D&D General Things That Bug You

[jmartkdr2]

For myself: most of my annoyances come form 5e not being able to pick one direction or another in a design choice, and ending up with the worst of both. Like the weirdly specific but not broad weapon list, that pigeonholes characters into certain looks by making one or two weapons the 'best' within their category.

If they wanted to give players freedom, exact weapons should matter less (ie a barbarian with a two-handed weapon does 1d12, regardless or what it is: just pick whatever looks cool). If they want weapon choice to have a theme with mechanical support, the rules should be thematic and the weapons should be balanced (ie I'm cool with a greatsword and a a greatclub working differently, but it shouldn't be obvious which is better.) This does mean the simple/martial distinction has to go away as such, but I'm okay with that.

 

[Mort]

Having the option to always use a quarterstaff one handed. I get that in real life certain strikes use one hand to get reach, but you can do the same with a two-handed sword. It's situational and you still return to two-handed after the strike. In any case, I blame the LOTR and Gandalf waving his staff around to distract the enemy for this.

The fact that a quarterstaff and a spear do the same damage - no, just no.

Sure it's minor - but it's silly.

 

[embee]

Having the option to always use a quarterstaff one handed. I get that in real life certain strikes use one hand to get reach, but you can do the same with a two-handed sword. It's situational and you still return to two-handed after the strike. In any case, I blame the LOTR and Gandalf waving his staff around to distract the enemy for this.

It's a kludge for the monks. If you say that quarterstaves are a two-handed weapon, then a monk can't use it. But if a monk can't use a quarterstaff, then you can't do a "Friar Tuck" monk build.

So instead, they called it versatile so that a Friar Tuck can use his quarterstaff.

 

[Reynard]

For myself: most of my annoyances come form 5e not being able to pick one direction or another in a design choice, and ending up with the worst of both. Like the weirdly specific but not broad weapon list, that pigeonholes characters into certain looks by making one or two weapons the 'best' within their category.

If they wanted to give players freedom, exact weapons should matter less (ie a barbarian with a two-handed weapon does 1d12, regardless or what it is: just pick whatever looks cool). If they want weapon choice to have a theme with mechanical support, the rules should be thematic and the weapons should be balanced (ie I'm cool with a greatsword and a a greatclub working differently, but it shouldn't be obvious which is better.) This does mean the simple/martial distinction has to go away as such, but I'm okay with that.

It's a kludge for the monks. If you say that quarterstaves are a two-handed weapon, then a monk can't use it. But if a monk can't use a quarterstaff, then you can't do a "Friar Tuck" monk build.

So instead, they called it versatile so that a Friar Tuck can use his quarterstaff.

There is something to be said for class based damage in the 5E design paradigm, I think.

Another very small annoyance: horses don't speed up travel. What?

 

[Oofta]

Another very small annoyance: horses don't speed up travel. What?

Actually, that's somewhat realistic according to this article.

Of course it all depends on the horse, terrain and a bunch of other factors. Heavy war horse? Fast horse in top condition? Smooth roads or trails that the horse may have trouble with?

P.S. Not trying to start a debate, just sharing some useless trivia.

 

[embee]

There is something to be said for class based damage in the 5E design paradigm, I think.

Another very small annoyance: horses don't speed up travel. What?

IRL a horse can reliably carry a rider who weighs a fifth of what it weighs.

So odds are pretty good that it's better suited for either carrying the load while you walk beside it or for pulling a cart, which also increases carrying capacity but not speed.

 

[Oofta]

It's a kludge for the monks. If you say that quarterstaves are a two-handed weapon, then a monk can't use it. But if a monk can't use a quarterstaff, then you can't do a "Friar Tuck" monk build.

So instead, they called it versatile so that a Friar Tuck can use his quarterstaff.

Yeah, they should have just made an exception on this one. Oh well.

 

[Stormonu]

Actually, that's somewhat realistic according to this article.

Who wants realism in their fantasy game?

 

[J.Quondam]

Changing a monster's relative power level or niche across editions. ( Spectres. ) This probably trips me up more than most other things when trying to convert adventures.

 

[Reynard]

IRL a horse can reliably carry a rider who weighs a fifth of what it weighs.

So odds are pretty good that it's better suited for either carrying the load while you walk beside it or for pulling a cart, which also increases carrying capacity but not speed.

I grew up with horses with a family that did regular long distance endurance rides. Horses absolutely speed up travel compared to walking.