I see "does this stack?" questions a lot. The funny part with all of them? "Stacking" doesn't exist in 5e.
The term "stack" appears in exactly two places in the basic rules: the phrases "stack the deck" and "stacks of empty crates". The equivalent rules are on combining magical effects, which makes no mention of anything close to stacking rules (i.e. there's no indication that 2+2 is anything but 4 in this edition, with no bonus types or anything).
The closest you get to any form of bizarre "stacking" is if you have multiple Armor Class equations (i.e. an unarmored Monk / Barbarian / Dragon Sorcerer who casts Mage Armor on himself), and even then it's simple (the equations are independent; you choose one individual result from those equations to be your armor class. There's no indication that these are bonuses to some other AC - i.e. it says "your armor class is X" instead of "you add Z to your armor class - so this is hardly a surprise). This is actually made explicit on page 14 of the PHB.
All of this is reinforced in the rules - "stacking" is mentioned in the PHB index, and it simply refers you to the rules on combining magical effects. There's no such thing as stacking in this edition - it's baggage from another game that you're bringing with you here.
(On a related note, there's also no indication that two doublings is anything but a quadrupling in this edition; "D&D multiplication" where the term "double" actually meant "add the base value again" is similarly not found anywhere in the rules. This just comes up less often, since there's very few ways to get multiple doublings - i.e. Death Strike with a sling against a skeleton - compared to quite a few ways to combine magic. But I digress.)
I started this thread to include a list of similar terms from previous editions that no longer exist in 5e, and are explicitly called out as such in the PHB index. (I originally wrote most of this as a reply to another thread, but it seems to have gone missing, and this topic comes up a LOT.) Recognize that when you're using any of these terms, you're either referring to a previous edition, or using slang to discuss something else from the rules.
First, Vocabulary. These are words that refer to something already in the game, but the terminology is different. (For now, it's just entries from the PHB index.)
- Attack of Opportunity - They've been "opportunity attacks" since 4e, and 5e uses the same term. Ditto for the abbreviation, AoO, as opposed to OA.
- Base Attack Bonus - The 5e equivalent concept is "proficiency bonus". Note the distinction between "base attack bonus" and "attack bonus"; the latter is a 5e term.
- Base Save Bonus - Exactly the same as base attack bonus. By which I mean the entry there applies here, and that the resulting bonus is identical for attacks and saving throws (a new idea for this edition).
- Bull Rush - 5e calls this a "shove"; the same technique also handles "trip", but "trip" doesn't show up in the index.
- Hustle - This is the result of the Dash action in 5e rather than a specific movement rate.
- Magic-User - Note the hyphen. This is a synonym for "wizard" that hasn't seen actual use for quite some time. (The equivalent generic term of "spellcaster" is used in 5e, but the index refers you to Wizard, so it's clearly referencing the old name for the class.) Curiously, the similar term for clerics - "priest" - isn't in the index.
- Open Locks - This old thief skill name is no longer used; picking locks is part of the function of thieves' tools.
- Orison - The old name for a divine cantrip. They're all just cantrips in this edition. Oh, and "divine" is also meaningless (see below).
- Pick Locks - Yes, it's listed separately from Open Locks; same observation. (Except "pick locks" is a basic verb name, while Open Locks was the actual thief skill name.)
- Pick Pockets - An old name for techniques called "Sleight of Hand" since 3.5 (but also a reasonably well-known action, so there's reason to include it in the index).
- Punching - There's no specific rules for punching - just "unarmed attacks" which can be described as punches (or kicks or headbutts or....). Sure, there's some quirks to this, but when has any edition of D&D handled unarmed strikes without quirks?
- THAC0 - Yep, the index does specifically call out To Hit Armor Class Zero. The equivalent concept is "attack bonus". I originally thought this was included in the index as an easter egg (WotC's done stuff like this before, and explained why here), but then I looked deeper at the index and found the rest of this list.
Next, Legacy terms. These are terms that are still in common parlance, but do not refer to something that actually exists in the rules. (Chances are the concept still exists, it's just handled by an entirely different system instead of a simple name change.)
- Delay - Doesn't exist here; the only 'special initiative action' is Ready. However, for simplicity, Ready doesn't change the actual initiative order either - once turn order is set, it isn't changed (although reactions and legendary actions can let you act out of turn, with limits).
- Nonlethal damage - Doesn't exist in this edition; damage is damage, and you handle knocking out creatures using regular damage (see Knocking Out A Creature).
- Skill Check - The only type of d20 rolls in 5e are ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws. "Skill checks" don't exist - skils merely note which ability checks get your proficiency bonus. This is pretty common slang, though, and the devs use it themselves. Similar slang drops the ability name altogether - i.e. "a Strength (Athletics) check" becomes "an Athletics check", with Strength implicit. However, this slang won't work if the alternate-score check variant is used, i.e. "an Intimidation check" done by ripping a log in half would technically be a Strength (Intimidation) check, but "an Intimidation check" implies it's still Charisma. Be aware of what your word choices imply.
