Hi all,

This is not about the UA, but existing rules at present, and not really about classes.

What existing mechanics are a pet peeve in some ways?

what mechanics are missing that would be handy?

my examples are

the Creature Sizes, where M covers a really big range, lol.

I kinda want to see a little more crafting rules, because I have some folks who want it.

what about you?

For me, the lack of useful crafting outlines is a big miss.  By actually laying some things out (recipes, materials required and where they might be, time investments and such) it would open a whole new dimension to games, especially the RP side.  Putting in numerous kits (Herbalism kit) then having nothing laid out to DO with them, it puts a lot of pressure on a DM ot develop such things on their own, along with trying to build a meaningful campaign.

Spellcasting mechanics overall I find clunky as well.  Can't cast X if you've already cast Y, but X can be cast if Y is actually G and done in a key of E minor kind of stuff.  Let your spellcasters blow their load all in one combat if they so desire.  Next combat they will realize their error and likely better manage their resources.

Zero psionics is annoying as well.  I read a ton of FR novels and I assure you, psionics are not rare in that world.  Aboleth's Illithids and so forth all have them and many other races sometimes show an ability to use the mind magic.  Develop this ability, flesh it out and apply it.  Again, allowing characters to expand and develop to the player's design.

Mostly what I find funny, really, is the times people rail and complain about DM decisions.  If the DM decides something works differently to what the book says, that's how it works in the world you're in.  I know it's important to have this come out in session zero, to ensure players are prepared for the change and can pick and set up characters properly, but I see here, in a lot of cases, a DM will explain how something works and a player from that campaign comes here to the rules section to question how it works.  Folks, it works how the DM SAID it works, in your game.  The rules forum here can't offer much help if the DM decides it works different in his/her world.

Likely more as I delve into things, but those are the big "misses" I see.

Quote from AEDorsay >>

what mechanics are missing that would be handy?

Some set of rules for players who become the guildmaster, king, high wizard, etc. A simple structure that embraces the d20 core mechanic, and gives a little extra variety for characters that want to play the game of thrones.

Crafting Rules, recipes for magic items, and creating new spells are mine. 

More votes for crafting, yay! (LOL)

Spell casting can be clunky, no doubt -- it is kind of a complication that arises from the Spell Slot system in a lot of ways, but mostly is a balancing feature. Not always the greatest, but there.

Psionics is a huge thing, and you just reminded me that I need to do a dive into the psionic monsters for some of the abilities to add into my list for that -- we have our own psionic system we are developing out, still very early, but I don't know how well it would work for most people based on the conversations here around it.

"Game of Thrones" indeed! How does one become the Arch Druid? How does one master the seas and become the Pirate Lord or the Bandit King? It lays out some interesting challenges because it isn't as simple a thing as it seems -- most folks don't even know how their own guilds are structured, just that there is one and it is headed by X person.  This kind of question means adding in a lot of missing pieces, but isn't hard, maybe a bit tedious, but the options and joys will show up during play. I mean, the potential adventures there are the kinds of things you see in older side versions like Birthright -- but not in the nobility sense!

I fully agree that more crafting and gathering guidelines would be nice.  Fortunately there are some good third party solutions out there to address this hole.

The old Birthright setting was my personal favorite and I always have the dream of getting a regent's campaign going again in Cerilia.  That's beyond the scope of what I would expect to see in the DMG, but it would definitely be nice to have more on characters progressing to be the leaders of "X".  Similarly, some clear guidelines on building strongholds and gaining followers would be a welcome addition to the official products, whether in the core books or a supplement.   

Crafting and gathering are needed, better/ more in depth exploration, off road travel rules, stronghold/ “leadership” position rules. It’s not so much futzy mechanics as missing mechanics. I’m leaving out psionics as, while I really want it, I don’t think real psionics is ever coming back. Really what is needed is a decent overall economic system not just players have to sell low and buy high to strip them of cash.  I haven’t tried to do more than rudimentary forms of this for my world but even some rudimentary guidance would be nice.

