By popular request, here are page references for the rules discussed here: 1. PHB 14 “Armor Class” 2. PHB 189 “Surprise” 3. PHB 202 “Casting Time” 4. PHB 198 “Temporary Hit Points” 5. PHB 7 “The d20”. Notice that there is no reference to natural 1s or 20s here. Also see PHB 194 “Rolling 1 or 20" 6. PHB 193 “Ready" 7. PHB 192 “Attack” and 195 “Grapple” and “Shove” 8. PHB 206 “Combining Magical Effects” and XGTE 5 9. PHB 12 “Proficiency Bonus” 10. DMG 139 “Potions” Finally, several important rules clarifications can be found on Page 5 of Xanathar’s Guide to Everything.
Not for nothing but i can't stand games that strictly follow every single rule to the exact letter. For one it slows the flow of the game thus reduces immersion in the story and two this is a hobby. I want to devote more time enjoying the actual gameplay not memorizing 5432 rules. When i dm the main rules i follow by the book...attack roles saving throws character class abilities spells and spell casting rules and skill checks. Everything outside that the rules are guidelines only.
@@njflyersfan74That's totally valid! We prefer a game that has a good flow and strong consistency, so we rarely, if ever, bother to look up the rules and favour making a quick ruling, then checking out the exact rules later. We think the rules are a useful set of tools, and the trick is knowing when and how to apply them. We think most of the rule mistakes we cover here mainly focus on the rules you listed, though, which is exactly where most of the mishaps tend to happen.
I like the point on crits. Story time: Last session we had our half-orc rogue player get spooked and try to leap from the rope bridge the party was traversing at the time. He was at the back behind everyone, no more than 5ft onto the bridge. After the leader called out to notify everyone he had felt something unusual on the bridge, the rogue completely spazzed out and cast jump (additionally he also has extremely high strength). But... he rolled a 1 for acrobatics. I decided all that force had to go somewhere, he just failed to accurately use it. So I explained that after sprinting 5ft he coiled his empowered legs to ready his epic jump over the party, he then pushed on his feet with all his godly might - staying absolutely where he was, and launching the rope bridge downward like a slingshot, creating an immense Mexican-wave like effect along with bridge. Everyone had to roll to see how they handled it, most got off okay - but not our rogue boi, another fail. So, I said the bridge flung him upward with incredible force, about 45ft. While he's free falling back down, he sees that he's off-center from the bridge and if he doesn't do something he'll fall into the mist to almost certain death. Just quickly a little backstory on the bridge, this all takes place in Berserker territory, who like to dry age their unfortunate captives alive, bound in burlap and chains. Two of these were suspended underneath this very bridge, the party just failed to notice... except the leader. It was the captives squirming in their chains that the leader had felt on the bridge, he just didn't know what it was at the time. Now back to rogue boi, who can now see what looks like body bags swinging up and over the bridge. He decides his only way out of this is to pull a near impossible Legolas move by hoping from one of the bags in midair to safety. At this point I make him roll for luck to line up the bag with his free fall. Wins. Okay, roll for acrobatics.... Oh dear. He grasps on, aims himself to launch from the bag to the cliffs edge, presses his feet with every last drop of strength he has and.... impales his legs through the unfortunate captives chest. It was at this point I let the party know it was not a corpse like they had assumed by acting out the gargled chilling wails of this poor soul, who against all the odds had survived this long just to be impaled by some asshole half-orcs legs. It was the funniest bridge crossing we've ever had. The end.
@@1mariomaniac It's been a long time, but from memory our fine Orc Boi failed to dislodge his now intimately sheathed legs from the poor captives ribs, thus left tethered to the rope bridge by extension. The remaining party then tasked to fish him back once they had safely navigated the remaining bridge. Probably a good thing our intrepid impromptu hominid kebab failed to break free, looking back now haha.
With crits on checks and saves my group always just flavors it like a critical hit without the auto success or fumble as rule. So a nat 20 dex save failure would be someone doing a sick flip and then being scorched by the fireball anyways. Honestly I find it more fun than proper crits.
The bonus action option drinking is so popular because using a full action to drink one doesnt help your encounter. You're still next to the baddy, or about to die. Potions dont heal too much health anyway, if its trivializing fights the players have too many, or not enough challenge in the first place
"You cannot cast a spell and take an attack in the same turn" *Laughs in Eldritch Knight* Thx for the vid, I'm sending this to my DM Edit: don't give my DM any ideas. We get CR 6+ monsters at level 2. well two of us were. Three were level one. We need everything we can get in terms of potions.
I like to use nat 1s and 20s for ability checks in my games but I always tell my players to add their mods regardless if a nat 1 may still succeed, and remind them that a nat 20 on something outrageous does not make it possible. I have one player who will always go "but it's a nat 20" on ridiculous checks. A nat 20 on a climb check might mean you effortlessly climb the rope or can help a party mate if they're struggling. A nat 20 to bust down a reinforced iron door with nothing but your shoulder is not going to make the door fall off its hinges. It might just make it easier to knock down on subsequent attempts if they continue trying to brute force it and not alert others to their attempts.
Our Dungeon Master SOMETIMES grant critical successes on Skill Checks, but only on things that would be reasonably possible for the character to do in the first place. These critical successes merely result in that your character was able to succeed at their attempt with greater ease than expected. Example in point, my fighter rolled Athletics to lift a small portcullis and slip underneath it into a room the enemies had taken refuge in. The Dungeon Master said lifting it up would consume my action for the turn, but as I rolled a natural 20 on the attempt, totalling 30-something, he downgraded the successful attempt from an Action, to an Interaction, allowing me to still be able to attack during that same turn.
Definitely like the list \o/. More often than not I personally just find that house rules improve the game overall. Like drinking a potion as a bonus action. If it took a full action to drink a potion I would never use them in battle except maybe MAYBE to feed it to an unconscious ally. Though if I'm playing a fighter and there's an enemy right next to me I might just deal the damage and let the healers take care of it. Also... we all want to see the Rogue fail their stealth checks when they roll a crit fail every once in awhile XD
Why use a table? I narrate the results on the fly - sometimes nothing will happen, but usually a critical fumble will be the logical consequences of the worst possible result of an attempt.
Regarding AC, I understand that the calculations are done to be balanced, but I see no reason why a Monk-Barbarian would suddenly lose the ability to just naturally tank the hit just because they want to be more nimble, or vice versa. Or why a tortoise couldn’t gain the benefits of their shell while also getting that Barbarian bonus. I know intuition isn’t always right, but that’s usually for deep science. I think I’d personally modify all the AC abilities to say “You may add your *stat* modifier to your AC provided *condition*”, since I just can’t see a reason in-universe why it wouldn’t work. THP kind of fall into a similar scenario, but thinking of them more as a temporary shield helps make that more sensible to me.
In fact, aside from 7 and 9 (and kind of 10, but I’ve never played with groups that even use health potions), this seems more like “10 rules you should make sure to continue modifying,” at least to me.
To further complement the potion thing, has anyone played Dark Souls? Try using potions while enemies are ganking up on you, or against a fairly aggressive boss
Im still not sure you can counterspell a counterspell, due to casting times? I may be very wrong. Edit - also in order to get your original spell off, you need to interrupt your casting the original spell to cast counterspell, thus breaking the cast, therefore rendering countering the counterspell redundant.
What triggers me the most that is ignored by a lot of DMs is jumping, you automatically succeed in jumps that are lower than your strength score in feet, I do not need to roll athletics to jump a 10-foot gap with a 17 strength score.
Great tip on how to deal with crit 20s on implausible ability checks. I love the idea of saying: "Yes you rolled a critical 20, but you did not successfully jump 40 feet between the roofs of two buildings. HOWEVER... miraculously a cart full of hay happened to be in the alleyway underneath you and you landed softly on top of it instead of taking 2d6 bludgeoning damage"
I've used a similar example of a character is falling off a cliff. They say they flap their arms and attempt to fly (by flapping, not by spell). Nat 20. Yeah, you still are not able to fly by flapping your arms, but in doing so, you happen to grab a large root sticking out of the side of the cliff.
Nobody ever remembers Cover exists. Which is huge deal, because you can get a free +2 ac or +2 on your dex save VS ranged attacks just by standing next to a monster!
Dungeon Dudes Vision and light is a topic I am always looking again, since I tend to forget the effects of darkvision. I usually forget to apply the disadvantage to perceptions checks.
MisterJasro it is. You have 1/2 movement while moving through difficult terrain. Also if you are jumping and land on difficult terrain, you roll an acrobatics check (I think) or fall prone.
