D&D General Ignoring the rules!

[Reynard]

I feel like there are two different kinds of rules that people tend to ignore.

First, there are the rules that are fiddly and difficult and often obscure and/or poorly worded. They actively detract from play by grinding the game to a halt. In most cases, getting rid of these rules seems reasonable and even god.

Then there are the rules that are simply "unfun." Usually this translates roughly to "makes things harder for the players." I am less inclined to feel getting rid of these rules is a good idea. I mean, sure, the game is supposed to be fun, but that doesn't mean it is supposed to be easy. For example, concentration in 5E is "unfun" by many metrics, but ignoring it creates all kinds of other unfun outcomes (especially for the non full casters).

 

[I'm A Banana]

Cool. Greatsword, tower shield and staff of fire coming online!

Practially speaking, in 5e at least, action economy is the big limiter. RAW, a character could already drop a shield wielded in one hand, attack with their two-handed weapon, and then use their free item interaction to pick up their shield again. I'm just not bothering to make someone account for each stage of that process. The net effect is still that you get the benefits of both the big weapon and the shield. And casting a spell is of course an action you need to take instead of attacking - stowing your sword and retrieving your staff in my games is just part of using the staff (and vice versa).

 

[jmartkdr2]

Practially speaking, in 5e at least, action economy is the big limiter. RAW, a character could already drop a shield wielded in one hand, attack with their two-handed weapon, and then use their free item interaction to pick up their shield again. I'm just not bothering to make someone account for each stage of that process. The net effect is still that you get the benefits of both the big weapon and the shield. And casting a spell is of course an action you need to take instead of attacking - stowing your sword and retrieving your staff in my games is just part of using the staff (and vice versa).

Um, Akchewally - dropping or strapping on a shield is a whole action.

But they could drop a staff, swing a greatsword, and re-grab the staff ad nauseum RAW and the only downside would be if an enemy readied an action to make their life difficult.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Um, Akchewally - dropping or strapping on a shield is a whole action.

Stowing a shield takes an action.

Dropping a shield (or anything else in your hands) doesn't take an action, according to RAI and Jeremy's twitter, though I think RAW is silent about it.

And this is why I don't bother talking about exactly what's in your hands. What's in your hands? Whatever you want, bro, this is the most boring argument I can think of, I don't care, have +2 AC, it's worth it for the blessed ability to move the heck on from your dang digits.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Stowing a shield takes an action.

Dropping a shield (or anything else in your hands) doesn't take an action, according to RAI and Jeremy's twitter, though I think RAW is silent about it.

And this is why I don't bother talking about exactly what's in your hands. What's in your hands? Whatever you want, bro, this is the most boring argument I can think of, I don't care, have +2 AC, it's worth it for the blessed ability to move the heck on from your dang digits.

According to the Player's Handbook (pg 146), it's an action to doff a shield. So unless you were merely holding it (and only getting the magical bonus) ..

I mean, yeah - I really don't care either unless someone's being silly by trying to juggle a greatsword and shield or whatever - I'm pretty chill about spellcasting foci for gishy types because that doesn't cross my silly threshold. Much like the way I handle encumbrance: don't try to take everything that isn't nailed down and I won't ask you how you're carrying the stuff you did take.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't know if it qualifies, but I can't remember the last time that we cared about non-expensive material components

It doesn't qualify. 3.0 made non-expensive material components vestigial by means of the Spell Component Pouch. You just bought one and didn't have to worry about it. 4e instead used caster based Focuses. And 5e allows focuses and spell component pouches. You've been able to not care about non-expensive material components while playing 100% RAW for almost a quarter of a century.

 

[Neonchameleon]

All those of you who have said you ignore free hand(s) requirements for casting had better not be on the "casters are too powerful" wagon, as you're causing your own headaches here.

The reason casters are too strong isn't their in-combat performance that is more or less fine until the summons start flying. It's that they dominate out of combat - and those are situations where they almost always don't have their hands full.

That said there are three real spells that people should remember the somatic components and hand rules for.

• Shield should not stack with ordinary shields. On an unarmoured wizard it's fine; on a paladin in plate armour with a shield it gets ridiculous
• Spirit Guardians shouldn't be an area deletion spell but a tanking spell. And not allowing clerics to combine it with a shield keeps them getting hit. But even that still breaks when they attack with cantrips.
• Spiritual Weapon is an odd one. The "Cleric Extra Attack" doesn't take concentration and is a force multiplier.

 

[GrimCo]

Encumbrance and carry capacity are gone. We use common sense. Just cause something is not heavy it doesn't mean its not bulky.

Adventuring mundane knick knacks. You just take adventurers pack and be done with it. Yes, it has chalk and charcoal and piece of wax etc. If it has sense to be included in it, it is. Half page inventory of cheap mundane items is boring.

Experience points. Gone for years now. No unnecessary book keeping. PCs level up when appropriate.

Alignment - gone. It has no mechanical influence, even Protection spell doesn't target alignment but specific type of creatures. Also, i strongly prefer shades of grey morality.

 

[Reynard]

PCs level up when appropriate.

For anything other than a linear, plotted adventure path, this is my least favorite modern rule /culture change. First of all, why does the GM just get to decide when it is appropriate? Send, why can't I as a player choose my level of risk versus reward?

 

[TwoSix]

For anything other than a linear, plotted adventure path, this is my least favorite modern rule /culture change. First of all, why does the GM just get to decide when it is appropriate? Send, why can't I as a player choose my level of risk versus reward?

Modern D&D isn't really risky, but generally "more chance of character death" should equal "better loot".