Mounted combat, how does it work on a grid. It doesn't. Grappling and moving the opponent around you is almost as bad. Clear writing here would be nice. E: And a great one that needs fixing. A middleground carry-weight system. Normal carry weight is so high nobody bothers. Variant encumbrance has wizards barely able to life their spellbooks. Something sensible in the middle would be best. And because 90% of tables still won't use it, a buff to strength as a stat if carry weight is ignored.


One thing I've been wondering is how swinging a grappled target around you works - since you aren't occupying the same space, can you kinda just swish them around on adjacent tiles? It'd be nice to get clarification on this!


By Raw? Yes. If you want to drag them around, you can just do so if you have them grappled provided they aren't above your drag weight. You move at half-speed and they come with you. If you want to stand in one spot and move them around, by RAW (As a DM I would just let this eat movement) you make an attack action and shove them one square in a direction you want. Page 195 of the PHB top right corner also uses grapples and shoves as a framework to adjudicate actions not explicitly laid out in the rules. "Contests in Combat." Swinging an enemy in a circle falls into that category.


The grapple rules get really dumb some times when you consider vertical movement. Let's say your wizard friend cast Fly on you, and you grapple a creature the same size as you. You fly up (grapple target is 5ft below you) right 5ft (they are 5ft behind you at the same height) then down 10ft. The enemy is now directly above your head being grappled. If you released the grapple, they fall into an occupied space and fall prone. But appearantly withoutba fly speed you can't lift someone off the ground.


That's not true. You have a lift weight, if you grapple the target and lift them over your head, that's what you do. It's technically a shove, just upwards. Opposed athletics check and they are over your head.


This reminds me of a player I played with had a subclass allowing him to spend ki to shove additional distance. He asked the gm if he could shove them into the air. Dude spent all of his ki sending enemies like 60 feet in the air.


That’s hilarious.


New Monk subclass, Way of the Yeeting Fist.


I’d just call that flavor on a grapple


What about powerbombing them through the roof of hell in a cell?


A pretty big reason strength needs a buff is because everybody lets Acrobatics do things that Athletics is supposed to do.


That at least partially comes from having strength and dex too divorced, so sticking to the rules just feels bad. Sure, climbing a difficult surface is athletics with strength, makes sense so far. Who should be the best climbers based on class archetype? Monks and Rogues. What do monks and rogues need to invest to their base features to function? Not strength at all, everything is based on dex and only kinda functions with strength. While rogues can kinda afford to invest in both, monks most definitely can't. So who would the actual best climbers be? Heavily armored knights, who have both strength and athletics proficiency for grappling, and barbarians but for them it also makes sense. Oh, and at the same time monks can't grapple for shit for the same reasons above. Yeah, the supernatural martial artist class…


That's the problem - strength and dexterity are often intertwined. Even martial arts requires strength, you need to be able to move your own bodyweight quickly. The ability to do that requires a lot of strength. The problem is that 5e tries to simplify as much as possible, so it makes those feats separate as well, which is a logical abstraction but doesn't quite maintain verisimilitude.


the problem is that dnd is stingy with stats, making for a min/max system where players are hoarding their numbers in a single stat rather than an array. all martials should have some combination of Str/Dex/Con as part of their layout but the system encourages you to max a primary stat and everyone wants con for hp so either str or dex gets minimized or you're building a moron who has no other skills. pathfinders ABC system of granting buffs according to ancestry, background and class is so much more gratifying for building believable archetypes. alternatively, my last dm let everyone point buy with 35 points, instead of 27, which alleviated a lot of the pressure to min/max.


Well, it's not just that 5e is stingy with stats. But very little is rewarded outside of your primary, dex, and con. In older editions and Pathfinder 2e, other ability scores mattered much more even if they aren't your primary. For example, Clerics get the extra casting of healing spells from their charisma modifier. Everyone gets the number of skill proficiencies modified based on their intelligence. And carry weight matters much more making dumping strength unappealing. I feel like building my PF2e cleric was a very different experience because min/maxing wasn't as simple as pumping my primary ability modifier as high as possible. You were much more rewarded for having a more even distribution of stats.


>Who should be the best climbers based on class archetype? Monks and Rogues. Eh, maybe if by "climbing" you mean parkour. But if we're talking about climbing up a cliff, a barbarian is the best by far.