@@DungeonDudes please do and incorporate ways to track the passage of time or seasons. A video on terrain types, common geographical features of said terrain and how to best describe them verbally and succinctly to your group would be very much appreciated.
"You only have temporary hitpoints equal to largest single pool..." 5:50 This is wrong. If you have THP, and you gain THP, you DECIDE whether to keep the old or pick the new. This is important because those THP can come with special conditions (while you have THESE THP, you gain X), hence you might opt against choosing the larger pool and the rules allow this.
There are many imprecise things said in the video, like what you pointed out or mixing the terms "attack" and "attack action". Some of the explanations could've been said in a better, clearer way, but nevertheless the video is informative, if somewhat confusing at times.
I caught that to, but I assumed they meant you as a character can choose the pool of HPs you want to use. I haven't come across this yet in my DMing career, but I feel it will be coming soon.
I don't quite understand what temporary hit points are, if you can explain me that I will apreciate it. I have only played 2 times btw and I'm working in a dungeon.
The example regarding a 20 on a skill check not resulting into an automatic success, a king not giving his kingdom away on a check, is a good example of why the GM has to curate skill checks. Only make players roll skill checks when there's a possibility for success.
A good thing to consider is "failing forward' for very low or 'impossibly high' checks, where you failed the "gimme your kingdom" check, but the King is amused at the notion and laughs it off. The check 'failed', but the GM gets discretion on what exactly failed, and how that may impede the party. Horribly failing a check to pick a lock may open the door, but render the latch completely inoperable and unable to stay closed. Catastrophically failing to bribe a guard, for instance, may be taken as an unbelievably delivered joke not to be taken seriously rather than a serious offer.
A very low probability is still something, at least. Sometimes I see GMs asking for rolls that have literally no chance of succeeding, where no side of the die can net you a pass. In that case I think you're creating false expectations. If you know that you can't possibly succeed I'd say just roleplay it out. If there's even a small chance, like 10%, then I'm quite fond of the "You can certainly try" line coupled with a devilish grin.
One thing to remember is that a successful skill check can succeed and still not grant the player what they want. Let’s say you have a locked door in a dungeon. Your thief tries to pick it, and rolls a nat 20, but for plot reasons you can’t have that door open yet. So you tell him that he feels the tumblers of the lock give way, and he’s sure that the lock is open. Yet, the door refuses to budge. Possibly it is braces from within. Then later, you can provide access by another means. I would never allow a player to “persuade” a king out of their kingdom. But I think it’s important to give players their successes, even if you can’t let them succeed all the way.
You shouldn't only ask when there's a possibility for success. There's also the option of possibility for failure. If I pull out a sword and attempt an intimidation check on a king with 2 of his most powerful and trusted gaurds beside him, you bet all the platinum in your coin pouch that I'm making an intimidation check with disadvantage. There's no way I'm succeeding. I'm rolling to not fail and have the king's guards slaughter me right there in his throne room. It becomes more of a saving throw at that point, but without any bonuses you might normally have for saving throws. A great roll might save my sorry hide for making a stupid decision. Maybe the king sympathizes with me and lets me off the hook with a warning. A fair roll might lead the king down the non-violent path of arresting me and throwing me in prison for some time. A poor roll might be the guards attacking and executing me right there, and if I were to somehow escape, I'd certainly have a bounty on my head.
That's a fair point. In that case it's sort of like the skill equivalent of a saving throw; pass it to not undergo some bad consequence. Maybe I should call it that in my games...
This is nothing. I’ve been playing for a year, and I just found out death saves are not Con saves, magic missile always hits, and duel wielding has other rules.
You (or an enemy) can defend against magic missile by casting the "shield" spell as a reaction, but that's it. There's no "to hit" roll and it can't be saved against. It doesn't do a huge amount of damage, but it's guaranteed to do some. That's its main value as a spell.
I always make death saves into CON saves because logic. Tough guys hang on longer. Plus, if an enemy is smarter than the average cow, they'll finish off an enemy lying gasping in the dirt... so round after round of death saves should ideally be irrelevant in the midst of battle anyway (better shoot that orc before he beheads Johnny!)
@@SomeRU-vidTraveler the counterargument is that constitution has already done all it's work when you're at 0hp. You are on death's door and it's up to fate. For that reason it's a minor house rule at the table I'm at that the lucky feat can't be used on death saving throws.
@@cm01 I think it depends on how you treat HP. If you treat it with the classical misunderstanding (e.g. how 99% of people play, including me until recently), then your HP is whittled down by direct hit after direct hit, and at 0 you've been butchered and brutalized and yeah it's up to fate if you survive. But with HP representing more of a combat endurance, and dropping to 0 representing the one direct hit that got past your experienced parrying and dodging, then I think it leaves some room for letting CON assist your body's resilience to bleeding out on the spot. Huh, I never considered the Lucky feat. One of my party members has that and it's never come up yet -- I'll see if they're ok with making that tweak before it comes up, because I think it makes sense.
You missed a common one I’ve heard about. This spell effect where a cube originates from you. You’re not at the center of the cube, you’re at one side of the cube
Thunder Wave is a big thing that confuses my players. I've had to draw it out on the map for several players so that they understand. I've actually been tempted to change it to a five-foot radius spell that pushes opponents away, just to make my life easier.
Thunderwave is such a popular 1st level pick. Almost every group I've played with has done it wrong (including me and a variety of human-rules dictionary players), and it makes me wonder just what percentage of tables would be surprised by the real rule. I think it makes Thunderwave quite a bit better, but maybe it's arguable.
... and Animal Handling checks aren't meant to let you tame wild beasts! There's a reason why an entire Ranger subclass gets to do that, and why Dominate Beast is a 4th-level spell that lasts for one minute. A haunch of meat and a nat 20 doesn't mean this wolf is going to become your new party member. Similarly: "I suggest you do everything I say from now on" is not a valid use of Suggestion - again, there's a reason why Dominate Person is a higher-level spell that only lasts for a minute.
Maybe not Wild Beasts, but a beast that is neutral or naturally inclined to be friendly might be friendly and join your party for some time if it has reasons to do it. That's what Jeremy Crawford said when he talked about the Revised Ranger like 1 month ago. Fun fact: he said that in defense of the Beastmaster Ranger. I don't know how the fact that a druid can have an animal companion just with proficiency can be an argument to defend beastmaster rangers, but that's what Crawford said.
Animal handling the skill you'd use for beast taming, there's just no defined rules for it, it's definitely not charming them though, taming beasts takes time
Yes to tame, or at least increase disposition to friendly, no to bonus party member, unless the party is so bad off it needs a cr 1/4 creature as a necessary add.
I can give you 10 I see all the time: 1) As they mention, drinking a potion as a bonus is super-common 2) Short rest duration: Is often made shorter. I've seen as quick as one round. This is usually accompanied with a max # of short rests allowed 3) Multiclassing: Restrictions that prevent single level dips (example: You must take at least 3 levels of current class before multiclassing out of that class) 4) Rage: Relaxing the restrictions on maintaining rage, so if a Barbarian spends a round charging an enemy for example, they can keep their rage up 5) Wildshape: All kinds of different ones here to reduce the impact of moon druids from levels 2-4. Either more agressive restrictions on CR at these levels, or penalties (like stunned condition) if brought out of wildshape due to damage 6) Monks: So many - but generally some damage increases, like increasing unarmed damage by a die type 7) Beastmaster Ranger: After one round of commanding pet to attack, it attacks on its own in subsequent rounds 8) Wild Magic Sorcerer: Increase chances on wild magic occurring, or allow them to trigger it automatically with sorcery points 9) Blade pact Warlocks: Get armor and shield proficiencies 10) Warlock: Agonizing blast does not work with extra eldritch blasts gained from levels not in Warlock
@@sumnerhayes3411 always figured optional rules as house rules cause you have to rule if your going to use or not. Seeing any rule that you can't depend on at each table you play, then it is a house rule. So I guess in a way optional rules would be suggested house rules.
There is one big one I have and that is that Sorcerers can trade any number of their already known spells for others on level up instead of having it be one at a time. That rule of only being able to swap one spell is a retarded carryover from 3.5 specifically and to this day, I have no idea why they decided that was a good idea.
Everyone makes mistakes with the rules. Sometimes it makes a big difference, but most of the time it's not a big deal. Regardless, when someone does get the rules wrong -- whether they are the Dungeon Master or a player -- remember to be respectful and constructive. Don't derail the game with rules arguments. If you can't come to a consensus in the moment quickly, roll a d6 to determine who's interpretation stands for now. Then address it after the game in a respectful and polite manner.
