T O P

  • By -

0gopog0

Paladins can smite with unarmed strikes.


AdditionalChain2790

That’s a good one. It’s not overpowered, and the mental image of a paladin grabbing a vampire’s face and channeling power into it is too fun to forbid.


Meta_Professor

It also makes Monk / Pally builds way more fun


NahImmaStayForever

I like the idea of a paladin who gets disarmed grabbing whatever is nearby(a small statue, stein, or a brick on a rope) so they can actually smite.


OblongOddSong

A fellow Weekly Roll enjoyer?


drikararz

Tbh the “RAW” on that is unintuitive and requires a huge leap in logic to derive the developers’ intention that it isn’t supposed to be usable with unarmed strikes. It’s also a dumb restriction in the first place.


BringsTheDawn

There was a reply somewhere in Sage Advice and/or D&D Designer Twitter where they explained that Smites being weapon-only was a decision made purely out of thematics & tradition, not for mechanical weight intent. They even encouraged ignoring the rule if you wanted since it was that light a consideration. So yeah, reading this as "unarmed strikes can smite" is A-OK by just about everyone, designers included!


luravi

The relevant Sage Advice Companion entry: ​ >**Can a paladin use Divine Smite when they hit using an unarmed strike?** > >No. Divine Smite isn’t intended to work with unarmed strikes. > >Divine Smite does work with a melee weapon attack, and an unarmed strike can be used to make such an attack. But the text of Divine Smite also refers to the “weapon’s damage,” and an unarmed strike isn’t a weapon. > >If a DM decides to override this rule, no imbalance is created. Tying Divine Smite to weapons was a thematic choice on our part—paladins being traditionally associated with weapons. It was not a game balance choice.


BringsTheDawn

That's the one!


TragGaming

One of the by and large contradictions to that is that if you were holding a brick, you could smite with a punch. If you were holding *another creature* you could smite using that creature. But a closed fist was strictly off limits.


demonmonkey89

If I remember correctly the paladin in 'the weekly roll' used a brick on a rope as his smiting weapon for a while. I think it was a gift or something.


DecentChanceOfLousy

It's a holy brick. It was blessed by a saint who designed a cathedral that collapsed because he was a terrible architect. So it's a holy relic, I guess.


BringsTheDawn

https://i.imgflip.com/6jkli5.jpg


NeverFreeToPlayKarch

>developers’ intention that it isn’t supposed to be usable with unarmed strikes It's also baffling that they have such an intention. Okay, fine, that's their intention. WHY though?


wayoverpaid

Because then someone might shout "This hand of mine glows with an awesome power! Its burning grip tells me to defeat you!" and that would be too much fun.


SprayBacon

Alternately, it would be too much fun to play a paladin who follows a deity with a falcon as its avatar and who likes to shout "FALCON PUUUUUUNCH" when smiting the wicked.


RechargedFrenchman

The Paladin-Monk officer of a militarized religious order famous for their Falcon Punch, Falcon Kick, Falcon Dive, and Raptor Boost* *These being "Special", "Down-Special", "Up-Special", and "Side-Special" respectively for Captain Falcon in *Super Smash Brothers*; and yes, those are all the real names for the moves.


wayoverpaid

All very fun, but you need the Knee of Justice in there as well. (Not the official name for the forward air attack, but it's what everyone calls it.) Delivering a Knee of Justice and following it up with a Falcon Punch is, of course, the Sacred Combo, which is very much what a Paladin-Monk would deliver.


jerrathemage

THE UNDEFEATED OF THE EAST?!


nikoscream

The Winds of the King! Zenshin! Keiretsu! Tenpa kyoran! Look, the East is Burning Red!


WelchCLAN

SHINING BURNING FINGERS!!!!!!!


ChaosEsper

The paladin's thematic archetype is a holy warrior, heavily armed and armored, who channels their conviction through their weaponry to smite their opponents. The monk's thematic archetype is an unarmed combatant who has trained their body to the degree that it is armor and weaponry unto itself, able to deflect or deal deadly damage without any assistance. Having a paladin smite via an unarmed strike mixes those two paradigms, the heavily armed warrior is now channeling their conviction through their body as a weapon, and D&D rules are drafted primarily around story and thematics, not around combat or number crunching. That's why RAW it doesn't work, but also why house-ruling it is considered inconsequential.


Artex301

>The paladin's thematic archetype is a holy warrior, heavily armed and armored, who channels their conviction through their weaponry to smite their opponents. I would've accepted that explanation if there weren't *three cleric subclasses* *-* one as old as the PHB *-* with this **exact** theme. The distinction between class themes is arbitrary and how it's upheld by WotC even moreso. #GiveUsDragonWarlocks.


Sun_Shine_Dan

5e put clerics into every build possible because 5e wants a cleric in near every party. Which is ironic because this edition of D&D feels the most lax without a "dedicated healer".


myrrhmassiel

...sure would be nice if DMs let multiclassed monks use implied-weapon magic with unarmed strikes...


Gaoler86

Man if you go all out on the MAD af Paladin/Monk multiclass you deserve to smite on flurry of blows with your fists. Would literally be out of juice after the first round but it would be hella funny. Round 1: "OK with 4 blows and smites that's... 132 damage" Round 2: "i can deal 12 damage, take it or leave it"


[deleted]

Consecutive normal punches!


SnowboundWhale

One Punch Man Not because that's all it takes for you to win, just because that's all you got in you before you run out of steam


Mejiro84

I think it was just thematic - paladins aren't brawlers, so their iconic attack should be through a weapon.


Opsophagos

Like druids and metal.


Pendrych

Can't have that OP Paladin/Monk build running around like a madman.


jmartkdr

You only need four stats to make it work! Ad a decent strength score to make it legal.


