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

[Ganders]

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

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

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

[Malifice]

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

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

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

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

Like, that's just common sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, there is not.

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

By RAI, dropping an object is not intended to cost any action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly. Its totally clear.

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

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

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

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

Like seriously man. Common sense.

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

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

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

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

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

Thats what the DM is for.

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

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

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

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

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

[Phoenix042]

That's only an opinion, though.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[Zhorn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I understand there is a portion that goes by needing complete/end the Attack Action before the Bonus Action shove, in keeping with

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/...767298?lang=en
No general rule allows you to insert a bonus action between attacks in a single action. You can interrupt a multiple-attack action with a bonus action/reaction only if the trigger of the bonus action/reaction is an attack, rather than the action.

As the wording in the feat says "take the attack action" and not "make an attack"

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

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

[Pex]

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

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

[Hail Tempus]

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

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

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

[PhoenixPhyre]

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

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

[Man_Over_Game]

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

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

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

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

[Unoriginal]

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

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

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

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

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

[Sigreid]

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

[Mjolnirbear]

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

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

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

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

[Unoriginal]

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

Precisely and exactly.

[Merudo]

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

I am. As a first step, I wrote a correction to the vision rules.

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

[Man_Over_Game]

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

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

[Unoriginal]

I am. As a first step, I wrote a correction to the vision rules.

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

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

[Merudo]

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

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

[Merudo]

The first draft of my errata is available here.

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