D&D 5E Traps for DMs to Avoid

[dd.stevenson]

If the other party had a good reply, he'd not need to use the term rules lawyer

The other party does have a good reply: "Stop crapping over the group's play experience." Which is what "Don't be a rules laywer" means.

 

[Inchoroi]

It seems like that might be a thor subject.

If you were in my game, I'd be giving you Inspiration for making me groan out loud and facepalm.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

If you were in my game, I'd be giving you Inspiration for making me groan out loud and facepalm.

Just as long as he doesn't have to loki over his shoulder for GM reprisal. That would get odin fast.

 

[Inchoroi]

Just as long as he doesn't have to loki over his shoulder for GM reprisal. That would get odin fast.

Blegh...my eyes hurt.

In all seriousness, however, I have a standing offer that if a player makes me groan in game with a pun, they can have Inspiration--but they must do it in character; out of character doesn't count. Its provided quite a lot of amusement for the party.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Fair enough, but sometimes DMs don't fully realize the long term consequences of allowing or introducing certain things into their campaigns. Can anyone think of any seemingly innocuous things that a DM might be likely to mistakenly introduce into a campaign that could cause power problems down the road? Combinations of magic items and spells, etc?

This one didn't cause serious problems (so far), but it did surprise me:

I started my current campaign off with the kingdom's main army getting wiped out, along with the royal wizard. The PCs took some items off his body to bring to the king, and the king let them keep the items when they signed on with him. Among those items was a Robe of the Neutral Archmagi, which (after some discussion) the barbarian donated to the wizard because he could actually use it, unlike the Death Cleric.

A short time later, during combat, some enemies decided to target the squishy wizard. At this point I discovered that the wizard had best-in-party armor: AC 18! (Due to AC 15 base from the Robe, and DX 16 from being an elf.) As a result, this particular wizard has been meleeing it up all campaign with Vampiric Touch/Grim Reaper in addition to the ubiquitous necrozombies.

So, that was a little bit of an unintended side-effect. It hasn't really caused a problem for the campaign, but it was something I hadn't fully thought through when I did it. At the time I was just thinking: 1.) It's logical that the court wizard would have powerful magic items inherited from his predecessors, and 2.) It will help them survive the first few levels. However, that particular item is going to remain highly relevant even at high levels.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

In all seriousness, however, I have a standing offer that if a player makes me groan in game with a pun, they can have Inspiration--but they must do it in character; out of character doesn't count. Its provided quite a lot of amusement for the party.

One of my friends might want to join your game. He revels in making terrible puns and the GM in our Fate game has started charging him a Fate Point for each groanworthy one he makes. Poor guy never has two Fate Points to rub together.

Update: I just told my friend about your rule, lamenting how he gets penalized by our campaign. His reply was,
"In a way, the pun-ishment is its own reward."

 

[Staffan]

Well, one obvious one is the Hammer of Thunderbolts, Gauntlets of Ogre Power, and Girdle of Giant Strength.

I'm not sure that counts as a trap, given that it's explicitly called out in the rules.

I'm sure an Oathbow can be abused (since it is already more powerful than a +5 bow), but I don't have my DMG in front of me.

Advantage is not equal to +5. The effective bonus depends on what you normally need to roll - if you need 11+, it's the same as +5. If you would normally need 16+, it's as if you had a +4 instead (you increase your chance of success from 25% to 44%). At the extreme end, if you need a natural 20, it's as if you had +1 (5% to 10%). On average, it's like +3.5, except not stacking.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

The fun thing is that items can be taken away as well as given. Powerful items are often desired by less-than-nice individuals who will go to great lengths to obtain them. Sometimes they have previous owners who want their rightful property back. Or the item stops working, or starts to exhibit strange properties, that make it less than ideal.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

To me, "rules lawyer" is not a pejorative--it just denotes someone with extensive knowledge of the rules. I am my table's resident rules lawyer and proud of it. The DM routinely consults me on tricky rules questions. Sometimes he overrules my interpretation, of course. That's fine. I'm the lawyer, but he's the judge.

The problem is the rules lawyers who can't seem to get it through their heads that there is a difference between "make an argument to the judge" and "argue with the judge."

Good post!

As a player I want to have simpatico with the DM on rules so that I can plan accordingly without confusion on either of our behalves. As such I'm not adverse to quoting the book from time to time to a DM who, to me, is not implementing it correctly as a reminder.

However I ALWAYS finish by saying, "If that's how you want to play it. If not, what do you want to do?"

This happened this week when a new DM wasn't straight on attacking from hiding. My rogue had successfully hidden behind an obstruction the previous turn and was in the process of a ranged attack. The DM said that attacking meant the rogue was no longer hidden and therefore wouldn't get the benefits of advantage to hit and sneak attack damage. I showed him the following from the rules...

