D&D (2024) Rules that annoy you

[pukunui]

Here's a new 2024 rule that annoys me. The general rules glossary description for Areas of Effect indicates that the "rules for each shape specify how to position its point of origin". To me, "how to position" means where you can place it within the three-dimensional space of the game world (i.e. relative to the ground). To the designers, however, it seems that "how to position" means relative to the rest of the AOE shape.

For example, the description of a sphere merely tells you that the point of origin is in the center of the sphere, while the description for a cube tells you that its point of origin is located anywhere on one face of the cube. The description for a cylinder at least tells you that its point of origin can be either at the top or the bottom of the cylinder, but it still doesn't tell you where in three-dimensional space you can put the point.

 

[cbwjm]

Yeah, not really. It's always been up to the DM to bring the patron into play in any noticeable way outside of the PC's specific class abilities.


Yeah, all of the golems are kind of weird. Clay golems not only have the power to reduce your max hp with a punch (Mike Mearls once told me it was because of "crippling force"), but they can also magically speed themselves up! Why? Who knows?!

Stone golems can slow people down. Why? This one at least gets an explanation: "Creatures that fight a stone golem can feel the ebb and flow of time slow down around them, almost as though they were made of stone themselves."

Iron golems can breathe poisonous fumes. Why? Who knows?!

I'm sure once upon a time, these abilities had in-game explanations, but you'd have to delve into past editions to find out what they were, since 5e's authors didn't seem to care to tell us.

I thought you had a good point about historical reasons why golems had special abilities so I went back to 2e monstrous manual to check. It has even less info, just states that the golems can do X, like cast slow on an opponent each round, or haste itself after 3 rounds. The damage from the clay golem could only be restored by a heal spell cast by a 17th level priest for some reason.

Not sure if this was in 5e, but with all of their resistances, golems also had interesting ways of hurting them, casting earthquake on a clay golem stops it from moving that turn and inflicted 5d10 damage (clay golems had 50 hit points in 2e).

I like all the alternate ways that you could use spells to deal with golems, but unless it was listed in 1e or earlier, it seems there was never an explanation regarding their seemingly random abilities.

 

[CreamCloud0]

1) First Aid: I know we're playing a game, and that if they made it harder to do non-magical first aid, no one would bother with it; however, the idea that you can stop someone from dying (regardless of whether they got stabbed, slashed, burned, acidified, etc) in less than 6 seconds simply by expending a "use" of a healer's kit is, frankly, miraculous! Imagine if modern battlefield medics could save their comrades lives that quickly and easily! (Think of the scene from Saving Private Ryan where the medic gets hit and his squad mates fumble about trying to save his life.)

This issue doesn't bother me as much in a sci-fi game, where you can explain it away with a quick "stimpack" injection or the like. But it does bother me in a pseudo-medieval fantasy game, where nonmagical healing techniques ought to be slow and somewhat awkward.

personally i would've argued in the other direction, how it's nigh impossible to heal anyone's HP in any notable amount without relying on magic, my medicine skill is more useful for identifying how someone died than actually preventing them from dying.

i think the 'saved from the brink of death with a single action to stabilize' phenomena you pointed out is an issue but i'd say it's more an issue with how dying is handled than how nonmagic first aid is handled.

 

[Tonguez]

The Strategic Review (winter 1975):

THE CLAY GOLEM
Lawful clerics of the 15th level or above are able to fashion these creatures. Once sculpted (in-man-like form) the cleric must use a Raise Dead, Animate Object and Commune Spells to bring it into being as a golem. The costs of vestments of the cleric preparing the clay golem will be 12,000 plus 5,000 to 50,000 additional gold pieces. It can be commanded only by the Lawful cleric who created the golem, and it functions in all respects as a 12-dice earth elemental unless otherwise stated. Damage done to the golem is permanent, and cannot be restored in any fashion. These is additionally a 1% chance for each turn it is commanded to action that it will become chaotic and begin attacking any and all life forms it meets, moving towards the nearest and progressing on from there until destroyed.

Defensive Capability
Affected only by blunt +1 magic weapons, and spells have no effeet except for Move Earth which will drive the golem back 12", and Disintegrate which will prevent all movement by the golem for 1 turn.

compare SR Damage done to the golem is permanent, and cannot be restored in any fashion. to the MM "Damage inflicted upon living matter by a clay golem is only repairable by means of a healing spell from a cleric of 17th or greater level."

So the reason the Clay Golem does permanent damage is either a transcription error or because the ODD team decided to mess with their players

Oh and the Iron Golem is based on Talos who was filled with a burning ichor

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Using multiple weapons in a single turn.

Maybe I use the rule that you can only utilize weapon masteries of weapons you had already drawn at the start of your turn.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Stacking rules

 

[James Gasik]

Forgot another one. Magic item attunements. If magic items are "optional" in the sense that you don't really need to worry about exactly when the PC's get them (even though it's kind of assumed martials will get magical weapons at some point), and the DM controls how many magic items the party will ever find, why do we need another (somewhat arbitrary) limit on how many items one character can use anyways?

Especially for wands. Here's an item that probably already assumes you're a spellcaster, has limited charges and no guarantee it will fully recharge after a long rest (and usually even has a chance to break if you use the last charge!), and using it means you're not casting one of your own spells, plus, in many cases, you need to spend multiple charges to get an effect that's actually worth using- but oh man, better make sure you can't have more than three of them, lol!

And don't get me started on the Pearl of Power, which requires attunement to give you a single additional use of a 1st-3rd level spell slot each day!

Sure, maybe it's desired that a caster be reduced to using cantrips most of the time, but I wonder about this design. Like, imagine an item that allows a Monk to add an additional Ki point to their pool. Apparently that would be so mind-blowing of an effect it would have to require attunement, lol.

As it is, adding +2 to your AC as a Monk costs an attunement slot, but +3 armor? Nah, that's fine, lol.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Forgot another one. Magic item attunements. If magic items are "optional" in the sense that you don't really need to worry about exactly when the PC's get them (even though it's kind of assumed martials will get magical weapons at some point), and the DM controls how many magic items the party will ever find, why do we need another (somewhat arbitrary) limit on how many items one character can use anyways?

Because in 3e all PCs were stacked with magic items and the game was balanced to make sure they need them. And every PC looked like a christmas tree of trinkets and it felt they no longer earn their victories, they toys do it. Kinda similiar to one of many beefs I have with Batman, who also doesn't win his fights - his toys win for him.

 

[cbwjm]

I'm also not keen on attunement slots and would rather do without them. I'm fine with needing to attune to powerful items to use them, but only allowing 3 I'm not so keen on.

 

[James Gasik]

Because in 3e all PCs were stacked with magic items and the game was balanced to make sure they need them. And every PC looked like a christmas tree of trinkets and it felt they no longer earn their victories, they toys do it. Kinda similiar to one of many beefs I have with Batman, who also doesn't win his fights - his toys win for him.

Right but, if you don't want that to happen in your game, then you don't give out that many magic items. Putting a further restriction on magic items seems a little unnecessary on top of that, especially if it's an often nonsensical one (the poster child for this is probably the Broom of Flying).