D&D 5E Volo's 5e vs Tasha's 5e where do you see 5e heading?

[Oofta]

How is creating an armor with DR, or a weapon with benefits versus certain kinds of armor types, any different from creating a new magic item?

The module can become accessible in this way.

It's not about creating a unique armor that has DR, it's applying DR across the board to existing armor types.

Which then causes it's own problems. If (making up numbers) you say light armor has DR 2, medium armor has DR 4, heavy armor has DR 6, how does that affect monsters that have a lot of attacks that do little damage? How does it affect monks and barbarians or dex based builds? Do monsters that are not explicitly wearing a specific type of armor get DR? What if the monster is described as being difficult to hit because it's so fast vs a thick and tough hide?

It's easy to say these things (and the other suggestions) can be "easily" added but taking into account all the ripple effects is a lot more difficult.

 

[tetrasodium]

No, I get what you're saying.

But, I don't think you quite realize what you're asking for. Most of those changes you suggest - such as Armor as DR for example, make every single previously published WotC module incompatible. None of those adventures have Armor as DR. So, any DM who wants to use these optional rules then has to edit every single monster in the module to use it. And that's just one change. Add in Armor as HP, additional fighting styles, etc. and you are creating a big book of Make the DM's Life Hell. Because, unless these optional rules are addressed in future products, none of the future products are compatible either. You have just successfully carved off every group who uses this book from buying future products.

This is why you will never see a book like this from WotC.

I've used an armor includes dr based on type(1 point light 2 medium 3 points heavy) and it was pretty trivial in that it allowed me to reduce hp bloat a bit since there were almost certain to be several points from the big guns going away each round from those who played the odds for their favor with multiple attacks. while those who put it all on one attack had a bigger bite. It was fairly trivial to use

 

[Minigiant]

No, I get what you're saying.

But, I don't think you quite realize what you're asking for. Most of those changes you suggest - such as Armor as DR for example, make every single previously published WotC module incompatible. None of those adventures have Armor as DR. So, any DM who wants to use these optional rules then has to edit every single monster in the module to use it. And that's just one change. Add in Armor as HP, additional fighting styles, etc. and you are creating a big book of Make the DM's Life Hell. Because, unless these optional rules are addressed in future products, none of the future products are compatible either. You have just successfully carved off every group who uses this book from buying future products.

This is why you will never see a book like this from WotC.

I get what you are saying.

You are missing the point. We don;t care it its not compatible. We don't care if it's extra work. Often it isn't as editing a monster's AC and adding DR is less work that tracking 100 more HP in combat. Or editing a monster's attacks instead of adding 4 more monsters to a room.
The whole OSR movement is built on taking a simple base system and jamming all sorta of rules you prefer on top of it.

That's the point of OPTIONAL RULES. I as the DM am choosing to add what I want and what workload I want and what logic I want the game to follow. You as another DM, don't have to do it.

Again,I don't see the harm, of giving me a book with rules I want and taking my money? Are you saying WOTC doesn't want my money?

 

[Oofta]

I get what you are saying.

You are missing the point. We don;t care it its not compatible. We don't care if it's extra work. Often it isn't as editing a monster's AC and adding DR is less work that tracking 100 more HP in combat. Or editing a monster's attacks instead of adding 4 more monsters to a room.
The whole OSR movement is built on taking a simple base system and jamming all sorta of rules you prefer on top of it.

That's the point of OPTIONAL RULES. I as the DM am choosing to add what I want and what workload I want and what logic I want the game to follow. You as another DM, don't have to do it.

Again,I don't see the harm, of giving me a book with rules I want and taking my money? Are you saying WOTC doesn't want my money?

Writing a book for a minority will not generate as much (if any) profit as other books. Unlike TSR, WOTC seems to care about things like that.

 

[Minigiant]

It's not about creating a unique armor that has DR, it's applying DR across the board to existing armor types.

Which then causes it's own problems. If (making up numbers) you say light armor has DR 2, medium armor has DR 4, heavy armor has DR 6, how does that affect monsters that have a lot of attacks that do little damage? How does it affect monks and barbarians or dex based builds? Do monsters that are not explicitly wearing a specific type of armor get DR? What if the monster is described as being difficult to hit because it's so fast vs a thick and tough hide?

