D&D (2024) Rules that annoy you


log in or register to remove this ad




I think this is for groups that use variant rest rules. Like if you decide your "gritty D&D" game has a long rest take a week, then 1/day abilities require you to go back and change them manually.

Plus, you never know, there could be shenanigans like hopping into a convenient fast time demiplane and completing a long rest in half an hour or what have you...
I separate sleep from long rests, whether it's two days or a week. Saves a lot of headache.

However, almost if not all character features recharge on a long rest- but items recharge on day(s). I don't change this, because it makes magic items more valuable- it pushes power further in the direction of items, and a little away from character features. I like that because it reminds me of older editions, before tons of character features were the focus.
 

No it's realistic. People can be stabilized from death in under 6 seconds from any kind of wounds.
But is it realistic in a pseudo-medieval context? Would a medieval-era chirurgeon have been able to stabilize a dying person in under 6 seconds? Regardless of era, is it realistic for the person doing the stabilizing to be able to do it without any medical equipment and regardless of why the person is dying?

Like, how do you save someone who's been poisoned without some sort of antitoxin? How do you save someone who's suffered third-degree burns with nothing but your bare hands? How do you save someone who's been melted by acid without any form of medical equipment? How do you save someone who's been frozen without a thermal blanket at the very least?

My issue with the rules isn't just the time span but the fact that, in 5e at least, you can stop someone from dying, regardless of what put them in that state, without needing to actually do anything within the fiction of the game. A flat DC 10 Medicine check is all that's needed. It's a 100% gamist mechanic with no simulationist backing whatsoever.

The more I think about this issue, the more I'm inclined to house rule non-magical healing. Currently in 5e, you can either make a DC 10 Medicine check to stabilize a dying creature or do so automatically by spending one use of a healer's kit (or by casting spare the dying). I might combine the two - so you need to expend one use of a healer's kit and make a DC 10 Medicine check. I wonder if it should also be like Concentration and be DC 10 or half the damage taken, whichever is higher. So someone who's taken massive damage would be harder to stabilize. But then the harder you make non-magical stabilization, the more players will just gravitate towards magical healing instead. Something to discuss with my players, I think.
 
Last edited:

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).
The problem is that the last three editions of D&D aren't balanced for playing without magic items and in at least two of them martial classes needed magic items to keep up with casters. It also tend to be nonsensical when you try to pretend magic items are rare in this gme, considering how many classes rely on powerful magic and how abundant magic is. And it is often incorproated into existing worlds, like Eberron, Forgotten Realms or Mystara, so not doing magic items limits the kind of settings you're playing with.
 

You know, what about this explanation? Gaining a warlock's power is easy, you just have to start delving into the occult and ask for it, and the universe provides. That works for levels 1 and 2. But to go beyond, you have to make a pact.

It's a free trial. Sure, here's some invocations and some pact magic, but if you want more, you have to sell your soul.
The idea of Free Trial here in itself strikes me as flavor fail. I can do character dealing into occult through roleplay on the way before PC takes first Warlock level, when I play Warlock or DM a Warlock, I expect that to be someone who made a deal with a powerful entity, not Netflix.
 

The idea of Free Trial here in itself strikes me as flavor fail. I can do character dealing into occult through roleplay on the way before PC takes first Warlock level, when I play Warlock or DM a Warlock, I expect that to be someone who made a deal with a powerful entity, not Netflix.
Per the playtest. "The entity is a voice in the shadows — its identity unclear".

That's still be a powerful entity. They just don't reveal themselves until they have you in their grasp. (Too many hexblade dips taught them not to reveal themselves too soon 😉)

It might be fun to wait till you hit level 3, and then roll a d4 to see what kind patron you got.

You made a deal, but was it with an angle or devil?


Also, it allows for "wide spectrum of Fey". So you can optionally accumulate power as you make more and more contracts.
 

i've never heard any agument for [X class NEEDS their subclass before 3rd or their narrative just doesn't make any sense] that's ever convinced me they truly DO 'need' it, the concept of 'you're just understanding the very entry level basics before anything specialised is coming through' works all across the board IMO, be that sorcerer bloodline magic, paladin's oaths and cleric domains, warlock pacts, monk's order-way-path-thing or anything else.
 

Remove ads

Top