D&D (2024) Rules that annoy you

[Xeviat]

So I know it won't help the debate but here yah go....

Common is the Trade Tongue.
But it only gives you basic speech. (me trade goat) etc., and is not written.
It WAS (or so they say) an ancient human trading empire.
But it seems coarse and low born to other species, and humans with a local language, so they dont like it.
It seems coarse and lowborn because it is the magically infused language of the yugoloths. (like celestial)
Who were the ancient trade empire. And the forgotten ancestors of the humans.
Scholars say you could learn fluent Trade Tongue if you studied ancient scrolls. (higher levels of fluency manifest the yugoloth heritage)
Some evil traders seem to pick it up naturally (muhahaha)

In my setting, humans were the travelers, the other kingdoms were local. Humans grew out from an empire and attempted to conquer the world. When their empire crumbled, bits and pieces of their culture remained, including "common", which is used as a trade language since the human empire facilitated interspecies trade.

I love the idea of communication in common imposing disadvantage on charisma checks since it's not a nuanced language as people use it. Old Imperial is a language, but it's effectively dead.

 

[pukunui]

Here’s another rule (of sorts) that annoys me: Magic Resistance.

In older editions, it was actual resistance – it could reduce damage taken by a certain amount.

In 5e, it just grants advantage on saves against spells and magic effects. It does nothing to help you resist magical attacks, however.

Advantage on saves is nice but what if it also (or instead) let you take half damage from magical effects? Or what it it also/instead imposed disadvantage on magic attack rolls?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

In older editions, it was actual resistance – it could reduce damage taken by a certain amount

Which editions are you thinking of? 1st and 2nd it was a % chance that the spell would do nothing, adjusted by level. 3rd edition was similar, adjusted to a d20 roll.

There was elemental resistance in 3rd edition, but that was a separate thing.

 

[James Gasik]

Here’s another rule (of sorts) that annoys me: Magic Resistance.

In older editions, it was actual resistance – it could reduce damage taken by a certain amount.

In 5e, it just grants advantage on saves against spells and magic effects. It does nothing to help you resist magical attacks, however.

Advantage on saves is nice but what if it also (or instead) let you take half damage from magical effects? Or what it it also/instead imposed disadvantage on magic attack rolls?

The Archmage has resistance to all spell damage, which is something I tried using instead of standard magic resistance. Turned out, my group hated it even more, lol.

 

[pukunui]

Which editions are you thinking of? 1st and 2nd it was a % chance that the spell would do nothing, adjusted by level. 3rd edition was similar, adjusted to a d20 roll.

There was elemental resistance in 3rd edition, but that was a separate thing.

I was thinking of 3.5e but it seems I was misremembering how its spell resistance worked. I do like the idea of a Spell AC, and 5e has some precedent for that with how dispel magic and counterspell work. (Ability check vs a DC of 10 plus the spell’s level. In this case, you’d make an ability check vs the creature’s “spell AC” or the spell doesn’t work on them [or they only take half damage].)

The Archmage has resistance to all spell damage, which is something I tried using instead of standard magic resistance. Turned out, my group hated it even more, lol.

Oh yeah. I forgot about that!

I think what is actually annoying me about this rule is that resistance is an actual game mechanic (half damage) but the Magic Resistance trait functions differently. It’s a bit of a misnomer. I feel like they either should have called it something else or had it apply to magic attacks as well as magic saving throws.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which editions are you thinking of? 1st and 2nd it was a % chance that the spell would do nothing, adjusted by level. 3rd edition was similar, adjusted to a d20 roll.

There was elemental resistance in 3rd edition, but that was a separate thing.

I preferred the TSR version, where sometimes the magic just didn't work on the monster, no matter what mechanical form it took.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The Archmage has resistance to all spell damage, which is something I tried using instead of standard magic resistance. Turned out, my group hated it even more, lol.

IMO, players just don't like when their special powers don't work. Sometimes it make sense that they shouldn't though.

 

[James Gasik]

I was thinking of 3.5e but it seems I was misremembering how its spell resistance worked. I do like the idea of a Spell AC, and 5e has some precedent for that with how dispel magic and counterspell work. (Ability check vs a DC of 10 plus the spell’s level. In this case, you’d make an ability check vs the creature’s “spell AC” or the spell doesn’t work on them [or they only take half damage].)


Oh yeah. I forgot about that!

I think what is actually annoying me about this rule is that resistance is an actual game mechanic (half damage) but the Magic Resistance trait functions differently. It’s a bit of a misnomer. I feel like they either should have called it something else or had it apply to magic attacks as well as magic saving throws.

Disadvantage on magic attacks wouldn't really have a huge impact, as there aren't very many of those. And you still have the problem that it doesn't do anything for spells that lack attacks or saves, like magic missile. Or have alternative systems, like 2014 sleep, or things that require ability checks, like maze.

A universal magic resistance is hard to design when magic doesn't have universal rules. You could just have a system where creatures are immune to low level spells (like globe of invulnerability) or have a "special save" (X or less on a d20 roll to negate a spell), or a special version of legendary resistance that only works on spells.

At the end of the day though, I found this is a lot of work to either make casters waste spell slots they're intended to use throughout the day, or make them not cast offensive spells at all, other than cantrips, which makes the rest of the party have to shoulder the extra burden and could make a fail state more likely.

Now if you're ok with all that, you could try any or all of those options, but I feel that rather than punish someone for being a spellcaster, instead, force them to be a little creative with what spells they use.

If they overrely on damage spells, throw a few resistances their way. If they keep trying to disable enemies, it's not hard to find an immunity to charm or stunning. A major foe could have a magic item like a "dimensional anchor" to prevent banishment, or a teleportation power to escape a forcecage.

Ideally, you let the players figure this out or at least have clues, and then they might be able to choose different spells to bring to the fight. Not every class has that option, of course, but a wand or even scrolls of different spells you'd rather they cast is still probably better than making them feel that they're wasting their time casting any spells.

 

[James Gasik]

IMO, players just don't like when their special powers don't work. Sometimes it make sense that they shouldn't though.

Well, it turned out that with their damage spells, they'd rather the enemies always save then always take half damage if they fail and 1/4 damage if they succeed, lol.

Plus, I mean, if you take away a Wizard's spells, he's just a guy who can throw darts or use a crossbow. You have to leave them with something to allow them to contribute equally with the rest of the party, or you've made the encounter harder for everyone, not just them.

I don't like how common "resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage from nonmagical weapons" is either, for similar reasons, but at least that's something you can eventually bypass with a magic weapon. If a caster is up against an antimagic monster, they could become so much dead weight to the party.

 

[Gnahdabb]

any given hit is not necassarily dealing meat damage, other than the ones that are explicitly required to be, but 50% health is when you're explicitly implied to have been starting to take meat damage if you haven't already.

that's my take on it anyway, but honeslty worrying if damage is meat or not is nothing that's ever concerned me at all.

I love that you included the "other than the ones that are explicitly required to be" because if you attacked your party with 20 goblins all wielding blowguns (1 piercing damage) dipped in poison (whatever d6 of poison damage or a poison effect), every single attack that hit would need to be meat damage for it to make any kind of sense (the poison only affects the target on an injury).

People rarely account for these situations when boldly declaring what is and isn't meat points (it is all meat points, except when it strains our suspension of disbelief too much).