What is your personal player pet peeve?

[GlenSmash!]

Varient human fighter, take the mobile feat at level 1 and the mounted combatant feat at level 4, now you get advantage on almost every attack, get multiple attacks, and everyone you attack cant attack you. Melee untouchables are my favorite builds

In LMoP we encountered a flaming Skull that through a fireball at us that would have destroyed that mount. Were were level 3. Except of course that we were underground, so that character wouldn't have had his mount anyway. That's literally the first adventure published for 5e and your build would have done squat for this and a number of other encounters.

Seriously how many combats do you have above ground and out of doors? In my games things, like Caves, Castles, Underground Cities, Floating Fortresses, Etc. account for at least 50% of combats. And for those that are above ground and outdoors, encountering a foe with AOEs is not uncommon even at 4th level.

[Mith]

I am lucky that my main gaming group more or less formed in junior high, and we work pretty hard to keep it on a schedule everyone is good with. We are all post uni now, so it's been going for nearly 10 years now.

[Rynjin]

Players that steal from other players. I swear that people take being KILLED better than a Rogue reaching into their pocket and lifting a potion or something.

This is one of the only surefire ways to piss me off during a game. Before I left my 5th edition game, one of the last sessions involved this...in a session I couldn't be present for, no less. I just get a text from my friend (the GM) at 10 in the morning, right before I need to drive 8 hours back home, saying the rogue player had decided to steal my Barbarian's hammer (later revealed that he had stolen it from a prominent NPC we needed to deal with later in the first place and given as a gift to me, then stolen back in the night to cover his own ass).

I was extra pissed off because this was the first magic hammer in the game so far, and I'd been hunting for one for a while.

He thought I was joking when he asked "How do you want to handle this" and I said "I rage and rip him apart with my damn bare claws". I was peeved when he was alive the next session, it having apparently been decided for me to just tie him up and take all his stuff, to be forgiven later.

[sengmeng]

I can't believe no one has commented on this yet. I am the main DM for our group, and if someone came to me with a 16 page backstory I wouldn't even look at it either. They would be sent away to rewrite it in no more that 3 sensible sized paragraphs. Half a page is plenty of room to get the idea of your character across.

Also, your backstory has no where near the relevance compared to the events that actually happen in game. Those are things you all experienced and talk about for years to come. What someone wrote about their character before the game... not so much of a talking point.

Seconded. I majored in creative writing and never turned in an assignment that long, which means I told complete stories with multiple fleshed-out characters that had resolutions in fewer pages than this dude needs to explain this character's outlook. Pass.

[Honest Tiefling]

I could see a longer backstory for PERSONAL use, with the idea that the person might be just jotting down dialog to get a feel for the character or making note of various things that might or might not influence gameplay, such as a details about a dwarven family friend that might influence their attitude or assumptions about dwarves. Maybe not 16 pages, but getting there.

I do feel that a TL;DR bullet section might be better for use for the DM, however...

[ross]

'You have three seconds. The next person I see on a phone gets no XP for the rest of this session [Start counting]'

This will do nothing, most of them are chronic phone users because they're depressed to the point that they can't care about anything; you could kill their character in the first minute of the session and it would make no difference. Honestly it's a miracle they're even able to make it to a game at all, since that requires effort.

- Players who try to use flavour to remove their limitations. "My Cleric wears a hood and an all-encompassing cloak, and whispers, so no one can notice him doing Verbal and Somatic spell commands". Eh?

What's wrong with that?

Players who talk in character too much, specifically when this means that the other players don't get a word in edgewise.

Done multiple sessions with two different groups where I just spectated the whole time because there was never a time when I wouldn't have been interrupting; but it's that or I don't play, so whatever

[prototype00]

DMs who claim to be a RAI purist mid-game when really all they want to do is shut down your rules legal combo.

[Ratter]

Seriously how many combats do you have above gourd and out of doors?

