What are rule areas that you think are confusingly/poorly written

[PhoenixPhyre]

Note: I'm not looking for ones where you disagree or dislike the (basically clear) meaning, but ones where the best reading is either (a) convolutedly worded so you have to read it a few times or (b) very different from the simplest reading. Or things where there really aren't good clear readings. Especially if Sage Advice has disagreed with itself at various times.

And I'm mostly looking at core basic rules. Not as much features (such as spells, feats, etc), although examples of egregious ones of those are also welcome.

Bonus points if you have a simpler, better way of stating things that preserves the "proper" reading (ie doesn't actually change the intended rule but words it better).

[stoutstien]

Anything that triggers when you take the action but not necessarily after said trigger has been resolved. Example would be monk's flurry of blows. When is the attack action "taken" and what does immediately mean in terms of the normal movement and attacking rules.

Easiest fix would be just to say you can use your bonus action to make 2 unarmed attacks. Sure it makes it a tad more flexible and stronger but for fair trade for gutting unnecessary wording that adds very little. Same for things like shield master and most other times this crops up.

[Skrum]

Spell casting focus. Do you have to hold it?? Bloodwell Vial suggests not! How does it interact with somatic components? Fine, as long as the spell requires material components! Wanna know what isn't a focus? Rod of the Pact Keeper! Warlocks need a free hand IN ADDITION to the hand holding the rod.

I've mostly got a handle on it (eventually), but it's so incredibly janky and needlessly complicated, especially when special foci get involved.

But I think the top tier badly written rule is unseen combatants. Not only is it unclear, it's counterintuitive.

Honestly though, 5e is generally well written. I think its problems are more on the other side of the coin: poorly fleshed out rules (looking at you mounted combat).

[RSP]

Wizards don’t need their spell book in hand, open or even on their person to Ritual cast; the ritual spell just has to be in their spell book.

(Perhaps not exactly what the OP is looking for except I’ve never actually seen anyone play it the way it’s written.)

[greenstone]

My Big Three are:

Stealth, Hiding, Concealement, Cover, Visibility.

What is an "attack"?

Passive Ability Checks.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Wizards don’t need their spell book in hand, open or even on their person to Ritual cast; the ritual spell just has to be in their spell book.

(Perhaps not exactly what the OP is looking for except I’ve never actually seen anyone play it the way it’s written.)

Yeah, that's a slightly different topic I think. But I agree that that's a weird rule. My wizard-rewrite (combining wizards and sorcerers and making the book mage the "wizard" subclass) allows book mages to have more spells prepped than non-book mages...at the cost of having to have the book that contains them in hand, vulnerable to being disarmed, stolen, etc.

And I've moved all the "rituals" to things that require having an item (basically a reusable "spell scroll") in open both hands to do, except in a few particular "innate" cases.

[No brains]

The Githyanki Supreme Commander has a legendary action where it teleports and then becomes 'insubstantial' until the start of its next turn. While insubstantial, it can move through creatures and object as if they were difficult terrain... except that the Supreme Commander can't move off of its turn. It could use the same ability to teleport again, but it can only teleport to a space that it can see. Also, if it ends its turn inside of an object, it gets shunted out like an incorporeal creature... but it never ends its turn in an insubstantial state because that effect ends at the start of its turn and can't be started on its turn!

I have no idea what the intent of this ability is. A legendary action for a 30 foot teleport is... fine? But what is the insubstantial state supposed to do? In theory, it lets a Supreme Commander teleport into transparent objects, but why is that important for a creature leading an army off a red dragon's back?

As additional jank for the same creature, it can cast Mass Suggestion, but only knows Gith as a language. Further, it lacks the ability to cast Tongues 3/day like some lesser Githyanki.

This might not be a common subject that comes up at tables, but I feel this exemplifies rules design where the creator was asleep at the wheel.

[Tanarii]

Perception rules, lighting / concealment rules, and stealth rules.

The perception rules in particular need work. The best solution I've seen in other games is distinguishing between acute senses and non-acute ones, and generally when you're using a non-acute sense give a maximum level of detection. It'd be nice to have a clearly delineated difference between unaware, know they're around somewhere but not sure where they are, sure where they are but can't see them clearly, and clearly observed. PF2 is very good for this, and M&M3 is fairly reasonable.

Ranges (possibly variable to account for exceptional skill) for reasonable perception by sense would be nice too. Especially hearing and smell.

Lighting/concealment needs a complete rework. For starters it needs to be able to properly distinguish between concealment due to darkness and concealment due to opaque vision blocking.
(Edit: I posted a rewrite of this in one of the threads in the last few months I'll see if I can find it.
Edit2: Found it! This is a rewrite to keeping as close as possible to the original wording:
https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25355187&postcount=109)

Stealth rules would largely be fixed by addressing the above two points, especially perception. But even so, it probably needs clarity between avoiding notice (e.g. tailing someone in a crowd, keeping to shadows to avoid patrols), prowling during exploration (staying quiet during scouting), actually hiding (laying in ambush, evasion), and pop-up combat hiding (diversionary tactic so they don't expect the attack).

[Leon]

What are the area's that are well written?

[Mastikator]

I think independent vs controlled mount in combat is wonky, since they should always have the same initiative and have shared initiative (just roll for both and pick whoever has the lowest).

I think the rules for whether a creature knows where an invisible (but not hiding) creature is. Some say they automatically know, other sections give advice for attacking squares. I have the experience to resolve this but IMO the books don't give this advice. (for those wondering, it's footprints, sounds, smells, temperature which depend on the creature and environment)

However, IMX, most of the confusion I've seen from rules comes from DMs and players not reading the rules, instead they just read the headlines and fill in the gap with what feels intuitive to them. I find if you remember/refresh your memory about the rules and play the game RAW then it actually is pretty cohesive and smooth.

[Zetakya]

Grappling.

Bardic Instruments as spellcasting Foci.

Rangers.

[LudicSavant]

Note: I'm not looking for ones where you disagree or dislike the (basically clear) meaning, but ones where the best reading is either (a) convolutedly worded so you have to read it a few times or (b) very different from the simplest reading. Or things where there really aren't good clear readings. Especially if Sage Advice has disagreed with itself at various times.

And I'm mostly looking at core basic rules. Not as much features (such as spells, feats, etc), although examples of egregious ones of those are also welcome.


Incendiary Cloud.
Shield Master.
Mounted combat in general.
Spirit Guardians (fits into the "different from most intuitive reading" category because its slow does NOT work like difficult terrain (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/84246/how-does-spirit-guardians-impact-available-movement-for-affected-creatures), at all).
Somatic components (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24519033&postcount=1) (See the bit about "sometimes Somatic + Material is easier to cast than Somatic" :smallsigh:)
Grappling has an ambiguous element with regards to how dragging someone works (for example, can you move someone to the other side of you?)
Many players seem to be confused regarding how certain skills work, simply because they seem to expect 100% of the skill rules to be in the PHB (an awful lot of them are in the DMG).
Jumping (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-T-xrG1jQyo)


Anything that triggers when you take the action but not necessarily after said trigger has been resolved. Example would be monk's flurry of blows. When is the attack action "taken" and what does immediately mean in terms of the normal movement and attacking rules.

+1

[Arkhios]

Not my own experience per sé, but after hearing it, I can see why it's actually a big problem.

For someone who is not intuitively familiar with the character creation rules (in D&D, and otherwise) the guidelines are (often) a bit all over the place, jumping through the entire book back and forth.

