"Fan Errata": a Proposal to Rewrite Some of Poorly Worded Rules of 5e

[Merudo]

Although 5e is pretty damn good, I've notice a handful of rules that are either confusing, unclear, or where RAW & RAI are incompatible.

I therefore make the following proposal: we should make a "fan errata" to correct the worst of these rules, with the intent to make a strict reading of the text closer to RAI and to close some unintended loopholes.

Of course, each individual DM would be free to adopt the "fan errata" or not; but having it out there would simplify time for the busy DM who wants, say, workable Vision/Obscuration rules without having to analyze a lengthy discussion on this forum or on the RPG stack exchange.

This "fan errata" would be reminiscent of fan patches that exist for computer games. These fan patches were created by gamers to correct existing bugs overlooked by the developers. The list of games with "fan patches" is numerous, and include games such as

• Baldur's Gate 2
• Dragon Age: Origins
• Fallout 4
• Final Fantasy 6
• Skyrim
• Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines

and many other games.

As a start, I've identified a few rules that I believe would benefit from a rewrite. I hope the proposed errata would unambiguously answer the following questions:

• Vision & Obscuration: Can a creature see behind mundane darkness, fog cloud, & the darkness spell?
• Rest: Under which conditions can a PC take a short or long rest, and can the two types of rests be combined?
• "Enter the spell's area": What's the definition of "entering a spell's area" for spells such as Moonbeam & Cloud of Daggers?
• Dropping a Weapon: Is dropping a weapon "free", or does it use the object interaction action?
• Shield Master: When can the shield push be taken?
• Surprise: What happens if a character only notices some of the threats, but not all of them?
• Dead Creature: Is a dead creature still a creature, or is it an object?
• Casting more than one spell: Under which conditions can a PC cast more than one spell during a turn?
• Wild Shape: Which feature(s) can be used in Wild Shape?

In addition, the wording for some spells is plain confusing and should be improved upon. Examples: Awaken, Black Tentacles, Freedom of Movement, Goodberry, Shadow of Moil, Simulacrum, Wall of Fire, etc.

[Jerrykhor]

Needs to add the 'Melee Weapon Attack/Attack with Melee Weapon/Melee Attack/Natural Weapon/Unarmed Strike' thing.

[Malifice]

Vision & Obscuration: Can a creature see behind mundane darkness, fog cloud, & the darkness spell?

Fog cloud no, and magical darkness no (unless whatever is illuminating the thing on the other side is magical light of a higher level than the darkness). Non magical darkness, yes.

If some clown is standing 100 feet away from you with a lit torch you can see them, despite the darkness between you.

Rest: Under which conditions can a PC take a short or long rest, and can the two types of rests be combined?

Whenever they get 1 (or 8) or more uninterrupted hours of doing nothing else other than sitting quietly by the fire, sleeping, talking or light activity, and the DM doesnt exersize his veto.

"Enter the spell's area": What's the definition of "entering a spell's area" for spells such as Moonbeam & Cloud of Daggers?

When a creature enters the area, not the other way around.

Dropping a Weapon: Is dropping a weapon "free", or does it use the object interaction action?

You can interact with an object as part of the action you use the object for. Otherwise it's an action, unless there is no appreciable movement or time required (dropping something) in which case it's not an action at all.

Shield Master: When can the shield push be taken?

As a bonus action, after you take the Attack action.

Surprise: What happens if a character only notices some of the threats, but not all of them?

They're not surprised.

Dead Creature: Is a dead creature still a creature, or is it an object?

A corpse is an object, not a creature. It's also a 'dead creature' for the purposes of Raise Dead. It can be both.

Casting more than one spell: Under which conditions can a PC cast more than one spell during a turn?

Any time they havent cast a spell as a bonus action, in which case the only other spell they can cast that turn is a single cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.

Feel free to Fireball, Counter the counterspell flung at your fireball, and then [action surge] Fireball again all on your turn.

[*]Wild Shape: Which feature(s) can be used in Wild Shape?

