Mechanics that dont make sense

[Psyren]

Sure, but speaking is detailed elsewhere in the rules. So either we're making the assumption that it is not an exhaustive list of appropriate times when you can speak, or we arent.

Speaking is detailed during combat, I thought you were saying it isn't anywhere else? If that's not true, provide that citation and use it. If it is true, the general rule applies.

[Tanarii]

I actually think the Xan rule doesn’t make sense for my table because it messes up play flow.

100% agree, provided you consider the 'normal' flow to be that person announces and begins resolving, and at any point before resolution is all wrapped up someone can shout out "counterspell!" And for what it's worth, that's exactly how I actually DM it at the table, just because I can't help but blurt out what spells my creatures are casting.

Otherwise, if rewinding in the middle of resolution once further information has possibly been gained about targets, damage, etc is not allowed ... as JackPhoenix points out, there needs to be a pause before any spell's resolution begins for counterspelling opportunity. Regardless of if it's blind or not blind.

[Khrysaes]

Here is one that no one actually follows RAW as they understand the RAI,

Revivfy: "You touch a creature that has died"
Raise dead: "You return a dead creature you touch to life"
Resurrection: "You touch a dead creature that has been dead"
True resurrection: "You touch a creature that has been dead"
Reincarnate: "You touch a dead humanoid or a piece of a dead humanoid. Provided that the creature has been dead "

https://publish.twitter.com/?query=h...8&widget=Tweet


So this would mean the spells can't work because there are no creatures that have died, just objects.

Note: JC responds saying that "a creature" is different than "a creature that has died" or "a creature that has been dead" etc.

[EggKookoo]

So this would mean the spells can't work because there are no creatures that have died, just objects.

Arguably, "creature that has died" is just a type of object. IOW a dead creature is both an object and a "creature that has died."

[Khrysaes]

Arguably, "creature that has died" is just a type of object. IOW a dead creature is both an object and a "creature that has died."

That is Effectively the response JC gave.

[Keltest]

Speaking is detailed during combat, I thought you were saying it isn't anywhere else? If that's not true, provide that citation and use it. If it is true, the general rule applies.

"elsewhere" in this case means "in the combat section" as opposed to "in the non-combat sections."

Im not actually trying to insist that the rules say we can only talk during combat, naturally, simply pointing out that the assumption that we cant talk on other peoples turns is inconsistent with the other assumptions we have to make about speech in the game for it to make any sense.

[KorvinStarmast]

Did the goblin boss predate the goblin player race?

Yep. And when they made the decision to establish goblin player race in volo's they forgot to retcon that ability.

[Psyren]

"elsewhere" in this case means "in the combat section" as opposed to "in the non-combat sections."

Even if you believe* that line only applies to Combat, this general rule is present at the beginning of the PHB as well: "The players describe what they want to do...The DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions." So outside of combat, if the players decide they want to talk, the DM determines whether that happens.

*I know you don't actually believe that, but I'm playing devil's advocate to your devil's advocate, i.e. there is a general rule that covers actions outside of combat.

Im not actually trying to insist that the rules say we can only talk during combat, naturally, simply pointing out that the assumption that we cant talk on other peoples turns is inconsistent with the other assumptions we have to make about speech in the game for it to make any sense.

My issue isn't that there is no construct at all for talking outside your turn. There is, it just requires DM permission every time you do it (or blanket if they're nice) since it's not included as part of the specific rules for what you can do on your turn.

Rather, my issue is that prior editions did explicitly include "you can talk on other people's turns as long as you aren't too wordy" and it worked fine. It's more the lack of table variation I'm looking for. I'd rather that talking out of turn is the default that a GM can disallow than the reverse, even if in practice 99.9% of GMs do run it that way.

[RSP]

You don't need to spend 6 seconds on a sentence. Just a single word or gesture can be enough, and can take less than one second even.

Other editions handled this fine without imploding. It didn't need to be changed.

