What are your Pedantic Complaints about D&D?

Monayuris

Explorer
As a side note, your players are right. It's right in the PHB under the description of Healing Potion (pg 153). "Drinking or administering a potion takes an action.". This is also echoed to be true for all potions in the DMG, page 139.
Fair enough.

I chalk it up to rules in a new edition that I didn't bother reading since I'm used to the older editions way of doing things.

I still would house rule against this though. I think one could administer a potion to a conscious character but I would maintain that one couldn't do so to an unconscious one.

The thing with 'pedantic complaints about D&D' is that whatever edition presents such complaints and whatever complaints you have you can simply house rule the game to avoid them. I propose that once you buy the rule books, the game belongs to you and your group... do so with them as you please.

I know AL doesn't work like that, but I really don't care about AL.
 

Azzy

Cyclone Ranger
2. Automatic Crossbows. Get that nonsense out of here.
But repeating crossbows were real.

3. Studded Leather Armor. What do the studs even do?
The way studded leather was originally described in the 1e DMG makes it sound like brigandine armor, with the "studs" being the rivets that attach the metal plates to the leather/fabric.
 

Azzy

Cyclone Ranger
This leads into a whole other field of study, should one be so inclined, and that's to go through the Monster Manual, find all the cross-breed races (e.g. Tabaxi is part human, part cat), and then from there figure out what can in theory breed with what and-or have what in its bloodlines. Can, for example, a half-orc breed with a half-elf and produce an offspring that is genetically 1/4 elf, 1/4 orc, and the rest human?

I did this a long time ago using 1e's MM, FF, and MMII; and the results were rather staggering: a chart on a big piece of paper with lines connecting inter-breedable races that ended up looking like a plate of spaghetti. And that's before throwing in things like shape-shifting deities (consider the myths of deities like Zeus and Loki impregnating humans), demons, devils, and the like.

Ever since then, every character rolled up in my games gets a roll during char-gen to determine if there's anything unexpected in its bloodline - are you, for example, a distant descedant of a deity...or a devil, or an orc, or a cat...

So, back to topic: peeved that nobody, either in official D&D or a 3rd-party, has ever published anything like this even as a magazine article.
Have you considered that it's your turn to shine?
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I still would house rule against this though. I think one could administer a potion to a conscious character but I would maintain that one couldn't do so to an unconscious one.
If memory serves, I believe IRL that if an unconscious person is put into the correct position to avoid choking it is in fact possible to get a liquid into him-her, as swallowing is a reflexive action much like breathing.

Given that, no reason not to allow it in the game. :)
 

Monayuris

Explorer
If memory serves, I believe IRL that if an unconscious person is put into the correct position to avoid choking it is in fact possible to get a liquid into him-her, as swallowing is a reflexive action much like breathing.

Given that, no reason not to allow it in the game. :)
My thought was that it was dangerous to do so. Perhaps I'm wrong on this. I will keep it a complaint, but maybe I should adjust my rulings on this, going forward.

My largest complaint is that there are already so many ways to circumvent the threat of death in 5e that making potion administration so easy just adds to it.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
My thought was that it was dangerous to do so. Perhaps I'm wrong on this. I will keep it a complaint, but maybe I should adjust my rulings on this, going forward.

My largest complaint is that there are already so many ways to circumvent the threat of death in 5e that making potion administration so easy just adds to it.
Fair enough. I'm coming from an old-school background where sometimes it's the healer that's down and if you don't get that potion into him half the party are hooped... :)
 

Imaculata

Adventurer
But repeating crossbows were real.
Oh absolutely. But I dislike the D&D version. They are like crossbow machineguns.

The way studded leather was originally described in the 1e DMG makes it sound like brigandine armor, with the "studs" being the rivets that attach the metal plates to the leather/fabric.
I recently got the Pathfinder Ultimate Equipment book, (which is an amazing comprehensive book btw) and my eyes almost shot fire when I read the description of Studded Leather Armor. It was so dumb. How do they keep getting this wrong? Is anyone going to correct this at any point?

"An improved form of leather armor, studded leather armor is covered with dozens of metal protuberances. While these rounded studs offer little defense individually, in the numbers they are arrayed in upon such armor, they help catch lethal edges and channel them away from vital spots. The rigidity caused by the additional metal does, however, result in less mobility than is afforded by a suit of normal leather armor."

Another pet peeve of mine: Weapons with garbage stats. I hate it when there's a boatload of weapons in the player's handbook, and half of them no one in their right mind would ever consider taking, because of their poor damage. Then what's the point of having them at all? Do you really want to be the one in the party not pulling their weight, because you thought having a whip as a weapon was cool?
 
Last edited:

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
My thought was that it was dangerous to do so. Perhaps I'm wrong on this. I will keep it a complaint, but maybe I should adjust my rulings on this, going forward.

My largest complaint is that there are already so many ways to circumvent the threat of death in 5e that making potion administration so easy just adds to it.
I'm fine with your house rule and the reasoning behind it if that works for you and your table.

For me, the fact that a potion will take immediate effect implies that the "fantasy world physics" treat it as a magical effect and has nothing to do with going into the stomach and then the bloodstream. Rather that it's a vehicle for a magical effects much like a wand or other consumable, where the act of drinking evokes it.
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Another pet peeve of mine: Weapons with garbage stats. I hate it when there's a boatload of weapons in the player's handbook, and half of them no one in their right mind would ever consider taking, because of their poor damage. Then what's the point of having them at all? Do you really want to be the one in the party not pulling their weight, because you thought having a whip as a weapon was cool?
So, there's a couple of ways to look at this.

Assuming D&D, you have the following dice:
d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, d20.

Given the range of hit points for first level, and tradition, the actual range of weapon damage is fairly constricted.