It's easy to say these things (and the other suggestions) can be "easily" added but taking into account all the ripple effects is a lot more difficult.

That's why you have professional game designers in WOTC design it and not have new DMs attempt to do it because "this doesn't make sense to me".

For the record, that's why my Armor as DR uses damage resistence or damage reduction. The added armors to the chart offer different resistances.

Armor	AC	Damage Resist	Damage Vulnerability	Stealth
Padded	11+ Dex	Bludgeoning	Slashing	Disadvantage
Leather	11+ Dex	Slashing	Piercing
Jack of Plates	12+ Dex	Piercing	Bludgeoning
Studded Leather	12+ Dex	Slashing	Piercing
Thick Padded	13+ Dex	Bludgeoning	Slashing	Disadvantage

The Weapon and Armor in 5e were obviously designed to have variants. All the holes are there. They just decided not to add them but keep those basic systems.

 

[Minigiant]

Writing a book for a minority will not generate as much (if any) profit as other books. Unlike TSR, WOTC seems to care about things like that.

I don''t think it's a minority. I don't know a 5e DM wh has't pondered the idea. And many D&D content creators have mentioned the idea. Very few think the 5e weapon and armor system is "great". It's built for raw beginners. Many see the cracks once they stop being beginners.

 

[tetrasodium]

That's why you have professional game designers in WOTC design it and not have new DMs attempt to do it because "this doesn't make sense to me".
systems.

Thsts the big one. Wotc needs to stop telling gms to tweak it themselves knowing full well the tweakable dials were pretty universally removed to make it easier to build drop in replacements and actually make them. Doing that also requires wotc to accept that some of those replacements by necessity must be more complex than the base thing they are replacing

 

[Oofta]

That's why you have professional game designers in WOTC design it and not have new DMs attempt to do it because "this doesn't make sense to me".

For the record, that's why my Armor as DR uses damage resistence or damage reduction. The added armors to the chart offer different resistances.

Armor	AC	Damage Resist	Damage Vulnerability	Stealth
Padded	11+ Dex	Bludgeoning	Slashing	Disadvantage
Leather	11+ Dex	Slashing	Piercing
Jack of Plates	12+ Dex	Piercing	Bludgeoning
Studded Leather	12+ Dex	Slashing	Piercing
Thick Padded	13+ Dex	Bludgeoning	Slashing	Disadvantage

The Weapon and Armor in 5e were obviously designed to have variants. All the holes are there. They just decided not to add them but keep those basic systems.

First, I don't see much logic to your chart (I'm sure you do). So you're going to have just as many arguments. Just look at any online discussion of how effective various types of armor were. It depends on what resource you deem trustworthy, what type of armor you're really talking about and what era.

Second, it only applies to armor. What about monsters that don't wear armor? It's the same issue I had back in the day - should a weapon that has some benefit vs plate have the same benefit against a bullette that has a hard shell that works just like plate armor?

I don''t think it's a minority. I don't know a 5e DM wh has't pondered the idea. And many D&D content creators have mentioned the idea. Very few think the 5e weapon and armor system is "great". It's built for raw beginners. Many see the cracks once they stop being beginners.

If it were a popular idea I think it would have been revealed in the extensive polling and surveys they do. I'd be surprised if they didn't also pay close attention to what's selling on DmsGuild. Heck, if you think people want it so much, start a thread and set up a poll. The fact that very few people seem to agree with you should be at least somewhat indicative.

Your "cracks" are design choices made to keep the game streamlined. The game is full of compromises to make it functional and fun. If there are so many 3rd party options, just pick one of them and use it, just don't expect anyone else to care.

You keep asking "why don't they". I, and others, have given you multiple reasons. Have a good one.

 

[Parmandur]

Again,I don't see the harm, of giving me a book with rules I want and taking my money? Are you saying WOTC doesn't want my money?

Return on Investment: why spend money to get a little money, when they can spend less and get more money?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Return on Investment: why spend money to get a little money, when they can spend less and get more money?

There is also, the issue that, an optional set rules, @Minigiant wants amounts to splitting the market. It would be a case of Wizards creating something that completes with its own product. A big marketing No,no