Rules no table Applies.

Two favourable circumstances + one unfavourable circumstance = no favourable circumstances?

Basically Wizard's is trying to say two sources of advantage are canceled by one source of disadvantage. Um, i will list that in the dustbin of rules no table will apply. Any other rules people just ignore? Like Somatic bookkeeping, like which hand is free when in fact, when you have a focus, it doesn't matter if a hand is free. Another is some damage bonuses apply to an action but not to a bonus action which is otherwise identical to an action, forcing people to pay attention when some bonuses apply and others don't and no one cares, especially when D&D Beyond is inconsistent in applying the bonus or is getting it wrong.

Quote from Deathmolar>>

Two favourable circumstances + one unfavourable circumstance = no favourable circumstances?

Basically Wizard's is trying to say two sources of advantage are canceled by one source of disadvantage. Um, i will list that in the dustbin of rules no table will apply. Any other rules people just ignore?

Like Somatic bookkeeping, like which hand is free when in fact, when you have a focus, it doesn't matter if a hand is free.

Another is some damage bonuses apply to an action but not to a bonus action which is otherwise identical to an action, forcing people to pay attention when some bonuses apply and others don't and no one cares, especially when D&D Beyond is inconsistent in applying the bonus or is getting it wrong.

Again, that's a rule I've always enforced and have literally never heard of it not being enforced until this very moment, once against disproving your initial assumption.

I feel like you're vastly overestimating how common your particular style of play actually is

Much like Davyd, I'm also in the situation where all four of my current tables - both in-person and online - run all of the above-mentioned rules as written and have done so for years without complaint or misunderstanding.

Quote from Elrowade >>

Much like Davyd, I'm also in the situation where all four of my current tables - both in-person and online - run all of the above-mentioned rules as written and have done so for years without complaint or misunderstanding. 

 I thought this user and their sentiment seemed familiar, so I actually scanned their post history. I discovered I'd interacted with them on an almost identical position—specifically that they believe "no table" applies disadvantage to ranged attacks when a hostile creature is within 5ft.

They also seem to believe no DM (at least outside of AL) enforces the spell mastery rule requirements.

Quote from Davyd >>

Quote from Elrowade >>

Much like Davyd, I'm also in the situation where all four of my current tables - both in-person and online - run all of the above-mentioned rules as written and have done so for years without complaint or misunderstanding. 

 I thought this user and their sentiment seemed familiar, so I actually scanned their post history. I discovered I'd interacted with them on an almost identical position—specifically that they believe "no table" applies disadvantage to ranged attacks when a hostile creature is within 5ft.

 

 

 
So, the entire purpose of the 5e/5.5 Crossbow Expert and 5.5 Sharpshooter, Spellsniper feats...
Warcaster also mitigates their issue for spellcasting foci.

What I'm basically hearing is that they want free feats.

I’ve never been too fussed about whether someone has a free hand for somatic spells but otherwise I enforce all those rules (including the disadvantage at 5ft range) and so does every table I’ve played at. As Davyd says it feels like this person has a very specific play style and think it’s the same for everyone 

I get it OP, you want to imply these rules are useless and should not be there, but not everyone plays the same way.

My table doesn't use these either, but i know tables that do. Just say they are pointless and state your case for your real position instead of making a strawman. 

Is it still a strawman when you do it to your own argument?

Just popping in to show that at least one more person (me) plays with these rules as written.

When there are multiple advantages and disadvantages present, trying to tally them up and then rationalize what counts more is too tedious and time-wasting. The rule as written is more convenient.

Agree with other users that every table I’ve ever played at applies all of OPs rules. 

To answer the thread’s question, potion interaction rules are probably the rule I see most forgotten.  Not because they are bad rules, but because they are buried a bit, do not come up often, and require pulling open a table most folks probably do not have memorized.  That is not to say these rules are universally ignored - I know I utilize them when they come up - but I expect based on numerous conversations I’ve had with a lot of different DMs that they are forgotten more often than not.

Add me to the list of people that use all those rules at the multiple tables where I play. 

I wonder if people who don’t use them also complain about combats taking too long, and PCs being overpowered? Theres a game design case study in there somewhere.

A Rule that no table uses is that when your character dies, that you have to make a macaroni picture of your character's death.

