D&D 5E Things that "need" errata

[Flamestrike]

I don't believe it is a house rule. I discerned all of the above from reading the text including what some consider the "fluff" text. The entire way the Stealth rules are written indicate that the DM will have to take time to rule on many matters concerning Stealth including when a target can see the player. I think that is how it should be. I don't automatically assume because a target breaks cover they are seen. I don't feel the game designers should have to spell this kind of stuff out. I feel requiring that they do so is absurd. It's like some people think the designers have to write "For that split second you pop out of cover to attack, you are considered unseen" or something like that when it is clear that is how it works for anyone that has seen or played Hide and Seek or seen stealth in films.

Nah, you're correct - the rules for attacking while hidden clearly state that you aren't revealed until after you make the attack.

I'm happy to rule that can also peer around your cover and maintain hiding also. It mirrors common sense.

I don't think they need to changed in any way. They are clear as written. I doubt any attempt to rewrite them will change that the DM will have to rule on Stealth more often any other ability in the game. A DM ruling on Stealth is not a house rule, but a ruling based on his interpretation of the rules in a given situation...not a house rule.

I think this boils down the death of RAW as well (ding dong). Players cite RAW to me and (while ill certainly have a look and listen to the argument) I'll generally ignore it if it makes no sense.

Its the old:

Player: 'My character places his dagger between his teeth and leaps into the lava and swims across; with my 200 hp and swim speed of 30' per round, I should cross it in one round, and survive the 20d6 damage on the way across'

DM: 'You die'.

 

[Celtavian]

So they can do something more powerful less often then they can do something less powerful.... how is that a surprise? How is that any different than almost every other aspect of the game?


The change I would ike to see is allowing them to Frenzy when they Rage, instead of having to wait until the next turn.

Is it more powerful than an Action Surge every short rest? More powerful than Superiority dice every short rest? More powerful than the Polearm Master feat?

I don't see the need to limit it to a long rest. I'd rather see it once per short rest, like many other martial abilities.

 

[Celtavian]

Nah, you're correct - the rules for attacking while hidden clearly state that you aren't revealed until after you make the attack.

I'm happy to rule that can also peer around your cover and maintain hiding also. It mirrors common sense.



I think this boils down the death of RAW as well (ding dong). Players cite RAW to me and (while ill certainly have a look and listen to the argument) I'll generally ignore it if it makes no sense.

Its the old:

Player: 'My character places his dagger between his teeth and leaps into the lava and swims across; with my 200 hp and swim speed of 30' per round, I should cross it in one round, and survive the 20d6 damage on the way across'

DM: 'You die'.

You and I are on the same page. Kill RAW. Kill it dead.

If you jump off a 200 foot cliff in plate armor onto rocks, I'm ruling both you're legs are broken or you're dead.

"That's a house rule. You can't do that."

"You're dead."

Player repeats argument citing PHB.

DM repeats argument citing PHB rule that states DM decides.

Kill the RAW. No more rules lawyers.

 

[Celtavian]

If you truly belive that, you are delusional. The number of threads on stealth makes it perfectly obvious to me the rules are anything but clear.

The thread count argument usually started by the same people and debated by the same people over and over again. You are delusional to believe thread count proves something is unclear, especially when a game is new.

 

[Flamestrike]

You and I are on the same page. Kill RAW. Kill it dead.

If you jump off a 200 foot cliff in plate armor onto rocks, I'm ruling both you're legs are broken or you're dead.

"That's a house rule. You can't do that."

"You're dead."

Player repeats argument citing PHB.

DM repeats argument citing PHB rule that states DM decides.

Kill the RAW. No more rules lawyers.

Spot on.

Accidental falls and I'll roll the damage (unless it suits the story not to of course). Using HP as 'luck' it then gets narrated away such as:

'You lose balance and with a sense of horror fall towards the lava [pause for dramatic effect] Just as your death seems unavoidable, a large island of still unmolten basalt floating in the fiery hell drifts into your path, shielding you from plunging directly into the molten rock (roll 20d6... exhale sharply while shaking head from side to side): take 88 points of damage; half bludgeoning and half fire.

Also; the heat is unbearable, and your floating rock island is very unstable. The banks of the lava river are about 10' away on either side but you can hardly see it because your eyes are stinging from the heat and your skin is already blistering. What do you do?

 

[Mouseferatu]

Kill the RAW. No more rules lawyers.

D&D: Shakespeare Edition.

(http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/lets-kill-all-lawyers, for them what doesn't get the reference.)

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

In my experience GWF makes our totem barbarian probably too good.

Reckless neatly neutralizes the to hit penalty of GWF, while bear resistance neatly mitigates the drawbacks of reckless.

End result is a damage output NOTHING else comes even close to (and we have a laser cleric, paladin and bard to compare to)

Give GWF to a monster and you see a massive difference.

I'm not yet saying GWF is unconditionally too good, but it's at the top of my problem list.

It does also have all of the problems in inherent in a melee attack, combined with the "use it or lose it" limitation of barbarian rage (pre-Barb 15). If you have a campaign which is all about fighting boss monsters in cave complexes I'd be excited to be a GWM barbarian, but in a broader campaign I'd expect the barbarian to be excellent only about 1/3 of the time. The other 1/3 of the time you'll either be fighting overland with hobgoblin archers/dragons/etc. (in which case the barbarian is pretty well a spectator compared to the archers and warlocks), or you'll be fighting mixed mobs in confined spaces (e.g. goblins backed by illithids), in which case the barbarian kills mooks just fine but can't effectively engage the artillery (illithids) behind them, and meanwhile the mob is shredding him just as hard as he's shredding them. That's what you'd see at my table anyway, so it's what I'd be expecting as a player at yours, and why I don't see the GWM barbarian as a problem.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

You and I are on the same page. Kill RAW. Kill it dead.

If you jump off a 200 foot cliff in plate armor onto rocks, I'm ruling both you're legs are broken or you're dead.

"That's a house rule. You can't do that."

"You're dead."

Player repeats argument citing PHB.

DM repeats argument citing PHB rule that states DM decides.

Kill the RAW. No more rules lawyers.

As long as you make that clear up front so that players who don't like "HP as luck" can avoid your game, it's cool.

 

[Flamestrike]

As long as you make that clear up front so that players who don't like "HP as luck" can avoid your game, it's cool.

Im assuming they've read the PHB and are aware that this is the rule, and there won't be any surprises.

From the PHB:

Hit points represent a combination of physical andmental durability, the will to live, and luck. Creatureswith more hit points are more difficult to kill.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Im assuming they've read the PHB and are aware that this is the rule, and there won't be any surprises.

From the PHB:

Hit points represent a combination of physical andmental durability, the will to live, and luck. Creatureswith more hit points are more difficult to kill.

You're wresting my meaning here. The PHB definition is explaining in broad terms why the fighter falling 200 feet can survive. Celtavian's scenario is explicitly overruling the PHB because he finds the PHB unaesthetic in this particular case. I said that's fine, so long as your players know in advance that you're going to do that and that HP aren't 'real'. Do you disagree?