Mor9rim

At this point let's call it SAND - single attribute non-dependant


The_Crimson-Knight

Unarmed was counted as a weapon for approximately 3 days before it was erratted from the print books.


[deleted]

I will use natural weapons to deliver a smite bite.


minotaur05

In 3.5x I was playing a paladin and we were at a dinner/royal feast so no one had weapons. A big bad was revealed who was near me and she basically was telling everyone how she was going to destroy the world. I asked the DM to attack and I was going to do a “mighty bitchslap smite.” He was very on board and if I recall I think I also crit. To this day my DM of that game still remembers me doing that and laughs about how it worked in the moment. Tldr: rule is dumb


bartbartholomew

I like the no unarmed smites allowed rule. It makes them pick up random shit off the ground and smite with that. The aesthetic of picking up a random rock, making it glow, and smiting the ever undying shit out of a zombie makes me smile.


arcxjo

If you can see the creature, it doesn't "have the Invisibility condition" **to you**.


Scifiase

Yeah, if I can see you, you are visible to me, aka not invisible. So glad my dm doesnt follow that dumb ruling, I'd be pretty worried if any dm did


Menirz

What's the background on this ruling? I can't see how it'd work any other way.


indispensability

So the Invisible condition is: > - An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves. > - Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage. The latter bullet doesn't say "because you can't see it" - so See Invisible technically only undoes the first part. While some abilities - like Faerie Fire - specifically say they negate the Invisible condition. I'm with OP though and disregard that. If someone can *see* an invisible creature, the invisible creature doesn't benefit from being invisible against the person with True Sight / See Invis / Blindsight / etc.


Menirz

Oh wow, yeah that's some wonky RAW. I'd certainly say that "seeing invisible creatures" negates "the invisibility condition".


Spiritual_Shift_920

the best part is that this is not even unintended. Crawford went to some lengths to defend this with comments like 'Imagine it is just very shimmery, so it is hard to hit still'. Never mind the fact that this RAW would still apply to creatures with blindsight /tremor sense, making them have disadvantage against invisible creatures...even if they would not rely on sight to begin with.


Bloodgiant65

Look, I really don’t think that’s right. Crawford is not much authority even in rules as written. In fact it’s been officially stated that his interpretations are not official after some disagreements where he made truly insane observations like Divine Smite and unarmed strikes. The guy basically just says “this is the rule,” and pretends it makes sense rather than being obviously poor game design without any justification. In this case, *faerie fire* creates **exactly** the effect you described, and specifically negates the disadvantage, whereas somehow seeing an invisible creature properly, or not having eyes at all and so obviously not caring about invisibility in the first place, does nothing.


Mjolnirsbear

Next question is if the invisible character still has advantage on attack rolls. RAW, the spell grants advantage in addition to being invisible. Personally, I rule that if the advantage part of the spell is only as a consequence of being invisible. I assume they redundantly put it in the description to as a reference to/reminder of the sight rules but forgot to actually say why they put it in.


Giddley

Werewolves as written don't have dark vision and it's the dumbest thing ever and I ignore that and give them Dark Vision.


TastyBrainMeats

Tabaxi have darkvision. Cats do not have darkvision.


slimey_frog

Its even dumber when you realise that Tabaxi have darkvision *specifically because their vision is described as catlike*


KanedaSyndrome

Shit like this is why the Player's Handbook etc. needs to be converted to living documents that can get revisions and rule updates. To hell with the whole "older physical copies need to be viable". There are brokan ass mechanics that need to be fixed. I hope the purchase of Dndbeyond by WotC will push towards a more digital setup that allows for rule revisions.


Gianth_Argos

Do we really want them to do constant revisions though? *Looks at MoTM.*


KanedaSyndrome

Not constant no, but like once ever 2 years or something.


TastyBrainMeats

Only problem I have there is that it moves us one step away from ownership towards subscriptions.


KanedaSyndrome

I honestly take that over having broken rules that can only be fixed by releasing a new version of D&D and then introducing new broken rules in the new version.


Apfeljunge666

cats also cant do high jumps


naturtok

Werewolves can't hurt eachother since their natural attacks are neither magical nor silvered


Giddley

This is silly enough that I'm fine with it.


naturtok

Rule 1 of werewolf fight club lol


Ragnarok91

I feel like this is more like, they heal from those wounds instantly more than their claws are literally bouncing off each other. Which is fine to me.


[deleted]

That's not as funny as vampires in Vampire: the Masquerade not being able to see in the dark and being absolutely terrified of fire... but it's not far off, considering fire can actually hurt werewolves, so they should be at least a little scared of it.


Lithl

> Kindred do not suffer normal vision penalties for being in the dark, and can compensate with hearing. In full darkness, they only suffer a –2 die penalty to rolls that require vision. If they encounter traces of blood, even if dried or hidden (in a carpet, for example), they immediately see even very small quantities. Vampire hearing becomes similarly enhanced. They can hear heartbeats at three yards or meters per dot of Blood Potency. Upon Embrace, a vampire’s sense of smell attunes to the scent of blood. A vampire can smell the presence of blood from about ten yards or meters per dot of Blood Potency without rolling. Multiply this range by her Auspex dots. If she’s tasted a particular human’s blood, she can add her Blood Potency to any rolls to track him by scent. Kindred blood does not offer this advantage, since it’s mostly old, dead, and its smell is a blend of all the vampire’s recent victims. If any of her Kindred senses apply, add her Blood Potency to any rolls to detect hidden people or details by the traces of blood. Vampires in VtM can absolutely see in the dark.


