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

[Baron Opal II]

But having to know details of how a tent works is just an example of the never-ending rabbit hole you can go down.

For a game that is supposed to support wilderness exploration it seems appropriate that there be challenges to overcome, things to discover, and means to do both. I don't think it is out of line to have some kind of logistical challenge if you need to go to Mt. Erebus. But, if that's something people don't want to bother with, that's fine.

That's what 3PP is for and why it's important for WOTC to continue supporting them.

Don't tempt me. I have enough to do as it is.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

when a player can spend a meta-bennie to just happen to have that tool on hand even though there's no other good in-fiction reason to have brought it.

I guess my personal experience of these systems is that the bolded bit is never true.

Because so far, and maybe that could change tomorrow, every time I've seen a piece of equipment gained like this:

A) It has to be plausible that the PC could have brought it (so if they're in some sort of Mission Impossible catsuit or something that really limits them lol, equally if they're a weak little thing).

B) It's going to be something suitable for the mission, and so far, that's meant everything that's been "Oh but I did remember!" this way has been on-point and logical.

I mean maybe one day someone will try to use a token to pull out some tiger-repellent in a mirror-maze that wasn't supposed to have any tigers in it, but did, but I haven't seen that yet!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Has anyone tried the survival things in Level-Up (A5E) to see how they flesh out one 5e possibility?

I have, a bit. My players seem to enjoy it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

For some of this stuff there's 3PP, but WOTC has clearly picked a lane here and detailed simulation isn't in that lane. I understand some people may want other things but I'm also pragmatic enough to know that they aren't going to revisit the TSR days of a gazillion supplements. It didn't really work then, I see no reason it would work now.

Depends on what you mean by "work". Worked like gangbusters for me.

 

[James Gasik]

A couple of points to add:
For some players, it's not just about not worrying about how much they're carrying for a "more heroic mode" but also to allow them to have a Dex-melee build and dump their Strength stat without a suffering a trade-off. That may sound cynical, but we've encountered plenty of discussion on these boards about players who dump Strength now.

And as for the issue of annoying one set of players who don't want to deal with it vs one set who does - that's why individual tables need a Session 0 to hash the issue out for the group if some players feel strongly about it. It may indicate a general play style incompatibility.

This is a good point. If your mental image of your character is a hulking slab of beef wrapped in plate armor, encumbrance isn't that much of an issue for you; most high-Strength characters can carry way more stuff than they need to.

If you want to play a sneaky, sly, artful dodger who isn't strong, but agile, encumbrance is a big deal, and interferes with what you want to do, since you have to carefully manage your inventory.

Now, obviously, Dexterity-focused characters have lots of advantages, so having a tradeoff is far from bad, but the tradeoff here is "you want Dexterity high? You get to do math and sometimes can't carry treasure."

You shouldn't balance mechanics by making them onerous to use- if you don't want low-Strength characters in the game, just ban them, lol.

Of course, realistically, what usually happens is that the party's strong guy carries around everything the other characters can't, and that's generally the end of worrying about encumbrance.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is a good point. If your mental image of your character is a hulking slab of beef wrapped in plate armor, encumbrance isn't that much of an issue for you; most high-Strength characters can carry way more stuff than they need to.

If you want to play a sneaky, sly, artful dodger who isn't strong, but agile, encumbrance is a big deal, and interferes with what you want to do, since you have to carefully manage your inventory.

Now, obviously, Dexterity-focused characters have lots of advantages, so having a tradeoff is far from bad, but the tradeoff here is "you want Dexterity high? You get to do math and sometimes can't carry treasure."

You shouldn't balance mechanics by making them onerous to use- if you don't want low-Strength characters in the game, just ban them, lol.

Of course, realistically, what usually happens is that the party's strong guy carries around everything the other characters can't, and that's generally the end of worrying about encumbrance.

I don't want no low-Strength characters. I want it to  matter if you choose to play a low-Strength character.

 

[Lanefan]

I guess my personal experience of these systems is that the bolded bit is never true.

Because so far, and maybe that could change tomorrow, every time I've seen a piece of equipment gained like this:

A) It has to be plausible that the PC could have brought it (so if they're in some sort of Mission Impossible catsuit or something that really limits them lol, equally if they're a weak little thing).

B) It's going to be something suitable for the mission, and so far, that's meant everything that's been "Oh but I did remember!" this way has been on-point and logical.

I mean maybe one day someone will try to use a token to pull out some tiger-repellent in a mirror-maze that wasn't supposed to have any tigers in it, but did, but I haven't seen that yet!

Let's take a simple example: ye olde ten-foot pole.

No-one has "ten-foot pole" listed on their character sheet*, but a situation has arisen - e.g. deep in a dungeon there's something hanging on a loop of light chain on the other side of a 6-foot chasm that's already been shown or telegraphed as deadly for the living to cross - where a ten-foot pole would be the perfect solution.

Now, a ten-foot pole is the poster child for mundane gear. Do you allow them to use a token to have brought one, and if yes, do you then somehow retcon their having had that ten-foot pole all along and the various inconveniences it might have caused e.g. with stealth or with fitting through narrow twisty passages?

Or instead if they want one do you make them go back outside, fashion one from a sapling, and return (thus meaning they have to face the journey's other hazards twice)?

For me it's the second option every time.

* - nor anything similar such as a polearm, and Unseen Servant and-or Telekinesis aren't available.

 

[billd91]

You shouldn't balance mechanics by making them onerous to use-

Depends on what's "onerous". You could always drop those mechanics. That's one option. It's also the option that contributed significantly to a lot of people viewing 3e as "caster edition" because there were several aspects of casting in AD&D dropped for 3e because someone thought they were on the onerous side to use. They did, however, serve as balancing mechanisms.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Now, a ten-foot pole is the poster child for mundane gear. Do you allow them to use a token to have brought one, and if yes, do you then somehow retcon their having had that ten-foot pole all along and the various inconveniences it might have caused e.g. with stealth or with fitting through narrow twisty passages?

I would not have bothered with all that even if they bought the 10 foot pole in the first place. Or given them a collapsible one if one of them cared.

 

[Vaalingrade]

That's one option. It's also the option that contributed significantly to a lot of people viewing 3e as "caster edition" because there were several aspects of casting in AD&D dropped for 3e because they were on the onerous side to use. They did, however, serve as balancing mechanisms.

There's also the part where all of the stuff Fighters had was replaced by 'let's misuse the brilliant feat system to create needlessly lengthy feats trees instead of class features' and a Leadership feat that instantly got banned for being too fun.