D&D 5E What are the "True Issues" with 5e?

[Neonchameleon]

Tell me: aren't you a 4e fan? How can you condemn tracking mundane equipment as interacting with the character sheet too much when you enjoy 4e, a game with a quite lengthy and complex character sheet full of buttons to push? No offense to 4e, but I see your position here are hypocritical.

There is zero hypocrisy here. Just complexity. And a button to push isn't a yak to shave.

As I mentioned every interaction with the character sheet is a cost. I don't argue that no costs are worth paying; I don't always get the cheapest possible food because I prefer food that tastes better. I didn't, for example, say that having a mechanic for wearing a heavy sweater in cold weather was a bad thing. The point about tracking arrows is that the cost racks up every time and the reward remains trivial. You're spending ten cents on a penny sweet. Meanwhile for 4e the reward is threefold; kinaesthetic mechanics (which IMO are good - the way characters move and moving not like each other is excellent), character exhaustion mechanics are inherently tracked, and tactics. Three axes all of which I value for one interaction and all of which are immediately relevant - unlike individually counting arrows which is only relevant under rare circumstances.

The second is that I disagree that by the standards of D&D the character sheet is complex. The big difference is that the character-specific rules are, in 4e, on the character sheet and given a whole lot of whitespace. In other D&Ds the character sheets, especially for casters, are normally incomplete. A "complete" 3.X character sheet would have the full rules for every feat the character used on their character sheet - and a "complete" spellcaster character sheet would have all the rules for all that character's spells on their character sheet. No looking them up in the rulebooks. When you start comparing like with like, a 5th level 4e character is significantly simpler than a spellcaster in any other edition.

The third is that you can like a game without considering every aspect of it perfect. I'm currently running what started out as a homebrew 4e retroclone. One of the first decisions I made was that for every character class except the archivist wizard all that character's class-based options fit onto a double sided A4 sheet. Not just the options they pick but all the class feats and all the class powers. (I've also dropped the six basic stats and made a few other changes). Like I said, a long and complex character sheet is a cost. Sometimes it's worth paying. And on my todo list is an app-based version of the character sheet that only displays the abilities you picked.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Of all of those, only Pathfinder has made big changes to the game with their edition change, and those changes certainly don't lack controversy.

Mmmm... Fate has had some AD&D 1e->2e and 3.0->3.5 level changes over the course of the editions.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Right. Which is why we need a cross reference calculation chart. Type of shovel, cross referenced with type of soil, add in current ground moisture levels, potential obstacles like roots and stones! Remember to factor in depth as well since the soil composition may well change. Double check the weight of the character if it's dense soil and the character can stand on the shovel. Don't forget to include their strength modifier.

Phew. Okay, only a page or two of complex calculations, just be sure to cross reference with the soil type and density charts and we should be good to go! After all, don't want the DM just making up a number and going with it since most of the factors are arbitrary anyway.

You are being facetious, but have you looked at the text for Mold Earth and Move Earth?

It's not that different from what you describe.

If it had been "using this spell you can move earth equivalent to the labor of 1 person using a shovel for 1 hour (or something similar)" would you feel that the spells' effects would have been adequately described?

The point here is that most every spell states the explicit mechanical benefit it provides. And a lot of the camp related equipment doesn't.

Edit: note, for the shovel and digging generally, I'd think these could get lumped under the athletics skill, with the shovel providing advantage on the check.

 

[Oofta]

You are being facetious, but have you looked at the text for Mold Earth and Move Earth?

It's not that different from what you describe.

If it had been "using this spell you can move earth equivalent to the labor of 1 person using a shovel for 1 hour (or something similar)" would you feel that the spells' effects would have been adequately described?

The point here is that most every spell states the explicit mechanical benefit it provides. And a lot of the camp related equipment doesn't.

Because camp related equipment is real. Magic is not.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Because camp related equipment is real. Magic is not.

And I gave you a scenario. If the spell just made reference to what someone could do with a shovel, would that work for you in the game?

Similarly if the "Tiny Hut" spell text just said "this spell provides all the benefits of a tent, 2 bedrolls and a mess kit", would that be clear enough for players to know whether they should take or use the spell?

 

[pemerton]

I did purchase Torchbearer 1e. In your opinion is it easy enough to port the equipment rules across (amended obviously) into D&D? I've got 5 more levels of 5e to do for our campaign and my table has no issue with my homebrew tinkering every now and then and we are do fir some changes on some other fronts.. so now would be a good time as any.

EDIT: You can introduce torn/damaged clothing like boots or armour but then most issues such as this are undone by the Mend spell which the great powers that be sought to list the spell amongst the cantrips.

I haven't tried to use Torchbearer rules in D&D. My guess is that inventory slots could probably be carried across OK; but the actual utility of gear in action resolution would be harder to emulate, because it's not always clear how it would fit in. For instance, because D&D doesn't really have a default framework for suffering conditions due to inclement weather, it's not clear how spending a torso slot to wear a sweater would actually pay off in D&D play.

 

[Oofta]

And I gave you a scenario. If the spell just made reference to what someone could do with a shovel, would that work for you in the game?

First, mold earth and move earth do different things. But I really don't understand what you're getting at. I've dug a lot of holes in my time and how easy it is to dig varies wildly. From "easier with a shovel but could do it by hand" to "a jackhammer would be nice". Mold earth, being a cantrip can handle the former loose dirt, move earth would be required for the latter because it's mostly dry clay.

Not sure what you're trying to solve here - defining a spell as what someone could do with a shovel doesn't tell you anything about how much you could do with a shovel. Kind of like the old "How much wood would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood." But it also doesn't end there, how much equipment would need detail and how much detail is enough?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why can't you use the AD&D or B/X one?

I do, but there are 5e fans who would like a better system.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Mmmm... Fate has had some AD&D 1e->2e and 3.0->3.5 level changes over the course of the editions.

To be fair, Fate is so far out of my wheelhouse that I care not one whit about it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And I gave you a scenario. If the spell just made reference to what someone could do with a shovel, would that work for you in the game?

Similarly if the "Tiny Hut" spell text just said "this spell provides all the benefits of a tent, 2 bedrolls and a mess kit", would that be clear enough for players to know whether they should take or use the spell?

I dearly wish it did do that.