What are some common rule interpretations you've heard that are not actually RAW?

What are some common rule interpretations you've heard that are not actually RAW?
Put your stories in the comments below they could be in our next video! If you have your own video ideas submit them to us on Reddit at r/MrRipper
Stay tuned for more awesome DnD content!
/ discord
Source
/ what_are_some_common_i...
Song Used: Fungal Wastes - Hollow Knight
www.brianvaughnva.com/
/ @mc_cheshire
Stay tuned for more awesome DnD content!
*Please ignore YT God's feeding zone down below!
#mrripper #dungeons and dragons #dnd stories #reddit stories #please sub for nat 20s #how to play dnd #one dnd #one d&d #how to play dungeons and dragons #dnd character creation #dnd 5e #asmr #reddit stories compilation #reddit stories funny #dnd story #ask reddit videos #family friendly gaming #dungeons and dragons how to play #dungeon master screen #tabletop simulator d&d #player character #dnd encounters #dnd campaigns

[@MrRipper]

What are some common rule interpretations you've heard that are not actually RAW?

[@anmerd0374]

Not really an interpretation, but house rules. A crit will do max damage, then it doubles.

[@Deeprockgalacticscout]

Common RAI: the stabilize action has a range of touch. However, In the 5e SRD, The stabilize action never states a maximum range it can be used.

[@Mekora]

I've seen people online claim that only the PCs get to make death saves, and all NPCs die immediately upon hitting 0HP. What the rules actually say, is that most DMs have a monster die as soon as it reaches 0HP, with major NPCs being common exceptions. So technically yes, a DM can make death saving throws a thing that only PCs get by RAW, but, critically, the DM can give death saving throws to any NPC that they wish by RAW. It's not that they can't roll death saves for nameless enemies, but rather that it's expected as the default that the DM won't want to bother.

[@JenosIdallian]

So, in particular, the guy that was talking about dice reflecting circumstance and not skill/ability is 1000% on point. It doesn't take a genius to understand that players, for better or for worse in a lot of cases, put a lot into their characters, often times a healthy dose of self-insert, and the last thing they want to do is be made to feel like a fucking idiot because the dice came up bad. Secondly, I'm glad someone brought up guidance. I've been tempted to ban it outright in games before because it gets TEDIOUS. That, along with retroactive 'help' actions.

[@jort93z]

Failing doesn't mean you are an idiot. What a weird take. Sounds like the either the players or the dm can't cope with failure. Pure copium.

[@TheBlackSquirrel]

Yeah... I play a cleric with Guidance, and I kinda wish people could just come up and ask me "Hey, I'm about to pick a lock, could you say a prayer for me?" It would be a much nicer way to include a fellow player without breaking immersion, while also making them feel useful.

[@Whitewolf1984p]

Guidance as a reaction makes waaay more sense. If you roll high enough you dont need guidance, also guidance is more of a this person is helping you figure a thing out. Also also. Kust because it has a verbal componamt doesnt mean you have to bellow the words at the top of your lungs for the person 16 blocks away to hear it. But I do agree you cant guidance a stralth check, unless you ha e it on you before the check is called. Everything else if your trying to guidance someone quietly, then a stealth check is needed.​@TheBlackSquirrel

[@Smilley85]

@@Whitewolf1984p Same with persuasion/deception, if cast directly before the roll. Or have it work, but impose disadvantage because the person knows you are under the influence of magic.

[@Whitewolf1984p]

@@Smilley85not really. Guiadance in this case helps you pick better words, the spell isn't effecting the person your speaking to in any way. Just helps you think/organise your thoughts better.

[@WandererEris]

To back up that last one about the Deck of Many Things: In 3e, you had to draw all cards you declared within 1 hour of each other and it specifically states that the character may never draw from the deck again. Also, if you don't draw your declared amount, the cards flip themselves out of the deck and activate, which is pretty funny. When 5e was being made, they took 3e as a base and then streamlined and simplified the game until we have what we have in core. As a result, a lot of tiny details got erased and obliterated (one of the reasons I stuck with 3e for the most part), which is where a lot of rules confusion like this one comes from.

[@TheBlackSquirrel]

*That Elves need 8 hours to complete a long rest.* To be fair, I believe that earlier 5e RAW might have been less specific about how the elfs' trance ability works, so it's possible this interpretation comes from that. Still, the astounding amount of people I've seen online that claim that your elf "still needs 4 hours of light activity" after their 4 hours of trance in order to finish a long rest, is quite impressive. Especially when the RAW literally says: "after resting in this way, you gain the SAME BENEFIT that a human does from 8 hours of SLEEP".

