What are your favorite silly interactions of rules?

[questionmark693]

My current favorite is from the thread about upcasting fog cloud. Ranged attacks at long range incur disadvantage. Placing a fog cloud between you and the target incurs disadvantage (you can't see them) and also advantage (they can't see you), and everything cancels out - resulting in it being easier to shoot through a fog cloud than it is to shoot without it being there.

Obviously I don't expect these rules to act this way in actual play, that's why we have a DM - but they're funny to talk about regardless!

[Azuresun]

The Goblin Boss can use a reaction to make a nearby goblin take an attack aimed at them....but it doesn't say it needs to be a friendly goblin! Obviously, this was before goblins were PC options, but it's such a funny visual.

[questionmark693]

The Goblin Boss can use a reaction to make a nearby goblin take an attack aimed at them....but it doesn't say it needs to be a friendly goblin! Obviously, this was before goblins were PC options, but it's such a funny visual.

That would be such a mean thing to do as a DM!

takes notes

[Damon_Tor]

In Ghosts of Salt Marsh, ship collision rules make no distinction between ships moving under their own power and ships being moved by other means, and the damages being dealt by these collisions are... quite high. The core implication of this: by simply carrying a basic rowboat into another creature's space, you can deal that creature more damage than you would by actually attacking them.

[Damon_Tor]

The Goblin Boss can use a reaction to make a nearby goblin take an attack aimed at them....but it doesn't say it needs to be a friendly goblin! Obviously, this was before goblins were PC options, but it's such a funny visual.

If a PC goblin attacks a Goblin Boss, the Goblin Boss can actually switch places with that same goblin, and make it get hit by its own attack.

[stoutstien]

Before the printing of demon lords there wasn't a NPC you couldn't kill with enough caltrops and forced movement. slamming a ghost into them worked as wall as taking out big T.

[Keltest]

Before the printing of demon lords there wasn't a NPC you couldn't kill with enough caltrops and forced movement. slamming a ghost into them worked as wall as taking out big T.

The Tarrasque is immune to nonmagical piercing damage though.

[stoutstien]

The Tarrasque is immune to nonmagical piercing damage though.
Nope. Immunity from non magical piercing attacks which caltrops don't use. Also can be repeatedly proned with ball bearings thanks to it's dismal dex.

Speaking of prone. The faster you are the "longer" it takes you to stand up.

[RazorChain]

My current favorite is from the thread about upcasting fog cloud. Ranged attacks at long range incur disadvantage. Placing a fog cloud between you and the target incurs disadvantage (you can't see them) and also advantage (they can't see you), and everything cancels out - resulting in it being easier to shoot through a fog cloud than it is to shoot without it being there.

Obviously I don't expect these rules to act this way in actual play, that's why we have a DM - but they're funny to talk about regardless!

When I DM I usually count disadvantages and advantages. So if you have 2 sources of disadvantage and 1 source of advantage the advantage cancels out just one source of disadvantage.

[Sigreid]

In Ghosts of Salt Marsh, ship collision rules make no distinction between ships moving under their own power and ships being moved by other means, and the damages being dealt by these collisions are... quite high. The core implication of this: by simply carrying a basic rowboat into another creature's space, you can deal that creature more damage than you would by actually attacking them.
But a rowboat is not a ship. Throwing a folding boat and speaking the command word though...

[Greywander]

The Rune Knight's Giant's Might feature makes you Large. It doesn't matter what size you were before, you are now large. This makes small races viable grapplers, whereas before they weren't a good choice due to size restrictions on grappling.

But wait. The fairy gets Enlarge/Reduce as a racial spell, which makes you Huge while Giant's Might is active. And they can fly, which is great for killing via fall damage (especially against other flying creatures, which are a traditional weakness of melee combatants, which grapplers are). And they're a small race.

A 5th level fairy Rune Knight already has everything they need to be a monstrous grappler, able to grapple literally anything (that isn't expressly immune to being grappled). You can even dip out of fighter after 3rd level, going into monk or rogue (or both) for more speed or other interesting features. Sticking with fighter does have benefits, such as a 3rd and 4th attack, and the ability to grow to Huge without Enlarge/Reduce.

And all of this only works because Giant's Might just straight up makes you Large. Without that, fairies would be suboptimal grapplers. Better to just take a flying race that is already Medium sized without needing to use a 1/day racial spell.

[RSP]

An un-classed human with Str 9 or less cannot injure anything with its unarmed strikes. They can stand there all day whaling on someone, punching and kicking, and not actually physically damage them at all.

[kingcheesepants]

My favorite silly rule is the RAW for Revivify. The spell reads "Touch a creature that has died within the last minute." However corpses are objects and not creatures. Therefore RAW Revivify would be more accurately named as Diamond Eater or something.

