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

[Zsong]

Some, yes. More likely the trading would become a time-consuming sideline - they'd still adventure, but every time they went back to town we'd be spending a few sessions sorting out their non-adventuring business concerns.

I've DMed this in one campaign, where a party ended up owning much of the trade across several nations. Never again.

Sounds like they need to play birthright or becmi or pathfinder kingmaker

 

[Oofta]

Fine if your players will accept it. Not so fine if your players, on behalf of their characters, want to a) go into much greater detail and b) squeeze every copper out of it.

This issue first came up when crafting rules were introduced a couple of editions ago, and I haven't really changed my position. You can get cost of living, but don't expect to make any significant profit from this - if anything a new business endeavor is going to be a money sink at least for a while.

Now we just handle it with downtime activities and rules. But it's definitely kept at a very high level of abstraction, when people started getting into the nitty gritty details I just told them I wasn't going to go there.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

wait....you have players who would stop adventuring to buy and sell trade goods? Really?

Yeah, all the time. I have spent multiple sessions in a row in the same campaign that are just buying and selling items. I have done the same as a player, too. It's not boring or as alien as you may think.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeah, all the time. I have spent multiple sessions in a row in the same campaign that are just buying and selling items. I have done the same as a player, too. It's not boring or as alien as you may think.

I have done a session, as well, and spent time between sessions on it. But you go back to adventurin eventually

 

[Lanefan]

Oh yeah, you have to tell them in advance that you won't be dealing with distinct items like that, if they want to engage in trade.

This came up kinda without much warning during my first big campaign and I largely had to go with it.

Since then, the "I'm not DMing that" warning's been in place. (I mean, if the players/characters want to do this stuff that's fine - I won't stop 'em - but the best they can expect for updates is every now and then I'll roll a few dice and give 'em an overall profit or loss amount since the last time we checked. If the players want to go into detail designing the pubs etc. they own, that's great)

 

[Layne F]

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.



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?

What about "Barding costs 4x that of humanoid armor"? What if it is barding for a War Dog? I know the stated rules are in regards to Horses, but this blanket statement seems suggest that barding for a plate armor for a Mastiff would cost 6000gp. That just doesnt make sense to me. Not that I want Plate for a dog, its just an example. Thoughts?

 

[Undrave]

(druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)

AUGH!!! Worst thing ever.

 

[Oofta]

AUGH!!! Thread resurrection! Worst thing ever!

 

[Argyle King]

I have done a session, as well, and spent time between sessions on it. But you go back to adventurin eventually

If thread's alive again, might as well...

It's not hard to imagine that trade and travel would be the adventure.

Oregon Trail was (and still is) a very popular game.

Similarly, a lot of pirates made money on procuring goods at discounted prices and then selling goods at a port willing to fence products.

A world in which monsters and conflict are common, an entire campaign could be based around being an armed transporter of goods and a merchant caravan. The campaign could be a mix of the Transporter movies and Amazon-Delivery-with-Weapons.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The idea that a normal work week is 5 days with a 2 day weekend. I can't recall if that's stated explicitly in the core rulebooks, but I do remember Xanathar's stating that. Also, there seems to be a notion that most people work about 8 hours a day.

It hurts my brain to think that the designers honestly think a 40 hour work week is the norm not just throughout the world, but throughout history.

It bugs me more if people think that D&D is a recreation of history.