[@sparkselm173]

I'm not aware of any official rulings from outside the books on this, so take this with a grain of salt. Technically, I don't think it's actually specified that the Elf Trance supersedes the requirement that a long rest be a minimum of 8 hours. As you said, the Elf Trance feature specifically states "sleep", not "long rest" but "sleep". The rules for the long rest state "A long rest is a period of downtime, *at least* 8 hours long, during which a character sleeps for at least 6 hours, and performs no more than 2 hours of light activity", which means that, technically as per RAW, an Elf still needs to *rest* for 8 hours to gain the benefit of a long rest, even though they only need 4 hours for their trance, and are still limited to 2 hours of light activity during that rest period.

[@DBArtsCreators]

A Long Rest in 5e is explicitly 8 hours of rest, including at least 6 hours of sleep. So, an elf's Trance only negates that required 6 hours of sleep (partially, since the trance is only 4 hours). They still are limited to 4 additional hours of light activity to actually get the benefits of the long rest (meaning they just get 2 extra hours of light activity compared to other races).

[@gratuitouslurking8610]

I dunno if it was something slipped in elsewhere, but I guess people don't entirely read the Trance block, cus the repository I've been using, 5eTools, has this at the end of the Trance block: 'If you meditate during a long rest, you finish the rest after only 4 hours. You otherwise obey all the rules for a long rest; only the duration is changed.'" Pulling the PHB from the table does show this was not present in the PHB, which makes me wonder if this was A XGE clarification they added or someone doing extra work they didn't need to.

[@TheBlackSquirrel]

@@sparkselm173 Yeah, that's what I've seen some people saying. However, this is what it says on my drow on DnD Beyond: "Elves don’t need to sleep. Instead, they meditate deeply, remaining semiconscious, for 4 hours a day. (The Common word for such meditation is “trance.”) While meditating, you can dream after a fashion; such dreams are actually mental exercises that have become reflexive through years of practice. After resting in this way, you gain the same benefit that a human does from 8 hours of sleep." In other words; 4 hours of trance for an elf equals 8 hours of sleep for a human (according to RAW). 8 hours of sleep for a human equals a long rest (according to RAW). So according to RAW, an elf should gain a long rest after 4 hours of trance. I can't find any other way to interpret this without making it far more complicated then I think was intended...?

[@sparkselm173]

@touslurking8610 Started taking a closer look into it myself, and it seems more recent books do indeed specify in the Trance feature that it supersedes the duration of a long rest. For instance with Eldarin (if I'm not mistaken), in Tome of Foes still uses the old description (as in TheBlackSquirrels' original comment), but in Monsters of the Multiverse uses the description you've provided in your comment. EDIT; self correction, I believe the correct the description used for Eldarin in Monsters of the Multiverse is specifically "You can finish a long rest in 4 hours if you spend those hours in a trancelike meditation"

[@TaigaHolic]

if you aren’t going to count crits as auto successes every time that’s fine, but you also shouldn’t ask your players to roll for a check if there’s literally no chance for them to succeed even with a crit.

[@itap8880]

That's well said

[@thekenyonsquad5672]

in two separate games, a player came across a video titled something like "7 game rules everyone gets wrong" and one of the game rules talked about is you can cast multiple spells in one turn provided that one is a cantrip. while true in a broad sense, the video explained it so poorly that both players interpreted it as casting both 1 leveled spell and 1 cantrip with the same action was a legal move. it was a huge pain to convince them that they couldn't cast magic missile and firebolt at the same time in part due to the video's title. "no, you're wrong because the video title says everyone gets this wrong. so you must be wrong because you aren't saying what the video said."

[@dreamwanderer5791]

It shocks me how few people read that rule in the PHB.

[@notbob555]

​@@dreamwanderer5791 It drives me nuts how many people try to assert their false notions about the rules for casting multiple times in a turn without having ever read the PHB at all. It is always pretty funny when you just directly quote the paragraph about it and they stop replying tho.

[@Evoker23-lx8mb]

My group used to have a firbolg genie chain warlock. He cast no spells except for the obligatory eldritch blast as well as shatter. He kept saying that shatter does double damage to constructs. The spell says nothing about doing double damage to anything, only that constructs made of inorganic materials having disadvantage in the saving throw. The group allows it because of rule of cool and it kinda makes sense, either that or I’m just the only one in the group that realises this. I have no problem with this, it’s not a complaint just something I noticed. Plus at least in my games constructs are pretty uncommon anyway so it rarely comes up.

