CapnZapp
Legend
Your honest answer is perfectly fine. It doesn't bother me in the least. I wish others replied along your lines.So my honest answer is, derro weapons don't bother me that much.
Your honest answer is perfectly fine. It doesn't bother me in the least. I wish others replied along your lines.So my honest answer is, derro weapons don't bother me that much.
I'm not.Derro weapons make sense; it's the rules that don't. So hang the rules, or rather, change your view of them. Monster attack bonus and damage is tracked more based on CR rather than stat or weapon choice, so let the weapon choice be a cosmetic choice and don't worry too much about whether it fits the "rules" the players play by. Maybe Derro have special training with their racial weapons? Who knows.
Game rules are ever only going to be an imperfect model for the game world you're trying to create, so don't let them constrain fun.
We all know this. Why do feel a need to sidestep the issue to parrot universal truths back at me?5e really is designed with the idea that you'll change what you don't like or fill in what's missing, though.
It's not a poor design choice to focus less on mechanical design and more on story or feel (well, it is, for a certain sense of 'poor'), it's just a different emphasis.
So, yes, if, as a DM, you find there's a detail missing, fill it in, out of place, move it, sub-optimal, tune it up, broke, fix it. It's part of your job as an Empowered 5e DM.
While it's universally true that a GM can always change any little thing in a published adventure he's running, it's not universal that he's expected to. 5e's design philosophy is to leave a great deal to the DM, including whether his world needs to run on mechanics as de-facto laws of physics, or can tolerate sub-optimal weapon choices without an existential crisis. In another edition, pointing out that 'universal truth' in a similar context would have been an 'Oberoni fallacy.'We all know this. universal truths.
CR 1/4.
5e really is designed with the idea that you'll change what you don't like or fill in what's missing, though.
YepAh. "It's not a bug -- it's a feature!"
See, you just used the feature. ;PI'm inclined to retroactively give them normal light crossbows and short swords. OR let them use their short spears as finesse weapons (they already do 1d4 damage).
Well their equipment reflect that. If you want to make them have more optimized equipment, you should also rise their cr (and thus grant more exp). Goblins are a ½ CR right? Their stuff is more in line with their statistics.
5e really is designed with the idea that you'll change what you don't like or fill in what's missing, though.
It's not a poor design choice to focus less on mechanical design and more on story or feel (well, it is, for a certain sense of 'poor'), it's just a different emphasis.
So, yes, if, as a DM, you find there's a detail missing, fill it in, out of place, move it, sub-optimal, tune it up, broke, fix it. It's part of your job as an Empowered 5e DM.
Goblins are CR 1/4 in 5E.
There is. And, while it may seem like it's a short leap from 5e's design philosophy to that one, it is a leap. 5e is designed with the assumption that different DMs will want different things out of the game and use it differently. That's not quite the same thing as intentionally designing a system so bad that players & GMs will just try to avoid it as much as possible, pushing them into 'better' freestyle RP.Is there not a certain design philosophy that terrible rules make for better roleplaying?