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

[Baron Opal II]

Tents stop nothing mechanically.

Yes they do.
Oh, right, yes in 5e they're technically pointless. I fixed that. Sorry.

It's okay if you're into it, but don't tell me what's not tedious to me. Or make me engage with it.

I'm not telling you to do anything, just what I do. I don't find it tedious to do something once at the beginning of an adventure. You do.

You don't like wizards, I do. You really want most things to be encounter based*, I don't. 5e promised to be more flexible, it's not.

* My opinion based on what I remember of your posts. I could be wrong.

You know what would be good Man Vs Nature stuff?

Weather rules!

More interesting terrain features including hazardous terrain like poison sumac patches and crumbling escarpments!

Fantastic animals the game doesn't insist are monstrosities with lairs and watering holes and game trails!

Camping equipment that does things!

Cooking and Fishing and Trapping and Crafting!

Any of the actual reasons people go hiking and camping instead of faithfully reproducing the Donner Party Experience of just suffering through the trip!

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[Baron Opal II]

That's not really true. They provide exactly as much or as little shelter as the DM decides.

There are, AFAIK, and please correct me if I'm wrong, no rules in 5E that say tents provide actual meaningful shelter and I've certainly come across DMs who think they basically don't, and I don't think they were being difficult, just their concept of a medieval tent was that it kept the rain off and not much else. Nothing in the one-line description really challenges this.

Right. I forget sometimes how much I've houseruled my game in particular wilderness issues. It seems like the game's designers never read any Kipling, London, or Stevenson.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's not really true. They provide exactly as much or as little shelter as the DM decides.

There are, AFAIK, and please correct me if I'm wrong, no rules in 5E that say tents provide actual meaningful shelter and I've certainly come across DMs who think they basically don't, and I don't think they were being difficult, just their concept of a medieval tent was that it kept the rain off and not much else. Nothing in the one-line description really challenges this.

Whereas Tiny Hut specifies exactly what it does:

The atmosphere inside the space is comfortable and dry, regardless of the weather outside.

And this is the pattern that @Vaalingrade is, I believe, referring to.

Magic gives exact details on exactly how it works, and can never fail. You can't screw up casting Tiny Hut and it always gives that perfect shelter. You can't make Goodberries that don't work, nor can they go bad or otherwise fail, and one is all anyone needs. Also each tent fits 2 people, and "Tiny Hut" ain't that tiny because it fits 9 people.

Unfortunately 5E doesn't really support that conflict mechanically.

An RPG could, and I'm sure there are 3PP supplements for 5E that do, but 5E doesn't, really. So it becomes a matter of what you can get the DM to agree to. And unfortunately we come back to one of the key problems with all editions of D&D except, arguably, 4E, which is that only casters get to make statements about what's happening, everyone else has to negotiate with the DM. And it doesn't matter how reasonable the DM is, negotiating is simply different from making statements. So you're going to have to argue about how your tents help in this blizzard or whatever, or the spellcaster can just state to the DM that he's casting Tiny Hut, and state what Tiny Hut does, and the DM just has to go along with that, there's no negotiation or discussion. It's just what happens. And if you slightly adversarial DM? It's more of an issue - he may be a fun DM, but if he likes to argue, this problem increases. Because he still can't argue with the caster. He just has to accept it.

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

D&D just hasn't developed rules well in that area, and D&D's absolutist, never-fails approach utility magic lets you state game reality to the DM in a way that nothing else does.

What if you don't want to make absolute statements outside of magic, because doing so feels unrealistic to you?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yes they do.
Oh, right, yes in 5e they're technically pointless. I fixed that. Sorry.

I mean in all the E's really. Except I think there were actual environmental variations on survival gear in the 3x Biome books (Stormwrack, Sandstorm, and Frostburn) And they were hilarious expensive.

I'm not telling you to do anything, just what I do. I don't find it tedious to do something once at the beginning of an adventure. You do.

You don't like wizards, I do. You really want most things to be encounter based*, I don't. 5e promised to be more flexible, it's not.

* My opinion based on what I remember of your posts. I could be wrong.

You are correct, I am great.

I agree wholeheartedly.

That's the whole deal. D&D historically only views Exploration as a series of logistical chores and penalties for not doing them rather than... like... exploring.

Like, I treat survival checks in travel as chances to find cool stuff. You don't find food, you find a giant tree that is overtaken by a honeycomb, only the bees are jarring that honey up for a bear-were druid who gives you some jars in exchange for your silence as to where Grandma Bruin's Hunny comes from. Or you go fishing and get an encounter where you fistfight with a bear like that one commercial -- it's all very bear-based, to be honest, but can be expanded to raccoons and possibly squirrels.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Right. I forget sometimes how much I've houseruled my game in particular wilderness issues. It seems like the game's designers never read any Kipling, London, or Stevenson.

I'm not certain they've even seen an REI commercial.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

What if you don't want to make absolute statements outside of magic, because doing so feels unrealistic to you?

I can't sympathize with anyone who thinks PC magic should work perfectly 100% of the time, I'm sorry.

I can sympathize with objecting to absolute statements in general, but yes for PC magic, no for everyone else? No. Pick a lane. Magicians in fiction screw up and fail at stuff, even outside combat. Even Vance's magicians do, that's the funny thing. I kind of assumed they wouldn't, before I read Vance, but they do.

Due to peculiarities of development, though D&D only made in-combat magic capable of failure. I do not believe this was an intentional, considered, thoughtful decision, or even really decision at all. I believe it was an oversight that got turned into tradition.

 

[Baron Opal II]

What if you don't want to make absolute statements outside of magic, because doing so feels unrealistic to you?

Well you have to have something. Choices are mechanically or stylistically made. There's little style in a tent unless it's a pavillion.

 

[mamba]

What if you don't want to make absolute statements outside of magic, because doing so feels unrealistic to you?

then you are stuck with the gap we have now. I am also not sure how absolute statements are unrealistic. Say something like 'a tent can withstand winds up to 25 mph when correctly set up. It protects from sun and rain." I see no problem with that

 

[Oofta]

That's not really true. They provide exactly as much or as little shelter as the DM decides.

There are, AFAIK, and please correct me if I'm wrong, no rules in 5E that say tents provide actual meaningful shelter and I've certainly come across DMs who think they basically don't, and I don't think they were being difficult, just their concept of a medieval tent was that it kept the rain off and not much else. Nothing in the one-line description really challenges this.

...

So wait, you're arguing that tents offer no protection because it's not defined by the book? As if no one knows what a "tent" is in real life and extrapolate? That somehow not explaining how a tent works is a failing of the rules? Are they also supposed to explain the purpose and uses of a shovel?

 

[Baron Opal II]

You are correct, I am great.

Your glasses certainly have a tint. Not rose, but something...

That's the whole deal. D&D historically only views Exploration as a series of logistical chores and penalties for not doing them rather than... like... exploring.

The "logistical chores" are a 5 minute discussion on how much the party wants to rely on supplies and gear vs magic or skill. However, it's difficult for you to appreciate that without me going into details that you probably aren't interested in. And that's okay. You don't have to. But, just as you have your preferences I have mine. And they're pretty great, too.

Like, I treat survival checks in travel as chances to find cool stuff. You don't find food, you find a giant tree that is overtaken by a honeycomb, only the bees are jarring that honey up for a bear-were druid who gives you some jars in exchange for your silence as to where Grandma Bruin's Hunny comes from. Or you go fishing and get an encounter where you fistfight with a bear like that one commercial -- it's all very bear-based, to be honest, but can be expanded to raccoons and possibly squirrels.

Hard to go wrong with bears. I also have moa involved for a little variety.