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

[KahlessNestor]

You aren't. You don't determine surprise in a social interaction. You determine surprise at the start of combat. What I said that you are responding to is that you are already in combat when surprise is determined. The person you were negotiating with is a threat because she is trying to put a dagger into you. Are you surprised? As per the rules, no, because you already noticed her when the two of you were talking.

How are you aware of it if you're not expecting it?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

[Hriston]

How are you aware of it if you're not expecting it?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

I'm not sure if I understand you, but I think this may be at the root of the difference in interpretation. I'm assuming that by "it" you mean a threat, and because you've used a neuter pronoun I assume that you aren't talking about the person you've been engaged in conversation with. So just what constitutes a threat? To me, a threat is always a creature with which you are about to be engaged in combat. In the case of a negotiation that turns into combat, the threat is the NPC that is trying to stab you with a dagger. She has obviously already been noticed because you were having a conversation with her just a moment before. But from your question here, you seem to be saying that the dagger is a threat, or that the NPC's next move is a threat. I don't know how the rules cope with such an interpretation, but it differs from mine. My understanding is that the NPC herself is the threat, and she has been noticed. It doesn't matter whether the PCs consider her to be a threat before she attacks. She quite literally is a threat, and the PCs are quite literally aware of her.

 

[akr71]

For some reason a table I play at has a problem with dual wielding.

Rules state anyone can dual wield by using a BA to attack with the offhand so long as both weapons are light (assuming no Dual Wielder Feat).

The trident and whip combo one player dreamed up was 'corrected' out of game by DM and player, to have instead a Glaive and a Hand axe.

doh.

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.

 

[akr71]

Another one that kept tripping me (as a DM) and my wife (as a player) was wizard spells. We were still thinking of strict Vancian casting. She was trying to 'prepare' a spell multiple times (like magic missile) instead of preparing it once and casting it until you run out of slots.

We've got that one sorted out now though.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

I am not sure that this is rules lawyering... maybe show him the page in the basic rules that explain dual wielding while not in the game. Just don't do it during a session.

IMO rules lawyering really starts when your DM pulls a move with an NPC you think is not allowed. Like dual concentration or so. You never know what is going on behind the screen.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I'm quite bad at forgetting Reactions for any monster. What surprised me about the Monster/NPC Parry, is how different it is to the Fighter's one. I think I'd prefer the Fighter's one to the Monster one as well. It'd come into effect more often as I have had the same problem as Remathilis.

One of the few rules niggles I've found PCs getting wrong/confused about is Proficiency - what you add it to, and what you don't. The other related rule is that Proficiency goes up based on Total level, whereas ASI's are based on specific class level. That was only worked out when people realised the Fighter had more ASIs than anyone else.

enemy parry is defensive duelist under a different name with any weapon you like or a shield.

 

[KahlessNestor]

I'm not sure if I understand you, but I think this may be at the root of the difference in interpretation. I'm assuming that by "it" you mean a threat, and because you've used a neuter pronoun I assume that you aren't talking about the person you've been engaged in conversation with. So just what constitutes a threat? To me, a threat is always a creature with which you are about to be engaged in combat. In the case of a negotiation that turns into combat, the threat is the NPC that is trying to stab you with a dagger. She has obviously already been noticed because you were having a conversation with her just a moment before. But from your question here, you seem to be saying that the dagger is a threat, or that the NPC's next move is a threat. I don't know how the rules cope with such an interpretation, but it differs from mine. My understanding is that the NPC herself is the threat, and she has been noticed. It doesn't matter whether the PCs consider her to be a threat before she attacks. She quite literally is a threat, and the PCs are quite literally aware of her.

Just because you are aware of a person does not make them a threat. Unless you're paranoid. So them drawing the dagger doesn't mean you perceive the threat just because you see the person.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

[Hriston]

But you're not in combat with it and it in fact not expected to be attacked by you at all, hence the surprise.

I guess I wasn't clear enough. What I was trying to say is that when the DM determines surprise, she is well aware of who is a threat and who is not. If someone doesn't pose a threat in the opinion of the DM then that creature doesn't need to be considered. As a DM, I would certainly consider the party a threat to any creature they are attacking. Then the question becomes, has the party been noticed by those to whom they pose a threat? If they are in the open, having a conversation, then the answer is most definitely yes! What I object to is that your interpretation relies on saying the PCs are not a threat when they have, by their very actions, proven (to the DM) that they are.

 

[akr71]

I am not sure that this is rules lawyering... maybe show him the page in the basic rules that explain dual wielding while not in the game. Just don't do it during a session.

IMO rules lawyering really starts when your DM pulls a move with an NPC you think is not allowed. Like dual concentration or so. You never know what is going on behind the screen.

I might. Another one of the players started to correct the DM too, but then stopped once he realized I seemed OK with his ruling. This is all online, so none of us really know each other that well. Right now I'm taking the view that these are the DM's house rules - I've got lots of time between now & level 8 (my next ASI) to point it out to him.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

Get a mini. Put it on the PHB two weapon fighting page. Photo. Send. "Check out my mini". What's that in the background...?