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

[Corwin]

No, because none of those things were causing problems at my table. I do make them wear ball gags in order to curb their pathetic attempts at argumentum ad absurdum though. I find there's nothing worse than a sad attempt at argumentum ad absurdum, don't you?

That depends on how silly the original argument was that the AAA was leveled against, one supposes. After all, doing something in the name of curbing that vile, immersion-ruining bugaboo known as metagaming, yet continuing to allow countless other aspects of the game that foster it, seems a bit Don Quiote-ish, ifyouaskme. Or maybe just obtusely and myopically selective. *shrug*

 

[hejtmane]

5E's been out for a while now, and I find there are still a few sneaky/hidden changes from earlier editions that still trip me (or my players) up. Small details that really aren't that complicated, but simply because they're different, I have a hard time remembering. Things like

*Natural 20 and natural 1 are no longer auto-success or auto-failure on saving throws.

*Casting a spell or firing a ranged weapon in melee range no longer draw opportunity attacks.

I'm sure I can't be the only one, so I'm curious what other tiny little rules details like this still make you guys stumble.

Except my house rules auto 1 are still auto fail and 20 are auto sucess I just can not let that go from my D&D and AD&D1e days

I do not even remember opprutinity attacks back when I played I blame it on age

 

[nexalis]

Double-post

 

[nexalis]

That depends on how silly the original argument was that the AAA was leveled against, one supposes. After all, doing something in the name of curbing that vile, immersion-ruining bugaboo known as metagaming, yet continuing to allow countless other aspects of the game that foster it, seems a bit Don Quiote-ish, ifyouaskme. Or maybe just obtusely and myopically selective. *shrug*

So your contention is basically that, if you have a bunch of problems, and you can't address all of them, don't bother to address just those that are having the greatest negative impact on your games. So, for instance, if I'm developing a software product, and I can't fix all of the bugs, I shouldn't bother to fix any of the bugs, because that would be like tilting at windmills, or "obtusely, myopically selective", as you so put it. I find that, in general, when using AAA, you probably want to make sure that your own position isn't so easily reduced to the absurd.

Finally, did I ever claim to have additional metagame problems in my games? Was it implied in anything I said? Or is that just a strawman of your own devising?

I think we're done here, though you'll undoubtedly want the last word, which I'll let you have, because it will make you feel better.

 

[Corwin]

Double-post

I hate that. Don't you? So obnoxious.

 

[thalmin]

I hate that. Don't you? So obnoxious.

Almost as much as obnoxious as threadjacking.

 

[Corwin]

Almost as much as obnoxious as threadjacking.

Which in turn is almost as obnoxious as too many 'as'es.

 

[Arial Black]

I draw a division between meta knowledge and character knowledge when I have my players play. In this case though I can see an argument for allowing the assassin to be aware of which guards might be more aware of their surroundings vs. guards who are not paying attention at all (i.e., those that are fully surprised on his turn vs. those that aren't). I don't think that presents any meta knowledge problems for me. But yes, when I DM I do set up cards (folded blank index cards) showing everyone's initiative clipped to the DM's screen, so that my players will be aware of when their turn is coming up. (It helps my players prepare their action ahead of time and prevents extra lag in the game, plus other benefits like making sure no one gets skipped.)

When I DM I roll in the open, unless the PCs couldn't see what's happening.

In this case, I reveal each NPC's place in the initiative order, but only when that NPC actually does something that can be perceived by the PCs.

By the end of round two, it's all in the open.

 

[green_destiny]

Well we deliberately STILL celebrate on natural 20's and groan on natural 1's. We have no intention on removing this.

 

[Arial Black]

Well we deliberately STILL celebrate on natural 20's and groan on natural 1's. We have no intention on removing this.

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.