D&D 5E What are the "True Issues" with 5e?

[Parmandur]

I'm pretty sure that everyone understood. I feel ya - hyperbole can get a bit much. But when it's obviously and clearly hyperbole you can just take their (overblown) point, disagree with it, and move on. You spent three posts (at least) trying to counter it!

Now, I'm trying to keep the peace here, so I don't want to get into an argument with you. I get it. You found it annoying that they overstated their case. I really understand. I think it's clear that I felt the same way about your counter-arguments, or I wouldn't have spoken up.

It would be nice if everyone avoided overblowing their statements, but I also feel that everyone could benefit by just recognizing hyperbole for what it is: An exaggeration for effect. Once you understand that they're overblowing their statement (which is actually usually pretty early on, isn't it?) You can just acknowledge it (to yourself) and move on.

Right, I'm not trying to convince anyone to like a fantasy game rule they don't enjoy: I constricted myself to deflating the hyperbole, because no, not everyone gets that it is hyperbole. As such, it needs to be pointed out for what it is.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Right, I'm not trying to convince anyone to like a fantasy game rule they don't enjoy: I constricted myself to deflating the hyperbole, because no, not everyone gets that it is hyperbole. As such, it needs to be pointed out for what it is.

I don't think that's true. (That not everyone gets hyperbole) - I think that some people (yourself included) are so annoyed by it, that they pretend not to understand it, in order to argue with the person who used it. And WIN! Because you're always right when you (general you) post, "That's not literally true!" against hyperbole. If it were literally true, it wouldn't be hyperbole!

So it's an easy "win".

But everyone loses, because that type of argument is quite often one of the things that can make it unpleasant around here. We can tackle the problem by trying to get people to carefully word their posts to avoid the use of hyperbole, but that's not likely to succeed. So the other choice is to understand that a overstatement is an overstatement. Not the nicest thing, but hardly a big deal. It just means that the poster is passionate about what they're posting, even if technically incorrect. Ignore it and listen to what they're saying, not how they're saying it.

That's what I try to do, anyway. Carry on!

(This post meant with much love and respect for all of you. Seriously.)

 

[Cadence]

Because the hyperbole is very annoying, and I have seen people get confused and think that the books "literally have no ship combat rules" because of the ridiculous hylerpole was taken as factual rather than hyperbole.

Raises hand. I bought the books for my son but haven't read them. Based on some other folks comments I thought for a few pages of the thread that it literally had none. And then was confused for another page or two.

 

[Parmandur]

I don't think that's true. (That not everyone gets hyperbole) - I think that some people (yourself included) are so annoyed by it, that they pretend not to understand it, in order to argue with the person who used it. And WIN! Because you're always right when you (general you) post, "That's not literally true!" against hyperbole. If it were literally true, it wouldn't be hyperbole!

So it's an easy "win".

But everyone loses, because that type of argument is quite often one of the things that can make it unpleasant around here. We can tackle the problem by trying to get people to carefully word their posts to avoid the use of hyperbole, but that's not likely to succeed. So the other choice is to understand that a overstatement is an overstatement. Not the nicest thing, but hardly a big deal. It just means that the poster is passionate about what they're posting, even if technically incorrect. Ignore it and listen to what they're saying, not how they're saying it.

That's what I try to do, anyway. Carry on!

(This post meant with much love and respect for all of you. Seriously.)

No, I have seen some people who were literally confused by the misinformation spread by the hyperbole. I don't care if anyone feels disappointed with the quick and dirty ship combat rules...some want a deeper simulation. But the rules are there, they exist, and they do what they intend to do. I simply want it to be clear to others what's in the book.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

No, I have seen some people who were literally confused by the misinformation spread by the hyperbole. I don't care if anyone feels disappointed with the quick and dirty ship combat rules...some want a deeper simulation. But the rules are there, they exist, and they do what they intend to do. I simply want it to be clear to others what's in the book.

Someone asked what was in the book quite awhile back, and it's long since been clarified. I tend to feel that arguments are often made on "behalf of others" - others that might not even exist!

You are trying to reveal the other poster's hyperbole, when you yourself understand that that's what it was. But I suspect you'd find, if there was some way to poll it, that there's no one here who didn't understand that it was an exaggeration for effect.

(Or in the very least, it's long past the time that no one remains).

At any rate, I'm happy to drop the subject if you are! I like to think that you and I generally get along. For my part, I mean no disrespect by critiquing your earlier posts.

 

[Undrave]

THIS. This is my problem with Spelljammer ship-to-ship rules. I want "quick-and-dirty". These rules aren't that. They're rules that just don't work. If they were quick and dirty AND actually worked, I'd be fine with them.

And before I hear "well, I can run them fine!"... SO CAN I. I just have to do all the work to bang them into shape myself. The rules themselves don't work. You have to ignore them/make stuff up to make it work.

All I'm asking is for WotC to print rules that you can actually use as written. And I'm not a DM who cares much about RAW - it's the other way around. I want RAW to reflect how the game is played, not the game being played by RAW. (If you get what I mean). If EVERYONE has to houserule to make the rules work, then the rules need to change.