- Stack, Stacking - I mentioned this upthread. It doesn't exist; someone who didn't learn from previous editions would never know that "stack" meant anything in the rules. You want the rules on combining magical effects, the section on handling multiple AC equations (note the difference between "is" and "add"!), and maybe the section on how to combine advantages and disadvantages. That's it.
Finally, Setting terms. These are part of the rules, but are only applicable to specific campaign settings and not anywhere else. Again, I'm focusing on words from the PHB here. (Note that there are more than just group names in here - a couple old mechanical concepts became setting concepts in this edition!)
- Human ethnicities specific to the Forgotten Realms, such as Chondathan or Mulholorandi
- Faerun names for subraces, including Moon Elf, Sun Elf, Shield Dwarf, Gold Dwarf, Tallfellow Halfling, and Strongheart Halfling. (These are unchanged mechanically.)
- Krynn names for various subraces - Draconians and tinker gnomes. (There's implications, but nothing official, on the lightfoot halfling being known as kender in Krynn.)
- The Weave - Everything relating to this only happens on Toril.
- Arcane Magic - Yes, "arcane" doesn't mean anything special in 5e. It's only used to describe a small subset of casters in Faerun. There's no difference between a wizard's spells and a cleric's spells in this edition apart from the list themselves; this is partly why they can combine spell slots.
- Divine Magic - in the same boat as "arcane". Note that this even extends to focus items - clerics and paladins use holy symbols, druids and rangers use druidic foci, sorcerers, warlocks, and wizards use arcane foci, and bards use musical instruments.
(It's worth noting that the same is not true of the word "psionic". Psionics do have a specific rules implementation in 5e so far - although it's not anything more than a tag on some creatures' innate spellcasting ability, usually on creatures that don't use components and have similar thematic lists (such as an invisible Mage Hand). There's nothing else on it so far - but it does exist as a separate concept in 5e.)
And this doesn't even get to changes in terminology across editions that aren't included in the index at all - for instance, the 4e concepts of "minor action" and "implement" are similar to the concepts of bonus actions (well, mostly) and spellcasting focus items, but they don't appear in the index, so they aren't on this list. It still doesn't make much sense to talk about minor actions or implements in 5e, any more than it does to talk about THAC0 or Orisons.... or, indeed, stacking.
Let's all work together to make sure we're discussing this edition when we're discussing this edition.
Nice post, Tempest.
An atiquated term I still use in our games is 'demihuman' (sometimes spelled demi-human). I don't use it so much as a game term but as another way to identify non-humans.
Instead of saying 'non-human' clerics, it's just 'demihuman' clerics. More D&Dish, less generic I think 
. Humans and demihumans approach religion differently within the setting, so it's actually came up a time or two.
From the list you've started with you include terms that I think are easy enough to parse, such as "skill check" or "save", that they don't cause confusion; they represent concepts that are still present in the 5e. However, "stacking" does not represent a concept that exists in 5e and a list of such terms would be far more useful than a list of technically incorrect, though that is the best kind of correct, terms that simply satisfy a pedantic parsing of the rules.
"Save ends".
Not a bad list but I do disagree with a couple of the listed items.
Save - While there's no rule for a "Save" this is an accepted shorthand for saving throw and has been for multiple editions. While it may not get used in the text of the books any more (like some older "save vs. X" notations) it is still a game mechanic. Save is like hp, a shorthand for a longer term used for quickness and ease of use. Specific terms like "Reflex save" (something some of my players keep using as they're still in a 4e mindset) would be incorrect but I've figured out that every time they've used it they mean a Dexterity saving throw (or Dex save for short).
I can't say as I've seen magic-user (hyphenated) in use for some time. I have seen "magic user" as an alternate term for "spellcaster" though.
My table still uses AoO as an alternative to OA but again just out of habit. Using old terms when you've played editions for years that used them can be hard to change but while an archaic term may be used it's still covering the same mechanic and in the case of AoO it's close enough ot the new term to be easily understood.
Skill Check - While they may have dropped this as an official term it's still an obvious term. It's an Abitlity Check using a specific Skill rather than just the Ability Score. I believe the devs at WotC have even used the term Skill Check in tweets. While it may not appear in the index or printed rules, it's sort of like Save, hp, and other shorthand terms used to cover another term, or subset of a term. Not all Ability Score Checks involve using a skill after all and when you're talking about such checks it's easier to say "skill check" when not referring to say an "Athletics Check" which is again shorthand for the longer, more formal Strength (Athletics) Ability Score Check.
Just becase a shorthand or common term was an official / longhand term in a previous edition doesn't mean it's no longer valid in this edition. Some terms obviously aren't part of the base game in the latest edition and can be confusing (Base Attack Bonus and THAC0 for example). They aren't totally off the board though as THAC0 is an alternate rules module in 5e for example.
