5E Mechanics you don't want to see, ever

Saelorn

Adventurer
Well, you got inspiration though so a kind of lucky feat light. I like both, and with inspiration I gladly allow it to afflict rolls made by me the DM or some other player. It is a twist of fate style mechanic which complements the else strict rule set of 5e in a perfect way imho
I'm not convinced that Inspiration is actually a rule of the game. I mean, it has zero interaction with any other rules, and it only comes up when the DM explicitly decides that it comes up. If the DM doesn't actively go out of their way to apply it, then for all practical purposes, it doesn't exist.

It's a lot like the random item charts, in that way.
 

Coroc

Adventurer
I'm not convinced that Inspiration is actually a rule of the game. I mean, it has zero interaction with any other rules, and it only comes up when the DM explicitly decides that it comes up. If the DM doesn't actively go out of their way to apply it, then for all practical purposes, it doesn't exist.

It's a lot like the random item charts, in that way.
It is a formalized deus ex machine, something like a dungeon master giving out a boon in previous editions.
E.g. you roleplayed a scene very good but botched the roll for some action involved in it and for the sake of a cool sequence of events, the dm lets you repeat the roll and says it is just some miraculous effect.

The randomized item charts are a total PITA for all DMs who tend to master like me, a potential to give out some item which can push the whole game in an unwanted direction. I would never ever use them unless they are hand selected and sorted by me.

Example: party finds a foldable portal or cubical gate.

I am good with creating things on the fly if the limits are given by campaign etc- but having details of 12 different other planes at hands, just because I used the random tables and this treasure comes up and the party is like "oh nice, lets make a spontaneous trip to Nexus" - nope, that creativity of mine rather goes into the actual campaign and its design.

Same with party finds a flying carpet, decanter of endless water, simply most planar stuff, most teleport or other stuff which gives magical movement etc., this needs to be custom designed unless you want to destroy your campaign.
 

Saelorn

Adventurer
It is a formalized deus ex machine, something like a dungeon master giving out a boon in previous editions.
It's a framework to let the DM mess with you, if they're so inclined. The random item tables are a framework for the DM to add randomness, if they're so inclined. Both systems are entirely self-contained, and can safely be ignored by any DM who doesn't want them.

That's why I say Inspiration isn't really a rule, in practice. Practically speaking, it never comes up. For you, random item tables aren't really a rule, in practice.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
That's... not actually how those classes work in play unless they're very badly designed indeed. Your chief error is in the phrase "all the time". Central to the mechanics of something like a factotum or a binder or an incarnate is that you don't have every ability all the time: you have to pick what you're going to be at any given time, and if you realize you need to be something else, you're out of luck until tomorrow.
Could be we're talking about slightly different things then.

I'm referring to the type of character that's intentionally built to be a bit (or a lot) of everything - or as many things as it can - all at once. Many strengths, no weaknesses.

In previous editions, every time I ever saw someone pushing for a more "gish"-like build it invariably meant that person was really after a powerful JoaT. "Gestalt" may be the current term for the same thing but I'm not sure, and no doubt someone will correct me if it isn't.

If it can fight (almost) as well as the Fighter, cast spells (almost) as well as the Wizard or Cleric, and sneak (almost) as well as the Thief or Rogue, then it's a JoaT - otherwise known as a one-character party.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
It is a formalized deus ex machine, something like a dungeon master giving out a boon in previous editions.
E.g. you roleplayed a scene very good but botched the roll for some action involved in it and for the sake of a cool sequence of events, the dm lets you repeat the roll and says it is just some miraculous effect.

The randomized item charts are a total PITA for all DMs who tend to master like me, a potential to give out some item which can push the whole game in an unwanted direction. I would never ever use them unless they are hand selected and sorted by me.

Example: party finds a foldable portal or cubical gate.

I am good with creating things on the fly if the limits are given by campaign etc- but having details of 12 different other planes at hands, just because I used the random tables and this treasure comes up and the party is like "oh nice, lets make a spontaneous trip to Nexus" - nope, that creativity of mine rather goes into the actual campaign and its design.
Just because they find it doesn't mean they should automatically know how to use it (RAW be damned!); and if the only way they can learn about it is trial by error then you've got the potential for several (mis)adventures when they find themselves somewhere they really shouldn't be and have to find a way out. :)

I've had several Amulets of the Planes come up - and the PCs still only use them in dire emergencies as they still, after much divination etc., only know of about 10 destinations (out of 50!) and that some of those are decidedly risky.

(side note: reminding self to go into the mechanics-that-need-to-come-back thread and add in "magic item field testing")

Same with party finds a flying carpet, decanter of endless water, simply most planar stuff, most teleport or other stuff which gives magical movement etc., this needs to be custom designed unless you want to destroy your campaign.
I just assume these sort of things are going to appear at some point in any case, and don't fret it too much.