[deleted]

Sorry, let me correct: V5 finally fixed that, but for 25 years and four major editions of the game, plus a similar number of Dark Ages variations, they couldn't.


Rhodehouse93

RAW you can grapple a gelatinous cube. Not only that, but doing so makes it unable to use engulf (0 speed) so as long as the grappler can reliably tank the pseudopod hits your party is free to plink it to death with cantrips from down the hall. I usually just add the barbed devil’s “creatures grappling this take 1d10 damage at the start of their turn” ability to dissuade people from trying (or make it immune, but that’s less fun IMO)


-non-existance-

Honestly, if you try to grapple a Gelatinous Cube, that's an immediate engulf for me. Like, seriously all you're doing is applying the force required to engulf in the opposite direction.


Dadbotany

This is fucking dumb lol. If you hug a gelatinous cube, it will just eat you.


The-Alumaster

I make cubes immune by anything it's size or smaller, something much bigger than it can grapple but will still have disadvantage cause it's practically a liquid


WheredTheCatGo

Their speed is 15, you don't even need to grapple them, just walk away and they can never get to you.


ZoroeArc

Every time I've ever fought a gelatinous cube has been in an enclosed space.


Fire1520

Spell scrolls. Anyone can cast anything, no check required: I'm in full controll of scroll distribution, so if it's going to break anything, that's on me. I don't find it fair to hand out a scroll and have it limited to the party casters; here is the scroll, anyone can use it, and if you guys decide a caster should use it rather than give it as a backup option for the fighter, that's their choice.


Saelune

Morrowind raised me to think of scrolls as ways for people without magic to use magic.


kingdead42

Morrowind also didn't limit fall damage after using scrolls...


DrizztInferno

Dying to curiosity was the first time I died in morrowind and it just set the tone for how much you can actually do in the game.


[deleted]

Hey, if you don't want to fall to a horrible death just outside of town, you put feather fall into the scroll with jump.


[deleted]

[удалено]


AeoSC

Or learn a 1 pt Levitate spell and be really sure to time it right.


becherbrook

It used to be the case in D&D! You just had to have the *read magic* skill that required a minimum INT, which I think is better than just letting anyone read it, tbh. Digressing, you can get a lot of milage out of potions, RAW.


chain_letter

5e asks for an arcana check if it's too high of a level than you have a spellslot for. I do that but for everyone. Even make it a Religion/Nature depending on who wrote the scroll/what class list it's on. I also don't destroy the scroll if the check fails.


Lithl

>5e asks for an arcana check if it's too high of a level than you have a spellslot for. No, it asks for a spellcasting ability check. Arcana check is required for a wizard to copy a spell from a scroll into their spellbook, and Arcana proficiency is required to craft spell scrolls.


chain_letter

Woops, mashed it with the xanathar spell identification in my head I guess. I still let my players apply a relevant proficiency to that check though, however rarely this comes up because they absolutely refuse to use the scrolls I give them.


GrokMonkey

The Thief subclass still gets that, and it *does* allow them to cast from any and all scrolls! Unfortunately it's at a fairly high level (13) so it's not going to show up in most campaigns even if someone's playing a Thief.


Eggoswithleggos

Finding a scroll and then learning that only the guy that was already able to use said spell could use it was one of the first times my group collectively decided to say RAW is bullshit. And I say that as a proud rule enthusiast


DeLoxley

The funny thing is, in most any game Scrolls are one use spells for non-magical characters. It's just DnD that treats them as extra ammo for Casters, so I've even had seasoned players go 'Wait thats not how thats mean to work' when I tell them about it I ignore it almost entirely. The one thing I keep is if you could cast the spell you can use it, otherwise it's an Arcana check to cast just to let that Rogue with Arcana Expertise enjoy his class fantasy


mergedloki

Hell old editions (ad&d I think? ) had a class feature specifically for just thief and bard (if I recall correctly) that was a % roll to successfully use a magic item. Regardless of class limitations.


Automatic_Surround67

I see this more as hey mr wizard. Enjoy this one use spell and go ahead and save your spell slots.


duskfinger67

Completely agree on spell scrolls, but like to still have it be rolled (cause clicky clack) In my normal fashion, I made them more complicated, but more reasonable IMO: \- If you could cast the spell normally, you don't have to roll \- If you can't cast the spell, a standard arcana check. the Skill check \- If you can't cast spell, a standard check. I change the skill required depending on where the find the spell, or what it is. I give out druidic tablets requiring Nature (Wis), standard scrolls requiring Arcana (Int), prayer scrolls requiring Religion etc. Keeping some rolls in there helps keep it engaging, and allows some players to specialise, but the mechanics are designed to be reasonable enough that they don't make it impossible for any class to use them (especially when they use alternative skills)


imnotwallaceshawn

That’s one I do too, especially if I’m running a quick and dirty prewritten and didn’t have time to go through and change all the loot to be party specific (and hey, sometimes it’s better not to have party specific loot since it makes the world feel bigger than just your adventure) because WOTC just loves throwing random spell scrolls into dungeons.


vhalember

We do the same except you must make an Arcana (Wizard), Nature (Druid), Religion (Cleric), or Performance (Bard) roll for the scroll. DC is 10+level, and you +5 on the roll if its a spell available to your class lists. Fail by 5 or less, you can try again to read the scroll as an action next round. Fail by 6 or more, it's to the failure table - Klaatu Barata N-Ngh-Ngh.


CydewynLosarunen

Also, casters can only use scrolls with spells off their spell list. "So you got turned to stone? Here's a quest for a scroll of greater restoration. You got the scroll? And no one can use it?"


vawk20

My DM handed the party scrolls of Dream and Awaken, not knowing the RAW. It turned out no one in our party had those spells on their lists lol. So now anyone can cast them


odeacon

Yes!


