I kinda thought this was obvious to everyone @Darkaiser. When the party is planning a cross country journey they simply buy the food and forget about it - journey time 5 days each way, time at destination - 3 days = 13 days rations required. Add a few extra days for emergencies = all party members buy 16 days rations before leaving town. It’s a non issue. The only time it becomes an issue is if something goes horribly wrong and their equipment gets lost, they get ambushed and robbed, tidal wave, avalanche, forest fire destroys everything etc. If the DM is doing that to their players on every single journey then there is a much bigger problem than how much food they are carrying.
Proficiency with Thieves' Tools being an issue? It's so rare in my games that there's even a cause to use thieves' tools that I can't say it has ever crossed my mine. Thieves' Tools are more one of those things where occasionally the DM looks at the skills their PCs have and thinks "Oh, they haven't used Thieves' Tools' etc in a while, I better put something in for them to use it for." A bit like Druidic, which comes up almost never. I don't know why it's a problem for more than one character to have access to this, any more than it's a problem for more than one character to have a high STR score and do the heavy lifting.
I just ban Goodberry outright as it breaks survival aspects of the game. It's a dumb spell and shouldn't be in the game at all. I'm fine with the Tiny Hut stuff, that's a perk you get of being able to cast that kind of spell, and it doesn't mean there's nothing waiting for you in the dark.
The rogue at my table uses thieve tools on almost a daily basis, there are always doors to unlock, traps to disarm.
I fell asleep during the description of your ideas for logistical D&D. yawn, pass. I don't want my 10th level party having to turn back from slaying the dragon because someone forgot to pack extra provisions for the horses.
Cool for you. You don't have to play at my table.
Perhaps the party didn't turn back from slaying the dragon because they forgot basic logistics, but instead because they discovered the dragon's cultist minions managed to sabotage their feed because they didn't deal with the cult before going after the dragon. Perhaps they have to figure out a way to even get to the dragon because its toxic magic warps the land around it and causes food to spoil in its vicinity. Or perhaps by the time you've gotten to tenth level you've acquired magical gear, spells, and abilities that reduce the need to worry about logistics, each of which was an exciting moment precisely because acquiring those things solved a problem your lower-level party was faced with.
If you never bother acknowledging logistics because it's Unheroic, then you can never have the satisfaction of beating logistics, and your DM can't challenge the party with unexpected setbacks related to supply. For you, logistics is an annoying distraction. For others, it's part of what makes for a deep and immersive experience and the only thing that gives value to a wide array of spells and abilities. Nobody cares about finding a Bag of Holding or a Decanter of Endless Water in games where nobody ever needs food or water and can carry an infinite amount of random crap in their Video Game Backpack of Nonsenseoleum. Nobody cares about the abilities of certain PC species to lessen or eliminate the need for supplies. Nobody cares about spells like Purify Food and Drink or Create Food and Water if food and water are foreign to your game and nobody ever eats or drinks.
If you've ever wondered why all of those things exist? These game rules you're cutting out of your game are why.
I fell asleep during the description of your ideas for logistical D&D. yawn, pass. I don't want my 10th level party having to turn back from slaying the dragon because someone forgot to pack extra provisions for the horses.
Cool for you. You don't have to play at my table.
Perhaps the party didn't turn back from slaying the dragon because they forgot basic logistics, but instead because they discovered the dragon's cultist minions managed to sabotage their feed because they didn't deal with the cult before going after the dragon. Perhaps they have to figure out a way to even get to the dragon because its toxic magic warps the land around it and causes food to spoil in its vicinity. Or perhaps by the time you've gotten to tenth level you've acquired magical gear, spells, and abilities that reduce the need to worry about logistics, each of which was an exciting moment precisely because acquiring those things solved a problem your lower-level party was faced with.
If you never bother acknowledging logistics because it's Unheroic, then you can never have the satisfaction of beating logistics, and your DM can't challenge the party with unexpected setbacks related to supply. For you, logistics is an annoying distraction. For others, it's part of what makes for a deep and immersive experience and the only thing that gives value to a wide array of spells and abilities. Nobody cares about finding a Bag of Holding or a Decanter of Endless Water in games where nobody ever needs food or water and can carry an infinite amount of random crap in their Video Game Backpack of Nonsenseoleum. Nobody cares about the abilities of certain PC species to lessen or eliminate the need for supplies. Nobody cares about spells like Purify Food and Drink or Create Food and Water if food and water are foreign to your game and nobody ever eats or drinks.