[@garethvila5108]

I disagree with the "dice only represent circumstance" one. Sure, if your DM just changes your action completely, that's not what the roll is about. You didn't roll a Performance check, you rolled a Stealth check, so even if the roll goes badly you're trying to be sneaky, not loud and singing. That's absolutely correct and if your DM does that kind of thing, you should tell them to stop changing your actions. I also agree that the roll does include circumstance. Your clothes getting stuck, someone else's actions affect yours, the lighting changes... in general, anything that affects how you perform your action can be represented in that roll. However, there's a difference there to be made, because this only includes "momentary changes" in the circumstances of the test. If, as the original poster said, you're picking a lock and it's a weird one, that should be reflected in the difficulty of the roll. If you're picking it on a weird angle, that could also be reflected on said difficulty, or it could be reflected with disadvantage, since you can get in a proper angle to get rid of this "effect". Those circumstances are NOT represented in your roll, because you can't force them to all the rolls that would be affected by them. It makes 0 sense that just because you rolled a 2 now suddenly you're picking it upside down and the lock is weird, but somehow when the less skilled Barbarian rolls a 20 they decide to get in a proper position and magically the lock is a normal one. If the lock is weird, it may be a +5 on the difficulty because that will impact EVERY attempt at picking it. You rolling badly doesn't reflect how difficult it is to do something, which is what the poster claims with this. That being said, assuming that the roll is ONLY those momentary circumstances is also wrong. You may be the best duelist in the world and still make a bad decision because you got too confident, or you can be a top athlete and still twist your ankle. Mistakes happen. Accidents happen. People hurt themselves doing things with no changes on the circumstances. I'm pretty sure that you can think of some accident you've had that was purely on your own. Maybe you burnt your fingers while cooking or you cut yourself with some paper, or maybe something worse like falling down the stairs. You've had a LOT of accidents in your life where there was no circumstance to justify it, it was just your own mistake. That happens to everyone. Those mistakes (and basically how you perform on that moment) are also part of the roll. So, yeah, if you're sneaking and roll a 2 and your DM says that you step on a twig that you didn't notice, that's not "taking away your agency" or anything like that. That's ridiculous. You're still sneaking, even if you make a mistake, your agency is still there as long as your DM doesn't overwrite what you decided to do. But having your agency doesn't mean that just because you've decided to sneak you're going to become the best ninja ever instantly and that you can't do a single thing wrong while doing things, and in consequence it also doesn't mean that if you fail to sneak it must be something completely unrelated to your own attempt at being sneaky. You can still make mistakes. It's just that you were too focused on the guards and didn't see the twig. Asking for a random animal to do so instead just because you assume you can't make mistakes is ridiculous. If you want to put it that way, the "circumstance" here is that you can't see everything, and thus failed to notice the twig because of it.

[@williamstokes4282]

Ah the idea that fall damage is equal to 1d6 bludgeoning for every 10 feet your character falls before impacting but ignoring that it has a cap of 20d6(20-120 damage/70 average), I've heard lots of people mention the first part but forget about the second. So yes high level/HP characters can survive falling from airships without doing anything about it.

[@bmyers7078]

I had a DM who had some house rules that Critical Hits did max damage plus regular damage. Also on criticals, 1’s were rerolled. Example: A great sword? 12 + 2d6 (+ any bonus) on a critical. Minimum damage 16. A fall from over a kilometer. Critical. 120 plus 20d6 Fall damage. Minimum damage 160. Reduced the chances of someone skydiving without the feather fall spell, or this weird gnomish padded suit that was on the skyship. [edited to fix spellcheck]

[@williamstokes4282]

@@bmyers7078 I sort of get the idea behind that crit rule, it kinda sucks when you crit and roll 2d6 twice but get a 4 total on the dice, but why the hell would you apply that to fall damage? The ground isn't attacking you.

[@notbob555]

Personally, I just upped fall damage to a cap of 500ft to match the rule where people fall 500ft per turn.

[@EnlistedPlague9]

Crown of madness allows you to control movements through an extension making it, so you don’t just make them use their action to hit, but they can run away immediately after, and just stay out of the site which theoretically is useful, but definitely not what the spell is necessarily intended for. Also being able to use a cantrip as an action and a bonus action if you were a sorcerer, druid, or someone who took the meta-magic adept feat.

[@jinxadnix8886]

I have two for you. First is that paladins do or do not require patroons. Both these rulings stem from either the person in question having heard this somewhere else, or from a paragraph of lore in the PHB. Both rulings, pull from the same paragraph. Both rulings are grammatically valid readings of the text. Always check with your DM to see what is and is not allowed. The second is that rogues can dodge as a bonus action... They can not. This misconception seems to come from an episode of a KZbin show called "Weird Things You Can Do In D&D", which is based mostly in somatic arguments, the assumption that every NPC will do anything a PC asks of them, every party and GM's goal is to cause as much chaos as possible, and even the occasional misconception of their own. In this case, the host making the mistake himself. I think he was thinking of the monk's patent defense which dose allow them to dodge as a bonus action, all be it at the cost of a ki point then mixing that up with the rogue's ability to disengage as bonus action.