Honhoa Ong Mage armor makes your AC 13 + your Dexterity modifer. It can't be combined with Unarmored Defense class features or Natural Armor traits. You have to choose which you want to use.
Dungeon Dudes How does this relate to using a shield which adds a +2 to AC? Mage armor sounds like a force field giving extra protection. If I have a Draconic Sorcerer (with dragon scales) casting Mage Armor shouldn't the two combine to give a slightly better AC or perhaps a resistance to bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage? I realize that is not in the rules as written but could you give a physics reason why (as must as one can for a world where magic exists)? Also why does the spell Shield give a +5 to AC but a shield only +2? Thank you.
Chessking E4 A bonus from a shield, the Shield of Faith spell, the Shield Spell, or a magic item such as a ring of protection is usually written as "you gain a +1/+2/+5 bonus to your AC". You can almost always combine these (unless you are trying to combine the same effect twice, for example, if two clerics both cast Shield of Faith on you). An armor class calculation, however, is usually written like this "Your base AC becomes 13 + its Dexterity modifier" or "18" or "10 + your dexterity modifier + your Wisdom modifier". These cannot be combined. Any bonuses above are added to the base AC. The reason is entirely one of game balance, not physics. In the case of Mage Armor, traditionally, the spell is imagined to conjure an ethereal suit of armor, which is why it can't be combined with actual worn armor. In the case of natural armor, it's assumed that any attack strong enough to penetrate the manufactured or magical armor worn over natural armor can easily punch through whatever natural armor is underneath (not very realistic, but it's a somewhat reasonable explanation). The Shield spell gives such a large bonus likely because it's a temporary effect, meant to turn a hit into a miss. Ultimately, high armor class is intentionally difficult to achieve without magic items.
Dungeon Dudes Different question but I am curious. My Bard has Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion. It is listed as a conjuration spell and as such the items inside the mansion are real while still remaining in there. If I decorate it with multiple diamond chandeliers, can I use the diamonds as material componates for resurrection?
Interesting to know, but something I wouldn't normally rule against. IMO, Concentration checks are just a tad too punishing for characters as it is. Really awesome mechanic in that they stop the Uber-Buffs from 3.X, but somewhat limiting if you have a character who has most of their spells come from a pool of Concentration-Check spells (Bard, Enchantment Specialist Wizard, etc.). I see no reason to add an additional imposition on a character from one of these builds. As part of the fluff, I see no reason to require the spell to already be in mid-casting like they suggest above, just that the words are on your lips to utter if the conditions are met.
@@lluewhyn I know I house ruled in nearly every game I have run that merely readying a spell does not consume it. The logic being readying a spell and not having the trigger go off for you to finish casting it and expending the spell to me is like saying I ready my action to fire my pistol when X happens, only to not have X happen and still lose the bullet anyway despite not actually pulling the trigger.
A mistake my DM and I made was my 2nd level druid used Wild Shape and turned into a blood hawk for a rooftop chase encounter. A druid cannot turn into anything with a flying speed until level 8. I didn’t realize until halfway through 😅
Heh, made for a good story tho I bet, and that's always the important bit. Just take a page from Discworld or Loony Tunes... it works fine up until the universe gets around to you and says, 'Heeey, waitaminute....' which is the point when you notice the error. Saves time and frustration on rollbacks. And depending how high up the druid is, hilarity may ensue.
Had a player come to me with leather armor and a ac of 19 when I asked him how he got that he told me that he was proficient so he added his proficiency bonus (5th level pc)
Seconded. The only justification I know for the "surprised" condition was in another reply, that once your turn passes the surprise wears off, and you can then take reactions.
I have a character that "can NOT be surprised" according to the rules. I had to argue this with a DM who had a bunch of archers pop out of the tree line and shoot at us. With the higher initiative I tossed a fireball at them. Iinstead of 8 arrows flying at us, only two of the archers were alive when their turn came.
@@stephensteinhauer3346 Narrativelly thats pretty amazing. Im imaging those archers ready to pop up at the same time to shoot and just see a fireball coming towards them
Honorable mention: Reloading a crossbow does NOT take a Bonus Action! The "Loading" tag simply states "You may only make one attack with this weapon per round." reloading the weapon is included for free as part of the Action of firing the weapon. So the only limitation to using a crossbow or other Loading weapons is that you cannot make more than one attack with the weapon per round unless you have the Crossbow Expert feat.
Yet people still argue that, even if you have crossbow expert, you can still only make one attack per round *help me,* I just want to use a crossbow please
Crossbow expert is OP. We do not allow it. We do it like this: Hand Crossbow = 1D6; Reload time --> One full round if your ST is at least 6+ Light Crossbow = 1D8; Reload time --> One full round if your ST is at least 10+ Medium Crossbow = D10; Reload time --> Two full rounds if your ST is at least 12+ Heavy Crossbow = 1D12; Reload time --> Three full rounds if your ST is at least 14+ While reloading a crossbow you may not move or conduct any other action. You may not shoot at the end of a round, when you have been reloading. Spanning a crossbow by hand has a 1:1 mechanical advantage and can span crossbows of up to 150 lbs. span weight, if you have the ST listed or higher. If you do not have the listed ST or above you may not load a crossbow with that corresponding draw-weight unless you use a mechanical device to span the crossbow. There are 9 ways to span a crossbow using mechanical devices they are: 1.) Cranequin, has a 182:1 mechanical advantage and can span crossbows of up to 2000+ lbs. span weight. Reload time 4 rounds! 2.) Screw Jack, has a 47:1 mechanical advantage and can span crossbows of up to 1000+ lbs. span weight. Reload time 5 rounds! 3.) Sitting Span, has a 1:1 mechanical advantage and can span crossbows of up to 300 lbs. span weight. Reload time 4 rounds! * 4.) Stirrup, has a 1:1 mechanical advantage and can span crossbows of up to 250 lbs. span weight. Reload time 5 rounds! * 5.) Spanning Belt, has a 1:1 mechanical advantage and can span crossbows of up to 320 lbs. span weight. Reload time 5 rounds! * 6.) Doubler Belt, has a ~2:1 mechanical advantage and can span crossbows of up to 450 lbs. span weight. Reload time 5 rounds! * 7.) Goat’s Foot, has a ~5:1 mechanical advantage and can span crossbows of up to 550 lbs. span weight. Reload time 2 rounds! 8.) Gaff Lever, has a ~5:1 mechanical advantage and can span crossbows of up to 250 lbs. span weight. Reload time 2 rounds! 9.) Windlass, has a 78:1 mechanical advantage and can span crossbows of up to 1500+ lbs. span weight. Reload time 4 rounds! The cranequin, screw jack and windlass require a certain level of prerequisite advanced medieval or renaissance technology to produce and might not be available to some cultures.
@@manfredconnor3194 That is a stupid decision on your part. You already get the benefit of Crossbow Expert (in terms of the number of attacks) by using a shortbow or longbow. The only parts of the feat that actually buff anything uniquely are getting to fire a hand crossbow as a bonus action (when not using a two-handed weapon & you have at least one free hand) and not suffering disadvantage from using a ranged weapon within 5 feet of an enemy (doesn't prevent you from suffering disadvantage from other sources). None of that is OP. All your groups redesign does is make crossbows crap.
@@DBArtsCreators No sorry, but you do not get it. There are different sizes and weights of crossbows not just one. They have different loading times, inflict different damage and have different ranges. Just like there is no only one size of shield. THAT is stupid. The feat for crossbows is also stupid. Although you might be able to get some speed reloading a crossbow. It is not going to be like reloading a musket. There is just not much that you can improve there. But I was actually thinking of sharpshooter when I wrote this. Sharpshooter is OP. Crossbow expert is just slightly unrealistic. Stupid one-size-fits all streamlined to ridiculousness 5e. It is beer and pretzels, if that is what you want. I will give you that. My players do not want that. All your blathering does is make you look like a turd. I will run my game my way. There may be someone else out there, who is looking for a little bit more diversity. Now sod off!
Start video "Wait, people have difficulty calculating AC?" Moments later "Wait, Natural Armor doesn't stack with Monk/Barbarian bonus?" Surprise Round is probably a holdover from previous editions, where it was a thing.
Yeah, what's the point of natural armor if the bonus can't meet with even the lowest ac armors? It should totally stack. It's not like you're trying to get away with overlapping chainmail and plate either.
