D&D 5E What Single Thing Would You Add

[ART!]

Just a little more detail to weapons and armor. I have no solutions here, but things like how a piercing weapon is better against certain kinds of armor that a slashing weapon, and vice versa. I know it's a level of detail D&D has never cared about, but I'd like it.

 

[Reynard]

Just a little more detail to weapons and armor. I have no solutions here, but things like how a piercing weapon is better against certain kinds of armor that a slashing weapon, and vice versa. I know it's a level of detail D&D has never cared about, but I'd like it.

It's a level of detail D&D players have never cared about. The game has tried a few times to make weapons more granular and it has been repeatedly rejected.

 

[Mind of tempest]

It's a level of detail D&D players have never cared about. The game has tried a few times to make weapons more granular and it has been repeatedly rejected.

because the only weapon type that matters is magic as lots of things are resident to everything but magic weapons.

 

[Reynard]

because the only weapon type that matters is magic as lots of things are resident to everything but magic weapons.

That's not true. Mostly it is about EDIT [[laziness]] THAT WAS NOT OKAY OF ME at the table -- or, more charitably, an interest in drama and action over simulation. AD&D had a huge amount of weapon detail in it (due to Gygax's interest in such things) and if employed those details actually mattered. But people did not like having to do any additional math (or something) so those bits got slowly removed from the game until we are left with handedness and damage as the only important traits.

 

[ART!]

because the only weapon type that matters is magic as lots of things are resident to everything but magic weapons.

This reminds me of a truism of D&D: fighters are for players who don't want much mechanical detail/options, and spellcasters are for players who want a lot of mechanic detail/options. Adding more detail to weapons and armor would definitely work against that.

 

[Reynard]

This reminds me of a truism of D&D: fighters are for players who don't want much mechanical detail/options, and spellcasters are for players who want a lot of mechanic detail/options. Adding more detail to weapons and armor would definitely work against that.

It's also not true.

 

[ART!]

It's also not true.

In my experience it is.

 

[Oofta]

That's not true. Mostly it is about laziness at the table -- or, more charitably, an interest in drama and action over simulation. AD&D had a huge amount of weapon detail in it (due to Gygax's interest in such things) and if employed those details actually mattered. But people did not like having to do any additional math (or something) so those bits got slowly removed from the game until we are left with handedness and damage as the only important traits.

One person's laziness is another person's "I don't care for this level of detail". Characterizing preferences as "laziness" is kind of insulting.

 

[Oofta]

It's also not true.

For you.

 

[billd91]

I agree. But the point of the house rule would be to prevent or at least delay the PCs going nova in the first round of every fight.

What I don't understand is why it's desirable for them to not use the big guns right away in a fight. I understand holding some power in reserve for, you know, later fights due to the danger of the monster-riddled environment. But why should you not hit a deadly opponent as hard as you can?