It's only a worry if you-as-DM have pre-decided how you want the PCs to travel or to approach an adventure.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
I'll add that I don't ever want to see AEDU. short/long rests are about the limit of what I can find reasonably believable for recouping abilities. AEDU is just too metagamey for me. Well, specifically the "E" part, because it can be so fluid as to what is and isn't an encounter in actual game play. If monsters react as they would in a dungeon realistically, something that could be 4 separate encounters could be rolled into one, depending on what is going on. Maybe they get a minute to plan before the next one hits, or maybe it's 5 minutes, or maybe there are 10 minutes but other activities don't really allow a rest. I've never been a fan of 5MWD anyway. In my preference, if you have abilities that can't be done over and over regardless of how fatigued you are, then you need a significant rest period to recover those. Preferably, I'd rather have just two: at will, and between long rests. But I can kinda sorta see one hour short rests as well, but that pushes my limit.
 

Gradine

Archivist
Which is too bad, as you'd likely miss out on some entertaining intrigue-style gaming. Done right, a party of counter-plotting PCs can end up making D&D play very much like Diplomacy. :)
The fact that you say this as a good thing tells me that we aren't going to see eye to eye much on what constitutes a fun play experience. :p
 

Gradine

Archivist
As for the actual OP:
  • Basically every cumbersome rule from AD&D that fell by the wayside by 3.X. Race/class limits, Thief percentile abilities, percentile Strength, etc.
  • Also, racial stat penalties. Bonuses help support specific niches that are most often associated with the race. Penalties discourage alternative options.
  • Save or Die.
  • Rituals being the only out-of-combat magic
  • Monsters that are built like PCs
Edit: Forgot a few:
  • Level drain
  • AEDU or any mechanic in which all classes play nearly the same way
 
Last edited:

TheCosmicKid

Adventurer
Could be we're talking about slightly different things then.

I'm referring to the type of character that's intentionally built to be a bit (or a lot) of everything - or as many things as it can - all at once. Many strengths, no weaknesses.

In previous editions, every time I ever saw someone pushing for a more "gish"-like build it invariably meant that person was really after a powerful JoaT. "Gestalt" may be the current term for the same thing but I'm not sure, and no doubt someone will correct me if it isn't.

If it can fight (almost) as well as the Fighter, cast spells (almost) as well as the Wizard or Cleric, and sneak (almost) as well as the Thief or Rogue, then it's a JoaT - otherwise known as a one-character party.
So, bards, basically.

Bards are solid characters in 5E, but I've yet to encounter a problem with one rendering the rest of the party obsolete. The primary reason for this is the action economy: even if a bard has the option to do anything, they can still only do one thing per turn. (This is also why the traditional multiclass gish build has usually been underwhelming in its performance across editions.) The flexibility they gain does not compensate for the premium they pay in effectiveness. If, say, a character can swing a sword 80% as well as a fighter and throw a fireball 80% as well as a wizard, then on paper it might look like zomg they've got 160% power, but nope, their output on any given round is still just 80% -- the party would be better off with a real fighter or a real wizard.

The exception to this pattern is when the features synergize. Usually this has meant self-buffing to become a monster (I'm looking at you 3E cleric). 5E, however, is reasonably carefully designed so that most combat buffs can be cast on other party members, and further incentivizes this with the concentration rules, so you're probably better off with a wizard-fighter team where the wizard buffs the fighter than with two gishes where each buffs themselves.
 

Coroc

Adventurer
Could be we're talking about slightly different things then.

I'm referring to the type of character that's intentionally built to be a bit (or a lot) of everything - or as many things as it can - all at once. Many strengths, no weaknesses.

In previous editions, every time I ever saw someone pushing for a more "gish"-like build it invariably meant that person was really after a powerful JoaT. "Gestalt" may be the current term for the same thing but I'm not sure, and no doubt someone will correct me if it isn't.

If it can fight (almost) as well as the Fighter, cast spells (almost) as well as the Wizard or Cleric, and sneak (almost) as well as the Thief or Rogue, then it's a JoaT - otherwise known as a one-character party.
I normally communicate to the players which builds are preferable for the campaign I master.
That maybe a roster of chars where each has at least some point in the social stats like Cha Wis Int if RP situations come up often, or I tell them to optimize more for damage output and effectiveness in their class speciality if combat comes up most of the time, or if the scenario needs these charbuilds for other reasons.
 

Coroc

Adventurer
Just because they find it doesn't mean they should automatically know how to use it (RAW be damned!); and if the only way they can learn about it is trial by error then you've got the potential for several (mis)adventures when they find themselves somewhere they really shouldn't be and have to find a way out. :)

I've had several Amulets of the Planes come up - and the PCs still only use them in dire emergencies as they still, after much divination etc., only know of about 10 destinations (out of 50!) and that some of those are decidedly risky.

(side note: reminding self to go into the mechanics-that-need-to-come-back thread and add in "magic item field testing")

I just assume these sort of things are going to appear at some point in any case, and don't fret it too much.