Well, this makes you large, so I mean... your not THAT big... also mounted combatant lets you A, protect your horse and B, they cant attack you if you attack them

[strangebloke]

Seconded. I majored in creative writing and never turned in an assignment that long, which means I told complete stories with multiple fleshed-out characters that had resolutions in fewer pages than this dude needs to explain this character's outlook. Pass.

Amen.

This is why I've become a strong believer in the party writing a backstory for the group. Make them work out relationships and history with each other.

[Tanarii]

DMs who claim to be a RAI purist mid-game when really all they want to do is shut down your rules legal combo.

Conversely: Players that come to the table with a combo based on either and edge-case or very narrow interpretation of RAW and insist it is a rules legal combo.

This was extremely common in 4e official play, and it irritated me both as a player and a DM. Actually, more as a player, because if the DM let the player get away with it, it often hugely overshadowed the rest of us.

That's what finally made me realize: nobody likes a forum-lurking abusive rules lawyer who insists on their narrow or edge-case interpretations of RAW during actual play. I was one of those in 3e, DM and player. I was young, mistakes were made.

(Not saying all rules legal combos are abusive. Your post just made me think of it, because IMX it was common in 4e official play.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Conversely: Players that come to the table with a combo based on either and edge-case or very narrow interpretation of RAW and insist it is a rules legal combo.

This was extremely common in 4e official play, and it irritated me both as a player and a DM. Actually, more as a player, because if the DM let the player get away with it, it often hugely overshadowed the rest of us.

That's what finally made me realize: nobody likes a forum-lurking abusive rules lawyer who insists on their narrow or edge-case interpretations of RAW during actual play. I was one of those in 3e, DM and player. I was young, mistakes were made.

(Not saying all rules legal combos are abusive. Your post just made me think of it, because IMX it was common in 4e official play.)

Amen. I see RAW used more as a weapon ("You have to let me do this, the rules say so") for causing distortions than as a tool for settling arguments. Sadly.

[GlenSmash!]

Well, this makes you large

No it does not. If a you are playing Medium creature, It makes you a medium creature sitting on a Large creature. That is not the same as becoming Large.

mounted combatant lets you A, protect your horse and B, they cant attack you if you attack them

Yes it does. When you are mounted and when not facing AOEs. Neither of which are givens, even at low levels.

[DarkKnightJin]

Amen. I see RAW used more as a weapon ("You have to let me do this, the rules say so") for causing distortions than as a tool for settling arguments. Sadly.

I tend to be the the type of walking PHB that uses his knowledge to help the DM. Some things might be 'edge cases' I might want to try, but I also focus on making an interesting character. Not a super optimized combat machine..

[Demonslayer666]

Hi DMs,
As I have a fairly annoying group of friends that I DM for, there are a fair number of things that get on my nerves. What have your players done that causes you to cringe?

Number one by far is not paying attention. "Why are we in this dungeon again?" "I go talk to what's-her-name" This really gets on my nerves, and makes me feel like I am wasting my time.

Not keeping track of resources.

Complaining or arguing.

[prototype00]

Conversely: Players that come to the table with a combo based on either and edge-case or very narrow interpretation of RAW and insist it is a rules legal combo.

This was extremely common in 4e official play, and it irritated me both as a player and a DM. Actually, more as a player, because if the DM let the player get away with it, it often hugely overshadowed the rest of us.

That's what finally made me realize: nobody likes a forum-lurking abusive rules lawyer who insists on their narrow or edge-case interpretations of RAW during actual play. I was one of those in 3e, DM and player. I was young, mistakes were made.

(Not saying all rules legal combos are abusive. Your post just made me think of it, because IMX it was common in 4e official play.)

Amen. I see RAW used more as a weapon ("You have to let me do this, the rules say so") for causing distortions than as a tool for settling arguments. Sadly.

I tend to be the the type of walking PHB that uses his knowledge to help the DM. Some things might be 'edge cases' I might want to try, but I also focus on making an interesting character. Not a super optimized combat machine..

