D&D 5E Little rules changes that still trip you up

[Rya.Reisender]

I keep forgetting about Concentration too, but that's not because I'm used to other rulesets. I really need to start giving out "Concentration Hats", so players that have a character that is currently concentrating has a hat on.

Fumble can be good or bad. It increases the comedic value of the game, but reduces realism.

 

[Arial Black]

Fumble can be good or bad. It increases the comedic value of the game, but reduces realism.

Yeah, I'm not seeing how I can view being more likely to chop my on head off because I'm 'really good' at combat as something that could be 'good or bad'.

 

[KahlessNestor]

When I did fumbles, I made them fairly weak. At most, you might hit your ally. Usually I just imposed disadvantage on your next roll. Still haven't decided how I loked it. The fighter did down the monk, though the monk was covered in a rat swarm...

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

[SkidAce]

There are still DMs who 'celebrate' natural 1's with a fumble, despite it never being the rule in any edition of D&D!

It turns the most experienced fighters into laughing stocks, 'fumbling' far more often than inexperienced combatants, just because the more attacks you have the more opportunities for a nat 1. A guy who's such an amazing fighter that he gets 5 attacks every six seconds is likely to cut his own head off twice a minute, when it would take an hour for a peasant to lose his head.

Meanwhile, those magic-types who are messing with Forces Man Was Not Meant To Know, cast spell after spell with nary a hiccup (unless the spell has an attack roll; easy to avoid).

I hate 'fumble' (house)rules.

Tell us how you really feel.

 

[Flamestrike]

Yes, I'm having this issue with my Roll20 game. We just reached level 4 and I wanted my thief to take dual-wielder instead of an ASI so that he can use Rapier/dagger and get two attacks each turn (or continue to use my BA to disengage). The DM says no. I can _use_ two weapons, but only attack twice if I have some ability that allows two attacks (like monk/paladin/fighter/ranger).

I'm not gonna rules-lawyer on him, so I just let it slide. I play to have fun and I can still have fun without the two weapons.

Confused.

If you want to use your BA to disengage, you cant use it to attack with your offhand weapon.

Your DM is correct.

 

[Flamestrike]

But not necessarily as a threat.

Sigh. Are you being deliberately obtuse on this, or are we talking past each other somehow? I'm not sure how much clearer I can explain it...

Maybe some examples?

You have hust succeeded in bedding the princess and are comfortably ensconced beside the comely maiden in her luxurious bed. She leans over you and smiles, coming to kiss you, and pulls a dagger from beneath the pillow, plunging it at your chest. You are Surprised.

Or maybe she shifts into a hag. It doesn't matter. She is a threat you didn't perceive because this is unexpected behavior from a princess you just spent a passionate moment with! Tou are literally caught with your pants down.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

I'd rule the same.

But in a general sense, percieving a potential threat is all it takes.

 

[Lanliss]

Confused.

If you want to use your BA to disengage, you cant use it to attack with your offhand weapon.

Your DM is correct.

There is an "or" at the beginning of those parentheses. In this case, the DM seems to be saying "unless your class explicitly has extra attacks, you cannot attack twice", which is wrong.

 

[Flamestrike]

There is an "or" at the beginning of those parentheses. In this case, the DM seems to be saying "unless your class explicitly has extra attacks, you cannot attack twice", which is wrong.

He's explicitly a 4th level Rogue. He cant attack twice as an action. Dual Weilder feat or no.

I mean he can use his bonus action and his action to do so, but then he isnt disengaging with cunning action.

His DM is right.

 

[Lanliss]

He's explicitly a 4th level Rogue. He cant attack twice as an action. Dual Weilder feat or no.

I mean he can use his bonus action and his action to do so, but then he isnt disengaging with cunning action.

His DM is right.

The DM is not letting him use his BA to attack, regardless of whether he has two weapons. What I meant when I said there was an "or" is that, how I read it, the Player was hoping to be able to either attack with his BA or disengage with his BA, but the DM will not allow the first, making the Dual wielded feat useless for the Player.

 

[akr71]

Confused.

If you want to use your BA to disengage, you cant use it to attack with your offhand weapon.

Your DM is correct.

Yes, that is obvious. Its an either/or situation - I get one BA which can be used to disengage or attack. Except my DM has stated that the BA cannot be used to attack - I must have an ability which allows 2 attacks when I choose the Attack for my Action.

Edit: Yes, what [MENTION=6801219]Lanliss[/MENTION] said