[@AVD223]

that your inner voice is also your outer voice for speaking which would make a mute warlock useless awakened mind great old one

[@Smilley85]

I'd say that depends on circumstance. You shouldn't be able to walk back something by saying "obviously I was just thinking that", when you are otherwise engaged in conversation. Also, in one of my groups we had the rule to say "outgame" if we wanted to describe something we are doing, ask the DM something or say something OOC.

[@intoHeck1964]

I would argue that because magic missle hits SIMULTANEOUSLY, it is one instance of damage from different sources (like a paladin smiting with a weapon you of 2 damage sources: weapon and smite). Therefore it wont cause all failed death saves

[@gameraven13]

Magic Missile is an Eldritch Blast that you skip the attack roll for and does less damage per beam. Same spell different font basically. If you can cause 3 separate checks on 3 separate enemies why wouldn’t it be 3 checks on the single enemy? Did the other two darts forget how to force a check suddenly? It’s inconsistent to do anything but 3 forced checks.

[@intoHeck1964]

@@gameraven13 Except MM specifies simultaneously while Eldritch blast does not so on ONE target its one damage instance but on multiple targets its different. I also rule this way because MM can't miss so a casting on a downed target is guaranteed death if it counts as separate. I am also consistent as MM can also only force one concentration check per target hit and triggers spells like hex only once. If you want to rule differently thanks your choice, but I feel my decision is fairer and more balanced to the players.

[@gameraven13]

@@intoHeck1964 Hitting simultaneously ≠ same source of damage. Technically speaking two people making an opportunity attack against the same creature is simultaneous as well since the reactions trigger at the same time, we just resolve them in a specific order since two people rolling at once gets confusing. Would you say those attacks only force one check? If 3 creatures can be forced to make a save, it has to mean the darts are their own instances of damage, therefore one creature makes 3 checks. You can rule it however you like to. That’s not what I’m contesting. I’m simply saying that RAW it works like an auto hit EB. Anything else is RAI or homebrew.

[@SirusEinzla]

I wanna argue that the whole Guidance bullshit was happening BEFORE critical role campaign 2, but it did make it worse. It is easily curved by just reminding your players that while, yes, they can state they are casting it whenever they think they can, but you as the DM can decide if the situation is applicable. People freak out like it is a reaction because once the dice has been rolled, you can no longer apply guidance.

[@dragonriderabens9761]

6:07 I could see some of the things happening here happening as a result of a nat 20, even using the OP's own logic (nat 1 meaning the lockpick broke for example. it could be the lockpick was weak when you started, and THAT was why it broke at the most unfortunate time possible) some of these are also rather comedic at times as well, such as a twig snapping while sneaking that said, I will need to keep this in mind for if I DM in the future, as it could create some cool moments as well

[@lord_wyran]

For people complaining about spells with verbal components, I have and will always allow a stealth check while casting to Whisper a spell. I think it is perfectly reasonable to not have every spell be some massive booming incantation, and some casters prefer a far subtler approach.

[@postapocalypticnewsradio]

PANR has tuned in.

[@ChryssaBL]

11:05 LOL to the editor's note

[@TheMightyBattleSquid]

9:53 I've known about this for a while but usually only tell people the 2nd part because it tends to shut down the 1st without causing a fuss. I only bring up the 1st part if it continues to be a problem.

[@bmyers7078]

11:00; I was in a One-Shot a few years ago, where we used an actual deck of cards. Certain cards corresponded to cards in the deck itself. Others were considered “neutral.” I declared that I would only draw 1 card. While drawing my card, another was pulled out of the deck by accident. (The DM was holding the deck). Another player gasped, before I could even turn over the card in my hand. Joker. Void. Shit. I was asked to put the other card back without even getting to look at it. Still bugs me 5 years later.

[@garretthopkins7035]

Sneak attack requiring advantage or an ally within 5 feet of the target. It actually only requires that an enemy of that enemy is within 5 feet, not your ally. So in a free-for-all tavern brawl, you get sneak attack on basically everything that has a creature next to it.

