D&D 5E what are your top three "$#%#@$ stop forgetting this rule" annoyances?

[Umbran]

But given that I DM for different tables and different players, and only some have this issue, pretty sure it's not on the DM side.

Players are not interchangeable. Two tables with the same GM can be very different. If you want similar play patterns at both, you, as GM may need to do different things at each.

This isn't about blame. This is about how you get the group doing the thing you are complaining about them not doing.

1. It is seldom helpful when someone raises an issue, and the response is to claim that it is the pejorative "DM fault" / "Mother, may I?" scenario.

You know, I can understand you not liking the phrasing used. But... sometimes GMs aren't perfect, and things they observe may be their own fault. If you only want to engage in griping about players, that's fine, but you kind of have to let us know to restrict the discussion.

While it is possible that this is happening, it is often not the case. If it isn't the case, then the response isn't helpful, and even if it is, invoking "Mother, may I" as a first response tends to cause people to shut down. Best to inquire before labeling- especially with that label.

I have, in all my years on these boards and gaming, never seen this shutting anyone down.

And, honestly, pushing the burden of this onto the players is putting them in that dynamic, of having to ask for things when they don't really know the parameters upon which the response is based. If the GM is actively offering without being asked, it becomes much less problematic, as the players can learn the unwritten parameters.

See FATE-based games as an example. The burden of offering compels is on the GM. The players are encouraged to suggest as well, but the basic economy is placed on the GM, not players coming to ask for it.

But in the end, it comes to this: In D&D the offering of Inspiration is placed in the GM's hands What, in the rules establishes that the players should be actively seeking requesting advantage from the GM? If it isn't established in the books, it is a table rule, and the burden for establishing it is... with the GM, is it not?

2. The issue as I would see it tends to be more of the expressio unius est exclusio alterius,

I have no idea why you say that. Expression of what is excluding what?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

regularly ask if they apply mage slayer/spell sniper when they don't have it.

Don't they though? I've been running 5E for a few years now and a couple of the players still regularly get confused about whether spells automatically provoke attacks of opportunity. Adding to the confusion, one of them has Mage Slayer and the other doesn't. Ranged attacks not provoking also still causes confusion, albeit less. I've also seen confusion about how two-weapon fighting works.

The biggest "ugh forgot that rule" in 5E though is clearly concentration, and honestly, come 6E, it needs to be thrown on the trash-heap of history. I forget about it. The players forget about it. We have to look it up when we do remember, and it feels almost unfair to enforce it, because I think we forget about it slightly more often than we actually remember it!

Hit dice are the next on the list for forgettable-ness. The players regularly entirely forget they have them, or forget they can spend them on short rests, and even I forget that you only get half back on a long rest until I re-read the rules fairly recently.

1. It is seldom helpful when someone raises an issue, and the response is to claim that it is the pejorative "DM fault" / "Mother, may I?" scenario. While it is possible that this is happening, it is often not the case. If it isn't the case, then the response isn't helpful, and even if it is, invoking "Mother, may I" as a first response tends to cause people to shut down. Best to inquire before labeling- especially with that label.

The problem is two-fold here though:

1. A lot of us play in games where players do actually ask for Advantage/Disadvantage for other reasons than just the main mechanical ones, so we know that it absolutely can happen, and if there's a reason it isn't happening, it's most likely to be down to some kind of dynamic with the DM.

2. And the dynamic it's most likely to be is indeed most likely to be a variant on "Mother may I?" simply because of the SPECIFIC situation involved. This isn't something you can shrug off as people being mean or "labeling" or whatever. This is a very specific scenario - essentially players are having to come to the DM to ask for Advantage/Disadvantage - that leads directly to putting the weight of the issue mostly on the DM, one way or another.

You say it's "often not the case" that the problem is down to the DM/"Mother may I?", but I don't think that's really true, unless "often" means like, 20%, which I guess it could. I would say with this specific issue (not all issues, this specific one), easily the vast majority of cases will be down to one of two basic things:

1) The DM is just not prone to handing out Advantage for doing cool stuff, or really anything that doesn't specify it in the rules. That's fine, but it is on the DM there.

2) The players aren't even thinking to ask about it, not because the DM is averse to it, but because they haven't even considered it as a possibility. That's still on the DM to a significant extent, because he is in a position to communicate that they can do this.

Interestingly, I play with another DM who is much keener than I on handing out Advantage for cool stunts and so on, and I can see the other players who are in both our games respond to that. People will say "Do I get Advantage for this?" but I usually only hand it out when there's a clear, um, advantage ("You can't win, Anakin. I have the high ground!") whereas he will if it's just plain cool enough (which is awesome), and so that strengthens my feeling that this is on the DM.

 

[Oofta]

The main problem, tho origin of all of this strife, is probably the fact that DMs are the most invested in the game, generally know the rules well, and spend more time than most players involved in the game.

The involvement of the players, well, most of them, in the game, seems trite by comparison.

In my case, I'm perfectly okay with people playing simple characters. That's what champion fighters are for. I don't care if they play the way I would play the character. But what's the point of picking a subclass if you never once use the special abilities that the class grants you?

Did I mention that I didn't know he also has Great Weapon Master until I looked at his character to see what maneuvers he has and how many? I've never seen him reroll damage dice once. Either his dice are loaded ... or he doesn't realize he can reroll a 1 or 2 on his damage.