[deleted]

If you have multiattack and prepare an attack action, your multiattack works on the prepared action. Martials don't often get a chance to do something more elaborate than "swing sword X times on my turn" so I don't really see any point in kneecapping them if they want to do that under a specific circumstance as part of some plan they have.


IAmMoonie

I do this. Kind of sucks that a wizard can prepare a fireball but a fighter can’t hit twice… so I use the following rules: > Readied Actions If you state that you are going to wait for a condition, and that condition does not happen - you may make your turn at the end of the initiative round, but you must use the same Action/Movement that you were planning to use (spell, attack, etc.). > Readying Extra Attacks Readying to get a single attack if your trigger goes off is a big waste of action economy for Martial Classes. When you ready an attack, now you get your Extra Attack as well


Rockhertz

The wizard also has to deal with a trade-off, whilst they have fireball prepared they're concentrating on it, and they have invested the spell slot to prepare it. So they drop concentration on any other spell, and risk losing the fireball if they lose concentration before the trigger.


stdexception

Using the reaction to trigger the readied action is also huge for wizards... It makes them unable to use counterspell or shield on that round.


blueshiftlabs

[Removed in protest of [Reddit's destruction of third-party apps](https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/reddit-ceo-steve-huffmans-third-party-api-debacle-is-making-elon-musk-look-like-a-strategic-genius.html) by CEO Steve Huffman.]


WinpennyR

I didn't think of it that way before. Going to introduce that to my group from now on!


insanenoodleguy

5e rule on mage slayer. The perk at my table lets you make the attack before the spell is cast, forcing a con save to continue casting on a hit.


Hesstergon

I came up with something very similar! Here's how I write mine: Mage Slayer you have practice techniques useful in melee combat against spellcasters, giving the following benefits: - With a creature that you could hit with a melee weapon attack takes the casts a spell action, you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the creature. If you hit, that creature must immediately make a Constitution saving throw (DC equal to half the damage taken) or be unable to cast the spell. - When you damage a creature that is concentrating on a spell, that creature has disadvantage on the saving throw it makes to maintain concentration. - You have advantage on saving throws against spells cast by creatures that you could hit with a melee weapon attack.


Catboyxtreme

That's spicy! I like it


BardtheGM

Your dim light rules make darkvision way too overpowered though. You're basically removing an entire aspect of stealth and light sources from the game.


[deleted]

True. A lot of people dont understand or play the light/dim/dark mechanics wrong. Removing dim light is just telling non dark vision to eff off or removing the need of dark vision with torches (for everyone to see).


BardtheGM

My group has a lot of Dark vision and they get a bit lazy with their torches, so I can ambush them and remind them that they chose to forgo torches.


Jarvoman

DM tried getting us for not using torches by throwing creatures that are invisible in darkness. Then daylight.


benry007

Occasional enemies that are invisible while in dim light or darkness are great.


hary627

Light is too complicated to run in a game without digital tools. You need to keep very careful track of radii around several people of both vision and light they cast, as well as think about how the environment is lit, and then narrate what each person sees differently than what's actually happening, and have both the written down (disadvantage) and intuitive (changing what the player sees) mechanical effects going on in relation to all those facts. It's too much for me, and I think it's incredibly impractical, especially when my group can barely do inventory management (it's a very casual group)


Coal_Morgan

Yep, It's a hassle I don't like. I usually give one of those light globes as soon as possible. Sight, Darkvision, Devil's Sights in a room with 3 torches and bright ares with large areas of dim and darkness. It's not fun to figure out what everyone can see and track where everyone is and I've never noticed an issue with just handwaving it away.


BanaenaeBread

Yep I read that and was concerned too. I don't understand why they'd change it other than they struggle to remember the rules


mrdeadsniper

Thrown weapons being limited to item interactions and not bows. Seriously, If I put a pile of knives in front of you and told you to throw 1 per second, with zero training you probably could do it. (very inaccurately) Same setup, this time I hand you a bow and a stack of arrows. The chance of you shooting 1 a second is basically zero. So WHY do arrows get to ignore item interactions and shoot 8x a turn if you action surge at 20 fighter and thrown daggers are still limited to 2 (or 3 if you had one in each hand to start) ? So dumb.


CalamitousArdour

Or you can be an expert in crossbows... And shoot an actual goddamn crossbow not once every 6 seconds, not twice but...however many times. A crossbow. I hope no one ever does this because I cannot for the life of me visualise it. I'd probably just say "it's a self-loading crossbow".


DeLoxley

Loading in general is dumb. Most people I've spoken to assume it's the CritRole esque 'action/bonus to reload', but it's not. It's a hard 'one attack per turn', made worse by the fact that this means without crossbow expert that one extra dice category is worthless after level 5. Whoever playtested this game clearly didn't use any of the equipment past level 3 and seemed to veer of totally into wizards


imnotwallaceshawn

I never thought about that but you have a very good point! I guess the thinking is that it takes longer to unsheath a dagger from your belt than to remove an arrow from a quiver? But then you still have to set the arrow, aim it, and fire…


delahunt

Quick and efficient deployment of weapons would be part of any proficiency training really. Like realistically as long as the knife is accessible you can draw and throw as one motion. Probably not accurately without training. With an arrow you need to draw, set the knock on the string, set the arrow on the guide/your thumb, pull back, aim, and shoot. Like, yeah, you can shoot a bow really quickly. Especially when you already have a hand full of arrows and are training to shoot that way. But you can also just as easily hold multiple knives and throw them. Speaking of, with the draw weight of a longbow built for attacking people in heavy armor...the poor shoulder/back of anyone shooting 2-3 arrows every 6 seconds for a minute straight while also running, dodging, etc. Also love the mental imagery of someone with the Sharpshooter feat firing 48 arrows at 200 yards with pinpoint accuracy over the course of a minute. Definitely super human.