[@garethvila5108]

The Deck of Many Things interpretation on the last one is making subjective assumptions that are nowhere on the item description. You know, when it says "one of these is correct RAW and RAI and the other is arguably consistent with RAW but only if you make some assumptions" is ironically funny after giving a speech about a certain limitation that is literally NOWHERE on said RAW. Their interpretation adds things that do not appear in the RAW just because they thought it made no sense otherwise. There's nothing in the description that states you cannot use the deck again later or that there's any limitation on how many draws you can do consecutively. They are assuming that limitation just beacuse otherwise is "weird" that you have to say how many cards you want to draw if you can just draw one at a time. However, that's not taking into account the rules about using magical items. Out of combat it surely makes no sense to draw two cards when you can draw one card now and one later, but in combat using a magic item, when it requires some specific interaction, is an action unless otherwise stated, so drawing one card now means you'll have to wait until your next turn to draw another one, while drawing five means they are drawn on that same turn. That's why it DOES make sense that you need to declare how many cards you draw, because in combat it's the difference between using all of them now or taking multiple turns to do so. On the item's description (also known as RAW) it doesn't say you need to wait, it doesn't say you cannot draw more than once consecutively, it doesn't say that after drawing once you cannot do it again until someone else has used it... Anything on those lines is just an assumption. Even if we grant that drawing multiple cards at once makes no sense if you can just draw them one by one (which is already wrong), the item's description doesn't say ANYTHING about what happens after you've declared such a thing, and claiming that "it must mean you can't draw again" would still not be RAW. The interpretation that "you can't just draw one card now and one later" is literally NOT RAW at all. It may be how that person BELIEVES the spell SHOULD work, but that's not RAW. RAW is only what the rules say, word by word and with no assumptions. If the rules don't say anything about a limit on the draws, you cannot come up with something that's not on those rules and claim "it's RAW". RAI? Maybe, although you should have something to support those claims other than your own opinion that otherwise it doesn't make sense, specially when it actually DOES make sense and you're just failing to realise it. So, yeah, one interpretation is "arguably consistent with RAW but only if you make some assumptions", but it's not the one they think it is.

[@fred_derf]

The _Magic Missile_ issue is simple, the one roll for everyone is for _Area of Effect_ spells. _Magic Missile_ isn't an _Area of Effect_ spell even though it can have multiple targets, it's a targeted spell.

[@Shimatzu95]

About the deck of many things, it only activates when cards are drawn at random. So could you not just skim through it and remove the harmful ones before drawing?

[@the_multus]

Surprisingly smart!

[@trently89]

The GM in a game I'm currently in enforced the Magic Missile rule where each missile is a failed death save and nearly killed a beloved NPC doing exactly that! Lucky my barbarian who was raging had enough speed and movement to get her to the temple before the minute was up and she was revivified, but it wouldn't if we weren't just outside the gate and we would've lost her for good

[@tofuhearts]

Our DM let's us hold on action only if we've set a trap 🪤 and the action has something to do with the trap (aka pull the lever Krunk) but after the trap is sprung we have to roll for initiative.

[@gameraven13]

A nitpick on the “guidance is loud” thing. Technically that is also a misinterpretation of what is RAW. The only RAW rules of Verbal and Somatic are can’t cast verbal while silenced or gagged and can’t cast somatic while bound or your hands are full. That’s it. Everything else is entirely setting dependent. Magic might look different from world to world so you cannot just put a blanket ruling on the level of subtlety. Any text that refers to the loudness or obviousness of these components is flavor text not rules text. Now, I will say that RAI 100% is loud and obvious, just not RAW. If you’re playing in the Forgotten Realms, magic should be loud and flashy because that’s how casting spells works in the Forgotten Realms. It’s not RAW though. Also, no, making a stealth check or deception check to mask verbal and somatic components does not negate subtle spell. Having to roll ≠ auto success.

[@billcox8870]

This is going to be fun

[@lorddvanity13]

So..to be fair to that one about Guidance being a verbal spell..nothing says you can’t whisper the verbal part of such a spell AFAIK.

[@itap8880]

3:35 What comes first to mind is the statement "Coffelock is intentional". Pretty sure no sane person would consider it true.

[@ReinaSaurus]

treating persuasion, intimidation, charm and performance mechanics like a manual override to any opposition of a conversation partner. thats not how it works. you cannot reprogram every npc you come across. not even mind control is that effective, technically. its just overwhelming the psyche of a character for a certain amount of time to get your task done. an affected security guard would ring the alarm after the effect wears off.

[@fred_derf]

Succeeding on a Persuasion makes the other person do whatever it was you were trying to convince them of, regardless of how ridiculous or out of character it is. In a similar vein, the _Charm Person_ spell turns people into your slave.