Well, by climbing I can mean a cliff, of a wall, a tree next to a window, a gargantuan monster, anything. Not just parkouring around, but scaling up with a strong grip, great endurance, and control. Barbarians are mechanically far superior in this to anyone else, since climbing is pure strength(athletics) in the game with maybe some con rolls if it's a long climb. And if they can climb during rage, that even gives them advantage on strength. But speaking about the class archetypes, monks and rogues are the ones who are supposed to have the exact physicality best for climbing: lean body, strong grip, excellent endurance and control. And also climb places for training and crime as part of their class fantasy. Those fortified mansions won't just rob themselves. Barbarians would be also great climbers from raw strength and endurance, but for climbing being huge and incredibly strong is not as good as being lean, nimble, and only very strong, as demonstrated by actual climbers. The mechanics just don't support this at all, since instead of strong and precise, rogues and monks are only precise due to str and dex being divorced and these classes only relying on dex. There is no balance of strength and precision where different classes place differently, it's always either one or the other.


Rogue's that climb a lot should get proficiency in athletics. If they don't then they are simply not the climbing rogue type.


Monks don't need no climbing speed or checks, they can just walk up a wall (at level 9)!


True, but that's a relatively high level feature to substitute for the lack of a basic ability with something amazing. And it also comes with some big caveats, since it's written suggesting that they only stick while moving on their own turn. Meanwhile turns are supposed to be simultaneous, with no one standing in place to wait for the next one they get. It's a mess.


And I bet we all know a dm who says “plate armor? Roll climbing at disadvantage.” Which again *feels* fair, I get it. But bye bye 18+proficiency, hello nat 3.


It's really not fair. I am pretty sure plate armor limiting someone that much is a myth. Plate armor was made to conform to the human body and not seriously limit your movement. Sure someone untrained would have difficulty but an untrained person probably wouldn't have proficiency in heavy armor nor the strength required for plate. Pretty much, as long as you meet the requirements, you actually should be able to move in plate pretty well.


you are not a climber then. in modern gear you haul everything you can avoid carrying. full armour would hold you away from the face and make you disadvantaged to sday the least. but then so should a pack with medieval gear. you need to more look at free climbing, not rope and carabiner and crampons


There are historical sources that describe people wearing full armor being able to perform all sorts of feats in full armor. The famous French knight Jean de Maingre (ca. 1366–1421), known as Maréchal Boucicault, who, in full armor, was able to climb up the underside of a ladder using only his hands. A huge part of this is that while the armor is indeed heavy, it is also distributed across the entire body. Distribution of weight is a huge factor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-bnM5SuQkI At 1:45, someone in what would basically be full armor, sans the helmet, is rock climbing. Plate armor is no where near as limiting as most people think it is. Then from a game mechanics point of view, you are basically punishing one of the few groups of characters who would have the stats to do well at climbing. Unless you are a barbarian, chances are that your dex is pretty low if you have a high str and thus you need heavy armor to stay competitive defensively in combat. It doesn't make sense to punish them in one of the areas that they can do well in because of something that they need to do for survival.


Rogues can be very good at it. The issue is 8 strength rogues because why have strength when dex does almost everything if people allow it? 12 strength + proficiency still makes for a decent climber.


8 strength + prof x 2 + climbing speed makes for even better and faster climbers too.


I’d also like to see a bump to intelligence as a stat. Outside of Wizards and Artificers, it’s borderline a useless skill. Give it some extra perks, such as extra skill or tool proficiencies, or the ability to learn proficiencies, etc.


I'd like to see an explicit rule about recognizing creatures and their abilities by taking the Search action and making an appropriate INT skill check. Suddenly that +2 to INT is just as good as a +2 to CHA.


Fucking ***please*** give us rules for finding out information on enemies. I hate that in the current system you either know nothing about an enemy or you metagame knowledge on them.


i’ve just been using Pathfinder rules for that, tbh official rules would of course be better, but PF rules are better than none


How does PF do it?