Another two votes for crafting.  Aside from the utility aspect of it, I also note that certain games released and very popular recently that are not D&D based have used some extensive crafting capabilities.

Exploration is a big thing to me, personally, but yeah, some more more fixed rules would be nice. I am fond of using environmental rules and conditions like frostbite and heatstroke. travel in the default worlds is pretty much presumed to be through "disputed territory" -- or at least, that is how it seems to me.

Stronghold rules is interesting. I tend to default to old 1e base stuff, but those are creaky and don't provide the role playing aspects with much detail (ok, any detail). Again, that ties back to the birthright stuff in some ways.

AN economic system is always a fun thing for me, but presents a challenge because there are differences between a mechanical system for a game and reality (like Monopoly).  One of my posts here went into detail about how I determined the base prices by following an old, old rule based on the price of a half a loaf of bread.  It is a bottom up system, and recent threads have led me to the creation of a matching trade system that works within it.

But definitely something of interest -- and the reliance on the buy high and sell low is something that exists because few "real life" economic systems can stand having a sudden influx of cash without devaluing the local currency (perhaps the biggest difference in D&D mechanics versus real world). So a system that allows that is of great appeal. Adventurers suddenly popping into town with enough money to buy a mansion is sure to have an impact.

Welcome to “tourist price” vs “locals” price. Adventurers with a lot to spend don’t change the needle that much really - they are a different version of “rich merchant/noble” building a mansion. What it really is is Henry Ford Paying his workers 2-3x the going wage so they have money to spend (on his car and then anything else they want) it’s a potential start of a consumer economy instead of a feudal economy. Then their are things a trade oriented group can do - fairs with prizes for best quality and export purchases - given best quality it’s far easier to export and build brand recognition for the product- both locally and in the broader world. 

One of the changes they made to this edition from earlier editions is how damage resistance works. In previous editions, you often had to have weapons constructed from a particular metal, such as cold iron or silver, to deal full damage to certain creatures. That still exists, but now it's that or a magic item. I understand why they did it, because it makes things more streamlined. However, it's basically rendered items made of special materials and damage resistance above a certain level almost useless. Who is going to carry around a silver weapon when they can just use their +1 longsword? I would like to see them return to the previous mechanic.

Quote from Wi1dBi11 >>

Welcome to “tourist price” vs “locals” price. Adventurers with a lot to spend don’t change the needle that much really - they are a different version of “rich merchant/noble” building a mansion. What it really is is Henry Ford Paying his workers 2-3x the going wage so they have money to spend (on his car and then anything else they want) it’s a potential start of a consumer economy instead of a feudal economy. Then their are things a trade oriented group can do - fairs with prizes for best quality and export purchases - given best quality it’s far easier to export and build brand recognition for the product- both locally and in the broader world. 

Sidetracking my own post. I am the worst, I swear...

Ok, so this hits on a major key point of the problem with economic systems in the game.  Most players want to operate within a system that is either really simple or really familiar -- ideally, both. They don't want to have to deal with a system that is completely foreign to their experience (well, unless they are not most players and have a particular interest in such). THey want to feel like it is a feudal system but they don't actually want it to be anything more than the system they already know because that's a lot of work, lol. 

For them, that is, while they are playing. It is way more work for a DM.

unless someone was born prior to about 1921 or outside the Western nations, the only real basis for an economic system they are aware of is some variant of Keynes. The "nuclear family" model, consumer driven, etc. Granted, the global structures didn't arrive until the top ten countries dropped the metal standards for the floating currency for purposes of trade and tariffs and making the rich richer in the early 70's, but that is all they know.

Yes, I am way oversimplifying it, because this forum doesn't need my quarter trained hind end giving a likely flawed lecture.

That applies to the game designers, as well: it is an unconscious bias for the most part, because it isn't even something that really enters their minds to question. Not a flaw so much as a reasonable expectation (and a reflection of the larger problems we see wit AI creative products).

