D&D 5E Things that "need" errata

[DaveDash]

If you argued for hours, the problem is with the player not the rules. Even in the even of terrible, ungodly bad rules the player makes their case and accepts the DM's ruling then moved the eff on. Anything after that is on them and not the rules. At worst they can bring it up again after the game. Keeping arguing is indicative of not liking the ruling, of player entitlement, which wouldn't go away no matter how many disclaimers were worked into the stealth rules.

Stealth explicitly mentions it's up to the DM to make a call. It's right there in the rules. Saying it a second if third time is redundant.
This way DMs can let their players snipe repeatedly from behind a barrel if they want OR give them disadvantage to re-hide OR have them be detected and require extraordinary action to re-hide. They can choose what fits their game. (Or the individual encounter as skeletons might be fooled by a barrel but kobolds might not.)
Stealth is archetypal of there not being "one true way" to handle a game.

It's not a problem with the player, when the player is simply arguing what's in the book by RAW.

There's no such thing that states that stealth rules are in the hands of the DM. That's an assumption you have made based on one specific ruling, and your involvement with 5e through the years. Some of us just started playing the game straight from 3e, which was very much rules not rulings, and had nonexposure at all to the designers philosophy of 5e, and the whole rulings not rules thing. Not everyone reads WoTC blogs or tweets.

Its all washed over now, but it sucked at the time. Its horribly confusing for new players and DMs alike. I don't even care if they don't change the ruled at all, even if they simply fixed the layout that would make things way less confusing.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Never really looked at that power before and, damn, that's kinda awesome. No save and permanent. It's basically "create Renfield". And they make great spies since they can talk to you telepathically. Plus, the warlock is a Charisma based class, so they should be able to nail some checks with advantage.

It's supposed to be Create Renfield, but in RAW it's actually nothing like that due to Charmed not actually granting you any control.

 

[redrick]

Again, that rule is specific to approaching a creature. Not hiding around the same pillar/corner/barrel over and over, and gaining an effective +5 on all your attacks.

"You can’t hide from a creature that can see you ... if you come out of hiding ... a creature ... usually sees you"

I appreciate that this text is mixed in with text about approaching another creature, but you (on the behalf of your rogue player who just wants all the toys) are over-parsing the text.

The stealth rules break down when you try to put the linguistic analysis of the rules above common sense. The rules outline the 5e understanding of "common sense" on the issue, and then put it in the DM's hands to figure out.

Judging by the number of threads on the subject, I acknowledge that the explanation of 5e's stealth philosophy deserves a second attempt. That being said, all of the re-writes that I've seen attempted, and most of the issues that I've seen raised, make very little sense to me. But, sure, if Wizards wants to take a stab at it and they somehow come up with a piece of prose that convinces the rogue player at your table he can't just hide behind a barrel every turn, while not bogging folks like me down in a bunch of conditions, parameters, rules, corner cases, etc, great.

 

[DaveDash]

"You can’t hide from a creature that can see you ... if you come out of hiding ... a creature ... usually sees you"

I appreciate that this text is mixed in with text about approaching another creature, but you (on the behalf of your rogue player who just wants all the toys) are over-parsing the text.

The stealth rules break down when you try to put the linguistic analysis of the rules above common sense. The rules outline the 5e understanding of "common sense" on the issue, and then put it in the DM's hands to figure out.

Judging by the number of threads on the subject, I acknowledge that the explanation of 5e's stealth philosophy deserves a second attempt. That being said, all of the re-writes that I've seen attempted, and most of the issues that I've seen raised, make very little sense to me. But, sure, if Wizards wants to take a stab at it and they somehow come up with a piece of prose that convinces the rogue player at your table he can't just hide behind a barrel every turn, while not bogging folks like me down in a bunch of conditions, parameters, rules, corner cases, etc, great.

Heh. I disagree with your interpretation of that line.

The thing is 5e is like this anyway. Rules break down all over the place and you have to divorce yourself from RAW.

Sometimes I agree with this philosophy, sometimes I don't. I think there are a couple of rules they could clear up a bit more (passives and stealth), or even offer some Unearthed Arcana stuff on at least.

At the very least a reformat of stealth rules would be desirable, since it's all over the place in the book.