[@itap8880]

Clever use of social skills, to quote Toby Fox, allow you to "do all sorts of things. It isn't magic."

[@finalfantasy50]

magic missile does work completely to any other spell in the game, what other spell autohits?

[@tazman2253]

that a paladin or cleric can not cast spells while having a weapon and a shield equiped, unless they require both a material and a somatic component in 5E. The rules state clearly that a paladin or cleric can have a holy symbol on their shield and thereby use the shield as the material component, The rules claim that a caster needs a hand free to use somatic components, but it can be the same hand that holds a material component. Nowhere does it claim that you can't use the material component for a spell that does not require one in this situation. Nowhere does it claim that a cleric or paladin has to sheath their weapon to cast their spells,

[@TheMightyBattleSquid]

6:06 THANK YOU!!! So sick of this...

[@RenoKyrie]

Not even sure what this case even is But the rule for Oversized weapon on the DM Monster section should be used for players aswell

[@Wrathura]

I disagree that Guidance cant be used in stealth. It has a 1 minute duration. You can cast it before the stealth and use it for stealth just fine. Just not likely as a reaction to an immediate stealth need.

[@blackhole5353.]

Can someone please explain to me how the “ you can only cast one leveled spell per turn” thing actually works? My first DM told me that and I thought it was stupid. But I’ve heard you can cast multiple leveled spells a turn and now I’m just confused. Like for example if I cast haste on myself then on my next could I cast let’s says ice knife and fire ball or is that a no no? Or is it something like I cast ice knife on someone, they cast hellish rebuke on me in retaliation, then I cast hellish rebuke back at them with my reaction?

[@catcard272]

The ruling as written is basically, if you cast a leveled spell as an action you then can’t cast a leveled spell as a bonus action, and if you cast a leveled spell as a bonus action you then can’t cast a leveled spell as an action. You can do whatever you want with you reaction, like hellish rebuking a hellish rebuke or counter spelling a counter spell. You can’t cast spells off of the extra action from haste, as stated in the spell. But RAW, you could cast two leveled spells in a turn using action surge.

[@blackhole5353.]

@@catcard272 thank you. That makes more sense now.

[@gameraven13]

The only rule in the entire game relating to multiple spells per turn is that if you use your bonus action to cast a leveled spell, a la Misty Step, your action can only be used to cast a spell that is a cantrip with casting time of 1 action. This is why certain features that grant you additional actions that can be used for casting spells allows you to cast two fireballs in the same turn. As long as you don’t cast misty step or another BA leveled spell first, you’re fine. It also retroactively applies so if you fireball first, you cannot misty step because then you’d have a leveled BA and leveled Action in the same turn which isn’t how the rules work. Basically even though the rule makes it seem like you’re good as long as you BA first, you can’t put the game into an “illegal state” so to speak.

[@gameraven13]

@@catcard272actually the ruling only says the latter. It’s worded as “if BA leveled, then action can only be cantrip.” But yes it does retroactively apply in that casting a leveled BA after a leveled action would put the game in an “illegal state” so to speak

[@blackhole5353.]

@@gameraven13 OK so if I’m understanding correctly, if you gain extra actions, for whatever reason you can use all of those actions to cast level spells as long as you don’t cast a leveled spell as a bonus action? So if you use action surge you can use both those actions to cast fireball but you cant cast Misty step then fire ball.

[@billcox8870]

Here is a rule change I would make for a game I'm going to try running for the first time in a couple of weeks. You roll for initiative order and then you stick with that every single round. I don't like rolling every round to establish initiative

[@dreamwanderer5791]

Curious: what system is it?

[@billcox8870]

@@dreamwanderer5791 D&D 5E I will be running for the first time, hoard of the Dragon queen.

[@dreamwanderer5791]

@@billcox8870 Good news then! You only roll Initiative at the start of combat, full stop. Every other round, you keep the order.

[@billcox8870]

@@dreamwanderer5791 👍🏻

[@dreamwanderer5791]

@@billcox8870 Hope you have fun with it, and good luck.