Natural armor should be a flat bonus that applies when you aren't wearing armor, that way it could stack with the unarmored bonuses of the Monk & Barbarian. I'd likewise say the Monk & Barbarian bonuses should stack (you still have to give up on the benefits that can come from magic armor either way). Only change the surprise portion of the first round needs is having a stipulation that the "surprised" condition equates to going 'last' in the turn order, disregarding their initiative until the 2nd round (so that things like the bugbear's "surprise attack" and the Assassin's "Assassinate" can function on surprised characters even if their said characters' initiatives are high).
Also, there's a caveat to the casting only a cantrip... It only counts if the normal spell cast was a bonus action spell. If you have an ability that gives you another normal action (such as Action Surge from the Fighter class) You can use each normal action to cast a spell as normal. This was clarified by Jeremy Crawford.
here’s one that several DMs at my local venue seem to get wrong....again and again. i’ve had to argue with them multiple times. an ability check and a saving throw are NOT THE SAME THING! if something says “disadvantage on ability checks” that does NOT mean “disadvantage on saving throws” and i’ve had people say, “but the saving throw is derived from your ability stats, therefore, it is an ability check” and i respond “well, then why are they differentiating 2 separate definitions if they are the same thing” and they respond “the authors fucked up, I know what’s correct” and then I point to the exhaustion table and say “then why does level 1 exhaustion give disadvantage on ability checks and level 2 exhaustion specifies disadvantage on saving throws? if they are the same thing, then level 1 exhaustion would already be giving me disadvantage on saving thows and level 2 would be a double redundancy and that makes no sense” i’ve seen this when they hit the party with exhaustion and try to make us roll saving throws at disadvantage. i have also seen players misinterpret Hex (i’m guilty myself, but i caught myself before i actually used it), i thought i could use the warlock’s Hex spell to give an enemy disadvantage on say, their dexterity checks and then throw a fireball at them and they would roll with disadvantage, but then I went back and read the spell again and it says “ability checks”, not “saving throws”. which makes the spell quite a bit less OP than I originally thought it was. it’s still a strong spell but, now i’m not sure how giving an enemy disadvantage on ability checks is really all that helpful...unless maybe you choose strength and then have a party member grapple that creature.
My players' warlock usually chooses to hex strength checks so that the fighter can knock them over easier with his shield bash ability. Also makes it harder to get out of entangle or other similar effects.
I guarantee you the reason those DM's are struggling to connect the dots is that in previous D&D, when advantage/disadvantage didn't exist, nearly all buffs/debuffs took the form of flat stat increases/decreases. This _did_ affect everything related to the stat, from skill checks to saves, because it made logical sense. But now in 5e, to simplify the nightmarish math involved in constant stat adjustments, they decided to use the advantage system. Then, to fill the void in spell effects and such, they separated ability checks and saving throws in many areas. As both a DM and a player, I think the advantage system is great. It removes tons of headache from all the stat math and re-math. But as for separating ability check debuffs from saving throw debuffs... I'm not a fan. That's how it is, though, and your DM's need to understand it.
I'm new to 5e, so I may be wrong here, but Saving Throws are based on your level; ability checks are based on the Attribute in question. That's how I applied them when DMing earlier editions.
Wait what? So I was at 7 hours of my long rest and literally sat down on the ground during an encounter so I wouldn't have to rest for another 8 hours for no reason?! 😤
I think you have to be "disturbed" for more then 10mins to cancel a short of long rest. And a long rest is not you only sleeping for 8hours i thinka human needs 6hours of the 8 so you can "do" stuff for the remaining hours
it just adds an hour to the long rest. so in bandits attack overnight, and everyone fights. it's been 7 hours of rest. they just need 2 hours instead of 1 more for the long rest
That's incorrect. One hour refers to walking, every other example just has to occur to interrupt it. You don't have to cast spells for an hour, just casting one is enough.
Rodmar No u! Page 186 of the PHB under Long Rest: A long test is a period of extended downtime, at least 8 hours long, during which a character sleeps or performs light activity: reading, talking, eating, or standing watch for no more than 2 hours. If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity - at least one hour of walking, fighting, casting spells or similar adventuring activity - the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit. Maybe it’s just me, but the language suggests to me that the ‘1 hour’ encompasses all of those listed activities, not just walking. As a DM at least, that’s how I rule it. Especially if you’ve already been resting for, say, six hours - I don’t believe that a fight only lasting say four or five rounds (24-30 seconds) should completely negate those 6 hours of rest. Even if a fight goes for a full minute or ten rounds, that’s not enough exertion as far as I’m concerned.
The 'Drinking a potion is an action' one. My Cleric's DM explicitly said she's making it a Bonus Action to drink one yourself, but an Action to administer it to someone else. Mostly because we're more often than not with 3 players at the table, and losing even a single 'turn' to downing a potion shifts the balance just a tad too much in the enemy's favor. Not that we use a great deal of potions in combat, since the healing they provide is just small enough to not be worth it, most of the time.
The fact is that potions are not part of class features, classes are not balanced around potions. That's why drinking a potion is an action. Potions are meant to be consumables that you can use between fights to recover some HP, not during fights to make them easier. For that, there are classes that have healing as features or spells. And even there, those things are regular actions, except Healing Word which is one of the strongest spells in the game by the way.
Khristian Bolano There are a bunch of other bonus action heals. Circle of Dreams druid, Celestial warlocks, etc. Circle of Dreams is great because it's not a spell, so you can use it while wild shaped.
@@sumnerhayes3411 the Circle of Dreams one is something the Druid uses for itself, so it can't use it while downed. The Celestial Warlock is an entire subclass dedicated to that, and even that needs range of touch if I remember correctly (as opposed to Healing Word which can be used at distance). And after all they're class features that use class resources, Potions are out-of-class consumables that are virtually unlimited during a day.. the difference becomes more and more evident
The idea of using a potion as a bonus action comes down to this: Would you let a player cast a spell as a bonus action? Because a potion is a one use spell in a bottle, that does not require a verbal component (ie, it can be used if the character is silenced). If your group decides that is the way to go, then it should apply to scrolls as well and even class spells and features. However, the game is built around using spells as an action.
I see no issue in allowing casters to continue holding a spell, readied, from round to round. It still takes their action to hold it, uses their reaction to use it, and still eats up their concentration. If a fighter readies their attack and doesn't take it, you don't take their sword away.
There is nothing in the rules that say you have to use the readied action before you next turn, so I would allow it. I also allow you to release the spell before your next turn if your trigger isn't met. It seems sensible to me that if you are going to lose the spell you should be able to release it rather than lose it.
@@diggis79 The rules actually do specify that a readied action must be taken before the start of your next turn. The justification for spells working this way is both a balance issue, and a flavor one. Waiting to cast a spell until specific conditions are met is often very powerful, as it can either allow you to target more creatures than you otherwise could (i.e. waiting until more enemies are bunched up) or avoiding hitting your allies, among other things. Spells are also inherently more powerful than attacks, being much more versatile and carrying, potentially, a much higher damage potential. This is countered by the fact that, when readying a spell, the higher level it is, the greater the resource you risk should you be unable to cast it for whatever reason. Flavor-wise, the justification is pretty simple: you're summoning the energy required for your spell, then just holding on to it. A fireball, for instance, wants to explode. It's a 40-ft-wide ball of fire, condensed into a tiny bead. Sounds like it would be pretty hard to hold onto that sucker for very long
I could see a house rule for allowing it to continue if it is the same spell. But if you hold a spell one turn, don't use it, and then ready a different spell, it should consume the spell slot.
One thing you missed regarding Proficiencies: If you gain the same proficiency from multiple sources, you can instead choose any proficiency of the same type. For example: A Half Orc with the Soldier background gets Intimidation from both. Instead of losing the second proficiency you can choose any skill proficiency you want. This is mentioned in the PHB on page 125 in the Proficiencies section.
The other thing with proficiencies is that if your background gives you proficiency in the same skill/tool that you already have, you can choose a different proficiency of the same type
Backgrounds are fully customizable, as stated by the rules themselves. You can take any 2 tool/language proficiencies (i.e. 2 tool, 2 language, or 1 tool & 1 language) and any 2 skill proficiencies. Then for your background feature you either pick one from one of the pre-made backgrounds, or you talk to your DM and create one that they deem acceptable.
I did actually show up to one of my first games as a level 1 character with an AC of 20. I rolled really well on my stats so showed up with a 19 Con 17 Dex Barbarian with a shield.
@@Mario13bacano A rather bad tank actually, he's been the sole survivor of more than one session. He's had 21AC since level 4. I couldn't resist putting the ASI in Dex and Con for an extra 2 AC. With 18 Dex and a longbow he makes a very good ranged fighter too, although I guess that will drop off as levels raise.