 

[pukunui]

I have to say that I haven't experienced any issues with the Stealth rules so far. I don't think they need any fixing. I definitely don't want to see something as complex and convoluted as either of 4e's attempts at writing rules for Stealth.

IMO, the exhaustion rules themselves are fine, when used for things like sleep deprivation. The problem is that most players encounter them via the barbarian's Frenzy ability, which makes them feel punitive.

Perhaps the game needs something to reflect short-term fatigue - the kind you get after running a mile, not after running a marathon. Perhaps something like this:

Winded: You are treated as if you had one additional level of exhaustion. You can remove this condition by taking a short rest. If you would become winded again while already winded, instead gain one level of exhaustion.

And then the barbarian ability (and possibly other things) could make you winded instead of giving you actual exhaustion.

Have a look at the chase rules in the DMG. If you use the Dash action more than your allotted number of times, you have to start making Con checks to avoid accruing exhaustion levels. Getting five levels of exhaustion doesn't kill you, though, and you can get rid of all the exhaustion after a short rest. This is very much treating exhaustion like being winded.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

The Urban Encounters table in the DMG p114 uses the d12+d8 weighted probability...but the entries are all just in alphabetical order rather than sorted by likelihood of occurrence.

That's an example of real errata that I hope to see, since the table doesn't work right now.

 

[Jester David]

It's not a problem with the player, when the player is simply arguing what's in the book by RAW.

There's no such thing that states that stealth rules are in the hands of the DM. That's an assumption you have made based on one specific ruling, and your involvement with 5e through the years. Some of us just started playing the game straight from 3e, which was very much rules not rulings, and had nonexposure at all to the designers philosophy of 5e, and the whole rulings not rules thing. Not everyone reads WoTC blogs or tweets.

Its all washed over now, but it sucked at the time. Its horribly confusing for new players and DMs alike. I don't even care if they don't change the ruled at all, even if they simply fixed the layout that would make things way less confusing.

The catch with rules is that it's really easy to be sucked down the "what if" hole.

Creatures that have cover can make Stealth checks to hide.
But... what if they're just using the same cover again and again. The Solid Snake box in the otherwise featureless room.
Well, in that case they can't make Stealth checks.
But... what if they dash from cover to cover and then make a Stealth check?
Well, then they'd make that check with disadvantage.
But... what if they distracted their opponent? Such as with a Bluff check?
Well, then if they succeeded on the ability contest they could make a Stealth check with advantage, or cancel out the penalty for re-hiding.
But... what if they readied to move an hide when the creature is being attacked by an ally and thus distracted?
Well, they might still have advantage on their check to hide.
But... what if the creature doesn't have eyes and senses movement through tremors in the ground? They still have cover but can still hide.
I imagine the cover wouldn't work then.
But... what if the creature used its hearing and not its sight? Perception is just a single skill but covers both listening and spotting. So the creature listens for the attack and motion, and thus negates the cover?
I guess that would work. but...
But what about shadows and light? If the source of light is to the side creatures could see the hidden creature's shadow and know they're there.
I suppose, but...
Oh, what if the rogue readies to distract with Bluff when the creature is attacked by an ally?
Umm....

A game will NEVER be able to cover all the situations and corner cases.
Stealth hasn't worked well in 3.X or 4e or Pathfinder (and they revised it in Pathfinder). And if the rules try to determine things free of DM adjudication you ends up with weirdness. Like in Pathfinder where you're considered "unobserved" so long as you end your turn concealed or behind cover. So you can step out from behind a wall, walk right up passed the fighter in plain sight and stab a dude in their face. And be hidden while doing so.

Stealth just has too many variables. It needs a thinking person behind the screen making reasonable calls.

 

[DaveDash]

The catch with rules is that it's really easy to be sucked down the "what if" hole.

Creatures that have cover can make Stealth checks to hide.
But... what if they're just using the same cover again and again. The Solid Snake box in the otherwise featureless room.
Well, in that case they can't make Stealth checks.
But... what if they dash from cover to cover and then make a Stealth check?
Well, then they'd make that check with disadvantage.
But... what if they distracted their opponent? Such as with a Bluff check?
Well, then if they succeeded on the ability contest they could make a Stealth check with advantage, or cancel out the penalty for re-hiding.
But... what if they readied to move an hide when the creature is being attacked by an ally and thus distracted?
Well, they might still have advantage on their check to hide.
But... what if the creature doesn't have eyes and senses movement through tremors in the ground? They still have cover but can still hide.
I imagine the cover wouldn't work then.
But... what if the creature used its hearing and not its sight? Perception is just a single skill but covers both listening and spotting. So the creature listens for the attack and motion, and thus negates the cover?
I guess that would work. but...
But what about shadows and light? If the source of light is to the side creatures could see the hidden creature's shadow and know they're there.
I suppose, but...
Oh, what if the rogue readies to distract with Bluff when the creature is attacked by an ally?
Umm....

