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

[Maxperson]

Encumbrance would be more interesting if it had a wider usage, like making it easier to walk underwater or could be used to throw heavy sheets over enemies to encumber them.

Why wouldn't those things work? They make perfect sense and D&D is a roleplaying game, so the DM should be willing to improvise if the base encumbrance rules don't cover the situation.

 

[Incenjucar]

Why wouldn't those things work? They make perfect sense and D&D is a roleplaying game, so the DM should be willing to improvise if the base encumbrance rules don't cover the situation.

It's mainly just not something people are encouraged to consider often. Interacting systems are my bread and butter, personally.

 

[Hussar]

But they don't do that consistently. Like if the spelljammer rules set would have been as good as ravenloft or ebberon, a lot less people would complain.
With Spelljammer we got like barley anything.
So even in comparison to other WotC 5e products Spelljammer is ... to use a neutral term "basic".
And the rules that are there are not a functioning set of rules.
Like, the RAW exploration rules work. They do what they are supposed to do. They could be better but they are a base point. The spelljammer ship to ship combat rules don't work.
The "rules" to create your own wildspace systems should be more than "Look at the two wildspace systems in the adventure as examples".

I use other 5e books as a baseline and in comparison to Ebberon or Ravenloft is Spelljammer just really bad. Even the Sword Coast Adventurers Guide is better.

And yet I’m now several months into my Spelljammer campaign and having a blast.

 

[Hussar]

Again, "everyone is happy", except you. Do your preferences not matter here?

How am I not happy? I’m running a successful campaign with engaged players. That’s a win.

Oh well, I don’t get to indulge my love of tabletop war gaming during DnD time.

Here’s the biggest problem DnD has - the idea that the dms preferences should be more important than the groups.

 

[jasper]

I absolutely do not respect whatever purpose might be served by needless beancounting.

We been in the jungle for a month. No Dollar General. I am out of arrows. My iron rations have rusted. And I have diaper rash. I am going to charge the next monster I see and see if I can respawn back in Waterdeep.

 

[Lanefan]

Money is more of a concern than you're allowing for...especially if you want to run a game where encumbrance actually matters. Because there are scads of ways to spend just a bit of money and then essentially obviate all encumbrance concerns. If money flows like water, having encumbrance isn't better than lacking it.

Ah. I keep forgetting that bags of holding are common as dirt in 5e, as I'm in a system where they're as rare as hens' teeth.

I maintain that making bags of holding that common in 5e does a disservice to the game, but maybe I should put that in the "unpopular opinions" thread.

Availability is another. Just because you have a million bucks and no weight limit doesn't mean you can find anything under the sun in Podunk.

To a point, as unless the good burghers of Podunk are themselves very short of supplies there's going to be food etc. to be had.

And I'm talking just the basics here: food, water, clothing, minor gear such as rope. I agree that not every town is going to have an armourer capable of banging out a decent suit of plate, for example, or have available a good spyglass for purchase.

Capacity in some form other than encumbrance can be a third. E.g., as I mentioned before, you can only wear so many weapons, hold so many things, etc. That's not relevant for everything, but it's relevant for some things. Great, you can carry a thousand suits of plate mail--too bad it takes forever to switch between them so there's literally no point. Etc.

You're certainly on to something with your implied inclusion of bulk as a factor, but a slot-like system is really just encumbrance using a different measurement.

In my own system I kinda wave at this for armour: each armour type has two listed weights: a "worn" weight for when it is being worn and a higher "carried" weight for when it is not, to partly reflect the bulk and inconvenicnce of carrying it. I got this idea after looking at hockey players - their bags of equipment are far more awkward to carry around than that equipment is to "carry" while being worn.

Spoilage and other timing-based mechanics (which I alluded to previously.)

That can be a factor once you're out in the field but doesn't (or shouldn't!) affect what you can load up on while in town. Wear and tear on things such as armour, shields, backpacks, etc. also falls into this category.

 

[Hussar]

You keep harping on this, yet it's obvious to you and it's obvious to everyone that no one literally meant there were no rules (even if they said it). It was hyperbole, and you know it. So why not just acknowledge that you understand what the poster meant (that they didn't like the rules, not that they literally didn't exist) and move on?

I’m not so sure. There have been a number of people who haven’t read the rules who cite “it doesn’t have ship combat rules” as a reason for disliking it.

It’s kinda taking on a life of its own as it goes off into the wild.

 

[Hussar]

Food and water as a traceable resource in DnD? Lol.

Good grief, by 5th level in any version of DnD, those become instantly solvable problems.

Never minding Purify food and drink means you can eat monsters.

How much meat is on a manticore? Certainly enough to feed your group for a couple of weeks. Given the whole adnd schtick of random monsters showing up all the time, who needs to hunt?

Supplies have never been an issue in DnD. It’s one of those mythical white board theory things that never actually matters at the table.

“Oh look how realistic my campaign is! I track all this stuff” slams into the fact that none of it is even remotely a challenge after a couple of levels.

 

[jasper]

So, you admit that the rules are literally present. Well and fine.

There were periods (.), Commas (,) and the occasional semi-colon ( in the book too. But that doesn't mean the ships rules were useful.
In fact to make the ships match the rules; you will need to remove the ballista and catapults.

 

[Micah Sweet]

How am I not happy? I’m running a successful campaign with engaged players. That’s a win.

Oh well, I don’t get to indulge my love of tabletop war gaming during DnD time.

Here’s the biggest problem DnD has - the idea that the dms preferences should be more important than the groups.

So the group's are more important? If there's a conflict, the player's always win?