@@LarsaXL Oh boy i don't know how many are at your table and how hard have been the fights but for you to be the sole survivor at least means he's pretty strong by himself.I don't recommend using longbow in every situation tho since you will need 2 hands so you won't be able to wield a shield at the same time and loose your rage bonus dmg but i can see its use with your unusual high dex xd
Nice selection of rules covered! The one that tripped up my group is when to apply damage from area effect spells and effects, like spirit guardians and cloud kill. Specifically when you're moved into the effect by another player or monster outside your turn. The rules say, "When a creature enters the spell’s area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there". You can essentially take double damage a round from Cloud Kill if dragged into the spell outside of your turn! (damn you Count Strahd!)
You don't take damage twice in that scenario though...As per the rule you stated, they take the damage ON THEIR TURN, whether they started their turn in to AoE or walked into it during their turn. Still only one damage instance. If this wasn't the case, then for example one player could repeatedly drag a grappled enemy in and out of the AoE, re-applying the damage dice.
Lee Wiens If you read the rule I quoted. It actually says "On a Turn" not "On their Turn" as you stated. This is exactly what tripped our group up at first it sounds like it can be gamed like you stated! It was me making that argument to my DM at the time hehe. But I'll quote Jeremy Crawford from here. dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-april-2016 He says "Entering such an area of effect needn’t be voluntary, unless a spell says otherwise. You can, therefore, hurl a creature into the area with a spell like thunderwave. We consider that clever play, not an imbalance, so hurl away! Keep in mind, however, that a creature is subjected to such an area of effect only the first time it enters the area on a turn. You can’t move a creature in and out of it to damage it over and over again on the same turn." It's an interesting read. To be honest it's not very clear even now but rules as written it is possible to take damage from a spell like cloud kill twice in a round or more in extreme circumstances. But it's not very clear from the spell description! Example would be. Count Strahd is first in initiative drags player into cloudkill. Player takes damage on Strahds turn. The player now starts its turn in the cloudkill effect and because it fulfills one of the criteria for the spell and being a different turn the player takes damage. I guess there's still some wiggle room for rules lawyering it either way. But it's something that can come up in play that is tough to rule on so it's cool to discuss it.
In fairness I'm not 100% convinced by my argument even now. As Jeremy Crawfords answer doesn't cover this exact situation. I'd love to know if there's a rule somewhere that states you can't take damage from a spell effect more than once a ROUND. If thats a rule somewhere then obviously I am mistaken. (And I can go back and retcon my Strahd fight, suckit DM!)
I thought that you generally only took damage from those spells on the respective creature/player's turn, but it seems from the Sage Advice you posted and other people explaining rules that you are correct. RIP your Strahd fight haha
"When a creature enters", not "...is dragged into". You have to willingly move with your movement into the area of effect for the ability or spell to affect you. This was confirmed in Sage Advice, though I frankly don't have the time to search for the link to that specific answer right now. Re: "on A turn" - you can sometimes move on somebody else's turn, most often as a reaction. This is still you willingly moving, so the AoE affects you as if you moved willingly on YOUR turn. However, some effects can be applied multiple times per round, if for example you "take damage when entering the area for the first time on a turn or end your turn there". This in my opinion is imprecise wording and should be corrected, but currently this allows for "double damage" from some spells or abilities.
Ones that I love are the Bards that get surprised that their 'Jack of all Trades' ability does apply to their Initiative. In fact, there are only a small handful of things that affects the Initiative beyond the initial Dex Mod. JoaT will add 1/2 the Bard's Proficiency Bonus [max +3] to their Initiative & the Alert Feat [+5]. So the max "+" the Initiative will be, not counting the Magic Item that increases the Stat Max beyond 20, will end up being +13 [5 (Dex Mod) + 5 (Alert) + 3 (JoaT)] before the d20 roll to determine the Init Order. I also love those that mistakenly think that they are able to apply the Rogue & Bard's Expertise Abilities to their Initiative. Nope, as Initiative is an Ability [Dex] Check not a Skill, which is what the Rogue & Bard's respective Expertise Abilities target
Wrong according to the PHB (RAW). To quote the book (highlights mine): * (Bard, Jack of All Trades): "Starting at 2nd level, you can add half your proficiency bonus, rounded down, *to any ability check you make* that doesn't already include your proficiency bonus." * (Rogue, Reliable Talent): "By 11th level, you have refined your skills until they approach perfection. *Whenever you make an ability check that lets you add your proficiency bonus, you can treat a d20 roll of 9 or less as a 10* ." Neither mentions anywhere that they are limited to *only* skill checks. Both target all ability scores where you have proficiency (such ability checks include but are not limited to, according to the PHB, initiative rolls, attack rolls for weapons & spells, saving throws, the use of tools & vehicles, crafting, Constitution checks while holding your breath or marching without rest, breaking bonds, etc). That is what the PHB's RAW states, and there aren't any retroactive mentions in any of the other books published yet that change this. It is reasonable to say that, RAI, both class features should only apply to skill checks & tools checks, but that doesn't change it from being a DM homebrew ruling that the books don't currently support.
@@DBArtsCreators you are wrong, because per page 189 initiative *is* a dexterity check. This is *directly confirmed* by the sage advice compendium, page 10 (in version 2.7) which says “Don’t forget that initiative rolls are Dexterity checks, *so Jack of All Trades can benefit a bards initiative, assuming the bard isn’t already adding his or her proficiency bonus to it”*
"You only get the benefit of 1d4; you cannot roll 2d4 for bless because that would be outrageous." *[divine soul sorcerers cackling in the background]*
We recently switched from 2nd edition to 5th. We played multiple sessions following the rules closely. My players demanded critical fail and success charts back. They missed the comical crit 1's like hitting other party members. Had to share because it made me proud as a dm
understandable(and fun) but the Dudes make a good point...the monsters your party is facing usually only have a (relatively) small number of chances to 'crit miss' while the party roll soooo many more times over the course of an adventure are subject to waaay more crit misses...its actually an unnecessary(imho) penalty to the players just for living thru the previous encounters...but hey, if your players want it in, its all good
the problem with critical fumbles is that the players are meant to be experts in their fields. the higher level you are, the more attacks you make, and this with fumbles, the more you screw up. if your seasoned fighter hacks at a straw dummy for a minute, they should not be dropping their sword at any point.
Wait, so that one time i rolled a 1 on my +20something stealth check (Funny how giving a shadow monk a few rogue levels can break the game) didn't had to be a total desaster? Just great....
In my playgroup we've been using the concentration in spells very wrong (I think), because we thought that if you are maintaining concentration on a spell and cast a sprll that doesn't require concentration we cancelled the con spell
Couple of points I want to make. First regarding Extra Attack, and language use. I personally describe Extra Attack as altering the meaning of the Attack action, from granting the right to make 1 weapon attack, to granting the right to make 2 (or more for Fighters). That helps keep clear how you are taking one action, but then performing several attacks. Also, the special attacks such as shove etc, are done in place of an attack, not in place of the Attack action. Basically, reserve the term "action" for its application in combat activities (movement, action, bonus action, reaction), that will help keep things clear. Secondly, the bonus action casting. You are essentially correct, but it's worth pointing out that the restriction is "the only spells you can cast on your turn are cantrips with a casting time of 1 action" after casting any spell as a bonus action. This includes any use of the Fighter feature Action Surge, so if you have bonus action cast, both your action and the action granted by Action Surge would be restricted to cantrips. Similarly, bonus action casting stops reaction spells from being cast if you are wanting to cast one in your own turn. If it is in another's turn, go right ahead and cast normally. Using Action Surge when not bonus action casting places no cantrip only restriction on either spell cast. Finally, I am surprised you didn't mention two weapon fighting, and how it's bonus action attack works. This is a repeated issue on many discussion groups. When dual wielding, your Attack action attack(s) can come from either weapon freely. Left, right, "primary", "secondary" - it doesn't matter. The bonus action attack only has to come from a weapon not used in *one* of the Attack action attacks. People often refer to this attack as "offhand", but that can lead to the misunderstanding that the Attack action attacks have to all come from one weapon, and the bonus from the other, which is not the case. If your Attack action grants 2 attacks, you could attack with both left and right hand weapons as part of the Attack action, then the bonus action attack could come from either weapon. It is only if both come from the right hand then the bonus must come from the left, or both Attack action attacks come from the left hand, then the bonus has to come from the right. As one persistent campaigner for accuracy in Rules puts it - "There is no off-hand". Otherwise, good video, thanks for posting it.
