. And the fear that PCs would abuse it.

I am still trying to see why it matters whether you gain the bonus action from abilities that require them or you have a bonus action but unless you have something to use it on you won't be able to use it.It mostly doesn't. It's mostly about how you conceive of it, and how the design conception of D&D 5e went. 5e was trying to make the simplest rounds it could. That's why movement is something you can just do on your turn. No special action. Do it and take your action at any point, even move in the middle of your action. So they gave you one action per turn, and don't have you even considering bonus actions without things that grant them. Then they add that you can't take more than one bonus action, no matter how many are granted to you, in a turn.

If you conceive of it better as "You have an action and a bonus action every round," and that makes it clearer, so be it. The only really useful thing I think the other way does over this is it prevents players from being bogged down trying to hunt for some way not to "waste" their bonus action by not taking it. And it's a weak bit of utility, since anybody who plays long enough to start optimizing at any level will realize that having a bonus action is better than not having one!

EggKookoo

2020-03-24, 05:39 PM

That Charmed does anything other than advantage on Charisma checks and prevents them from attacking you. Unless the effect that caused the charm condition explicitly says so, charmed doesn't do anything else.

We ran into this with Create Thrall a couple years back. It renders the feature nearly useless, and certainly not worthy of 14th level. As the DM, I ended up homebrewing some additional properties into the charmed condition.

Segev

2020-03-24, 05:53 PM

We ran into this with Create Thrall a couple years back. It renders the feature nearly useless, and certainly not worthy of 14th level. As the DM, I ended up homebrewing some additional properties into the charmed condition.

I think it unnecessary to change the Charmed condition itself. It's wonky, but it does its job when used correctly. A lot of 5e's design rests on minimal-effect conditions which specific effects, which inflict those conditions, attach riders to. "While poisoned in this way, the creature is unconscious" or "while charmed in this way, the creature cannot speak the truth" or the like.

Fixing Thrall involves adding more to the feature, not to Charmed. It could be anything from "while charmed in this way, the target is Friendly towards the Warlock" to "...the target is unable to resist the Warlock's orders" to my recent favorite, "The Warlock chooses the target's Ideal, Bond, or Flaw, and replaces it with a new one of his liking. The trait remains replaced as long as the Thrall is Charmed."

MeeposFire

2020-03-24, 06:14 PM

Yeah, I think they wrote the rule about bonus action spellcasting trying to prevent some sort of cheese, and failed to close other potential loopholes AND overestimated the problem. Action economy was clearly on their mind, though, in the design of a lot of PHB classes and rules. And the fear that PCs would abuse it.

It mostly doesn't. It's mostly about how you conceive of it, and how the design conception of D&D 5e went. 5e was trying to make the simplest rounds it could. That's why movement is something you can just do on your turn. No special action. Do it and take your action at any point, even move in the middle of your action. So they gave you one action per turn, and don't have you even considering bonus actions without things that grant them. Then they add that you can't take more than one bonus action, no matter how many are granted to you, in a turn.

If you conceive of it better as "You have an action and a bonus action every round," and that makes it clearer, so be it. The only really useful thing I think the other way does over this is it prevents players from being bogged down trying to hunt for some way not to "waste" their bonus action by not taking it. And it's a weak bit of utility, since anybody who plays long enough to start optimizing at any level will realize that having a bonus action is better than not having one!

The funny thing is that you will have the same problem. I could freak out and spend my time finding abilities that grant me a bonus action to use since if I don't then I am still not using a resource. You can get this same feeling right now with classes that have no use for concentration but you can feel like you are missing something if you are not using it (though it helps that using things like potions you can get the same benefit with no concentration so it makes it less of an issue but I would be lying if I did not think it is something that could exist).

I agree they were probably a bit worried about action economy issues (which they should) and I think they were trying to keep it more simple sounding rather than nuanced (for instance I house rule it so that if you cast a bonus action spell in the same turn as any other spell at least one of those spells must be a cantrip, it keeps what I think is the deep down intent but removes funny issues such as healing word/sacred flame is ok but shillelagh/cure wounds is not despite both being a combination of a cantrip and a leveled spell).

EggKookoo

2020-03-24, 06:33 PM

I think it unnecessary to change the Charmed condition itself. It's wonky, but it does its job when used correctly. A lot of 5e's design rests on minimal-effect conditions which specific effects, which inflict those conditions, attach riders to. "While poisoned in this way, the creature is unconscious" or "while charmed in this way, the creature cannot speak the truth" or the like.

Fixing Thrall involves adding more to the feature, not to Charmed. It could be anything from "while charmed in this way, the target is Friendly towards the Warlock" to "...the target is unable to resist the Warlock's orders" to my recent favorite, "The Warlock chooses the target's Ideal, Bond, or Flaw, and replaces it with a new one of his liking. The trait remains replaced as long as the Thrall is Charmed."

The addition was relatively minimal but had some strong RP implications. "A charmed creature will assume the charmer would never lie to it."

Expanded on in practice, I played it such that the charmed creature basically believed everything the charmed told it if it had no specific reason not to, or possessed no information to the contrary. So "Let me in, I have vital information for the duke!" typically worked, since the charmed guard didn't know you didn't have information for the duke.

If the charmer said something the charmed knew was false, how it played out depended on circumstance. The charmed creature might assume it misheard, or maybe misunderstood. It might assume the charmer was lying to the detriment of some other creature, and maybe even play along. Or the charmed creature might just assume the charmer was innocently incorrect, and at most politely attempt to correct it (or perhaps not risk insulting it and just go along, if the lie wasn't clearly harmful).

It never came to it, but I also assumed that if the charmer aggressively abused this and tried to repeatedly tell the charmed something absurd ("I'm telling you, you are a carrot!"), it might be enough of a shock to break the charmed condition. Almost like damaging the creature by confusing it so much.

So it didn't really change the charmed condition all that much, but it made Create Thrall do what we expected it to do, which was to create a kind of lackey that the warlock could telepathically maintain control over through the careful feeding of "information." It actually played out quite nicely.

Edit: So yeah, we could have just applied this addendum to Create Thrall, but then, at least at the time, it felt like it was the condition itself that was lacking. It seemed like the spell charm person should also have a similar effect, especially considering it burned a spell slot. I think we were driven by a classical narrative interpretation of what it means to charm someone, and how such a person basically becomes subservient to the charmer. At the same time, doing it the way we did opened the door for some fun roleplaying decisions in terms of what exactly to say to the thrall, and to keep stringing it along. I mean rather than just *poof* the thrall now obeys your commands.

Tanarii

2020-03-24, 06:42 PM

We ran into this with Create Thrall a couple years back. It renders the feature nearly useless, and certainly not worthy of 14th level. As the DM, I ended up homebrewing some additional properties into the charmed condition.
The biggest problem is the Thrall may be hostile to the Warlock merely based on using the ability. Depends on how they were incapacitated when it was used. For example if they were asleep, they may not even be aware that you've done it.

But the use of it is pretty straight forward. Social checks are one of the best defined subsystems in 5e. You tell the DM what you want from them, then they cross reference the DMG table with its attitude and what you're trying to get from it, and set the DC.

The main advantage is you can make a social check at any range at any time, and roll to see if it obeys at advantage. It may not even know who is speaking in it's head urging it to do ... things. That's far from useless in some campaigns. Far less useful in a standard dungeon crawl.

Segev

2020-03-24, 06:49 PM

Huh. Page 245 of the DMG, for anyone else curious but unfamiliar with the tables for Persuasion rolls.

Even a Hostile creature, on DC 20, will do ask asked, as long as no risks or sacrifices are involved. I’m hard-pressed to think of anything you might ask of your thrall that wouldn’t involve either, but there is that.

Changing attitude is pure role play, making it as much a game if persuading the DM as the Thrall. But if you know their ideal, bond, or flaw, you can work with that.

If nothing else, they can’t escape your voice. This does give you lots of time to work on them. Brainwash them or fool them into doing your bidding.

MaxWilson

2020-03-24, 06:49 PM

I agree they were probably a bit worried about action economy issues (which they should) and I think they were trying to keep it more simple sounding rather than nuanced (for instance I house rule it so that if you cast a bonus action spell in the same turn as any other spell at least one of those spells must be a cantrip, it keeps what I think is the deep down intent but removes funny issues such as healing word/sacred flame is ok but shillelagh/cure wounds is not despite both being a combination of a cantrip and a leveled spell).

Note: your change has balance implications. E.g. Sorlocks no longer have to choose between Quickened and other metamagics, because they can just cast a Careful Web or Twin Polymorph and still Quicken Eldritch Blast.

Instead of undoing your change, I recommend adding a compensating rule to metamagics: you can only use one metamagic per turn (instead of per spell), with the usual exception for Empowered.

Misterwhisper

2020-03-24, 07:11 PM

The biggest problem is the Thrall may be hostile to the Warlock merely based on using the ability. Depends on how they were incapacitated when it was used. For example if they were asleep, they may not even be aware that you've done it.

But the use of it is pretty straight forward. Social checks are one of the best defined subsystems in 5e. You tell the DM what you want from them, then they cross reference the DMG table with its attitude and what you're trying to get from it, and set the DC.

The main advantage is you can make a social check at any range at any time, and roll to see if it obeys at advantage. It may not even know who is speaking in it's head urging it to do ... things. That's far from useless in some campaigns. Far less useful in a standard dungeon crawl.

This is what happened in the only game in which someone ever used it:

NPC evil warlock: kneel and obey me! (Uses create thrall on our evoker wizard)

PC wizard: ummm No. high level Fireball

DM: You can’t do that, you are thralled.
PC: yes I can, all it does is make you charmed.
DM: it says you can’t attack them or target them with a spell
PC: I didn’t attack them, that is not an attack because it has no attack roll, and I didn’t target them, I targets an area they are in
DM: so you get thralled, but it doesn’t matter, you just attack anyway...
PC: no, can’t attack but I am a caster so I will just throw something with a save

DM: fine, he is a level 16 warlock with training in arcana, he would know that and target the fighter instead then.
PC 2: Me? How did I get thrown into this? I was not even talking to him?
DM: because it is their best ability and it is getting used on someone.
PC 2: fine. Now what?
DM: you are charmed.
PC 2: well then I will grapple him, it is not an attack roll.
PC 1: that is considered a special attack.

PC 2: so let me get this straight -
1: thrall is just charmed
2: you can’t attack them or target them
3: but it is perfectly fine to drop a massive fireball on top of them
4: but I can’t just hold them still because it is an attack even though it is specifically not an attack roll.
PC 1: yeah, should have played a caster.

Also brings up another rule:

Spells and abilities with saves are not attacks
Magic missile is also not an attack because no roll.
Grappling is, despite it not having an attack roll.

Which means you can’t grapple someone under sanctuary, but a dragon can breath weapon you in your tiny hut.

Tanarii

2020-03-24, 07:16 PM

This is what happened in the only game in which someone ever used it:

NPC evil warlock: kneel and obey me! (Uses create thrall on our evoker wizard)

PC wizard: ummm No. high level Fireball
Well the big problem there is the D&D 5e rules don't say how, if at all, social checks are supposed to work on PCs.

Other systems handle it more specifically. Although some of them rub players the wrong way, because they restrict/limit choices. "You can't tell ME how to role play! It's MY character, you can't tell me what to do. This rule is a bad rule!"

Millstone85

2020-03-24, 07:53 PM

PC: I didn’t attack them, that is not an attack because it has no attack roll, and I didn’t target them, I targets an area they are in
Fireball refers to the creatures it damages as targets. (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/897558666471251968)Truthfully, I don't understand what 5e considers a target.

Well the big problem there is the D&D 5e rules don't say how, if at all, social checks are supposed to work on PCs.Would it be any different if the warlock was a PC and the wizard an NPC? No charisma check is going to make the enemy kneel and obey.

