D&D 5E What rule(s) do you tend to ignore?

[Rabulias]

• I let people declare shield until after they know they're hit.

Maybe I misunderstand you, but if you are saying you let players cast the shield spell after they find out an attack hits, that is RAW. Or are you saying they need to declare before they know the outcome? If that's not what you mean, can you clarify?

 

[MarkB]

Maybe I misunderstand you, but if you are saying you let players cast the shield spell after they find out an attack hits, that is RAW. Or are you saying they need to declare before they know the outcome? If that's not what you mean, can you clarify?

In fact, you not only can cast it after you know you've been hit, you can only do so if the attack hits. The trigger for the reaction is:

* - which you take when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell​

​

I think the common houserule here is the DM letting you know what the actual attack roll was, so that you can tell whether or not that +5 is going to be enough to turn it into a miss.

 

[Imaculata]

I've hated keeping track of spell components in every edition of D&D, and always ignore it.

 

[Maxperson]

We ignore the, "You can decide after you kill someone that you really didn't kill them and instead knocked them out." rule. If you want to knock someone out, you have to inform the DM BEFORE you swing.

 

[cbwjm]

I've hated keeping track of spell components in every edition of D&D, and always ignore it.

I've always thought that spell components would be more fun to keep track of if they were exotic and did something to the spell. Like using Ash of a fire elemental to boost your fire spells or something. Otherwise, not too keen on keeping track of all of the little bits and pieces spells need.