Obviously RAI everyone knows exactly what the spell does and it works just fine. I've never seen or heard of anyone actually seriously advocating that it doesn't work. And I would be absolutely shocked if a real DM tried to pull the corpse is an object not a creature BS during actual play. But in terms of needing to cleanup rules language and put in consistency, it's a great example.

[icedraikon]

Super advantage with Lucky.

1. Close your eyes and attack.
2. You have disadvantage from not being able to see the target.
3. Use Lucky. You roll another d20 and get to pick any of them.
4. You can now replicate Elven Accuracy on demand 3x per day.

Does not work with Rogue since it is still disadvantage, but still a hilarious combo.

[strangebloke]

vehicle proficiencies are tool proficiencies
warforged and artificers both have options to integrate a tool they're proficient with into their armor.

Oh yeah. It's time.

Tool proficiency: WATER VEHICLES. You now have a boat up your sleeve. Or perhaps more accurately, you're a transformer.

[greenstone]

Things I find silly:

A familiar can't attack but it can help attack. That's stupid. If you can't do a thing then you aren't going to be any help in doing the thing.

Naps heal serious wounds. Impaled by a sword? Nap. Horribly burnt? Nap. Trod on by an elephant? Nap.

Fall damage is capped. Fall from an airship at 10,000ft? Get up and walk away. Have a nap to recover.

Lucky feat and disadvantage.

Quarterstaff works with polearm mastery.

Darkvision is magic.





resulting in it being easier to shoot through a fog cloud than it is to shoot without it being there.

I'm not seeing that. Shooting normally is at, well, normal. Shooting through a fog cloud is at normal. No difference.

Here's an experiment to try. Get a mate and a couple of newspaper swords. Spend 30 seconds having a combat and count how many serious hits both of you land. Now blindfold both of you, and repeat the combat. How different is the number?

[georgie_leech]

I'm not seeing that. Shooting normally is at, well, normal. Shooting through a fog cloud is at normal. No difference.



Shooting at long range, however, is at disadvantage. Shooting at long range through a fog cloud is back to normal. Do you think your long range accuracy at a shooting/archery range would improve via blindfolds?

[Damon_Tor]

Naps heal serious wounds. Impaled by a sword? Nap. Horribly burnt? Nap. Trod on by an elephant? Nap.

This bothers me less: your current physical health is represented by your HP+HD, so as long as the HD are still missing the "wound" is still there, you just aren't in danger of going into shock and passing out because of it.

[Keltest]

Shooting at long range, however, is at disadvantage. Shooting at long range through a fog cloud is back to normal. Do you think your long range accuracy at a shooting/archery range would improve via blindfolds?

This of it this way: Your accuracy is already low. Fog cloud isnt affecting your aim, sine youre already guessing a bit. Its affecting your target's ability to dodge.

[Tanarii]

Naps heal serious wounds. Impaled by a sword? Nap. Horribly burnt? Nap. Trod on by an elephant? Nap.Impaled by a sword? Dead. Horribly Burnt? Dead. Trod on my an elephant? ... not sure, maybe broken bones.

Your problem is you're representing the loss of hit points as something horrifically traumatic. Horrifically traumatic things occur when you die. Not when you take damage or for PCs even when you drop to 0 hps.


Lucky feat and disadvantage.Thats just SAC being wrong.


Quarterstaff works with polearm mastery.Quarterstaffs being versatile weapons instead of 2H weapons. For that matter, spears shouldn't be possible to use effectively one handed in skirmish combat, unless they're supposed to represent half-spears or something.

[Selion]

Shooting at long range, however, is at disadvantage. Shooting at long range through a fog cloud is back to normal. Do you think your long range accuracy at a shooting/archery range would improve via blindfolds?

There are some silly interactions which has become the actual way the game is played.
The worst IMHO being crossbow expert, i read and re-read the feat, and its absolutely clear to me that they wanted to implement a sword and crossbow close combat style of fighting (which would have been awesome), but the feats is written so badly that now we have
"When you use the Attack action and attack with a one handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a hand crossbow you are holding."
With one handed weapon -> the very same crossbow with which it's referred in the second part of the phrase.
The way the phrase is worded, its is clear that the "one handed weapon" and "a hand crossbow you are holding" are supposed to be two different weapons, but RAW the only way to make this mess work is
"When you use the Attack action and attack with a one handed weapon a hand crossbow, you can use a bonus action to attack with a the hand crossbow you are holding."
So now we get hand crossbows being special weapons shooting faster than short bows for some reasons, the very game developers confirmed that (IMHO just because of laziness on changing the rules), and the result is one of the most abused feats in optimized play.
Tell me if it doesn't sound silly

[Keravath]

Shooting at long range, however, is at disadvantage. Shooting at long range through a fog cloud is back to normal. Do you think your long range accuracy at a shooting/archery range would improve via blindfolds?