Segev

2020-03-24, 08:01 PM

Regarding rules lawyering 5e and what is and is not an “attack,” remember that 5e’s mantra is: “Rulings, not rules.”

If the DM thinks it’s an attack, it is.

Also, Thrall is an hour long ritual with the Target helpless or cooperating. Not an action.

Millstone85

2020-03-24, 08:16 PM

Regarding rules lawyering 5e and what is and is not an “attack,” remember that 5e’s mantra is: “Rulings, not rules.”

If the DM thinks it’s an attack, it is.Crawford once had this hilarious exchange (https://twitter.com/El_Dodgero/status/806990018963046400) on Twitter:
Crawford: Magic missile isn't an attack.
Dodger: yes it is, and rules lawyers are never welcome in my games.

Crawford: By rule, magic missile doesn't involve an attack, but as DM, you're empowered to ignore/change rules.
Dodger: "casts Magic Missile at you, they are attacking. It does damage & isn't friendly."

Crawford: Again, you are welcome to ignore the rules. That is the prerogative of the DM.
Dodger: Again, I'm not ignoring the rules. Those aren't the rules. Those are things written in 5e books.

Crawford: My tweets are about the official rules of 5E. Whatever rules you're using, I hope you're having fun.
Dodger: I'm using D&D rules! The real thing! *posts AD&D cover*

Tanarii

2020-03-24, 08:40 PM

Also, Thrall is an hour long ritual with the Target helpless or cooperating. Not an action.
"You can use your action to touch an incapacitated humanoid." PHB p110

Would it be any different if the warlock was a PC and the wizard an NPC? No charisma check is going to make the enemy kneel and obey.
It might not result in them casting Fireball on you though. But yes, the DM also attempted to have the NPC warlock make a social check that was automatically going to fail.

furby076

2020-03-24, 08:52 PM

I feel like that for every person that misunderstands this one another is simply choosing to ignore it. My group falls in the misunderstanding the rule group. They argue with me if I try to get it ruled correctly, which I often try whether following the rule is in our favor or not (as a player, as a DM I have houseruled surprise rounds as a thing).

Our group just ignores it and uses it like 3.x. If you are surprised, the enemy gets a free round. My character has Alert feat, so haha!

Segev

2020-03-24, 09:04 PM

"You can use your action to touch an incapacitated humanoid." PHB p110I stand corrected. I wonder where I pulled the idea it took an hour to bind them from.

MaxWilson

2020-03-24, 09:42 PM

I stand corrected. I wonder where I pulled the idea it took an hour to bind them from.

On the other hand, the PC wizard in misterwhisper's story was clearly not incapacitated because he cast a Fireball right afterwards. So Create Thrall was still illegal, for a different reason.

Galithar

2020-03-24, 10:21 PM

1. greater invisibility has a range of self, it can't be cast by another. however thats a minor point becuase regular invisibility would be functionally equivalent, and there's no reason greater would need to be cast by other. however;
2. the stipulation is that they can see you, invisibility doesn't really matter in this scenario. as the person themselves being visible doesn't really factor into granting disadvantage. only their location. and;
3. this is particularly true because, as you pointed out, the original scenario didn't explicitly state that the paralyzed person was the only person present. So a hidden enemy is unnecesary for making your point.

1. Greater Invisibility is a touch spell that is often cast on others. The reason I specified Greater is because it is the combat applicable version. Invisibility ends early from many actions, like attacking and so is the more likely spell to be on an enemy in combat.
2. Seeing a target very much factors into whether you get disadvantage on an attack. Knowing where they are only effects whether you have to guess their location when attacking. An unseen target grants disadvantage to your attack. This is how the Darkness "I can't see you, you can't see me" situation ends in straight rolls fr both sides when attacking each other.
3. The fact that you want to make assumptions about what I said and the situation to try to say I'm wrong is laughable. Especially since you make a post saying I'm right, and then edit in these points which are again trying to point out that I'm wrong, but are in fact misunderstood rules themselves. The original scenario pointed out that it wouldn't matter IF the person with the bow had disadvantage. Which was part of my point. I never said where the disadvantage would come from, simply that it wouldn't matter. I did this very intentionally because I have in fact seen people that thought you couldn't get the auto-crit if you didn't have advantage. My assumption is that they have conflated the rule for sneak attack with this, but that isn't really relevant to anything. I left the scenario open ended and you tried to close the details off to say I'm wrong. Quit trying to assume I don't know what I'm talking about.

Misterwhisper

2020-03-24, 10:28 PM

On the other hand, the PC wizard in misterwhisper's story was clearly not incapacitated because he cast a Fireball right afterwards. So Create Thrall was still illegal, for a different reason.

I was the fighter in that situation.

I was very confused because the enemy tried to thrall me even though all I did was watch a door.
It was not even supposed to be a fight, the group went there to ask the warlock for information about finding a mcguffin.

The wizard however opened the conversation with:

Wizard: "Tell us where the Crystal of Man is." Tried to roll intimidate for some reason.
Warlock: "Why should I? What is in it for me?"
Wizard: "Simple, I am an archmagus (wizard with an ego), you are just a petty charlatan who steals magic from others, tell me or I will just destroy you."

Went downhill from there.

Well, downhill for the warlock at least.
He tried to thrall the wizard, which the DM probably did just to piss off the wizard player.
Didn't work.
Thralled me instead even though I was just standing by the door saying nothing.
Warlock and wizard fight lasted like 3 rounds maybe 4.
The warlock got off a darkness spell.
The wizard made him burn through at least one dispell, maybe 2.
Wizard cast some kind of damaging cloud spell that the warlock failed the save on and never got off anything else.

This is what happens when a powergamer from 3.5 reads all the boards to make a broken wizard in 5e.

Segev

2020-03-25, 12:19 AM

This is what happens when a powergamer from 3.5 reads all the boards to make a broken wizard in 5e.

Speaking as a powergamer from 3.5....if the DM says that fireball is an attack, I might - MIGHT - argue it if I feel strongly that it shouldn't be, but ultimately it's the DM's call. I just will note it for future reference. (Personally, I'd have agreed that it's a fair ruling within the spirit of "you can't attack the guy," but to fairly evaluate the wizard's player's position I have to at least consider that he might have a strong reason other than it being personally inconvenient at the time to argue it.)

Though in the wizard player's position, I would be calling out the DM on using it when I'm not incapacitated,certainly. That's less rules lawyering and more just pointing out the plainly-written rules. ... I also probably wouldn't have tried intimidating a guy I wanted info from until I'd tried asking nicely and that had failed.

Misterwhisper

2020-03-25, 12:44 AM

Speaking as a powergamer from 3.5....if the DM says that fireball is an attack, I might - MIGHT - argue it if I feel strongly that it shouldn't be, but ultimately it's the DM's call. I just will note it for future reference. (Personally, I'd have agreed that it's a fair ruling within the spirit of "you can't attack the guy," but to fairly evaluate the wizard's player's position I have to at least consider that he might have a strong reason other than it being personally inconvenient at the time to argue it.)

Though in the wizard player's position, I would be calling out the DM on using it when I'm not incapacitated,certainly. That's less rules lawyering and more just pointing out the plainly-written rules. ... I also probably wouldn't have tried intimidating a guy I wanted info from until I'd tried asking nicely and that had failed.

The guy playing the wizard had a huge ego from playing wizards all the time in 3.5 and hated warlock back then because he saw them as useless.

In 5e he hated them too because he saw wizards as the ultimate arcane casters and warlocks as people too stupid to be wizards so they made deals.

Essentially he made an in character reason to hate them because out of character he hated them.

Not exactly a fun time playing the warlock in a group with him.

Not in that game but in a different one I was a warlock and he played a sorcerer. We actually convinced him to play something other than a wizard for once.

Multiple times during the game he subtle counter spelled me just to make me look bad.

Sadly, no other gaming groups in the area.

JackPhoenix

2020-03-25, 12:50 AM

Pouring a healing potion down a PCs throat is Use An Object.

It's not, actually: DMG 141- "If an item requires an action to activate, that action isn't a function of the Use an Item action, so a feature such as the rogue's Fast Hands can't be used to activate the item."

I stand corrected. I wonder where I pulled the idea it took an hour to bind them from.

Planar Binding, perhaps, considering your wording?

Segev

2020-03-25, 12:51 AM

The guy playing the wizard had a huge ego from playing wizards all the time in 3.5 and hated warlock back then because he saw them as useless.

In 5e he hated them too because he saw wizards as the ultimate arcane casters and warlocks as people too stupid to be wizards so they made deals.

Essentially he made an in character reason to hate them because out of character he hated them.

Not exactly a fun time playing the warlock in a group with him.

Not in that game but in a different one I was a warlock and he played a sorcerer. We actually convinced him to play something other than a wizard for once.

Multiple times during the game he subtle counter spelled me just to make me look bad.

Sadly, no other gaming groups in the area.

I'm surprised the other players and the DM tolerated that kind of behavior. The groups I've been in would have told the guy to cut it out or be disinvited. I've known DMs who just would have told him, "No, you don't," when he said he counterspelled another player and couldn't give an in character reason that wasn't clearly just him being a jerk to the other player.

EggKookoo

2020-03-25, 05:26 AM

I'm surprised the other players and the DM tolerated that kind of behavior. The groups I've been in would have told the guy to cut it out or be disinvited. I've known DMs who just would have told him, "No, you don't," when he said he counterspelled another player and couldn't give an in character reason that wasn't clearly just him being a jerk to the other player.

Psychology is what it is. Sometimes overbearing players can subtly (or not so subtly) intimidate other players and the DM into letting them have their way. If you have a narcissist at your table who has even an ounce of smarts or charisma, they can make your life hell without you even noticing they're the ones doing it.

I suspect more than a few people find themselves trapped socially like this and aren't really sure how to get out of it. Create Thrall indeed!

Chronos

2020-03-25, 08:26 AM

An awful lot of problems arose from their design goal of avoiding clear, unambiguous language.

As for buried rules, and references to them, one big formatting error was in not labeling the chapters. Say I'm reading something in Chapter 5, and it says to refer to something in Chapter 8. How the heck do I find Chapter 8? I flip through the book, and I see that I'm in Part 2. Is Chapter 8 in that part? Is it before or after the page I'm on right now? Unless I happen to flip to the first page of a chapter, I don't know.

EggKookoo

2020-03-25, 09:00 AM

An awful lot of problems arose from their design goal of avoiding clear, unambiguous language.

I felt from the start they should have called an action something like a "main action," to go along with a bonus action and a reaction. They could all be classified under "actions" but then things like Action Surge could specifically say that you gain another main action. For a long time and for a lot of people, "action" has been synonymous with "turn."

For what it's worth, I describe the action economy to my newer players using buckets. You have three buckets. One is labeled "action," the second is labeled "bonus action," and the third is "reaction." Everything you do, aside from a free action (which I don't really formalize much at the table) and movement, has a similar label of "action," "bonus action," or "reaction." You can theoretically have any number of each. When you do one of those things, think of putting that thing into its bucket, and each bucket can only hold one thing at a time. If you don't have a thing that goes into a particular bucket, the bucket stays empty. You dump out your buckets at the start of each round. It's a bit of an oversimplification (the reaction bucket technically empties out at the start of your turn, rather than the round) but it's a good primer. You don't have a bonus action. You potentially have a feature that uses a bonus action bucket.

da newt

2020-03-25, 09:21 AM

The various uses/definitions of attack, spell attack, ranged attack, melee attack, special attack, etc still drive me nuts.