That is because I just made this rule up.

I'm 99.99% certain that basically all tables enforce not adding your ability modifier to two-weapon fighting attacks, and I can't think of any other damage difference between "off hand" and "main hand" attacks. 

Quote from Deathmolar >>

Two favourable circumstances + one unfavourable circumstance = no favourable circumstances?

Basically Wizard's is trying to say two sources of advantage are canceled by one source of disadvantage. Um, i will list that in the dustbin of rules no table will apply. Any other rules people just ignore? Like Somatic bookkeeping, like which hand is free when in fact, when you have a focus, it doesn't matter if a hand is free. Another is some damage bonuses apply to an action but not to a bonus action which is otherwise identical to an action, forcing people to pay attention when some bonuses apply and others don't and no one cares, especially when D&D Beyond is inconsistent in applying the bonus or is getting it wrong.

 We follow the book rule at our table.  15 sources of Disadvantage and ONE Advantage?  Straight roll.  If you ignore the need to hold an arcane focus you devalue Warcaster (among other things).  Ability damage on bonus action attacks (two-weapon fighting) without taking the necessary feat again devalues the feat.  

That all said, you can use THAC0 at your table if you like and all any of us want is to play a game and have fun.  We kind of handwave arrows and stuff unless we are going into an area where it really matters.  Crossing a desert or ocean, something like that.

All tables, all rules. 

The one we often miss, not intentionally is Concentration saves for damage. We just sometimes forget for both monsters and players.

Unless the player has Spell Sniper (5.5e) we always apply the range disadvantage rule.  My players jumped on this when they saw it in the new rules.

And we've always applied the "One from each, none from either" rule.  Any number of disadvantages can be negated by a single advantage and my players work at that.

And if you're here on this site, you don't need to worry about forgetting which bonuses to apply because the site's calculations do it for you.  You don't get your offhand bonus without Two Weapon Fighting.

All these rules are applied because they take actual cost to negate (feats etc).

+1 to using all of the above rules.

Rules I've never actually seen used:

- Carrying Capacity & Encumberence

- Arrows & Ammunition

But I know some people do use them, and I track ammo for my own characters (though never seen it enforced or asked about!).

Quote from Wysperra >>

All tables, all rules. 

The one we often miss, not intentionally is Concentration saves for damage. We just sometimes forget for both monsters and players.

 Yeah. They're so easy to miss.

Well, I can't think of a rule that NO table applies. Some tables appreciate and enforce the more granular rules that I tend to forget/ignore. I'm thinking of the tables that are more survival/"hardcore" based, and so track encumbrance, rations, and daily living expenses. In my campaigns I very rarely track those things, or enforce the players tracking them. That's just not our fun, but I know it is for other tables and that's great for them!

The rules OP gave as examples, I know I always use at my tables. Sure, sometimes I (and the players) forget a rule now and again, but for the most part we play things as RAW/RAI as possible (though I do like to facilitate their fun with some "rule of cool" as well).

One "rule" I ALWAYS ignore (for 5e, we don't play 5.5e) is the suggestion/errata(?) that Dragon's Breath and Ice Knife cannot be Twin Spelled by a Sorcerer. I never feel like it is OP, and it follows the wording of the feature in the rulebook. If they want to make things less complicated, the devs can come up with words/phrasing to distinguish the Target of a spell (which is the creature/object/point in space a spell is being cast on) from things affected by a spell (i.e. creatures within the AOE of Fireball, or creatures who are affected by the AOE of Ice Knife versus the creature Ice Knife was cast upon).

Yeah, being able to use a hand holding a Spellcasting Focus as your “free hand” for Somatic components only when that spell also has a Material component is a rule I doubt anyone actually enforces at a table.  Is that what you meant by “Somatic Bookkeeping”?

If a player breaks the rule and doesn’t free up a required hand, it is a very difficult thing for a DM to notice and seldom of consequence.  So while it may be something players are expected to abide by, I doubt anyone is actually saying, “Hang on, that’s a V,S spell and you’re holding a torch.  You gotta put your wand away first.”

I’d honestly be intrigued if anyone has counter examples where someone at their table brought up this rule and whether or not a particular spell has a Material component without needing to look it up.