"When a creature can’t see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it. If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."

So yes, the rogue got the benefit of being hidden and yes, they were then spottedwhen the attack hit - though he promptly moved and hid again. I didn't do this to be a smartass or jockey for unfair advantage, but to clarify how the rules are written and how that influences what my character does. The DM accepted the clarification and I wouldn't of wasted additional game time if they hadn't, but spoken with them afterwards about it to see if there was a compromise we could make for his game that would work for both of us.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm not sure that counts as a trap, given that it's explicitly called out in the rules.

Because it is called out in the rules (and is very overpowered), it's a trap. Some DMs might think it is ok to allow it precisely because it is allowed and even encouraged in the rules.

Advantage is not equal to +5. The effective bonus depends on what you normally need to roll - if you need 11+, it's the same as +5. If you would normally need 16+, it's as if you had a +4 instead (you increase your chance of success from 25% to 44%). At the extreme end, if you need a natural 20, it's as if you had +1 (5% to 10%). On average, it's like +3.5, except not stacking.

While it is true that advantage is not exactly equal to +5, it doesn't matter because most chances to hit will not show up in a game. It's close enough when talking about bounded accuracy and potential foes (+4.5 is closer to average). ACs are not evenly distributed. The chances of needing a natural 20 to hit a foe (especially at the level where a DM might hand out an Oathbow) are practically zero.

The typical average is better than 4 as per the following chart:

1	6	0.95	0.9375	4.75	0.05	0.0975	14	21.1625	10.58125
2	7	0.95	0.91	4.2	0.05	0.0975	14	20.6125	10.30625
3	8	0.9	0.8775	4.55	0.05	0.0975	13.275	19.9625	9.98125
4	9	0.85	0.84	4.8	0.05	0.0975	12.55	19.2125	9.60625
5	10	0.8	0.7975	4.95	0.05	0.0975	11.825	18.3625	9.18125
6	11	0.75	0.75	5	0.05	0.0975	11.1	17.4125	8.70625
7	12	0.7	0.6975	4.95	0.05	0.0975	10.375	16.3625	8.18125
8	13	0.65	0.64	4.8	0.05	0.0975	9.65	15.2125	7.60625
9	14	0.6	0.5775	4.55	0.05	0.0975	8.925	13.9625	6.98125
10	15	0.55	0.51	4.2	0.05	0.0975	8.2	12.6125	6.30625
11	16	0.5	0.4375	3.75	0.05	0.0975	7.475	11.1625	5.58125

12	17	0.45	0.36	3.2	0.05	0.0975	6.75	9.6125	4.80625
13	18	0.4	0.2775	2.55	0.05	0.0975	6.025	7.9625	3.98125
14	19	0.35	0.19	1.8	0.05	0.0975	5.3	6.2125	3.10625
15	20	0.3	0.0975	0.95	0.05	0.0975	4.575	4.3625	2.18125
16	21	0.25	0.0975	0.95	0.05	0.0975	3.85	4.3625	2.18125
17	22	0.2	0.0975	0.95	0.05	0.0975	3.125	4.3625	2.18125
18	23	0.15	0.0975	0.95	0.05	0.0975	2.4	4.3625	2.18125
19	24	0.1	0.0975	0.95	0.05	0.0975	1.675	4.3625	2.18125
20	25	0.05	0.0975	0.95	0.05	0.0975	0.95	4.3625	2.18125

The columns represent: Number need on dice with +5 Bow, Number need on dice with +0 Bow (or with Oathbow), Chance to hit +5 Bow, Chance to hit Oathbow, Oathbow plus equivalency (i.e. for a given chance to hit, what bonus of to hit equals the Oathbow), Chance to critical +5 Bow, Chance to critical Oathbow, DPR +5 Bow, DPR Oathbow, DPR Oathbow Piercing Resistance

So regardless of number needed to hit, an Oathbow normally does more damage than a +5 bow (unless going up against piercing damage resistance). I put a break in the chart where a PC without a magic weapon would need a 16 to hit. As a general rule, a DM will probably not throw foes at PCs if without magic weapons, they need a 17 or higher to hit. Typically, the equivalent bonus to hit for that range of numbers is about +4.5 or better unless one includes the unlikely to occur averages beyond that break.

But the important thing here is the DPR. A +5 Bow is nowhere near the DPR of an Oathbow. Granted, an Oathbow is one foe by day, but it will tend to be used against a really really tough foe. Instead of 50% more DPR, an Oathbow compared to the standard max damage +3 Bow is 90% or close to double damage. That's pretty potent.

And, of course, the way to more quickly defeat a foe that does have Piercing Magic Resistance with an Oathbow is to use +1 magic arrows.