Segev

2020-03-25, 09:37 AM

An awful lot of problems arose from their design goal of avoiding clear, unambiguous language.That...wasn't the goal. Characterizing it as such is both unfair and a bit disingenuous. Their goal was to use plain language that could be colloquially understood. Ambiguity was not an intentional part of it, though it was considered acceptable to have a little on the assumption that the DM would make a ruling and move on.

As for buried rules, and references to them, one big formatting error was in not labeling the chapters. Say I'm reading something in Chapter 5, and it says to refer to something in Chapter 8. How the heck do I find Chapter 8? I flip through the book, and I see that I'm in Part 2. Is Chapter 8 in that part? Is it before or after the page I'm on right now? Unless I happen to flip to the first page of a chapter, I don't know.That is a definite annoyance. You can flip to the Table of Contents, but that's an annoying extra step and, because we're not used to extensive uses of such things in most cases, not always an obvious first step.

The various uses/definitions of attack, spell attack, ranged attack, melee attack, special attack, etc still drive me nuts.

I think part of the problem here isn't 5e's, but again players (including DMs) who assume there is a hidden definition for everything. Attacks are attacks; it says so on the metaphorical tin. Spell attacks are clearly labeled as such specifically to tell you what attack bonus to use. Ranged attacks and melee attacks are clear subcategories of attacks that tell you if somebody is swinging a weapon or is projecting something, and again give you specific information on what bonuses to use. Special attacks just mean that there's something unusual about how the attack is resolved (e.g. opposed Strength (Athletics) rolls rather than a normal attack roll vs. AC).

Tanarii

2020-03-25, 10:01 AM

Segev

2020-03-25, 10:09 AM

What drive me nuts is they claim colloquial use, then have very specific definitions for, e.g. Ranged attack with a weapon vs Ranged weapon attack vs Attack with a Ranged Weapon. (Or substitute Melee.)

Which causes all sorts of commonly misunderstood rules.

Can you give examples? (I have a suspicion that most of this only comes up if you're listening to Crawford telling you how and why he'd rule some particular way; Crawford, despite the philosophy of the books, tends to think more like a 3.5 designer trying to have it both ways.)

Tanarii

2020-03-25, 10:22 AM

Can you give examples? (I have a suspicion that most of this only comes up if you're listening to Crawford telling you how and why he'd rule some particular way; Crawford, despite the philosophy of the books, tends to think more like a 3.5 designer trying to have it both ways.)Nope. It's all over the place.

A few quick examples off the top of my head:

Sharpshooter:
- you ignore cover and long range with ranged weapon attack rolls, which includes thrown melee weapons.
- -5/+10 option for an attack with a ranged weapon. Which means you can use it with Thrown Darts but not thrown daggers.

Fighting styles:
- archery style applies to attacks with ranged weapons, so it applies to throw darts and nets but not thrown melee weapons.
- dueling style applies to wielding a melee weapon in one hand, so it applies to throwing one handed melee weapons.

Here's plenty of examples among feats and class features.

Galithar

2020-03-25, 10:24 AM

Segev

2020-03-25, 10:26 AM

Nope. It's all over the place.

A few quick examples off the top of my head:

Sharpshooter:
- you ignore cover and long range with ranged weapon attack rolls, which includes thrown melee weapons.
- -5/+10 option for an attack with a ranged weapon. Which means you can use it with Thrown Darts but not thrown daggers.

Fighting styles:
- archery style applies to attacks with ranged weapons, so it applies to throw darts and nets but not thrown melee weapons.
- dueling style applies to wielding a melee weapon in one hand, so it applies to throwing one handed melee weapons.

Here's plenty of examples among feats and class features.
Do the RAW call this out as explicit exceptions, or is this Crawford's ruling that these are different things?

Again, "Rulings, not rules," would usually mean the DM is the one who decides if these things apply and how. I would expect that a DM would not find these distinctions that compelling unless there's a solid reason why they should be.

I'm not even really trying to argue with you, here. It just sounds a lot like a distinction that's being read into things that may not be there, unless I'm missing some really obvious interactions that NOT treating them as distinctions would make nonsensical.

Segev

2020-03-25, 10:32 AM

Can a Monkadin (Monk/Paladin MC) smite with an unarmed strike?

Personally? I'd say it's a DM's call, but I would have expected "yes" until somebody thought to ask the question. I confess that this is in no small part because of my 3.5 heritage, wherein monk unarmed strikes were explicitly both manufactured and natural weapons for rules purposes. But if I thought about it more, I'd say, "Why couldn't he?" He's hitting somebody, and empowering that with a spell designed to empower a melee attack should be doable, right?

Now, I won't say all DMs would rule the same way, but again, to me, it would've been something I wouldn't have even stopped to think to ask.

MaxWilson

2020-03-25, 10:32 AM

I'm surprised the other players and the DM tolerated that kind of behavior. The groups I've been in would have told the guy to cut it out or be disinvited. I've known DMs who just would have told him, "No, you don't," when he said he counterspelled another player and couldn't give an in character reason that wasn't clearly just him being a jerk to the other player.

Based on past experience, I wouldn't have stopped the PC from doing that, but I would have stopped the game to ask the player, "Why are you doing that?" and have a OOC discussion amongst the players about whether or not that's really okay with everyone before continuing.

I don't care if player characters antagonize each other but I won't allow players to bully each other with in-game powers. I will stop the universe (drop the campaign) before I allow that.

But I also won't force PCs to act or refrain from acting, within a universe, unless the player is okay with it, e.g. as part of a hook before a bang! ("So you're in situation XYZ, okay, because you did ABC. Are you okay with that? Then LMNOP happens. Now what do you do?")

Galithar

2020-03-25, 10:34 AM

Personally? I'd say it's a DM's call, but I would have expected "yes" until somebody thought to ask the question. I confess that this is in no small part because of my 3.5 heritage, wherein monk unarmed strikes were explicitly both manufactured and natural weapons for rules purposes. But if I thought about it more, I'd say, "Why couldn't he?" He's hitting somebody, and empowering that with a spell designed to empower a melee attack should be doable, right?

Now, I won't say all DMs would rule the same way, but again, to me, it would've been something I wouldn't have even stopped to think to ask.

The fact that you can even see the other side shows the language is unnecessarily vague. You can under RAW by the way. Divine Smite only requires a melee weapon attack and an unarmed strike is.

What about the Paladin's "Improved Divine Smite" ability? Can a monk apply that to unarmed strikes?

Pex

2020-03-25, 10:44 AM

I felt from the start they should have called an action something like a "main action," to go along with a bonus action and a reaction. They could all be classified under "actions" but then things like Action Surge could specifically say that you gain another main action. For a long time and for a lot of people, "action" has been synonymous with "turn."

For what it's worth, I describe the action economy to my newer players using buckets. You have three buckets. One is labeled "action," the second is labeled "bonus action," and the third is "reaction." Everything you do, aside from a free action (which I don't really formalize much at the table) and movement, has a similar label of "action," "bonus action," or "reaction." You can theoretically have any number of each. When you do one of those things, think of putting that thing into its bucket, and each bucket can only hold one thing at a time. If you don't have a thing that goes into a particular bucket, the bucket stays empty. You dump out your buckets at the start of each round. It's a bit of an oversimplification (the reaction bucket technically empties out at the start of your turn, rather than the round) but it's a good primer. You don't have a bonus action. You potentially have a feature that uses a bonus action bucket.

Tell them they empty their own buckets at the start of their own turn. They don't have an Action or Bonus Action at the start of a round either.

Segev

2020-03-25, 10:52 AM

Based on past experience, I wouldn't have stopped the PC from doing that, but I would have stopped the game to ask the player, "Why are you doing that?" and have a OOC discussion amongst the players about whether or not that's really okay with everyone before continuing.

I don't care if player characters antagonize each other but I won't allow players to bully each other with in-game powers. I will stop the universe (drop the campaign) before I allow that.

But I also won't force PCs to act or refrain from acting, within a universe, unless the player is okay with it, e.g. as part of a hook before a bang! ("So you're in situation XYZ, okay, because you did ABC. Are you okay with that? Then LMNOP happens. Now what do you do?")This is roughly what I would expect, too. I'd probably handle it similarly, in practical terms. My point was more that I wouldn't let the action go without at least making sure there wasn't something more than in-character bickering and that this wasn't ruining one player's fun at the expense of another having his.

For the same reason I wouldn't allow a player of a rogue to steal everyone else's stuff. It may be "in character," and he may be able to get away with it because IC the other PCs never realize, but unless the other players are cracking up over the shenanigans, it's all but certainly damaging their fun. Meaning one player is having fun at the expense of the others, which isn't cool. So, again, I'd handle such a situation largely how you described, pausing the game and discussing with all the players if they're cool with this sort of thing. If they are, great! They can have all the intraparty conflict they like in character. But if they're not, we're not going to have one player ruining it for another.

The fact that you can even see the other side shows the language is unnecessarily vague. You can under RAW by the way. Divine Smite only requires a melee weapon attack and an unarmed strike is.

What about the Paladin's "Improved Divine Smite" ability? Can a monk apply that to unarmed strikes?

Nonsense. I can "see the other side" in 3.5's lawyerese discussions all the time, even when I don't agree with it. It's impossible to have everything lack any ambiguity or ability to deliberately read it differently. Like I said, I wouldn't even have thought it a question until somebody brought it up, because it would seem natural to me.

Regarding Improved Divine Smite, again, I'd see no compelling mechanical reason not to let a Monkadin use it. Even thinking about it harder than I normally would have, and acknowledging that flurry of blows would let him get 1 more attack with an automatic divine smite's +1d8, I don't find that terribly broken compared to his otherwise-present ability to do one fewer attack and still get the +1d8 on them using a bonus action from an off-hand weapon.

And, additionally, the only reason I can see the question coming up "normally" (rather than because somebody was looking for a distinction to be made) is if the DM felt this was overpowered.

EggKookoo

2020-03-25, 11:03 AM

What drive me nuts is they claim colloquial use, then have very specific definitions for, e.g. Ranged attack with a weapon vs Ranged weapon attack vs Attack with a Ranged Weapon. (Or substitute Melee.)

And let's not forget: magic missile isn't an attack. And it targets a creature that the player knows is there, even if the caster can't necessarily pick it out from a mirror image.

Oh, and I was shocked to learn not too long ago that you don't by RAW roll separate damage rolls for each missile. MM is a kind of weird selective AoE-ish kind of thing.

Tell them they empty their own buckets at the start of their own turn. They don't have an Action or Bonus Action at the start of a round either.

Good point, and shows how I get trapped myself. After all these years, I tend to think of combat in D&D as being round-based, when really it's better to visualize it as turn-based. Probably an artifact of earlier and other systems that presented it that way. Even to this day, I have old-time players who tend to forget they can do separate things on their turn. Older systems felt more strict on "it's your go, what's the [one] thing you do?"

Keltest

2020-03-25, 11:26 AM

And let's not forget: magic missile isn't an attack. And it targets a creature that the player knows is there, even if the caster can't necessarily pick it out from a mirror image.

Oh, and I was shocked to learn not too long ago that you don't by RAW roll separate damage rolls for each missile. MM is a kind of weird selective AoE-ish kind of thing.

Im sorry, do you have a citation for these? The attack one I can kind of see where youre going with that, because of the previously mentioned Crawford tweet (which im like 60% sure was sarcastic) but I don't see anything that indicates all the darts share the same damage roll.

Galithar

2020-03-25, 11:35 AM

Regarding Improved Divine Smite, again, I'd see no compelling mechanical reason not to let a Monkadin use it. Even thinking about it harder than I normally would have, and acknowledging that flurry of blows would let him get 1 more attack with an automatic divine smite's +1d8, I don't find that terribly broken compared to his otherwise-present ability to do one fewer attack and still get the +1d8 on them using a bonus action from an off-hand weapon.