If you've ever wondered why all of those things exist? These game rules you're cutting out of your game are why.
I've just gotta point out, as someone who finds the concept "resource management" to be about as fun as the concept of "banging your head against a wall", I'd still want the Bag of Holding or the Decanter of Endless Water for the puzzle solving aspect of a game.
I don't like the idea of RPing finding food, but say, using the Decanter on gyser setting as an impromptu fire hose when someones fire spell ignites something? That'd be awesome. Similarly stuff like purify food and water? Always great if you're in some situation the DM has suggested may be dangerous and you want to make sure your food isn't poisoned.
All in all though, I think (and this is less to Yurei who seems to get this bit) is we should all remember that what's fun to us isn't always fun to others.
It's always worth it to remember folks can, and do, enjoy things we do not.
If you wanna run your D&D game with heavy resource management? Awesome. If you wanna play video games with super tough bosses who one hit kill you? Awesome. If you love grim and gritty superheroes who are arguably no better than the villains they face? Awesome.
I'll be over here enjoying my puzzles being about fighting the monster, not how to get to it, games that are more about the story than the combat, and heroes wearing brightly colored uniforms who refuse to give into cynicism. My love of my stuff doesn't have to bash your love of your stuff, or vice versa. We actually can both have what we enjoy.
of the 1e-3.xe rules the one about switch class humans and multiclass demihumans I'm mostly happy to see fade away. the switch class rules did have one useful impact however - it really forced you to think about WHY you were switching classes since you could not use the abilities of the old class and still gain experience in the new class until you had surpassed the the level of the old class. you were basically starting all over at level 1 with only your hitpoints and any equipment you were still proficient with in the new class. Today we switch classes at the drop of a hat keeping all the old abilities and adding the new ones without a penalty. its a completely different style of play and one where almost no thought is really required. I've never really liked the min-maxing theory crafting I see in a lot of multiclassing today - to much of " Is this a good/powerful/etc build" and too little of "why is this character the way it is with all these classes. that said the old game was very different and allowed for epic characters unlike the present game so the slow build up and overmatch of old classes had places to go in the game. could there be some sorts of restrictions on multiclassing in today's game? maybe but it will always be homebrew and has a large chance to nerf multiclassing altogether. this is a place where if you really like the old way then you need to run and older version campaign.
As a big fan of Rangers I don't like the way many tables have completely abandoned the exploration travel leg of the game and try to jump as quickly to the combat as they can - the travel/exploration is really where you build the suspense in your story. whether you realize it o not adding the leg back will probably add a whole new dimension to the game making it more enjoyable not less - despite the possible added logistical book keeping. I use the FR as my homebrew base as it gives me a 35,000 year history to play with with most of that history buried and hidden in places not in cities and towns and plenty of hidden groups all looking for some of the same bits and pieces you are. but to get the goods your going to have to go off the road much of the time and then find the place after figuring out the puzzle of how the world's changes have sifted it or altered it. dragon's don't provide easy lairs - your first battle is simply getting there but " the cowards never left, the weak never made it , and now its your turn to try" real wilderness activity is not easy and that is the other part of the problem - it helps lots to have some idea of what is involved to make it challenging and to be able to overcome the challenges but many D&D players have little or no such experience making running such or playing against it hard and so its often easier to skip it altogether.
Do I wanna run my D&D game with heavy resource management? not really but I don't mind some. Do I wanna play video games with super tough bosses who one hit kill you? no, but if I'm one hit killing them its pretty lame too. Do I love grim and gritty superheroes who are arguably no better than the villains they face? not especially I like your guys that haven't fallen to cynicism better. I do enjoy puzzles about how to get too the BBEG because it adds so much to the final story, While my rangers, Druids, etc are typically in subdued clothing others are as flamboyant as can be - that's up to the individual character. "My love of my stuff doesn't have to bash your love of your stuff, or vice versa. We actually can both have what we enjoy." But your more than welcome to wander over to the other side and see if maybe you like it too!