You don’t need to spend 6 seconds on a sentence, unless the information needing to be passed requires 6 seconds.

I’m not sure what your point here is as “just a single word or gesture can be enough” has no bearing on any situation except exactly when “just a single word or gesture can be enough.”

In my experience, Players try to relay way more than a 6 second sentence when wanting to relay info during combat. And when pointed out, they then rephrase the words to within 6 seconds (the process of which takes more than 6 seconds).

So yeah, trying to have that not only occur within 6 seconds, but having subsequent Players be able to use that info in meaningful ways over that same 6 second period, doesn’t make sense.

Past editions have no bearing on whether or not this makes sense, which is the point of this thread.

[Naanomi]

Eventually I let Telepathic Bond cover in-party chatter needs during combat

[Evaar]

If you're a Beast Barbarian using your Claws, they don't have the Light property. If you attack with your Claw during the Attack action, you can make one extra attack. So if you're using a shield, you can claw 3 times with one hand. If you aren't using a shield, you can claw 3 times with one hand.

Now if you're using two short swords, they DO have the Light property, so if you attack with one in your main hand then you can use a bonus action to attack with the one if your offhand.

If you're a Beast Barbarian using your Claws, you can hold two short swords and take the Attack action. First, attack with your mainhand short sword. Then drop the shortsword and attack with your mainhand claw. Now you've met the requirement for getting an extra attack with your claw, so do that. You also attacked with a Light weapon in your main hand during the Attack action, and you're holding a Light weapon in your offhand, so now you get to make a 4th attack with your offhand short sword. Now use your free object interaction to pick up the short sword you dropped.

By juggling your short swords and using your claws in this way, you get to make 4 attacks per turn instead of the 3 you'd be limited to if you were just concentrating on your attacks. And, again, this is a Barbarian - not a Swords Bard who arguably would use blade juggling as a kind of combat strategy.

Houserule fix: just make the Claws count as Light weapons and give them the 4th attack from the bonus action, it's fine, they're fine, they aren't going to get to use GWM with it anyway, they aren't broken.

[RSP]

Eventually I let Telepathic Bond cover in-party chatter needs during combat

My tables love TB, and it likewise usually takes the place in-party speech.

But it still doesn’t make sense that information is passed during turns and info that is learned, and then passed, at the end of one turn, can then be used by a different character at the beginning of their turn, and acted upon, even though the two turns occur over the same 6 second time period.

For example, what recently occurred on our weekly game:

PC A casts a spell then moves forward, ending after about 20’ when they encounter an invisible wall. PC A relays to other party members that there’s a wall there and ends their turn.

PC B then goes on their turn. Though chronologically the info about the invisible wall will not be relayed until at least 4 or 5 seconds into their turn, they get to act on it from the beginning of their turn.

This is just another factor of turn-style play and could also be used with any sort of knowledge the comes from a prior character’s turn (like if an enemy drops, it won’t be the target of the next character’s turn, even though it dropped at the end of a 6 second Turn).

Obviously the game works with this style, but it still doesn’t make sense when it’s applied to the in-game fiction.

[Evaar]

Artificers use their tools as spellcasting implements.

They use tools to cast spells.

There's no rules definition of "use" to differentiate between using tools to cast a spell versus using a tool to, say, pick a lock. Using a tool is using it.

"Proficiency with a tool allows you to add your proficiency bonus to any ability check you make using that tool."

Artificers eventually gain expertise in all tools with which they are proficient. So they would double their proficiency bonus.

When you cast Dispel Magic, you make an ability check. Because you're an Artificer, you're using a tool to cast Dispel Magic. (Artificers don't get Counterspell.)

If you're a Wizard, you could choose to take the Artificer Initiate feat. "You gain proficiency with one type of artisan's tools of your choice, and you can use that type of tool as a spellcasting focus to any spell you cast that uses Intelligence as its spellcasting ability."