Ah, but you see this one calls for an attack with a melee weapon. This means that a Monk's unarmed strike doesn't qualify under RAW. And this is why they needed to use and define clear terms.

Also it's not simply 1d8 additional damage. It's 1d8+(martial arts die)+Dex mod*2

A Monk doesn't get the two weapon fighting style and neither does a Paladin. So they lose the Dex mod on that TWF attack, plus the one they lost from a potential flurry. Then they lose a marital arts die of damage from the flurry, and the 1d8 Improved Divine Smite damage. Granted part of this is assuming a flurry which they wouldn't be doing a lot of with this bizzare multiclass I brought up for the express purpose of pointing out the lack of clarity.

This is the ambiguity in language they should have avoided by defining things. A melee attack and an attack with a melee weapon are NOT synonymous.

Segev

2020-03-25, 11:37 AM

Ah, but you see this one calls for an attack with a melee weapon. This means that a Monk's unarmed strike doesn't qualify under RAW. And this is why they needed to use and define clear terms.

Also it's not simply 1d8 additional damage. It's 1d8+(martial arts die)+Dex mod*2

A Monk doesn't get the two weapon fighting style and neither does a Paladin. So they lose the Dex mod on that TWF attack, plus the one they lost from a potential flurry. Then they lose a marital arts die of damage from the flurry, and the 1d8 Improved Divine Smite damage. Granted part of this is assuming a flurry which they wouldn't be doing a lot of with this bizzare multiclass I brought up for the express purpose of pointing out the lack of clarity.

This is the ambiguity in language they should have avoided by defining things. A melee attack and an attack with a melee weapon are NOT synonymous.

Except that the ambiguity is only there if you assume that it's using keywords. If you just read it colloquially and rule on it, you'll probably come to a swift - if personal - conclusion as to what it's saying. "Rulings, not rules," isn't going to lead to consistency from table to table, but it should advise people not to think too hard about parsing the fine qualities of the words chosen. If they're not specifically defined somewhere as a game term, they're probably not meant to be parsed so finely.

Chronos

2020-03-25, 11:41 AM

They said that they wanted clear, colloquial language. But that's an oxymoron. Colloquial language isn't clear. The colloquial term for clear language is "legalese", which people for some reason think is a bad thing. They thought that by removing the legalese they could stop the rules lawyering, when it's actually the opposite: Legalese is what stops rules lawyering.

Compare, for instance, to another WotC product that is written in legalese: Magic: the Gathering. You don't get rules lawyering in that game. You might occasionally get a situation where players don't know the rules well enough, whereupon they look up rulings from the judges who do know them well enough. And all of the judges are using the same rules, and the rules are clear and unambiguous, so all the judges' rulings will agree, and that's the end of it.

Now, M:tG is in many ways a much simpler game than D&D (even though it's arguably the most complicated competitive game ever played by humans). D&D tries to encompass a much greater scope, and a much more detailed universe, than M:tG. It won't ever be possible to get the rules for D&D as perfectly clear as they are for M:tG. But that's no good reason to just throw the entire concept of clarity out the window.

Xetheral

2020-03-25, 11:42 AM

It's not, actually: DMG 141- "If an item requires an action to activate, that action isn't a function of the Use an Item action, so a feature such as the rogue's Fast Hands can't be used to activate the item."

I think it's worth noting that the rule you quote applies only to activating magic items (including potions). Mundane objects that require an action to use do require taking the Use an Object action. (PHB 193: "When an object requires an action to use, you take the Use an Object action.")

Galithar

2020-03-25, 11:44 AM

Except that the ambiguity is only there if you assume that it's using keywords. If you just read it colloquially and rule on it, you'll probably come to a swift - if personal - conclusion as to what it's saying. "Rulings, not rules," isn't going to lead to consistency from table to table, but it should advise people not to think too hard about parsing the fine qualities of the words chosen. If they're not specifically defined somewhere as a game term, they're probably not meant to be parsed so finely.

Yes this is the poor reasoning they used when they created a rule set that has people constantly confused about basic things. You interpreted the rule I gave you in a manner that would be "wrong" if you went to an AL game. The game is meant to be a social game between people, built with simplicity in my mind so that it could be popularized into the gaming giant 5e is in comparison to other editions. Leaving ambiguity baked in only serves to cause disagreements at the table. The idea of "Just do what your a DM says" only goes so far. Especially when it's something simple like what abilities does my class features apply to. And the concept of people not thinking too hard about the words used in the rules is sloppy design at best.

I love 5e, but the rules needed to be written better.

EggKookoo

2020-03-25, 11:48 AM

Im sorry, do you have a citation for these? The attack one I can kind of see where youre going with that, because of the previously mentioned Crawford tweet (which im like 60% sure was sarcastic) but I don't see anything that indicates all the darts share the same damage roll.

Crawford says (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/10/17/magic-missile-do-you-roll-the-same-d4-for-all-darts/) by RAW it's one die roll, but you're free to change that if you like.

Willie the Duck

2020-03-25, 11:50 AM

They said that they wanted clear, colloquial language. But that's an oxymoron. Colloquial language isn't clear. The colloquial term for clear language is "legalese", which people for some reason think is a bad thing.

I believe the reason was 3.5, where there was a perception that people who wanted to sit down and play a dungeon-delving TTRPG and people who wanted to parse language until they won (or became "Pun-Pun") were having entirely different experiences. I think there was also a perception that the game was catering to the later category, and one of the reason that 3e brought in fewer new gamers (or old TSR-era players who jumped ship sometime in the 90s) than WotC had hoped. There may not be anything wrong with legalese in and of itself, but who wants it and what kind of gaming experience it fosters might have some interesting consequences. Certainly frustration with 'rules lawyers' is as old as D&D.

They thought that by removing the legalese they could stop the rules lawyering, when it's actually the opposite: Legalese is what stops rules lawyering.

Compare, for instance, to another WotC product that is written in legalese: Magic: the Gathering. You don't get rules lawyering in that game. You might occasionally get a situation where players don't know the rules well enough, whereupon they look up rulings from the judges who do know them well enough. And all of the judges are using the same rules, and the rules are clear and unambiguous, so all the judges' rulings will agree, and that's the end of it.

Now, M:tG is in many ways a much simpler game than D&D (even though it's arguably the most complicated competitive game ever played by humans). D&D tries to encompass a much greater scope, and a much more detailed universe, than M:tG. It won't ever be possible to get the rules for D&D as perfectly clear as they are for M:tG. But that's no good reason to just throw the entire concept of clarity out the window.

I doubt many people will agree that MtG is without rules lawyering. I don't think many people have had that experience.

Tanarii

2020-03-25, 12:53 PM

I doubt many people will agree that MtG is without rules lawyering. I don't think many people have had that experience.
Yup. MtG has a big "you must have rules lawyering skills this high to play" sign hidden in each booster deck. :smallamused:

Witty Username

2020-03-25, 12:56 PM

Chronos

2020-03-25, 12:58 PM

Rules disputes do still come up in M:tG, but the important point is that they're resolvable. You look up the rulings online, and there's one correct answer, and then the argument is over.

And yes, with 5e-style rules, it's easy for one single individual to come up with an answer to any given question. Which would be great, if it were a single-player game. But it's not, which means that different people need to agree on what the rules are.

Segev

2020-03-25, 01:06 PM

Magic: the Gathering. You don't get rules lawyering in that game. You might occasionally get a situation where players don't know the rules well enough, whereupon they look up rulings from the judges who do know them well enough. And all of the judges are using the same rules, and the rules are clear and unambiguous, so all the judges' rulings will agree, and that's the end of it.

I doubt many people will agree that MtG is without rules lawyering. I don't think many people have had that experience.
Yeah, um, rules lawyering is a HUGE thing in M:tG. It's practically the primary metagame - finding the combinations and interactions that give you the best results. Even the caveat about "going to the Judges who know the rules better" is really just asking Crawford. Well, the equivalent of it. M:tG just happens to be AL-only, with one mega-DM who makes the calls on what the final decision is when there's any dispute over interpretation.

Yes this is the poor reasoning they used when they created a rule set that has people constantly confused about basic things. You interpreted the rule I gave you in a manner that would be "wrong" if you went to an AL game. The game is meant to be a social game between people, built with simplicity in my mind so that it could be popularized into the gaming giant 5e is in comparison to other editions. Leaving ambiguity baked in only serves to cause disagreements at the table. The idea of "Just do what your a DM says" only goes so far. Especially when it's something simple like what abilities does my class features apply to. And the concept of people not thinking too hard about the words used in the rules is sloppy design at best.

I love 5e, but the rules needed to be written better."You would be wrong in an AL game" is the same as saying "You would be wrong at somebody else's table." And you're right. Every ruling will be wrong at SOME table. AL isn't actually any more "the RAW" than my personal table is. In fact, there are points where it's just plain silly how it interprets things, twisting the meanings of sentences for...whatever reason...until they don't mean anything like what they sound like.

"Just do what the DM says" is fine as long as everyone is communicating and playing in good faith. It CAN lead to stresses, but there's no avoiding those, and ideally you resolve them as they come up, or after the session. 3.5 proved that you can't avoid it with legalese; DMs will interpret it "wrong" according to other players, and arguments over whether this broken corner case effect should be allowed or not will ultimately be overridden by a DM saying "no," or will be bullied through. Just like with more colloquially-written rules. Except the corner cases are rarer, because the rules are deliberately fuzzy enough that the DM is expected to make a call rather than follow a specific chain of rules. I don't always like that, mind; I think they didn't go far enough in giving guidance in some cases. But that isn't a design mistake in principle.

I believe the reason was 3.5, where there was a perception that people who wanted to sit down and play a dungeon-delving TTRPG and people who wanted to parse language until they won (or became "Pun-Pun") were having entirely different experiences. I think there was also a perception that the game was catering to the later category, and one of the reason that 3e brought in fewer new gamers (or old TSR-era players who jumped ship sometime in the 90s) than WotC had hoped. There may not be anything wrong with legalese in and of itself, but who wants it and what kind of gaming experience it fosters might have some interesting consequences. Certainly frustration with 'rules lawyers' is as old as D&D.This is the crux of it. The legalese didn't prevent arguments. And was cumbersome. And led to more arguments for expressly silly outcomes that just happened to be powerful. 5e is an effort to pull back from the hyper-nerdy fixation on minutia and focus on a framework of rules to do things by, which DMs fill in the deliberate (and sometimes excessive) gaps with rulings.

EggKookoo

2020-03-25, 02:01 PM

I think a big one is that how unseen characters work, given as written you can perceive where they are without a roll unless they take the hide action. a wizard that turns invisible, is perfectly traceable until they can make that hide action.

The stealth/hiding rules in 5e are a weird example of something that's actually much simpler in practice than the mechanics might imply. Although I do think people also bring a lot of preconceptions to it from other games or previous editions.

This is the crux of it. The legalese didn't prevent arguments. And was cumbersome. And led to more arguments for expressly silly outcomes that just happened to be powerful. 5e is an effort to pull back from the hyper-nerdy fixation on minutia and focus on a framework of rules to do things by, which DMs fill in the deliberate (and sometimes excessive) gaps with rulings.

In my own not-the-widest experience, I've come to perceive a spectrum. At one end is "We're playing a game of collective make-believe and the rules are there to get us out of jams." At the other end is "We're running a reality simulator and nothing happens unless there's a codified mechanic to justify it." Few of us are way down either end but I suspect we cluster. I, myself, have shifted significantly toward the "make-believe" end over the years.

Pex

2020-03-25, 02:18 PM

Xetheral

2020-03-25, 02:18 PM

I think a big one is that how unseen characters work, given as written you can perceive where they are without a roll unless they take the hide action. a wizard that turns invisible, is perfectly traceable until they can make that hide action.