I still keep crit success and crit fails on skill checks in my games. I like the idea that even the best rogue can still mess up a stealth check or something. It then comes down to me as the GM to keep in mind what I allow players to do. If something isn't really possible I just tell them that they can't do it. For your example for trying to convince a king t give up his kingdom in favor of the character. I might have the NPC "play along" on a Nat 20, or as you said just have the king take it as a joke. Its one of those things that I like keeping, but I can see why others don't. But I'm clear with the party going into a game what some of my personal house rules are. If there is a problem we discuss it and either I drop the house rule or they are willing to play with it in place. Most of the time they do since it makes things a little more interesting.
I mean, the rogue was a bad example in this case, because from level 11 on (maybe 10 or 12) rogues get "reliable talent", which makes it that any roll on a skillcheck they are proficient in turns into a 10 on the roll. So a rogue can't even crit fail with the thing he's proficient with. Edit: 10 or higher of course.
On a nat20 I would have the king say: Ahhh... my kingdom yes. I had almost forgot. As the King Borsky died without an heir, I inherited his wretched, monster-infested kingdom up in those northern swamps. If you can pacify those lands I shall name you the rightful Duke of Borskyra.
@@Questington On strange cases like jumping off a cliff and trying to fly. A nat 20 is success. 1-19 is death. To date, nobody has tempted fate. All players are aware they can, at any time.
I'm playing my first RPG Tabletop campaign ever with some adults that I know (I'm only 15) and I've only played Pathfinder, but I still really enjoy you guys' content.
something I tend to do in terms of the health potion bonus action thing is every short or long rest each character can prepare 1 consumable that can weigh no more than 1 pound to be used as a bonus action, once that item is consumed they will have to wait before preparing another one and any subsequent consumable uses require actions as normal. It gives the players a chance to almost have a single quick use item to get them out of a really harsh situation while at the same time not being able to chug a tonne of potions while still dishing out damage. It has proven very effective in playtests
The "surprise round" issue is one they made themselves. True, they no longer CALL IT a surprise round, but that is exactly what it is. It is a round in combat, in which surprised characters do not act. That is the definition of the surprise round from the previous editions and branched products (pathfinder). It was a pointless change as they didn't change what it does, just made it more complicated to explain by saying "Oh no, it's not a "round" it's a condition you apply...for only one round...at the start of combat...like a surprise round." The potion issue is just because it was stupid to require a whole action just to drink a potion (despite being able to chug a bug of ale without even using an action). Potions are not nearly powerful enough to affect encounter balance, and if they are it's because you're not playing right.
@@HeavensOfMetal makes the point here. Since surprised characters still roll initiative, the surprised condition ends at their initiative count and does NOT maintain for the whole first round of battle! So the surprise might end before some or even all PCs get to their turns, and while he still doesn't get to act he can react from that moment on and all boni like sneak attacks wouldn't automatically apply as he would see and expect you
@@thorndrall I always found this somewhat ridiculous in my opinion. I'll give an example why: I set an ambush for an enemy. I succeed my stealth check and the enemy has no idea I am there. I declare I am going to attack and we roll initiative. The enemy goes first in initiative, and their surprise ends despite absolutely nothing having happened that could possibly have tipped them off or that they could be reacting to. My ambush has now failed without me ever being detected. I decide to not attack, and since I have not been revealed the enemy cannot reasonably attack me as they have no idea I am even there. It's frankly a totally ludicrous situation to ever encounter, made even worse when you add in certain abilities that prevent being surprised such as the Alert feat or the Barbarian being able to act so long as they rage first (what barbarian doesn't immediately rage first?). With those you now have someone taking a full turn despite having absolutely nothing to even react to and no reason to take any action.
@@asherandai1000 I agree with your issue here. I would personally rule that initiative is roles the moment combat starts. Thus, either one person being detected or if that's not the case, you making an attack. This would possible allow two surprise attacks from you (but only if no player is detected at all and you being quicker). While perhaps OP, this also thematicly works. The first arrow hits, by no idea from where and you use the confusion to quickly (high initiative) shoot a second time.
Just started playing recently and have made the following mistakes so far: - Letting someone apply a dex modifier to AC when wearing chain mail - Not realizing that the rogue can use sneak attack when the target is within 5 feet of an enemy We'll see what other mistakes come to light as we continue.
Not sure if it was a typo or not but the rogue can use sneak attack if the target is within 5 feet of an ALLY. Important distinction, since theres a lot of times where the enemies will be stacked together but, unless the rogue positions well with the fighter, the party may not be stacked close enough to easily trigger sneak attack
@@fglm0017 I think they meant the rouge can use sneak attack on a target when the target is within 5ft of one of the targets enemies. (Aka the rouges Ally) Edit: continuing the silliness of this comment chain I accidentally wrote 10ft instead of 5. Woops. That has been fixed now.
The crit fail/success thing is something I had no idea about. That’s good to know. The stealth aspect of spell readying and concentration is also a good point....I’ve seen a lot of videos where people make the most common lists of what people get wrong but these are actually things I haven’t thought about. The Dudes are freaking scholars
It really helps the Collage of Lore Bard stand out with the level 14 Peerless Skill ability. My Bard just hit level 14 with a (thanks to expertise) + 15 persuasion (Cha 20) and now may spend a bardic inspiration die (d10) to add to the total. Average persuasion check of 30! :-P
Hundred Years Boar Why yes your majesty, I do think it is a good idea to give me some say on how the royal treasury is used. Fortunately my Bard is NG but a LE Bard my have different thoughts. The lesson here is to be nice to the Bard in the party.
We definitely use the bonus action to drink a potion, but we also say that it is an action to feed someone else that potion so it's not as an abused thing. The DM also makes it a little harder for potions to be come by so the players have to be wary when using them. At least, that's what we do. But this has been helpful since I am a starting out DM.
I have to take issue with the last one, if only because the DMG contradicts the PHB here. Per the PHB, things that can be done in conjunction with your action+movement include "withdraw[ing] a potion from your Backpack " and "drink[ing] all the ale in a flagon ". This seems to indicate that over the course of two turns, you can withdraw and drink an item without spending any actions doing so. The DMG has the benefit of specifically mentioning potions, but when it comes down to it there's rules support for either one. That said, I think I prefer the PHB interpretation, because it means you can either spend an entire turn withdrawing a potion then using it as an action, or you can take longer to withdraw it and drink it without interrupting your actions, adding more strategic flexibility.
It's only fun if everybody agrees. Randomly finding out were rolling for stats or we are using crit failure /success on skills is a great way to make me leave a group.
That's obvious. But that's different than what is being pointed out here. This is more "people assume the rules work like they did in 3.5 and they really don't" or just "they didn't actually read the whole thing".
Nobody is saying that you must play this way, but many many people think that the rules themselves say one thing when they simply do not. Most people wouldn't really care too much if temp. hit points don't stack because they aren't usually very large numbers to begin with, but its nice to know they don't because if there wasn't a specific clause in the rules saying so there would be no reason to believe they didn't.
I have made to much homebrew to post it all in a comment. Instead, here's a link to it all in Google Drive. drive.google.com/folderview?id=1DDD-SiWKTZlRdTu7k29YOuy6BwRGZFxB Please feel free to give feedback! 😁
Having rules and being a flexible and streamlined system are not mutually exclusive. The rules allow a DM to have a stable gameplay system without having to create the entire system from scratch. The DM is free to add, subtract, or modify any rule he chooses, but at least they have a baseline to start from.
How do you define a rules lawyer? Regardless, you can be the judge yourself, if you'd like to watch our live campaign, Dungeons of Drakkenheim! The first episode is available here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-MNcpxqT_WsM.html If you still think we're rules lawyers after seeing us play, I'd be interested to know why. We believe that the rules are a *tool* for telling a story, not a set of shackles to railroad the experience. The rules give us a framework for shared imagination, and set reasonable limitations on what the players, monsters, and magic can accomplish. It's easy to assume that just because someone defends clear and consistent interpretations of the rules, they're a rules lawyer. Part of having good judgement when making a ruling is knowing how the rules work and how best to use them.
Could you guys do an explanation clarifying two-weapon fighting? Can everyone use two weapons? Do you need to take a fighting style or feat to attack and what about modifiers and ability scores? Thanks, love the channel!
Everyone can wield two weapons. When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to make a single attack with a light weapon in your off-hand. You don't apply your Ability score modified to the damage roll of the attack. There are several class features (Two Weapon Fighting Style, Dual Wielder) feat that improve this or let you use non-light weapons, but the baseline option is available to anyone.
It's also important to note that your "Main" weapon has to be 'light' as well. Both weapons need to have the 'light' property in order to do an off-hand attack. So no Rapier + Dagger my fellow rogues..