Every single class and racial feature, or feature from any other source, that is compatible with your new shape.


How are the above questions in any major doubt?

[Merudo]

Hi Malice. Although you are mostly right according to RAI, you might not be aware that some of what you said isn't supported by RAW. My proposal is to correct the wording of the rules so that RAI = RAW.

I'll take this opportunity to elaborate on what is wrong with the current rules.

Vision & Obscuration: Can a creature see behind mundane darkness, fog cloud, & the darkness spell?

Fog cloud no, and magical darkness no (unless whatever is illuminating the thing on the other side is magical light of a higher level than the darkness). Non magical darkness, yes.

If some clown is standing 100 feet away from you with a lit torch you can see them, despite the darkness between you.

By RAW, there is no distinction between mundane darkness, fog cloud, & magical darkness. All provide heavy obscuration, which block sight only when trying to look into the area (not behind it).

Rest: Under which conditions can a PC take a short or long rest, and can the two types of rests be combined?

Whenever they get 1 (or 8) or more uninterrupted hours of doing nothing else other than sitting quietly by the fire, sleeping, talking or light activity, and the DM doesnt exersize his veto.

One issue: by RAW you can take a short rest within a long rest, although that is not RAI.

Another: by RAW the Circle of Dreams Druid can gain a near permanent +5 to Stealth & Perception through Hearth of Moonlight and Shadow by constantly starting rests.

"Enter the spell's area": What's the definition of "entering a spell's area" for spells such as Moonbeam & Cloud of Daggers?

When a creature enters the area, not the other way around.

There is some ambiguity here regarding the definition of "enter".

Dropping a Weapon: Is dropping a weapon "free", or does it use the object interaction action?

You can interact with an object as part of the action you use the object for. Otherwise it's an action, unless there is no appreciable movement or time required (dropping something) in which case it's not an action at all.

By RAI, dropping an object is not intended to cost any action.

Shield Master: When can the shield push be taken?

As a bonus action, after you take the Attack action.

You might want to familiarize yourself with the flip-flopping of Jeremy Crawford on this issue.

Surprise: What happens if a character only notices some of the threats, but not all of them?

They're not surprised.

The text is "Any character or monster that doesn’t notice a threat is surprised", which can be interpreted as "If there exists a threat that isn't noticed by a character or monster, that character or monster is surprised.

Dead Creature: Is a dead creature still a creature, or is it an object?

A corpse is an object, not a creature. It's also a 'dead creature' for the purposes of Raise Dead. It can be both.

Revivify targets "a creature that has died", so the spell does nothing according to RAW.

Casting more than one spell: Under which conditions can a PC cast more than one spell during a turn?

Any time they havent cast a spell as a bonus action, in which case the only other spell they can cast that turn is a single cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.

Feel free to Fireball, Counter the counterspell flung at your fireball, and then [action surge] Fireball again all on your turn.

The rule is confusing: you can't both cast a Bonus Action spell & a reaction spell on the same turn, or a Bonus Action Spell & an Action Surge Fireball.

Wild Shape: Which feature(s) can be used in Wild Shape?

Every single class and racial feature, or feature from any other source, that is compatible with your new shape.

Of course. But it is often unclear what features are compatible with the new shape.

Cases in point: can a Lizardfolk benefit from Natural Armor while Wild Shaped into a Giant Constrictor Snake? And can a Druid speak Common while Wild Shaped into a Giant Elk?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Or people can drop the RAW fetish they have and play the game, making judgement calls per table as needed. RAW isn't a thing in 5e, not really. Worrying about "by RAW" gets in the way of figuring out what's best for the table and only promotes weaponization of text and rules lawyering. This goes for all sides. Treat the printed text as a starting point and hammer things out for yourself. You won't break anything[1], and you'll have much more fun than if you treat the printed text as some form of holy writ that must be adhered to by everyone or else bad things will happen <cue spooky music>.

[1] The only exceptions are (according to the DMG):
* Letting people attune to more than 3 items
* Letting people concentrate on more than one spell (or otherwise messing with concentration)
* one other I can't remember because I'm AFB.

