D&D 5E What rules from previous editions do you keep forgetting aren't in 5E?

[Olaf the Stout]

Last night was my group's 22nd session of 5E, having previously played 3.5E fortnightly since 2006 (and many in the group having played 1E, 2E and 3E prior to that).

It wasn't until last night that we realised that rolling a natural 1 on a saving throw isn't an automatic failure and rolling a natural 20 isn't an automatic success (the DM and a couple of players thought a 1 on a skill check was an automatic failure too).

In fact, by RAW 5E, rolling a natural 1 or 20 only has an impact on attack rolls and death saves. For everything else you treat it like rolling any other number.

I think because we'd played 3.5E for so long we just have it ingrained that a natural 1 on a saving throw is an automatic failure, so it's hard to break out of that thinking.

So what rules from previous D&D editions do you keep forgetting aren't in 5E?

 

[Charles Rampant]

I actually houseruled the '1 is an automatic fail' thing back into the game; only way to keep a Rogue player on his toes!

Opportunity Attacks are the main one that people struggle to forget at first; very hard to get out of the mindset that there is a long list of ways to provoke one. Another thing that people like to do is get into Flanking position. We know that it doesn't do anything, but a decade and a half of the term is hard to shake!

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Yeah, there are still lots of times that people think a natural 20 on a skill check means they can do anything. In the spirit of the game, if it’s not too egregious, I’ll allow it, though.

People ask about flanking from time to time, too.

It wasn't until last night that we realised that rolling a natural 1 on a saving throw isn't an automatic failure and rolling a natural 20 isn't an automatic success (the DM and a couple of players thought a 1 on a skill check was an automatic failure too).

 

[Horwath]

On saves and checks I would treat 1 as -5 roll and 20 as 25 roll.

It's not autofail if you are great at that thing and it's not a near impossible result if you are average at it.

 

[Sir Brennen]

My players still sometimes use the term "Five-foot step", tied to other now dead rules, like Full Attack ("I still get a little bit of movement after making a bunch of attacks") and as a way to avoid Attacks of Opportunity.

 

[The Old Crow]

Critical hits. I played 1e and 2e without them except for briefly when critical hits and misses were tried and no one liked them so it was quickly dropped. I played mostly 2e through the 3e and 4e days, though I played some 3e too but only have vague memories of confirmation rolls. Now I wonder how many crits in 5e my group has simply forgotten to roll the extra damage on a natural 20. I mean, the players must be rolling 20s now and then, and I must be rolling them for the monsters, but I don't think we have ever rolled extra damage. I think it would only matter for a champion fighter anyway, which no one is playing at the moment.

It would be cool if crits meant something more than Moar Damage. If instead of damage it could shove an opponent prone or away I think it would be more interesting and hence easier to remember.

Edit: I just remembered the time in during the Next playtest where I TPKed everyone because some orcs got 3 crits against the party. I think it cemented the opposition to crits because of the swingyness it adds to combat. Maybe everyone is happy to forget crits on purpose? Or they culd just be as forgetful as I am.

 

[Bitbrain]

Critical hits . . . would be cool if crits meant something more than Moar Damage. If instead of damage it could shove an opponent prone or away I think it would be more interesting and hence easier to remember.

My DM is of the same opinion, and drew up a "crit" chart: when you crit, roll another d20 and an additional effect will occur in addition to the extra damage.
for example, last session the war cleric made a critical roll on his attack, rolled the second d20, and the DM announced that the cleric became invisible, and it lasted for one round.

 

[The Old Crow]

I was thinking of "instead of" rather then "in addition to" damage, but yeah, that sounds more interesting for the players, whether it is them or the monster getting an effect from rolling a 20.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Initiative ties. Using Dex mod in Initiative ties is a previous editions rule i still use. I always go with higher bonus to resolve initiative ties as opposed to deciding myself or asking for a d20 roll. I'll only do the latter if the bonus is also the same.

 

[Arial Black]

Using Dex mod in Initiative ties is a previous editions rule i still use.

Yeah, in 5E the DM decides who goes when on tied initiative.

But....how does the DM decide?

Well, why not do what we've been doing in previous editions that worked perfectly?

I think it's an advantage to have played 3E. It means that any time the 5E rules don't cover a situation and just say that the DM decides, then the DM can decide by using a rule from 3E that covers this exact situation and has been tried and tested.

It also helps that when 5E's 'natural language' might cause confusion due to ambiguity, we can check the 3E rules to know exactly what was intended.

Many times I see 5E threads where people are misled by the imprecise writing style to believe ridiculous things that no player of 3E would be confused by, like what the instantaneous duration means and does not mean, the difference between the process of casting a spell (VSM components) and when the duration of the spell effect begins, and so on.

3E solves the problems of 5E.