D&D 5E Deal Breakers - Or woah, that is just too much

[Iry]

3. Making sure on the hand rules --> That's also something I would do myself. Rules are rules. If it was established that you hold a torch and a sword when initiative is rolled you can't start the combat with a shield. Even worse, you need to use a whole action to equip the shield, so you are probably better off not using a shield this combat at all. That should just be a lesson learned and next time the groups gets the Wizard or someone else who doesn't use shields to hold the torch.

The Torch/Shield/Sword situation is a good example of the cardinal rules of gaming.

First Cardinal Rule -- "Does this increase the fun?"
Second Cardinal Rule -- "Does this make the story more interesting?"

As a DM, I would ask what I stood to gain from standing by such a ruling in that situation. Have I increased the fun for my players? Have I increased the fun for myself? Have I postponed fun right now in exchange for greater fun later? Sometimes the first cardinal rule fails but the second picks up the slack. Did the story become more interesting because of this ruling?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's called "advice" for a reason, because there's not really meant to be a "global understanding" of the rules, it's only meant to help DMs who can't figure out how to rule on a particular issue by themselfes. This is a game of "rulings, not rules".

Yep. Rya is understanding it in precisely the opposite way in which it is intended.

In 4E, we had errata, not Sage Advice (well, maybe we had both, but mostly we had errata). They literally changed and clarified the rules. This was great in some ways, but it is explicitly NOT how 5E works. SA's rulings are not final, you, as the DM of your game can happily ignore them. Good thing too as quite a lot of them are pretty stupid interpretations of the rules (as it was with Sage Advice in 2E, too, I recall - nowhere near as bad as 2E admittedly).

 

[Pickles III]

It's called "advice" for a reason, because there's not really meant to be a "global understanding" of the rules, it's only meant to help DMs who can't figure out how to rule on a particular issue by themselfes. This is a game of "rulings, not rules".

It was called "advice" in the RAW from on high days of 3e too. Just saying'

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It was called "advice" in the RAW from on high days of 3e too. Just saying'

True dat, but 5E has been explicit that they don't intend SA that way, and it's rulings not rules and so on. It may change of course. I have a feeling the SA guy would LIKE to dictate rules interpretation.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

I'm sure somewhere in Sage Advice Jeremy said that Sage Advice doesn't change rules it just clarifies existing rules on how they intended to be understood.
Certainly Jeremy often says himself that you don't have to strictly adhere to these rules and admits he doesn't always do so either, but if you want ONE truth, and the rules aren't clear, then Sage Advice is the closest to the truth you can get.

First Cardinal Rule -- "Does this increase the fun?"
Second Cardinal Rule -- "Does this make the story more interesting?"

How about "Makes combat more interesting"?

Because I think the hand rules (and also the somatic/material rules) add to the strategy. You have to strategically decide who carries the torch. For me that clearly makes it more interesting.

And how fun it is for players it up to how well the DM handles the situation.

 

[steeldragons]

Yeah. I don't know where these "Cardinal Rules" come from. But I'm glad the two Iry uses are the ones that produce fun for him/her.

 

[Ganymede81]

"Paladorcs"?

That's an orc paladin. I think he was referring to old 1e restrictions on class and race combinations that would preclude orc paladins, dwarven wizards, and dragonborn anything.

 

[KahlessNestor]

While I don't have any real deal breakers, I do have pet peeves.

I like RAW and not house rules. Part of this is my inner rules lawyer. But mostly it's that I know what to expect. It's the only real control I have in the game, especially with 5e. I love 5e because the rules are so simple that anyone can pretty much have system mastery after a little while. This is what I control vs. everything else the DM controls. To sit at the table ten sessions in and be told, "No, that's not the way that Force power works in MY universe" irks me. Thank you, DM, for invalidating my entire character.

As for Sage Advice, I have philosophical problems with it. Your job was to put together a coherent, clear rules source so that all I need when I sit down at the table is my PHB and some dice. I shouldn't need to memorize 3 million tweets and 30 pages of errata and FAQ in order to play. That just means you failed in the job you were paid to do. So Crawford and Mearls can give all the sage advice they want, but I'm not following them on twitter or checking the website each day for just what other rules they messed up. Adventure League doesn't even consider Sage Advice to be legal. They just had a thread over there crapping all over his recent Cutting Words ruling.

 

[cmad1977]

Ooh, Ooh, I forgot one.

Players who don't break character when dealing with other players.

Barbarian get's knocked out and he has the only magical weapon in the party, while we are fighting a creature that requires magical weapons to harm. Another character picks up the enchanted axe, defeats the monster, and we tend to the Barbarian's wounds.

The Barbarian's player has been quiet the whole time, until his character regains consciousness. He then flies into a rage, because someone else took his axe. Not "my character flies into a rage when he discovers his axe missing", he stood up shaking his fists and started yelling about his axe, looking like the Ultimate Warrior psyching himself up for a match. He would not break character, and did not calm down until he got his axe back.

We 'forgot' to call him and let him know when future gaming sessions were after that incident.

Haha. Yeah, people who don't respect the meta-game are a problem for me too.

 

[Mouseferatu]

That's an orc paladin. I think he was referring to old 1e restrictions on class and race combinations that would preclude orc paladins, dwarven wizards, and dragonborn anything.

Why would them having not been allowed in prior editions have any impact on a hypothetical 5E campaign? I is confused.