But that difference between a feudal system (for this purpose, private trade driven and taxed so heavily that it makes some folks wince just to think about it all under a mandated control of nobility who have carte blanche to set prices and demand outrageous things) and a consumer system -- even though neither can really (in real life) withstand a constant periodic influx of capitol without destabilization. I mean, while the universal church did essentially forbid any Christian from charging interest, it wasn't able to do so with folks who weren't christian, and that *still* has an impact, despite the whole thing being several hundred years ago and the restriction on interest having long been lifted.

My personal approach has involved a large scale devaluing of default coin (for me it is the silver piece as the standard insead of gold piece, and I added an additional coin beneath copper to further push things down -- so now a gold piece has significant value and a platinum piece can feed a family of four for a year), resetting prices overall, and now I have a way to better control the treasure finds, even in published adventures.

But adding in crafting, the availability of backgrounds and relying on the already heavily developed world setting, and I have to adjust across the board all the stuff I have around an economic model because I am, ultimately, adding greater complexity while doing my best to minimize the visible part of it and lean more towards a feudal system that looks like a modern consumer one, rather than having a consumer one that looks like a feudal one.

Minor difference, but dang, it means a lot of work and is kinda cool, lol.

Quote from DoveArrow >>

One of the changes they made to this edition from earlier editions is how damage resistance works. In previous editions, you often had to have weapons constructed from a particular metal, such as cold iron or silver, to deal full damage to certain creatures. That still exists, to a certain extent, but now it's that or a magic item. I understand why they did it to some extent, because it makes things more streamlined. However, it's basically rendered items made of special materials and damage resistance above a certain level almost useless. Who is going to carry around a silver weapon when they can just use their +1 longsword? I would like to see them return to the previous mechanic.

1e and 2e were really good about that. I always liked that set up (and in many cases you could have either a silver sword or a +1 sword), and since I both increased the max "+" to 5 and also have several beasties that operate that way, I am glad you brought it up. 

I am a huge fan of using unusual system mechanics, as well -- here's a score you have. These monsters cause you damage not to your hit points but to this score. IF this score drops below a certain threshold, you pass out in a coma and only X can restore you. It is not really related, but it is also the flip side of that kind of an approach, and renders a lot of common habits in character creation not quite as useful, lol.

Actually I consider the present “consumer” system just a variant of the feudal system. Feudal systems, to me, focus on the accumulation of wealth in a few hands ( the “feudal lords”) with the vast majority of the population essentially serfs/slaves ( or wage slaves). This is always a top heavy system doomed to collapse. A true “consumer” system ( I call it a Democratic or ecological system) focuses on putting the vast majority of the wealth into the the bottom of the economic ( food ) pyramid where it works its way up to the top and most is then stripped off and feed back in at the base. Such a system is always stable, allows for consistent growth and for individuals to rise through the pyramid to the top without separating the top into a ruling elite. 

That said the D&D worlds are essentially all feudal to greater or lesser extent but  building a crafting and trading economic model that allows for the PCs wealth shouldn’t really be that hard given the examples we have to draw on from history. If trade ( in coins) strips wealth then the recovery of Coin via adventuring should bring wealth to a region. 

Here are a few more.

I was not a fan of 4E from the player's side, but there were several mechanics they introduced to DMs in that system that I wish they had carried forward. Some examples include:

• Rules for scaling monsters, poisons, and traps up or down in Challenge Rating
• Monster roles (brute, skirmisher, etc.)
• Minions (1 hit point monsters)
• Skill challenges

That last one was a little difficult to understand how to implement well, but it was still a fun mechanic once you got the hang of it and I could see it being useful in 5E.

Speaking of skill challenges, chase rules have not worked under the 4E skill challenge system or the 5E rules. None of my players want to engage in a chase. They'll be like, "Well can't I just cast fireball on them?" I'm not sure what I would do to fix the chase rules. I've tried modifying them a bit, to no avail. All I can say is that they don't work as written. They don't feel dynamic at all. They just feel clunky.

Stealth! We need actual rules for it please.

Somatic and Material components are a mess right now.