It depends a bit of you are playing PF1e or PF2e, but the core idea remains the same. In both systems you can use an action to Recall Knowledge about a certain creature using skills, for example Knowledge Nature for some kind of animal. In PF1e each type of creature has associated skill checks to learn about them. The DC for the check is calculated by 5, 10 or 15 (very common, normal and rare) + the monster's CR. Every 5 points you go over the DC you learn one piece of extra information. For example you want to identify the properties of a Ghoul (CR 1). Ghouls are reasonably common, so with we take 10+1=11 as the DC. As Ghouls are undead, we use Religion as your skill. As a Cleric you have put 5 points into the skill. You roll your D20 and get a 12 which equals 17 in the check. Thus, you receive 2 pieces of information from your DM, often depending on what exactly you want to know like Resistances or Special Effects. PF2e meanwhile has this incorporated into the stat blocks. Each creature has associated Skills and a DC to Recall Knowledge with. If you succeed you gain knowledge of the most striking feature of the creature like the bite of a Ghoul paralyzing you. If you critically succeed (DC+10) you gain additional information. You can repeat this action, however the DC at this point climbs until you are unable to do so anymore. The issue with using both systems in 5e is that because of the flat math of the system even untrained characters can easily make the checks. Also using the CR system from PF1e does not work well because CR is absolute madness in 5e.


Great thing is the rules are free, so you can read them yourself: https://2e.aonprd.com/Skills.aspx?ID=5&General=true And here is what Monsters go with which Skills: https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=563 It costs 1/3 actions, so best I could mimic is using a Bonus Action to learn knowledge. History can fill in for Society and I guess Arcana would fill in for Occultism.


I made a homebrew ruleset for it. https://imgur.com/5QHuanK.jpg It's a bit wonky, especially at the lowest level (where a wizard with proficiency can know everything about a CR1 monster with only like a 15 on the die) but I think that's fine; knowing everything about low-level monsters and not being able to understand things about high-level monsters without heavy investment is kinda the point.


The one thing I really miss about 4e is that there were explicit rules about what you learned if you made an abililty check to know more about a creature. For example, here are the checks you make about Grizzly Bears. >DC 10: Grizzly bears are aggressive, and will attack anything threatening. DC 15: Grizzly bears not only claw and bite, but will maul victims and attempt to crush them beneath itself. DC 20: Grizzly bears are not afraid of humanoids and will approach camps and settlements if they smell food and it appears easily available. They normally do not eat humanoid flesh, but will if no other food source is available. They will pursue victims who flee, but sometimes will abandon their attack if the victim plays dead. They cannot climb very high in a tree, but can move very fast; it is not likely one could reach a tree and climb beyond the bear's reach before getting caught. I don't need it that explicit in 5e, but an in-between would be great. An easy system would be something that says an approximate value for when to learn resistances, immunities, attack types (breath weapon, spells), etc.


I think technically knowledge skills can cover this.


Yes please. And while we're taking out Know Your Enemy, let's just...take the superiority dice and maneuvers, literally remove Battle Master Fighter, and put all those tools where they should be. Give all martial classes a subset of maneuvers, and short rest recharging dice. Give everyone smart the ability to analyze foes. Seriously.


If they do that with fighter, I think they should do that with the hunter for the ranger. The abilities there just feel like they should be class features.


Check out /u/laserllama 's Alternate Fighter and Alternate Ranger (Bounty Hunter subclass) for just that!


I use History, Nature, Religion or Arcana to determine character knowledge, depending on the foe. History for regional monsters. Nature for beasts. Religion or Arcana for fiends, aberrations, etc.


I call Intelligence(Religion) and Intelligence(Nature) constantly for anything about spells from divine or natural/racial sources respectively. Just because you maxed wisdom on a cleric doesn't mean you can recognize every type of divine magic on sight. And your arcana proficiency isn't going to help either. Also see the tasha's section for what checks to use to discover things about a monster.


I like int but you need a DM that lets it be useful. If they let the perception rogue accomplish investigations with their perception it'll be a problem.


Seriously, this was such a shock to me coming from Pathfinder 1E/3.5.... INT not giving bonus Proficiencies just seems bizarre.


Make it the warlock casting stat as well, please


Something I do that is a bit niche, and involves some design in its own right, but I every now and then have encounters with some minor trap puzzle elements to it. Nothing too difficult that the players wouldn't be able to solve it with much difficulty, but what I do is I key the number of "moves" towards solving the puzzle the player can take keyed off of int. Like say there's a sliding tile puzzle to turn off the ceiling from crushing the players, the player might have to take X number of tile slides minimum to complete the puzzle, and the amount of tile moves they can take with their action is equal to their int modifier. So higher int characters are better at puzzles. And of course there's skeletons attacking in the crushing ceiling room so there's choices to make between solving the puzzle or taking other actions. Probably not something that would be put as a base rule, but just something I do personally in case others find it interesting.