Considering there may be entirely new players reading the rules for the first time ever, the instructions for how to create a character should definitely be much more detailed and coherent, showing visual examples within the text (like they did in, IIRC, 4th edition), rather than simply telling you to go to another page somewhere between front cover and back cover and back again, over and over again.

[Necrosnoop110]

These causes the most issues as my tables:

1) Stealth, Hiding, Concealment, Cover, Visibility, Perception, all that stuff

2) Mounted combat

3) Spells (classifications, types, interactions, etc.)

[GooeyChewie]

Surprise and what triggers rolling initiative. Honesty the surprise rules wouldn’t be all that bad if they were just presented in a way that was easier to understand. But I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to explain that surprise rounds aren’t a thing and that you don’t get a free hit just for declaring that you attack before I ask for initiative.

[LudicSavant]

Incendiary Cloud.
Shield Master.
Mounted combat in general.
Spirit Guardians (fits into the "different from most intuitive reading" category because its slow does NOT work like difficult terrain (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/84246/how-does-spirit-guardians-impact-available-movement-for-affected-creatures), at all).
Somatic components (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24519033&postcount=1) (See the bit about "sometimes Somatic + Material is easier to cast than Somatic" :smallsigh:)
Grappling has an ambiguous element with regards to how dragging someone works (for example, can you move someone to the other side of you?)
Many players seem to be confused regarding how certain skills work, simply because they seem to expect 100% of the skill rules to be in the PHB (an awful lot of them are in the DMG).
Jumping (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-T-xrG1jQyo)



+1

Another one to add: The fact that the only guidelines for hearing distance are hidden on the DM screen. Not in the DMG. The official WotC DM screen.

[Quietus]

Another one to add: The fact that the only guidelines for hearing distance are hidden on the DM screen. Not in the DMG. The official WotC DM screen.

Does that make them RAW? Or are they just an official rules suggestion?

[stoutstien]

Another one to add: The fact that the only guidelines for hearing distance are hidden on the DM screen. Not in the DMG. The official WotC DM screen.
At least it has that. How far can you detect smoke by scent?

[KorvinStarmast]

Perception rules, lighting / concealment rules, and stealth rules.

The perception rules in particular need work. The best solution I've seen in other games is distinguishing between acute senses and non-acute ones, and generally when you're using a non-acute sense give a maximum level of detection. It'd be nice to have a clearly delineated difference between unaware, know they're around somewhere but not sure where they are, sure where they are but can't see them clearly, and clearly observed. PF2 is very good for this, and M&M3 is fairly reasonable.

Ranges (possibly variable to account for exceptional skill) for reasonable perception by sense would be nice too. Especially hearing and smell.

Lighting/concealment needs a complete rework. For starters it needs to be able to properly distinguish between concealment due to darkness and concealment due to opaque vision blocking.
(Edit: I posted a rewrite of this in one of the threads in the last few months I'll see if I can find it.
Edit2: Found it! This is a rewrite to keeping as close as possible to the original wording:
https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25355187&postcount=109)

Stealth rules would largely be fixed by addressing the above two points, especially perception. But even so, it probably needs clarity between avoiding notice (e.g. tailing someone in a crowd, keeping to shadows to avoid patrols), prowling during exploration (staying quiet during scouting), actually hiding (laying in ambush, evasion), and pop-up combat hiding (diversionary tactic so they don't expect the attack). You covered most of what I'd have responded with.

I think the rules for whether a creature knows where an invisible (but not hiding) creature is. Some say they automatically know, other sections give advice for attacking squares. I have the experience to resolve this but IMO the books don't give this advice. (for those wondering, it's footprints, sounds, smells, temperature which depend on the creature and environment) How this edition treats invisibility is a mess.

[LIST]
Mounted combat in general. It took a few readings and trying things out in play to get our arms around this.

Surprise and what triggers rolling initiative. Honesty the surprise rules wouldn’t be all that bad if they were just presented in a way that was easier to understand. But I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to explain that surprise rounds aren’t a thing and that you don’t get a free hit just for declaring that you attack before I ask for initiative. Part of the "surprise round" thing is folks not letting go of previous editions. (And I fell into that trap as well, early on).

[Mastikator]

Indeed about invisibility. They could have easily said

"while you have invisibility condition you can not be seen by anyone, unless they have an ability to see invisible things such as blindsight or true seeing"
"when you attack a creature you can't see, such as one that is invisible, in total darkness or if you are blinded, then you have disadvantage on your attack rolls"

And saved page space. When in doubt always KISS.

[KorvinStarmast]

Indeed about invisibility. They could have easily said

"while you have invisibility condition you can not be seen by anyone, unless they have an ability to see invisible things such as blindsight or true seeing"
"when you attack a creature you can't see, such as one that is invisible, in total darkness or if you are blinded, then you have disadvantage on your attack rolls"

And saved page space. When in doubt always KISS.
Applause for making a good suggestion. :smallsmile:

[verbatim]

as I understand it the way invisibility/darkness/breaking line of sight works RAW is that enemies still know where you are unless you take the hide action, which is never explicitly mentioned but very important. A lot of the concealment and vision rules would benefit greatly from being rewritten but specifically I think keeping that part and being more clear about it would help a lot.

[GooeyChewie]

Part of the "surprise round" thing is folks not letting go of previous editions. (And I fell into that trap as well, early on).

Very true. Which is part of why Surprise and starting combat needs a much clearer explanation.

[Beelzebub1111]

You have advantage to attack from hidden but not against someone who is surprised.

The skills section of the PHB doesn't describe the mechanical functions of any of the skills. How or when to roll a check or what a DC would indicate. Intimidate and Persuade for example.

I think the mechanics for jumping are just bad.

The rules for tying someone up with rope are in a supplemental rulebook.

[RSP]

Damage Types. They have no rules on their own, and only examples of what count as them, but nothing that defines what they are.

Following from that: the poison rules. There are rules for different types of poisons and how they are used, that are then completely abandoned by the rest of the game when “poison damage” is just thrown in as a rider.

For instance, if you mitigate the damage from a Drow Elite Warrior’s Short Sword attack (the 1d6+4), do you still take the 3d6 poison damage?

[PhoenixPhyre]

1. You have advantage to attack from hidden but not against someone who is surprised.

2. The skills section of the PHB doesn't describe the mechanical functions of any of the skills. How or when to roll a check or what a DC would indicate. Intimidate and Persuade for example.

3. I think the mechanics for jumping are just bad.

4. The rules for tying someone up with rope are in a supplemental rulebook.

1. What? That's not an interpretation I've ever heard before. Mind explaining?

2. Sure. That's because players roll checks when and only if the DM asks for one, and the outcome is whatever the DM says it is. That's covered in the Introduction.

3. Meh. I'm worried about unclear, and the jumping rules are clear, if not great.

4. Sure. But that's not a matter of clarity. And as a matter of personal opinion, I'd strongly prefer if there weren't "rules" for everything.

[RSP]

1. What? That's not an interpretation I've ever heard before. Mind explaining?

I’ve seen it in play where only the first attack is “from hidden” and therefore at Adv, sometimes from only the first character to act from a group that are all hidden (depending on how the group is hidden).

Not sure if that’s what they were referring to, though.

[stoutstien]

No that's actually correct. Surprise itself doesn't provide advantage in any fashion unless the DM adds it on.

Surprise being a "sort of" condition is really bad design.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I’ve seen it in play where only the first attack is “from hidden” and therefore at Adv, sometimes from only the first character to act from a group that are all hidden (depending on how the group is hidden).

Not sure if that’s what they were referring to, though.

