D&D 5E What rule(s) is 5e missing?

glass

(he, him)
OK the statement I was originally reacting to was "Force due to gravity is directly proportional to mass, but acceleration is inversely proportional to mass, so it cancels out."
Yes, and since that statement was correct, your reactions have been misplaced. Not to mention wildly off topic - TBF, my original post was off topic too, but it was supposed to be a standalone post not the protracted epic we have managed to turn it in to.

if you are a 1/8 the mass like a hobbit or 1/4 like the halfling then F is significantly different right?
Of course it is, but for reasons that have been explained about five times now (and you have quoted at least twice), that force does not mean greater acceleration.

Neglecting the effects of air resistance, the human and the hobbit will fall at exactly the same rate. In practice, the hobit will fall slower because the effects of air resistance will be more pronounced.

As an aside, Halfling height and weight seems to change with ever edition, they were getting taller for awhile, by 4e they were about the size of 7-8 year olds. Now they've shrunk again.
Although if the art is to be believed, 5e halflings are sanity-shattering cthulhu-esque terrors rather than flesh and blood mortals, so I would not be surprised if they had negative mass or something. Or maybe complex....

Anyway, regarding human vs halfling strength, humans are built for endurance and are actually pretty weak for their size. A halfling is about the size of a champanzee, and chimps certainly do not have a strength penalty relative to humans.

_
glass.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
Yes, and since that statement was correct, your reactions have been misplaced. Not to mention wildly off topic - TBF, my original post was off topic too, but it was supposed to be a standalone post not the protracted epic we have managed to turn it in to.


Of course it is, but for reasons that have been explained about five times now (and you have quoted at least twice), that force does not mean greater acceleration.

Neglecting the effects of air resistance, the human and the hobbit will fall at exactly the same rate. In practice, the hobit will fall slower because the effects of air resistance will be more pronounced.


Although if the art is to be believed, 5e halflings are sanity-shattering cthulhu-esque terrors rather than flesh and blood mortals, so I would not be surprised if they had negative mass or something. Or maybe complex....

Anyway, regarding human vs halfling strength, humans are built for endurance and are actually pretty weak for their size. A halfling is about the size of a champanzee, and chimps certainly do not have a strength penalty relative to humans.

_
glass.
Yes the big head, small footed Halflings are obviously some kind of doppleganger or mimic failing to properly assume Halfling form. That's the only explanation my rational mind can accept.
 

Reynard

Legend
5e could use 0th level and -1th level PCs as well.

A DCC funnel doesn't work in 5e without that blatant display and progression that PC are exceptional and not just lucky survivors.
5E PCs are explicitly competent, heroic figures even at level 1. Providing a "0 Level" option would help re-establish the trope of the farm kid/young princess/street urchin getting caught up in an adventure that potentially leads to a heroic legend.

You could approximate 0 level by just not letting the PC take a class until they reach level 1: they just have their stats, race and background and like 1d6 HP -- preferably all determined randomly. I don't know if it would be worth the effort to determine prerequisites for selecting that 1st level class, though, or just base it on what they do during the "prologue".
 



Vaalingrade

Legend
Who decides what a 0-level character is? 1-2 levels have little to no abilities or options and contrary to many corpse-thirsty DMs, squishy as hell. The only thing not making them 0-level is the fact that they call it 1-2, chopping two useful levels off the 20 level game to do so.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Technically levels 1 + 2 are already the 0-level option.
There's a considerable difference in 5e between a commoner (which all these PCs were, at one point) and a 1st-level character. That difference is big enough that one could easily shoehorn another level or two in there, which is what is being suggested.

Personally, I'd far rather see the game do this while at the other end chopping off most of what comes after about 14th level, to give a grittier and more zero-to-hero feel.
 

Reynard

Legend
Who decides what a 0-level character is? 1-2 levels have little to no abilities or options and contrary to many corpse-thirsty DMs, squishy as hell. The only thing not making them 0-level is the fact that they call it 1-2, chopping two useful levels off the 20 level game to do so.
Comparatively, 1st level PCs are significantly more capable than your average farmboy. That's what 0 Level means in the context of D&D.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Comparatively, 1st level PCs are significantly more capable than your average farmboy. That's what 0 Level means in the context of D&D.
I am from farm country, and looks at the level 1 fighter.... hmmmm kind of looks like a talented farm boy handed a weapon and armor to me (a medieval conscript) I myself was handed a bow in highschool and hit plenty solid and I didnt have the hunting training and weapons or trapping training some of my farmer neighbors did.

The medieval knight would not be a farmboy though at an adult age he has had focused training for on the order of 8 to 12 years ie he was educated enough to make the D&D fighter look kind of meh.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top