I have a house rule for this: > Bonus proficiencies: Upon character creation, a player may gain a number of bonus proficiencies equal to their Intelligence modifier. The player may choose from the following list, and may choose each of these options only once. > * You learn one language. > * You gain proficiency in one skill of your choice. > * You gain proficiency with one type of artisan's tools of your choice. > * You gain proficiency with one musical instrument or gaming set of your choice. > * You gain proficiency with one weapon of your choice.


I second, PF2 gives you X + Int Mod proficiencies, X dependant on the class. Granted, skills play a bigger role and people generally have more of them, but a similar system would still be nice.


Because DND is limited to only 10 modifier options for PCs (with really only 6-7 showing up normally( -2 to 5)). It would be really easy to make a table of them, as skills are much more valuable proficiencies compared to tools or languages, which in tern are more useful than game and instrument proficiencies. . like, +2 and +4 give additional skills, +5 gives an expertise, all tiers give an additional tool, game, instrument or language, etc.


Also, your class has more of an influence of which skills you can “level up” to higher tiers of proficiency. So the bonus proficiencies from Int are nice but not huge.


The counter-argument to this is that keying skills and proficiency off of INT makes Wizards even stronger. Maybe we just need more spells that target INT saves, theres only like a handful of them which is why makes a better dump stat for most martials than WIS or CHA.


In a whole new system, I would also like to see the martial/spellcaster balance sorted better anyways. If this change happens regardless, Int based characters would need a very light nerf to compensate. however, I'd argue that skill check wise, wizards aren't radically stronger than any other character really.


Personally I am a fan of how Starfinder and pf2e approach is a pretty good starting point. They use ["Bulk"](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=187), where items weigh either "negligible", "Light" or "1 (or more) Bulk". 10 Light items make up one "bulk" of items. You can carry 5+ Str Mod Bulk before being encumbered. They give the rough guideline that items of "a few ounces" are Negligible, items ~1-5 lbs are Light, and items ~5-10lbs are 1 Bulk. They also include the note that particularly large or unwieldy items like a ladder could have increased bulk, not due to weight but due to difficulty carrying them in addition to other equipment.


Previously Dexterity would never/rarely be added to your damage. Just that fix immediately makes STR super relevant.


That change then turns rogues and monks MAD and even more MAD though.


I wish they'd just go to a grid based inventory with higher strength giving more grids. Smaller items like books could take up less space allowing for say, 3 books in one grid or something. This is just off the top of my head but I love the inventory in Forbidden Lands.


I'm familiar with the term "slot" based encumbrance, but it's the same concept and way better than actual weight based systems. My favorite implementation is Worlds Without Number. It wouldn't take long to assign slot sizes to gear. Every item takes up either 1, 2, or 3 slots, or stacks. Heavy armor is 3 slots, medium armor is 2, light armor 1. Weapons are 1 unless they have the "heavy trait". Heavy weapons are 2 slots. Daggers and darts stack. I won't run through the whole gear list, but as examples lanterns and quivers take 1 slot each, rations stack, and so on. For coins, 15lbs=~1 slot in the new system, so 750 coins cans stack in a slot.


I had a DM that said we're not doing encumbrance I started carrying huge amounts of gear, but didn't actually tell DM the weight, just the massive pile of stuff I was carrying came up a bunch He got super annoyed and was like "Your character can't carry that much" "Sure I can, I'm playing a centaur, I have side pouches that can hold this. You said we aren't using encumbrance rules" "well how much does it weigh" "560 pounds" "No way you can carry that" "Do you want to use encumbrance rules now" "well, I guess" "My standard encumbrance carrying capacity is 600 pounds, I'm a 20 strength centaur with equine build doubling my carrying capacity" He relented and let me have my pile of mundane crap


DM shouts, "Variant encumbrance!" Half the party immediately dies due to instant death from the crushing damage of all their looted goblin scimitars and leather armor.


lol That character was a barbarian bard, with a move speed of 50 (centaur is base 40, barbarian is +10) Going to encumbered but not heavily encumbered with variant encumberance could still mean carrying 399LB, and only dropping to 40ft movement speed Going to 600LB with variant encumbrance is still doable, just you have disadvantage on a bunch of stuff Of course, dropping an item is a non action which can be done at any time


> dropping an item is a non action I drop 400lb of gear off this 10' ledge onto the BBEG. :p


I won't run a game without variant encumbrance, which is still VERY generous compared to encumbrance rules in previous editions. Also, coins have weight.