Let me begin by stating that I love the fact that most of the changes that D&D has gone through since 1st ed are good ones. I play online MMOs from time to time and I like the kind where you don't necessarily NEED to have this or that class to accomplish a task. I can appreciate the same thing in D&D now where many players and DMs agree that a party doesn't necessarily HAVE to have a dedicated Healer (for example). Not requiring or even strongly suggesting that a party adhere to the old 'Holy Trinity' of classes (which was always dumb because three classes weren't enough to cover all the bases) opens the game up to more creative play.
That being said, there are some of the old tropes that I miss and I wondered if other players and DMs felt the same way. I'm also looking for possible alternate ways to handle these for my next game.
One of my biggest issues is the ease with which non-Rogues can obtain proficiency with Thieve's Tools. It used to be that ONLY Thieves could use them but I didn't like that either because it locked one player into being the designated Thief and if nobody wanted to play one, you have a problem. However, Tool proficiency is now given to lots of different classes and subclasses. My Artificer has proficiency with them and by level 6 his skill is going to be ridiculous. Better than the Rogue in the party. I'm perfectly willing to stand back and let her shine in her moment but just the idea that I'm a LOT better than her rubs me the wrong way. I've spoken to the DM and our party leader and stated that unless they specifically ask me to try my hand at a lock or trap, I'm going to consider that to be her 'thing' because I don't want to steal her thunder.
I'm considering the idea of having a designated person in my next game that is allowed or even encouraged to have Expertise with Thieve's Tools. I don't care if this is a Rogue or someone else but this is one of those skills that I don't want everyone in the party to be able to gain too easily. What does everyone else think?
Another issue I have is with some of the survival spells, especially Goodberry and any of the Tiny Hut variants. These two spells eliminate many of the risks of travel like finding food and water and decent shelter. I don't like banning stuff outright but IMHO these need to be nerfed in some way. If it was just Druids or Rangers that can cast these it wouldn't be so bad but now there are a lot more options to get specific spells, especially 1st level ones. How do other DMs out there deal with these?
Bards doing everything. I remember that Bards were always versatile but in 5e they seem to be the skill junkies. If they're built well they can have as good a skill roll or better than most other members of the party. Some classes (like Barbarians) don't get that many skills so I feel that they should be able to use them whenever possible. But if there's a Bard in the party it seems to be 50/50 as to whether they have the best roll at any particular skill. I don't want to nerf their ability because it's kind of their 'thing' but I'm a little uncomfortable with one character having as many skills as the rest of the party put together. Any good suggestions out there how to deal with this?
That's all I have off the top of my head. Thanks in advance for any ideas as to how to deal with (or not deal with) these.
By the time the party get access to tiny hut type spells they are at a level where throwing an encounter at them during a long rest isn’t really going to stretch them. Plus the character gives up a pellet slot for what is really a narrative thing.
As for good berries, as a DM I accept that a group of individuals who are capable of fighting dragons know how to hunt and catch food in the wilderness. I mean even the hobbits could catch rabbits so again a spell that helps hand wave something that isn’t necessarily important is fine. In out if the Abyss the characters are in the under dark having escaped prison and the rules state that as long as they allow the time each day assume they find food and water.
I’ve never been in a campaign where the DM tracked if we ate regularly or not.
Tracking food and water, in and of itself, is tedious and doesn't add anything of interest. It's like tracking ammo or everyday small expenditures. As such, a lot of DMs just ignore it. It's different if survival is a meaningful component of the campaign though: if you want it to be engaging, it can certainly be made to be. It's a choice.
As a DM this is the kind if thing I track at low levels f it is relevent, in my experience by the time most characters are level 3 anyone with a bow keeps there ammo stock at the 50-100 mark, I usually let the ranger/rogue find/buy a quiver of holding (bag if holding but for arrows only). Likewise the cleric will get the ability to make food and water.
i think personally that you shouldnt be able to pick a class and have minus in the class`s primary stat but other than that i have no problem with the new system
i think personally that you shouldnt be able to pick a class and have minus in the class`s primary stat but other than that i have no problem with the new system
If a player wants to put themselves at a huge disadvantage right away, I say let em. It can make for an interesting game.
Actually, new oneshot idea for me. Have everyone use standard array without telling them their class, then assign them classes that use their worst stat. They're all adventurer's guild rejects.
ETA: It would be like the D&D version of Mystery Men.