I mean...if the first attack is from hidden, it should get advantage (surprised or not). But I can't see any reasonable reading that would imply that only the first person who is hidden has any relevance:

If the order is

PC 1
PC 2
PC 3
PC 4
Enemy

and all the PCs are hidden when combat begins, then as long as they all make ranged attacks, their first attacks should be at advantage, even if the others are no longer hidden when they attack. Hence my utter confusion at what I quoted. Because I can't see that particular piece of the rules (regardless of how the rest of the Stealth/hiding/invisibility/surprise stuff is) as having any other even tenuous interpretation.


No that's actually correct. Surprise itself doesn't provide advantage in any fashion.

Ah. You're reading what I quoted as "if you're hidden, you have advantage on attacks, but if you only surprise someone, you don't." That makes sense as a statement of what the rules say...but that's not a confusion issue. That's a disagreement with the (clear) content. And ironically enough, phrased in a confusing way :smallwink:

[stoutstien]

I
Ah. You're reading what I quoted as "if you're hidden, you have advantage on attacks, but if you only surprise someone, you don't." That makes sense as a statement of what the rules say...but that's not a confusion issue. That's a disagreement with the (clear) content. And ironically enough, phrased in a confusing way :smallwink:

You mean like surprise 🫢?

[PhoenixPhyre]

You mean like surprise 🫢?

I've personally never had an issue with surprise. But I recognize that many other people do.

I'm actually adding "Surprised" as an explicit condition. As well as Hidden. But no, being surprised by itself won't provide advantage. But since being Hidden (from that creature) is the main way you get surprise and advantage doesn't stack, you'll usually have advantage on your first (ranged, unless you can somehow hide right next to them) attack against a surprised target.

[Beelzebub1111]

2. Sure. That's because players roll checks when and only if the DM asks for one, and the outcome is whatever the DM says it is. That's covered in the Introduction.



4. Sure. But that's not a matter of clarity. And as a matter of personal opinion, I'd strongly prefer if there weren't "rules" for everything.

Sure you say that as a player, but as a GM some clarity would help with game consistincy instead of the usual standard of pulling a random number that seems high enough out of your ass.

[stoutstien]

I've personally never had an issue with surprise. But I recognize that many other people do.

I'm actually adding "Surprised" as an explicit condition. As well as Hidden. But no, being surprised by itself won't provide advantage. But since being Hidden (from that creature) is the main way you get surprise and advantage doesn't stack, you'll usually have advantage on your first (ranged, unless you can somehow hide right next to them) attack against a surprised target.

Aye. I broke it down further and have surprised and ambushed as two separate conditions.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sure you say that as a player, but as a GM some clarity would help with game consistincy instead of the usual standard of pulling a random number that seems high enough out of your ass. He has mostly DM'd this edition. And I am glad for that, since I am one of his players. :smallbiggrin:

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sure you say that as a player, but as a GM some clarity would help with game consistincy instead of the usual standard of pulling a random number that seems high enough out of your ass.

I'm a 99.9999999999999999% DM player. And no, I don't value consistency at all. Because consistency in inconsistent situations is worse than inconsistency, and situations are always inconsistent. Ability checks are acutely fact sensitive. And I find the DMG's guidance just fine on this (modulo needing a few actual examples).

But that's the last I'll say about that in this thread, since this thread isn't about bad or non-existent[1] rules, it's about poorly worded rules. Ones where there is a clear right answer, but getting there is way harder than it should be.

[1] there are rules about DCs, they're just in the DMG. And they're less concrete than people want.


Aye. I broke it down further and have surprised and ambushed as two separate conditions.

What benefit do you see "ambushed" giving over "surprised + hidden"? Because as far as I can tell, surprised + hidden fills the role exactly and is, in fact, how you'd trigger being ambushed.

[RSP]

I mean...if the first attack is from hidden, it should get advantage (surprised or not).

I wasn’t commenting on whether or not it should or shouldn’t. I was just trying to add context from my experience in relation to what I thought the poster was referring to.

Previous editions used to penalize surprised and “flat-footed” combatants, so I can see why some might want to have Adv on their attacks against surprised foes.

[deljzc]

visability, light, hidden, stealth

I think they tried to make it easier, but instead just made it very non-intuitive.

[Skrum]

[LIST]
Grappling has an ambiguous element with regards to how dragging someone works (for example, can you move someone to the other side of you?)


Our table has kinda settled on yes, you can move people in this way, but it requires movement on the grapplers part. Basically, by spending 10 ft of movement, you can 1) move yourself and the creature you're grappling 5 ft, 2) move just them

[PhoenixPhyre]

Our table has kinda settled on yes, you can move people in this way, but it requires movement on the grapplers part. Basically, by spending 10 ft of movement, you can 1) move yourself and the creature you're grappling 5 ft, 2) move just them

That's what I'm settling on. Basically, it counts as if you moved, which I'm changing to just "takes an extra foot of movement" instead of "speed halved". I'm trying to avoid modifying speed directly where possible for environmental/situational stuff. Slow and ray of frost might do it (and a few other things), but not any of the "difficult terrain" area effects or grappling or moving while encumbered.

[Tanarii]

Disadvantage for not being able to see an attacker being cancelled out by advantage for the attacker not seeing you.

[Sorinth]

The Hidden rules are certainly confusing as the classic example of stepping out from behind cover to shoot would make you seen before taking the attack and therefore losing advantage. I don't think anyone played it that way but the way but certainly when going from cover to a melee attack it becomes much less obvious.

I'll also add the good old darkness causing blindness issues, and what magical darkness looks like (Everything painted vantablack vs an opaque sphere). Never was a problem for me but lots of debates on forums like this show it could be done better.

In the how to play section where it says Apply circumstantial bonuses and penalties heavily implies that situations can give a flat bonus to a roll since this is the step where you add the things like Bane and you have already rolled the dice meaning adv/disadv should already have been done. But I know a lot of people think there's no such thing as a flat circumstantial bonus and circumstanstes are strictly advantage/disadvantage.

Whether you can create spell slots above your maximum using sorcery point, which isn't strictly related to coffeelocks.

Whether the Throwing a Net prevents additional attacks using a different type of action ie throwing with a BA and then using the regular action to attack normally.


I'm not sure what the intent of the thread is exactly, I'm guessing a personal re-write/massive house rules document. If that's the case I've always found that weird RAW stuff because of confusing/poorly written rules is basically inevitable, and because of that the biggest help to the DM is for there to be DM guidance on the intent of the rules.

[KorvinStarmast]

Disadvantage for not being able to see an attacker being cancelled out by advantage for the attacker not seeing you. My sense of verisimilitude gets pushed by this.
In the fog, for example, everyone is less effective makes (to me) more sense.

[No brains]

The text of Glyph of Warding seems to imply two definitions of the word 'cast'. The first definition is expending the actions and spell slot to get the energy for the spell and the second is to release that energy. This can be screwy when it comes to effects that trigger when a spell is 'cast'.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Disadvantage for not being able to see an attacker being cancelled out by advantage for the attacker not seeing you.

Is that confusingly worded or is it just something you don't like?

[OvisCaedo]

As a directly written statement it's understandable (though silly), but I've certainly seen a lot of people not realizing both rules actually apply at once.

Perhaps that's less a case of "confusing writing" and just "the result being so unintuitive people reflexively assume otherwise"

[Tanarii]

Is that confusingly worded or is it just something you don't like?

Oh yeah, it's not a confusingly worded issue.

