D&D 5E Silly/Senseless Rules You Have Found

[werecorpse]

1. The average gnome can carry three other gnomes and not be encumbered.

2. Using the pole arm feat you can use a quarter staff one handed (versatile weapon) and a shield and still get the second attack

3. The average person can swim underwater without surfacing almost twice the length of an Olympic swimming pool.

4. Jumping is unrestricted by armour, you long jump your strength in feet (no more no less no roll) and like most everyone my 14 Str human life cleric sage who is not proficient in athletics or acrobatics can posterise the half elf rogue and dunk while wearing plate mail.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I hoped you would have understood where I was heading. Then if darts were light, they could be thrown just as well. And with their cheaper price, they could be left there if time was of the essence.

As I said in my earlier post, in order to fight with two darts (meaning throw one with each hand like can be done with daggers), darts would not only need the light property but would also need to be melee weapons instead of ranged weapons because the two-weapon fighting rules are specific to light melee weapons.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I find it silly that an unarmored Dex 20 guy is harder to damage than a Dex 3 guy even when they are both paralyzed. Just what precisely is supposed to be going on physically to make that happen?

I've considered houseruling that your Dex becomes 0 whenever you are paralyzed or stunned.

 

[Ath'kethin]

The miniatures rules that turn a game of D&D into a game of HeroQuest.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I find it silly that an unarmored Dex 20 guy is harder to damage than a Dex 3 guy even when they are both paralyzed. Just what precisely is supposed to be going on physically to make that happen?

I've considered houseruling that your Dex becomes 0 whenever you are paralyzed or stunned.

The assumption is that the 3 Dex guy will be wearing heavy armor, rendering his Dex penalty moot. Advantage can, roughly speaking, be equated to a +5 bonus to hit. Therefore, it's easier to hit the lightly armored who is "denied his dex" and the heavy armor guy who could never use his dex but also can't use his armor to full advantage. On top of that, any hits against either are considered crits, which doesn't have a numerical equivalent, but still represents that the target is much less able to defend himself.

It's less a silly rule in my eyes and more just a simplification. Rather than having to recalculate AC, you simply have advantage against a normal AC. Outside the corner case where the PCs are stripped of their armor, it largely works.

You could certainly houserule it to be Dex 0. I'd probably remove the advantage in that case, since that would be overkill (you're already representing that the target is incapable of movement with the Dex penalty). But then heavy armor users would suffer no penalty from paralysis, since Dexterity doesn't factor into their AC, which doesn't make much sense (we're not talking power armor here). I suppose you could grant advantage against heavy armor but not light and medium armor, though that does add a little complexity.

In any case, I can see why the designers went the route they did, being that one of their design tenants seems to have been to avoid over-complicating the core rules.

 

[Gnarl45]

The miniatures rules that turn a game of D&D into a game of HeroQuest.

I love Hero Quest!

 

[Ath'kethin]

I love Hero Quest!

Me too. I still have my set from 1990, along with the barbarian expansion pack.

Buy its a different game from D&D, no matter how much the marketers at WotC have tried to change that.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The assumption is that the 3 Dex guy will be wearing heavy armor, rendering his Dex penalty moot. Advantage can, roughly speaking, be equated to a +5 bonus to hit. Therefore, it's easier to hit the lightly armored who is "denied his dex" and the heavy armor guy who could never use his dex but also can't use his armor to full advantage. On top of that, any hits against either are considered crits, which doesn't have a numerical equivalent, but still represents that the target is much less able to defend himself.

Why would you assume that when I said "unarmored"? And it's not like there aren't low-Dex unarmored wizards out there anyway, so if you're saying it's a design assumption, it's a false design assumption.

If I houseruled Str 0 and Dex 0 for paralyzed/stunned creatures, heavily armored creatures would be mostly unaffected (though it would make it easier for monks to grapple them, which also makes sense), but Dex 20 would no longer help you more than Dex 3 while unarmored and paralyzed. Makes sense, right?

BTW, autocrits only happen in melee range, not for all hits.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Why would you assume that when I said "unarmored"? And it's not like there aren't low-Dex unarmored wizards out there anyway, so if you're saying it's a design assumption, it's a false design assumption.

I hadn't considered a wizard with low Dex, since a wizard with low Dex is like a fighter with low Con; possible, but atypical. I've certainly never seen it done.

My assumption was a low Dex Fighter who was stripped of his armor, as I indicated when I said, "Outside the corner case where the PCs are stripped of their armor".

If I houseruled Str 0 and Dex 0 for paralyzed/stunned creatures, heavily armored creatures would be mostly unaffected (though it would make it easier for monks to grapple them, which also makes sense), but Dex 20 would no longer help you more than Dex 3 while unarmored and paralyzed. Makes sense, right?

But it makes less sense against the heavy armor guy (plate is not power armor, there are plenty of exposed areas that can be exploited against a non-moving target).

If you "fix" an issue by creating a similar issue then all you've done is sweep dirt around the room, with the added bonus that now everyone at the table has to remember this new exception to the rules. As I see it, your house rule addresses an issue with an uncommon situation (an unarmored guy with low Dex) while creating an issue with a common one (someone in the party wearing heavy armor).

BTW, autocrits only happen in melee range, not for all hits.

I'm aware of that. The crossbow guy can just saunter over to the paralyzed guy and execute him while saying, "Dodge this". I didn't feel that the distinction was terribly relevant to this discussion. But even if ranged attackers don't want to close to point blank range, advantage will still give them an increased chance to crit.

Obviously it's your game, they're your house rules, and you can do with them what you want (assuming the rest of your group buys in, of course). I was just offering my analysis.

 

[designbot]

If I houseruled Str 0 and Dex 0 for paralyzed/stunned creatures, heavily armored creatures would be mostly unaffected (though it would make it easier for monks to grapple them, which also makes sense), but Dex 20 would no longer help you more than Dex 3 while unarmored and paralyzed. Makes sense, right?

A paralyzed or stunned creature can't move, take actions, or take reactions, and automatically fails Strength and Dexterity saving throws. It's not 100% explicitly spelled out, but it's only logical that any attempt to grapple an incapacitated creature should be an automatic success.