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

[W'rkncacnter]

If the Book of Many Things isn't this, then I will call them cowards.

i've got the coward stick ready

 

[mamba]

But that IS kind of what this industry has always been. And not just D&D. We’re always making up worlds, antagonists, dungeons, supervillains, planetary systems, friendly NPCs, horrific conspiracies of cultists, etc etc.

they used to at least give us the rules, which is what this was about

 

[billd91]

they used to at least give us the rules, which is what this was about

For tents? In any publication other than the Wilderness Survival Guide? Or shovels? Or 10’ poles?

 

[Hussar]

For tents? In any publication other than the Wilderness Survival Guide? Or shovels? Or 10’ poles?

Arms and equipment guides for 2e and 3e. The Vault thingie for 4e.

But I imagine the new deck book might catch a lot of this.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But a little bit more of what? Ship combat rules?
That may sound a bit flippant given another conversation on this board, but there is a litany of different things different players want more details about for D&D. How many of them can be done and still not be a huge ask?

So the answer is don't do any of them?

 

[mamba]

But I imagine the new deck book might catch a lot of this.

I’d be really surprised if it did

 

[Lanefan]

When has D&D ever provided that level of detail?

1e had equipment lists and pricing, and pricing for numerous types of structures and vehicles (and pricing for individual components of a castle). It didn't have weather tables - fortunately I'm weather-savvy and could (and did) make my own - but it did in various places have reference to environmental extremes and their effects on characters.

And if 1e could do these things in 1979, surely 5e can do them today.

I just think people are asking D&D to be something it's really never been.

And is that, in and of itself, a bad thing?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not quite a fair comparison though.

There aren’t ship combat rules at all in the core rules. So any rules are an addition.

We already have pages of rules for how magic interacts with mundane tasks. You could go the other way - a tent is equal to Leomund’s Hut. Using a shovel is equal to the move earth cantrip (sorry forgot the exact name).

I mean we already HAVE these rule interactions in the game. But only if it’s magic.

It’s the double standard that I object to.

I can make a sword with a Fabricate spell. I know exactly what I can make with a fabricate spell.

What can I make with smith’s tools and how long does it take?

After all, my character can have and be proficient with these tools. But I have no idea how long it takes to make an iron key. Can I make a lock with smith’s tools? How long does it take?

On and on.

I like our dynamic in this thread much better than the other one.

 

[Lanefan]

What if a player declares that they steal one of the beer steins, shove it in their backpack, and then later on declare - as the GM is describing the heavy secret door slamming shut behind the PCs - that they pull it out and shove it between door and wall to stop the door fully closing?

How can we possibly adjudicate that without half-a-page of stats for the full range of beer steins, including their physical tolerances to being crushed by the pressure of counter-weighted heavy stone doors?

1e handles this, at least to a point: the beer stein (counted as "soft wood") would get a save vs crushing blow. The "to a point" is that the DM would have to decide what bonuses or penalties would apply to said save due to the stein's construction and-or the weight/force of the closing door.

This obliquely points to another issue with all the WotC editions: the TSR-edition version where the type of save (both for characters and for items) was determined by the source or type of impending possible harm was way better than the purely stat-based saves in use now that don't consider where the harm is coming from or how it is being applied.

 

[Micah Sweet]

1e handles this, at least to a point: the beer stein (counted as "soft wood") would get a save vs crushing blow. The "to a point" is that the DM would have to decide what bonuses or penalties would apply to said save due to the stein's construction and-or the weight/force of the closing door.

This obliquely points to another issue with all the WotC editions: the TSR-edition version where the type of save (both for characters and for items) was determined by the source or type of impending possible harm was way better than the purely stat-based saves in use now that don't consider where the harm is coming from or how it is being applied.

Seriously. I hate the save mechanics for all the WotC editions.