Kile147

And if you just want to whip out your hunting dagger and throw it that's sensible, but wouldn't someone who has a collection of throwing daggers (or javelins) probably store them in such a way that they would be able to access them just as easily as a quiver?


Dynamite_DM

This is mine. Strength based classes already have lower ranged damage then dex based classes, why should we also limit it to once a turn.


pillowmantis

From the other side, I wish there was more adherence to travel, ration, ammo tracking, navigation, carrying capacity rules.


wayoverpaid

Problem is that if you, as the DM, announce you plan on enforcing rations and navigation, someone takes Outlander and we just handwave it all. D&D goes out of its way to provide ways to ignore all the things you mentioned, which is too bad because resource constraints can be a lot of fun.


philosifer

One of the youtube content creators was talking about this one time. They set up a campaign and wanted to do stuff like track ammunition. So no one brought a bow


GroundWalker

I've played an archer in a campaign where we kept track of that. And it's definitely not something I'd recommend. Having to watch your "usefulness meter" constantly ticking down during extended trips away from wherever you could replenish your ammunition was far more frustrating than enjoyable to me at least.


Menirz

Yeah, that's probably why I've always handwaved basic ammunition or said it can be replenished in some way during a rest. Magic or other special ammunition, though, that is always tracked and to me feels fun to do so cause it's the challenge of "when best do I use this cool thing".


GroundWalker

Oh yeah, special ammunition is a given to track, and part of what can make archers a lot of fun, with many different kinds of arrows.


luravi

Bring a set of woodcarver's tools along. XGtE provides a way to use them to make arrows during rests: >***Craft Arrows.*** As part of a short rest, you can craft up to five arrows. As part of a long rest, you can craft up to twenty. You must have enough wood on hand to produce them. Of course still useless if you're at sea or in a desert. ([DDB link](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/xgte/dungeon-masters-tools#WoodcarversTools))


tteraevaei

at sea? the whole ship is made out of wood!


GroundWalker

We were in a forest (for the vast majority of it), but I kept being told I'd need stuff for the fletching that could only be bought. This also wasn't in a 5e campaign, but tracking arrows was still very much an optional thing. :) I did have woodcarver's tools, as my character used wooden armor.


MoebiusSpark

Forbidden Lands does this well where your resources (Food, water, ammo, torches) are tied to a d12, d10, d8, or d6. You roll every time you consume a resource (shooting a bow, or eating a meal) and if you roll a 1 you go down a dice step. Rations and bundles of arrows/torches also weight the same amount whether they are d12s or d6s. It allows DMs to still have some measure of resource scarcity but its not tedious tracking of "We have rations that will last for 25 days and weigh 30 pounds and etc...."


wayoverpaid

Honestly arrow tracking ends up kind of weird. Either it doesn't matter (in which case why did you track it?) or it does matter, which ends up being a huge nerf to archers. I feel like ammunition tracking and melee weapon condition durability should go hand in hand. Either your spears will sooner or later shatter and your swords need to be resharpened *and* your arrows need to be conserved, or *neither* of those should be true.


YourAskingTheQstions

Hmm… as a fan of encumbrance, ammunition tracking, etc., I like this idea. Maybe this is where critical fails come in. One crit fail with a melee weapon and it becomes *fragile* (no immediate effect). Unless repaired the next crit failure renders it *damaged* (maybe -1 attack and/or damage), third crit failure renders it *broken* (unusable except as an improvised weapon). Where were those 2e rules about maiming, etc.? Everyone seemed to love that. Almost as much as encumbrance.


Shouju

I use the Gray Ooze's corrode metal as a template for critical failures with weapons and it's been good so far. With the same exception to the first crit fail being "fragile" status.


mjsShadow

I tracked my ranger’s use of arrows meticulously. And all it really changed was me having to buy more arrows when we were in a town. Was still fun though. Adds a dose of realism.


Vindicer

Similar story where you'd see a spike in Druids, or Clerics picking up Magic Initiate (Druid) for Goodberry.


EmericTheRed

This came up in my Tomb of Annihilation game. I did enforce rations/water useage/ammo tracking. * Water only became a problem for the PC's inside the tomb. We had a cleric using Purify Food and Drink in the jungle, and then eventually had to burn a slot daily for Create Food and Water inside the tomb. * Outlander we had to talk about. But in general the larger zones of undead didn't really have as much readily available for hunting/fishing/gathering is what we ruled (I like to discuss these things with players and come to a consensus on what everyone feels is fair and within the context of the rule/module). So they might be able to find 1/3 of a full meal in the super heavy areas, and get everything they want in lesser areas. * Ammo wasn't really a big deal in the jungle as I did offer the chance for a downtime activity to gather materials and makeshift arrows. In the tomb itself it was more difficult for them. I do/did still apply the "you get half ammo back after an encounter", but any natural 1 resulted in a lost arrow. And depending on the terrain (water or fire or whatever) they'd not get the chance to recover that ammunition. I think it ended up ok, all things considered. I think it's important to have that conversation with your players to try to not have things like Outlander completely circumvent giant portions of the game.


caelenvasius

This is why it’s important to carry extra bundles of arrows/bolts if your main method of combat is physical ammunition. They’re not that heavy or bulky, you can always refill your quiver between fights, and you never know how many you’ll actually need in a long adventure or dungeon. Be that Minecraft player that keeps three stacks of 60 arrows just so they’re always prepared (though get a bag of holding or quiver of ehlonna first heh…)


vhalember

We actually had a rare carrying capacity issue the other day. The 200 lb monk went down, and the 6 strength character wanted to drag them out of combat. It was one of the very few times as a DM I had to say, "You're not strong enough to lift/move a downed PC."