A game will NEVER be able to cover all the situations and corner cases.
Stealth hasn't worked well in 3.X or 4e or Pathfinder (and they revised it in Pathfinder). And if the rules try to determine things free of DM adjudication you ends up with weirdness. Like in Pathfinder where you're considered "unobserved" so long as you end your turn concealed or behind cover. So you can step out from behind a wall, walk right up passed the fighter in plain sight and stab a dude in their face. And be hidden while doing so.

Stealth just has too many variables. It needs a thinking person behind the screen making reasonable calls.

I am not asking for rules to be piled on, I agree with you that you can't try and create a rule for everything in stealth.

This is what I am asking for.

1. Better organized. To start with the rules are poorly organized and scattered through the books. It was harder piecing it all together in the beginning. Someone at WoTC also likes having critical rules and bits of information in sidebars (Princes anyone?), which I don't think is the place for important information.
2. More emphasis on DM adjudication in the stealth rules, instead of just one line which is specific to approaching a creature.
3. I would have loved to see more clarity around stealth in the DMG, and I know I'm not alone in this. A couple of streams I watched expressed great dissatisfaction at the current rule set, and great dissatisfaction that the DMG did not contain any additional rulings on stealth. Instead we got rules for Lazer Rifles.
At least something in Jeremy's Sage Advice on Stealth, Rogues cunning action, and attacking would be great at some point, and would satisfy me, but a lot of people are completely unaware that WoTC is producing all this stuff on their site.

 

[Flamestrike]

Agree with the +2 archery bonus. However, warlocks have items that help with EB too. And pushing back 10' on every single attack is huge (if both sides are maxing their ranged at will). And a warlock can do this naked where the fighter is useless at range (and in general) without a weapon. All told they are darn comparable, and the warlock still has a number of invocations and spells available that can help (a fighter is pretty worthless against 2 dozen goblins. A warlock with a fireball isn't).

And at one point they are a lot better: levels 17-19. One more attack per round...

No, theyre not.

Assuming 18th level, all stats 20, no magic items vs AC 20:

Fighter +13, 1d6+5 (x3+B) (two hand crossbows, sharpshooter, crossbow master, archery style)
Warlock +11 1d10+5 (x4) Eldritch blast, hex, agonising blast, repelling blast, spell sniper)

Fighter, sharpsooter, 1 sup dice:
Roll/ avg damage
1-5 = 0 (miss)
6-11 = 19.5 (miss + precise attack turning miss into hit)
12-19 = 20 (hit + menacing attack)
20 = 35 (crit + menacing attack) 117+160

1st attack Damage: 15.6

Other attacks (2 + bonus):
1-11 = 0
12-19 = 18.5
20 = 22

Damage for attacks 2 and 3 vs AC 20: 8.5

Total damage with 1 superiority dice expended per round = 41.1 (And fear effect to stop foe moving closer to the archer)

Damage with 2 superiority dice per round: 47.2

Warlock:
Hex cast:
1-8 = 0
9-19 = 14
20 = 23

Damage per attack vs AC 20: 8.85 (x4)

Total damage with Hex cast per round = 35.4 (push target back 40')

Against AC 20, at 18th level, the Fighter still wins out against the Warlock in terms of sustained DPR. He also has 20 percent more AC and HP. If he can reasonably expect a short rest after the battle he can expend 2 superiority dice per round to be at 20 percent more damage as well.

Also dont forget the 18th level Fighter also has 2 x action surges to use in that time (roughly one per encounter as per standard encounter pacing, so the above single target DPR is actually much more in favor of the Fighter).