I'd say that one is less "commonly misunderstood" and is more "commonly disputed". There is very little consensus on anything relating to the hiding rules.

Segev

2020-03-25, 02:26 PM

Which is its own problem as shown here and not only in my infamous personal pet peeve of skill use.

For me, the skill use problem isn't lack of consistency table to table so much as it is lack of guidance for DMs. This has consistency issues table to table, but can also make it hard for the DM to be self-consistent. It's hard to ballpark something if you don't know what ballgame you're talking about!

For other things, lack of consistency talbe to table just...isn't a problem to me. It happens regardless of what you do. DMs will have house rules. They will make different rulings. The RAW will be thrown out at different points at different tables as DMs decide they know better.

MaxWilson

2020-03-25, 02:39 PM

Yeah, um, rules lawyering is a HUGE thing in M:tG. It's practically the primary metagame - finding the combinations and interactions that give you the best results.

I think you guys are using the term "rules lawyering" to mean different things. One person is using "rules lawyering" to refer to the act of arguing with the referee to give you a favorable reading on ambiguous rules, so you can exploit that combination. The other person is using "rules lawyering" to mean "looking for exploitable loopholes in unambiguous rules."

I.e. one person interprets "lawyering" in a courtroom sense, trying to persuade the judge by pounding the facts/law/table, and the other person interprets it in the sense of a lawyer in a legal office closely examining a contract to see if there are any exploitable loopholes. They are different activities. : )

Segev

2020-03-25, 02:55 PM

I think you guys are using the term "rules lawyering" to mean different things. One person is using "rules lawyering" to refer to the act of arguing with the referee to give you a favorable reading on ambiguous rules, so you can exploit that combination. The other person is using "rules lawyering" to mean "looking for exploitable loopholes in unambiguous rules."

I.e. one person interprets "lawyering" in a courtroom sense, trying to persuade the judge by pounding the facts/law/table, and the other person interprets it in the sense of a lawyer in a legal office closely examining a contract to see if there are any exploitable loopholes. They are different activities. : )

The only difference in the "courtroom sense" between D&D and M:tG is that M:tG has WotC giving official rulings, while D&D has DMs doing so for their tables.

Tanarii

2020-03-25, 03:32 PM

I'd say that one is less "commonly misunderstood" and is more "commonly disputed". There is very little consensus on anything relating to the hiding rules.
Hiding, surprise, and basic perception are definitely near the top of the list of rules left deliberately open to DM ruling. Along with calling (or not) for checks, type of check, and setting the DC.

Tha works for some people, and doesn't for others. It certainly doesn't increase the amount of forum debates though. It just changes the focus of disagreement from a myriad of details to more broad concepts. If anything, the debate is less, because eventually the answer tends to come to "DMs choice".

The only people who suffer are those tyrannical players who like to use rules to bludgeon their DMs into their viewpoint.
(To turn another old posters argument against on its head. Not really tho. There's advantages and disadvantages to loose vs tight and broad vs detailed rule sets.)

MaxWilson

2020-03-25, 03:42 PM

The only difference in the "courtroom sense" between D&D and M:tG is that M:tG has WotC giving official rulings, while D&D has DMs doing so for their tables.

That's a pretty big difference though. Unless someone is spending hours or days on Twitter, actively lobbying WotC to change their MtG rulings, that's very different from someone spending large fractions of a game session arguing with the DM for a favorable interpretation of the rules. Do you see the difference in usage now?

I don't play MtG but I gather the person who said that rules lawyering basically doesn't happen with MtG was saying exactly this: that very little MtG playtime is dedicated to arguing with the referee.

Tanarii

2020-03-25, 03:49 PM

An extremely commonly misunderstood rule:
Minor illusion only allows you to create an illusion of an object for its visual illusion, and there's no indication it can move around.

Segev

2020-03-25, 04:03 PM

That's a pretty big difference though. Unless someone is spending hours or days on Twitter, actively lobbying WotC to change their MtG rulings, that's very different from someone spending large fractions of a game session arguing with the DM for a favorable interpretation of the rules. Do you see the difference in usage now?

I don't play MtG but I gather the person who said that rules lawyering basically doesn't happen with MtG was saying exactly this: that very little MtG playtime is dedicated to arguing with the referee.Oh, it's a difference, but it's a difference that exists in 3.5 or in 5e. It's a difference in the nature of the games. Which I think was my point, but the conversation's gotten convoluted enough that I'm not sure anymore. ^^;

An extremely commonly misunderstood rule:
Minor illusion only allows you to create an illusion of an object for its visual illusion, and there's no indication it can move around.

Yeah, this one's a frustrating one. It makes the level 2 Illusionist ability a lot less impressive than it initially seems.

MaxWilson

2020-03-25, 04:15 PM

Oh, it's a difference, but it's a difference that exists in 3.5 or in 5e. It's a difference in the nature of the games. Which I think was my point, but the conversation's gotten convoluted enough that I'm not sure anymore. ^^;

I agree that 5E doesn't have as much courtroom lawyering as, say, AD&D does. I think it has orders of magnitude more law-office rules lawyering. To a certain extent the same corporate policies are responsible for both trends: having an "official WotC interpretation" as well as web sites like rpg.stackexchange.com and this one is some amount of help in shutting down courtroom lawyering, because humans are social animals and tend to respect large majority opinions. But then the rules lawyers start thinking about all of the loopholes that those WotC rulings open up.

Yeah, this one's a frustrating one. It makes the level 2 Illusionist ability a lot less impressive than it initially seems.

Yeah, whenever I see anyone talk about how awesome Minor Illusion is, it makes me think they didn't pay much attention to the spell description.

EggKookoo

2020-03-25, 04:26 PM

Minor illusion only allows you to create an illusion of an object for its visual illusion, and there's no indication it can move around.

Eh, unless there's some errata somewhere that solidifies this, my reading of the spell description doesn't suggest to me at all that the illusion can't move around at least within the 5-foot cube. I've let players use it, for example, to create a little firefly-like thing to buzz around someone's head as a distraction.

Reynaert

2020-03-25, 04:44 PM

Eh, unless there's some errata somewhere that solidifies this, my reading of the spell description doesn't suggest to me at all that the illusion can't move around at least within the 5-foot cube. I've let players use it, for example, to create a little firefly-like thing to buzz around someone's head as a distraction.

The most compelling argument is that, if it did work that way, it would be almost as powerful as the 1st level spell Silent Image (the only difference being the size).

MaxWilson

2020-03-25, 04:47 PM

The most compelling argument is that, if it did work that way, it would be almost as powerful as the 1st level spell Silent Image (the only difference being the size).

As an aside, Silent Image gets much better if you pair it with Minor Illusion for sound effects. (Minor Illusion doesn't take concentration or verbal components.)

Pex

2020-03-25, 04:52 PM

For me, the skill use problem isn't lack of consistency table to table so much as it is lack of guidance for DMs. This has consistency issues table to table, but can also make it hard for the DM to be self-consistent. It's hard to ballpark something if you don't know what ballgame you're talking about!

For other things, lack of consistency talbe to table just...isn't a problem to me. It happens regardless of what you do. DMs will have house rules. They will make different rulings. The RAW will be thrown out at different points at different tables as DMs decide they know better.

It's a bother for me because I have to relearn how to play the game when encountering a new DM. When the game is played differently it throws me off, and things I want to do go out the window. It's more obvious in skill use because that's used all the time. In other things it only happens when the situation comes up.

I'm still mad at the one that burned me. Game after game the wizard player got his familiar to use the Help action to give advantage on his attack. Finally I get to play the wizard with a familiar to have my fun with this tactic, and that's the DM who won't allow it because of the ambiguity of interaction between Help rules and familiars can't attack rules and he chose the restrictive interpretation. A different game, different DM, play the wizard. Nope, I'm denied. Another game, another DM, I'm not the wizard, the one who is? Yep, Help all the way to get the advantage. I have never been able to enjoy the tactic.

To be fair I have received rulings in my favor. I'm in a game as a Paladin where I get to reroll 1s and 2s on smites using great weapon style, and in my barbarian game I'm allowed to shove to trip first using Shield Master before I make my attacks. Still, I shouldn't have to ask every DM I play with what rules are we using this time.

Segev

2020-03-25, 04:55 PM

It's a bother for me because I have to relearn how to play the game when encountering a new DM. When the game is played differently it throws me off, and things I want to do go out the window. It's more obvious in skill use because that's used all the time. In other things it only happens when the situation comes up.

I'm still mad at the one that burned me. Game after game the wizard player got his familiar to use the Help action to give advantage on his attack. Finally I get to play the wizard with a familiar to have my fun with this tactic, and that's the DM who won't allow it because of the ambiguity of interaction between Help rules and familiars can't attack rules and he chose the restrictive interpretation. A different game, different DM, play the wizard. Nope, I'm denied. Another game, another DM, I'm not the wizard, the one who is? Yep, Help all the way to get the advantage. I have never been able to enjoy the tactic.

To be fair I have received rulings in my favor. I'm in a game as a Paladin where I get to reroll 1s and 2s on smites using great weapon style, and in my barbarian game I'm allowed to shove to trip first using Shield Master before I make my attacks. Still, I shouldn't have to ask every DM I play with what rules are we using this time.

Sadly, even in a more explicitly-worded gameset, you'd encounter this. It's just the nature of TTRPGs.

Pex

2020-03-25, 04:56 PM

Hiding, surprise, and basic perception are definitely near the top of the list of rules left deliberately open to DM ruling. Along with calling (or not) for checks, type of check, and setting the DC.

Tha works for some people, and doesn't for others. It certainly doesn't increase the amount of forum debates though. It just changes the focus of disagreement from a myriad of details to more broad concepts. If anything, the debate is less, because eventually the answer tends to come to "DMs choice".

The only people who suffer are those tyrannical players who like to use rules to bludgeon their DMs into their viewpoint.
(To turn another old posters argument against on its head. Not really tho. There's advantages and disadvantages to loose vs tight and broad vs detailed rule sets.)

Hey! I resemble that remark.

EggKookoo

2020-03-25, 05:10 PM

The most compelling argument is that, if it did work that way, it would be almost as powerful as the 1st level spell Silent Image (the only difference being the size).

Well, with silent image you can have an illusion as big as a 15-foot cube move to any spot within 60 feet of you, and have the thing going for 10 minutes. With minor illusion, at least how I interpreted it, you're "trapped" within the 5' cube within half the range, and it only lasts 1 minute. So I see the argument, but it's pretty clear to me that silent image has more applications.

I know you could, in theory, cast minor illusion successively in adjacent 5-foot locations to attempt to animate a creature or something. I would say the act of casting isn't literally instant and there would probably be gaps.

As an aside, Silent Image gets much better if you pair it with Minor Illusion for sound effects. (Minor Illusion doesn't take concentration or verbal components.)

We had two casters with minor illusion. One did the bug's visual, the other did the buzzing sound. It probably wouldn't have synced up perfectly but who really counts how many gnats are buzzing around their head?

Tanarii

2020-03-25, 06:24 PM

I know you could, in theory, cast minor illusion successively in adjacent 5-foot locations to attempt to animate a creature or something. I would say the act of casting isn't literally instant and there would probably be gaps.
Except unlike Silent Image, you can't create phenomena or creatures. So no fireflies or fog.

Edit: personally I wouldn't rule against a boiling pot, dripping blood, or a spinning wheel that's spinning. Objects that inherently involve some minor in place movement. I'm talking about something that explicitly can move. Which Silent Image explicitly allows. If I had to guess, I'd say that's probably because it allows creatures, so it's important to that spell.

The bigger point is people often indicate they think Minor Illusion can make creatures or phenomena. It's limited to objects.

