Most frustrating quirk of 5E?

[The Crimson Binome]

A minor quirk: someone that has both vulnerability and resistance to the same damage doesn’t have it cancel out completely because resistance comes first and the round down rule means that for odd hp damage you would still take one fewer hp of the damage. Would have been cleaner to have vulnerability count first.

There's no hard rule that you have to re-apply the rounding rule at each step, instead of doing all relevant calculations and then rounding.

 

[Mouseferatu]

What bugs me is that they can launch a cantrip every six seconds for days on end if they can stay awake to do it.

I don't understand why people assume this is the case.

Sure, purely by the game rules, this is true. By the game rules, a fighter can also swing an eight-pound hammer every six seconds (or even multiple times in a six-second period) for days on end if they can stay awake to do it. But pretty much no DM in the world would permit it. At some point, the rule of common sense and verisimilitude would have the DM say "You're simply too exhausted to continue." (Seriously, try swinging a sword IRL. Now try doing it for minutes on end, let alone hours.)

Casting of cantrips falls into the same category. Neither I, nor any DM I know, would allow it for more than a few minutes straight, at most, before saying "Exhaustion's starting to set in."

 

[Particle_Man]

There's no hard rule that you have to re-apply the rounding rule at each step, instead of doing all relevant calculations and then rounding.

There is no hard rule that you don’t have to either. If you like, transfer the quirk to the lack of a clear hard rule then. And it still, in light of that lack, would have been cleaner for vulnerability to count first.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't understand why people assume this is the case.

Sure, purely by the game rules, this is true.

That would be why.

By the game rules, a fighter can also swing an eight-pound hammer every six seconds (or even multiple times in a six-second period) for days on end if they can stay awake to do it. But pretty much no DM in the world would permit it.

I've found DMs to be far more willing to limit weapon swings than magic. Probably because they understand physical exhaustion.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I've found DMs to be far more willing to limit weapon swings than magic. Probably because they understand physical exhaustion.

Huh. To me, while they're probably different "kinds" of exhaustion, the same logic applies to both. There's only so long a person can repeat anything strenuous.

I mean, people will play how they play, it just seems like such an obvious solution to me. Especially since most of the people objecting to cantrips so far have been DMs, and could easily institute something like this. I wouldn't really even call it a house rule, per se.

 

[5ekyu]

I don't understand why people assume this is the case.

Sure, purely by the game rules, this is true. By the game rules, a fighter can also swing an eight-pound hammer every six seconds (or even multiple times in a six-second period) for days on end if they can stay awake to do it. But pretty much no DM in the world would permit it. At some point, the rule of common sense and verisimilitude would have the DM say "You're simply too exhausted to continue." (Seriously, try swinging a sword IRL. Now try doing it for minutes on end, let alone hours.)

Casting of cantrips falls into the same category. Neither I, nor any DM I know, would allow it for more than a few minutes straight, at most, before saying "Exhaustion's starting to set in."

Also, when looking beyond the combat turns you see this as well in the damage object takes.

You cannot take down a stone wall with a dagger those rules say because the gm would rule that the dagger would break down well before the stone wall.

The fact that wear and tear on weapons ( or strain from cantrip casting by extension) isnt tracked seeing by swing in combat detail in no way means it doesnt ecist in the world to make whatever makes "sense" work that way on the bigger scales.

Now, one man's sense may be anothers folly but then again they are different worlds.

 

[5ekyu]

That would be why.



I've found DMs to be far more willing to limit weapon swings than magic. Probably because they understand physical exhaustion.

Yes and no... for the rules part. The DMG gives examples of applying directly to rules considerations like weapon fatigue and wear down to bigger scale tasks over non-combat times.

Not tracking west west town (or cantrip burn out) in combat does not equate to assuming these factors dont come into play for bigger scale situations and rulings.

See the DMG objects rules.

 

[Maxperson]

Huh. To me, while they're probably different "kinds" of exhaustion, the same logic applies to both. There's only so long a person can repeat anything strenuous.