Ah, the carefree nattering of people who have never had a DM declare that Shield Master doesn't allow you to avoid all damage from a dragon's breath attack on a successful save (as laid down in the feat description itself) just because you happen to be grappling said dragon. Then claiming that they run games by RAI. AL games, no less.

Must be nice.

prototype00

[ross]

Ah, the carefree nattering of people who have never had a DM declare that Shield Master doesn't allow you to avoid all damage from a dragon's breath attack on a successful save (as laid down in the feat description itself) just because you happen to be grappling said dragon. Then claiming that they run games by RAI and by feel. AL games, no less.

Must be nice.

prototype00

Wait why would you need that feat in this case? How is a dragon going to breathe fire on someone grappling it? You'd have to be attached directly to its face or something.

[prototype00]

Wait why would you need that feat in this case? How is a dragon going to breathe fire on someone grappling it? You'd have to be attached directly to its face or something.

Well, even when you are grappling something, position doesn't change (most people tend not to know this, they think it works like 3e). So you're still standing right in front of the dragon, who can very well direct his/her cone breath at you (grapple doesn't stop actions/attacks either).

If you are grappling something, you yourself are not grappled (yet another thing DMs tend to be ignorant about) and you are basically free to do what you want, as long as you have a hand free to maintain the grapple.

Shield Master lets you interpose a shield as a reaction to take no damage on a successful save, rather than half damage.

But apparently not, in this very specific circumstance, for this DM, even with no rules backing his ruling, in AL, because RAI.

I think it's more fair to say my pet peeve is DMs who think they know the rules better than any musty ol' PhB.

But also DMs who support RAI, when I hear that in AL, the hair on my arm stands up and I get ready to bug out.

prototype00

[ross]

Well, even when you are grappling something, position doesn't change (most people tend not to know this, they think it works like 3e). So you're still standing right in front of the dragon, who can very well direct his/her cone breath at you (grapple doesn't stop actions/attacks either).

If you are grappling something, you yourself are not grappled (yet another thing DMs tend to be ignorant about) and you are basically free to do what you want, as long as you have a hand free to maintain the grapple.

Shield Master lets you interpose a shield as a reaction to take no damage on a successful save, rather than half damage.

But apparently not, in this very specific circumstance, for this DM, even with no rules backing his ruling, in AL, because RAI.

prototype00

What, you're grappling a dragon with one arm from five feet away, and standing in front of it? What is your character actually doing when they grapple a dragon? Did the designers of this game even take wrestling in high school?

[prototype00]

What, you're grappling a dragon with one arm from five feet away, and standing in front of it? What is your character actually doing when they grapple a dragon? Did the designers of this game even take wrestling in high school?

I'm guessing head-lock, and you are more than welcome to point out the part of the rules that I quoted mistakenly (I'm all about the even-handedness of rule application. The DM's game runs on rules, and the PCs actions are governed by it)

[DarkKnightJin]

What, you're grappling a dragon with one arm from five feet away, and standing in front of it? What is your character actually doing when they grapple a dragon? Did the designers of this game even take wrestling in high school?

Maybe not, but anybody with any imagination can think about it for a moment and realize you getting caught in the same breath weapon while you're giving it a big ol' bearhug is weapons-grade horse manure.

[ross]

I'm guessing head-lock, and you are more than welcome to point out the part of the rules that I quoted mistakenly (I'm all about the even-handedness of rule application. The DM's game runs on rules, and the PCs actions are governed by it)

If you've got a dragon in a choke hold and assuming you're medium size, you're probably going to be behind its head, maybe on its back depending on sizes and orientation. Other options are basically tail pin and leg lock, but those probably make you too vulnerable if the party isn't specifically prepared to take advantage.

Trying to put that guy in a head lock while directly in front of him is going to result in the dragon getting a snack. Heck the first thing you do even against other people is sidestep / get behind and exploit an opening.

