D&D 5E Rules We Have Been Doing Wrong This Whole Time

[Stormonu]

Surprise is the one I’ve seen get people who’ve played older editions. I’ve seen them give the surprising side a free round, then roll initiative. Instead, you’re supposed to roll initiative normally, and surprised individuals can‘t do anything in the first round. This has a BIG effect on assassin rogues.

 

[Seramus]

Ah. I haven't made that mistake myself, maybe because it is a new mechanic so I had to actually read it?

Famously, Matt Colville once said he has never read the 5E DMG. I think more than a few DMs don't read it, or only read the important sections, relying on their raw DM'ing chops to carry the day. And it often succeeds!

 

[payn]

I guess flaming sphere ramming people. Never used it that way.

 

[Reynard]

Famously, Matt Colville once said he has never read the 5E DMG. I think more than a few DMs don't read it, or only read the important sections, relying on their raw DM'ing chops to carry the day. And it often succeeds!

Yeah, that stuff really irritates me because a lot of times those same folks are the ones to complain about this or that is broken/a bad rule/whatever.

 

[Mannahnin]

Also that you roll 1d4 per magic missile, when in fact you only roll 1d4 (+1) and each missile does the same damage.

This interpretation requires using the rules for spells which do damage to multiple targets, which are primarily for area effects. And one could reasonably assume would not apply to any spell targeting only a single creature.

For me, the fact that this interpretation would mean that Magic Missile rolls a different number of dice and has significantly different odds of various damage totals depending on whether it's cast targeting a single foe or multiple targets seems indicative that applying the rule for area effect spells is an error.

 

[Mannahnin]

Ah. I haven't made that mistake myself, maybe because it is a new mechanic so I had to actually read it?

I could swear "only one long (or the equivalent, in 3.x) rest per 24 hours" rule is in all the WotC editions, at least. I thought it was in 2E, too. I was surprised a few years ago when someone pointed out that it's not part of 1E, which has much more complex and granular rules for spell casters resting and regaining spells.

 

[Dioltach]

Pretty reasonable. Otherwise, you could do negative damage (such as with an attack that gets -2 as a modifier) and heal the target as you hit them.

Just picture it as an encouraging pat on the shoulder that makes them feel better about themselves.

 

[Reynard]

I could swear "only one long (or the equivalent, in 3.x) rest per 24 hours" rule is in all the WotC editions, at least. I thought it was in 2E, too. I was surprised a few years ago when someone pointed out that it's not part of 1E, which has much more complex and granular rules for spell casters resting and regaining spells.

I don't ever recall articulating it the way 5E did. It was just 1/day or whatever and I sometimes had players choose their "ding" time -- it wasn't actually related to "rest" at all.

 

[Jer]

Famously, Matt Colville once said he has never read the 5E DMG. I think more than a few DMs don't read it, or only read the important sections, relying on their raw DM'ing chops to carry the day. And it often succeeds!

I mean, the "only 1 long rest every 24 hours" rule is in the PHB where rests are defined. The DMG has the alternative resting rules that reduce long rests down to an hour if you choose to go that route.

I think the reason why the DMG is so rarely read is because it's become unnecessary. All of the actual game rules are in the PHB these days. I think the the only things you "need" from the DMG in 5e are the encounter building guidelines and the treasure stuff (notably the magic items). Just about everything else falls into the categories of "optional rules ideas" or "advice on how to be a DM". A far cry from the days of 1e when the DMG had the rules on things like how to roll attributes during character creation and the table of what you needed to roll to hit various ACs.

My controversial pitch is that at some point they need to break with tradition and put out just a Player's Handbook and a Manual of Monsters and Treasure. Move the encounter building and treasure stuff into the Monster Manual, reduce the number of "required" books to 2, and acknowledge that the Dungeon Master's Guide is an optional source book not a real requirement these days.