I get what you're saying. My point is that we, being used to physical limits, would have a better idea of how long a PC could physically fight than magically fight. I suppose we could just arbitrarily make them the same, but that doesn't seem very accurate. AS you say, they are probably different kinds of exhaustion, so the length of time one could fight magically would very likely be shorter or longer than physical.

I mean, people will play how they play, it just seems like such an obvious solution to me. Especially since most of the people objecting to cantrips so far have been DMs, and could easily institute something like this. I wouldn't really even call it a house rule, per se.

It would have to be a house rule, since the rules allow for unlimited physical and magical fighting and instituting a rule like this changes that. The time would also vary from house to house.

 

[Mouseferatu]

It would have to be a house rule, since the rules allow for unlimited physical and magical fighting and instituting a rule like this changes that. The time would also vary from house to house.

Eh. I wouldn't consider it a rule (house or otherwise), just like I don't consider it a game rule for the DM to say "You can build a flimsy raft out of sticks, but not a full-size ocean-worthy galleon, no matter what tools or skills you have." It's just one of those things that the rules don't specify because it's assumed the DM is actually participating in the game.

Now, you might feel otherwise, and that's obviously fine. I don't think there's anything to be gained from us getting into a nitpicky debate about what "counts" as a rule. (This ain't the rope trick thread. ) But that's where I'm coming from with it, and what I mean when I say I personally wouldn't even consider it as a house rule.

 

[Azzy]

This is the part of 5E and a new generation of players that I just don't understand. At what point did we decide that all players need to be equal and balanced?

New generation? Sorry, but this has been with us for quite a while, and new players aren't the only ones that want a sense of balance. Some of were complaining back in the 80s and 90s, too.[/QUOTE]

Yes in AD&D wizards were squishy and vulnerable. At low levels they relied on the rest of the part to keep them alive but they shined when they stepped up and put the monsters to sleep, held that boss that was kicking in the fighter, or dropped that runner with his magic missile. At high levels everyone took cover when the big magic came out and he showed them how it's done. It definitely wasn't a class for everyone but those that played Wizards generally loved the class because of the late level power.[/QUOTE]

That's just bad design, though. Underpowered towards the beginning and overpowered as compensation towards the end isn't a design goal—it's just the way things were because the design of early D&D and AD&D were in the akward preteen stage of RPG development. Other games in the late 80s and early 90s were already moving on from that sort of bad design.

Clerics were that all around class that wore heavy armor, wielded a mace, could take and dish out hits only second to the Fighter but when someone needed healing or that horde of undead showed up, he was there to heal and turn those undead. At later levels he stepped up with his call lightning, hold person, etc.

The thief was the go to guy when you were crawling through the dungeon. He kept the party safe finding the traps, opening the doors and when combat broke out he was able to hide and deal the big damage backstab if he was lucky.

Now a days it's not enough to play that specified role, we all have to be "equals" in combat. If the fighter gets big swings then by golly the rogue should be able to sneak attack every round, the wizard should be hurling flame bolts every round and the cleric should be flame striking everything in sight. It reminds me of the ADHD kid with sensory issues that cannot sit still and must always be doing something with his hands. Players are less worried about roleplay in combat because they have too many roll play options at their disposal. There are no more distinct roles because the cleric can heal, but so can the ranger and the bard. No need for the rogue because the fighter with the high perception can find those traps just as well. We don't need the wizard to identify anymore because we can just play with our new weapon for an hour, attune it and we know all we need to know. It's just all very generic now and I don't understand why everyone feels that everything has to be balanced.

Aka, "back in my day we walked uphill both ways to school in the freezing cold and we liked it". However, not all of us look back fondly to some of the idiosyncracies of early D&D as we see clearly its faults. We may have had a blast at the time, but exposure to other RPGs highlighted what a clusterbomb that D&D could be. I, for one, was ready to walk away from AD&D in the mid to late 90s.