Unearthed Arcana 10 Abilities In Dungeons & Dragons That A DM Should Never Give A Party

TheGamer

Something New

Unearthed Arcana 10 Abilities In Dungeons & Dragons That A DM Should Never Give A Party

Parties influence the story of a campaign in Dungeons & Dragons, but DMs should be wary of giving these 10 abilities to their players. Despite the vast number of rules, abilities and spell interactions, the fifth edition of has emerged as a very well-balanced RPG. That hasn't stopped players from tying to bend any and all mechanics to gain an edge. While the official clarifications and errata on published content are readily available, unanticipated problems still arise which the DM will have to make rulings on. Beyond the burden of responsibility for the campaign, it is also the DM's charge to make sure everyone has a positive, consistent playing experience. They need to be at the same time, a flexible improv actor and a reliable system calculator. They must build genuine trust and deliver an authentic surprise. , often underappreciated by the all too common, roaming band of murder hobos that make up many adventuring parties. To keep things running smoothly and equitably for the DM and players alike, here are ten abilities a DM should never let a party have, most of which are for the humans, not the characters they control. THEGAMER VIDEO OF THE DAY

Take-backs

Once a dice is rolled, it is rolled. Unless you're playing with a group of very inexperienced players, a good DM shouldn't make a habit of allowing player characters to ret-con their actions. Even for new players, this shouldn't be done after their first session or two. Sometimes as DM, you'll forget something and need to take back a move or two for continuity. That's fine. It helps keep everyone's playing experience consistent and humans make mistakes. Allowing one or two players to constantly change what they're doing lessens the play experience of the other PC's, while allowing human error makes for better immersion. If someone wants to turn back time, they should level up and get the Wish spell.

Strategic Conversations During Combat Wait Your Turn

There's nothing wrong with talking strategy during epic boss fights, but don't let one of your Karens or Chads micromanage everyone else's actions. Often this comes in the form of meta-gaming, which breaks down the role-playing world into more of a tabletop discussion fest. D&D is better than that. Each round is about six seconds, so unless the PC has some sort of telepathy/communication spell active, they should only be able to make one statement to one creature/group.

Infinite Time To Make Decisions In Battles

In allowing this, a DM tends to encourage the first two items on this list. There are times during campaigns where players will have lots of time to make decisions - at puzzles, uncovering lore, or detecting/disarming traps. Combat should feel tense. That's not to say a DM should rob a player of their turn, but just like there are (albeit questionable) , you can institute some sort of drawback for indecisiveness. Maybe that player character will get disadvantage on their next saving throw to be frightened, or enemy reinforcements arrive.

Charisma Checks Between Players

Another form of micromanagement, permitting a player to make a persuasion check against another player robs that individual of their agency. It's not fun, and there have been rulings against this. One player's experience shouldn't get to ruin another player's. Even with high-level charm/control spells, creatures who are in conflict with the caster tend to get advantage on the save, so allowing non-magical attempts to overrule player agency isn't appropriate on several dimensions. If your group's face wants to badger people into being their unquestioning minion, they should carousing for NPC's.

Google

This is harder to control in online games, but in person, try to limit people's use of their phones/internet. Being able to identify monster immunities and vulnerabilities should be done by the appropriate ability check. For example, one would use the Nature skill to identify a beast properly. If one of your players is a druid and brought the Monster Manual, that's a different story, but in general, your players should play with the knowledge base of their character. A half-orc barbarian with an INT score of 8 shouldn't be able to identify arcane runes off the top of their head just because their controller is a veteran with access to the internet.

Excessive Arguing With The DM

Outside of core rules in Adventurer's League games, the DM has the final say in all matters, not Reddit. They are human beings who are prone to making mistakes every once in a while, and running a campaign takes a lot of complicated multi-tasking. That doesn't give players the right to stop game-play based on ambiguities that didn't go their way. Even if you think you're right, wait until the end of the session before diving into the weeds of errata, and keep the game flowing.

Being a Grung Unless You Donated To The Charity

Grungs are a frog species described in Volo's Guide and the pamphlet. Although released by Wizards of the Coast in connection to a charity fundraiser, the Grung is still unofficial content that is not legal in Adventurer's League. Even in your home games, unless your player actually bought the pamphlet and donated to the charity, allowing a Grung into your games is highly questionable. The racial abilities are a little too imbalanced. Anyone that touches the Grung makes a CON save against being poisoned, and the Grung can poison their weapons for an extra 2d4 damage per strike for one minute. Were this made official, you'd see an endless stream of Grung monks, Grung fu fighting, and turning the game into a series of unfortunate CON saves.

The Coffeelock

Before the rules were officially clarified in Xanathar's Guide to Everything, players had found a means of for a multi-classed Warlock/Sorcerer, or Sorlock by never sleeping. The mechanic is still doable, but the character would either risk the penalties associated with exhaustion, or they could spend 100 gold pieces to cast Greater Restoration, making it a very expensive endeavor. Don't worry, the Sorlock can still cast quickened Eldritch Blasts, so they're still a broken class combination.

Choosing Specifics in Conjure Animals

, when a Druid or Ranger casts Conjure Animals, the player picks the number of creatures and the Challenge Rating, and the DM decides what is actually summoned. The player can suggest what they would like, but the DM has the final say. There are no hard rules on how a DM should handle this, but a good rule of thumb is to scale the success of the skill with the skill of the player. The DM shouldn't railroad the player and vice versa. A popular house rule is if the character has seen the creature, they can reliably summon it. If they brought the Monster Manual and are wrecking all your encounters using the same beast combination, feel free to throw a hiccup or two their way, but don't use it as a means of rendering a prepared spell useless/a source of embarrassment for the player.

Wish

This isn't a suggestion of an outright ban of the , but rather an encouragement to permit spell failure. The is a lot of work. Fleshing out NPC's into engaging characters for your players to interact with, and taking in the depths of knowledge required to freely improvise with the players takes a lot of energy on the part of the DM. The Wish spell can take your week's work and flush it down the toilet if you let it, which can not only cheapen your experience as DM but also the other players' should a session end prematurely. Outside of the written parameters, the spell text explicitly outlines the DM's ability to moderate the success of the spell. Remember, it is the mightiest spell a mortal can cast in the D&D universe, and repeated castings weaken the caster. It is totally reasonable for this spell to fail for any number of reasons.