If we assume encounters at this level last 4 rounds, and we get 3 encounters per short rest:

VS AC 20:

Fighter:
R1 94.4 damage (action surge+4 dice)
R2: 47.2 damage (2 dice)
R3: 34 damage (no dice)
R4:34 damage

Encounter 2:
R1 75.4 (action surge + 1 dice)
R2: 34
R3: 34
R4: 34

Encounter 3:
R1:41.1 (one dice)
R2: 34
R3: 34
R4: 34

41.366 DPR

Warlock:
R1-4 35.4 damage

Encounter 2:
R1-4 35.4 damage

35.4 DPR

The Fighter deals about 15 percent more single target damage over the three combats, and has 20 percent better AC and HP. When he hits 20th level and gainst his 4th attack, his DPR over 3 x 4 round encounters goes up to 51.3 (nearly 50 percent better than that of the Warlock 20).

Factor in magical ammunition and weapons (which not only stack up to +6, but also add to both hit and damage, unlike rods of the pact keeper which only add to hit and require an attunement slot) and the numbers are considerably in favor of the Fighter.

 

[DaveDash]

No, theyre not.

Assuming 18th level, all stats 20, no magic items vs AC 20:

Fighter +13, 1d6+5 (x3+B) (two hand crossbows, sharpshooter, crossbow master, archery style)
Warlock +11 1d10+5 (x4) Eldritch blast, hex, agonising blast, repelling blast, spell sniper)

Fighter, sharpsooter, 1 sup dice:
Roll/ avg damage
1-5 = 0 (miss)
6-11 = 19.5 (miss + precise attack turning miss into hit)
12-19 = 20 (hit + menacing attack)
20 = 35 (crit + menacing attack) 117+160

1st attack Damage: 15.6

Other attacks (2 + bonus):
1-11 = 0
12-19 = 18.5
20 = 22

Damage for attacks 2 and 3 vs AC 20: 8.5

Total damage with 1 superiority dice expended per round = 41.1 (And fear effect to stop foe moving closer to the archer)

Damage with 2 superiority dice per round: 47.2

Warlock:
Hex cast:
1-8 = 0
9-19 = 14
20 = 23

Damage per attack vs AC 20: 8.85 (x4)

Total damage with Hex cast per round = 35.4 (push target back 40')

Against AC 20, at 18th level, the Fighter still wins out against the Warlock in terms of sustained DPR. He also has 20 percent more AC and HP. If he can reasonably expect a short rest after the battle he can expend 2 superiority dice per round to be at 20 percent more damage as well.

Also dont forget the 18th level Fighter also has 2 x action surges to use in that time (roughly one per encounter as per standard encounter pacing, so the above single target DPR is actually much more in favor of the Fighter).

If we assume encounters at this level last 4 rounds, and we get 3 encounters per short rest:

VS AC 20:

Fighter:
R1 94.4 damage (action surge+4 dice)
R2: 47.2 damage (2 dice)
R3: 34 damage (no dice)
R4:34 damage

Encounter 2:
R1 75.4 (action surge + 1 dice)
R2: 34
R3: 34
R4: 34

Encounter 3:
R1:41.1 (one dice)
R2: 34
R3: 34
R4: 34

41.366 DPR

Warlock:
R1-4 35.4 damage

Encounter 2:
R1-4 35.4 damage

35.4 DPR

The Fighter deals about 15 percent more single target damage over the three combats, and has 20 percent better AC and HP. When he hits 20th level and gainst his 4th attack, his DPR over 3 x 4 round encounters goes up to 51.3 (nearly 50 percent better than that of the Warlock 20).

Factor in magical ammunition and weapons (which not only stack up to +6, but also add to both hit and damage, unlike rods of the pact keeper which only add to hit and require an attunement slot) and the numbers are considerably in favor of the Fighter.

The problem is not strictly Fighter vs Warlock, although I still feel EB + Agnonizing Blast is still too strong. The Warlock also can take sharpshooter, or 1 level fighter dip for better AC and Archery Fighting Style.

The bigger problem is Fighter vs BladeLock, or to a lesser degree SorcLock.

A Human BladeLock (Fighter/Warlock) with Polearm Master and Warcaster can be a better fighter than the fighter (He can do 2xEB + AB most rounds), and still excel in the Social and Exploration pillar of the game. He/She can even easily get over their main hindrance - lack of dark vision.

Nerfing Agonizing Blast still makes the pure Warlock awesome fun to play, and doesn't make the Warlock 2 dip so ridiculously powerful for the BladeLock/SorcLock combinations.