So if you'd like to add your proficiency bonus to your Counterspells and Dispel Magics, be a Wizard, take Artificer Initiate, and use your Cobbler's Tools to cast them. Or be one of the Dragonmarked races that gets an additional bonus to using certain tools, pick that, tool, get your proficiency plus that extra 1d4 or whatever.

[Psyren]

I’m not sure what your point here is as “just a single word or gesture can be enough” has no bearing on any situation except exactly when “just a single word or gesture can be enough.”

My point is that if you as the DM want to forbid talking out of turn that's totally fine, but saying that it takes 6 seconds to talk out of turn is a bullcrap reason for doing so. "It's a fireball!" does not take 6 seconds to yell.

Past editions have no bearing on whether or not this makes sense, which is the point of this thread.

What makes sense has no relation to edition but everything to do with game design.

[RSP]

My point is that if you as the DM want to forbid talking out of turn that's totally fine, but saying that it takes 6 seconds to talk out of turn is a bullcrap reason for doing so. "It's a fireball!" does not take 6 seconds to yell.

I never said it took 6 seconds to yell “it’s a fireball” so, there’s that.

However, if you’re referring to yelling “it’s a fireball” in response to another character casting a spell, it does take more time to determine a) someone is casting a spell, and b) determining what that spell is, before they can even tell that statement.

In my opinion, and as I detailed previously in this thread how casting a 1 Action spell takes about 2 seconds, recognizing a spell is being cast and identifying what spell is being cast, and yelling out that a spell is being cast, probably takes more than 2 seconds.

What makes sense has no relation to edition but everything to do with game design.

Yet you decided to bring up past editions, and I still don’t know why that’s relevant to a thread about what rules don’t make sense in 5e.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I'll put another one in that is a pet peeve of our other DM: That there seems to be no rhyme or reason behind whether there is a limit on whether an action or spell can move a creature of larger size. It starts with the melding together of Med and Small creatures so there are very few functional differences to PC races in the game. Then many things read that you can only move Large and don't seem to account for times you might be enlarged to a Large creature yourself. Then there are other abilities where you could RAW move Tiamat, but that seems way OP. Without an itemized list, I'd say this variation tends to benefit casters more than Martials but I could be wrong on that account.

Anyway our other DM has for the moment put in a houserule that all abilities in this regard can only impact one size larger (with the exception of Small creatures who can still move large).

[noob]

Under that Xanathar's rule, you don't need to counterspell blind, you can just have someone other than the counterspeller identify the spell.

Personally, I don't like the rule at all, for several reasons, not the least of which being that if I see someone pull out the material components of a Fireball spell, I instantly know what spell they're casting OOC, and I didn't study magic for 80 years.

But the mage in front of you who studied magic 2+ years had the brilliant idea to pull simultaneously bat guano and a small leather strap so that you could not know whenever he was casting fireball or freedom of movement.

[Burley]

But the mage in front of you who studied magic 2+ years had the brilliant idea to pull simultaneously bat guano and a small leather strap so that you could not know whenever he was casting fireball or freedom of movement.

In which case the mage should prolly make a Deception check to pull off their trick or Sleight of Hand to conceal the real components while they throw confetti around.

[Psyren]

Yet you decided to bring up past editions, and I still don’t know why that’s relevant to a thread about what rules don’t make sense in 5e.

Because rules should be changed for logical design reasons and not by throwing darts at a board.

The Xanathar's rule is one of the ones I have seen criticized or dismissed most heavily, and the speaking-out-of-turn one is outright ignored at most tables I've seen. Generally if everyone and their mother is ignoring a rule, chances are it's a bad rule. And that feedback deserves to be highlighted, especially when we have a major revision actively being worked on by the devs.

[Khrysaes]

Artificers use their tools as spellcasting implements.

They use tools to cast spells.

There's no rules definition of "use" to differentiate between using tools to cast a spell versus using a tool to, say, pick a lock. Using a tool is using it.

"Proficiency with a tool allows you to add your proficiency bonus to any ability check you make using that tool."