No :) ... but the target can't see that arrow coming now :)

Is the disadvantage for long range due to reduced accuracy or because the creature can't see the attack coming and move aside? Or a combination of both?

Being able to see an incoming attack wouldn't have any effect on attacks if the target wasn't able to react to what they see in some way ...

[georgie_leech]

No :) ... but the target can't see that arrow coming now :)

Is the disadvantage for long range due to reduced accuracy or because the creature can't see the attack coming and move aside? Or a combination of both?

Being able to see an incoming attack wouldn't have any effect on attacks if the target wasn't able to react to what they see in some way ...

YMMV, but if I were aiming at a target that may or may not be moving, not being able to see it probably hurts more than it helps :smalltongue:

I can understand the justification, I just agree with the OP in that the way the rules are presented, mutual blindness can have some weird edge cases.

[RSP]

Elves can’t train at what’s represented by the Perception skill.

All other races can train at it, and get better at it. Elves can’t. They’re born with an innate ability in it; but, regardless of them living 700 years, they can’t train at it.

[Psyren]

Elves can’t train at what’s represented by the Perception skill.

All other races can train at it, and get better at it. Elves can’t. They’re born with an innate ability in it; but, regardless of them living 700 years, they can’t train at it.

Remember that both calling for a check and the meaning of success are up to the DM. You can make your elves see further than any other race in the party if you want to.

[Phhase]

Elves can’t train at what’s represented by the Perception skill.

All other races can train at it, and get better at it. Elves can’t. They’re born with an innate ability in it; but, regardless of them living 700 years, they can’t train at it.

I don't understand what you mean?

[LudicSavant]

Fall damage is capped.

Hey now, that one's in real life (via terminal velocity).

[sithlordnergal]

Darkness, both magical and non-magical: By RAW, regular old darkness is treated the same way as a thick fog. Makes for some long discussion threads here on the forum.

Surprise and Initiative: Because surprise is now a condition instead of a surprise round, and due to how combat encounter rules work, you can surprise a creature, have them go first in combat, and stop being surprised before they even know you're there.

Invisibility: You know where an invisible creature is, unless they hide. You have disadvantage to attack them if you can't see them, even if they're grappled by you.

Grappling: According to RAW, you can only grapple a creature no more than 1 size category larger than you. Additionally, there are no penalties for trying to grapple a larger creature than you. If you successfully grapple a creature, you can drag them at half your movement speed. This means a regular old Spider, which is a Tiny beast, can technically grapple a Halfling, which is a small Humanoid, and potentially drag them off, provided the Spider succeeds in its Athletics check with a -4.


As for the Fog Cloud...I mean, when I DM I allow it. Its an odd strategy, but its a strategy that works XD I've used it on players, and players have used it on me.


EDIT: So, I'm pretty sure this one was fixed, or was clarified to not work, but Sharpshooter has an odd thing, specifically with its final point. "Before you make an attack with a ranged weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack's damage."

Now, do you see the important bit? Here, let me contrast it with Great Weapon Master, "Before you make a melee attack with a heavy weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack's damage."

Do you see it? Here, let me highlight it "Before you make an attack with a ranged weapon that you are proficient with" versus "Before you make a melee attack with a heavy weapon that you are proficient with". Sharpshooter doesn't, or didn't, require you to make a Ranged attack for its -5/+10. Heavy and Ranged are both weapon properties, which technically remain even if you use them as an improved weapon. Tavern Brawler gives you proficiency in Improvised Weapons.

So for a little while at least, you could bash someone over the head for a -10 to hit and +20 to damage. Not at all intended by the way, and there have been many clarifications that it does not work...but by RAW, it technically works. Or worked, if they changed RAW.

[Greywander]

Invisibility: You know where an invisible creature is, unless they hide. You have disadvantage to attack them if you can't see them, even if they're grappled by you.
It's worse than that, I'm afraid. You have disadvantage even if you can see them. Being invisible makes it so you can't be seen, but it also as a completely separate effect imposes disadvantage on attacks against you (and grants advantage on your attacks). Any ability that allows you to see invisible creatures but doesn't fully remove the invisible condition still has you making attacks at disadvantage against them. By the way, the blinded condition works the same way. I have a strong suspicion that these conditions were written before the rules for being unseen, and so those effects were baked into those conditions despite them being redundant with the rules for being unseen.

If your DM doesn't look at that and immediately say, "That's dumb, we're not doing that," then you might consider finding a new DM.

[Psyren]

Hey now, that one's in real life (via terminal velocity).

While that's true, the cap itself is the issue, i.e. falling from orbit is easily survivable by most high-level characters. I think the Improvising Damage rules work a bit better as they scale more strongly with tier. I would use the listed fall damage or the Deadly damage for that tier for an extreme fall, whichever is higher.

[LudicSavant]

While that's true, the cap itself is the issue, i.e. falling from orbit is easily survivable by most high-level characters.