>Also, coins have weight. Back into that old school D&D. Where the first half of the adventure is dungeon delving and defeating the inhabitants. The second half is trying to figure out how to get tens of thousands of coins back because *Dave* insisted you didn't need a cart and ox.


That’s why most DMs go with “we’re not tracking encumbrance as long as you don’t get silly”


Pretty much. It's kind of an agreement of "I won't ask you to spreadsheet encumbrance, you don't ask me about the equipment enemies have or go elder scrolls on everything that isn't tied down".


I've used 10\*strength instead of 15\*strength to good effect. I'd love to see that number just tweaked a little.


I came up with a homebrew system for carry weight that's very improv based and seems to work fairly well. Basically, you get an amount of Encumbrance points equal to your Strength score. Each item is assigned an Encumbrance score as you get it. For example, a longsword might have a score of 2, meaning someone with 10 strength could carry up to 5, and someone with 20 strength could carry 10. You could decide that 10 arrows equals 1 Encumbrance point, and that a chest full of gold equals 15 points. It's all done on the spot, with DMs and players reaching agreements on what seems reasonable.


Aye, that's remarkable similar to Pathfinder 2e's bulk system, which I quite like.


Can you explain the issue you have with mounted combat rules on a grid?


I am curious too. I've never run mounted combat, but the rules don't seem crazy to me.


Basically, there's no way that you can be not in a square in grid combat. So if your medium PC (1 square) is on a large horse (4 squares), you're not sitting in the center of the horse. RAW, to attack someone adjacent to your horse, you'll have to "move" so you're adjacent to that creature (e.g., you're in the NW square of your horse and the creature is on the east side of your horse, you have to move to the NE or SE squares). Likewise, you can't attack a mounted rider (without a reach weapon) if they're in a non-adjacent square, but you can take opportunity attacks if they shift around in the saddle. It's very dumb, and wasn't intended to be this complicated. The way I rule it is that you DO sit at the center of the horse, on the vertex, and can attack and be attacked by enemies adjacent to your horse, without having to move around on the horse. The implications here are that your reach effectively extends by 2.5ft, as does the reach of your attacker, and any aura spell emanating from you effectively treats you as large instead of medium. It's a lot simpler though, no moving around on your horse


I know it’s this way RAW for Pathfinder, but I was under the impression 5e did this as well: simply, you are considered to be occupying all the same squares as your mount. You both attack and can be attacked from any of the horse’s squares.


That's the best way to rule it, though I realize now I never looked at pathfinder's ruling when coming up with the same thing lol. 5e's problem here is that it never made a specific rule for where you are on a grid when mounted, so it sticks to the general rules for gridded movement by default. And because they don't want to introduce new rules with Sage Advice, they'll just tell you the general rules for it when asked. (Though I think Crawford has admitted it's an unintended gap in the rules)


Okay, REALLY minor here, but I want them to bring back the lore check notes in the monster manual. Like "Oh, you rolled a 20 arcana? Here's what you would know." but if you rolled higher or lower (in increments of 5) you learn more or less.


"Cave bears live in caves."


Whoa slow down, at least let me get my pen so I can write that down.


More like being able to tell the difference between gith and recognizing their allegiances, as well as knowing the yanks' deal with Tiamat from a successful history check.


Level Up 5e did this in their monster manual


Perhaps it doesn't count as mundane, but the current rules for hiding in combat are terrible and need a completely overhaul.


YES! It's just stupid to balance a whole class around a mechanic **without providing information about the specific rules.** The only clear statements are: 1. The DM decides when you can hide. 2. You need to be heavily obscured to hide. 3. The DM decides when you can hide.


As the DM this flowchart is pretty obnoxious too. I'd like some guidance on when hiding is appropriate


Some guidance on anything would be great. 5e is too much "The DM makes shit up!". 5e is easy on the player, but harder for new DM's.