Artificers eventually gain expertise in all tools with which they are proficient. So they would double their proficiency bonus.

When you cast Dispel Magic, you make an ability check. Because you're an Artificer, you're using a tool to cast Dispel Magic. (Artificers don't get Counterspell.)

If you're a Wizard, you could choose to take the Artificer Initiate feat. "You gain proficiency with one type of artisan's tools of your choice, and you can use that type of tool as a spellcasting focus to any spell you cast that uses Intelligence as its spellcasting ability."

So if you'd like to add your proficiency bonus to your Counterspells and Dispel Magics, be a Wizard, take Artificer Initiate, and use your Cobbler's Tools to cast them. Or be one of the Dragonmarked races that gets an additional bonus to using certain tools, pick that, tool, get your proficiency plus that extra 1d4 or whatever.

Huh. Didnt realize artificer proficiency and expertise applied to dispel and counterspell.
To that note. As you said, wizard with artificer initiate, OR, mark of sentinel human artificer. OR azorious background artificer would all get counterspell.

[Psyren]

To be completely accurate, your GM decides if your proficiency bonus with those tools applies to that ability check. But this is a pretty solid argument for getting it.

[Burley]

Because rules should be changed for logical design reasons and not by throwing darts at a board.

The Xanathar's rule is one of the ones I have seen criticized or dismissed most heavily, and the speaking-out-of-turn one is outright ignored at most tables I've seen. Generally if everyone and their mother is ignoring a rule, chances are it's a bad rule. And that feedback deserves to be highlighted, especially when we have a major revision actively being worked on by the devs.

I agree with what you're saying, with a tweak: if people are ignoring a rule, it's not necessarily a "bad rule," just an inconvenient rule, or maybe an obstructive rule, if it makes the game less fun. Characters need to eat, but most tables ignore that, too, by having rations in their haversack and, rather than tally up and down, they just "buy" more next time they're in town, because eating is boring and we wanna throw fireballs. Are eating and exhaustion bad rules? No, but enforcing them takes extra time and usually makes the game less fun.

Is the talking rule (which is in a book and isn't being policed by anybody if ignored) a bad rule, or is it inconvenient at most times? While ignored 95% of the time, there's going to be a time when referencing and enforcing that rule makes sense.

[LudicSavant]

But the mage in front of you who studied magic 2+ years had the brilliant idea to pull simultaneously bat guano and a small leather strap so that you could not know whenever he was casting fireball or freedom of movement.

I addressed this very scenario right after your quote.

[HPisBS]

Every time I read this title, my mind goes ♪ It don't make sense! Big Bird ain't got nothin on me ♪ (1:17 mark).

Sorry, just thought you should know. lol

[Psyren]

I agree with what you're saying, with a tweak: if people are ignoring a rule, it's not necessarily a "bad rule," just an inconvenient rule, or maybe an obstructive rule, if it makes the game less fun. Characters need to eat, but most tables ignore that, too, by having rations in their haversack and, rather than tally up and down, they just "buy" more next time they're in town, because eating is boring and we wanna throw fireballs. Are eating and exhaustion bad rules? No, but enforcing them takes extra time and usually makes the game less fun

I would argue that keeping a supply of rations on hand isn't "ignoring" the eating rules, it's following them. That there is an easy, even trivial way to follow a rule doesn't mean the table is ignoring it when they do.

Is the talking rule (which is in a book and isn't being policed by anybody if ignored) a bad rule, or is it inconvenient at most times? While ignored 95% of the time, there's going to be a time when referencing and enforcing that rule makes sense.

It's a bad rule because unlike eating, there's no way to bypass it or even mitigate it save by ignoring it, even at high levels. There's no spell or item for instance that will let you speak out of turn, even something like sign language or telepathy wouldn't as written.

And even for a group that decides to enforce it, often doing so is more burdensome than not. Being the group nanny constantly hushing up or interrupting table talk is one more thing for the DM to keep track of, and the players are almost always on the negative end.