They can also survive being fully immersed in lava, or 'hit by a crashing flying fortress,' or 'being crushed in the jaws of a moon-sized monster.'

By contrast, surviving a fall from terminal velocity is something that has actually been survived by a real life human.

[RSP]

I don't understand what you mean?

Elves, as a racial trait, get Keen Senses, which is proficiency in Perception checks.

By making proficiency in Perception a racial trait, supposedly to show how keen their senses naturally are, they equate the elves’ innate senses with other races’ trained senses.

However, as characters can’t take proficiency in something they’re already proficient in, Elves can’t actually in-game train their senses as a human or dwarf could (whatever the in-game world description of that process is, Elves can’t benefit from it).

[H_H_F_F]

Surprise and Initiative: Because surprise is now a condition instead of a surprise round, and due to how combat encounter rules work, you can surprise a creature, have them go first in combat, and stop being surprised before they even know you're there.

This makes perfect sense to me. If someone were to jump me, how long they'd be able to hit me for before I come to my senses, and whether or not I'd be able to react in some manner when they do is entirely up to how quickly I grasp the situation, and how long they blunder for before throwing their attack.

In mechanical terms, this is represented by the initiative roll. Here's how you run it, as a DM:


***

Player: "From my hidden position on the roof-top, I fire two arrows at her".

You: "Great. Roll for initiative, and give me two attacks with advantage for being unseen." (Might only be one attack, but the rules on hiding have this thing where outside of combat your position might not be revealed after 1 attack, so, whatever)

Scenario 1: the player wins initiative

Player: "14 initiative. A 17 and a 24 to hit".

You: "As she's walking down the street, oblivious, your arrows hit her square in the chest. You see her staring down with disbelief, shocked, before she raises her eyes and meets yours. What do you do?

Player: "Oh, I have another turn? Great, I fire again."

You: "roll 2 attacks, no advantage this time".

scenario 2: the player loses initiative

Player: "6 initiative. A 17 and a 24 to hit".

You: "You carefully watch her go by, waiting for the perfect moment. As you draw your bowstring, it makes a sound and her head perks up. She turns around the second you release your first arrow. With a shout, she raises her arm as the arrow rushes towards her, and it shatters against a glimmering shield she summoned just in the nick if time. Your second arrow, however, hits her shoulder. She looks at you and points her finger to you, shouting phrases charged with arcane power. Make a wisdom saving throw."


***

You see what I mean? The victim either correctly interpreted the sound of the bowstring pulled/ the arrows being released and managed to react in time, or she didn't realize what was happening until it was too late. Same goes for pulling a dagger on someone in a social environment - the dagger attack will be the first thing happening anyway, and it'll start the action. An enemy with uncanny dodge will be able to take the hit better only if they realize what's happening as you're pulling the dagger, not as they're being stabbed.

Winning initiative when surprised doesn't mean you play a turn where you can do nothing when the enemy hasn't even done anything yet. It represents you becoming alert to the danger before your foe has hit. That's why you can't do anything - because it's the surpriser's action that has started combat, either way. Winning initiative just means you react faster. That's how the mechanics here works, after all, and it represents IRL pretty good in that way. There is no reaction that can be used before the enemy has acted, so it'll always be the surpriser's action that starts combat.

This is also why you tell the player to roll their attack at the same time as telling them to roll initiative. The results of the initiative roll might impact what happens next (if there's a relevant reaction) but they can't stop the attack. So you don't say "okay, they win initiative and stop being surprised. What do you do?". You just tell them to roll initiative as well while they roll the action that starts combat. They already told you what they do.

If it's an attack that cannot in any way be perceived before hitting, you can also go for the "something's wrong. Get down!" Action movie trope.

Doing it from the enemies side is the same. "It's a beautiful. Player 1 is driving the wagon, while players 2 and 3 are playing cards in the back. Suddenly, you hear someone shout "loose!", and the air is filled with arrows. Everyone roll for initiative!"

The arrows are going to be fired at them either way. Whether or not they can react, and what the next round of initiative will look like, is the only thing their rolls do.


Invisibility: You know where an invisible creature is, unless they hide. You have disadvantage to attack them if you can't see them, even if they're grappled by you.

I don't know. Have you ever fought blindfolded? I have. It's weird. Even if you get a hold on someone. Your attacks aren't missing per se, you just can't get a solid hit off, because you're swinging wrong and they glance off.

The rest is very weird indeed.

[Chronos]

I still say the "lucky disadvantage" thing doesn't work. It might be the Rules as JC Thought he Wrote Them, but it's not the Rules as are Actually Written. By Rules as Actually Written (PHB 173), you roll twice for disadvantage, and then you can choose to use Lucky, pick one of those two dice (presumably the lower one), and possibly replace that one specific die with the lucky die. Then you compare that possibly-replaced die to the other one, as per disadvantage, and take the lower of those two. The net effect is that you take the middle one of the three dice (which is the same average as a single die, but a bit more consistent).