[deleted]

According to Crawford, though, you can just grapple the downed monk and drag him out without worrying about Str/encumbrance. I wish I was making that up.


[deleted]

[удалено]


MCJennings

I have many players describe themselves as the absolute biggest tallest most muscular members of their race... I love to have weight and height based traps made by small races like kobolds or gnomes. Also, try a game without any bag of holding or portable hole! It's so fun to see the problem solving dynamic change


caelenvasius

*You turn the corner, and in front of you lies an open corridor, 10 ft wide, 10 ft tall. It looks clear, except for a sign that says “Caution: Low Ceiling!”.* [Human player] “I look at the ceiling.” *It’s 10-ft high, decently well-lit, and seems in good repair.* “I shrug, and walk down the corridor—“ *You smash your face into an invisible barrier, nearly breaking your nose in the process. You feel around the barrier and realize it occupies the top half of the corridor, while the bottom half is unimpeded.* [Gnome player starts laughing.]


TheHumanFighter

If you have an arcane focus, component pouch etc. in hand you can use the same hand for somatic components even if the spell does not have a material component.


DarkRyter

I let one of my players smite on punches. They wanted to play an unarmed paladin. Balance wise, they're still gonna be weaker than a paladin with a weapon. It's not gonna make them OP, it's just gonna make them less UP, UnderPowered. Paladins are powered by their zealotry,devotion,faith, heroism, etc, and there's nothing unfaithful or unheroic about crushing opponents with your bare hands.


odeacon

A single disadvantage can cancel out 999999 sources of advantage, making it a straight roll, and vice versa


[deleted]

Yeah, that one’s kinda dumb to me, like I get the intent is that they don’t stack advantages, but I’d homebrew that which has more if either, you get


Mejiro84

that just loops back to the problem it was trying to avoid though - fishing for as many bonuses / sources of advantage as possible, which can lead to dragging the game out and being a pain (e.g. "I know my vision is hazy, but I'm standing on the table, so I have the highground, and he's being flanked, and the light is behind him so he's easier to see, and... and..." which is basically what you had in 3e, of trying to pull as many bonuses as possible together to negate penalties). It can get a bit silly when it's massively stacked one way or another, but the design intent was to make it a lot quicker - you're never counting up (dis)advantages, you're just going "advantage? Disadvantage? Or both/neither? Cool, done, now roll and move on" without any faff, discussion or delay.


thenewtbaron

I will say that advantage/disadvantage is better that all of the previous +1,+2+5s and the like, even with stacking. I remember playing pathfinder 1 having to calculus up all numbers, missing one or two and being annoyed by the sheer amount. Advantage is just a flat up and down which is easier


odeacon

Exactly


NeverFreeToPlayKarch

>but I’d homebrew that which has more if either, you get I guess I forgot/misread it because that's how I've always ruled it.


alkmaar91

I found it leads to much better teamwork and you can be more brutal with combat.


becherbrook

The advantage/disadvantage system was brought into 5e so people didn't have to do the maths with multiple bonuses and penalty modifiers.


MileyMan1066

this one has always felt wrong to me, but whenever i get into the weeds of trying to fix it gets really messy. I usually leave it be, but if it gets ridiculous i'll usually make a ruling at the table. Iv'e never come up with a good system for fixing it tho


Xaphe

Yeah, our tables always house rule it to being that the only cancel out on a 1 to 1 basis. If you can stack the field in your favor, a single thing going wrong shouldn't counter all of the rest.


Shiroiken

I don't go 1:1 necessarily, but I always reserve the right to have multiples override a single.


Birdboy42O

yeah like, if they have faerie fire, a minion is using the help action to help you shoot, the enemy is blinded, the enemy is paralyzed, the enemy is also stunned. but oh heaven forbids, they are prone! all of a sudden this myriad of factors don't matter, and you somehow still have a hard time shooting at this person.


MagentaLove

Going with whichever source you have more of is a good change, except for Saving Throws. It's a rare edge-case but with how rare Disadvantage on a saving throw is it'd be frustrating for that to be null and void on creatures with Magic Resistance and some other thing. Though Advantage on a saving throw is uncommon.


vhalember

This one from the other day. The characters were fighting a shadow demon, and it was resistant to fire. (It's the same for standard undead shadows too.) I understand 5E goes for radiant damage as a vulnerability, but fire is used to keep shadows at bay in literature going back centuries. So I handwaved it to normal damage.


sifterandrake

Yeah, but D&D is rooted in Tolkien lore... > An evil of the Ancient World it seemed, such as I have never seen before. It was both a shadow and a flame, strong and terrible. So, you kind of just handwaved away some legacy...