A ship should be built in components, with each components targetable (maybe a system for random hits?) and each doing something for the ship. You need hull components to hold other components and each one provide ship HP, you have masts that grant your ship speed for each mast, you have weapon sections to attack (with rate of fire growing as damage goes down and vice versa), a control section to navigate, and maybe even a section or two dedicated to magitech components. A magical communicaton array? A Orb of Fog Control? A bubble orchard that provides goodberries automatically? Extra storage space? It’s DnD! Gotta be original!

 

[Golroc]

Weight-based encumbrance works in extremely crunch-heavy games and/or if the mechanics are handled by software (either digital tabletop tooling or a computer game). For anything less than that it's much better to have abstracted systems - Pathfinder's bulk system is an example of relatively gamey and crunch-based encumbrance system.

Even when it comes to realism/verisimilitude (not that this is a core feature of D&D), weight is not enough to represent carrying capacity and the hindrance imposed by carrying things that are large, heavy, unwieldy, etc. It makes a whole of difference when considering the impact on a task (be that movement, dodging, climbing, lock-picking or performing an intricate dance with multiple partners) how the weight and volume is distributed. So a weight-based system is, in addition to being awkward and demanding, also not a very good simulation of reality. A well-designed abstract system could beat out old-school encumbrance.

I see it very much as a legacy mechanic. It's there because it kept carrying over. And for some mechanics that's perfectly fine - a system can have features that are suboptimal when viewed in isolation and without regard for the historical context of the system. I would claim that almost every system has this to a lesser or greater degree - even quite modern and streamlined systems often have a little bit of nostalgic cruft somewhere. But who enjoys encumbrance? It should really have been replaced by something like bulk a long time ago. Or an even simpler system. I have a vague recollection of an earlier version of D&D having an optional simplified encumbrance system, but I might be imagining that or maybe it was something from one of the periods where the game had a bajillion optional systems spread across the many publications and articles.

Either way, I would consider the act of not removing encumbrance as it is in D&D downright lazy and/or incompetent, if they refuse to replace it with something better. There's no good reason to keep it. From a commercial perspective nor from a design perspective.

 

[Cadence]

Either way, I would consider the act of not removing encumbrance as it is in D&D downright lazy and/or incompetent, if they refuse to replace it with something better. There's no good reason to keep it. From a commercial perspective nor from a design perspective.

But if they get rid of it we'll lose the verification of how absurdly strong D&D beings are (a strength of 7 being enough to swim unhindered with 100+ pounds of bricks strapped to you, for example).

 

[billd91]

Weight-based encumbrance works in extremely crunch-heavy games and/or if the mechanics are handled by software (either digital tabletop tooling or a computer game). For anything less than that it's much better to have abstracted systems - Pathfinder's bulk system is an example of relatively gamey and crunch-based encumbrance system.

Even when it comes to realism/verisimilitude (not that this is a core feature of D&D), weight is not enough to represent carrying capacity and the hindrance imposed by carrying things that are large, heavy, unwieldy, etc. It makes a whole of difference when considering the impact on a task (be that movement, dodging, climbing, lock-picking or performing an intricate dance with multiple partners) how the weight and volume is distributed. So a weight-based system is, in addition to being awkward and demanding, also not a very good simulation of reality. A well-designed abstract system could beat out old-school encumbrance.

<snip>

Either way, I would consider the act of not removing encumbrance as it is in D&D downright lazy and/or incompetent, if they refuse to replace it with something better. There's no good reason to keep it. From a commercial perspective nor from a design perspective.

I think a lot of us would agree that encumbrance based on weight alone isn't enough to truly cover all elements of being hindered by carrying things that may be bulky. However, the way it currently relies just on weight isn't simply a legacy issue. The original encumbrance system from 1e did feature bulkiness beyond mere weight (See Appendix O of the DMG). Moving to just incorporate weight was D&D abstracting itself away from that additional complexity of trying to also estimate something's relative bulk and how to modify its weight as a result.

That said, I do think the PF2 bulk encumbrance system does have a lot going for it.

 

[Oofta]

But if they get rid of it we'll lose the verification of how absurdly strong D&D beings are (a strength of 7 being enough to swim unhindered with 100+ pounds of bricks strapped to you, for example).

Unless they're wearing heavy armor. Then it doesn't matter if they have a belt of cloud giant strength on, they are immediately teleported to the bottom of the ocean where they cannot move because it "weighs 65 pounds".

Wearing half plate that weighs "only" 40 pounds of course has no effect even if you have an 8 strength because it's "medium" armor. Gear being carried, a shield strapped to your arm, weapons of all sorts are also completely ignored.

Spoiler: On swimming and armor

There was a video I came across a while back that showed an average older guy jumping into a lake wearing full chainmail armor. The gambeson that is worn under armor actually acted as a flotation device, at least for the several minutes he was swimming around.

So I have no clue what impact armor of any type would be. If you think anything less than heavy armor should have no effect, try jumping into a lake wearing a winter coat and full backpack sometime and let me know how it works.

EDIT: forgot to add that plate mail was not 65 pounds, it was more likely to be around 40-50 pounds if it matters.