Lucky combined with advantage does stack for effectively super-advantage, but that's as it should be.

[diplomancer]

I still say the "lucky disadvantage" thing doesn't work. It might be the Rules as JC Thought he Wrote Them, but it's not the Rules as are Actually Written. By Rules as Actually Written (PHB 173), you roll twice for disadvantage, and then you can choose to use Lucky, pick one of those two dice (presumably the lower one), and possibly replace that one specific die with the lucky die. Then you compare that possibly-replaced die to the other one, as per disadvantage, and take the lower of those two. The net effect is that you take the middle one of the three dice (which is the same average as a single die, but a bit more consistent).

Lucky combined with advantage does stack for effectively super-advantage, but that's as it should be.

Advantage/Disadvantage is a basic mechanic of the game; Lucky is a Feat. Lucky is more specific than Advantage/Disadvantage, and overrules it. So, Super Advantage Lucky, where you roll one additional die and choose any one of the dice, overruling Disadvantage is RAW, though I can easily understand DMs deciding to houserule it.

[Tanarii]

I still say the "lucky disadvantage" thing doesn't work. It might be the Rules as JC Thought he Wrote Them, but it's not the Rules as are Actually Written. By Rules as Actually Written (PHB 173), you roll twice for disadvantage, and then you can choose to use Lucky, pick one of those two dice (presumably the lower one), and possibly replace that one specific die with the lucky die. Then you compare that possibly-replaced die to the other one, as per disadvantage, and take the lower of those two. The net effect is that you take the middle one of the three dice (which is the same average as a single die, but a bit more consistent).

Lucky combined with advantage does stack for effectively super-advantage, but that's as it should be.
100% agree, that's how it works. Unless you're Crawford. :smallamused:

[Doug Lampert]

Fall damage is capped. Fall from an airship at 10,000ft? Get up and walk away. Have a nap to recover.

Terminal velocity is a thing, and at least one person has WALKED AWAY effectively uninjured from being ejected by an airplane at 11,000 ft. The record for survival without a chute is much farther than that.

[diplomancer]

100% agree, that's how it works. Unless you're Crawford. :smallamused:

Or someone who reads both the Advantage/Disadvantage rules and the Lucky feat.

[Phhase]

Elves, as a racial trait, get Keen Senses, which is proficiency in Perception checks.

By making proficiency in Perception a racial trait, supposedly to show how keen their senses naturally are, they equate the elves’ innate senses with other races’ trained senses.

However, as characters can’t take proficiency in something they’re already proficient in, Elves can’t actually in-game train their senses as a human or dwarf could (whatever the in-game world description of that process is, Elves can’t benefit from it).

That's kinda just flavor. Is there even any training mechanic RAW? Furthermore, Expertise does exist.

[Keltest]

Or someone who reads both the Advantage/Disadvantage rules and the Lucky feat.

Neither of them offer clarification on the order of operations, but the idea that you could attack with disadvantage, roll a 20 and 2, then choose to use lucky, roll a 3 and then end up with the 20 seems to be pretty clearly against the intent of disadvantage. Beyond that, resolving the (dis)advantage before applying lucky ends up with a fairly coherent system where (dis)advantage is used to determine your D20 roll, which you can then modify, while doing it Crawford's way is a mess.

[Tanarii]

That's kinda just flavor. Is there even any training mechanic RAW? Furthermore, Expertise does exist.
Not really. That said, one way training is reflected is in both ability scores and in proficiencies, both of which also can/do represent other things as well.

So yes, elves can "train" in perception. The player puts a higher score in Wis to start, and they raise it with ASIs as they level, and then the player explains it as training in Perception, Intuition, Animal Handling, etc.

[diplomancer]

Neither of them offer clarification on the order of operations, but the idea that you could attack with disadvantage, roll a 20 and 2, then choose to use lucky, roll a 3 and then end up with the 20 seems to be pretty clearly against the intent of disadvantage.

But is it against the intent of being lucky? ;)

Anyway, the lucky feat is very clear; you add one die (not replace or reroll), and choose the one you want. As Disadvantage is a general game rule and the Lucky Feat is a specific one, it overrides it. Having to have the lower roll would override the choice of die that the lucky feat gives you.

[Keltest]

But is it against the intent of being lucky? ;)

Anyway, the lucky feat is very clear; you add one die (not replace or reroll), and choose the one you want. As Disadvantage is a general game rule and the Lucky Feat is a specific one, it overrides it. Having to have the lower roll would override the choice of die that the lucky feat gives you.

Specific only trumps general when theyre in conflict. I don't read any conflict into the two rules. First you resolve advantage to determine your die roll for whatever youre doing. Then you apply lucky, if you so choose, based on the results.

