D&D 5E Tired of doing WotC's job

[Lem23]

This thread reminds me of a certain thread about baths and warm beds, in that the multitudes are coming out to tell the OP how wrong they are for daring to want to include such mundane and unfunny elements in THEIR game.

Except that it's not even remotely like that in this thread.

 

[Dausuul]

This thread reminds me of a certain thread about baths and warm beds, in that the multitudes are coming out to tell the OP how wrong they are for daring to want to include such mundane and unfunny elements in THEIR game.

No one at all is saying that.

OP is welcome to have these elements in their game. But when you say you want the designers to do something, that means you want it done for all games. That means the D&D design team is spending its limited time assigning prices to articles of clothing instead of developing other things the rest of us want.

I sympathize with OP to some extent - I did enjoy the long lists of gear in some previous editions. But I don't want space in the core books devoted to it, and I don't want the devs spending time on it. This is something that cries out for a DM's Guild supplement.

 

[Flamestrike]

Well, it has been a while since I've posted on Enworld. After 18 months of 5E, I think I am soon to be done with it. Honestly, I am sick and tired of doing the game designers' work for them.

I've been running a new game online and its been ok. Today, one of the PCs failed to save against a wererat's bite and has lycanthropy. This was just as we ended the session. So, I took some time to research it and found very little information. Just that it is a curse and can be removed with remove curse. Some questions arose:
is it magical? can you detect it with*detect magic*? if so, why can't you use dispel magic? is the target aware they are cursed? and so on.

Compared to the amount of information in prior editions, 5E is severely lacking. We all know that the idea was to allow players to play how they want, but making up the rules and the systems for the game because they aren't there in the first place is just getting annoying IMO.

Another example: in bringing in a new player for today's game, his PC wanted to buy a cloak. a CLOAK, and it isn't listed. What is the cost and weight? I decided finally just to tell him to get a blanket and say that is his cloak. I mean, really, how hard would it have been to put in a table for purchasing common clothing items like cloaks, boots, and shoes. Yeah, I know, we can come up with our own if we want to, but damn it, should we really have to?

I know in prior editions we house-ruled stuff, but I have four times as many house-rules and such for 5E than any other edition I've ever played. And a lot of this might be for (what I consider) a better balanced game, but a lot of it is for standard stuff.

Ultimately in the case of the lycanthropy curse, now I have to decide as DM how I want to handle it, what will the PC be aware of, will they ever be able to control it if it isn't removed, and such.

I am not expecting much in the ways of replies. Mostly just venting. I enjoy playing 5E not because it is 5E, but because I am playing D&D again. I went for nearly ten years without getting to play, so I was thrilled when I helped form a new group. Sadly, I think by the end of summer I will probably be done with 5E. If I can convince the group to try earlier versions, or maybe a different RPG, I'll get to keep playing. If not, well... I guess all good things must come to an end.

I owe a lot to RPG's and D&D specifically. So I'll end this with a heart-felt and general cosmic THANK YOU to all those who made my experiences possible. Cheers.

There are rules for what is magical and what isnt.

Does the ability say its magical (using that exact word?), does it cast a spell or allow a spell to be cast, or does it use spell slots to fuel it (like spells, smites and Moon druid healing)? If you answered yes to any of the above, its magical. If no, it's not.

Lycanthropy doesnt use the word 'magical' in the description of itself, doesnt emulate a spell, and it doesnt use spell slots. So it's not magical.

It cant be dispelled, or suppressed in antimagic and so forth.

 

[Aldarc]

Being a D&D designer must be an ungrateful job... make one decision, gamers protest you didn't make the opposite one, make the opposite and they'll protest you didn't make the first, let them choose and they protest you didn't choose for them.

That may play a part in why the OP doesn't want as heavy of a designer burden.

 

[Eis]

Being a D&D designer must be an ungrateful job... make one decision, gamers protest you didn't make the opposite one, make the opposite and they'll protest you didn't make the first, let them choose and they protest you didn't choose for them.

I am definitely not a game designer but I think the "rule zero" of game design absolutely HAS to be that you are never going to please everyone right? Like you have to get that into your head before you even start thinking of designing games for sure

 

[houser2112]

There are rules for what is magical and what isnt.

Does the ability say its magical (using that exact word?), does it cast a spell or allow a spell to be cast, or does it use spell slots to fuel it (like spells, smites and Moon druid healing)? If you answered yes to any of the above, its magical. If no, it's not.

Lycanthropy doesnt use the word 'magical' in the description of itself, doesnt emulate a spell, and it doesnt use spell slots. So it's not magical.

It cant be dispelled, or suppressed in antimagic and so forth.

3.x was very helpful in this regard with the use of Spell-like abilities and Supernatural abilities that explicitly spell out how they interact with detect magic, dispel magic, antimagic fields, etc.

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

I can understand your frustration about having to come up with a bunch of rulings and the like on the fly. That said, I find it strongly preferable to having to spend 10+ minutes looking some obscure rule in a splat book or having to spend 5+ minutes waiting for the barbarian to add up his 15 different situational modifiers to see if he hits the dragon because he rolled a 10 on the die and it has an AC of 32.

