D&D 5E What, if anything, bothers you about certain casters/spells at your table?

[Stalker0]

But IMO there's no reason for the rules not to try to have an answer for as many situations as possible, so the DM is not constantly required to make rulings to fill in gaps the designers should have addressed.

This is a return to 3e based design, where the goal is to codify everything.........or as much as possible. A rule for everything, and for everything a rule. Which is simply not how 5e plays, it is intentionally much more rules lite than that.

That said, there is a compromise. After 10 years of play, there are certain "interpretations" that dms have to make over and over again on the same scenarios, and those could certainly use a little shoring up. Illusions are a good example. I don't expect a tome on illusion handling, but there are a few pretty common themes with illusion that could warrant some rules....or at least a few really good examples. the classic "illusion wall that I can fire through but my opponent cannot" is one easy example.

 

[DEFCON 1]

But, that's the point. It's "3 seconds" over and over and over again. Class after class, session after session. And, once you get through the spells, you get a whole new set of "3 seconds" every other level as a new suite of spells comes in yet again.

And, let's be honest here. It's often not just, "3 seconds".

Asking that the language of the game be tightened up a bit to cover silly crap like Absorb Elements isn't exactly asking for the moon. Why on earth would you want "rulings not rules" for something as basic as this?

My comment was less about not wanting rules getting a bit of clean-up... but more about people's willingness to always use the term "lazy" to describe/insult the designers of the game when they don't get what they want. Somehow it's always the D&D designers who are lazy, but never the players themselves. Which of course is nonsense.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is a return to 3e based design, where the goal is to codify everything.........or as much as possible. A rule for everything, and for everything a rule. Which is simply not how 5e plays, it is intentionally much more rules lite than that.

That said, there is a compromise. After 10 years of play, there are certain "interpretations" that dms have to make over and over again on the same scenarios, and those could certainly use a little shoring up. Illusions are a good example. I don't expect a tome on illusion handling, but there are a few pretty common themes with illusion that could warrant some rules....or at least a few really good examples. the classic "illusion wall that I can fire through but my opponent cannot" is one easy example.

I'm asking for a bit more effort from the designers, yes. Like most everything else, it's a spectrum.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My comment was less about not wanting rules getting a bit of clean-up... but more about people's willingness to always use the term "lazy" to describe/insult the designers of the game when they don't get what they want. Somehow it's always the D&D designers who are lazy, but never the players themselves. Which of course is nonsense.

I've done a lot of design work on my preferred 5e homebrew, so I would hardly describe myself as lazy.

 

[el-remmen]

Somewhere was a thread about the actual play time of a combat round and the range was from 2 minutes to 30 minutes. Ah, found it: https://www.enworld.org/threads/len...cting-data-from-my-games-updated-2-11.701556/

You don't get to two minutes for 4 players and the DM declaring attacks/actions by waiting for interrupts I would think ^^.

As the person whose thread that is, both my in-person and remote groups say what they are going to do and then roll (if necessary). My in-person game has average rounds (of 4 players + DM acting) of 6 minutes 15 seconds.

My remote group uses minis, battlemat, and a table camera rather than a VTT so that takes significantly longer since I have to move all the minis and take time to clarify what the players are seeing.

 

[leozg]

This is a return to 3e based design, where the goal is to codify everything.........or as much as possible.

It's not necessary to try to cover everything (it's impossible), but what they cover should have cohesion. They tried to make a simple system but instead of understanding simple as the opposite of complex, they understood simple as simpleton. Some rules are still complex but described with a simple text, leaving gaps and inconsistencies.
The DM task should be more focused on the story than filling the rules' gaps and fixing the system.

 

[M_Natas]

As the person whose thread that is, both my in-person and remote groups say what they are going to do and then roll (if necessary). My in-person game has average rounds (of 4 players + DM acting) of 6 minutes 15 seconds.

My remote group uses minis, battlemat, and a table camera rather than a VTT so that takes significantly longer since I have to move all the minis and take time to clarify what the players are seeing.

So your players say "I attack the ORC with my sword" and then wait for you to call for a roll during combat?

 

[el-remmen]

So your players say "I attack the ORC with my sword" and then wait for you to call for a roll during combat?

Yes. But to call it a "wait" seems like an exaggeration from the experience of it, which clicks and flows pretty well. I am a very engaged and active DM. I do ask that people roll attack and damage at once - but not everyone does - heck, even I don't do it as DM (though I do as a player).

In fact, I often remind a couple of players to slow down! They want to roll both their attacks at once (for example) and I like to remind them that something could happen or change between attacks and it is better to wait and see the result of one before the next one (unless it is something effectively simultaneous like magic missiles)

 

[DEFCON 1]

I've done a lot of design work on my preferred 5e homebrew, so I would hardly describe myself as lazy.

As well you shouldn't. But Crawford, Perkins et. al. spend all day every day designing the D&D game, so anyone who thinks they are "lazy" is foolish and I have no compunction calling them out.

Simply put, a person can not like how they have chosen to design the game. But if that's the case, talk about the work being done, not the attitudes of the people doing it. Same as the rules here on EN World-- attack the argument, not the poster.

 

[Micah Sweet]

As well you shouldn't. But Crawford, Perkins et. al. spend all day every day designing the D&D game, so anyone who thinks they are "lazy" is foolish and I have no compunction calling them out.

Simply put, a person can not like how they have chosen to design the game. But if that's the case, talk about the work being done, not the attitudes of the people doing it. Same as the rules here on EN World-- attack the argument, not the poster.

You can call design demanded from corporate that lacks rigor " lazy", but you're right, that's hardly the designer's fault.