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

[Son of the Serpent]

Did I miss it or did someone else bring this next one up?

I don't want to see different attributes for men and women in a role playing game.

Just making sure: has that been a thing in any edition of d&d and i missed it? Legit question.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

They aren't plausible at all. In no way does self interest create grammar, syntax, and meaning

Either you need to reread that paragraph or i mistyped something. If good and evil are fundemental of a universe's physics of course it can effect what language you can speak or even comprehend. Imagine what would change if you disnt interact with salt the same way? Probably minor by comparison to the introduction of entire new forces in the universe (or whatever broadly affecting mechanisms good and evil would be if cosmically physics affecting.) Its actually pretty weird that this doesnt occur to more people. Imagine the differences that would occur merely from using light instead of sound to communicate.

 

[MGibster]

Just making sure: has that been a thing in any edition of d&d and i missed it? Legit question.

In AD&D 1st edition (I think), male Fighters could have an 18/00 Strength while women Fighters were limited to 18/50. There may have been some things printed in Dragon magazine but it's been so long my memories are a bit fuzzy.

I'll admit it's not a rule that was really enforced in any of our games. But then we didn't have any girls playing the game with us back then.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

In AD&D 1st edition (I think), male Fighters could have an 18/00 Strength while women Fighters were limited to 18/50. There may have been some things printed in Dragon magazine but it's been so long my memories are a bit fuzzy.

I'll admit it's not a rule that was really enforced in any of our games. But then we didn't have any girls playing the game with us back then.

Huh...

Thankyou for the enlightenment.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

To generalize on some earlier points, it's bad when there's a mechanic which offers a punishment that's significantly worse than losing the character entirely. If the player ever has to think that they would be better off by retiring the character and starting from scratch, instead of trying to play through whatever they've been afflicted with, then something has gone wrong.

By that guideline, losing a level is perfectly reasonable, as long as perma-death is worse than losing a level. Being level 12, when everyone else is level 13, is better than being level 1 when everyone else is level 13. Losing three months of character progression is acceptable, when losing three years of character progression is a real possibility.

 

[bedir than]

Chaotic Neutral is self interest. There is absolutely no way they develop a language.

Either you need to reread that paragraph or i mistyped something. If good and evil are fundemental of a universe's physics of course it can effect what language you can speak or even comprehend. Imagine what would change if you disnt interact with salt the same way? Probably minor by comparison to the introduction of entire new forces in the universe (or whatever broadly affecting mechanisms good and evil would be if cosmically physics affecting.) Its actually pretty weird that this doesnt occur to more people. Imagine the differences that would occur merely from using light instead of sound to communicate.

 

[Arnwolf666]

Mechanics I don't want

• requirement that the player do something physical in order for the character to get a benefit (sing, silly voice, dance, etc).
• anything that requires miniatures. I'm on a budget for both space and money. I don't have enough either to force me to play that kind of game.
• alignment languages

Yes. There are some incomplete rules on playing without miniatures that describe how to do spells without miniatures. I would like to see some additional clarity on this in a few other areas.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Yes. There are some incomplete rules on playing without miniatures that describe how to do spells without miniatures. I would like to see some additional clarity on this in a few other areas.

I would love is spells targeting came with both format:
1) the usual zone of X feet within range or a number of target and,
2) 1dx targets within the range of the spell.

its the way the 13th Age goes, and it works pretty well for those who dont play with a grid.

 

[DND_Reborn]

There are all sorts of problems with this though. First off - escalation. Player A does something Player B doesn't like. So, Player A doesn't get healed (for example). You're going to tell me that this won't cause any arguments at your table? It sure as heck will drag play to a grinding halt at mine as Player A bitches and whines for the next hour about how he can't play the game and how everyone else just sucks. Or, worse yet, Player A's character gets flat out killed. Yeah, that's not going to cause any hard feelings at the table. :/

Keeping stuff like this in character is the absolute WORST gaming advice ever. It will NEVER resolve in character and will lead to garbage play experiences.

We do that all the time. No Evils is a pretty standard table rule. The notion that you get to play whatever you want regardless of the group is disruptive and frankly a bad player.

Or the player realizes the issue and changes his play-style. I've seen it work so your "NEVER" isn't true. Disagree all you want, I won't change my position.

Characters, and even players, who find out the don't mesh well, for whatever reason, usually realize that and try to change or understand it isn't going to work out and go their own way. If a player thinks something that happens "in game" is such a huge problem, IMO they should sit back, relax, smile, and remember its only a game.

 

[JeffB]

Haven't read the entire thread-apologies for dups. Heavy dose of opinion here.

Critical Threats/Hits ala 3.x

Cyclic Initiative and Abilities/Spells that are tied to "until the start/end of your next turn" and the like

Level Drain/Level Loss (though Undead need something to make them more frightening than they have been in recent editions ).

Balanced Encounter building. They can't get it right after 3 editions anyway because it's too difficult to judge individual players/groups/styles, so why bake in all the mechanics for DMs to worry/spend too much time on?

"Off" spell levels- Level 5 Wizards get 3rd level spells. Either go 4E (break out character levels) or 13th Age/DW (condense character levels-my pref).

Vancian/Quasi Vancian Casting, I love the books, love the fictional reasoning- in play it's just a resource management accounting game that takes all the magic out of magic, and encourages metagame thinking.

XP for monsters/gold

Spellcaster levels for Monsters (back to 4E style powers)