Dungeon Dudes As an addendum, BOTH attacks, (action and bonus action) must be made with light weapons, not just the bonus action. So one cannot use a longsword in the main hand and a shortsword in the off hand. Duel wielder (feat), removes this restriction.
Actually, not quite. When you take the Attack action and attack with one of the light melee weapons you are holding, you can make a bonus action attack with the other weapon. There is no hard and fast rule over which you use as your Attack action attack, and which your bonus action attack. You could go - Attack - right, bonus - left Attack - left, bonus - right Once you add in Extra Attack this difference in understanding becomes more significant. The bonus action attack is done by a different weapon than *one* of your attacks. So you could have - Attack (1) - right, Attack (2) - right, then the bonus would have to be left Attack (1) - right, Attack (2) - left, then the bonus action attack could come from either hand, since both weapons are a different weapon than one of your Attack action attacks. Simply put - "There is no off-hand".
I might be wrong here, but I am fairly certain that the tortle is worded in a different way than lizardfolks and loxodon (probably because tortles can't benefit from armour at all) in a way that says that 17 is now the tortles base armour class instead of 10, while the lizardfolk and loxodon just get the option to use their natural armour if whatever they are wearing is worse...
I play a wizazrd and my DM kept placing scrolls and books full of wizard cantrips. I talked to them after 2 sessions and asked if they're intending to houserule me being able to learn them. They apparently had no idea the Spellbook thing only applied to spells level 1 and up.
HUGE help for my first delve into DMing! of these rules I think the spell requiring concentration just to cast bit is the only one I'd house rule. What I read cantrips as in the description are spells that are basically second nature to the spellcaster, that you can cast them without even thinking about it, so it would make sense for them to use them as a bonus action in addition to normal spells since they're so simple and easy to use. That being said, I'd have it work only if they use their bonus action after the main action, as a sort of "oh, and I have this too".
I suggest all new DM's pay close attention to the spell description if you are playing Rules As Written. For example, the cantrip Firebolt has a casting time of 1 action. Therefore, it can only be used in conjunction with spells that can be cast as a reaction or bonus action.
yeah, what I'm thinking is sticking as close to the rules as possible, and only changing things when they over complicate things or just don't make sense
I'd say no. That'd be very similar to stacking in my opinion. Also, how would you calculate reductions in separate temporary HP pools that didn't act similar to just stacking them additively? i.e. What's the difference between having two different pools of 5 and 10 vs. just one pool of 15? If you only take the highest temporary HP, then it just becomes much easier imo.
vynat draco That's a good point. Me personally, if I were to make a DM ruling, I would allow you to have temp HP on top of wild shape but, rules as written probably would not allow for that it seems.
You cannot, this has been addressed from the developers, in response to Warlocks use of Armor of Agathys. If you could have multiple temp HP pools, you could game them in such a way to exploit things like armor of agathys. If you receive temporary HP, you can choose not to accept them if you have existing temp hp from a prior ongoing effect, but you can't have both at the same time and if you choose the new temp HP source, prior temporary HP disappears, as well as any ongoing effects tied to it.
Newmn84 However you could cast Aid and then False life with those 2 effects stacking as Aid increases your hit point maximum and False life gives you temporary hit points.
True, but then that is a house rule, and house rules should be overtly discussed and agreed upon by the group, not just quietly imposed, leaving less experienced players in the dark.
5E is one of the easiest to work with rules wise out of all the editions. Good video explaining this. Edit: To all DMs and players: Rules are just a guideline. They can be bent when it comes to rules versus fun. Always follow the rule of cool and the number one rule, dont be a dick.
Re: #10 "Drinking Potions"-- As someone who plays a Tier 3 Rogue (Thief), it drives me crazy when DMs in adventurer's league effectively give all PCs the "fast hands" feature of the thief subclass... letting people use bonus actions for all sorts of things that normally require actions... making this key subclass feature completely meaningless.
A rule that people have a hard time with the text on despell magic. Despell magic only works on magical effects that come from a spell. So a charm from succubi/vampire/beholder can't be despelled because it's not the effect of a spell.
Also for dispel magic you have to actually be aware of the magic cast. You cannot say "I wanna get rid of ANY magic in that area" and hope for the best. That makes it that under my (very strict) rule as a DM, you wouldn't even be able to dispel an illusion if you think it is something else than an illusion. If you see an illusion of a mage casting mage armour on himself and then target the mage armour, tough luck, the mage-illusion stays around. Although I must say that the spell is *very* poorly worded in that regard: "Choose any Creature, Object or magical effect within range. Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends." In my interpretation, when targeting a specific spell, you end up removing any effect of that one spell, since...well, usually the spell is the only spell affecting the spell.
Overlord IV Despell targets a "creature, object, OR, magical effect...". So dispelling magic in a general area won't work, but targeting a creature or object would, whether they know what (or if any) magical effects are in place. I'm assuming you'd be using something like minor illusion to create the image of mage armour. You don't target a creature with minor illusion, so it's not a magical effect that is on you (which i think is what you're talking about), so targeting you would not remove the illusion . If you used disguise self on the other hand, an illusion that targets yourself, it will be dispelled if they target you, whether they know an illusion has been cast on you or not. I think the targeting wording is pretty self explanatory, you just have to check the other spells wordings. Even the part where it can only remove magical effects is pretty straightforward. People just have a hard time differentiating between spells and feat/abilities.
Actually, spell like effects are also dispelled. Charm Person from a creature's natural ability may be dispelled just like a drow or tiefling's darkness spell-like ability can be.
@@toddwardle4395 twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/862032731881865216 twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/811638194097655808 He's answered this question like a million times, it is sort of confusing I guess.
That only applies to psionics. Racial spell-like abilities are handled as spells in their use and for the purpose of DISPEL magic. For example, a tiefling's thaumaturgy ability is used as a cantrip, and may be dispelled.
I just have never understood how DMs can find that their party getting too strong is a bad thing... Sure, one session might be a bit of a joke if you didn't account for the power spike from your two minmaxers at level up or something, but the stronger my players, the more epic the adventures I can send them on without having to remember new character names next week after they roll new ones... Most of these rules I feel, but that potion house rule is almost as dear to my heart as adding a fumble table into 5e... Diablo 2 taught me you can chug potions mid sword swing, and I refuse to change my mind about that.
We love having powerful player characters too. However, we also recognize that building encounters to challenge powerful PCs isn't easy, and creates a lot of extra work and creative stress for Dungeon Masters which can lead to burnout. This is particularly true for DMs who'd rather save time and energy by running a module. Like all things, it's a balance, and the cost is generally paid as more work/ mental demands placed on the DM. We're not sure what the balance should be between "this is a lot of fun, but it really makes things harder/ requires extra work from the DM" but we suspect that while there are plenty of great DMs who love these challenges, for others it really burns them out.
@@DungeonDudes I guess that could cause some additional DM ware and tear, I have personally always found the most stressful and taxing part of DMing to be the exact opposite however. 'Shit, this guy is pissing his spell slots away fast, they are all going to die before the cool stuff' is just a much more taxing worry to me than 'These guys have way too many temp HP for the boss battle and I can't think up a single BS way to delay them long enough they lose them before the fight'... but you know, to each their own. I can however see what you mean a loooot more when it comes to the use of modules, as a modules aimed at a given level does not feel right when you are playing looser with the rules, that is super true.
Thanks for this. One of my biggest pet peeves in life is when people think their house rules are just rules. It bothers me less in a flexible game like DnD but this was still a great list and even a public service. Thanks
Why should this bother you? GMs usually announce what house rules they are using before playing and if a player doesn't like it they can discuss it with the GM. If the GM remains adamant, then the player can either chose to accept the house rule or find a different game. Where is the issue?
Hi guys. New fan here. I love the depth of coverage. I have been enjoying your class guides FTW. FTW!! You nailed druids DOWN. And that barbarian guide with references to barbarian royals. Fine work, fellows. I must have watch Druids like 11 times already. Gonna hit it again later.
what kind of meat grinder op dm do you have to be to let your players drink potions as a bonus to make it easier lol i ran with the encounter building rules from the dmg and really had to focus on terrain/environment and tactics to put a dent in them... so i tossed it out the window.
I'll have to check that one out. But the reason I said it was that Matt Mercer did house rule a bonus action for drinking a potion or an action to administer it to someone else. And he had a real struggle to keep encounters balanced.
Tim Mulder Matt Mercer made that house rule because he started the game with 8 players. He didn't want people to wait 45 minutes for it to finally be their turn just to spend their entire turn drinking a potion. It's the same reason he made the "Cast a spell as a bonus action and cast another spell of 2nd level or lower as an action" house rule. Both of these were turned into optional feats in his campaign guide.