I just don't like that longbow archers firing from 600ft away at a target in a fog cloud does so with no disadvantage. (Largely resolved if Perception issues resolve the distance at which you have to guess a location of course.)

[KorvinStarmast]

Oh yeah, it's not a confusingly worded issue. [

I just don't like that longbow archers firing from 600ft away at a target in a fog cloud does so with no disadvantage.
Wrong. They can't see the target. It's inside a heavily obscured area.


(Largely resolved if Perception issues resolve the distance at which you have to guess a location of course.)

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I would say the expectation around whether dice are rolled open or behind a screen. That has implications for how a lot of things are resolved in 5e.

[KorvinStarmast]

I would say the expectation around whether dice are rolled open or behind a screen. That has implications for how a lot of things are resolved in 5e. Like cutting words.

[GooeyChewie]

Wrong. They can't see the target. It's inside a heavily obscured area.

The target also cannot see the archer. You’ve got one source of advantage (defender cannot see attacker) and two sources of disadvantage (attacker cannot see defender and long range). Since a single source of advantage/disadvantage cancel out all of the opposite, the attack nets to a regular attack. (By RAW at least. If I’m not mistaken it is fairly common for DMs to rule that advantage and disadvantage cancel on a one-for-one basis.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Here's one--read directly, a Medium creature cannot benefit from squeezing, since Small and Medium creatures control the same space in combat. I doubt anyone plays that way, but...

[claypigeons]

The rules for Brooms of Flying are pretty lackluster

[PhoenixPhyre]

The rules for Brooms of Flying are pretty lackluster

Aren't those the ones that are hands-down better than boots of flying?

[Tanarii]

Wrong. They can't see the target. It's inside a heavily obscured area.
Disadvantage for not seeing target. Advantage for target not seeing them. Disadvantage for range. All cancels out. Net result, no penalty on the attack.

[claypigeons]

Aren't those the ones that are hands-down better than boots of flying?

Winged Boots?

At least those have well-defined rules.

A Broom of Flying sounds like partly a mount, but isn't a creature, but specifically doesn't confer you a flying speed, "it [the broom] has a flying speed of 50ft".

It's firmly "ask your DM"

[Reynaert]

Disadvantage for not seeing target. Advantage for target not seeing them. Disadvantage for range. All cancels out. Net result, no penalty on the attack.

And an automatic miss if the attacker doesn't guess the exact location of the target. A big ask at over 100 meters distance.

[Tanarii]

And an automatic miss if the attacker doesn't guess the exact location of the target. A big ask at over 100 meters distance.
The rules don't specify when and at what range you have to guess. Some DMs rule hidden only, others non-hidden and decide on the distance themselves.

This should already be covered by my comments on lack of clarity around perception on the last page. But maybe worth calling out as it's own unclear rule just for unseen targets.

[OvisCaedo]

And if, say, an archer is IN the fog cloud, steps out, sees someone 590 feet away, and then steps back in to be blind, they don't have to 'guess' the square any more! You saw the target, they can't move during your turn, blind fire away! a GM might make up reasons (entirely reasonably, frankly) why you still have to 'guess' somehow. Much like a GM can do anything to try and smooth over badly written rules; they're still badly written rules.

[Reynaert]

The rules don't specify when and at what range you have to guess. Some DMs rule hidden only, others non-hidden and decide on the distance themselves.

This should already be covered by my comments on lack of clarity around perception on the last page. But maybe worth calling out as it's own unclear rule just for unseen targets.


And if, say, an archer is IN the fog cloud, steps out, sees someone 590 feet away, and then steps back in to be blind, they don't have to 'guess' the square any more! You saw the target, they can't move during your turn, blind fire away! a GM might make up reasons (entirely reasonably, frankly) why you still have to 'guess' somehow. Much like a GM can do anything to try and smooth over badly written rules; they're still badly written rules.

OK, point taken. Although in the 'step inside fog cloud then shoot from there to square you saw earlier' case, that clashes hard with common sense and might even be called unclear because I don't think it's explicitly spelled out that you know the location of a something you just lost sight of but you know hasn't moved. The rules do kinda hinge on common-sense interpretation. (Sometimes. And sometimes they don't. Which is a pain opn itself)

[OvisCaedo]

Even if you want them to have to guess, how else WOULD you enforce it? How do you make a player guess at something that they know? Do you introduce a second roll besides the attack? What should that be?

But, in general: Yes, the rule that one source of advantage nullifies an infinite number of sources of disadvantage is indeed something that clashes with common sense, even if I understand why the devs wanted it to be that simple.

[sithlordnergal]

So...this one is solved via common sense...but RAW, regular darkness and a heavy fog are treated exactly the same. Which I take...issue with that. It makes a lot of weird interactions. For example:

Since heavy fog and darkness are the same, does torch light remove a heavy fog like it does darkness? The rules state "you are effectively blinded when you try to see something obscured by it. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area."

So, does that mean a lit torch is completely obscured if there's darkness between you and where the dim light ends, making it so you can't see it? If you can see through the darkness to the torch on the other side, are you able to see the other side of, say, Fog Cloud if that area is lit? Darkness and fog are the same, so both have to have the same properties.

Again, fixed with common sense. Could have just made darkness its own little thing. I know why they mixed the two, cause they basically have the same effect. But issues arise when darkness is fog, and fog is darkness.

[KorvinStarmast]

This should already be covered by my comments on lack of clarity around perception on the last page. But maybe worth calling out as it's own unclear rule just for unseen targets. Yes. I understand that a similar bit of nonsense surrounds creatures inside of Darkness of Hadar (3d level spell)

[Chronos]

Yeah, folks sometimes say that there are issues with the rules for magical darkness, but really, the issue is with all darkness. Folks just don't notice if for nonmagical darkness, because there, we all just ignore the nonsensical rules and treat darkness the same way it works in real life. It's only an issue for magical darkness, because there, you can't treat it the same way as real-life darkness, because in real life you can't have (for instance) a sphere of darkness in the middle of a well-lit field.

As for skills, I think that the whole paradigm of "you only make a check when the DM says you do, and therefore most of the skill rules are in the DMG" is flawed. PCs should have an idea of how their abilities work, and what they can do with them. If I want to make someone who specializes in disarming traps, for instance, I need to know whether that means I need to invest in proficiency (or even expertise) in Perception or Investigation, and whether I want my Int or Wis to be higher (answer: You actually need both, Perception to find the trap and then Investigation to figure out how it works. But you wouldn't know that just from reading the PHB).

And then, there's really no guidance at all on what DC various tasks should be, not even in the DMG. Yes, the rules give numbers for "easy" and "hard" and "nearly impossible", and so on, but that doesn't help, without knowing what those words mean. Is a "nearly impossible" swimming task crossing the English Channel, or is it swimming up Niagara Falls?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah, folks sometimes say that there are issues with the rules for magical darkness, but really, the issue is with all darkness. Folks just don't notice if for nonmagical darkness, because there, we all just ignore the nonsensical rules and treat darkness the same way it works in real life. It's only an issue for magical darkness, because there, you can't treat it the same way as real-life darkness, because in real life you can't have (for instance) a sphere of darkness in the middle of a well-lit field.


This one's certainly one I'm going to fix. By separating "states of illumination" from "heavy/light obscurement".



As for skills, I think that the whole paradigm of "you only make a check when the DM says you do, and therefore most of the skill rules are in the DMG" is flawed. PCs should have an idea of how their abilities work, and what they can do with them. If I want to make someone who specializes in disarming traps, for instance, I need to know whether that means I need to invest in proficiency (or even expertise) in Perception or Investigation, and whether I want my Int or Wis to be higher (answer: You actually need both, Perception to find the trap and then Investigation to figure out how it works. But you wouldn't know that just from reading the PHB).