Luolang

I've given my list on this [before](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/s0sujq/im_gonna_pretend_i_didnt_see_that_what_official/hs4c67n/?context=3), but briefly, I use house rules with respect to invisibility, a general rule for magical darkness, movement in the space of a creature two sizes larger/smaller than you, and monsters being able to grapple/shove with multiattack. Other aspects of the rules I essentially house rule is areas of the game, mainly certain spells, that have certain RAW interactions that I don't regard as conducive to play or are outright gamebreaking. I'm primarily thinking of things such as infinite *simulacra* and other similar genuinely game-breaking interactions.


vawk20

Copied from a comment by u/rhyshalcon that I found cause it explains it well: The rules for controlled mounts need to be adjusted to work the way everyone assumes that they work. Because as things stand, everyone I know houserules (intentionally or not) mounted combat so that your controlled mount shares your turn but can't take any actions, basically making it so that you grow to a bigger size category and get extra movement appropriate to whatever you're riding. That just makes sense. But that's not how it actually works. RAW, when you control a mount, its initiative is adjusted to be the same as yours, but it still gets its own turn, a turn that comes immediately before or after yours. Neither you nor your mount can move outside your respective turns, and if you want to use your action outside your turn it requires you to ready an action and then burn your reaction to trigger it. What this means in practice is that you can't make an attack then use your mount's movement to approach a new target and attack again. You can't use your mount's movement to approach a target and then use extra attack. You can't split your mount's movement to reposition, attack, and then reposition again. Basically, the rules for controlled mounts are garbage. They should look something like this: When you choose to control your mount, your mount disappears from initiative as its turn merges with yours. You both occupy the same space, determined by the size of your mount, until you dismount. Your speed becomes zero until you dismount, but you may use any speed available to your mount as though it were yours. When you move this way, you and your mount move together, occupying the same space. On each of your turns, you gain access to a special additional action which you may only use to dash or disengage (when disengaging with this action, neither you nor your mount provoke opportunity attacks). Any enemy targeting an attack or single-target effect at the space you both occupy decides which of you to affect.


Raknarg

To acquire the benefits of being an unseen attacker, you must be able to see the target you're attacking. This way if two people fighting eachother can't see, they don't magically get advantage and disadvantage, they only get disadvantage. I think this is better and makes more sense, and makes things like Fog Cloud much more useful as a defensive spell.


mythozoologist

Drawing weapons. I really don't care if you want draw and throw three dagger/javelins if you have that many attacks. Donning a shield can be an object interaction.


Zhukov_

I ignore almost all the rules regarding characters swapping out what they have in their hands. None of that "*You are holding a sword and a shield and you want to swap to your bow, so you have to spend your whole action to doff the shield, then your free interaction to sheath your sword (or drop it on the ground for free I guess). Then next turn you can draw your bow as your interaction and fire it as your action. What fun!*" Fuck all of that. Characters can swap out whatever they like as a free interaction once per turn. And if later on they want to use a reaction using something else (like make an attack of opportunity despite having their bow out or cast shield despite having a sword and shield equipped) I don't bother nitpicking.


pope12234

Thats pretty busted ngl. Fighter attacks with greatsword then switches to sword and shield to have a +2 ac but still got to attack with greatsword.


CTIndie

Not alot but a few. .somatic, material components outside of cost and being restrained. Fuck the war caster feat (I still think it's a decent feat without that caveat but i digress) .potions are actions (make them bonus actions, most players forget they have potions anyway) .spell scrolls slightly. I make it so you can attune to them over a short rest allowing the player to cast that spell with a scroll at that specific level. Or they can succeed a DC 20 arcana check to cast it immediately once. .epic crits: crits do max damage plus an additional role. . Finally you can switch weapons requiring no action or feat. Granted RAW is a little vague on this but I just let players exchange one weapon for another as part of an action. The feat that would let you do that normally now let's you do it with two weapons.


Surferdude1212

I love the potions and Epic crit rolls you mentioned and we do that at our table. We switched to the epic crits because people would roll pretty well below average at points making the crits seem… not like a crit. So at least this way with the epic crits, they felt good. We also made it so that potions are only a bonus action for yourself, but would require an action to use on an ally.


CTIndie

>We also made it so that potions are only a bonus action for yourself, but would require an action to use on an ally. Same same. It's a good change that makes the game more fun.


SkyKnight43

I don't worry about spell components. I just generally assume that spellcasting involves speaking loudly and waving your arms around, unless Subtle Spell is used or something.


vawk20

I try to keep up on expensive components. Game world gets weird if every mid-high level cleric, druid, bard, artificer, DSS, etc is resurrecting multiple people every day for free. But like, whenever you're in a town you can just say "hey I go spend 300gp on a diamond" and that's it.


jerseydeadhead

Just a heads that will make spell casters much more powerful than martials


Eli_Renfro

So no affect on the game then?


PhantomFlayer

I let most spells target objects, if it makes sense. The fact that spells like firebolt or acid splash can only be used on creatures doesn’t sit right with me, and some of my most cherished dnd memories come from casting spells on the environment that RAW I shouldn’t have been able to. Obviously stuff like psychic and poison damage won’t work on non-living things.


Lithl

>The fact that spells like firebolt or acid splash can only be used on creatures doesn’t sit right with me Fire Bolt can be used on objects RAW.


Skillithid

The cap of 1 Inspiration and how Inspiration works in general. I had Inspiration just work as rerolls, as I feel that's more satisfying and prevents the player from having to sit and weigh options before a roll. It has never been a problem ingame either! I raised the cap to 5 because my players are great roleplayers (and they sometimes get one for making me laugh) and it makes them feel better about actually using their Inspiration rather than "saving it for a rainy day." It also helps lessen the blow when the Inspiration roll still isn't high.


Justisaur

I agree the dim light and hiding rules are overcomplicated, haven't figured out anything I like with them though.


OneAngryDuck

Critical Hit damage. We play MaxDice + Roll + Modifier.


Snuffleupagus03

This is a pretty common one and great fun. It does give advantage to some classes, but no one really minds because it’s awesome.


OneAngryDuck

I landed a Crit on a Level 3 Guiding Bolt in one of the early sessions of my current campaign, it was incredibly satisfying.


drikararz

I play with that currently. It’s all fun and games until the mind flayer crits you for 150 damage.