[strangebloke]

I'd still argue thanks some rules are needlessly complex. Complexity should be in service to some design pillar.

I wouldn't see the whole "what counts as a long rest" debate as a problem because that to me reads as something that's intentionally keep vague.

I do see the the whole "weapon attack, attack with a weapon" thing as a problem because it's super confusing for no real reason.

[Max_Killjoy]

Or people can drop the RAW fetish they have and play the game, making judgement calls per table as needed. RAW isn't a thing in 5e, not really. Worrying about "by RAW" gets in the way of figuring out what's best for the table and only promotes weaponization of text and rules lawyering. This goes for all sides. Treat the printed text as a starting point and hammer things out for yourself. You won't break anything[1], and you'll have much more fun than if you treat the printed text as some form of holy writ that must be adhered to by everyone or else bad things will happen <cue spooky music>.

IMO, the text could also be written to avoid a lot of the battles in the first place... it seems like it was written with a very "whatever" attitude. There's a whole thread about Pact of the Blade that wouldn't be happening if the writers of 5e had spent 10 more minutes on the wording of those two paragraphs.

[1] The only exceptions are (according to the DMG):
* Letting people attune to more than 3 items
* Letting people concentrate on more than one spell (or otherwise messing with concentration)
* one other I can't remember because I'm AFB.

Something something action economy?

I do see the the whole "weapon attack, attack with a weapon" thing as a problem because it's super confusing for no real reason.

That's another good example of where it was needlessly sloppy.

[Max_Killjoy]

Although 5e is pretty damn good, I've notice a handful of rules that are either confusing, unclear, or where RAW & RAI are incompatible.

I therefore make the following proposal: we should make a "fan errata" to correct the worst of these rules, with the intent to make a strict reading of the text closer to RAI and to close some unintended loopholes.

Will this include getting the "fans" to agree on what the rules should actually be and say?

Because... good luck with that.

[jaappleton]

You should be able to do Shield Master's bonus action shove whenever you want during your turn.

[PhoenixPhyre]

IMO, the text could also be written to avoid a lot of the battles in the first place... it seems like it was written with a very "whatever" attitude. There's a whole thread about Pact of the Blade that wouldn't be happening if the writers of 5e had spent 10 more minutes on the wording of those two paragraphs.

Something something action economy?

People in a RAW-focused mindset will fight no matter what the wording is. I've seen fights over crystal clear wording. And crystal clear wording for complex subjects tends to be even more annoying to read for those who aren't in that mindset (ie most people). So you can remove a tiny fraction of the arguments (which don't really matter because they happen mostly on forums, not in play) at the cost of making the rules more of a slog for everyone.

I've seen suggestions to have a "defined words" marker and a glossary. Ok, then I have to cross-reference each time there's a defined word instead of using context clues, because it's signaled that the specifics matters. That's a huge time and attention cost. Same with having more tables. And unless you're loophole hunting, the specifics don't matter except for forum arguments.

And yes, that last one is about letting people take more than one bonus action or reaction on a turn. Thanks.

[Rukelnikov]

You should be able to do Shield Master's bonus action shove whenever you want during your turn.

Tbh, I disagree, it may be an unpopular opinion, but Shield Master requires you to take the Attack action in order to get the shield bash as a BA, if for whatever reason you are prevented from taking the action later on then you shouldn't have been able to perform the bash.

[Sigreid]

This reminds me of the rules supreme court thread from not long ago.

[jaappleton]

Tbh, I disagree, it may be an unpopular opinion, but Shield Master requires you to take the Attack action in order to get the shield bash as a BA, if for whatever reason you are prevented from taking the action later on then you shouldn't have been able to perform the bash.

Let 'em take it before the attack action. I'm fine with trying it to the attack action, but it should be able to be taken prior to rolling the attack.

"When you take the attack action, prior to rolling the attack, you can attempt to shove as a bonus action."

Works for me.