One of the things I do miss from earlier editions is a broader set of stated weapons. The one I miss most is the composite bow - a short bow with the range and damage of a long bow. Others I would love to see brought back are the broadsword (single edged straight bladed one handed only slashing and stabbing weapon) and some of the monk/ninja weapons like the manriki. Yes I can homebrew them but …
One of the things I do miss from earlier editions is a broader set of stated weapons. The one I miss most is the composite bow - a short bow with the range and damage of a long bow. Others I would love to see brought back are the broadsword (single edged straight bladed one handed only slashing and stabbing weapon) and some of the monk/ninja weapons like the manriki. Yes I can homebrew them but …
I agree that weapons and armor are two of the areas that I hope they improve in their 'new' thing they're doing for 2024.
I'd also like for them to give their 2024 release a name so we could all start calling it the same thing. I don't care WHAT they call it, 5.5...6e...whatever. I just want a point of reference rather than saying 'the 2024 release'
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I kinda thought this was obvious to everyone @Darkaiser. When the party is planning a cross country journey they simply buy the food and forget about it - journey time 5 days each way, time at destination - 3 days = 13 days rations required. Add a few extra days for emergencies = all party members buy 16 days rations before leaving town. It’s a non issue. The only time it becomes an issue is if something goes horribly wrong and their equipment gets lost, they get ambushed and robbed, tidal wave, avalanche, forest fire destroys everything etc. If the DM is doing that to their players on every single journey then there is a much bigger problem than how much food they are carrying.
The rogue at my table uses thieve tools on almost a daily basis, there are always doors to unlock, traps to disarm.
Cool for you. You don't have to play at my table.
Perhaps the party didn't turn back from slaying the dragon because they forgot basic logistics, but instead because they discovered the dragon's cultist minions managed to sabotage their feed because they didn't deal with the cult before going after the dragon. Perhaps they have to figure out a way to even get to the dragon because its toxic magic warps the land around it and causes food to spoil in its vicinity. Or perhaps by the time you've gotten to tenth level you've acquired magical gear, spells, and abilities that reduce the need to worry about logistics, each of which was an exciting moment precisely because acquiring those things solved a problem your lower-level party was faced with.
If you never bother acknowledging logistics because it's Unheroic, then you can never have the satisfaction of beating logistics, and your DM can't challenge the party with unexpected setbacks related to supply. For you, logistics is an annoying distraction. For others, it's part of what makes for a deep and immersive experience and the only thing that gives value to a wide array of spells and abilities. Nobody cares about finding a Bag of Holding or a Decanter of Endless Water in games where nobody ever needs food or water and can carry an infinite amount of random crap in their Video Game Backpack of Nonsenseoleum. Nobody cares about the abilities of certain PC species to lessen or eliminate the need for supplies. Nobody cares about spells like Purify Food and Drink or Create Food and Water if food and water are foreign to your game and nobody ever eats or drinks.
If you've ever wondered why all of those things exist? These game rules you're cutting out of your game are why.
Please do not contact or message me.
I've just gotta point out, as someone who finds the concept "resource management" to be about as fun as the concept of "banging your head against a wall", I'd still want the Bag of Holding or the Decanter of Endless Water for the puzzle solving aspect of a game.
I don't like the idea of RPing finding food, but say, using the Decanter on gyser setting as an impromptu fire hose when someones fire spell ignites something? That'd be awesome.
Similarly stuff like purify food and water? Always great if you're in some situation the DM has suggested may be dangerous and you want to make sure your food isn't poisoned.
All in all though, I think (and this is less to Yurei who seems to get this bit) is we should all remember that what's fun to us isn't always fun to others.
It's always worth it to remember folks can, and do, enjoy things we do not.
If you wanna run your D&D game with heavy resource management? Awesome.
If you wanna play video games with super tough bosses who one hit kill you? Awesome.
If you love grim and gritty superheroes who are arguably no better than the villains they face? Awesome.
I'll be over here enjoying my puzzles being about fighting the monster, not how to get to it, games that are more about the story than the combat, and heroes wearing brightly colored uniforms who refuse to give into cynicism.