And then, there's really no guidance at all on what DC various tasks should be, not even in the DMG. Yes, the rules give numbers for "easy" and "hard" and "nearly impossible", and so on, but that doesn't help, without knowing what those words mean. Is a "nearly impossible" swimming task crossing the English Channel, or is it swimming up Niagara Falls?

Yeah, not going to touch this one. We disagree, rather fundamentally, and I'll leave it at that.

[Witty Username]

Here's one--read directly, a Medium creature cannot benefit from squeezing, since Small and Medium creatures control the same space in combat. I doubt anyone plays that way, but...

I think that one is only an issue in grid play anyway, since outside of that medium sized creatures can squeeze through small spaces as a rough estimate of volume.
--
CR and XP thresholds, whenever I try too use them I always need to triple check to make sure I am getting the right one, and it is easy to forget the multiplier. And to generate wildly different results than the guidelines seem to suggest.
I think the wording is fine, it is just a bit complicated and not particularly useful.

[Beelzebub1111]

As for skills, I think that the whole paradigm of "you only make a check when the DM says you do, and therefore most of the skill rules are in the DMG" is flawed. PCs should have an idea of how their abilities work, and what they can do with them. If I want to make someone who specializes in disarming traps, for instance, I need to know whether that means I need to invest in proficiency (or even expertise) in Perception or Investigation, and whether I want my Int or Wis to be higher (answer: You actually need both, Perception to find the trap and then Investigation to figure out how it works. But you wouldn't know that just from reading the PHB).

And then, there's really no guidance at all on what DC various tasks should be, not even in the DMG. Yes, the rules give numbers for "easy" and "hard" and "nearly impossible", and so on, but that doesn't help, without knowing what those words mean. Is a "nearly impossible" swimming task crossing the English Channel, or is it swimming up Niagara Falls?

It backends the rules and makes it easier on players, but it also, in my experience, creates an additional burden and expectation on GMs to know how everything is supposed to work instead of a shared experience. Players can't be expected to know how to play their characters if a portion of the rules are hidden from them.

[stoutstien]

I might be alone in this but I really dislike reactive effects or features that prevent the triggering occurrence all together. Reducing, redirecting, or otherwise mitigating sure but when it complete nullification means the necessary trigger is no longer there. Even worse with reaction somehow happens before and after said trigger at the same time.

[Tanarii]

Players can't be expected to know how to play their characters if a portion of the rules are hidden from them.
They know more about the odds than they know in real life. Their bonus and a rough range of typical DCs (10-20 with 15 being Medium BtB). That should be enough to make a judgement call. Even more so if the DM communicates the final DC before the action is taken.

OTOH people aren't regularly expected to make judgement calls on things with minor to serious consequences that (at first level) have a 25-95% chance of failure. IMX that can be a mental block for many players. They aren't significant risk takers, even in a game.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yeah, folks sometimes say that there are issues with the rules for magical darkness, but really, the issue is with all darkness. Folks just don't notice if for nonmagical darkness, because there, we all just ignore the nonsensical rules and treat darkness the same way it works in real life. It's only an issue for magical darkness, because there, you can't treat it the same way as real-life darkness, because in real life you can't have (for instance) a sphere of darkness in the middle of a well-lit field.
Fair point.

The point of "make a check when called for" helps to keep pace of play moving and also gets rid of the "I will make an X check" when the situation calls for a "Y" check.

DM calls for the check, roll, and play on.

[Theodoxus]

1) I don't know why 5E moved away from additional light levels. I brought back Low Light Vision, since Darkvision is so prevalent (what, humans, halflings and dragonborn are the only PHB races without it?) and gave it to every DV race outside of dwarf, h-orc, and tiefling (and drow and deep gnome subraces).

2) I don't know why 5E moved away from the Surprise Round. It works so much better and is far less confusing than the surprised condition. The singular advantage of the condition is anyone on any side of a combat can have that - but a surprise round can work identically to that... non-surprised folk get a free round of interactions.

2a) Regarding attacking prior to rolling initiative, I like how BG3 handles it - initiator gets their free attack, but still rolls initiative. Then when their turn rolls up in the first round of combat, they're out of actions, but can still move, use Action Surge, or use a bonus action (either triggered by their initial attack, or stand alone (like Cunning Action).

3) I don't know why 5E moved away from interactive OAs. Outside feat support (poorly done at that), OAs trigger only when someone moves out of melee range. Literally the only tactical decision in melee based combat is 'what's the likelihood of this monster I'm standing next to, to hit me, and if they hit me, will it knock me out.' Ad/Disad mechanics are great, but in the case of OAs, they've replaced all the interesting options. Used to be casting a spell or shooting bow in melee warranted an OA smack down. Now it's the same tactical decision, in reverse. How likely am I to hit with disad, and is it considered a waste if I miss?

3a) Regarding interrupts, another disservice was 5E moving away from the difference between interrupting and reacting to a trigger. Now it's all reactions, and sometimes they interrupt, creating the nonsensical times where a reaction can eliminate the triggering event, creating a time loop paradox. (One reason I HATE the interpretation that you can interrupt your own spell cast to Counterspell someone Counterspelling your initial spellcast - but that's a level of dumb I'm not going to get into - and if anyone replies to this point, I'm going to ignore it in this thread.)

4) What does intimidation do, anyway? Like, literally, what is the mechanical ability it provides? In combat, out of combat, what is it supposed to do?

4a) All the other skills. All of them could do with at least examples. I understand WotC doesn't want to codify, elsewise DMs will state 'actually, Stealth doesn't state it allows you to walk silently through fallen leaves, so you make noise, sorry'. But seriously, it sucks arguing with that 'one guy' in a new group over what Perception or Persuasion or Medicine grants or not... cast Guidance WotC, and give us a bone (hoping D&Done at least expands on what skills do and don't represent.

5) General QoL from prior editions. The community has gone over this a lot already, so I'll keep it generic, but I'm legit confused why WotC threw out the baby with the bathwater on so many concepts and better written rules from prior editions. /Boggle.

[Witty Username]

Fair point.

The point of "make a check when called for" helps to keep pace of play moving and also gets rid of the "I will make an X check" when the situation calls for a "Y" check.

DM calls for the check, roll, and play on.
I do like letting players propose alternative skills when a roll is called for, since the skill system does overlap some, and players can be more clever than me.
Generally the ability score I don't allow changes though, if you're climbing I don't mind acrobatics, but if you don't have the strength for pull ups you may have issues anyway. As an example.

Oh also, I don't mind a player asking to pivot approach in a social encounters if the skill doesn't work with what they are going for. Like when a character is going for a persuade but the player's description comes off as more intimidating, the player wanting to dial back some if they are edging out their concept for the scenario is usually fine. And gives some notes for what a failed check would look like.

[Luccan]

4) What does intimidation do, anyway? Like, literally, what is the mechanical ability it provides? In combat, out of combat, what is it supposed to do?



Jumping off of this a little:

I understand the desire for more concrete rules and numbers, but what do people mean by "it's unclear what X skill does"? I'm pretty sure every skill has a description of at least its general use case in the PHB.

[Tanarii]

Jumping off of this a little:

I understand the desire for more concrete rules and numbers, but what do people mean by "it's unclear what X skill does"? I'm pretty sure every skill has a description of at least its general use case in the PHB.
In the case of Charisma skills, there is an explanation of how they're used and an "examples" table ... but it's in the DMG.