[@manegirl93416]

Okay, this is coincidentally the second time today I've seen "verbal components are loud" as a talking point. But... WHERE does it say that needs to be the case? If "somatic components" is merely "I can point my finger at something and magic happens" instead of always being, "I need to do an elaborate interpretative dance to do what I want" why should verbal components always be "I have to yell GUIDANCE at my target" instead of, "I put my hand on their shoulder and whisper 'Guidance' into their ear that only they can hear." Verbal components just says, "Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren’t the source of the spell’s power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion. Thus, a character who is gagged or in an area of silence, such as one created by the silence spell, can’t cast a spell with a verbal component." NOTHING ABOUT THIS SAYS YOU NEED TO YELL. Unless a spell explicitly says that it's going to be loud, like Thunderwave or Knock, then you don't have to be constrained by volume. Pitch just means the key, and thusly a certain cadence that could be sweet sounding or annoying sounding or whatever. Resonance just means reverberation, which just means you feel it flowing through the air (which btw, that reverberation is also what causes speaking in general to be heard as well as music), it doesn't mean "You set off your spell and it causes an earthquake from the reverberation's mere existence, it was so loud!" Now, that's not to say it's a silent spell, you're obviously making SOME noise, and in a dead quiet area, even a whisper being heard is going to be potentially a point of notice, but you're NOT shouting every word of power you speak... unless you're deliberately playing up that character's overdramatic hamminess in-character and they want to be noticed performing greatness, of course. But if you're playing a character who's soft spoken and gentle, would it make sense for them to yell it out all the time? No, most likely not, barring particular circumstances.

[@VidelxSpopovich]

The only people I’ve ever seen pushing the narrative that verbal components require you to yell are the same DMs who will try to pick literally anything you do apart to try and make it harmful or make your character look like an idiot.

[@manegirl93416]

@@VidelxSpopovichFor further clarification, VLDL's new D&D Logic episode had this as a punchline in their latest video that was released on the same day as Mr. Ripper's, and to be fair, Rowan is a very loud and pompous Bard so his Bardic Inspiration being loud makes sense, but everyone else too? IDK, something about this new season of it isn't clicking as well as last time so far.

[@deepseastonecore3017]

What if a triclops in a cyclops have their kids, for the kid only have two eyes

[@lewismehaffey04]

whats for dinner

[@TheStickCollector]

Nice

[@MasterElements]

If wall of force prevents anything from physically passing through it, wouldn't it appear as a mirror or black wall as it would prevent light itself from passing through?

[@shanepatrick6836]

I think dice describing circumstances not skill is well circumstantial. I do try to make the failed dc related to the factors outside the character’s skills, sometimes it’s not practical or proper. For example if you roll any Int Skills, I don’t care what your int modifier is, there is no way to say you don’t know what that thing is in this moment. Maybe you forgot. Maybe you need to brush up on your research… maybe you didn’t cover this bit of trivia… but hey, maybe if a negative result to your role, it’s probably more likely that you think that a Lich is a type of worm used by doctors in blood letting and that your formal education options were not that great. Then there are cases where the roll makes a perfect storm. For example, if the party decides to stealth through a hidden passageway without any knowledge as to what’s on the other end and you’re a bard and you rolled a Nat 1 on you’re stealth check, there is no way I’m not describing the result as you forgetting yourself in the moment and pulling out your lute and singing the best damn cover of “Secret Tunnel! Secret Tunnel! Through The Mountains! Secret Secret Secret Tunnel!” (Yeah it’s a little bit of a railroad for your character, but the BBEG’s minions will be fan boys about it.).

[@graveyardshift2100]

I hate guidance and other little repetitive abilities like it. Shut up, bard, and just let me roll my skill that I am highly trained in! It just slows down the game too.

[@coreybusby7224]

hello

[@DBArtsCreators]

Common Interpretation That Isn't RAW: Initiative as an Ability Check. (normally to allow it to benefit from things like Jack of All Trades). Initiative is not an ability check, despite being a "DEX Check" in the sense that (like an attack roll or DEX saving throw) it uses your DEX modifier. Per the PHB, a check is only an Ability Check if it can satisfy *all* the following criteria: * Is made against a DC * Has the ability to fail * Uses an ability score modifier * Can be taken passively * Can use an alternate ability score (Strength to intimidate, Intelligence for medicine, etc) * Can potentially be involved in a contest between two competing parties, where only one can win and one can fail * Can be used in a group check * Can be 'helped' by another creature Initiative is its own special kind of roll, not an ability check

[@darcraven01]

10:03 wrong. just because there is a verbal conponant does not make it loud.. its of normal talking loudness. you can definitely cast it for stealth and not be loud enough to trigger anyone's passive perseption. like, you can speak normally in one room and a person in the next room whos not actively focused on listening wont have heard anything. verbal componants are "out loud" but arent that *loud*

[@Scorpious187]

Verbal components for spells require specific enunciation and pronunciation, and are explicitly called out as being "chanted". Chants aren't quiet. Also in previous editions, verbal components were actually required to be called out forcefully. So, no, you can't "stealthily" cast a spell which requires a verbal component. That's what the "Subtle Spell" metamagic for sorcs is for, which is why Subtle Spell is super strong.