Besides being clean, It also prevents you from rolling lucky on a roll you otherwise wouldnt (ie a 19 and an 18 on your disadvantage roll)

[diplomancer]

Specific only trumps general when theyre in conflict. I don't read any conflict into the two rules. First you resolve advantage to determine your die roll for whatever youre doing. Then you apply lucky, if you so choose, based on the results.

Besides being clean, It also prevents you from rolling lucky on a roll you otherwise wouldnt (ie a 19 and an 18 on your disadvantage roll)

You can use Lucky after you roll; Lucky is not like Inspiration.

Lucky says "You choose which of the d20s", and not "you choose which of the two d20s". Have you rolled a 17 and a 3 from disadvantage, and a 14 from Lucky? Well, you have rolled all these dice for that particular Saving Throw/Ability Check/Attack Roll, and Lucky says you get to choose which one you want to apply to the result. It's as simple as that.

Again, if you don't like it, you are free to change it, of course, but it's clearly RAW.

[Keltest]

You can use Lucky after you roll; Lucky is not like Inspiration.

Lucky says "You choose which of the d20s", and not "you choose which of the two d20s". Have you rolled a 17 and a 3 from disadvantage, and a 14 from Lucky? Well, you have rolled all these dice for that particular Saving Throw/Ability Check/Attack Roll, and Lucky says you get to choose which one you want to apply to the result. It's as simple as that.

Again, if you don't like it, you are free to change it, of course, but it's clearly RAW.

I'm aware of the rationale behind the ruling, I just think its bad rationale that gives too much credit to the fact that Lucky doesnt specify two dice. It may technically be a legitimate interpretation of the english, but since it creates a rules fiasco, I'm going to pass it over for one that doesnt do so.

[Damon_Tor]

That's kinda just flavor. Is there even any training mechanic RAW? Furthermore, Expertise does exist.

Yes, training is a downtime activity. Special training exists as a non-treasure reward in the DNG, which is a RAW way to give people extra feats.

[Psyren]

That's kinda just flavor. Is there even any training mechanic RAW? Furthermore, Expertise does exist.

Proficiency implies you're continuing to practice at the thing you're proficient in as you level.


They can also survive being fully immersed in lava, or 'hit by a crashing flying fortress,' or 'being crushed in the jaws of a moon-sized monster.'

By contrast, surviving a fall from terminal velocity is something that has actually been survived by a real life human.

24d10 is still a much more reasonable cap for "Deadly" than 20d6.

[greenstone]

Having actually read the title of this thread, where it wants favourite rules interactions, not disliked ones, here are some that tickle my fancy.

If a target of a mummy's rotting fist attack goes unconscious, they can be stabilised (on 0HP) but will never wake up, since they can't be healed to 1 HP. They are in a coma until the curse is removed.

You can pee on a vampire to do acid damage to them.

You can dual wield lances. The mental image of someone (particularly a small character) with a lance under each arm always makes me smile, as silly as it might be in real life.

[Dualight]

[I]
You can dual wield lances. The mental image of someone (particularly a small character) with a lance under each arm always makes me smile, as silly as it might be in real life.

Slight addendum that may or may not make it funnier: lances can only be held in one hand while mounted, but Small creatures can ride on Medium creatures. So a halfling paladin dual-wielding lances while riding on the shoulders of the dwarf barbarian is valid. (unless I missed a rule somewhere that makes humanoids specifically invalid mounts or some other oversight, of course)

[diplomancer]

Slight addendum that may or may not make it funnier: lances can only be held in one hand while mounted, but Small creatures can ride on Medium creatures. So a halfling paladin dual-wielding lances while riding on the shoulders of the dwarf barbarian is valid. (unless I missed a rule somewhere that makes humanoids specifically invalid mounts or some other oversight, of course)

It's the "appropriate anatomy" rule of mounted combat that rules it out; obviously, that leaves it up to the DM, but I'd say most DMs would say that a bipedal humanoid does not have the appropriate anatomy to be a mount. Crawford even calls it out on the Mounted Combat Sage Advice video, saying that this rule is there specifically to rule out this particular combo.

[Dualight]

Thank you for clarifying.

[JackPhoenix]

Elves, as a racial trait, get Keen Senses, which is proficiency in Perception checks.

By making proficiency in Perception a racial trait, supposedly to show how keen their senses naturally are, they equate the elves’ innate senses with other races’ trained senses.

However, as characters can’t take proficiency in something they’re already proficient in, Elves can’t actually in-game train their senses as a human or dwarf could (whatever the in-game world description of that process is, Elves can’t benefit from it).

Assuming you're going with the false premise that proficiency means only training for everyone but elves, and only natural ability for elves and nobody else, of course.

[RSP]

Assuming you're going with the false premise that proficiency means only training for everyone but elves, and only natural ability for elves and nobody else, of course.

