D&D 5E (2014) What rule(s) is 5e missing?

[James Gasik]

There probably could be a chart of suggested damage for very large objects. Although the last time WotC made one of these, you had optimization nerds talking about destroying planets with thrown rocks. : )

 

[DND_Reborn]

Well yeah, but you can't count on house rules if you're the guy wanting to showcase why shields are an amazing piece of military technology while playing. Plus, you know, being able to do it yourself doesn't mean the base game can't be improved by including a bit more love for shields.

Oh, believe me, I wish I didn't have to house rule it! The game certainly would have been better, but you know--simplicity and all is the goal of 5E.

 

[Reynard]

There probably could be a chart of suggested damage for very large objects. Although the last time WotC made one of these, you had optimization nerds talking about destroying planets with thrown rocks. : )

F=m*a
A falling object of at least 10 pounds that falls at least 10 feet does 1d6 points of bludgeoning damage. For every doubling of weight and/or distance, add 1d6 damage to a maximum of 20d6.

 

[robus]

F=m*a
A falling object of at least 10 pounds that falls at least 10 feet does 1d6 points of bludgeoning damage. For every doubling of weight and/or distance, add 1d6 damage to a maximum of 20d6.

The lack of accounting for mass in falling damage rules continues to irk me. It’s not missing from the rules just wrong.

Instead of the d6 it should be based on the size of the object/creature:

Tiny: no falling damage, they always effectively featherfall.
Small: d4
Medium: d6
Large: d8
Huge: d12
Gargantuan: d20

 

[James Gasik]

Oh, believe me, I wish I didn't have to house rule it! The game certainly would have been better, but you know--simplicity and all is the goal of 5E.

Though if you don't mind, I am curious what your house rules for shields are.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Oh, believe me, I wish I didn't have to house rule it! The game certainly would have been better, but you know--simplicity and all is the goal of 5E.

You know, with all the talk about what was intended with 5e, a unifying edition and such, when did they actually start saying that simplicity was a goal? I would definitely have been more wary if they opened with that during the playtest.

 

[Reynard]

The lack of accounting for mass in falling damage rules continues to irk me. It’s not missing from the rules just wrong.

Instead of the d6 it should be based on the size of the object/creature:

Tiny: no falling damage, they always effectively featherfall.
Small: d4
Medium: d6
Large: d8
Huge: d12
Gargantuan: d20

I thought about that but the increments are too small. Increasing a die type is only an average increase of 1 point.

 

[James Gasik]

You know, with all the talk about what was intended with 5e, a unifying edition and such, when did they actually start saying that simplicity was a goal? I would definitely have been more wary if they opened with that during the playtest.

Well, a quick google search found this article: “Dungeons & Dragons Next” Creators Look To Simplicity, Open Development To Regain Lost Gamers

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, a quick google search found this article: “Dungeons & Dragons Next” Creators Look To Simplicity, Open Development To Regain Lost Gamers

Really wish I'd seen that in 2013.

 

[James Gasik]

Me too, I wouldn't have bothered with the Next playtest, which turned out to be a massive waste of my time. If they wanted a game somehow even simpler than D&D essentials, I wouldn't have bothered being too excited by the playtest classes, lol.

Hey speaking of playtesting, there's kind of a mystery I just remembered- whatever happened to the revised Ranger? I remember being at a table where it was being tested (they allowed it for one season of Adventurer's League) and then...nothing.

Was it bad? I don't remember hearing anyone complaining about it.