Too many things clog up the Object Interaction currently. And the bonus action, if you want to make a TWF character.

Add another vote for crafting mechanics here.

Also, I'd like it if they were actually willing to give monsters weaknesses.  It used to be that monsters tended to not only have resistances and immunities to different damage types, but vulnerabilities as well.  That's been a very neglected aspect as there's only a few monsters that actually take extra damage from anything.

Quote from 6thLyranGuard >>

I'd like it if they were actually willing to give monsters weaknesses.  It used to be that monsters tended to not only have resistances and immunities to different damage types, but vulnerabilities as well.  That's been a very neglected aspect as there's only a few monsters that actually take extra damage from anything.

Seconded. I think it would help if vulnerability only multiplied damage by 1.5. It would still definitely be worth aiming for that specific type of damage, especially if the same monster has some resistances/immunities, but it's not such a huge flashing red bit that any monster with a vulnerability would only stands half a chance.

Quote from DoveArrow >>

Here are a few more.

I was not a fan of 4E from the player's side, but there were several mechanics they introduced to DMs in that system that I wish they had carried forward. Some examples include:

• Rules for scaling monsters, poisons, and traps up or down in Challenge Rating
• Monster roles (brute, skirmisher, etc.)
• Minions (1 hit point monsters)
• Skill challenges

That last one was a little difficult to understand how to implement well, but it was still a fun mechanic once you got the hang of it and I could see it being useful in 5E.

Speaking of skill challenges, chase rules have not worked under the 4E skill challenge system or the 5E rules. None of my players want to engage in a chase. They'll be like, "Well can't I just cast fireball on them?" I'm not sure what I would do to fix the chase rules. I've tried modifying them a bit, to no avail. All I can say is that they don't work as written. They don't feel dynamic at all. They just feel clunky.

By chase rules, I presume you mean the mechanics of a vehicle/mounted type chase. The big problem with chases in this game is that ultimately they suffer from the same fate as combat -- they become non-dynamic unless you put the effort into the description and add pressure (time, import) into them. That isn't really an issue of the game so much as it is player engagement and the fact that chases do better from a top-down narrative (no choice kind of thing).

I have some  personal annoyances about the CR system (it is opaque for the most part,  and what the hell is 1/4 and 1/2, and 3/4, or whatever).  Plus, I have a die chain handy (d2 to d24, by 2's), so I have no qualms about using one, lol. So I house ruled my own CR system so that I can do exactly that -- 1 to 50 CRs, and I can take any CR1 or CR 50 and modify the beasty up or down by adding or taking away different factors.It works, but I still need to play around with it more, as I think there are more factors I could use with it.

It meant fixing the size thing, too, lol.

The Roles segment was one of the least popular tings about 4e more broadly, but I still see it used overall. Not sure how one would assign Roles in 5e, but as a mechanic I would simply shift back to the 1e/2e days and probably use that shifting CR systems and creative design. to make individual members of a unit meet different roles. I mean, the cannon fodder are at least as capable of that kind of thinking as the PCs.

The Minions thing intrigues me -- I never toyed with 4e long enough to run into that -- but given I just introduced a swarm premise critter to my game that not only has 1 hp, they only do 1 hp of damage, I am interested in learning more there.

Skill challenges sound like an old 2e thing with proficiencies to me.  Ways of using skills that are a challenge and that focus on them as a way to get things done, I presume? IF so, Crafting rules will help with that.

Quote from PsyrenXY >>

Stealth! We need actual rules for it please.

Somatic and Material components are a mess right now.

Too many things clog up the Object Interaction currently. And the bonus action, if you want to make a TWF character.

Actual Stealth, too. I miss my actually unseen invisibility.  I think that could be done through tweaking existing in part, but a new category would be useful as well. Worth taking a look at.

Components as a whole are a bit of a problem child within the game (you need a focus, but if you don't have one a pinch of this and a bit of that will do) and honestly I am shocked they are still in 5e at all -- they add a level of resource management that for as long as I have played has been a handwave in 8 out of 10 games because no one has time for that. THe focus brings us more into the modern age (a la Harry Potter and the wands, or other fictional works, while still giving the underlying archetypes a nod).

being old and out of date, I need a little help: TWF? 

