D&D 5E What rule(s) is 5e missing?

[Reynard]

And if everyone at your table is having fun, that's great! I don't believe there's "one true way" to play D&D. But I do think it's a problem for most games more often than not. There are a lot of creatures that you need specialized knowledge to deal with and "just run away" doesn't always work as well as some might suppose.

I might put too much emphasis on wonder, but I suppose that's because fantasy without wonder is just lazy historical fiction.

 

[Reynard]

In the typical campaign, down there has been around centuries if not thousands of years in a world of super-geniuses. Down there should be better documented than up here because all the bad crap comes from down there. Er... DOWN THERE.

You're assuming there is logic and rules to it. Hard fantasy, if you will. I'm not a fan of hard fantasy, simply because it isn't fantastical.

The caps locks implies a certain vehemence. And that doesn't matter to a system written for a general audience.

I was trying to imply emphasis, not any sort of yelling.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I might put too much emphasis on wonder, but I suppose that's because fantasy without wonder is just lazy historical fiction.

I feel like people conflate mystery with wonder.

A twenty ton red dragon dropping onto the ground before you, the ground trembling at the impact, its wings fanning out to tint the waning sunlight red around you as it lets out a mighty roar is more wonderous than a shadowy Mystery Box spewing sludge that does untyped damage.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You're assuming there is logic and rules to it. Hard fantasy, if you will. I'm not a fan of hard fantasy, simply because it isn't fantastical.

'Fantasy' is literally in the name, dude. It might not by mysterious or unexplained, and you might not like it, but it is not 'not fantasitical'

I was trying to imply emphasis, not any sort of yelling.

Internet, my good sir. Italics are helpful.

 

[James Gasik]

I might put too much emphasis on wonder, but I suppose that's because fantasy without wonder is just lazy historical fiction.

Wonder is important, and that's why so many aspects of the game are DM-facing. I don't discount this. But at the same time, when PC's run into problems, and they gripe about it, an answer I see a lot is "you should have planned better/used better tactics". Which is hard to do if you have no idea what you're facing.

Which brings me to another rule we should bring back from the days of yore. SAGES.

 

[Reynard]

I feel like people conflate mystery with wonder.

A twenty ton red dragon dropping onto the ground before you, the ground trembling at the impact, its wings fanning out to tint the waning sunlight red around you as it lets out a mighty roar is more wonderous than a shadowy Mystery Box spewing sludge that does untyped damage.

I disagree insofar as everything about that dragon was expected and matched expectations. It can still be awesome (in both the original and modern senses) but that isn't the same as invoking wonder.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I am curious about minions too. Cant you just give them one hit point? Is there something more expansive than that which requires rules mechanics?

In 4e they also automatically did average damage on a hit, tended to have high to-hit values, took no damage on miss IIRC, and maybe one or two other little things.

I think you'd probably hate it when I make chocolate chip cookies then. Much like I prefer a soft cookie, I prefer D&D with a lot of leeway. Besides, a lot of crunch is just artificial fluff, does it matter what the DC for climbing a wall based on material if the DM just decides the material of the wall anyway?

Yeah honestly I kinda want 5e to loosen up a bit more, not get more high strung.

In Matt Coville's Flee, Mortals! big fat monster book, he implemented minion rules in which the minions have normal hit points but drop to 0 if they take any damage. It makes sense given their explanation: some spells (like sleep) interact in weird ways when you specifically give minions 1 hit point.

That works really well. You can just apply that to any monster, too, if you want dangerous archer minions, just apply that rule to the Archer or Scout statblock.

Uh…unless you’re altering Matt’s minion rules there’s nothing about them that will “put fear” into the PCs. Once the group lands its one hit and it does 1 hp of damage per minion, your players will laugh and wade through them…fearless as ever.

Um...no, they won't, because ganking 1 minion per attack still leaves 20 minions shooting at you for damage that would be normal on an MM mook. It just means you can use more mooks, force the PCs to strategize, and exert more control over the battlefield.

Now, sure, I run minions more like very large swarms instead, and often run their attacks as a group attack AoE, so that their turns only take about as much time as two regular monsters, at most, rather than 10 monsters, but the other way works fine, too.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I disagree insofar as everything about that dragon was expected and matched expectations. It can still be awesome (in both the original and modern senses) but that isn't the same as invoking wonder.

Before we go any farther, please define what wonderous mean to you. It seems to hinge on ignorance on the part of viewer, but I grew up in the Shenandoah Valley and let me tell you there is to me a wonder an a grandeur to many vistas even though I know what trees are and how deer are actually just graceful rats.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I disagree insofar as everything about that dragon was expected and matched expectations. It can still be awesome (in both the original and modern senses) but that isn't the same as invoking wonder.

oh boy the discussion of subverting expectations is something that youtube has argued good/bad/it depends since Dan and Dave said it about Game of thrown

 

[Vaalingrade]

oh boy the discussion of subverting expectations is something that youtube has argued good/bad/it depends since Dan and Dave said it about Game of thrown

Like most things in writing, a lot of writers don't understand that you don't just get credit for doing it; you have to do it for a reason that the audience will appreciate.