 

[Nebulous]

3. Conveniently 'forgetting' to make checks to maintain concentration.

We use little colored tabs under the mini to negate "forgotten" concentration. Without that, yeah, it would get ignored more often than not. In the thick of combat with lots going on, I need that visual cue to remind me, oh yeah wizard, you're maintaining a spell, roll a Con save.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But what's the point of picking a subclass if you never once use the special abilities that the class grants you?

The point is likely one of two things:

1) They picked it for the theme/style of the subclass, not really thinking about whether the mechanics would work for them.

2) They picked it because they were told - by the others players, by the internet, by the DM, by the cat, by whoever, that that was the subclass they should pick (often they might even ask, if they're new or undecided). This can leave them with a subclass which they're not necessarily into the mechanics of.

This is something a DM needs to be attentive to, frankly, to do a really good job. Some players pick stuff up faster and are more mechanically aware than others. Generally speaking DMing isn't like, horribly difficult - it's definitely more effort than playing, but it's not like, mentally taxing or something (most of the time!). If players aren't using abilities, it's usually fairly easy to notice (less so in a 6+ person group but those are pretty rare - still I would forgive a DM there), and it's worth explaining it to them.

Also some players just don't "get" certain mechanics, in my experience. There are these top-flight players who will always "get" every mechanic, but they're relatively rare (I have two in my group), but most players will "get" like 90% of mechanics, and just have this bizarre blindspot where they don't get, or can't understand, a very specific mechanic - often not a complicated one - which can lead to them underusing it or not using it. Like, I have a guy in my game who was able enough to work out that taking a three-level dip into Warlock would be big boost for his Avenger Paladin (without the internet, I could tell because of what he was saying), but he was confused about dual-wielding vs two-handed fighting in 5E, particularly the Fighter styles, on another character.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[generic]

Yes, and as I wrote (and you elided) I do DM those games where Advantage/Disadvantage works just fine.

Which is why it is ANNOYING TO ME when players aren't able to use it effectively.


My goodness, what is wrong with people. This is for purposes of complaining about some things.

Here, and this is for @Umbran as well:

Just because I say that it annoys me when a player doesn't remember what a spell does, doesn't mean that ALL PLAYERS DON'T UNDERSTAND SPELLS.

Just because I wrote that a player can't remember action surge, doesn't mean that ALL PLAYERS ARE INCAPABLE OF REMEMBERING THEIR ABILITIES.

And just because I am listing some annoyance that pop up occasionally, doesn't mean I need help fixing it, or that there is a problem to fix. Unless you want to come to my table and sit with the player who is playing the fighter and you are going to remind him to use action surge.

Bah! The point of this thread is kvetching without complaining too much. Gah, sometimes, I just want to gripe a bit, y'know?

 

[billd91]

In part. The player having no concept of when they may get more is also relevant. If the GM has been forgetting inspiration, they get out of the habit of giving it out. Which tends to lead players to hoard it. Which means the GM doesn't see it used, and so they forget it and don't give it out. Vicious cycle.

Another variant that I have seen vastly increases Inspiration economy flow - use Inspiration as a pool. The Pool maxes out at one point per player. If anyone earns inspiration, it goes into the pool. Any player may use it with agreement from the other players. You have a stack of tokens on the table representing the pool, which the GM can see and track as a reminder of how much the party has on hand, and when they may want to offer more. Also largely eliminates the "You just did something cool, and I'd give you inspiration, but you already have one point, so you don't get any more."

With a pool, the party is actually incentivized to use at least one point every tie the pool is full, so they can accept new points if the GM feels they ought to have it. Raising the cap from one point per person might have similar effects - say your maximum inspiration pool is 1 point per character level.

This just gave me the idea of using the Force pool from the FFG Star Wars games. The players roll the Force dice and that builds the pool - some light side for the players to use, some dark side for the GM. As one gets used, it flips to the other type - PCs use light, it flips to dark so the more the PCs use it, the more the GM gets to and vice versa.

I may seriously consider this.

 

[Oofta]

The point is likely one of two things:

1) They picked it for the theme/style of the subclass, not really thinking about whether the mechanics would work for them.

2) They picked it because they were told - by the others players, by the internet, by the DM, by the cat, by whoever, that that was the subclass they should pick (often they might even ask, if they're new or undecided). This can leave them with a subclass which they're not necessarily into the mechanics of.

This is something a DM needs to be attentive to, frankly, to do a really good job. Some players pick stuff up faster and are more mechanically aware than others. Generally speaking DMing isn't like, horribly difficult - it's definitely more effort than playing, but it's not like, mentally taxing or something (most of the time!). If players aren't using abilities, it's usually fairly easy to notice (less so in a 6+ person group but those are pretty rare - still I would forgive a DM there), and it's worth explaining it to them.

Also some players just don't "get" certain mechanics, in my experience. There are these top-flight players who will always "get" every mechanic, but they're relatively rare (I have two in my group), but most players will "get" like 90% of mechanics, and just have this bizarre blindspot where they don't get, or can't understand, a very specific mechanic - often not a complicated one - which can lead to them underusing it or not using it. Like, I have a guy in my game who was able enough to work out that taking a three-level dip into Warlock would be big boost for his Avenger Paladin (without the internet, I could tell because of what he was saying), but he was confused about dual-wielding vs two-handed fighting in 5E, particularly the Fighter styles, on another character.

This is not a new player. Perhaps it's an issue because he's played so many editions over the years. I've tried gently reminding him, but it's not my place as a DM to tell someone how to run their character.

Reminding someone more than once or twice that they could do something IMHO would be nagging. YMMV.