[@darcraven01]

@@Scorpious187 again "normal talking loudness". i never said you can stealthily cast it. i said it was at normal talking loudness which is not overly loud and as such, guidence (the spell in question at the marker) can be casted *for* stealth (as in a stealth roll). because, again, you can talk at a normal volume and not be heard in the next room if the person isnt actively trying to listen to you. you can test this out irl if you like. go to a room next door to one that has someone in it and say their name normally (not calling out to them but as if you're just chatting with them). i promise you 90% of the time they will not have heard you say their name.

[@DBArtsCreators]

A verbal component is loud enough to be noticed; hence the need for Subtle Spell to cast spells with verbal components discretely (in 3.5e it was Silent spell & Still spell). You cannot cast it quiet enough for people to not notice if they are within earshot.

[@darcraven01]

@@DBArtsCreators and they arent within normal earshot range if they're in another room. so that does not invalidate what i said at all. in fact... it supports the whole "normal talking loudness" that ive stated several times.. so..

[@DBArtsCreators]

@@darcraven01 Another room is within earshot range. I don't know what kind of rooms you are in, but most I've been in have only thin walls separating them, not to mention the doors are usually open and the buildings insides tend to echo. And you aren't "talking" when casting. You are chanting. Go listen to a choir to see how loud THAT is. Your claim is invalid.

[@matteobaelstromos4260]

Not First

[@jort93z]

Massively disagree with the take at 6:10. If the dice was in fact describing circumstance, you wouldn't be able to try to pick a lock again and get a different result. Something like taking 10 would be completely impossible. What describes favorable or unfavorable circumstances is a +2 or -2 the dm can give. The dice describes how well you did with your attempt. Even you are skilled at doing something, sometimes you do better than other times. The characters are not machines(well, most of them...), so they won't always do exactly the same thing and do a be a bit better or a bit worse than usual..

[@JenosIdallian]

L take chief. Someone that has a +12 to a skill is effectively a master at something. The dice determine the outcome, anything else is factor. If you are lazy enough to simply say "haha u slipped, u tripped, u fel on ur sord!", that's your choice. DM's that are good with player engagement will simply change the factors to be outside of the players control. *Just like the dice.*

[@jort93z]

Even a master messes up sometimes, nothing wrong with that. A master smith needs to scrap some of his work, perfectly normal. Rolling a 1 doesn't make them an idiot, just makes them do comparatively poorly that particular attempt. If you don't want the players to fail a check, don't make them roll.

[@jort93z]

If its factors outside the players control, how do you explain that you can try picking the same lock 20 times in a row and get a different result every time?@@JenosIdallian

[@JenosIdallian]

@@jort93zI don't know how to explain this any differently to you. I'll attempt it once, past that, I won't. Someone's proficiency at a task doesn't change. Factors of the environment, the situation, anything else can contribute to something succeeding or failing. If you're unable to reach into a bag as a DM and pull out why conditions could be different on the second attempt rather than the first, that's a failing on you as the DM, not the player for making the attempt. Secondly, since we're using the lock picking example, it's very, very simple to explain that the mechanism is damaged due to whatever unforseen circumstances happened, and now the DC is higher. Or the lock breaks. There is a difference between this: "As you start to pick the lock, you sneeze, shit yourself, slip on the refuse, and fall down the stairs, breaking the lock and the lock pick in the process." And this: "As you attempt to pick the lock, as you have many times before, your overconfidence with such a trivial task gets the better of you. It would seem you didn't glance carefully at the lock, and it's internal mechanisms are not where you expected them to be, causing your pick to bend and snap." And finally this: "As you insert the lock, and slide several of the pins into place, you're on the third out of five. Unfortunately for you, you do not hear the movement on the other side of the door, which swings open partway through the attempt, breaking the pick off in your hand, and leaving you staring up at the owner of the home." This is not complex. The first statement makes someone look like an idiot, when NO ONE, let alone someone that's an experience thief would ever have something like that happen to them. The second option retains player skill, but still accounts for failure. The third not only does everything the second does, but adds value and additional context to the plot. Do not be an idiot. These things above are not the same, and if you're incapable of putting yourself in your players shoes for even a MOMENT to see how each one of these might affect them differently, then you have absolutely no business being a DM.

[@jort93z]

I never claimed proficiency changes. Being good at something doesn't equal never failing. Failing once doesn't make you any less proficient. Sure bending the lockpick is rediculous, but whats wrong with saying "You pushed one of the pins a bit too far, you failed to open it on this attempt"? Lockpicking can, generally, be attempted as many times as you like with no consequences. You don't seem to understand my take at all.

[@BadTripNL]