D&D 5E Arcane Rules- What is your favorite "hidden" rule in 5e?

[Phantarch]

I'm not sure if I want to know more, or I will be terrified of the answer.

Is it a magnetic power? Do people feel strangely attracted to the potato? Is it like a restaurant where everyone is like, "The food sucks, the portions are small, and the service is rude- can't wait to go again!"

I'm confuddled.

I'm definitely confuddled BECAUSE I know him. Our group has discussed multiple times how we'd prefer not to play with him because he constantly derails our games with childish, irrational decisions and ridiculous bravado that makes it difficult to roleplay our own character, but it always ends with "but it's HIM, we like HIM." We constantly have drawn-out arguments with him horribly defending his point with the most broken logic and not ever being able to see the merit of a good counter argument (kind of like a living, breathing internet forum), but you walk away from it just sort of chuckling and smiling instead of feeling like punching him. He is just inexplicably LIKEABLE!

If I were to try to pinpoint it, I would say it's all just personality. He always has a ready, contagious laugh. He's unflappably optimistic and cheery. He always is willing to give you the shirt off his back (if only he'd play his characters that way).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

So, I was thinking about rules and how we all enjoy pleasant discussions of them. And it had me thinking back to when I prided myself on my rules-mastery.* And the intricacies of the deep Gygaxian prose led to all sorts of neat rules that people had various levels of familiarity with. I was specifically thinking about the rules involving Assassins and poison buried in the 1e DMG.

So, I was going to throw it out for general conversation. What is the most interesting, entertaining, crazy, or thought-provoking rule / whatever you have found buried in 5e? This can be an optional rule, or a base rule, or it could be something that (in your estimation) causes a bizarre conflict.**




*Back in the day. Now, I'm much more of a, "Eh, that sounds good"-type of DM.

**Disintegrate and druids do not count. Period. Whatever your opinion is, it's a good one.

I enjoy the fact that Darkness and Invisibility make you immune to all sorts of things, from Beholder eye-rays to Counterspell to opportunity attacks.

I also enjoy the fact that shoving a mount prone makes the rider fall off, with the possibility to fall prone as well.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The thread title is about hidden rules, so I gave my opinion on that.

Alright, let's take an example then, eh? Specifically, mine: Grapple and Prone. Grappling is covered in the "Actions in Combat" section, which is the wisest place to put it since that's where it occurs. It specifies all rules regarding how to Grapple, and makes reference to Appendix A for the associated condition, "Grappled" (as all conditions are so referenced, if they are referenced at all). "Prone" is covered a couple of pages earlier under the heading "Being Prone," with a direct reference made to Appendix A as well. It would be implausible to explain conditions everywhere that they appear, or even most of the places they appear, so it is generally pretty wise to keep the appendix and use references whenever conditions come up. Thus, it would seem to meet all of your conditions for not being a "hidden" rule: it doesn't suffer from a typo or inaccuracy; it is fairly well-organized; and it is fully explained in a single text, without need for severe cross-referencing or the like.

So...does this count as a "hidden" rule under your definition? It certainly counts as one for Lowkey and for me. If it doesn't count as one for you, then it would seem the issue is that you don't like using the word "hidden" for describing all of the things Lowkey wanted to talk about. (Some of them, certainly, but I would argue that they're the minority, though of course that is a matter of debate and interpretation.)

 

[delericho]

Alright, let's take an example then, eh?

Sorry, but no. lowkey13 has indicated a preference that the thread be about cool hidden rules, and not my distaste for them in general, and I'd rather respect that than derail it further. So, with apologies, I'll bow out at this point.

 

[Phantarch]

I don't know that it qualifies as truly hidden or amazing, but when I first read the player's handbook, coming from 3.5, I had a "Whoa!" moment when I realized that Shield Dwarves automatically got armor proficiency and the only requirement to cast spells in armor was proficiency, so a Dwarf could be a straight Wizard in medium armor. I thought that was cool at first. Probably because I had a 3.5 era dwarf that went through a ton of shenanigans to be able to cast spells in Full Plate (Runecaster prestige class, I believe.)

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[darjr]

Wrong but oh so good!

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Phantarch]

Yeah, I started later in life and began with 3.5, so I'm used to the mix-n-match philosophy (I have one of those mothers that still thinks D&D = Satan Worship, so my youthful experience with D&D was secretly playing video games and reading 2e books by flashlight after my parents fell asleep, but I digress). I figured if RA Salvatore could have a Dwarven "Doodad", I could make a dwarven wizard.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*