D&D 5E Silly/Senseless Rules You Have Found

[Zaran]

You guys are missing the point on Cantrips. They should be like any spell and be able to be memorized and exchanged out.

 

[Paraxis]

It is best not to scratch the surface of those silly senseless rules.
One of the biggest is the core of the 5e system advantage/disadvantage.

A blind poisoned prone frightened attacker is at the same penalty to hit the invisible dodging opponent next to him as another attacker who is just prone fighting a visible non dodging opponent. Then if either of those attackers has an ally next to them to offer 'help' then there is no penalties at all.

While I love not having to deal with 5 different modifiers to every attack or skill, the advantage/disadvantage is very awkward sometimes.

 

[SilverfireSage]

You guys are missing the point on Cantrips. They should be like any spell and be able to be memorized and exchanged out.

I'm pretty sure the point of Cantrips is whatever the developer of the game wants them to be. And in this case a cantrip is a spell where "Repeated practice has fixed the spell in the caster's mind and infused the caster with the magic needed to produce the effect over and over (PH 201)".

 

[SilverfireSage]

It is best not to scratch the surface of those silly senseless rules.
One of the biggest is the core of the 5e system advantage/disadvantage.

A blind poisoned prone frightened attacker is at the same penalty to hit the invisible dodging opponent next to him as another attacker who is just prone fighting a visible non dodging opponent. Then if either of those attackers has an ally next to them to offer 'help' then there is no penalties at all.

While I love not having to deal with 5 different modifiers to every attack or skill, the advantage/disadvantage is very awkward sometimes.

I totally agree with this. A person could be horribly disadvantaged, with numerous sources of disadvantage, and one source of advantage can negate it. A target could be blinded, frightened, have 3 levels of exhaustion, fighting an invisible attacker, poisoned, and restrained and yet having a friend who is similarly disadvantaged "help" them negates every single one of those disadvantages. I can see what they were going for with that, and I'm glad I don't have to deal with the modifiers as you are, there needs to be something else with this during cases of extreme disadvantage or advantage. Perhaps they negate each other only twice over, and anything after that stays? So help would negate the restrained and blinded condition, but you would need 2 other forms of advantage to get over the rest.

 

[Tormyr]

It is best not to scratch the surface of those silly senseless rules.
One of the biggest is the core of the 5e system advantage/disadvantage.

A blind poisoned prone frightened attacker is at the same penalty to hit the invisible dodging opponent next to him as another attacker who is just prone fighting a visible non dodging opponent. Then if either of those attackers has an ally next to them to offer 'help' then there is no penalties at all.

While I love not having to deal with 5 different modifiers to every attack or skill, the advantage/disadvantage is very awkward sometimes.

I totally agree with this. A person could be horribly disadvantaged, with numerous sources of disadvantage, and one source of advantage can negate it. A target could be blinded, frightened, have 3 levels of exhaustion, fighting an invisible attacker, poisoned, and restrained and yet having a friend who is similarly disadvantaged "help" them negates every single one of those disadvantages. I can see what they were going for with that, and I'm glad I don't have to deal with the modifiers as you are, there needs to be something else with this during cases of extreme disadvantage or advantage. Perhaps they negate each other only twice over, and anything after that stays? So help would negate the restrained and blinded condition, but you would need 2 other forms of advantage to get over the rest.

If you don't want someone who is incredibly disadvantaged to be able to hit, then don't allow them the dice roll. It is similar to the case of deciding whether to make the rogue use its tools to unlock a simple door. If you don't want them to fail, then don't have them roll the dice.

Besides, the average d20 roll is 10. With disadvantage it is about 5. With "double disadvantage" it might become 2 or 3 (with increased chances of a nat 1)? Is a difference of 2 or 3 on the attack roll worth altering advantage/disadvantage?

 

[SilverfireSage]

If you don't want someone who is incredibly disadvantaged to be able to hit, then don't allow them the dice roll. It is similar to the case of deciding whether to make the rogue use its tools to unlock a simple door. If you don't want them to fail, then don't have them roll the dice.

Besides, the average d20 roll is 10. With disadvantage it is about 5. With "double disadvantage" it might become 2 or 3 (with increased chances of a nat 1)? Is a difference of 2 or 3 on the attack roll worth altering advantage/disadvantage?

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm complaining about is that, in RAW, no matter how many effects of disadvantage you have, only one effect of advantage cancels it out. A massively debilitated person fights just as effectively as a normal person simply because someone uses the "help" action for them.

 

[Piratecat]

There's an easy (and fairly obvious) DM solution to that. If the effects of disadvantage are so numerous that it'd be silly to negate them, rule that in that case they still have disadvantage. I think you're safe using reasonable common sense on that; when everyone at your table thinks "man, that'd be silly not to," you should do it.

EDIT: My point isn't the DM's house ruling, which I know you already thought of. It's that you should never feel reluctant to break the RAW if the result is fun, fair and reasonable. I'm reluctant to do this myself, but there are lots of times where it becomes a no-brainer. It's easier for a DM to identify those times than it would be to have specifics written into the rulebook.

 

[SilverfireSage]

There's an easy DM solution to that. If the effects of disadvantage are so numerous that it'd be silly to negate them, rule that in that case they still have disadvantage. I think you're safe using reasonable common sense on that; when everyone at your table thinks "man, that'd be silly not to," you should do it.

Oh I understand that. But this thread is about "silly/senseless rules" and this is definitely one of them.

 

[Paraxis]

My point about advantage/disadvantage wasn't that I wanted to find a solution to it, it is that if you accept things like that at the core of the game then things like heavy armor removing dex penalties to AC, or not being able to write cantrips into your spellbook become very minor issues.

It is a game accept that there are gamist conceits for balance and fun, D&D is not a simulation machine it is a fun pen and paper rpg just use the rules as presented and alter the make believe world/story around those silly senseless rules.

 

[Zaruthustran]

So far, the "silly" rules that have been brought up are either deliberate design choices (cancellation of adv/disadv, heavy armor and dex, cantrips) that have reasonable basis, or are indeed silly (darkness) if interpreted purely RAW--and 5e goes out of its way to put the onus on players & DMs to use common sense.

The appropriate response to "It's dark, but someone over thataway has a torch--can I see him?" isn't "consult the rulebook." It's "consult your brain."

D&D has a Dungeon Master. This edition, more than previous editions, depends on this person. Trusts this person. It's fun to explore these situations as a goof, but let's all remember that this is a game played around a table with friends. D&D is at its best when folks look up from the book, and meet the eyes of their fellow players.