[Lord8Ball]

To list a few of my peeves.
1. Gods and world ending threats at early levels.
2. The world always being ruled by multiple level 20 characters which we always seem to get involved in at some point and are forced to work under for dangerous mission.
3. Mind control ring at early levels that can alter your alignment in an instant and make you suicide.
4. Railroading & lack or roleplay due to it

[Tanarii]

What, you're grappling a dragon with one arm from five feet away, and standing in front of it? What is your character actually doing when they grapple a dragon? Did the designers of this game even take wrestling in high school?

A 5e grapple is more like a grab. It doesn't do anything except prevent the opponent from moving, and allow you to drag them around. In the case of a dragon, it absolutely can turn its long ass neck to point it's head at the PC grappling it, and breath it's breath weapon on them.

And yeah, you'd still get the benefit of Sheild Master. Denying that is certainly not stopping abusive edge case or narrow interpretations of RAW combos, nor is it RAI. I wouldn't even go so far as to call it a "RAW combo". It's a basic RAW application of a standard Feat, as well as clear RAI, to allow it to be used with a standard grapple.

[ross]

Can someone explain how you stop a dragon from moving by grabbing it with your hand without being a deity or a bronze collosus?

[Avonar]

Nonsense with choosing dice.

I blame this one mostly on Critical Role, people who have to use one particular dice for one particular action. Spell? Use the blue one. Melee attack? Green glittery one. It gets annoying when you have a huge pile of dice on the table and have to spend 10-20 seconds before rolling to find the one you want to use this time.

Also seen a lot: game starts and then feels the urge to roll every d20 to see which are better, further lengthening their turn.

[ross]

Nonsense with choosing dice.

I blame this one mostly on Critical Role, people who have to use one particular dice for one particular action. Spell? Use the blue one. Melee attack? Green glittery one. It gets annoying when you have a huge pile of dice on the table and have to spend 10-20 seconds before rolling to find the one you want to use this time.

Also seen a lot: game starts and then feels the urge to roll every d20 to see which are better, further lengthening their turn.

**** like this is why we started using a smart table with an integrated 3d dice roller

[Tanarii]

Can someone explain how you stop a dragon from moving by grabbing it with your hand without being a deity or a bronze collosus?

You don't unless it's small enough. Grappled creatures must be no more than one size larger than you.

[GlenSmash!]

Can someone explain how you stop a dragon from moving by grabbing it with your hand without being a deity or a bronze collosus?

Well by the rules a Medium size character can't grapple a Dragon that is Larger/Older that a Young Dragon (Size Large, same as a Horse, Tiger, or a Bear).

If I were trying to describe it in the narrative I would say the grappler would have grabbed a wing and twisted it to such an angle that it hurts the dragon to even try and move in any direction. Maintaining this takes a great deal of body positioning and good footing, hence why the grappler can only move half his movement speed.

Other DMs might describe it differently.

[Potato_Priest]

Can someone explain how you stop a dragon from moving by grabbing it with your hand without being a deity or a bronze collosus?

Many 5e PCs are stronger than chimpanzees (str 16) or even grizzly bears (str 19), which are way way way stronger than RL humans. PCs in D&D are kind of superhuman, even the martial ones.

[GlenSmash!]

Many 5e PCs are stronger than chimpanzees (str 16) or even grizzly bears (str 19), which are way way way stronger than RL humans. PCs in D&D are kind of superhuman, even the martial ones.

I think it would be more accurate to say many 5e PCs have a Higher strength score than a Grizzzly Bear.

With size effecting Number of Damage Dice and Carrying Capacity a one to one comparison based on number alone just doesn't tell the whole story. I could easily see the Grizzly Bear still being "Stronger" than a 20 strength PC that isn't enlarged, doesn't have Powerful Build, or six levels in Bear Totem Barbarian.

So yes there are still ways to become stronger than that Grizzly, but getting a 20 in strength doesn't necessarily do that on it's own.