It's only a worry if you-as-DM have pre-decided how you want the PCs to travel or to approach an adventure.
Uh, you got a detailed vision for your other planes in your campaign then, this is work I only would do if I always run in the same campaign world, it is just to much preparation for the eventuality that some McGuffin comes up as random treasure


I assume that only things come up that I as a DM want to come up, and therefore also do not fret about it :p
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Uh, you got a detailed vision for your other planes in your campaign then, this is work I only would do if I always run in the same campaign world, it is just to much preparation for the eventuality that some McGuffin comes up as random treasure
Way I see it, most of the non-Prime planes are going to be the same no matter what campaign world I'm using - Olympus will always be Olympus, Valhalla will always be Valhalla, the Abyssal and Elemental planes are what they are, etc.

That way, I only ever had to think about them once and I'm set for life. :)

I assume that only things come up that I as a DM want to come up, and therefore also do not fret about it :p
That's another way to do it, to be sure, but it's rare that I either intentionally place an item I otherwise wouldn't have or redact one that otherwise the module or my dice would have placed.
 

NotAYakk

Explorer
In previous editions, every time I ever saw someone pushing for a more "gish"-like build it invariably meant that person was really after a powerful JoaT. "Gestalt" may be the current term for the same thing but I'm not sure, and no doubt someone will correct me if it isn't.

If it can fight (almost) as well as the Fighter, cast spells (almost) as well as the Wizard or Cleric, and sneak (almost) as well as the Thief or Rogue, then it's a JoaT - otherwise known as a one-character party.
Swordmage in 4e wasn't a Jack of all Trades, but it was a Gish.

Bard in 5e is a Jack of all Trades.
 

Mercule

Adventurer
This might be a controversial one, but class abilities that give the players narrative control of the world.
I agree... kinda. My issue isn't with players having narrative control abilities, it's with it being class-based. Either everyone gets meta toys or no one does. My 5E game's inspiration has evolved to something more like Savage Worlds bennies and it works really, really well. But, it does so because it's baked into the cake, so to speak. I could see having feats or class abilities that played off that (a Bardic "fatespinner"?), but if the baseline mechanic isn't universal, it'd be like one player at the table was playing a different system.
 

Mercule

Adventurer
You'd get a howl of argument from me on that one, if only because it's not your right as DM to tell me how to play my character.

If my character doesn't fit in with the party it's up to the party - in character! - to deal with, either by accommodating him or throwing her out or leaving him behind or killing her outright. Or just making things such that my character's best option is to leave.
Kinda. I've had times, over the years, when a play brought in a character that just never clicked with the group. Most of the time, the player realizes this and either tweaks the character or switches again. A few times, though, they insisted on continuing to bring that character to the table every week. It could be that the party is Good aligned and the offending character is being the annoying tag-along so they wouldn't necessarily take drastic action strictly in-character, but the players want the character gone. Or, I've also had a player tell the rest of the table, in a raised voice, that they all just need to stop raining on their parade and everyone at the table can have fun in their own way.

In either case, if all else fails, it's the GM's responsibility to step up and actually referee (which is a term interchangeable with GM/DM). I have a lot more sympathy for the first player, though, than the second. For a concrete instance, we were playing a mixed nWoD game and one of the players was trying to do an EMT (I think), but the way things worked out, he came off as a creepy guy with a white van and some candy -- which is really weird because the player is super likable, personally. After a few sessions, we decided that, since he'd switch to a Changeling and the character he'd been playing was actually his fetch, which is why everyone got vibes from it. Problem solved.

In the second case, I have a lot less (read: zero) sympathy. When there are a half-dozen people at the table, there needs to be a willingness for everyone to work together. Maybe you really wanted to play an Outer Rim Star Wars game, but everyone else really wanted to play Dark Sun. You do not get to throw a fit about the GM being the guy to tell you that anything that looks like a blaster is inappropriate. There may be an option that isn't anyone's first choice, but everyone thinks would be fun. If you yell and throw a fit, I will call you out.

Also, the GM gets a bit of veto power, just because they have to keep the plates spinning. The game needs to be fun for everyone and the GM should take feedback. The GM does not have to run a game he doesn't enjoy, though. For my part, after 35-ish years of gaming, mostly GMing, I've learned a few things that will make me hate running a game and I call them out, up front. There's a lot on my list I'm fine playing along side, if someone else wants to GM, but I'm not going to run a game where I think I'm not able to help you move your character along.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
I agree... kinda. My issue isn't with players having narrative control abilities, it's with it being class-based. Either everyone gets meta toys or no one does. My 5E game's inspiration has evolved to something more like Savage Worlds bennies and it works really, really well. But, it does so because it's baked into the cake, so to speak. I could see having feats or class abilities that played off that (a Bardic "fatespinner"?), but if the baseline mechanic isn't universal, it'd be like one player at the table was playing a different system.
Yeah, like I said, I think they can work at the system level, if they’re done with intention and care. I just don’t think they’d work well as class abilities.
 

Advertisement

Top