MaxWilson

2020-03-25, 07:35 PM

Except unlike Silent Image, you can't create phenomena or creatures. So no fireflies or fog.

Edit: personally I wouldn't rule against a boiling pot, dripping blood, or a spinning wheel that's spinning. Objects that inherently involve some minor in place movement. I'm talking about something that explicitly can move. Which Silent Image explicitly allows. If I had to guess, I'd say that's probably because it allows creatures, so it's important to that spell.

The bigger point is people often indicate they think Minor Illusion can make creatures or phenomena. It's limited to objects.

The bigger point is that people sometimes advocate uses of Minor Illusion which would require you to physically interact with the image, e.g. offering someone illusionary gold pieces or showing off illusionary travel documents.

(Yes, you could also show someone a *stationary* pile of gold pieces that you don't have to interact with while they're watching, but it's more awkward.)

col_impact

2020-03-25, 07:53 PM

Correct me if I am wrong . . . Minor Illusion a sword plus Illusory Reality means you have a real sword for a minute that is magical in nature and that you can refresh/re-create every time you cast Minor Illusion. Or any object fitting in 5" cube. Further, sounds you make will be real sounds as opposed to sounds that can be dismissed by investigation.

EggKookoo

2020-03-25, 07:54 PM

Except unlike Silent Image, you can't create phenomena or creatures. So no fireflies or fog.

Ok, so the "fireflies" were really tiny pebbles. That were sculpted to look like bugs. That were painted with luminescent paint.

I mean I get that D&D has this concept of an object vs. a creature but there's a point where that kind of thing just utterly breaks down. I don't think I would be able to convince my players that they can't create a little glowing bug-like dot thing because, by virtue of them intending to create the impression of an insect, it's somehow not an "object." Mainly because I wouldn't believe it myself.

Illusions in general seem to be where the DM has to do a lot of common sense overriding.

Segev

2020-03-25, 08:08 PM

MaxWilson

2020-03-25, 08:21 PM

Ok, so the "fireflies" were really tiny pebbles. That were sculpted to look like bugs. That were painted with luminescent paint.

And they were stationary, right? Because pebbles can't fly around.

EggKookoo

2020-03-25, 08:33 PM

And they were stationary, right? Because pebbles can't fly around.

They're teeny tiny drones.

Chronos

2020-03-25, 09:50 PM

col_impact

2020-03-25, 09:58 PM

Illusory reality only works with spells of first level or higher. So you use Silent Image. Which an illusionist of 18th level probably has at will.

Or if you have 2 levels of Warlock and Misty Visions incarnation.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-25, 09:59 PM

Witty Username

2020-03-25, 10:04 PM

Asking Crawford a rules question isn't at all like asking a M:tG judge a rules question. If you ask three different M:tG judges a rules question, you'll get one answer, because it follows clearly from the rules. If you ask Crawford a D&D rules question, you'll get three answers, because he's just making it up as he goes along, and can't remember what he made up yesterday.

And I've always interpreted Minor Illusion (the visual form, that is) as completely static. It can't walk, it can't slide, it can't spin in place. It's still an excellent cantrip, though, even with that limitation.

YMMV at pre-release, but the idea still stands. It is worth mentioning that while most of the time there is only one-judgement but sometimes new effects, wording changes, etc. can screw things up. Usually it works out but sometimes you get a judge and a second judge talking it over for a few.

MaxWilson

2020-03-25, 10:33 PM

MeeposFire

2020-03-25, 10:40 PM

From what I have seen and heard about Magic the Gathering judges they are NOT as consistent as you are making them out to be. This is especially true in smaller stores and venues. I have had people get into an argument about how a combo of cards work, the judge made a ruling saying it does not work, and then the one player shows that in the official errata that the combo works but the judge says too bad they already moved past it. I have also seen 3e games where they were letting people move and full attack and the DMs say it is 100% within the rules when anyone who actually knows the rules will tell you that you cannot use a move action and a full round action in the same turn and the rules set with more explicit rules did not help at all. You can't fix stupid or stubborn.

Between AD&D/D&D, 3e, 4e, and 5e the rules set that has caused the most trouble with rules, the most arguments, and the most wasted time in game was 3e (4e was second but it is not as close as some may think it would be). Perhaps in a related fashion I get much the same problems in Battletech where there are rules for everything and there are numerous times where people think things work differently than they should (for instance whether HE ATMs are in 1 point or 5 point groupings) and that rules set is VERY spelled out but due to that people have a hard time remembering everything though fortunately in the group I play in we do not argue much about it we just rule it and move on.

Another thing to keep in mind is that MtG and D&D are very different types of games. MtG is implicitly a competitive type game whereas D&D is not implicitly a competitive game (though way back in the day it was originally going to be but that is not how the players eventually went with the game). In a competitive game you do need more explicit rules especially if you do not have an impartial judge for the game whereas D&D requires that far less since DM is not competing with the PCs (and the DM's that forget that often find that they have troubles due to that).

MaxWilson

2020-03-25, 10:46 PM

The addition was relatively minimal but had some strong RP implications. "A charmed creature will assume the charmer would never lie to it."

Expanded on in practice, I played it such that the charmed creature basically believed everything the charmed told it if it had no specific reason not to, or possessed no information to the contrary. So "Let me in, I have vital information for the duke!" typically worked, since the charmed guard didn't know you didn't have information for the duke.

If the charmer said something the charmed knew was false, how it played out depended on circumstance. The charmed creature might assume it misheard, or maybe misunderstood. It might assume the charmer was lying to the detriment of some other creature, and maybe even play along. Or the charmed creature might just assume the charmer was innocently incorrect, and at most politely attempt to correct it (or perhaps not risk insulting it and just go along, if the lie wasn't clearly harmful).

It never came to it, but I also assumed that if the charmer aggressively abused this and tried to repeatedly tell the charmed something absurd ("I'm telling you, you are a carrot!"), it might be enough of a shock to break the charmed condition. Almost like damaging the creature by confusing it so much.

So it didn't really change the charmed condition all that much, but it made Create Thrall do what we expected it to do, which was to create a kind of lackey that the warlock could telepathically maintain control over through the careful feeding of "information." It actually played out quite nicely.

Edit: So yeah, we could have just applied this addendum to Create Thrall, but then, at least at the time, it felt like it was the condition itself that was lacking. It seemed like the spell charm person should also have a similar effect, especially considering it burned a spell slot. I think we were driven by a classical narrative interpretation of what it means to charm someone, and how such a person basically becomes subservient to the charmer. At the same time, doing it the way we did opened the door for some fun roleplaying decisions in terms of what exactly to say to the thrall, and to keep stringing it along. I mean rather than just *poof* the thrall now obeys your commands.

This interpretation of charm poses challenges for other spells, though. Now if you Geas someone, or hit them with Hypnotic Pattern or an Enchanter's level 2 Hypnotic Gaze, they believe everything you say? Seems like a bigger change than you probably intended.

Luccan

2020-03-26, 12:05 AM

Playing an instrument is tool use and dex not performance.

Emphasis mine.

Only for stringed instruments, actually. Other instruments are not called out with specific skills.

Tanarii

2020-03-26, 12:45 AM

Ok, so the "fireflies" were really tiny pebbles. That were sculpted to look like bugs. That were painted with luminescent paint.

I mean I get that D&D has this concept of an object vs. a creature but there's a point where that kind of thing just utterly breaks down. I don't think I would be able to convince my players that they can't create a little glowing bug-like dot thing because, by virtue of them intending to create the impression of an insect, it's somehow not an "object." Mainly because I wouldn't believe it myself.

Illusions in general seem to be where the DM has to do a lot of common sense overriding.
Sure. And I'd like to think common sense should indicate that things flying around imitating fireflies but are actually objects is an attempt to circumvent pretty clear intent for the spell.

Asking Crawford a rules question isn't at all like asking a M:tG judge a rules question. If you ask three different M:tG judges a rules question, you'll get one answer, because it follows clearly from the rules. If you ask Crawford a D&D rules question, you'll get three answers, because he's just making it up as he goes along, and can't remember what he made up yesterday.

i am so glad you wrote this.
Personally I find Crawford to be the best Sage yet, a breath of fresh air. But this still gave me a good laugh. :smallamused:

(Snipped editions discussion because forum rules.)

MaxWilson

2020-03-26, 12:56 AM

Personally I find Crawford to be the best Sage yet, a breath of fresh air. But this still gave me a good laugh. :smallamused:

Something compels me to point out that "bad" and "best Sage yet" are not mutually exclusive ideas.

Luccan

2020-03-26, 12:59 AM

Tanarii

2020-03-26, 01:07 AM

Possibly. Proficiency is not training, it is focus. Ability scores also include training. Says so in the PHB.

In other words, a character with a skill proficiency or tool proficiency and a low ability score is worse than a person with a high ability score, if the total modifier is lower. Provided both know enough to make a check.

But it's not unreasonable to automatically assume that someone with a focus might know how to do most related tasks, entitling them to a check. Whereas one without may or may not, it would depend on the specific character and their background.

In other words, it's not a good general ruling, since it ignores what the mechanics are technically supposed to represent. But certainly any character might be able to say they don't know how to do that, or a DM might need to ask "would your character even know how to do that".

MaxWilson

2020-03-26, 02:02 AM

Lille

2020-03-26, 04:02 AM

HappyDaze

2020-03-26, 04:27 AM

Asking Crawford a rules question isn't at all like asking a M:tG judge a rules question. If you ask three different M:tG judges a rules question, you'll get one answer, because it follows clearly from the rules. If you ask Crawford a D&D rules question, you'll get three answers, because he's just making it up as he goes along, and can't remember what he made up yesterday.

That reminds me of calling Games Workshop for WH40K rulings back in the late 90s. Among the player group, we had a "two-out-of-three" agreement for accepting answers from their rules people. We would intentionally call three times and ask the same question. Sometimes we would get three (or more!) different answers and have to move to "three-out-of-five" or further along.

EggKookoo

2020-03-26, 05:20 AM

This interpretation of charm poses challenges for other spells, though. Now if you Geas someone, or hit them with Hypnotic Pattern or an Enchanter's level 2 Hypnotic Gaze, they believe everything you say? Seems like a bigger change than you probably intended.

To be clear, the change isn't that the charmed believes everything you say. It's that the charmed believes you wouldn't intentionally lie to it. So you could say something the charmed knows isn't true and it would rationalize why you said it, to the best of its ability and in a way that kept you in its favor. It wouldn't be compelled to actually believe it. I do see your point (and Segev's) about applying the change specifically to Create Thrall but it worked for us at the time. No one was using Geas or Hypno or anything, so it didn't come up.

Sure. And I'd like to think common sense should indicate that things flying around imitating fireflies but are actually objects is an attempt to circumvent pretty clear intent for the spell.

Except it wasn't such an attempt, because we all at the table interpreted it in such a way that creating a mobile distraction within the 5-foot cube was the within the intent. I feel like if it was important that minor illusion was meant to be static, it would say so. I mean it's just a matter of adding the word.

"If you create an image of an object — such as a chair, muddy footprints, or a small chest — it must be no larger than a 5-foot cube. The image can’t move, create sound, light, smell, or any other sensory effect. Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it." (emphasis mine)

But it doesn't say that. It's open to interpretation.

Pleh

2020-03-26, 05:27 AM

Chronos

2020-03-26, 07:54 AM

Speaking of Minor Illusion, it was just pointed out to me in another thread that you can't make more than one, because the illusion vanishes if you cast the spell again. That's not even a matter of interpretation; it's right there clearly in the spell. But somehow, for six years and three characters of using the spell, I never noticed it.

Though I don't know how common that misunderstanding is.