Action Economy I think is over simplified (and given a recent spate of being yelled at) and misunderstood as a whole in terms of how it relates. to the different kinds of actions and what constitutes an action. Part of it is absolutely the growth of the game, but leaning back towards components a bit, V and S are treated as "fast and easy" and that is part of what gives the mages "moar powa" in 5e and makes them difficult to balance against non-mages.

What if V and S components were not just color/flavor, but actually had a mechanics role (ie, time)? That would shift some of the ways that action economy is looked at. Under current rules, as was pointed out, a spell with a casting time of 1 action could take anywhere from 1 to 6 second to cast. And if it is 6 seconds, then how are they going to do other things? Some minor and weird detail stuff in there, but that just means that we should look more closely at that. 

Object interaction -- can you give me a better idea? It could be that I glossed that, but for the most part I run interaction pretty straight forward as a If this, then that set up.  And that applies across any kind of object interaction. 

Quote from 6thLyranGuard >>

Add another vote for crafting mechanics here.

Also, I'd like it if they were actually willing to give monsters weaknesses.  It used to be that monsters tended to not only have resistances and immunities to different damage types, but vulnerabilities as well.  That's been a very neglected aspect as there's only a few monsters that actually take extra damage from anything.

I do miss the days when you could really have a chance as a player against some beasty that was tough because you were the one with the cold iron and your buddy had a +1 they found in that last barrow and the rest of the party was kinda "welp!" as the two of you did all the hard work (and got the glory).

I played too many different games in my youth, so I am of a firm belief that there is always a weakness. Silver, gold, "moon drenched" and "cold forged" -- how is it that ordinary people hold off these things? That's a key piece in how I think -- those folks with 4 hp and scores in the 8 to 12 range or lower -- how do they deal with a dimensional monster? just die or run? No -- that would lead to people not farming and all tha, major risks and far more wickedness. FR couldn't function at all.

No, there must be weaknesses. Even the nommo and the tokoloshe have them, so it shouldn't be a stretch that a fantasy game based on  such things should have them.

Quote from Quar1on >>

Quote from 6thLyranGuard >>

I'd like it if they were actually willing to give monsters weaknesses.  It used to be that monsters tended to not only have resistances and immunities to different damage types, but vulnerabilities as well.  That's been a very neglected aspect as there's only a few monsters that actually take extra damage from anything.

Seconded. I think it would help if vulnerability only multiplied damage by 1.5. It would still definitely be worth aiming for that specific type of damage, especially if the same monster has some resistances/immunities, but it's not such a huge flashing red bit that any monster with a vulnerability would only stands half a chance.

I think it should vary by critter, but as a rule of thumb, yeah.  Way back in the creaky days it was if you didn't have magic or the vulnerable weapon, you didn't do squat, , and the vulnerable weapon simply allowed them to do it. Then there were the critters who could shrug off magic and normal weapons unless they were of x type.

From a design perspective, though, that means you have to know what "cold iron" is in the setting, for example.  You have to know why the critter is weak to that kind of thing. And that means you have to localize, have to make things more part of a given world. Although in a rule book that's as simple as saying "there is a reason, go make it" for homebrew.

Now to collect it all...

Summation as of 9/6/2023

• Crafting (!)
• Creature sizes
• Spell Casting if thens
• Spell Casting components
• Strongholds
• Moving up in the world, leadership roles
• Psionics (note: this needs to operate in a vein similar to magic, in that it has to have certain rules such as X power does X, and only X)
• Improved Economic and Trade systems
• CR Scaling (So that 1/4 CR can be buffed into a 6 CR)
• CR Transparency
• Monster Roles
• Minions
• Skill challenges -- multiple roll efforts with a present success/fail ratio.
• Chases
• Stealth
• Monster Weaknesses (traditional)

Some of these are what I think of as minor fixes, but others need full systems created that interface with other systems.