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

[Seramus]

For stealth, I do the group check as:

Enemy PP is 18, so the DC is 18.
Entire party rolls stealth.
Three pass, two fail.
Entire party sneaks by.

OR

Two pass, three fail?
The enemy notices you!

That's not including all the possible modifiers like enemies being distracted, different lighting, etc.

 

[Seramus]

Darkvision does not say, according to the SRD, anything about seeing better in dim light.

That's a known goof that got errata'd. You can find the correct text under entries like Dwarf or the beginning of the Monstrous Manual.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Darkvision does not say, according to the SRD, anything about seeing better in dim light.

"Within a specified range, a creature with darkvision can see in darkness as if the darkness were dim light, so areas of darkness are only lightly obscured as far as that creature is concerned. However, the creature can’t discern color in darkness, only shades of gray"

That's a known goof that got errata'd. You can find the correct text under entries like Dwarf or the beginning of the Monstrous Manual.

Huh, strange thing for the SRD to miss. Both the PHB and the Basic Rules have had it complete from the start:

"Many creatures in fantasy gaming worlds, especially those that dwell underground, have darkvision. Within a specified range, a creature with darkvision can see in dim light as if it were bright light and in darkness as if it were dim light, so areas of darkness are only lightly obscured as far as that creature is concerned. However, the creature can't discern color in that darkness, only shades of gray."

 

[Reynard]

Huh, strange thing for the SRD to miss. Both the PHB and the Basic Rules have had it complete from the start:

"Many creatures in fantasy gaming worlds, especially those that dwell underground, have darkvision. Within a specified range, a creature with darkvision can see in dim light as if it were bright light and in darkness as if it were dim light, so areas of darkness are only lightly obscured as far as that creature is concerned. However, the creature can't discern color in that darkness, only shades of gray."

My guess is WotC never updated the SRD. Sometimes I really, really HATE that they don't treat it like Paizo does.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Darkvision does not say, according to the SRD, anything about seeing better in dim light.

"Within a specified range, a creature with darkvision can see in darkness as if the darkness were dim light, so areas of darkness are only lightly obscured as far as that creature is concerned. However, the creature can’t discern color in darkness, only shades of gray"

Sadly you looked into the wrong srd:

This is straight from the elven entry:

"Darkvision. Accustomed to twilit forests and the night sky, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions. You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. You can't discern color in darkness, only shades of gray."

 

[aco175]

I was using healing Hit Dice wrong for a while. We used to get all of them back after a long rest instead of only half of them. Must have been some 4e surges leftover. Did not really change anything though once we started only getting half. I think we noticed that you get the Con bonus for each die about the same time so it may have balanced out.

 

[Reynard]

Sadly you looked into the wrong srd:

This is straight from the elven entry:

"Darkvision. Accustomed to twilit forests and the night sky, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions. You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. You can't discern color in darkness, only shades of gray."

SUPER frustrating.

 

[Mannahnin]

I learned not too long ago that I've been doing group Stealth checks "wrong" for years.

How I've been doing it: everyone makes a Stealth check, and I take the lowest result. The assumption being that the group is only as stealthy as its least-stealthy member.

How the rules say to do it: everyone makes a Stealth check and I'm supposed to take the average (I think?) or something like that. The assumption being that monks and rogues can exude so much stealth that it suppresses the noise and sheen of nearby suits of armor. Somehow.

Anyway, I like my way better.

Neither of those are how you do it, not that it matters (you can do it however you like).

Group checks, though, would be that whatever the dc happens to be, if half the party makes the dc, then they make the group check. If more than half the party fails, then the group check is failed.

You don't have to use group checks for stealth, though, unless you want to. (It's usually only worth doing as a group check for a "general" stealth check (such as across a fairly large area) not for more specific us-vs-them.

Yeah, I definitely prefer the book group check rules for this.

The "the group is only as stealthy as the least stealthy member" approach is more realistic, but it makes Dex even more of a god stat and further devalues heavy armor. Even with all-unarmored groups, it still makes group stealth extremely unlikely to achieve, just due to math. With five people rolling, you've got a roughly 68% chance of at least one roll being under 5.

In terms of the fiction, I tend to envision it as the stealthier characters helping the heavy armored folks muffle the plates & chain links, and leading the way through terrain, showing the less-dextrous folks what twigs not to step on, etc.