In 1e, the range is from a minimum of 1-2 (dart v. large) to a maximum of 18 (3d6, two-handed sword v. large).
In 5e, the range is from a minimum of 1 (blowgun, special) to 4 (multiple d4) to a maximum of 12 (2d6 or d12)

That's a pretty small design space if you are trying to really differentiate weapons by damage!* So you either have to have a lot of "same-y" weapons (or, at the extreme, the old basic "d6 for everything") or you run the risk of getting weapons that are clearly preferred for some uses (the old longsword / rapier problem).


*If we throw out the 3d6 example, and we assume that D&D doesn't mix dice (no d4+d6 for a weapon), then we get the following possible ranges as a general rule:
1, 1-2, 1-3
d4, 2d4, 3d4
d6 2d6
d8
d10
d12

Maybe you could add in 4d4, 3d6, and 2d8.
 

Jonathan Tweet

Adventurer
How does a pre-industrial society hang together with super-powerful individuals and groups wandering the land at will, especially as these people rocket up in personal power in just a few years?
 

S'mon

Legend
How does a pre-industrial society hang together with super-powerful individuals and groups wandering the land at will, especially as these people rocket up in personal power in just a few years?
The idea of functioning D&D societies as the default setting is just a 3e trope. IMCs the OD&D Wilderlands or 4e Points of Light/Nerath are more typical - there basically is no functioning society, it's more Fallout than Greyhawk.
 

Xetheral

Three-Headed Sirrush
I'm not sure if this is a pedantic complaint or a complaint about where the rules need to be read pedantically to work. (Worrying about that distinction, however, seems suitably pedantic.) Without further ado...

Crawford has confirmed in a rules article that the commonly used rules phrase "melee weapon attack" refers to "melee attacks with a weapon" rather than "attacks with melee weapons". Furthermore, he stated that we can know this was the intended meaning due to the lack of a hypen between "melee" and "weapon".

While Crawford is entirely correct regarding the rules for hyphenating compound adjectives, I think it was a frustrating mistake to write the game rule in a way where its meaning depends on the omission of the hyphen. Not only that, but because the rules for hyphenating compound adjectives are often ignored in casual writing (which 5e purports to be), even readers familiar with the hyphenation rules have no way of knowing if the omission of the hyphen was purposeful.

It would have been much clearer to just write "melee attack with a weapon" everywhere in the rules that they wrote "melee weapon attack".
 

Yardiff

Explorer
My thought was that it was dangerous to do so. Perhaps I'm wrong on this. I will keep it a complaint, but maybe I should adjust my rulings on this, going forward.

My largest complaint is that there are already so many ways to circumvent the threat of death in 5e that making potion administration so easy just adds to it.
Read the 80's novels Guardians of the Flame, in those books potions were poured on to a wound or drank.
 

Jer

Adventurer
It would have been much clearer to just write "melee attack with a weapon" everywhere in the rules that they wrote "melee weapon attack".
I'm trying to figure out the circumstances where the difference would matter - or why Crawford got this question in the first place. (Clicking the link gave no context, just the answer).

Is someone wondering whether whacking a monster with their longbow counts as a "melee weapon attack"? I don't even get why this question would come up...

ETA: I know this is the thread for pedantry, and this is pedantry and so it's appropriate. But the fact that Crawford got asked this question just blows my mind - I just have to know why it matters!
 

Elon Tusk

Visitor
Chase rules, really all non-simultaneous actions/movement.
Character A runs away and hides as character B stands and watches.
A horse chase where horse A runs 100 feet away from the other moving horse, then B runs to catch up, etc. (and the weird dino race rules in Tomb of Annhilation).
 
I'm trying to figure out the circumstances where the difference would matter - or why Crawford got this question in the first place. ETA: I know this is the thread for pedantry, and this is pedantry and so it's appropriate. But the fact that Crawford got asked this question just blows my mind - I just have to know why it matters!
There are melee weapons that can be thrown. So there's a very practical distinction between "attack with a melee weapon" or "melee attack with a weapon," as throwing an axe at someone is ranged attack with a melee weapon, but not a melee attack, at all.
Hitting someone with a bowstave is a less common example of the same distinction.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I recently got the Pathfinder Ultimate Equipment book, (which is an amazing comprehensive book btw)
Agreed - it's one of PF's better productions, and largely adaptable to almost any system with a bit of work.

[/I]Another pet peeve of mine: Weapons with garbage stats. I hate it when there's a boatload of weapons in the player's handbook, and half of them no one in their right mind would ever consider taking, because of their poor damage. Then what's the point of having them at all? Do you really want to be the one in the party not pulling their weight, because you thought having a whip as a weapon was cool?
Well, this assumes both players and PCs are looking at things first and foremost in terms of DPR and so forth rather than characterization and flavour...which kinda brings up a peeve of mine, that being players who only view their characters in terms of how much damage they can give out each round.

lowkey13 said:
Assuming D&D, you have the following dice:
d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, d20.

...

*If we throw out the 3d6 example, and we assume that D&D doesn't mix dice (no d4+d6 for a weapon), then we get the following possible ranges as a general rule:
1, 1-2, 1-3
d4, 2d4, 3d4
d6 2d6
d8
d10
d12
There's also d5 (easy enough to achieve by either d10/2 or d6 reroll 6s) and multiples thereof; and multiples of d3; so it's not quite as limited as you say.

That said, because you're dealing with small whole numbers it's not very granular and thus a whole lot of different weapons get shoehorned into doing d6 or d8 damage. 1e tried to mitigate this a bit by differentiating weapons vs armour type, and 3e kinda waved at differentiating between slash-pierce-bludgeon; but any such system is going to add lots of complication for, really, not all that much return. So in the end we kinda have to live with it.
 

Advertisement

Top