I think it's a fair point to complain that players aren't given to understand the basic idea behind (use case for) Cha ability checks is that they are designed to resolve a question of "does the PC get something they want from an NPC of attitude X who will be taking risk/sacrifice Y" and the Cha skill being used will depend on how they are trying to get it. So the key Intent the player needs to establish is "what do I want from this NPC?" And also clearly define their Approach.* And that adjusting their attitude or changing the parameters of risk/sacrifice are precursors to resolving the question, not the question to be resolved.

I think it's an even more fair point to complain that DMs don't read the DMG and frequently also don't understand that's the question Cha checks should be resolving.

*Players should always be clearly establishing Intent and Approach. But in this case there's a specific question that Cha checks are being used to resolve. And players (and sometimes DMs) don't even always realize what it is.

[Mastikator]

It's the DM's job to call for ability checks, and their job to decide which skill proficiency (if any) and which ability to use. Players should not be asking to roll skill checks, asking for a skill check is metagaming. Skill example tables belong in the DMG.

[Tanarii]

If players don't know the correct use case, at least generally, they won't know how to frame their Intent and Approach.
If DMs don't know the correct use case, specifically, they will call for checks in a way that makes it impossible for players to correctly frame their Intent and Approach.

I see both all the dang time in these forums in discussions about Charisma skills. The number of people who don't realize the intended question to be answered is "what do I (the PC) want this NPC to do for me?" is staggering. Let alone getting into adjusting their attitude or their level of risk/sacrifice before a roll.

Edit: however having read the PHB descriptions of skills again, they are generally speaking going to be good enough to aligning the idea that Approach A should usually result in a skill check using B. Provided they're even Approaching the right Intent in the first place.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ok, slightly different tack on this--

I've long thought that one of the big weaknesses of the 2014 core books (especially the DMG) is a paucity of worked examples of play, both as help for new DMs and as examples of "what were they thinking when they wrote <rule>". Sure, it'd take up a lot of space. But there are these things called websites that have tons of room. And you could even link to a collection of them. And publish more as time goes on. Or even publish a separate (optional) book. Doesn't have to be a big glossy hardcover!

So, in interests of putting my time and effort where my mouth is, I'm asking the question here. If WotC decided to do such a thing, or if someone else decided to compile a 3rd-party list of worked examples, What would you want included? What pieces of the rules would benefit from examples (as opposed to just rewording the rule itself)? What scenarios should be gone through?

I'm thinking
* Character creation, in detail, all in one spot. There is kinda an example in the Intro, so this is a maybe.
* A general scenario involving ability checks during exploration. Including things like auto-success/auto-failure (with taking 10x as long), degrees of success/failure, traps, etc.
* A general scenario involving an ambush (attempted or not). Including stealth, passive perception, possibly some "you can't stealth because he can directly see you".
* Something involving vision. Not sure what that scenario looks like directly.
* A social scene (say persuading a noble to help with something against opposition).

For DMs--
* A worked encounter creation example, in context of a specific party
* A worked "create a new monster" example, in context of a specific party.
* Something about scenario design (smaller than a full adventure, but larger than just one encounter).

Other things?

[Chronos]

To be clear, I don't have a problem with "The DM says when a check is needed"*. What I have a problem with is "and therefore all the skill rules are in the DMG". Players should know how their characters work.


*Example from one game I was DMing: The party needed to track someone, but one of their allies had "accidentally" spilled some expensive perfume on their quarry's baggage. The druid turned into a wolf, and I told him "There's the olfactory equivalent of a hot pink stripe painted down the street". "So what do I need to roll?" "Well, how hard is it to follow a hot pink stripe on the street?"

[Tanarii]

Clearly we need a table in the PHB with the DC for "olfactory equivalent to a hot pink strip painted down the street"

[animewatcha]

This is going to be upcoming. What weapon masteries work with unarmed strikes (primarily monk here). If nothing is said, then we can take it as an acknowledgement from WOTC that any weapon mastery works with unarmed strikes AND can be interchangeable from strike to strike freely without limit.

[Boci]

Magic Resistance giving advantage on saving throws vs. spells and magic effects, and not resistance to damage from them. Had to clarify this a few times at least.

[Dualight]

Magic Resistance giving advantage on saving throws vs. spells and magic effects, and not resistance to damage from them. Had to clarify this a few times at least.

That's a case of people reading only the name, and not the actual ability. Every statblock that contains it spells out the effect in full, so that is entirely on the reader.

[Person_Man]

as I understand it the way invisibility/darkness/breaking line of sight works RAW is that enemies still know where you are unless you take the hide action, which is never explicitly mentioned but very important. A lot of the concealment and vision rules would benefit greatly from being rewritten but specifically I think keeping that part and being more clear about it would help a lot.

This is correct. Invisibility in D&D is generally like invisibility in most tv/movies/video games where you’re transparent but still show an outline or faded presence of some kind so that the audience can see you. Or if you prefer more versimilitude, it essentially presumes that you can still figure out the general location of an invisible creature by listening and using other visual cues (footprints, lights that shimmer when an invisible creature passes them, smoke or dust in the air, etc). And presumably the Invisible creature’s eyes must absorb and thus distort some light for that creature to be able to see, unless they are also granted magical sight of some kind by the spell.

[Boci]

That's a case of people reading only the name, and not the actual ability. Every statblock that contains it spells out the effect in full, so that is entirely on the reader.

Player's aren't meant to read the stat blocks of monsters during a fight.

And yeah, I count a confusing name as an example of an ability being poorly written, even if the ability itself is fine.

[firelistener]

"Spell slots" is the first thing that came to mind. I think every single player I have had that was unfamiliar with D&D has struggled greatly to understand how they work just because of the name "slot". In my opinion, they don't really function as "slots" in 5e anymore the way they did in earlier editions. So I always have to explain to players that slots in 5e are like batteries or bullets. The name slot implies you put a spell inside it somehow, which just isn't the case for anyone in 5e with ubiquitous spontaneous casting.

[Theodoxus]

Call them spell sluts. All raring to go, waiting to be used.

[Pex]

Who chooses the creatures that are conjured. So far in all games I've played the player got to choose, but then you get the arguments of Conjure Woodland Beings summoning pixies and everyone gets all red in the face and insist the DM chooses anyway so no shenanigans from you filthy power gamer munchkin. It comes down to players get to choose until the DM is ticked off about it even when not talking about pixies.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Who chooses the creatures that are conjured. So far in all games I've played the player got to choose, but then you get the arguments of Conjure Woodland Beings summoning pixies and everyone gets all red in the face and insist the DM chooses anyway so no shenanigans from you filthy power gamer munchkin. It comes down to players get to choose until the DM is ticked off about it even when not talking about pixies.

Yeah, I agree with this[1]. I mean...I think the conjure spells should really be rewritten for a lot of other reasons, but if they're going to stay the same, specifying who picks the creatures (and removing the "up to CR X" if the answer is "the DM") makes a lot of sense.

[1] other than the aspersions about intent.

[Tanarii]

It comes down to players get to choose until the DM is ticked off about it even when not talking about pixies.
I'd say that sums up the design philosophy of 5e, working as intended, nothing to see here. :smalltongue:

[Pex]

Yeah, I agree with this[1]. I mean...I think the conjure spells should really be rewritten for a lot of other reasons, but if they're going to stay the same, specifying who picks the creatures (and removing the "up to CR X" if the answer is "the DM") makes a lot of sense.

