D&D 5E Rules you ignore

[Yunru]

That has never been fun for me. Or not enough to justify the good stuff like your hydra story.

It wasn't for us at first but again, automated character sheets reduced the paperwork (almost?) entirely.

 

[The_Gneech]

We tend to ignore encumbrance and just go with what seems reasonable for PCs to carry. This means no running around with large stacks of armour or weapons. Having a couple is fine, have a greatsword, maul, greataxe, and assorted other weapons is pushing it. We also don't really worry about the large amount of coinage that the party is carrying although we might change this as carting around the parties couple thousand coins seems like it would weigh people down.

Otherwise, we try to stick to RAW but sometimes we just forget a rule or two. If we remember it halfway through then we continue on with the rule. I have sent out a couple emails after sessions with things we got wrong and will change in the future.

Same, except I do worry about the large amounts of coinage because, having carried around the equivalent of 100 gold pieces before, that stuff gets really cumbersome really fast. It ain't like putting it all on your Bank of Waterdeep credit card. XD

I also don't bother with downtime/cost of living stuff unless there's a long gap between adventures. Most of my games have been going at a pretty fast clip with only some "travel via montage" in between.

-The Gneech

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I tend to tailor the game bits to a campaign in particular, but there are a few things which my table generally ignores. Or at least a few things that the way we handle could be interpreted as ignoring the rules.

Encumbrance: In the majority of campaigns we run, there isn't a lot of stuff the party is carrying beyond their basic gear, so bothering with writing down the weight of things doesn't add anything meaningful to the gameplay experience (i.e. the character can carry 100 pounds of stuff without penalty, so it doesn't enhance the game to know that they are carrying 60 pounds of stuff rather than 35 pounds of stuff) so we just skip it in favor of what I call the "Explain System" - by which I simply mean that when the party wants to transport something, I say "Explain how you do that." and if a reasonable explanation is given, transport is then possible. (i.e. "We haul the treasure out of here by going back to town, getting a wagon, a couple oxen to pull it, and barrels to pack the treasure into, because rolling barrels out of the dungeon seems easier than hauling crates or chests." and me saying "Yeah, that sounds reasonable for hauling what is mostly coins." and then it's done, without doing any math but the imprecise "at least 12 barrels" kind).

Object Interaction: I don't ignore it so much as not be extremely strict about it... the characters can't be literally juggling objects during combat without some kind of check, but putting one weapon away while getting out another instead of dropping one just saves us the trouble of expecting that the player not saying "I grab up my dropped belongings" at the end of the encounter is causing their character to leave things behind.

Expensive Material Components: This one I still consider an experiment, but I expect that my group will not end up abusing any of these spells or feeling like a spell of a particular level is "too powerful" because they aren't limited in how often they can cast it by anything but circumstance and spell slots. It's been a dozen or so sessions since saying "You know what, let's just not worry about that," and thus far no impact on spells used is apparent.

Primarily I made this decision because I don't want to concern myself with questions like "Am I giving the players enough access to diamonds?" while I am already concerning myself with broader questions on the same topic like "Am I giving the players enough opportunity to find treasure so that they feel their characters can afford to spend money?"

 

[Illithidbix]

The limit of 1 free Interaction with an Object.

This should have been simple, instead it is horribly clunky and it's still not clear whether *dropping something* counts.
It doesn't feel like it fits the rest of the system.


I prefer the phrasing from the earlier playtest.

Many of the most common interactions with items—drawing or sheathing a sword, moving through a door that opens easily, picking up a scroll, withdrawing a potion from your backpack, and the like—do not require an action. You are generally assumed to be able to incorporate such uses into your turn, while you move and take your action.
Sometimes, however, the DM will require you to use your action when an item needs special care or when it presents an unusual obstacle. For instance, a DM could reasonably expect you to use an action to open a stuck door.

 

[Ath-kethin]

I probably ignore a lot of rules just because I don't remember them in the heat of play and I have never in 20+ years found any situation worth disrupting play to look up a rule.

 

[Jester David]

• Expensive material components for spells - I've never seen a character abuse a spell like identify or chromatic orb so I see no reason to require material components. Most clerics in my main campaign can't cast revivify or raise dead so that's not an issue.

All or just the ones that consume the component? I know that chromatic orb is pretty much an expensive focus.

 

[koga305]

All or just the ones that consume the component? I know that chromatic orb is pretty much an expensive focus.

All, generally. I can see how for some games it could be a nice secondary goal to gain components for chromatic orb et al., but in mine I'd rather the Wizard not have to bother. It doesn't seem like a spell that needs a component to balance it, either - magic missil is perfectly serviceable in most situations and doesn't require a component.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

We tent to totay ignore the inpiration rules

 

[Sunseeker]

I typically ignore material components and do a 1-for-1 gp cost instead. Casters come out of the game with less disposable currency, but I never have players asking if there's an alchemy shop where they will invariably attempt to barter with the DM for discounts on goods. Strangely, noone ever attempts to barter with the DM for discounts on spell costs when I use the GP system.

I also usually ignore the jump rules, they seem needlessly technical for an edition that is attempting to be less technical. You should either be able to automatically jump X feet based on your modifier, or require a check. Not both. So I just require a check, or waive it away if it seems reasonable.

I don't track ammunition, or weapon or armor damage. If something intends to break your armor or weapon or deprive you of ammo, it will be a special effect that does so, not mundane day-to-day life.

Lifestyle expenses. Everything is charged "at the gate" so to speak. So if people want supplies, they buy them up front and carry them around. If someone wants to find out how much it'll cost to have a butler cook, clean and clothe them for a year, I'll come up with something that seems reasonable. But when you're adventuring you don't have a "lifestyle". You're basically one of those Doomsday Preppers.

Weapon switching. Dropping weapons just means we have to talk about collecting weapons later. So you can now "switch" one weapon as a bonus action.

I'll also ignore any rule that is getting in the way of the player doing something amazing, or locking me the DM out of playing the game.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I probably ignore a lot of rules just because I don't remember them in the heat of play and I have never in 20+ years found any situation worth disrupting play to look up a rule.

I wasn't counting that as ignoring rules, but I do it a lot too.

If I don't know where to find the rule in the book before picking it up, and I don't already know the rule by heart, then it probably isn't important whether the ruling I make to keep the game moving forward matches what is in the book or not.

Also, I forgot another than I "ignore" by way of a house-rule:

Ammunition: If it is magical it lasts until you hit something with it (so the player doesn't feel like they can "waste" magical ammo, and as a result doesn't feel like it is necessary to be so careful about when to use it as to end up never using it at all), and if it is mundane don't bother keeping track of quantity - you have plenty, and will continue to have plenty, right up until everyone at the table agrees that it isn't reasonable to still have ammunition based on the circumstances in-play.

And actually, I think that might just be the by the book rule for magical ammunition for 5th edition, but I don't feel like checking right now so I'll leave it phrased as part of my house-rule just in case I'm remembering incorrectly.