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

[ph0rk]

For fighter I would prefer a general choice like champion battle master or eldritch knight at 1st then a thematic choice at 3rd (knight, battle captain, juggernaut)

Yeah, that would help a ton. I'll say personally that if you know the rules well, planning on either a battlemaster or eldritch knight is boring as heck at levels 1 and 2 - particularly if the game isn't the sort to zip to level 3 in 1-2 sessions. I'd guess that if you're planning on champion it's fine as you aren't really getting any new options there.

 

[Oofta]

Fighters are designed to be an entry level class. But they are hardly alone in having to "wait" a whole 2-3 sessions on average to get to third before choosing direction, most classes do.

It makes sense that sorcerers and warlocks choose their origin/patron at first level. They wouldn't be what they are without it, it's part of their background creation story. If anything, I think clerics and wizards should delay until 3rd level to be more consistent.

 

[ph0rk]

Fighters are designed to be an entry level class.

No they aren't; they're designed to be a fightin' class.

 

[Oofta]

No they aren't; they're designed to be a fightin' class.

Well those are fightin' words, but my point stands. The majority of classes don't chose their paths until 3rd level and the basic design of 5E is that levels 1 and 2 go by very quickly. For most people that's going to be 2-3 sessions. If it bothers you, start at 3rd level.

In any case, you're entitled to your opinion, I just don't think it's a big deal.

 

[Eltab]

You cannot get a Surprise Round any more, but an Assassin's class features effectively require one (because all the slowpokes can get a crack at you or clog your escape routes).

 

[Oofta]

You cannot get a Surprise Round any more, but an Assassin's class features effectively require one (because all the slowpokes can get a crack at you or clog your escape routes).

Huh? You still get your feature if a target was surprised the first round. Just because there's no requirement for every member of the opposing side to be surprised doesn't change anything.

Admittedly with most groups I've played with surprise doesn't happen all that often anyway. To many 8 dex PCs in heavy armor.

 

[Helldritch]

Yep, surprise is a bit meh in 5ed.

But the heavy armor thing as always been a thing.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Outside of Eberron, magic has little or no impact on people's daily lives. I get that it doesn't really directly impact the adventuring life, but the idea that a moderately well trained wizard can create a ball of fire from nothing while most people don't even have a ritual to keep their food fresh a little longer is odd. Even when it's a "high magic" world like FR, almost every caster still focuses on combat related magic. It's like if the only people in the modern world that had technology were the armed forces. While soldiers drive tanks, everyone else is still riding around on horses.

A "moderately well trained wizard" isn't the same thing as a "moderately common wizard". Based on what else we know about the setting, the one thing we can say for certain is that it still looks like medieval Europe; which wouldn't be the case if all that magic was able to change anything for normal people. See also: Reed Richards is Useless. (I mean, I get why it would bother you, and the world would make more sense if this perfectly-reliable science was able to actually change anything at all, but... you're not supposed to violate the premise of the world, so this solution is off the table.)

As for myself, the one thing I can't stand in the rules (aside from healing, which is beyond the scope of a "minor gripes" thread) is Dexterity to damage. I get why it's preferable from a game balance perspective, and why a well-placed dagger can be more injurious than one which merely cuts deeper; but there are plenty of places where those assumptions don't hold, and it's silly that an air elemental's bludgeoning pseudopod hits harder than a water elemental's pseudopod when it has nowhere near the mass to back it up.

On a similar note, a high-level monk (whose every punch hits as hard as a two-handed strike from a warhammer) really should be stronger than an equally-high-level fighter (who requires a warhammer in order to hit that hard). They shouldn't have strength on par with the wizard.

 

[ph0rk]

Well those are fightin' words, but my point stands. The majority of classes don't chose their paths until 3rd level and the basic design of 5E is that levels 1 and 2 go by very quickly. For most people that's going to be 2-3 sessions. If it bothers you, start at 3rd level.

In any case, you're entitled to your opinion, I just don't think it's a big deal.

You only have total control over that when you are a DM - and 5 out of 11 PHB classes may technically be a minority, but it is a sizeable one.

It's hard to call it a design feature when nearly half the classes break it.

Levels 1-2 don't go by quickly at every table, either - you might take a month or two in real world time before reaching level 3. Moreover, it isn't just the fighter:

Swords bards can't use many swords.
Arcane Tricksters are merely tricksters.
Shadow Monks only have a shadow.
Ancestral Guardian Barbarians have no ancestors - at least no useful ones.
Rangers and paladins get to console themselves with spells at 2, at least.

AL characters must start at level 1, also.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Looking in at the last bits of the ranger thread (It's official, WOTC hates Rangers (Tasha's version of Favored Foe is GARBAGE)), got me to thinking about barding (particularly as a solution to the "low ac" complaints being raised there) and it's there I run into a problem. A big problem. Barding weighs twice as much as the equivalent humanoid armor - regardless of the size of the creature it was made for.

Like, what? How does that even begin to make sense?

The idea that barding for tiny creatures and barding for gargantuan creatures somehow weighs the same is something that boggles my mind.

I agree, that doesn't make sense.

However, the entirety of the rule in the PHB is, "Barding is armor designed to protect an animal’s head, neck, chest, and body. Any type of armor shown on the Armor table in this chapter can be purchased as barding. The cost is four times the equivalent armor made for humanoids, and it weighs twice as much." That's it. Three sentences is all you've got.

I wouldn't remotely read it that way that you have.

First, carrying capacities of Small and Medium sized creatures are identical. Small is nearly indistinguishable from Medium in 5e. Carrying capacities don't change until you reach Tiny (half Medium) or Large (twice Medium). Therefore, the game isn't strictly stating armor (or weapons) that aren't for Small or Medium creatures. This is partially because it's not really necessary, but also because it prevents the Monkey Grip problem (if you stat it in the PHB someone will try to build a PC around it).

Second, I think the rule that armor weighs double means that it weights twice as much as armor for a humanoid of the same size as the creature. Since we're primarily talking about mounts for Small and Medium creatures, that means we're talking about Medium and Large size mounts. Large armor should already weigh double, so arguably what they're doing is fixing the weight of horse and camel armor. Medium armor for war dogs and ponies is just dragged along. Personally, I don't think that armor for a pony should weigh more than armor for a human male, so I would probably take the design to be primarily for Large mounts.

However, it's not unreasonable for the design to assume that barding will typically be used on animals that are mounts. Animal mounts are typically four-legged and have larger torsos like horses, dogs, camels, ponies, and so on. That's why barding might weigh more; mounts have a more massive torso for their size by nature of needing to have a body that is capable of accommodating a rider. I think it makes sense to double the weight for a Medium size mount kitted out in light or medium barding, but for heavy barding I would probably not multiply the weight at all. Heavy armor typically covers the legs of most humanoids, while barding explicitly does not in the rules above. Then again, I'd probably rule that plate barding did cover the mounts legs.

In the end, I'd probably rule that chain mail barding (heavy) for a riding dog or pony did not weight double, but breastplate (medium), half-plate (medium), and plate (heavy) barding did with plate actually protecting the animal's legs.

But what boggles yours?

Mostly it's small things that I happen across that feel like inconsistencies.

For example:
Why are a mule and a donkey listed as the same? Rather, why are they so while ponies are different? Why is a pony stronger than a mule? Why is a horse wiser than a mule? Why has a mule, a creature with legendary stamina, only got a 13 Con?