[1] other than the aspersions about intent.


I'd say that sums up the design philosophy of 5e, working as intended, nothing to see here. :smalltongue:

Miracles do happen. We all agree on something.

[GeneralVryth]

Ok, slightly different tack on this--

I've long thought that one of the big weaknesses of the 2014 core books (especially the DMG) is a paucity of worked examples of play, both as help for new DMs and as examples of "what were they thinking when they wrote <rule>". Sure, it'd take up a lot of space. But there are these things called websites that have tons of room. And you could even link to a collection of them. And publish more as time goes on. Or even publish a separate (optional) book. Doesn't have to be a big glossy hardcover!

So, in interests of putting my time and effort where my mouth is, I'm asking the question here. If WotC decided to do such a thing, or if someone else decided to compile a 3rd-party list of worked examples, What would you want included? What pieces of the rules would benefit from examples (as opposed to just rewording the rule itself)? What scenarios should be gone through?

I'm thinking
* Character creation, in detail, all in one spot. There is kinda an example in the Intro, so this is a maybe.
* A general scenario involving ability checks during exploration. Including things like auto-success/auto-failure (with taking 10x as long), degrees of success/failure, traps, etc.
* A general scenario involving an ambush (attempted or not). Including stealth, passive perception, possibly some "you can't stealth because he can directly see you".
* Something involving vision. Not sure what that scenario looks like directly.
* A social scene (say persuading a noble to help with something against opposition).

For DMs--
* A worked encounter creation example, in context of a specific party
* A worked "create a new monster" example, in context of a specific party.
* Something about scenario design (smaller than a full adventure, but larger than just one encounter).

Other things?

You hit the high notes. But here is what I think is important from the player (and DM) side in more detail:

1. An exploration encounter. This should include the following:
- Examples of several skill uses, success, fail, and auto-success and auto-fail.
- Examples of light and vision impacting the above rolls (darkness providing disadvantage to Darkvision users, and auto-failure for others)
- Examples of skill substitution (if this is a thing you want encouraged, for example, someone with a bad athletics check, trying to acrobatically approach the problem)
- Perhaps an example of long distance travel and survivals impact on it (likely the initial point of the encounter)

2. A social encounter. This should include the following:
- Examples of several skill uses, both to get desired results, and to make future rolls easier (for example a history check that provides information making a persuasion check easier)
- Examples of magic use to manipulate the situation and potential consequences thereof (for example using friends, initially being helpful, then being caught and trying to talk your way out)

3. A combat encounter. This should include the following:
- Examples of the surprise/ambush mechanics
- Examples of light and vision impacting combat actions
- Examples of opportunity attacks
- Examples of the impacts and uses of terrain (a slippery case being difficult terrain and causing prone on a failed acrobatics check or Dex save, shoving foes off ledges causing falling damage)
- Examples of concentration spell use and failure
- Examples of an improvised attack or action (bringing down a stalegtite on an enemy or causing a cave in)

If you wanted to be really cute with the above they could all be strung together into a single story/session example. To cover all the beats above it may go something like. A group of adventurers enter a small town. The arrogant Wizard uses magic try and cheat, steal or get good deals from local townsfolk. He eventually gets caught, and both he and his companions get locked up. They using knowledge of some local customs, they talk themselves in to a deal where they will take care of a nearby group of goblins in exchange for their freedom (and maybe the return of some of their gear on return). The group sets off in search of the goblins, using knowledge of wilderness to track them to a nearby cave system. In the caves they have to brave a few hazards before a mutual ambush with the goblins occurs and a fight breaks out. The group being outnumbered and surprised tries every trick they can think of to survive and ultimately bury the goblins, escaping by the skin of the their teeth.

Heck you could tie in both the character creation example by building one or 2 of the characters, as well as the scenario creation example showing how the DM came up with the adventure (what they thought about, and what they improvised).

[PhoenixPhyre]

You hit the high notes. But here is what I think is important from the player (and DM) side in more detail:

1. An exploration encounter. This should include the following:
- Examples of several skill uses, success, fail, and auto-success and auto-fail.
- Examples of light and vision impacting the above rolls (darkness providing disadvantage to Darkvision users, and auto-failure for others)
- Examples of skill substitution (if this is a thing you want encouraged, for example, someone with a bad athletics check, trying to acrobatically approach the problem)
- Perhaps an example of long distance travel and survivals impact on it (likely the initial point of the encounter)

2. A social encounter. This should include the following:
- Examples of several skill uses, both to get desired results, and to make future rolls easier (for example a history check that provides information making a persuasion check easier)
- Examples of magic use to manipulate the situation and potential consequences thereof (for example using friends, initially being helpful, then being caught and trying to talk your way out)

3. A combat encounter. This should include the following:
- Examples of the surprise/ambush mechanics
- Examples of light and vision impacting combat actions
- Examples of opportunity attacks
- Examples of the impacts and uses of terrain (a slippery case being difficult terrain and causing prone on a failed acrobatics check or Dex save, shoving foes off ledges causing falling damage)
- Examples of concentration spell use and failure
- Examples of an improvised attack or action (bringing down a stalegtite on an enemy or causing a cave in)

If you wanted to be really cute with the above they could all be strung together into a single story/session example. To cover all the beats above it may go something like. A group of adventurers enter a small town. The arrogant Wizard uses magic try and cheat, steal or get good deals from local townsfolk. He eventually gets caught, and both he and his companions get locked up. They using knowledge of some local customs, they talk themselves in to a deal where they will take care of a nearby group of goblins in exchange for their freedom (and maybe the return of some of their gear on return). The group sets off in search of the goblins, using knowledge of wilderness to track them to a nearby cave system. In the caves they have to brave a few hazards before a mutual ambush with the goblins occurs and a fight breaks out. The group being outnumbered and surprised tries every trick they can think of to survive and ultimately bury the goblins, escaping by the skin of the their teeth.

Heck you could tie in both the character creation example by building one or 2 of the characters, as well as the scenario creation example showing how the DM came up with the adventure (what they thought about, and what they improvised).

Thanks. I think I'd want to split those out into separate, shorter examples, even if diagetically they're all part of the same scenario. Mostly for length--the longer the example becomes and the more individual pieces, the more difficult it is to see what's being taught.

And I do have to stand on a hill for a second and take exception to the framing of #1. Travel =/= exploration! Exploration is everything you do to interact with the non-creature environment. You do exploration in combat (tripping traps, interacting with the terrain in ways other than taking cover, etc). You may do exploration as part of an extended social scenario--the social scenario I have written actually has the party's rogue pick-pocketing one of the participants to find evidence that he's shady. That's exploration. This is why it irks me so badly when people say "there are no exploration rules" or act like survival in the wilderness and not getting lost is 100% of exploration. Those are examples (usually trivial ones) of exploration, but exploration is much bigger than that IMO /rant.

For reference, I see Combat as "hostile[1] interactions with creatures" and Social as "non-hostile[2] interactions with creatures". It's about how/what you're interacting with and are not time-boxed scenarios. Each (good) scenario should have elements from all three pillars. No white room combats -> Exploration is possible. Treating enemies like actual creatures with motives and hooks other than "attacks until dead" -> Social is possible during combat. And similarly for the other three pieces.

[1] attempting to reduce their HP to zero while preventing them from reducing your HP to zero.
[2] all other interactions. Some of which come during combat--trying to get someone to flee via Intimidation is a Social-pillar piece during a Combat-pillar encounter.

