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

[Mannahnin]

Shovels and whatnot don't have interactions with the rules like, as pointed out above, unlike torches which we need to know how much light they shed.

Why don't we need even a rough approximation of how much earth a character can move in a given period with a shovel? The spells tell us how much and how fast they do it. Even a simple abstract rule here would give the tool a purpose other than pure color, and support more exploration problem-solving.

 

[Oofta]

Why don't we need even a rough approximation of how much earth a character can move in a given period with a shovel? The spells tell us how much and how fast they do it. Even a simple abstract rule here would give the tool a purpose other than pure color, and support more exploration problem-solving.

I'm tired of answering the same question. Asking again isn't going to change my answer. It depends on where you're digging. End of story.

 

[mamba]

I wouldn't mind this, but the potential catalog of fantasy equipment would seem, to me, to be nigh infinite. At some point you have to surrender to the law of diminishing returns.

sure, but that is not a handful of items or so

 

[Mannahnin]

I'm tired of answering the same question. Asking again isn't going to change my answer. It depends on where you're digging. End of story.

Ok, but if you assert "it doesn't interact with the rules" after people have suggested "Hey, maybe it should", then you're being nonresponsive to the discussion.

And if you assert "it's totally dependent on where you're digging" after folks suggest that rules for digging could be relatively simple and abstract, that comes across like you're still stuck on the fallacy of the excluded middle. There can be a reasonable and playable middle ground between "no rules at all" and "heavy and detailed", and that's kind of the main design ethos of 5E.

 

[Oofta]

Ok, but if you assert "it doesn't interact with the rules" after people have suggested "Hey, maybe it should", then you're being nonresponsive to the discussion.

And if you assert "it's totally dependent on where you're digging" after folks suggest that rules for digging could be relatively simple and abstract, that comes across like you're still stuck on the fallacy of the excluded middle. There can be a reasonable and playable middle ground between "no rules at all" and "heavy and detailed", and that's kind of the main design ethos of 5E.

I'm done explaining my opinion.

 

[SteveC]

Ok, but if you assert "it doesn't interact with the rules" after people have suggested "Hey, maybe it should", then you're being nonresponsive to the discussion.

And if you assert "it's totally dependent on where you're digging" after folks suggest that rules for digging could be relatively simple and abstract, that comes across like you're still stuck on the fallacy of the excluded middle. There can be a reasonable and playable middle ground between "no rules at all" and "heavy and detailed", and that's kind of the main design ethos of 5E.

I think sometimes you just have to come out and say it: I don't care. I don't care about rules for digging because I can't imagine them being an interesting part of the fiction that I want to explore. That doesn't mean I don't care about a shovel, for instance, but the existence of a shovel on the equipment list tells me that there will be interesting things for me to dig up as part of the game. If you've played BG3 you know what this means. When I came across a shovel I thought "why do I care about this?" and then I later learned why.

The things you put into a game tell you what the designers think are important, or at least they should tell that. In my experience, a lot of equipment in D&D is there because it's always there, and someone arbitrarily said "yeah, that makes sense for it to be there."

You only have limited space in a game and putting things that a majority of players think are important to interact with and will think of as important is how (in my opinion) you should do equipment if you're not going to abstract it. You have a tent, but do you have a tent pole? Stakes to mount the tent with? A tent floor to keep you dry? Don't know, but we assume things, don't we? It's the level which we want to spell things out in detail as opposed to just making assumptions or abstracting them that matters when we discuss equipment.

I don't think it's going out too far on a limb to say that many complex use cases for different equipment are more than the typical D&D player wants to go in terms of rules. What we're discussing is where the line is drawn for making that happen.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

The DMG does have some examples of construction costs and times for a variety of structures players might use as a stronghold, but unfortunately you're right that not having just a basic house seems to be an oversight. Worth mentioning the maintenance cost section also addresses that "what do we do with all this gold" problem people were mentioning near the beginning of the thread.

that's pretty meh because there aren't exactly rules for what size they take up or how they effect the world or your character. it's really just the bare minimu--hey, wait, what the hell...?

Work can continue while the character is away, but each day the character is away adds 3 days to the construction time.

...wow. that's an awful rule. that just recursively increases construction time forever (since every day that passes - including the added days, as written - adds more and more time to construction). all they had to say was "construction time is quadrupled while the character is away" and they still managed to find a way to phrase it as to make it completely nonfunctional. i'm actually kind of impressed.

 

[Gammadoodler]

sure, but that is not a handful of items or so

Maybe, but if I went into my garage, I could probably find a hundred different tools I could justify as things that could belong in a d&d setting, and I'm not particularly handy.

Could we have mechanics for all of them?
Sure.
Is it likely that I will come across a specific relevant situation for even half of them?
No

Are many of them related to a small subset of tasks, say building construction and vehicle repair?
Yes.

Am I likely to take on small construction and vehicle repair tasks in the future?
Also yes.

I don't need separate mechanics for a framing hammer, a sledgehammer, a screwdriver, and a rubber mallet, I need to know whether I have a set of tools that will let me put up a wall.

I don't need specific mechanics for a metric vs. a traditional socket set, or an oil drip pan. I need to know whether I have the set of tools that will allow me to change the oil in my car.

 

[overgeeked]

Calling corporate interference is fair enough, but if the game isn't growing and innovating, I don't see the point of any new edition. I've outgrown 5E as a player and DM. Anyone can quote subtle differences between editions from 3E to 5E, but at the end of the day it's still using the d20 chassis, which to me, 23 years later is boring.

Infinite growth is impossible and innovation is the main problem a lot of people have with 5E. It's not innovating. It's the "(second) greatest hits" album of D&D editions. It borrows from other editions (except 4E) and does everything worse than those other editions. Not better. The main innovation of 5E was dis/advantage. That's it. That's not a lot.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Shovels and whatnot don't have interactions with the rules like, as pointed out above, unlike torches which we need to know how much light they shed.

Meanwhile housing is covered under costs of living.

A torch is a great item to use as a basis for comparison. We don't waffle about discussing the amount of the pitch or the type of wood or how wet or dry it is. Torches' ability to shed light does not deteriorate toward the end the torches lives.

We generalize. If you have a torch, it sheds x light for y time. Always.

Stuff like the shovel is no different. Either we generalize and say what it does, or get it the heck out of the rules.