D&D 5E What rule(s) is 5e missing?

[JiffyPopTart]

Not necessarily missing rules, but at this point in the 5e lifecycle there should be a very clear statement from the designers whether or not rogues are expected to regularly be able to use Stealth to activate Sneak Attack in most combat rounds.

Similarly at this point there should be very clear support for all the magic item values and basic framework for campaigns that choose to allow magic shops.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Not necessarily missing rules, but at this point in the 5e lifecycle there should be a very clear statement from the designers whether or not rogues are expected to regularly be able to use Stealth to activate Sneak Attack in most combat rounds.

Similarly at this point there should be very clear support for all the magic item values and basic framework for campaigns that choose to allow magic shops.

It's way past time for an Adventurer's Vault or Arms and Equipment guide.

 

[James Gasik]

Yeah but then they'd have to pretend they know how to balance magic items. Or make good Stealth rules.

Or admit that, yes, in, fact, player abilities are supposed to work, and the DM should just butt out and stop trying to find ways to counter them.

 

[Reynard]

Doesn't it seem like challenging play should be more challenging to run, though?

What I mean is, flattening the math and all that makes it harder to run a player-challenging game, because the game math almost never starts the PCs off at a disadvantage, but I think that's a good thing. It means that challenging the players (whether in addtion to or instead of the characters) requires more DM input, and is also challenging for the DM. I can't see how that's anything but good.

I at least wasn't talking about "challenging the players" in the old school sense. That's not a thing for which there are good rules, and in fact rules are pretty much the antithesis of that mindset.
I was referring to the built in tension of the uncertainty of combat. For various reasons and by various mechanisms, previous editions (except maybe 4th, I don't know, but I don't want to get accused again of pretending it doesn't exist) were more swingy than 5E is. That translates to greater uncertainty, which means more tension, which -- IMO (just in case it wasn't clear) -- means more fun. One of the reasons I like Savage Worlds is that there is a lot of uncertainty in the combat due to the swingy nature of the core mechanic. 5E fights often feel rote because the result is a foregone conclusion and we are just expending resources to whittle them down enough that the boss fight is actually a question.

 

[Reynard]

I was just reminded in another thread that PCs can cary their STR x 15lbs in weight without penalty according to the rules, so I am going to add "Worthwhile encumbrance rules as a component of broader travel and survival rules."

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I was just reminded in another thread that PCs can cary their STR x 15lbs in weight without penalty according to the rules, so I am going to add "Worthwhile encumbrance rules as a component of broader travel and survival rules."

in that thread I pointed out that 8*15 is 120lbs and 10*15 is 150lbs and US Marines normally carry less then 100lbs and even they are winded and not really in fighting shape after that... but those are below average humans I guess...

Mean while the Olympic athletes that could run/jump/swim/endure/lift/carry more then a 20 str is also a bad sign.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I was just reminded in another thread that PCs can cary their STR x 15lbs in weight without penalty according to the rules, so I am going to add "Worthwhile encumbrance rules as a component of broader travel and survival rules."

They do have the only worthwhile encumbrance rule: the bag of holding.

 

[James Gasik]

Don't we already have the Encumbrance variant in the PHB? Plus, broader travel and survival rules would possibly doing away with Natural Explorer, Create or Destroy Water, Goodberry, Leomund's Tiny Hut, Create Food and Water, and at higher levels, Find the Path or Teleport.

The game isn't made for that and hasn't been for some time, I'm afraid.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I at least wasn't talking about "challenging the players" in the old school sense. That's not a thing for which there are good rules, and in fact rules are pretty much the antithesis of that mindset.
I was referring to the built in tension of the uncertainty of combat. For various reasons and by various mechanisms, previous editions (except maybe 4th, I don't know, but I don't want to get accused again of pretending it doesn't exist) were more swingy than 5E is. That translates to greater uncertainty, which means more tension, which -- IMO (just in case it wasn't clear) -- means more fun. One of the reasons I like Savage Worlds is that there is a lot of uncertainty in the combat due to the swingy nature of the core mechanic. 5E fights often feel rote because the result is a foregone conclusion and we are just expending resources to whittle them down enough that the boss fight is actually a question.

Want more swing in your combat?? Increase the damage multiplier of critical hits (natural 20s only) to times seven (minimum)!

Done! No need to thank me, just press the the like button on the bottom of this message.

 

[Reynard]

Want more swing in your combat?? Increase the damage multiplier of critical hits (natural 20s only) to times seven (minimum)!

Done! No need to thank me, just press the the like button on the bottom of this message.

No no no, you roll 2d4 for the multiplier!