That is what the trait “Keen Senses” appears to be: taking the idea that Elves, as a race, have better natural senses than others, and mechanically representing that as Proficiency.

[Chronos]

The rules for disadvantage specify how they interact with effects like Lucky. The rules for Lucky don't specify how they interact with disadvantage. Therefore, the rules for disadvantage are more specific.

Further, if you're using the line of argument that Lucky doesn't specify only two dice, why stop at three? Why not use the die that the DM rolled a 20 initiative on-- It's still sitting right there on the table, and the feat says you can choose a die. Obviously there must be some limit on the scope of "You choose which of the d20s is used", and the obvious limit is "the new one you just rolled, or the one you didn't like".

[diplomancer]

The rules for disadvantage specify how they interact with effects like Lucky. The rules for Lucky don't specify how they interact with disadvantage. Therefore, the rules for disadvantage are more specific.

Further, if you're using the line of argument that Lucky doesn't specify only two dice, why stop at three? Why not use the die that the DM rolled a 20 initiative on-- It's still sitting right there on the table, and the feat says you can choose a die. Obviously there must be some limit on the scope of "You choose which of the d20s is used", and the obvious limit is "the new one you just rolled, or the one you didn't like".

The rules on advantage/Disadvantage tell you what to do if you reroll or replace a die. Lucky feat (unlike the Lucky halfling trait, which the Advantage rules use as an example of a feature that lets you reroll a die) adds a die, and let's you choose which of the dice to use; no dice is being replaced or rerolled, and Advantage/Disadvantage rules are absolutely silent on what to do when you add a die.

And the scope of the dice that the Lucky feat allows you to choose from is quite obvious; it's from the dice you've rolled for that particular Attack Roll/Saving Throw/Ability Check. Which includes any of the dice you've rolled with Advantage or Disadvantage.

[greenstone]

So a halfling paladin dual-wielding lances while riding on the shoulders of the dwarf barbarian is valid.

:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbi ggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

I love it!

[Dualight]

Factoring in the earlier comment about anatomy, that just means we need teh barbarian to be a centaur. That, or make sure to train the barbarian in fighting with a halfling on their shoulders.

[Battlebooze]

It's worse than that, I'm afraid. You have disadvantage even if you can see them. Being invisible makes it so you can't be seen, but it also as a completely separate effect imposes disadvantage on attacks against you (and grants advantage on your attacks). Any ability that allows you to see invisible creatures but doesn't fully remove the invisible condition still has you making attacks at disadvantage against them. By the way, the blinded condition works the same way. I have a strong suspicion that these conditions were written before the rules for being unseen, and so those effects were baked into those conditions despite them being redundant with the rules for being unseen.

If your DM doesn't look at that and immediately say, "That's dumb, we're not doing that," then you might consider finding a new DM.

This madness is the reason my fighter only grapples the invisible in the middle of a fog cloud or a darkness spell.

[Chronos]

Quoth diplomancer:

The rules on advantage/Disadvantage tell you what to do if you reroll or replace a die. Lucky feat (unlike the Lucky halfling trait, which the Advantage rules use as an example of a feature that lets you reroll a die) adds a die, and let's you choose which of the dice to use; no dice is being replaced or rerolled, and Advantage/Disadvantage rules are absolutely silent on what to do when you add a die.
How is what Lucky does not replacing a die? It's certainly not adding a die, because that would make possible a roll of 40. And what, in the text of Lucky, makes it "obvious" that the scope of choice includes the other die you rolled for disadvantage, but not any of the other dice that may happen to be on the table at the time?

[diplomancer]

How is what Lucky does not replacing a die? It's certainly not adding a die, because that would make possible a roll of 40.

You roll a 9, and, not being sure if that's a hit, and really wanting to hit, you decide to spend a lucky point. You then roll a 4. If Lucky replaced the die, you'd have to go with the 4. As it is, you've rolled an additional die, and get to choose between them.


As to the "roll of 40", that would require the Lucky feat to either say you add the d20, or, at the very least, if it were silent about it there would be some debate. As it tells you to choose one of the dice, that would not be possible.



And what, in the text of Lucky, makes it "obvious" that the scope of choice includes the other die you rolled for disadvantage, but not any of the other dice that may happen to be on the table at the time?

If you can't see it, I'm afraid I can't help you. I can see someone misunderstanding the text, as you do, and thinking that only the die result, after Disadvantage, applies, as if you had never rolled the higher dice at all (even though you literally just did, and for that particular Ability Check/Attack Roll/Saving Throw, which is the reason why Lucky allows you to choose it). But literally no person ever will read the paragraph below and think it applies to all dice rolled throughout the history of mankind.


Whenever you make an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw, you can spend one luck point to roll an additional d20. You can choose to spend one of your luck points after you roll the die, but before the outcome is determined. You choose which of the d20s is used for the attack roll, ability check, or saving throw.

