D&D 5E Odd things in the rules that bug you?

[Lanefan]

Changing the time of rounds should affect the movement scale. You can run a lot farther in 30 seconds.

Correct, to a degree. If it's open space movement with no nearby combat then yes, you can go a lot farther in 30 seconds than you can in six. But if you're having to dodge other combatants and squeeze between flailing weapons then the current move rates are probably too generous anyway, and while you could still go farther in 30 seconds even under those conditions, it wouldn't be as much of a difference.

Another thing to consider is the round length can be a malleable thing depending on the situation and-or type of combat. For ship-v-ship naval combat I have rounds be about three minutes each as it takes that long to reload the artillery and-or maneuver the ship into attacking position. Conversely, if a combat is being done entirely by psionics (very rare, but it can happen) then a round might be less than a second long, as I've always had psionics work at the speed of thought i.e. bloody fast.

30 seconds is just a default.

 

[Don Durito]

Yes, but that's easy to do, isn't it?

Yes. Just noting. Personally I just use zone based combat and avoid the grid. So anything above or below 30ft is just a bonus or penalty to a movement roll anyway.
Rounds are not especially fixed in time - anywhere from 5 to 30 seconds really.

 

[Azuresun]

Did not take long for this to go from "odd aspects of the rules that bug you" to just "things about the rules you don't like".

You noticed that too? I think this forum just plain doesn't like the current edition of D&D that much, despite being nominally about it. There's some interesting discussion that makes it worth dipping into, but I have to remember to check out before the negativity gets too draining.

 

[Minigiant]

You noticed that too? I think this forum just plain doesn't like the current edition of D&D that much, despite being nominally about it. There's some interesting discussion that makes it worth dipping into, but I have to remember to check out before the negativity gets too draining.

The edition is no longer new and people no longer feel the need to hide the drawbacks and their feelings.

And 5e is leaving the "sell the core books" phase of the edition and entering the "sell the splatbook" phase.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

You noticed that too? I think this forum just plain doesn't like the current edition of D&D that much, despite being nominally about it. There's some interesting discussion that makes it worth dipping into, but I have to remember to check out before the negativity gets too draining.

Maybe - I (like to) think it is a few loud voices griping about their pet peeves really. For some people that presumably don't like 5e, they love to talk about 5e quite a lot. I'm not sure why, but somewhere underneath the vitriol there seems to be some kind of desire to engage with the game. If it were so repulsive, why not just move on to discuss a game that excites them? The majority here, I feel, really enjoy playing but do find little things that bug them. Which is always interesting to consider when running/playing the game at your table: is this something that actually bugs me too? Do I want to change that at my table or not? Then we can experiment to see if it is fun to tweak... or not. But I'm with you - when a thread is hijacked by apparent edition hate, it becomes less palatable to me, too, and harder to scroll to the voices that have something truly constructive to say.

The edition is no longer new and people no longer feel the need to hide the drawbacks and their feelings.

Maybe - I've only been on here for 1/2 the time that 5e has been released but I don't think people were holding back 3 years ago, either.

And 5e is leaving the "sell the core books" phase of the edition and entering the "sell the splatbook" phase.

Maybe - I'm sure WotC is also well aware that after 6 years, the PHB, DMG, and MM are #31, #49, and #60 respectively on the Amazon Science Fiction & Fantasy Best Sellers list, for what that's worth.

 

[Oofta]

Did not take long for this to go from "odd aspects of the rules that bug you" to just "things about the rules you don't like".

The entire mess with melee attacks vs melee weapon attacks and such comes to mind, personally.

As much as I like 5E (it's my favorite version) no game is perfect, so of course there are little things that bug me. I mentioned longbows using dex only, but another would be melee vs thrown vs ranged vs melee weapon. Can't it just be melee (unarmed or not) and ranged (whether the projectile is thrown or launched)?

In any case, there will always be small things that don't work for everyone, it's pretty much inevitable. On the other hand, I swear some people only post here to imitate their favorite green skinned regenerating monster because all they do is complain about how horrible the system is.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Why did the British have sixpence coins and thrup'ny bits? Because there was a need for coins worth more than 1d but less than 1s.

Maybe in some nations that is true, but it doesn't have to be in the base game.

 

[Lanefan]

Maybe in some nations that is true, but it doesn't have to be in the base game.

Whyever not?

It's got hella more character and flavour to it than straight-up decimal.

Better yet, as part of its flavour each setting should have its own different coinage system with different conversion rates between coins and incorporating different coins beyond just cp, sp, gp and pp.; with the one constant being that across all systems a gold piece is always a gold piece and retains its value (thus, an item worth 2500 g.p. in one setting is worth 2500 g.p. in every setting, to allow characters to cross from one game/setting to another without having to do a bunch of conversion).

Then, for example, Greyhawk could use the original D&D coinage system, Eberron could be fully decimal, FR could base on the pre-1970 British system, etc., etc.

 

[tetrasodium]

Whyever not?

It's got hella more character and flavour to it than straight-up decimal.

Better yet, as part of its flavour each setting should have its own different coinage system with different conversion rates between coins and incorporating different coins beyond just cp, sp, gp and pp.; with the one constant being that across all systems a gold piece is always a gold piece and retains its value (thus, an item worth 2500 g.p. in one setting is worth 2500 g.p. in every setting, to allow characters to cross from one game/setting to another without having to do a bunch of conversion).

Then, for example, Greyhawk could use the original D&D coinage system, Eberron could be fully decimal, FR could base on the pre-1970 British system, etc., etc.

Eberron has copper crowns, silver sovereigns, gold galifars & platinum dragons. I've tried playing them up for the "this ain't faerun" but generally they just caused confusion & shrugs. It's a cool idea, but unless you have price lists for darksun style post apocalypse, eberron style early industrialization, & faerun/greyhawk style all things dumped in randomly without thought I'm not sure they really make any difference.

edit: not just different coinage lists but lists of prices for a setting using that style of coins

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

The idea of price lists.

Modern-day transportation haven't even equalized the prices of many goods within a large country, yet goods are supposed to have fixed value in a fantasy universe. Most settings provide prices for setting-specific services but very few revisit the base list; I understand it's nothing important as PCs will very quickly have enough money to afford whatever is on a price list, but it's strange that there is even expectation of a fixed price for a piece of armor, while in most settings it would be made to order (maybe eberron has weapon factories but still...). And that the price will be the same everywhere, with a fixedness so strong that you can have spell with a requirement of /value/ for some components...