Luccan

2020-03-26, 09:12 AM

To be clear, the change isn't that the charmed believes everything you say. It's that the charmed believes you wouldn't intentionally lie to it. So you could say something the charmed knows isn't true and it would rationalize why you said it, to the best of its ability and in a way that kept you in its favor. It wouldn't be compelled to actually believe it. I do see your point (and Segev's) about applying the change specifically to Create Thrall but it worked for us at the time. No one was using Geas or Hypno or anything, so it didn't come up.

If applied to only spells or abilities that cause the person to view you as friendly/be friendly to you, I don't even think it's that out of line. I assume most people don't usually get along with those they mistrust; if I'm magically compelled to like you, then my brain will probably rationalize why you're wrong other than for the purpose of hurtful deceit since it's currently incapable of disliking you.

EggKookoo

2020-03-26, 09:29 AM

If applied to only spells or abilities that cause the person to view you as friendly/be friendly to you, I don't even think it's that out of line.

Is there any RAW way to apply the charmed condition without resorting to magic or some specific feature? I mean even if I roll really high on a persuasion check, I don't really get to charm that guy, right?

Willie the Duck

2020-03-26, 09:32 AM

Wow, this exploded far beyond my schedule's capacity to follow.

Regarding the rule formatting issue, I wonder if 5e might benefit from it's own version of 3.5's Rules Compendium. Cut out all the filler and just print a big table of the most important and most troublesome rules, maybe with a few sidebars to feature Crawford tweets or other suggestions.

Maybe add some modular rules (giving DMs and players the decision if they want to use them) that address sticky issues not every table struggles with.

I know, right? I get into the most trouble when I try to participate in conversations to which I clearly don't have time to devote myself.

As for a Rules Compendium, my opinion maybe a rules analysis document would help, but not in the 3.5 RC fashion. I would rather see a series of articles (each with a different topic) discussing what the rules cover, an analysis of what the rules seem to actually say, a discussion about what was intended, and a look at the consequences of DM rulings this way or that on the matter. I'm all for clarity in written rules (at least up to the point where the verbosity is in detriment to serving the casual gamer), but honestly I couldn't actually care less what a overly exhaustive microparsing of the rules in the books actually lands on. A primer on the consequences of ruling this way or that? That I think actually serves the gaming public in a way that a million Crawford tweets or a Rules Compendium ever could.

PhantomSoul

2020-03-26, 10:06 AM

On the subject of using tools without proficiency, would it be out of line with the actual written text (not the idea of "ruling over rules") for a DM to say that a character without tool proficiency can't make the check? The sort of no check, auto-fail you're supposed to engage when a task is literally impossible?

Basically, does anything in the text imply or even outright state the non-proficient player should be given the same shot a proficient character would to, say, forge a sword? Because it's one thing to try to do things with your body or mind you don't actually have training in (Medicine and perhaps Animal Handling are the only two skills where this seems out of line) and quite another to go through a complex tool use to wind up with a result that takes most people several years to master.

Some good indications:

In Ability Checks, under Working Together (PHB 175):

A character can only provide help if the task is one that he or she could attempt alone. For example, trying to open a lock requires proficiency with thieves’ tools, so a character who lacks that proficiency can’t help another character in that task. Moreover, a character can help only when two or m ore individuals working together would actually be productive. Some tasks, such as threading a needle, are no easier with help.

In Downtime, under Crafting (PHB187):

You must be proficient with tools related to the object you are trying to create (typically artisan’s tools).

Edit for clarification: The idea is that the DM determines whether an untrained person could do it at all and can say the attempt fails regardless of the desire to roll. (So not a rule for all tools ever, but explicit reinforcement to say you have to be able to do the thing in the first place in order to do the thing, which is already the general guideline for ability checks to begin with.)

Luccan

2020-03-26, 10:11 AM

Is there any RAW way to apply the charmed condition without resorting to magic or some specific feature? I mean even if I roll really high on a persuasion check, I don't really get to charm that guy, right?

I meant less as a modifier to the Charmed condition and more Charm effects that specifically makes someone your friend. Like Charm Person, but not Geas

Tanarii

2020-03-26, 10:18 AM

Except it wasn't such an attempt, because we all at the table interpreted it in such a way that creating a mobile distraction within the 5-foot cube was the within the intent. I feel like if it was important that minor illusion was meant to be static, it would say so. I mean it's just a matter of adding the word.

"If you create an image of an object — such as a chair, muddy footprints, or a small chest — it must be no larger than a 5-foot cube. The image can’t move, create sound, light, smell, or any other sensory effect. Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it." (emphasis mine)

But it doesn't say that. It's open to interpretation.
It was a clear attempt to circumvent the rule of objects only, so no creatures and phenomena. You can't justify your way out of that, or try to move the goalpost.

Galithar

2020-03-26, 10:22 AM

It was a clear attempt to circumvent the rule of objects only, so no creatures and phenomena. You can't justify your way out of that, or try to move the goalpost.

Or you could just stop trying to tell someone else that their table is doing it wrong? Would not "glowing sand particles swirling around your face" have the EXACT effect desired? And if they hadn't said 'fireflies' first you would have no reason to claim they were creating a creature. I think everything they did is well within the intent of the spell, and even if it wasn't telling them they're playing wrong isn't productive.

Segev

2020-03-26, 10:23 AM

It was a clear attempt to circumvent the rule of objects only, so no creatures and phenomena. You can't justify your way out of that, or try to move the goalpost.

I suppose we could examine it from the perspective of what D&D considers a "creature." Animated objects are creatures. Mage hands are phenomena. Rocks held by invisible mage hands (such as Gith and Arcane Tricksters can make) are objects that can be moved around.

It'll be a DM's call whether an image of an object can move around within the space.

patchyman

2020-03-26, 10:41 AM

Except unlike Silent Image, you can't create phenomena or creatures. So no fireflies or fog.

Edit: personally I wouldn't rule against a boiling pot, dripping blood, or a spinning wheel that's spinning. Objects that inherently involve some minor in place movement. I'm talking about something that explicitly can move. Which Silent Image explicitly allows. If I had to guess, I'd say that's probably because it allows creatures, so it's important to that spell.

The bigger point is people often indicate they think Minor Illusion can make creatures or phenomena. It's limited to objects.

This is weird because I rule it very differently. I rule that you can’t make an image move, but you can make sn image of what you want.

To me, a cantrip spell with the limitation “you can’t make the illusion move” makes sense, whereas “you can’t make an image of a (short) orc, but you can make a cardboard standee of the exact same orc” doesn’t make sense.

Segev

2020-03-26, 10:46 AM

This is weird because I rule it very differently. I rule that you can’t make an image move, but you can make sn image of what you want.

To me, a cantrip spell with the limitation “you can’t make the illusion move” makes sense, whereas “you can’t make an image of a (short) orc, but you can make a cardboard standee of the exact same orc” doesn’t make sense.

I actually opened a thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?609348-Let-s-discuss-Minor-Illusion) to discuss this sort of thing. One of the questions I bring up relates to the dividing line between "creature" and "object" and what falls on what side of it. (Notably, something that is both is still an object, so would be valid for minor illusion to make an image of.) But for the point about the orc: is an orc's corpse an object? If so, it should be an object no matter how fresh. So an image of an orc's corpse in a particular pose - depending on how much control you have over its motion - would work just fine.

EggKookoo

2020-03-26, 11:09 AM

It was a clear attempt to circumvent the rule of objects only, so no creatures and phenomena. You can't justify your way out of that, or try to move the goalpost.

"Attempt" implies intent; there was none. My players are oblivious to the mechanical distinction between object and creature, and no experience in figuring out when they should assume a feature allows or prohibits something based on its omission. I mean, minor image doesn't say you can't move the object around. Why in this case does it mean you can't, but in other cases similar omissions mean you can?

As for me, I'm inclined to let players bend rules as long as it doesn't sap the fun of something else, and to be frank I skimmed the description of minor illusion and what they were asking to do seemed to jive. I only realized I was offending the rules with my decision when I mentioned it here. There was no intent to circumvent anything.

In any event, I'm one of the people who was arguing a few months back that it's possible to create an illusion of a hole. Illusions are notoriously difficult to create consistent rules for. D&D doesn't even try to make them make sense. I mean, an illusion can't emit light, but you can somehow make an illusion of a lit candle. How's that work? Illusions can't cast reflections but you can make an illusion of a spoon. What do you see when you look at it? Of all the magical concepts in D&D, illusions might be the most reliant on DM rulings.

Regarding the notion that pebbles don't fly around... so? How does that stop you from creating the illusion of flying or floating pebbles? Minor illusion uses a small chest as an example. Could I use it to make the illusion of a small chest hovering a foot or so off the floor? Why not? Just because "chests don't float?" I have trouble swallowing that. Now, if the wording of the spell said something along the lines of "you can make an illusory replication of something you've seen within the past 24 hours" (or hour or whatever), then we're getting more locked down. Then you could say if you hadn't actually seen floating pebbles recently, you can't use this spell to duplicate them. Otherwise, the only limits to what the illusion can represent are what the caster can imagine, and the physical scope of the effect (the 5-foot cube, etc.). The little glowing dot things are illusions of "objects" if the caster says they are, especially if they're so small the viewer can't really tell exactly what they are meant to represent.

The funny thing is, on top of all of this, the dots were unnecessary. The other use of minor illusion to make the buzzing sound was enough to distract the guard.

I actually opened a thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?609348-Let-s-discuss-Minor-Illusion) to discuss this sort of thing. One of the questions I bring up relates to the dividing line between "creature" and "object" and what falls on what side of it. (Notably, something that is both is still an object, so would be valid for minor illusion to make an image of.) But for the point about the orc: is an orc's corpse an object? If so, it should be an object no matter how fresh. So an image of an orc's corpse in a particular pose - depending on how much control you have over its motion - would work just fine.

In some cases the object/creature distinction makes sense in context of the feature. I can buy that cure wounds heals creatures while mending repairs objects. I can explain that distinction to my players and for the most part they'd accept it. There seems to be a general understand that things that affect life functions are distinct somehow from things that affect "regular" matter. It gets harder (but still possible) to make that distinction with things like magic missile or eldritch blast. By RAW these things only target creatures. I can justify magic missile on a balance argument, since it auto-hits. But I let my warlock target objects with EB because it just feels right.

Illusions, though... I mean these things are basically three-dimensional images, the details of which are decided by the caster. It gets really hard to justify that you can make the image of a non-decayed corpse with its eyes open, but not the image of a living version of the same creature. And since the image is neither living nor dead, there's really no distinction. So I'm left with the balance argument, and I do see that minor illusion could in theory encroach on silent image, but none of my players has the latter and the comparison is unlikely to come up.

Segev

2020-03-26, 11:25 AM

Regarding illusions of lit candles and other light-emitting things, I tend to assume that the light is illusory, and thus only illuminates other things in the illusion. It does raise the question - to which I have no firm answer and could go either way - as to whether you can see an image of a lit candle in an otherwise-dark room. (Assume no magical darkness; we don't need that wrinkle.) For consistency, a number of arguments for and against reflection will dictate answers to this question that don't always satisfy the desires of people making the arguments.

Illusions are complicated.

MaxWilson

2020-03-26, 11:54 AM

Is there any RAW way to apply the charmed condition without resorting to magic or some specific feature? I mean even if I roll really high on a persuasion check, I don't really get to charm that guy, right?

Swashbuckler Panache (9th level) can charm and doesn't seem to be magic.

Edit: oh, without resorting to some specific feature? No, there isn't. Most things in 5E are either left up to DM improvisation (like the "Improvised Actions" in the Combat chapter) or gated behind specific features. That doesn't mean you can't do those things, it just means you won't find them in RAW anywhere. E.g. gagging someone so they can't speak isn't in RAW but is obviously possible; disarming someone during combat is obviously possible but is gated behind Battlemaster maneuvers or the DMG: Disarm optional rule.