[GeneralVryth]

Thanks. I think I'd want to split those out into separate, shorter examples, even if diagetically they're all part of the same scenario. Mostly for length--the longer the example becomes and the more individual pieces, the more difficult it is to see what's being taught.

And I do have to stand on a hill for a second and take exception to the framing of #1. Travel =/= exploration! Exploration is everything you do to interact with the non-creature environment. You do exploration in combat (tripping traps, interacting with the terrain in ways other than taking cover, etc). You may do exploration as part of an extended social scenario--the social scenario I have written actually has the party's rogue pick-pocketing one of the participants to find evidence that he's shady. That's exploration. This is why it irks me so badly when people say "there are no exploration rules" or act like survival in the wilderness and not getting lost is 100% of exploration. Those are examples (usually trivial ones) of exploration, but exploration is much bigger than that IMO /rant.

For reference, I see Combat as "hostile[1] interactions with creatures" and Social as "non-hostile[2] interactions with creatures". It's about how/what you're interacting with and are not time-boxed scenarios. Each (good) scenario should have elements from all three pillars. No white room combats -> Exploration is possible. Treating enemies like actual creatures with motives and hooks other than "attacks until dead" -> Social is possible during combat. And similarly for the other three pieces.

[1] attempting to reduce their HP to zero while preventing them from reducing your HP to zero.
[2] all other interactions. Some of which come during combat--trying to get someone to flee via Intimidation is a Social-pillar piece during a Combat-pillar encounter.

I agree with most of this, in fact I would probably break every one of my high level points in to 2 examples (The wizard getting in trouble, the party talking themselves out, find their way to the cave, initially exploring the cave, the ambush, and the escape), trying to focus on different things in each example. But showing how things can flow together I think is also important for a DM. Especially when you are start talking about adventure or scenario design. The path described above could just be one of the possible ones the DM had ideas for. Another aspect of this is the DMG talks about 6 to 8 encounters, but they don't all have to be combat related, in fact they shouldn't be. But it's easy to fall in to the trap of thinking encounter = combat. So showing an example of 6 encounters over a day, and some of them not being combat related helps reinforce this.

On the exploration front, I use a slightly different definition. I define exploration encounters as encounters that don't involve interacting with another group. Social encounters are interacting with a non-hostile group, and combat encounters are interacting with a hostile group. Skill use should show up in all 3 (which can include interacting with with things other than the other group in Social/Combat encounters), and combat encounters should be about objectives (survival being the most basic, but usually there should be another one as well, and while reducing all enemies to 0 HP is one path to achieve it, it shouldn't be the only path).

I think the end result is the same, just slightly different terminology and ways of getting there.

[Nagog]

Anything that triggers when you take the action but not necessarily after said trigger has been resolved. Example would be monk's flurry of blows. When is the attack action "taken" and what does immediately mean in terms of the normal movement and attacking rules.

Easiest fix would be just to say you can use your bonus action to make 2 unarmed attacks. Sure it makes it a tad more flexible and stronger but for fair trade for gutting unnecessary wording that adds very little. Same for things like shield master and most other times this crops up.

This is doubly true for Mage Slayer: When a creature casts a spell within 5ft of you, you can take an attack of opportunity. If we go by the same trigger for Counterspell, this attack would occur before the spell takes effect (which is very nifty when the spell is a teleport escape). If we take it as a lot of other Attack of Opportunity triggers, it occurs after the spell is cast, which can be very beneficial against Concentration effects, as you immediately proc a Concentration check to potentially end the effect before it effects your party member's turns.

[Tanarii]

This is doubly true for Mage Slayer: When a creature casts a spell within 5ft of you, you can take an attack of opportunity. If we go by the same trigger for Counterspell, this attack would occur before the spell takes effect (which is very nifty when the spell is a teleport escape). If we take it as a lot of other Attack of Opportunity triggers, it occurs after the spell is cast, which can be very beneficial against Concentration effects, as you immediately proc a Concentration check to potentially end the effect before it effects your party member's turns.
Mage slayer and counterspell are worded differently.

Counterspell says "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell."

Mage Slayer just says "When a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell,"

Big difference.

[stoutstien]

Mage slayer and counterspell are worded differently.

Counterspell says "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell."

Mage Slayer just says "When a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell,"

Big difference.

Which is unfortunate. It's silly to have 2 features that are obviously shooting for a similar role function so dissimilar because of minor wording differences.

Trying to have reaction (before the trigger) and reaction (after the trigger) as a single thing was false simplification. All it did was cause confusion.

[Tanarii]

Which is unfortunate. It's silly to have 2 features that are obviously shooting for a similar role function so dissimilar because of minor wording differences.

Trying to have reaction (before the trigger) and reaction (after the trigger) as a single thing was false simplification. All it did was cause confusion.
Eh, there are two PHB cases where a reaction interrupts, both of them spells. Counterspell and Shield. And the goal is they burn up your reaction so it's not available for use, as opposed to having to design a separate interrupt rule for them and have them not use up your reaction. Or make a separate rule and (more confusingly) having it be that you get one interrupt or one reaction, not one of each

I mean, it'd probably be better if they just made it a global rule that "from a design perspective there's no way to interrupt" and nixed both spells.

[stoutstien]

Eh, there are two PHB cases where a reaction interrupts, both of them spells. Counterspell and Shield. And the goal is they burn up your reaction so it's not available for use, as opposed to having to design a separate interrupt rule for them and have them not use up your reaction. Or make a separate rule and (more confusingly) having it be that you get one interrupt or one reaction, not one of each

I mean, it'd probably be better if they just made it a global rule that "from a design perspective there's no way to interrupt" and nixed both spells.

I don't think there was any real focus on action economy until the player base started driving design. The idea that to should use all your actions or bust is one area that really causes issues.

As for the timing there is also defensive duelist in the PHB .

[Theodoxus]

Eh, there are two PHB cases where a reaction interrupts, both of them spells. Counterspell and Shield. And the goal is they burn up your reaction so it's not available for use, as opposed to having to design a separate interrupt rule for them and have them not use up your reaction. Or make a separate rule and (more confusingly) having it be that you get one interrupt or one reaction, not one of each

I mean, it'd probably be better if they just made it a global rule that "from a design perspective there's no way to interrupt" and nixed both spells.

I think the only confusion is the fact that WotC merged Interrupts and Reactions together without any explanation. 3rd Ed had both, and they explicitly did the thing they were named for.

Interrupts attempted to pre-empt an action, making it so the triggering event didn't or couldn't happen, so the initiator had to pick a different action. I'd be happier if counterspell worked that way. Basically, shut down the casters spellcasting for the round on a successful CS; especially if it didn't also cost the loss of a slot for the 'victim'. [the idea being the CS 'unweaves' the magic of the original caster, blocking them from casting in the first place, but doesn't use either the slot nor the action, allowing them to make a melee attack, or use their action for something else like dashing, disengaging, and the like.

Reactions should happen after a triggering event. Hellish Rebuke is the classic example. 'You hurt me, have some hurt of your own'. It doesn't interrupt the action, just reacts to it.

Shield, and things like Interception and Protection fighting styles are simpler, and makes sense 'after the fact', since it's potentially negating a hit by throwing a tangible shield or intangible forcefield up. It's truly a reaction that doesn't interrupt the triggering event, but does potentially negate the effect.

So, maybe 3 different types of 'Reactions': Interrupts that negate the triggering action. These should be rare. Intercepts that are contests that might negate the effect of the triggering event, but not the event itself. Reactions that trigger a unique event based on the initial trigger that have no impact on that trigger. (Readied actions would also fall under this.)