[PhantomSoul]

Tbh, I disagree, it may be an unpopular opinion, but Shield Master requires you to take the Attack action in order to get the shield bash as a BA, if for whatever reason you are prevented from taking the action later on then you shouldn't have been able to perform the bash.

The argument I've seen (and that does make sense) is that if you then don't or won't use your Action in the required way, the Shield Bash retroactively becomes your Action (or part of it, as possible) and you have the Bonus Action instead of the Action left.

[Misterwhisper]

They should have just said:

If you use the shove action while wielding a shield as part of the attack action, you may makes a melee weapon attack as a bonus action.

Everything works out.

[Pex]

What if someone disagrees with the Fan Errata interpretation of a rule? Is that someone wrong on the internet? Does he autolose the argument in the Forum? Are all disagreements made superfluous? This is the "Supreme Court" by another name.

I prefer 5E wasn't written with the vagueness in some areas and lack of rules altogether in others it has, but we're stuck with it until such time there's a hypothetical 5.5E or 6E in the future. We can agree or disagree with people's opinions of a matter, but that's all there is. Consensus does not make it truth.

[Theodoxus]

This is gonna be controversial, and a potential threadjack, so ignore it if need be, but this is one reason I went back to the 4E action conventions, and kept bonus action from 5E.

A bonus action in my homebrew (yeah, I haven't read that thread yet), requires an action to trigger it, else it's just a minor action. Shield Master's shield push is a perfect example. if you like being able to do it whenever, you'd make it a minor action. If you want it to only trigger after an attack, you keep it a bonus action.

Even MM stated he'd rethink the whole bonus action in a lot of cases - and I agree, so I did.

The vast majority of BAs in 5E are better off as a minor action. The few that remain in my homebrew are offhand attacks, quickened spells and things like flurry of blows.

I agree that the chassis of 5E is a work of art. The crap that got bolted onto it - especially the things that should have carried over from 4E, but didn't because, I don't know, fear of 4E or something... are an easy fix.

I've currently gone too far, bringing in all kinds of things I probably didn't need to - and I'm slowly rolling some stuff back, but actions? No way, I'm keeping them - they work so much better!

[Man_Over_Game]

What if someone disagrees with the Fan Errata interpretation of a rule? Is that someone wrong on the internet? Does he autolose the argument in the Forum? Are all disagreements made superfluous? This is the "Supreme Court" by another name.

I prefer 5E wasn't written with the vagueness in some areas and lack of rules altogether in others it has, but we're stuck with it until such time there's a hypothetical 5.5E or 6E in the future. We can agree or disagree with people's opinions of a matter, but that's all there is. Consensus does not make it truth.

I think it's important for a Fan Errata to express the difference between Designer Intent and Rule of Fun, and how often those clash. Focusing on Designer Intent provides a higher opinion, a foundation to base things off of. Rather than listening to the Fan Errata's opinion, or some random person on the internet, you can gain insight into the highest possible opinion on DnD 5e matters. Of course, you can disagree, but it keeps whatever interpretation is provided as the most "pure", before it gets dirtied by the opinions of others.

For example, Designer Intent states that you can "pop" from cover while hidden to make an attack, making it so you never left cover. However, if you ever do leave cover and enter a creature's line of sight, you are immediately spotted. This means that it's nearly impossible to melee attack while hidden (unless you can block Line of Sight somehow).
Designer Intent also states that you cannot Twin spells that magically affect more than one creature. Ice Knife, Dragon's Breath, etc, those spells all can magically affect more than one creature.

A resource like that is something I can use, comparing what the developer's planned and how people like to run things anyway.

[stoutstien]

This just seems like making house rules with extra steps.

[Sigreid]

I think it's important for a Fan Errata to express the difference between Designer Intent and Rule of Fun, and how often those clash. Focusing on Designer Intent provides a higher opinion, a foundation to base things off of. Rather than listening to the Fan Errata's opinion, or some random person on the internet, you can gain insight into the highest possible opinion on DnD 5e matters. Of course, you can disagree, but it keeps whatever interpretation is provided as the most "pure", before it gets dirtied by the opinions of others.