I know, right? I get into the most trouble when I try to participate in conversations to which I clearly don't have time to devote myself.

As for a Rules Compendium, my opinion maybe a rules analysis document would help, but not in the 3.5 RC fashion. I would rather see a series of articles (each with a different topic) discussing what the rules cover, an analysis of what the rules seem to actually say, a discussion about what was intended, and a look at the consequences of DM rulings this way or that on the matter. I'm all for clarity in written rules (at least up to the point where the verbosity is in detriment to serving the casual gamer), but honestly I couldn't actually care less what a overly exhaustive microparsing of the rules in the books actually lands on. A primer on the consequences of ruling this way or that? That I think actually serves the gaming public in a way that a million Crawford tweets or a Rules Compendium ever could.

Excellent suggestion. Not only would I buy this hypothetical product (if it's done as well as Rising From the Last War), but I would also buy copies for all of my friends who play D&D.

This is weird because I rule it very differently. I rule that you can’t make an image move, but you can make sn image of what you want.

To me, a cantrip spell with the limitation “you can’t make the illusion move” makes sense, whereas “you can’t make an image of a (short) orc, but you can make a cardboard standee of the exact same orc” doesn’t make sense.

Me too. To me the clear implication of the spell text and examples is "a static, unmoving image". Clearly we don't need to read "object" strictly or the spell wouldn't give "footprints" as a valid example. Equally clearly, footprints, treasure chests, etc. don't move.

I would totally let you create the image of an orc, but you couldn't interact with it and it wouldn't move on its own.

Pleh

2020-03-26, 12:52 PM

As for a Rules Compendium, my opinion maybe a rules analysis document would help, but not in the 3.5 RC fashion. I would rather see a series of articles (each with a different topic) discussing what the rules cover, an analysis of what the rules seem to actually say, a discussion about what was intended, and a look at the consequences of DM rulings this way or that on the matter. I'm all for clarity in written rules (at least up to the point where the verbosity is in detriment to serving the casual gamer), but honestly I couldn't actually care less what a overly exhaustive microparsing of the rules in the books actually lands on. A primer on the consequences of ruling this way or that? That I think actually serves the gaming public in a way that a million Crawford tweets or a Rules Compendium ever could.

Articles makes me think magazines, which makes me think Dragon Mag. There were good ideas there, but madness lies down that way, too.

I feel like I'd want an official Wiki maintained by WotC, featuring playtests and approved homebrew. Best of both articles and textbook format in electronic searching.

But the more I describe it, the more it sounds like D&DBeyond, which has its own issues

Misterwhisper

2020-03-26, 01:48 PM

Not sure I mentioned it in this thread or a different one:

The fact that it takes an action to find someone hidden, it is not just a free check.

col_impact

2020-03-26, 02:00 PM

Correct me if I am wrong but Disguise Self plus Illusory Reality and Malleable Illusions is practically equivalent to Alter Self.

Segev

2020-03-26, 02:25 PM

Correct me if I am wrong but Disguise Self plus Illusory Reality and Malleable Illusions is practically equivalent to Alter Self.

Not at all. Illusory Reality can make one and only one object created by an illusion of 1st level or higher become real for 1 minute. It cannot make creatures become real. It cannot make alterations to your appearance become real (though you could arguably try to use disguise self to make cosmetic prosthetics rather than illusory different face, and make the prosthetics real). It also only works once per illusion spell.

It's powerful, but in this particular case, just casting alter self will be better if you want physical transformation.

Now, you can use alter self for one of its non-"different look" effects and disguise self to make yourself look different.

col_impact

2020-03-26, 02:39 PM

Not at all. Illusory Reality can make one and only one object created by an illusion of 1st level or higher become real for 1 minute. It cannot make creatures become real. It cannot make alterations to your appearance become real (though you could arguably try to use disguise self to make cosmetic prosthetics rather than illusory different face, and make the prosthetics real). It also only works once per illusion spell.

It's powerful, but in this particular case, just casting alter self will be better if you want physical transformation.

Now, you can use alter self for one of its non-"different look" effects and disguise self to make yourself look different.

What about disguise self, illusory reality, malleable illusion and you give yourself a single suit of studded leather?

Segev

2020-03-26, 02:44 PM

What about disguise self, illusory reality, malleable illusion and you give yourself a single suit of studded leather?

Absolutely doable. Though you'll need to be proficient with it to be able to cast any more spells until the minute ends. Or you take the armor off, which I think takes a minute. (I forget if there's anything about the object-made-real taking damage causing it to vanish; I know it isn't allowed to CAUSE any damage.)

col_impact

2020-03-26, 02:50 PM

Absolutely doable. Though you'll need to be proficient with it to be able to cast any more spells until the minute ends. Or you take the armor off, which I think takes a minute. (I forget if there's anything about the object-made-real taking damage causing it to vanish; I know it isn't allowed to CAUSE any damage.)

Could I use silent image to put plate armor on a wizard with illusory reality or do I need Xray vision to be able to target within the wizard body?

Segev

2020-03-26, 02:59 PM

Could I use silent image to put plate armor on a wizard with illusory reality or do I need Xray vision to be able to target within the wizard body?

Most DMs probably wouldn't let you place it precisely enough with the wizard not cooperating.

That said, you could do it with seeming. :smallamused:

TheUser

2020-03-27, 11:07 AM

The biggest problems I see are when the rules must be interpretted incorrectly because RAW it's either broken or dumb.

Uncommon offenders:

Bear Totem Spirit: You can rage in heavy armour and still have damage resistance to all but psychic.

Wall of Fire (level 4 spell) - 5d8 fire damage is dealt twice to creatures ending their turn inside the 1ft thick wall.

Inured to Undeath (Necromancer) - Temporary boosts to max HP become permanent.

Sculpt Spells (Invoker) - You must include the maximum amount of targets to automatically save or not use the feature at all.

There are loads of others (is passive investigation a thing?!). I assume WotC has a legal team? Why aren't they playtesters as well!?!?

EDIT: if you want to abuse Illusory Reality consider that the creation spell has a caveat that it cannot be used to create spell components and Ilusory Reailty lacks this clause.

EggKookoo

2020-03-27, 11:51 AM

The biggest problems I see are when the rules must be interpretted incorrectly because RAW it's either broken or dumb.

Uncommon offenders:

Bear Totem Spirit: You can rage in heavy armour and still have damage resistance to all but psychic.

Wall of Fire (level 4 spell) - 5d8 fire damage is dealt twice to creatures ending their turn inside the 1ft thick wall.

Inured to Undeath (Necromancer) - Temporary boosts to max HP become permanent.

Sculpt Spells (Invoker) - You must include the maximum amount of targets to automatically save or not use the feature at all.

Yeah, the wording on some of these are... strange. But all of them can be easily fixed with a dose of common sense.

Bear Totem Spirit: Assume the heavy armor restriction applies to all rage benefits.
Wall of Fire: This one's confusing but it's all there. You don't take damage from the "hot" side if you're inside the wall, so only one 5d8 roll. Unless I'm missing what you mean there.
Inured to Undeath: The rule is your max HP can't be reduced, but temp HP don't increase your max HP. They just stack on top. This is more a problem of understanding temp HP than this feature.
Sculpt Spells: Yeah, that should really say "up to" not "equal to."

Willie the Duck

2020-03-27, 12:11 PM

Yeah, the wording on some of these are... strange. But all of them can be easily fixed with a dose of common sense.

Bear Totem Spirit: Assume the heavy armor restriction applies to all rage benefits.
Wall of Fire: This one's confusing but it's all there. You don't take damage from the "hot" side if you're inside the wall, so only one 5d8 roll. Unless I'm missing what you mean there.
Inured to Undeath: The rule is your max HP can't be reduced, but temp HP don't increase your max HP. They just stack on top. This is more a problem of understanding temp HP than this feature.
Sculpt Spells: Yeah, that should really say "up to" not "equal to."

Not to pretend that these things don't exist (I'm not sure on these specific instances, I mean these little poorly worded rules conflations and the connotations of various phrases not having been completely thought through), but I don't see them as all that important. This is 5e's 'drown healing*' They are clearly flaws. Vaguely cute little discussion points. Evidence that the rules could use a fine toothed combing or two, but other than that I've never figured out what they supposedly proved.
*For those who skipped 3e, the rules for drowning had a point in the process where a drowning PC's hitpoints went to 0, apparently neglecting to contemplate the possibility that someone might start drowning with negative hp and that going to 0 might be a form of healing. No, no one considered it a reasonable form of character healing, but boy if you listened to some people on the Wizards forums in about 2004, it was absolute proof that the game was 'broken' (somehow).

Would I rather the game be free of these? Probably. Are they as big a deal as the wonky vision and stealthing and rules and what-is-an-attack ambiguity? Not by a country mile, IMO.

Galithar

2020-03-27, 12:25 PM

...
Inured to Undeath: The rule is your max HP can't be reduced, but temp HP don't increase your max HP. They just stack on top. This is more a problem of understanding temp HP than this feature.
...

This has nothing to do with temp HP. There are effects that increase your max HP. For example Aid grants up to 3 targets an increase of 5 (or more if upcast) to their current AND max HP. This is not temp HP. It is an actual increase to your maximum hit points. Very strict, to the letter, reading of this interaction makes Aid a permanent effect. Once the spell increases your maximum hit points then Inured to Undeath prevents them from decreasing from that amount.

TheUser

2020-03-27, 12:29 PM

Yeah, the wording on some of these are... strange. But all of them can be easily fixed with a dose of common sense.
My point is that the rules should just work. "Common sense" isn't quite as common as you might think...Like now I have to explain how words work...which I thought was common sense.

Wall of Fire: This one's confusing but it's all there. You don't take damage from the "hot" side if you're inside the wall, so only one 5d8 roll. Unless I'm missing what you mean there.

...
One side of the wall, selected by you when you cast this spell, deals 5d8 fire damage to each creature that ends its turn within 10 feet of that side or inside the wall. A creature takes the same damage when it enters the wall for the first time on a turn or ends its turn there. The other side of the wall deals no damage.
...
Pretty cut and dry. You end inside the 1ft thick wall you take 5d8 twice. Makes sense thematically too; the wall would be hotter inside than 5ft away.

Inured to Undeath: The rule is your max HP can't be reduced, but temp HP don't increase your max HP. They just stack on top. This is more a problem of understanding temp HP than this feature.

I am afraid it is you who is misunderstanding as you have misread what I wrote. I wrote temporary maximum HP boost (think the aid spell) not temporary HP. Common sense amiright?
The interaction, to be explicit, is that when the aid spell ends it is technically reducing your max HP and so Inured kicks in and says "can't be reduced" and you now have a permanent boost to your max HP.

EggKookoo

2020-03-27, 01:39 PM

Pretty cut and dry. You end inside the 1ft thick wall you take 5d8 twice. Makes sense thematically too; the wall would be hotter inside than 5ft away.

Wouldn't people on the non-selected side also take damage then? Where does it say which direction from the selected side is effected?

The implication of the wording is only people on the other side of the selected wall take damage, otherwise standing 1 foot away from the wall on the non-selected side still puts you 2 feet from the selected side. If the wall itself doesn't block that damage (and therefore damages the creature inside the wall) then it would also damage someone standing close to the non-selected side. I mean it just compounds the problem but it also makes the concept of selecting a side almost worthless.

I am afraid it is you who is misunderstanding as you have misread what I wrote. I wrote temporary maximum HP boost (think the aid spell) not temporary HP. Common sense amiright?
The interaction, to be explicit, is that when the aid spell ends it is technically reducing your max HP and so Inured kicks in and says "can't be reduced" and you now have a permanent boost to your max HP.

Ok, I see. I tripped up over the word "temporary."