You cannot choose another die because that die was not rolled "whenever you make an attack roll, ability check or saving throw" to determine a result. The higher die from Disadvantage, on the other hand, was rolled to determine that result (and, whether you go with the RAW interpretation of Lucky or your own, is capable, even now, of determining that result)

To try to bring it, at least slightly, back on topic; there's a difference to these 3 statements;
1- "I don't like the effects of this rule. In my games, I'll play it differently". This is an statement of pure preference.
2- "I don't like the effects of this rule. It should be changed." This is an statement that the effects of the rule make it detrimental to the game.
3- "I don't like the effects of this rule. So I will say that this rule does not do what it says it does, and what even the game developers have said it does, despite admitting that they have some concern about its effects". This just leads to chaos in communication.

For myself, in this particular rule? I've never taken the Lucky feat. Whatever the DM wants is OK by me. If I were DM'ing, I'd apply the RAW, since I don't care that much about it, though I've never had to DM for a party where everyone takes the lucky feat because of that.

[Keltest]

Lucky allows you to replace the die, but it doesnt compel you to replace the die (unlike the halfling's racial feature).

[sambojin]

It's the "appropriate anatomy" rule of mounted combat that rules it out; obviously, that leaves it up to the DM, but I'd say most DMs would say that a bipedal humanoid does not have the appropriate anatomy to be a mount. Crawford even calls it out on the Mounted Combat Sage Advice video, saying that this rule is there specifically to rule out this particular combo.

Are you trying to say that you can't be a primeval druid wildshaped into a warhorse, being ridden by your ape-form primeval companion, which is being ridden by your monkey-form summoned beast, which is being ridden by your wildshape familiar bat?

Because, you can :)

[diplomancer]

Are you trying to say that you can't be a primeval druid wildshaped into a warhorse, being ridden by your ape-form primeval companion, which is being ridden by your monkey-form summoned beast, which is being ridden by your wildshape familiar bat?

Because, you can :)

The DM might rule out the Ape having an appropriate anatomy to carry the Monkey. Though he probably won't, as that idea is too funny to be denied.

[Seramus]

There's no rule that says sleeping makes you unconcious or incapacitated.

The closest is the Sleep spell.

[Damon_Tor]

There's no rule that says sleeping makes you unconcious or incapacitated.

Or even prone! You might sleep standing up, or even upside-down like a bat. Who's to say?

[questionmark693]

There's no rule that says sleeping makes you unconcious or incapacitated.

The closest is the Sleep spell.

That one might be my favorite so far! These are absolutely great - they bring me back to my 3.5 days with drown healing, wood that doesn't burn, etc.

[cyberfunkr]

While not a given interaction, but merely as a possibility..

The artificer gains the Spell-Storing Item at level 11. You can imbue it with any 1st or 2nd level spell that takes one action. The item can be either a spell casting focus or a simple/martial weapon.

I've had artificers


Put cure wounds on guns (artificers get firearms) so you can shoot someone to health
Put Disguise Self on a club so they would "beat someone with the ugly stick."
Put Catapult on a javelin and use IT as the projectile
Continual Flame on a long sword to trick people into believing you had a Flame Tongue
And only by rule of cool; Rope Trick on a whip. Then literally "whip" the air to cast the spell

[stoutstien]

While not a given interaction, but merely as a possibility..

The artificer gains the Spell-Storing Item at level 11. You can imbue it with any 1st or 2nd level spell that takes one action. The item can be either a spell casting focus or a simple/martial weapon.

I've had artificers


Put cure wounds on guns (artificers get firearms) so you can shoot someone to health
Put Disguise Self on a club so they would "beat someone with the ugly stick."
Put Catapult on a javelin and use IT as the projectile
Continual Flame on a long sword to trick people into believing you had a Flame Tongue
And only by rule of cool; Rope Trick on a whip. Then literally "whip" the air to cast the spell


Speaking of the SSI, it's silly that you can use the "use an object action" to active it if it's a non magical item but "active a magical item" if you place it on a magical item or one with an infusion.

[JackPhoenix]

While not a given interaction, but merely as a possibility..

The artificer gains the Spell-Storing Item at level 11. You can imbue it with any 1st or 2nd level spell that takes one action. The item can be either a spell casting focus or a simple/martial weapon.

I've had artificers

Unfortunately, RAW:


Put cure wounds on guns (artificers get firearms) so you can shoot someone to health

Cure Wounds is still a touch spell even from SSI.


Put Disguise Self on a club so they would "beat someone with the ugly stick."

Disguise Self only targets the caster.


Put Catapult on a javelin and use IT as the projectile

The Catapult's would-be projectile can't be worn or carried.


Continual Flame on a long sword to trick people into believing you had a Flame Tongue

You don't need SSI for that.