Punching, pick locks, open locks, and pick pockets aren't so much game terms and descriptions of a character's actions that fall under Ability Score Checks, and having to type that out is why I still prefer to use skill check as it's a clear and obvious indicator of what game mechanic is being used, so while not game terms they are valid for this edition otherwise you're saying a character can't pick pockets of a wealthy merchant, or pick the lock of a treasure chest. Treating them as a specific skill without houseruling or optional modules that further break apart skills is a misuse of the terms though.
As for the comment on implements, this is again a case of term versus common language usage. While it may not be a game term and they are part of the term "Focus", implement is still a useful way to describe certain types of foci. Also an implement is also a tool used by a profession to do their job.
Overall what 5e has done is cut down on the number of game terms, often by lumping related concepts together into a broader game term, so there's less rules confusion and more room for DM interpretation of how the rules work. Having Implement as a term separate from Focus means that every spell would have to specify Focus and Implement in it's use or classes that used one or the other wouldn't have access to the spell. This generalization of terms has caused some confusion in some people who are used to 3.x hyper-specificity of terms. That's a big pardigm shift in 5e from 3e, going from an inclusionary rules system (if the rules don't explicitly define it you can't do it) to an exclusive rule system (if the rules don't specificially forbid it you can probably do it). This can only be accomplished by limiting game rules terminology without limiting language usage.
As for the point on Stacking, well it does sort of exist.. Instead of a defined term with specific rules it's covered as needed by specific game mechanics, usually by way of saying "use whichever is higher" and other language. The concept is there as a metarule but it's not a specific rule. This allows more freedom for the DM and the game designers and less opportunities for rules lawyers to try to disrupt game play over game term semantics and interpretation. The term Stacking isn't needed due to the way 5e is designed mechanically, but that' doesn't mean the concept of stacking is entirely gone from the edition, it's just handled in a more organic and case-by-case manner. By removing most +/- modifiers from the game there's not as much need to worry about stacking bonuses causing overpowered or min-maxing abuse opportunities. The concept is still there though as they specifically state that unless you use an optional houserule multiple advantages or disadvantages don't stack, only one of each matters and 3 advantage sources for something doesn't outweight a single disadvantage source, and the roll is just a normal roll as any number of advantage or disadvantage is considered just 1 of that type. In 3e and 4e that would define advantage and disadvantage as "non-stacking" bonuses/penalties, but there's no need to have a specific term for it in 5e. The concept of stacking/non-stacking is still there, it's just not a defined game term.
durntaur wrote:
Grazel wrote:
I don't think Save belongs on the obsolete list. In the Jackalwere stat block (pg 193 of the MM), the Sleep Gaze action includes the phrases, "On a failed save," and "A creature that successfully saves"
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
gregsc wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Keyword search the Basic Rules and you'll find it's lousy with "save," so I wouldn't consider this slang at all. In fact, the section on saving throws, page 62, says: "A saving throw—also called a save—represents an attempt to resist a spell, a trap, a poison, a disease, or a similar threat."
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
blink stacks with blur and the armor spell. Very nice defensve stacking. And I can still get a shield spell in their also.
FFSAA wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
An interesting thought on the topic of "stacking":
Stacking rules don't exist to allow the combination of different bonuses to the same trait or roll, they exist to disallow particular combinations.
If there are no stacking rules, as there aren't in 5th edition, then you have a ring of protection, bracers of armor, and a cloak of protection and all of their bonuses to AC apply (though the bracers do have a stipulation that they can't add to armor AC).
If there are stacking rules, as there are in 3.5, then you have to know what sort of bonus the ring (deflection), bracers (armor), and cloak (also deflection) provide, and then you are likely restricted such that you can't have both of the deflection bonuses (and the bracers no longer need the stipulation that they can't add to armor AC mentioned specifically in their description because both being armor bonuses means a general rule that they can't be used together exists).
People asking "do these things stack?" are stuck in the older edition mindset, and probably haven't realized that stacking rules are disablers (you can't) rather than enablers (you can).
arnwolf666 wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Sounds like a Paladin-only party would be an interesting game.
Of course, while that would cause some interesting aura combinations, it would also mean you're not playing other things in the party. So it's a play-style choice.
Every party make up is going to change the feel of the game. There's always been interesting party combinations, especially in 4e (where half the strategy seemed to be choosing who plays what and how many of each and which roles to use, and there were so many different types of parties and even articles on how to put together different parties for different things, almost like we were playing a group JRPG), but 5e provides interesting combinations as well. I don't think that's unbounded (I've tried to play with a 9-person party; it's HARD to give the attention needed to everyone who wants to play). It's a different way of playing the game.
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Marandahir wrote:
I wouldn't because, say, I've got a Horned Paladin and a Vengeance Paladin, and both use the same smite. They have vastly different philosophies, and thus their power is coming from different places. They add up together.
It's the same mentality as bounded accuracy: the idea that if you get enough human peasants teamed up together, they can beat Asmodeus, even though his HP is ridiculously high. If you have enough Paladins encouraging with the same aura, they shouldn't cancel each other out, each is spending their energy to make that aura happen. You'd get more inspired, not equally inspired.