For me the obvious mitigant to talking out of turn is that enemies can hear you just as easily, and the smart ones can exploit what you say. That will encourage circumspection in PCs far more effectively than a blanket ban.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's a bad rule because unlike eating, there's no way to bypass it or even mitigate it save by ignoring it, even at high levels. There's no spell or item for instance that will let you speak out of turn, even something like sign language or telepathy wouldn't as written.

In general I agree with you on this point, but this argument is one I can't agree with. Absolute rules are not bad rules, at least inherently. There are lots of rules you can't (or shouldn't be able to) get around or bypass or mitigate. They just exist and are binding constraints. That doesn't make them bad. Or good. "Can I get around it" is entirely orthogonal to "fit for purpose" (which is the only sane meaning of good/bad in this context).

[Evaar]

Huh. Didnt realize artificer proficiency and expertise applied to dispel and counterspell.
To that note. As you said, wizard with artificer initiate, OR, mark of sentinel human artificer. OR azorious background artificer would all get counterspell.

Most DMs are going to say there's a difference between "using" a tool to do things you might reasonably expect a tool to do, versus "using" a tool to cast a spell.

RAW, I don't think there's any difference. The text does nothing to differentiate one use from another use. RAI, I think it's very likely not intended and they just didn't consider how letting Artificers user tools for spellcasting might interact with Tool Proficiency rules.

But you could sort of try to argue that the automatic Tool Expertise feature is a whisper of evidence that it was intentional, since it's a pretty niche ribbon feature without that interaction and that's otherwise a dead level when you'd get it. Not saying that's a GOOD argument, but you could try it.

There's also some flavor justification for Artificers, the engineers of spellcasting, being especially good at disassembling a spell effect.

Again note that Artificers don't inherently get access to Counterspell. The feature would only interact with Dispel Magic. Wizards get more options, naturally, at the cost of a feat.

Given all that, though, given how non-obvious and counter-intuitive it is you'd think if it was intentional they would have specifically pointed the interaction out.

[Psyren]

In general I agree with you on this point, but this argument is one I can't agree with. Absolute rules are not bad rules, at least inherently. There are lots of rules you can't (or shouldn't be able to) get around or bypass or mitigate. They just exist and are binding constraints. That doesn't make them bad. Or good. "Can I get around it" is entirely orthogonal to "fit for purpose" (which is the only sane meaning of good/bad in this context).

I think there's two different things being conflated here - following a rule, and mitigating it over time.

The party getting rations in their starting equipment, and being sure to buy more when they go to town if they've used those up, is following the rule. If a party throws all their rations in the river or they get stolen, then beginning to starve is also following the rule. In neither case is the rule being "ignored."

For mititgating the rule over time, the key consideration is tiers of play. There are some rules that, by their very design, are meant to matter more in some (generally lower) tiers than others. "How many rations will we need on this journey" is one of those rules. Similarly, "How far can I walk overland" becomes a lot less important when everyone can afford horses and a carriage, and nonexistent when they can teleport. Also similarly, "how much can I carry unencumbered" becomes a lot less important once bags of holding and portable holes become easily obtainable. Those rules still exist, but having ways to bypass them provides the differences in kind that make high level play not just feel like low level play but bigger numbers.

[Gtdead]

You said that you didn't need to know the spell. You said it in multiple comments. I brought up a situation where, without attempting to trick someone, knowing the spells would have made a difference in how counterspell was done. That's all it was, but if you now want to pretend like it never matters, fine, that's your prerogative.

I don't "pretend" that it doesn't matter, I'm arguing that the threat of a blind counterspell already did it's damage when the actor has to drastically change his tactics and use Bonus Action high level spells which by default are more circumstantial than their Main Action counterparts.

[Kane0]

-Expertise on spellcasting ability checks using a tool as a focus

Hah thats brilliant, gotta remember that one.