My advice is to play pathfinder. It is precisely the sort of "there's a table or rule for everything!" type of game you seem to be seeking. I've played both and both are enjoyable. Dabbled with Pathfinder 2 and found it a decent medium between 1st ed and D&D 5e, but my group prefers the speed of D&D 5e and I frankly find it far less of a headache to run as a DM. I wish you luck with your gaming though. Different games for different folks.

 

[Xetheral]

I get what the OP meant. 5ed is a rough gem by design. It is an uncut gem but a gem nonetheless. For many, it is the occasion to facet the gem/game to their taste. For some, the missing facets of the gem are irritating and become an obsession. The OP has his focus on the "missing" facets and it became hard for him to focus on anything else.

This is what I call a DM's overwork syndrome. Take time off from DMing. It has nothing to do with 5ed. You do not need 30+ pages of house rule. You need none. Give yourself some time off and when you get back to DMing. You'll see if it really is as you're thinking right now.

While not houserules per se, when playing with experienced players it helps to at least write out which interpretations the DM plans to use for certain controversial rules. Vision/stealth/invisibility, improvised weapons, and the Shield Master feat are some of the more notorious examples where clarifying upfront helps keep everyone on the same page.

I can see how the need to provide clarity on basic rules interpretations can make the game feel incomplete. This is not unique to 5e, but given the edition's focus on accessibility, I think the need to provide supplementary interpretations feels particularly incongruous.

The edition could have still kept it's "rough gem" character with relatively few rules (as compared to other recent editions) even if it had been clear enough that the existing rules didn't require table-by-table DM clarification.

 

[Flamestrike]

3.x was very helpful in this regard with the use of Spell-like abilities and Supernatural abilities that explicitly spell out how they interact with detect magic, dispel magic, antimagic fields, etc.

So is 5E.

The rule is if the power or ability or effect expressly states it is magical, it's magical. If it doesnt, it's not.

It's also magical if it involves casting a spell, or uses spell slots to function (smites for example).

For example look at the Demi-lich. Most of its powers are magical (and thus dont work in its own antimagic field):

Take Howl for example:

The demilich emits a bloodcurdling howl. Each creature within 30 feet of the demilich that can hear the howl must succeed on a DC 15 Constitution saving throw or drop to 0 hit points. On a successful save, the creature is frightened until the end of its next turn.

Howl works just fine, and is not magical. It can be used in an AMF just fine. Contrast that ability with its dust swirling ability, and its energy drain ability:

The demilich magically swirls its dusty remains. Each creature within 10 feet of the demilich, including around a corner, must succeed on a DC 15 Constitution saving throw or...

Energy Drain (Costs 2 Actions). Each creature with in 30 feet of the demilich must make a DC 15 Constitution saving throw. On a failed save, the creature's hit point maximum is magically reduced by 10 (3d6)...

The Demilich cant use those two abilities if it were to target itself (or find itself) inside its own AMF.

Those two abilities are magical, because they say they are. All creatures, abilities and effects in 5E follow this rule; magical things are magical only if they say they're magical. Expressly. If the word 'magical' is not in the text of the ability somewhere (and it's not allowing the casting of a spell, or powered by the use of spell slots) it is not magical.

This is an important rule to follow when youre designing stuff by the way. I actually have a few Battlemaster manoeuvres I homebrewed from ToB. I had to specify in the manoeuvre that they were magical. For example check out the following manouvers:

Burning Blade. When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to make your weapon burst into magical flame. You deal additional fire damage to the target equal to the roll of your superiority dice and the target must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, the target takes additional damage equal to the roll of a superiority die at the start of its next turn.​

​

Clinging Shadow Strike. When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to attempt to blind your target. You add the superiority die to the attack’s damage roll, and the target must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, the target is blinded until the start of its next turn. A creature without eyes cannot be blinded by this manoeuvre.​

Burning blade is magical, because it says it is. It wont work in an AMF. Clinging shadow strike is not magical (because it doesnt say it is) so it would work in an AMF. This was deliberate.

Note how also both manoeuvres were written to work with a 'weapon attack' meaning they work just fine with ranged weapons and unarmed strikes as well (there is a difference with the wording and effect of a 'melee weapon attack' or 'ranged weapon attack' and 'attack with a melee weapon' or 'attack with a ranged weapon').

For example, an unarmed strike is a melee weapon attack, but it's not an attack with a melee weapon. The above manoeuvres work with bows, unarmed strikes and swords as they are all weapon attacks.

 

[Todd Roybark]

Lycanthropy doesnt use the word 'magical' in the description of itself, doesnt emulate a spell, and it doesnt use spell slots. So it's not magical.

Lycanthropy is a Curse, and curses are generally conceived of as magical, in a conceptual framework.

Some, magic does work in the way you have detailed above, Flame.
Other powers are magical, without the mechanical baggage.

I, assert, that most tables rule, that when a character, such as a Fiend Patron Warlock or Monk of the Long Death, get Temp HP for dropping creatures to Zero HP, something magical is occurring.

The effect is the effect regardless of wether it is magic, or just the sicko Monk or Warlock getting excited at killing things.
An effect like Temp HP upon bringing a creature to 0 HP, is not disrupt-able, even if magical.

A ‘cursed’ werewolf not being able to shapechange under the anti-magic eye of a beholder is a RAW consistent ruling.

A ’natural born’ Werewolf under the gaze of a beholder is a mythos dependent question....if Lycanthropy is an effect created by a deity level power, then no suppression.