For example, Designer Intent states that you can "pop" from cover while hidden to make an attack, making it so you never left cover. However, if you ever do leave cover and enter a creature's line of sight, you are immediately spotted. This means that it's nearly impossible to melee attack while hidden (unless you can block Line of Sight somehow).
Designer Intent also states that you cannot Twin spells that magically affect more than one creature. Ice Knife, Dragon's Breath, etc, those spells all can magically affect more than one creature.

A resource like that is something I can use, comparing what the developer's planned and how people like to run things anyway.

I doubt designer intent is even possible at this point. Due to the way memory works and people develop it is more than likely even the designers cant be certain what their intent originally was.

[Rukelnikov]

Let 'em take it before the attack action. I'm fine with trying it to the attack action, but it should be able to be taken prior to rolling the attack.

"When you take the attack action, prior to rolling the attack, you can attempt to shove as a bonus action."

Works for me.

I imagine this works fine in 99% of the cases or more, but it feels kinda out of place in the 5e system, its a rule that can only be interpreted from a meta perspective, since in game, there's no such thing as an Attack action, so you are basically making a shield bash and attacking afterwards.

The argument I've seen (and that does make sense) is that if you then don't or won't use your Action in the required way, the Shield Bash retroactively becomes your Action (or part of it, as possible) and you have the Bonus Action instead of the Action left.

I've heard that one before, while in practice that may solve most of the situations that may arise, it feels too much like a patch for me, no other part of the system works like that, so I don't completely like it.

They should have just said:

If you use the shove action while wielding a shield as part of the attack action, you may makes a melee weapon attack as a bonus action.

Everything works out.

Yeah, this should have been the feat. The only reason I can think of for them not making it this way, is because they specifically didn't want you to benefit from the advantage on attacks.

[Bloodcloud]

This reminds me of the rules supreme court thread from not long ago.

Honestly, if the designers/wotc employees would take a few questions every once in a while and produce detailed decision explaining their reasoning on the matter, that would be great.

And by detailed decision I mean not fire off on Nerull-damned twitter.

[Sigreid]

I imagine this works fine in 99% of the cases or more, but it feels kinda out of place in the 5e system, its a rule that can only be interpreted from a meta perspective, since in game, there's no such thing as an Attack action, so you are basically making a shield bash and attacking afterwards.



I've heard that one before, while in practice that may solve most of the situations that may arise, it feels too much like a patch for me, no other part of the system works like that, so I don't completely like it.



Yeah, this should have been the feat. The only reason I can think of for them not making it this way, is because they specifically didn't want you to benefit from the advantage on attacks.

I've been in fights, some of them more serious than I'd ever like to get into again, and I can tell you it is absolutely possible, and frequently necessary to fully commit to a sequence of actions before starting, without any chance to alter the plan mid sequence.

[PhantomSoul]

Yeah, this should have been the feat. The only reason I can think of for them not making it this way, is because they specifically didn't want you to benefit from the advantage on attacks.

It could also be that their design concept was "more uses for the Bonus Action" and so a simple (and utterly delightful) solution didn't get considered because of the starting point.

[Zhorn]

Oh no... someone mentioned Shield Master... This will not end well. And by that I mean it just will not end.

There are a few rulings I do agree would greatly benefit from an updated errata to reword rules into a more clear and concise format with less reliance on clarification. But any document, be it published by the fans or by WoTC directly, is going to have some group denounce it as being wrong, a huge mistake, and not official based solely on having rulings they disagree with.

Shield master is THE prime example.
Doesn't matter that "if x then y" has been clarified as "do x first, then you can do y"
It doesn't matter that it is a simple and consistent rule to apply to multiple abilities that share similar conditional wording.
It doesn't matter that WoTC has released a document they label as being the official clarification on the ruling.
It doesn't matter that the feat in question is thematically a defensive feat, not an offensive feat.
NONE of that matters.
All that matters is there is a vocal group (not all players, not a majority, not a minority... we cannot quantify what percent of the population) who don't like that ruling and want it ruled their way.

