Well before they nerfed it in Monsters of the Multiverse, I could have really used a heads up on what monster abilities counted as "magic" for my Yuan Ti.
D&D 5E What rule(s) is 5e missing?
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
Oofta
Legend
Sadly, if we made heavy armor as effective as it should be that then the Legolas clone that wears a leather vest would be outmatched by the Gimlis in the game that actually wore armor. Can't have that!
I’ve mentioned it before but I’ll do it again, a system for tracking time in dungeons. Yes they talk about it, but don’t actual give any examples of how one might do it at the table.
There are some fantastic 3rd party systems which is great, but it should be in the core books IMHO.
There are some fantastic 3rd party systems which is great, but it should be in the core books IMHO.
Legolas wear medium armor in D&D. People need to put their archer fighters in proper tanking armor. They aren't fodder peasant bowmen.
Great basic tanking AC in light armor should requirea subclass choice, a blessing/gift, arace choice, or a magic equipment. There I said it.
Right, the good old “Don’t ask the dice to answer stupid questions!” disclaimer in action adjudication.
I would be happy with realistic armor. I'd be happier with realistic shields. Shields are more than just a wall you strap to your arm for an AC boost. And don't get me started on the damn Feat- that's not how a shield bash works!*
*referring to the godawful ruling that makes you use the bonus action shove after you attack, not to mention the fact that shields totally deal damage with a bash.
EDIT: also, where's mah buckler?!
*referring to the godawful ruling that makes you use the bonus action shove after you attack, not to mention the fact that shields totally deal damage with a bash.
EDIT: also, where's mah buckler?!
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
Luckily, this was all pretty easy to house-rule.
Well yeah, but you can't count on house rules if you're the guy wanting to showcase why shields are an amazing piece of military technology while playing. Plus, you know, being able to do it yourself doesn't mean the base game can't be improved by including a bit more love for shields.
Frozen_Heart
Hero
A minor one missing:
Rules for objects being dropped on creatures. There is rules for fall damage, but nothing for falling rocks.
What is the damage done if the party pushes a big rock off a cliff onto a dragon?
Rules for objects being dropped on creatures. There is rules for fall damage, but nothing for falling rocks.
What is the damage done if the party pushes a big rock off a cliff onto a dragon?
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
One could, I suppose, for this specific example treat it like a Giant throwing a boulder and just use that damage.
But if the dropped object is a corpse or an icicle or a house, what then?
There probably could be a chart of suggested damage for very large objects. Although the last time WotC made one of these, you had optimization nerds talking about destroying planets with thrown rocks. : )
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
Oh, believe me, I wish I didn't have to house rule it! The game certainly would have been better, but you know--simplicity and all is the goal of 5E.
F=m*a
A falling object of at least 10 pounds that falls at least 10 feet does 1d6 points of bludgeoning damage. For every doubling of weight and/or distance, add 1d6 damage to a maximum of 20d6.
The lack of accounting for mass in falling damage rules continues to irk me. It’s not missing from the rules just wrong.
Instead of the d6 it should be based on the size of the object/creature:
Tiny: no falling damage, they always effectively featherfall.
Small: d4
Medium: d6
Large: d8
Huge: d12
Gargantuan: d20
Though if you don't mind, I am curious what your house rules for shields are.Oh, believe me, I wish I didn't have to house rule it! The game certainly would have been better, but you know--simplicity and all is the goal of 5E.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
You know, with all the talk about what was intended with 5e, a unifying edition and such, when did they actually start saying that simplicity was a goal? I would definitely have been more wary if they opened with that during the playtest.Oh, believe me, I wish I didn't have to house rule it! The game certainly would have been better, but you know--simplicity and all is the goal of 5E.
I thought about that but the increments are too small. Increasing a die type is only an average increase of 1 point.
Well, a quick google search found this article: “Dungeons & Dragons Next” Creators Look To Simplicity, Open Development To Regain Lost Gamers
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Really wish I'd seen that in 2013.
Me too, I wouldn't have bothered with the Next playtest, which turned out to be a massive waste of my time. If they wanted a game somehow even simpler than D&D essentials, I wouldn't have bothered being too excited by the playtest classes, lol.
Hey speaking of playtesting, there's kind of a mystery I just remembered- whatever happened to the revised Ranger? I remember being at a table where it was being tested (they allowed it for one season of Adventurer's League) and then...nothing.
Was it bad? I don't remember hearing anyone complaining about it.
Hey speaking of playtesting, there's kind of a mystery I just remembered- whatever happened to the revised Ranger? I remember being at a table where it was being tested (they allowed it for one season of Adventurer's League) and then...nothing.
Was it bad? I don't remember hearing anyone complaining about it.
Similar Threads