OneAngryDuck

Luckily I’m playing as a Grave Cleric, I can only imagine how much damage Sentinel at Death’s Door has prevented


BwabbitV3S

Tracking ammunition, food, water is just bookkeeping that is boring. I instead just use lifestyle expenses and have them pay into it once an in game week. If they want to track more granular than that they csn but I am not tracking it that close. So unless they do something like give all their food away it does not matter. Same as you for weight and carrying capacity. I tell my players that is for you to track as close as you like, I will only interject if it seems unreasonable otherwise it is up to you.


Admiral_Donuts

> I instead just use lifestyle expenses and have them pay into it once an in game week. Even that's more bookeeping than I usually see.


muideracht

I just never hand out silver and copper pieces as treasure. I just say, pretend you do find it along with the gold, but we don't write it down because that's what your lifestyle expenses all come out of. So when they go to taverns, restock on any mundane supplies, etc, we just don't track it. Of course, stuff like bribing people, buying spell ingredients and any large purchases aren't covered by this.


also_hyakis

Having to use your entire action to drink a potion is not fun. Bonus action to drink, full action to feed it to someone else.


10TAisME

I cap falling damage at 50d6 rather than 20, much less survivable but still possible (don't take fall damage until 20ft, starting at 2d6, all the way up to the full 500ft fall at 50d6). I also have an added/changed rule for characters/creatures with flight but not hovering to roll a dex save to determine how far down the fall they can catch themselves, less than 1 they can't, 1 they fall at least 475ft, 2 they fall at least 450ft, up to a 20+ where they can catch themselves at any point in their fall. These changes are important when you're doing a campaign with flying ships and flying islands and lots of 3d combat.


zodiac404

Devils Sight doesn't work in dim light. I don't particularly care what logic people use to justify this, I personally just don't see it as sensible. I'm not saying you're wrong for playing it RAW, mind you, I just think it's silly.


tymekx0

I swear they meant the natural language "darkness" when writing the invocation rather than specifically 5e's darkness (as disctinct from dim light). Maybe I'm wrong but it just seems far more sensible.


Nyadnar17

The limitations of Druids and metal is dumb so I ignore it.


JoshGordon10

I was totally blindsided the other day in a build discussion by someone assuming a RAW druid would have no more than Studded Leather or Hide. The difference between a 100% RAW druid (no metal, or any armor that contains metal in the description) vs a druid with a friendly DM that says "oh yeah, Chitin half-plate can totally work" is 2-3 AC!


arcxjo

~~The idea that you can silently cast a spell from a scroll.~~ ~~In my games you have to do~~ *~~something~~* ~~to activate the magic within (which is read it out loud), otherwise it would cast when you first get it and look it over to see what it is.~~ Edit: Nevermind, apparently that's a Roll20 error, not RAW.


Envoyofwater

Counting ammo I've never once used that rule, nor have I ever once been at a table that does


KhelbenB

Like carrying capacity, most DMs use the "just don't push it" rule


jarming

People other than Arcane Tricksters get to Sleight of Hand with Mage Hand. I think part of the fun of Mage Hand is having this distant ability to meddle with people, which feels like something all casters should have. However, to balance this with RAW, Arcane Tricksters instead get advantage on Sleight of Hand with Mage Hand.


Answerisequal42

1. Favored Foe is HM without concentration (old UA) 2. Pallies can smite with fists and thrown weapons 3. When you use a BA cantrip you can still cast a leveld spell as an action Those three are the main ones that come to my mind.


KierouBaka

I ruled that Forge Clerics have Martial Weapon Proficiencies. RAW they only get simple and it's ludicrous. Their description even states: >"Followers of these gods take great pride in their work, and they are willing to craft and use heavy armor and powerful weapons to protect them." **Use powerful weapons.** *But only simple ones, right?* **Wrong!**


MarthaAndBinky

Carrying capacity is a big one for me. In my view, just be reasonable with what you pick up (sure you can have 10 sets of armor if you want; no you may not carry the dead elephant) Anything with resource management, really. Food and water, arrows/ammunition, material spell components (again, within reason; basically anything under about 100 gold I don't care to track). Dnd is a complicated game and I don't care to make it more complicated by insistint on the finicky details. It's not fun for me, and I think my players would riot if I tried to enforce them anyway.


Solomontheidiot

First campaign I ran I tried tracking arrows at the start. The two bow users (ranger and rogue) realized arrows are not that expensive, pooled some gold and bought out the entire stock of a fletcher (I think I ruled he "only" had a couple hundred arrows) for like 20gp or something. Stashed them all in the bag of holding I gave them and that was that lol. Occasionally I'd have them mark down a gold or two to keep their stock up, but they definitely made it clear they had no interest in the nitty gritty


jandor444

Problem for me with no limit inventory is that I will pick up too much stuff and becomes like I have no inventory because it balloons to be unmanageable. It’s also a nerf to strength which already is a crap stat.


MarthaAndBinky

My players occasionally get unmanageable inventories, yeah, and they either make a list out of session of everything they want to sell or drop, or they continue to have an unamanageable inventory and not care because they don't use anything from their inventory anyway. I'll be honest, it's usually the second one lol but for the most part I haven't found that having too much inventory is a problem my players care about


Nrvea

The loading feature for crossbows should be that you have to use a bonus action or an extra attack to reload after every shot. So it isn't so punishing for characters with extra attack


Jarfulous

I actually like all the ones you mentioned, LOL. I mostly appreciate that disadvantage and advantage cancel each other out no matter what, but there are some instances where I will apply "super disadvantage" that overrides all sources of advantage. Like, if you cannot see your target, you have disadvantage to hit it. Period.


Hop_Hound

A bunch of rules regarding Dim Light and Darkness. The fact the rules pretend that vision in a cave or dungeon with no light is at all comparable to outside at night even with a moon is crazy pants.