 

[James Gasik]

It doesn't help that WotC, realizing DM facing books don't sell, doesn't make them. Instead, if you want to learn how to DM, you must learn by doing, get guidance from someone who is already a DM, or get advice from YouTube, Reddit (shivers), or TikTok (the horror!).

 

[TwoSix]

Some people let a Nat 20 always succeed even outside of combat.

If a 20 doesn't succeed, why was anyone even rolling?

 

[Reynard]

If a 20 doesn't succeed, why was anyone even rolling?

Maybe everyone was making the save or check and rather than slow things down the GM just asked for everyone's results. Especially in 5E, even a DC 24 could be impossible for one PC and within bounds for another.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

One that we discovered about 6 months ago:

A ranged attack on any target is made with disadvantage if there is an enemy* within 5' of you.
We used to think it was disadvantage only against a target that was within 5' of you.

(a enemy that is not "invisible and wanting to remain hidden", that is )

 

[Jer]

It doesn't help that WotC, realizing DM facing books don't sell, doesn't make them. Instead, if you want to learn how to DM, you must learn by doing, get guidance from someone who is already a DM, or get advice from YouTube, Reddit (shivers), or TikTok (the horror!).

But DMs are the ones who are buying the bulk of the material they make - which is why most of the books they make are DM facing adventures or mixed books with both player and DM stuff in them.

What doesn't sell are tutorial books outside of Starter Sets. Because the bulk of players don't think they need to buy them. Heck the bulk of DMs don't seem to read the one DM facing book that actually has a lot of good advice in it on how to be a DM - the DMG.

 

[James Gasik]

But DMs are the ones who are buying the bulk of the material they make - which is why most of the books they make are DM facing adventures or mixed books with both player and DM stuff in them.

What doesn't sell are tutorial books outside of Starter Sets. Because the bulk of players don't think they need to buy them. Heck the bulk of DMs don't seem to read the one DM facing book that actually has a lot of good advice in it on how to be a DM - the DMG.

Well that's what I meant by DM facing material. Yes, adventures are also DM facing material, but the game really does need better teaching materials for new DM's, and even us older ones can use more clarification or guidance on how to run the game, advice on how/why/when to use optional rules modules or how to make rulings.

Sure, nobody is going to buy them, but that doesn't mean there isn't a need. It just means there isn't a profit.

 

[billd91]

Just picture it as an encouraging pat on the shoulder that makes them feel better about themselves.

 

[el-remmen]

Famously, Matt Colville once said he has never read the 5E DMG

While I have referenced them as needed, I have not read a DMG since 2E days. . . In fact, I'm even considering not even bothering to buy the DMG for any future editions.

 

[Stalker0]

That the delay action doesn't actually exist in 5th. The part about nat 20s on saving I had missed for a long time.

 

[James Gasik]

Yeah, and the reasons for not allowing you to delay seem....dubious. So instead, you're forced to figure out a trigger for a reaction that might let you do something later in the turn as opposed to right now.

For example, let's say you're a Cleric. You roll good on initiative. This means that you can't wait to see if anyone gets hurt to walk over and heal them. You have to try and set a trigger that would let you do it later in the turn.

Or do something completely different this turn. Which may be a better option, tactically, but it's hard to tell, since you don't know what the enemy is going to do between your turn and the next one. Which kind of makes winning initiative "bad" at times.

 

[Reynard]

Yeah, and the reasons for not allowing you to delay seem....dubious. So instead, you're forced to figure out a trigger for a reaction that might let you do something later in the turn as opposed to right now.

For example, let's say you're a Cleric. You roll good on initiative. This means that you can't wait to see if anyone gets hurt to walk over and heal them. You have to try and set a trigger that would let you do it later in the turn.

Or do something completely different this turn. Which may be a better option, tactically, but it's hard to tell, since you don't know what the enemy is going to do between your turn and the next one. Which kind of makes winning initiative "bad" at times.

You should be able to use an action to reset your initiative if the game sues a static order.