I'll agree with Stoutstien;

This just seems like making house rules with extra steps.

[Willie the Duck]

People in a RAW-focused mindset will fight no matter what the wording is. I've seen fights over crystal clear wording. And crystal clear wording for complex subjects tends to be even more annoying to read for those who aren't in that mindset (ie most people). So you can remove a tiny fraction of the arguments (which don't really matter because they happen mostly on forums, not in play) at the cost of making the rules more of a slog for everyone.

Clearly the designers had making the game accessible to newcomers as a higher priority than airtight, completely inarguable, unambiguous text. It was a move which has rewarded them with a very successful edition, and most groups have managed to find a way through any issues. That said, there are some places where the could have been clearer, or at least explained their goals.

Still, you are absolutely correct that there is no such thing as a ruleset so exacting that people indoctrinated into the RAW mindset will not have problems with (and honestly, if there were, it would probably be terrible as an actual game).

Honestly, if the designers/wotc employees would take a few questions every once in a while and produce detailed decision explaining their reasoning on the matter, that would be great.

And by detailed decision I mean not fire off on Nerull-damned twitter.

Or if they went the complete opposite route and made blanket statements staying consistent to the rulings-over-rules and natural-language focus of the edition. Either would be preferable to the status quo. But yes, just tell us what you had in mind, what your concerns are, and where you think the game is best served by going, and people would probably bend over backwards to propose errata-worthy wording to accomplish that goal.

[Man_Over_Game]

Oh no... someone mentioned Shield Master... This will not end well. And by that I mean it just will not end.

There are a few rulings I do agree would greatly benefit from an updated errata to reword rules into a more clear and concise format with less reliance on clarification. But any document, be it published by the fans or by WoTC directly, is going to have some group denounce it as being wrong, a huge mistake, and not official based solely on having rulings they disagree with.

Shield master is THE prime example.
Doesn't matter that "if x then y" has been clarified as "do x first, then you can do y"
It doesn't matter that it is a simple and consistent rule to apply to multiple abilities that share similar conditional wording.
It doesn't matter that WoTC has released a document they label as being the official clarification on the ruling.
It doesn't matter that the feat in question is thematically a defensive feat, not an offensive feat.
NONE of that matters.
All that matters is there is a vocal group (not all players, not a majority, not a minority... we cannot quantify what percent of the population) who don't like that ruling and want it ruled their way.

I'll agree with Stoutstien;

JC does regularly state that if you don't like his rulings, then to not listen to them. 5e is about making the game your own, and sometimes you want to know what the alternatives are.

It took me about 2 hours of research just to find some semi-official statement about what happens when you move out of a hiding spot.

Naturally, everyone can come to their own conclusions, but it'd be nice to have a resource that made all of the relevant information on the topic in one, concise location.

[Rukelnikov]

I've been in fights, some of them more serious than I'd ever like to get into again, and I can tell you it is absolutely possible, and frequently necessary to fully commit to a sequence of actions before starting, without any chance to alter the plan mid sequence.

But its not always possible, and that's where the problem comes from.

JC does regularly state that if you don't like his rulings, then to not listen to them. 5e is about making the game your own, and sometimes you want to know what the alternatives are.

It took me about 2 hours of research just to find some semi-official statement about what happens when you move out of a hiding spot.

Naturally, everyone can come to their own conclusions, but it'd be nice to have a resource that made all of the relevant information on the topic in one, concise location.

I'm up for a FAQ thread, that could probably help a lot of users that end up posting here. Otherwise an "Ask a simple question, get a simple answer" thread could be made, but those become to clunky after a while IMO.

[Sigreid]

But its not always possible, and that's where the problem comes from.

But when it's not possible you've still fully committed and you cant really change your choices.

[Rukelnikov]

But when it's not possible you've still fully committed and you cant really change your choices.

So, you can only be fully commited if you take shield master? I assume most PCs would face the same situation.