 

[Retreater]

Well I've been doing Stealth wrong too, apparently. I do prefer using my homebrewed Skill Challenge adjacent method for all group tests. I'd rather my players to think of creative solutions for their characters to succeed than to fail at skills their characters are not trained in.
So if they're in the woods, maybe allow a Nature check in place of a Stealth for a character to find advantageous underbrush (or avoid noisy growth). Or a Perception roll to notice when the guard is distracted.

 

[Umbran]

... but a free person!

All poetic bombast aside, free people can choose to stick by rules, because they like them. Your suggestion that they are cogs in a machine for doing so is insulting.

Let folks play how they like, without casting aspersions on them personally for doing so, please and thanks.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I was using healing Hit Dice wrong for a while. We used to get all of them back after a long rest instead of only half of them. Must have been some 4e surges leftover. Did not really change anything though once we started only getting half. I think we noticed that you get the Con bonus for each die about the same time so it may have balanced out.

One of my groups did the same thing and we liked it somewhat better that way. It mostly just made them easier to track with no other real practical impact since in that campaign we usually had non-adventuring days between the sort of days where we would be doing lots of short resting. No 4e experience was required to do it "wrong", I think we just assumed that since you get everything else back on a long rest, that hit dice would not be on their own "two long rest" system.

 

[Shiroiken]

After playing for a while now, I realized that the delay action mainly caused delays in play and made Dex way more powerful.
I wonder how many people who argue that dex is too strong because it gives a bonus to initiative allow the delay action as a house rule.

Delay isn't a tactic that most would use, especially those fond of "rocket tag." Delay's primary value is in occasionally setting up real world tactics that can't work under 5E's initiative system. Realize that unless you roll initiative for each monster individually, you're allowing them this ability while denying it to players.

I don't think Dex is the god ability score, yet I allow the option to delay. Since 5E came out, I've seen it happen maybe 3-4 times, usually because two players wanted to set up something together, but an enemy could move between their turns and ruin it.

I don't handwave Darkvision. I apply it's penalties, and it's really devalued the ability.

I wondered forever why everyone complained about Darkvision being so powerful. I only found out everyone else was using it wrong earlier this year.

 

[J.Quondam]

Delay's primary value is in occasionally setting up real world tactics that can't work under 5E's initiative system. Realize that unless you roll initiative for each monster individually, you're allowing them this ability while denying it to players.

I hadn't thought of that. It's a really good point.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Delay isn't a tactic that most would use, especially those fond of "rocket tag." Delay's primary value is in occasionally setting up real world tactics that can't work under 5E's initiative system. Realize that unless you roll initiative for each monster individually, you're allowing them this ability while denying it to players.

Unless you resolve each monster's turn separately before moving on to the next one in the group, no?

 

[Shiroiken]

Unless you resolve each monster's turn separately before moving on to the next one in the group, no?

Yes, because no PC can go between each monster's initiative. If the fighter and cleric want to move up to form a battle line at a choke point, it can't happen if an enemy goes between them (unless the higher initiative PC gives up their action to Ready to move when the other is in position). Monsters can just move to the location without worries of the PCs stopping them. This is a significant advantage for enemies against tactical players, simply because of the arbitrary initiative rules. With Delay as an option, the higher initiative PC gives up their better initiative (allowing the enemy to go first), in order to gain a tactical advantage the enemy could have used themselves.

I'd also like to reiterate that it really doesn't come up often. If such a tactical advantage existed, the higher initiative group (if intelligent) is likely going to either take the advantage themselves or deny it to their enemy. Most of the time it involves timing actions, which can normally be done by Readying anyway (at the cost of Concentration if casting a spell). However, in the rare instance it comes up, I don't want to arbitrarily deny a player the opportunity because they rolled well.

 

[Mannahnin]

Delay isn't a tactic that most would use, especially those fond of "rocket tag." Delay's primary value is in occasionally setting up real world tactics that can't work under 5E's initiative system. Realize that unless you roll initiative for each monster individually, you're allowing them this ability while denying it to players.

I don't think Dex is the god ability score, yet I allow the option to delay. Since 5E came out, I've seen it happen maybe 3-4 times, usually because two players wanted to set up something together, but an enemy could move between their turns and ruin it.

Yeah, I think the main reason 5E dropped it is probably for simplicity and duration tracking. There are lots of (both harmful and beneficial) effects which last until a character's next turn, or activate at the beginning or end of their turn. Delay can make the durations on some of these inappropriately stretchy.

IIRC both 3rd and 4th handled this by making a special case rule that if you Delay, any beneficial effects still end on your old initiative count- you can't "stretch" them. But any harmful effects on you last until your delayed turn. It's a bit kludgy and can be annoying to track, which I imagine is why WotC didn't keep it.