My love of my stuff doesn't have to bash your love of your stuff, or vice versa. We actually can both have what we enjoy.
of the 1e-3.xe rules the one about switch class humans and multiclass demihumans I'm mostly happy to see fade away. the switch class rules did have one useful impact however - it really forced you to think about WHY you were switching classes since you could not use the abilities of the old class and still gain experience in the new class until you had surpassed the the level of the old class. you were basically starting all over at level 1 with only your hitpoints and any equipment you were still proficient with in the new class. Today we switch classes at the drop of a hat keeping all the old abilities and adding the new ones without a penalty. its a completely different style of play and one where almost no thought is really required. I've never really liked the min-maxing theory crafting I see in a lot of multiclassing today - to much of " Is this a good/powerful/etc build" and too little of "why is this character the way it is with all these classes. that said the old game was very different and allowed for epic characters unlike the present game so the slow build up and overmatch of old classes had places to go in the game. could there be some sorts of restrictions on multiclassing in today's game? maybe but it will always be homebrew and has a large chance to nerf multiclassing altogether. this is a place where if you really like the old way then you need to run and older version campaign.
As a big fan of Rangers I don't like the way many tables have completely abandoned the exploration travel leg of the game and try to jump as quickly to the combat as they can - the travel/exploration is really where you build the suspense in your story. whether you realize it o not adding the leg back will probably add a whole new dimension to the game making it more enjoyable not less - despite the possible added logistical book keeping. I use the FR as my homebrew base as it gives me a 35,000 year history to play with with most of that history buried and hidden in places not in cities and towns and plenty of hidden groups all looking for some of the same bits and pieces you are. but to get the goods your going to have to go off the road much of the time and then find the place after figuring out the puzzle of how the world's changes have sifted it or altered it. dragon's don't provide easy lairs - your first battle is simply getting there but " the cowards never left, the weak never made it , and now its your turn to try"
real wilderness activity is not easy and that is the other part of the problem - it helps lots to have some idea of what is involved to make it challenging and to be able to overcome the challenges but many D&D players have little or no such experience making running such or playing against it hard and so its often easier to skip it altogether.
Do I wanna run my D&D game with heavy resource management? not really but I don't mind some.
Do I wanna play video games with super tough bosses who one hit kill you? no, but if I'm one hit killing them its pretty lame too.
Do I love grim and gritty superheroes who are arguably no better than the villains they face? not especially I like your guys that haven't fallen to cynicism better.
I do enjoy puzzles about how to get too the BBEG because it adds so much to the final story, While my rangers, Druids, etc are typically in subdued clothing others are as flamboyant as can be - that's up to the individual character.
"My love of my stuff doesn't have to bash your love of your stuff, or vice versa. We actually can both have what we enjoy." But your more than welcome to wander over to the other side and see if maybe you like it too!
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
By the time the party get access to tiny hut type spells they are at a level where throwing an encounter at them during a long rest isn’t really going to stretch them. Plus the character gives up a pellet slot for what is really a narrative thing.
As for good berries, as a DM I accept that a group of individuals who are capable of fighting dragons know how to hunt and catch food in the wilderness. I mean even the hobbits could catch rabbits so again a spell that helps hand wave something that isn’t necessarily important is fine. In out if the Abyss the characters are in the under dark having escaped prison and the rules state that as long as they allow the time each day assume they find food and water.
As a DM this is the kind if thing I track at low levels f it is relevent, in my experience by the time most characters are level 3 anyone with a bow keeps there ammo stock at the 50-100 mark, I usually let the ranger/rogue find/buy a quiver of holding (bag if holding but for arrows only). Likewise the cleric will get the ability to make food and water.
i think personally that you shouldnt be able to pick a class and have minus in the class`s primary stat but other than that i have no problem with the new system
If a player wants to put themselves at a huge disadvantage right away, I say let em. It can make for an interesting game.
Actually, new oneshot idea for me. Have everyone use standard array without telling them their class, then assign them classes that use their worst stat. They're all adventurer's guild rejects.
ETA: It would be like the D&D version of Mystery Men.
you got a point but i would still prefer if people didnt
One of the things I do miss from earlier editions is a broader set of stated weapons. The one I miss most is the composite bow - a short bow with the range and damage of a long bow. Others I would love to see brought back are the broadsword (single edged straight bladed one handed only slashing and stabbing weapon) and some of the monk/ninja weapons like the manriki. Yes I can homebrew them but …
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I agree that weapons and armor are two of the areas that I hope they improve in their 'new' thing they're doing for 2024.
I'd also like for them to give their 2024 release a name so we could all start calling it the same thing. I don't care WHAT they call it, 5.5...6e...whatever. I just want a point of reference rather than saying 'the 2024 release'