D&D 5E D&D 5e Basic Set: Things that make you go "what?!"

[Tormyr]

True, but with racial bonuses it is pretty easy to start with a 16 or 17 regardless. Two Ability Score Increases later (8th level, or 6th for the fighter) and you are at a score of 20, the maximum you will ever have for that score without magical enhancement.

Yeah, it was just unexpected and made me go, "What?" What I think it will generally do is increase the number/depth of low dump stats.

 

[Sadrik]

Tool proficiency is still a little weird to me. It smells like a skill and even works like a skill but it is not. Thieves tools looking at you...

 

[Mistwell]

More traps on the weapons table:

• Club (which is OK), greatclub, light hammer, mace, morningstar, and trident, already discussed here
• Greataxe definitely sucks now, with the critical hit rule confirmed, and Great Weapon Fighting Style changed
• Flail (strictly inferior to the warhammer)
• War pick, in the same boat as the morningstar (less flexible than a rapier)
• Blowgun (whatever)

It's not a trap just because it's not as good as something else. I really wish this sort of argument would go away already. It makes no sense.

 

[Mistwell]

Double post

 

[Doctor Futurity]

The new Great Weapon Fighter mechanic is needlessly busy. I've never been fond of mechanics that let you reroll damage dice in any edition. STR Mod damage on a miss was a lot easier for the DM and player to implement and it's kind of baffling they put the more complicated mechanic in the basic set.

I think re-rolling damage dice is probably easier for people to explain in-game: the fighter is skilled and rarely deals glancing blows. Damage on a miss however enters that tricky gray area of just how one can keep missing a target until...they die of a heart attack from fatigue? Miss damage doesn't really "fit" from the story focus that 5E seems aimed at.

 

[Doctor Futurity]

I have a 3 DEX, I wear chainmail, I suffer no AC penalty to my AC from DEX. I think this one will get a lot of heat over the next years. Old one leg just needs some heavy armor and he'll be alright.

I'd say that implies you just stand there and take it; the AC value of the armor outweighs the lumpy, plodding one-legged dude wearing it....but yeah this bugs me too.

 

[Chaltab]

I think re-rolling damage dice is probably easier for people to explain in-game: the fighter is skilled and rarely deals glancing blows. Damage on a miss however enters that tricky gray area of just how one can keep missing a target until...they die of a heart attack from fatigue? Miss damage doesn't really "fit" from the story focus that 5E seems aimed at.

It always seemed to be simulating the same thing though. A great weapon fighter NEVER deals glancing blows; even attacks that are solidly absorbed by shields and armor are going to cause a bit of stress from the sheer forces involved, however that's narrated. Either way the story justification concerns me less than the mechanical implementation, in which I prefer mechanics that don't reroll dice. (Similarly, I prefer the Human racial "Heroic Effort" to the Elf's racial "Elven Accuracy" in 4E.)

 

[Teataine]

I'd say that implies you just stand there and take it; the AC value of the armor outweighs the lumpy, plodding one-legged dude wearing it....but yeah this bugs me too.

You know, I've just re-read the armour section and I don't understand what you guys are saying. Armour sets your base AC to which you add your Dex modifier. So if you're wearing, say, chain mail (AC 16), and have a Dexterity of 6 (-2), your AC is 14. How is this different from how it worked in previous editions?

 

[Atomo]

You know, I've just re-read the armour section and I don't understand what you guys are saying. Armour sets your base AC to which you add your Dex modifier. So if you're wearing, say, chain mail (AC 16), and have a Dexterity of 6 (-2), your AC is 14. How is this different from how it worked in previous editions?

Dexterity is just important to light and medium armors. Heavy armors do not take Dex on account. And this is intended (Mearls said that in someplace, I cannot find right now).

 

[Chaltab]

One thing that's just bothered the hell out of me since the playtest, and that remains in Basic, is that the Fighter's 'protector' feature allowing you to protect your allies, but it requires you to be holding a shield. Not only does it not make sense (a sword in your enemy's face is just as Disadvantageous as a shield, is it not?), but it means that, RAW, you can't actually protect your friends if you're, say, a greatweapon fighter, or dual-wielding. I suppose you could say the cross section of some swords is too small for some types of attacks, but there's no reason someone with a Great Ax couldn't cover a friend if a buckler would also suffice.