A bit late, here's a couple a see people get wrong: opportunity attacks, ranged attacks in melee, and prone. An opportunity attack is triggered specifically when you voluntary leave the reach of a creature which can see you, which means that if a creature has more than 5 ft of reach, moving more than 5 ft away may not trigger an OA, forced movement (such as being dragged) doesn't provoke OAs, and things like invisibility and darkness can also prevent OAs. Ranged attacks are at disadvantage while within 5 ft of a hostile creature who isn't incapacitated, not while within their reach. Prone grants advantage on all attacks made within 5 ft of the prone creature, not just melee attacks. Also, you can crawl at half-speed while prone if you want to (though it rarely makes sense to do so) Oh, you can also voluntarily choose to fail any saving throw. Another weird one is that not being able to see a creature, doesn't mean it's hidden from you, so Greater Invisibility isn't just Become God
Potions as a bonus action to heal yourself and offering easier access/cheaper access to healing potions is a great way to support a "party" of players that don't want to play a class with healing or even play as a healer. Allows for the players to get their fun without having to reduce the npc's damage output I find.
Not a very heroic campaign then. I don't want my players to feel like they have to be the "B" team because no one wanted to play a healer. Its a game meant to be fun and provide a good feeling playing it and in most the campaigns I run its a heroic goal. It keeps my players happy and allows them to feel heroic and prevents me from having to adjust the difficulty to make up for their lack of healing. I will say alternatively a DM could create a "squire" or "apprentice" that is a cleric that just heals and restorations and that is it. They always support whatever decision the one they are an apprentice to decides so you don't have to be a "DM PC" but I prefer potions homebrew over doing that myself.
Using healing in the middle of combat is usually a poor choice of the options before a player. If you have a party where they constantly feel the need to heal in combat, then they are the "B" team.
@@Water64Rabbit you are entitled to your opinion. However healing is not a poor choice as far as "power gaming" goes dependent upon the method and quality of healing done and the options the opponent has at their disposal. For example if a player goes to 0 hitpoints and there is a single enemy that has 2 attacks anywhere near them that goes before someone else can heal them, and those enemies are intelligent. That player character should be dead or be used as leverage to kill. Either way a very VERY bad situation for the players. Especially if you do not have a cleric or for a higher level party a druid or bard that can revive someone from death. If your DM doesn't have intelligent enemies go for the kill or threaten the kill as leverage than you are in a kids glove game and a kids glove game isn't a reference point to be calling anyone a B team for healing mid combat. Now if that's not the case please continue reading on. Another example...an enemy is known to have or assumed to have disintegrate or finger of death or power word kill. Any of those will bypass unconscious state and just go directly to dead. One in a pile of ashes requiring true resurrection or wish to undo or undeath which is easier to undo but again assuming you have the material resources and person to cast said reviving spell necessary to begin with. Last example....you let someone hit 0, you heal them with a level 1 healing word. They are at max by the book 9hp. What happens if they then get crit by someone doing their max hp plus 9 hit points? They are straight to dead in that scenario as well. Granted more rare than the prior examples but still a negative to letting people hit zero and doing minimal healing. First example will be more common unless its a high magic and/or higher level campaign. But remember Disintegrate comes into play at "mid" levels. So...in short safeguarding against hitting 0 hitpoints ever CAN be very important. Not to mention a kit like say the Life Domain Cleric is built for preventing someone from hitting zero. Grave Domain Cleric is about the only person that benefits healing wise for waiting till they go down but even then the previously stated issues are still an issue even with a Grave Domain Cleric. Honestly only at low level game play where most things that are intelligent don't have multi-attack and do not have spells like disintegrate, finger of death, or power word kill yet is it commonly better to just let people hit 0 before healing them. Even then still has some risks and if you are outnumbered could still get killed before you can get healed back from 0. Now if your argument is just for parties "constantly" healing in combat. The word "constantly" being key....well never did I say a party should constantly heal. You aren't doing damage if you are always healing unless potions are a bonus action homebrewed and even then how do you have so many potions? Lastly...to counter the B team comment you made in your reply on top of everything else already stated. If the dungeon master is throwing dangerous or deadly encounters at the party they need to use heals during combat or they won't survive unless the DM is using kid gloves. So having covered all of that. You are still entitled to your opinion but I have provided a broken down logic and fact based disagreement with your comment you replied with so feel free to attempt to logically and factually counter my disagreement or don't. Your choice. Either way I hope you actually took the time to read and attempt to understand what I was saying here and have a good day.
Thank you for granting that I am entitled to my opinion you are so magnanimous. Yes there are always examples of how healing can work, and of course Healing Words (uses a spell slot) isn't using a potion is it? The point you are missing is that using a potion to heal is very little return for the action/bonus action used and opens a huge can of worms. Tactics, positioning, teamwork -- these carry the day. D&D combat has always been about taking down foes quickly. Reducing the opposition's ability to do damage is much better. It is the same reason why in general, splitting the party attacks over different foes is a poor idea. A foe is just as effective at 1 hp as they are at full hp. Using healing is the opposite of that in most cases. Negating damage is a better strategy since healing is always going to return less HP than the amount the opposition can deliver in a turn. Your example of FoD is a perfect illustration of this. FoD does about 61 hp on average. The best healing potion does about 45 hp on average. At the level foes can cast these spells, the players are in Tier 3 and can easily deliver more damage to a single target than that. Healing through potions is poor use of the action economy. Even the heal spell (nerfed from previous editions) becomes problematic. "If the dungeon master is throwing dangerous or deadly encounters at the party they need to use heals during combat or they won't survive unless the DM is using kid gloves." This is definitely your opinion and definitely up for debate. A casual perusal of any forum will attest to this. Especially any debate over the Healing Spirit spell. Finally, you seem to be stuck on healing. Allowing any potion to be used as a bonus action logically allows all of them to be used. So can I use a potion as a bonus and another as my action? Instead of using a healing potion how about I use a potion of invulnerability as a bonus? Much better choice than a healing potion plus I can attack at the same time. Groovy. Maybe a potion of speed as a bonus as well and then start an attack plus action surge. In a game like that I would argue for allowing wands to be used as a bonus action as well, since wands, potions, and scrolls are in essence interchangeable. Why limit the players to only a cantrip when they cast a spell as a bonus action? Just let them cast two spells of any level. What you have here is know as a slippery slope. Allowing players to use spells in a bottle as a bonus action is a crutch. It removes the difficult choice of the action economy. Perhaps you are the one in the kid gloves game?
The mathematician in me says monk with mage armour and dragon scales would be impossible to hit and unbalance the game. The role player says, that makes zero sence. Perhaps you could argue that a monk tortal uses its shell as part of its defence but why wouldn't mage armour stack with a natural or martial bonus.
I houseruled that instead of having extra armour do nothing, it just has diminishing returns. The second source of 'base AC' has half the effect, and the third has a quarter effect. I let the players choose which order to apply them in. This lets me say how a player avoided an attack, too. Like 0-5 is a wild miss, 6-10 a normal dodge, 11-14 flippy dodge, 15-16 mage armour, 17 glanced from scales.
Mage armour specificly states 13+Dex mod? What on earth is the issue. If their natural armour is higher why would they use mage armour? Shield of faith on the other hand does stack
Tortle's natural armor is 17. Mage armor is specifically 13+dex. A tortle wouldn't benefit from mage armor unless they had +5 dex (and even then just barely). They still would benefit from using a shield though (a real one, or the "shield" spell).
Clarification for Tip 4: If you gain a total temporary hit points greater than your current value, your temp hp is replaced by the new value. Using your own example, if you were damaged but still had some temp hp, then got more from killing another imp, you'd get the full amount back, it just wont stack. A better example of this is the Heroism spell, which refreshes your temporary hit points every time your turn comes up, so even if you've taken damage, if they can't break through that temp hp, they're not going to be able to take you down that way. Note that it's concentration and you'd still need to make con saving throws if you're the one that cast it though. EDIT: Actually just thought of another clarification that needs mentioning, Armor of Agathys. AoA's counter damage effect will only happen so long as the temporary hit points FROM ITSELF are still there. This means that if you have more temporary hit points from a different source already, you CANNOT USE ARMOR OF AGATHYS and will have wasted a spell slot. Similarly, if the effect is already up, and you get more temp hp from another source, AoA's effect fades along with its temp hp. Be wary.
Well these are certainly rules that you can quantify as a DM, I feel like a lot of these rules are kind of shity, and for the most part I see people go by house rules.