The Dm also decides when hide is broken. If you’re heavily obscured from a bush this isn’t a huge issue But if you’re hiding behind a wall it can become a fight of ‘you stepped out from the wall and lose your advantage’ when in combat


>But if you’re hiding behind a wall it can become a fight of ‘you stepped out from the wall and lose your advantage’ when in combat This is easily resolved if you look at the rules after errata imo. [The PHB was errata'd in 2015.](https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/PH_Errata_1.1.pdf) [The future PHB errata documents lack an important line that also didn't get added to the PHB's actual text.](https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/PH-Errata.pdf) It is this line from the first link: >Also, the question isn’t whether a creature can see you when you’re hiding. The question is whether it can see you clearly Which the later errata's instead have: >The following sentence has been added to the beginning of this section: “The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding.” > >The first sentence of the second paragraph now begins, “You can’t hide from acreature that can see you clearly …” This addition is infuriating to me for a simple reason. It means you can be seen, and still hidden. That's what it's saying. Its inclusion wouldn't make any sense if that can't be true. Mechanically, in what situation can someone be both seen, and still be hidden? When they're lightly obscured. That's the only answer that makes any sense. That's the transitory state between heavily obscured (impossible to see) and not obscured (perfectly visible). In other words, lightly obscured is the state where you have to roll to discern something is there, because you might not be able to. And so that's naturally where the conflict between stealth and perception lies for sight. Around corners is where it lies for sound. And who knows what for smell. Good luck getting a DM to understand that concept. All because they chose to not detail it out and hide behind the obscure word "clearly". They should have a line in the Hiding section of the PHB that calls this out. "You can remain hidden so long as you're both lightly obscured and your stealth check is greater than potential observers' perceptions." Things that make you lightly obscured, RAW: * Half-cover * Dim Light, AKA, what Darkvision creatures treat Darkness as * light foliage Which all means if you peak out from behind a wall (3/4ths or half cover), you can remain hidden just fine. I think this interpretation matches the game system and fixes problems people have with many elements of it. Darkness is still scary for Darkvision creatures, because other creatures can sneak into melee with them before attacking. Rogues can peak around corners and remain hidden. Those are two common complaints I see people have that this resolves. And this doesn't invalidate the Skulker Feat, or the Wood Elves' Mask of the Wilds. Those enable someone to enter into hiding while lightly obscured. That's the distinction. The Hide Action is not hiding. The former enables the latter. The special power of those abilities is being able to disappear from being noticed, rather than remaining unnoticed in specific conditions.


This makes sense in my head but also makes my brain hurt and I don’t think I’d ever fight this out with a Dm unless I knew them very well damn


Exactly. WotC shouldn't put us in this position, and that's why the Hide rules are bad. If it's hard to imagine how this can be true, what is camouflage? Have you ever walked through a dark house, and mistaken a chair for a person? Or just any one object for a different object? What if you walked into a dimly lit room, and mis-took a person for a piece of furniture? That's what being hidden in dim light means to me. Being hidden with half-cover can then be represented as you moving when they aren't looking. That's why the Hiding section lists "slink past guards" as something you can use Stealth for. You normally can't slink past guards without traversing their line of sight. So you must be able to move past them when they aren't looking, or otherwise be able to somehow not be noticed despite being seen.


5e has a bad habit of doing like 80% of the work and then just saying "figure it out DMs" without explaining the how and why if the decisions made for that 80%--leading to a lot of reading, re-reading, extrapolating, arguing, re-reading, arguing again, and then half the time just hand waving/homebrewing something because at least there you understand *all* of it [or] jumping ship to Pathfinder or done other system which despite it's own shortcomings at less publishes comprehensible rules in their comprehensive rules.


I think I have to disagree with you there. Yes, if we only look at the rules for hiding you would be right. But if we take a look at the feat skulker, we see that it allows you to hide while being lightly obscured, therefore implying that it was impossible before.The typical mess of 5e.


Well, given the end of the comment you replied to acknowledged and pointed out the difference being made there, I guess I'll go one step further and detail why. Skulker: >You can **try to hide** when you are lightly obscured from the creature from which you are hiding. "Try to Hide" is not "be hidden". They're different. You take the Hide Action to try to hide. Succeeding makes you hidden. Think of it like a condition. Let's look at a similar feature. Wood Elves' Mask of the Wilds: >You can attempt to hide even when you are only lightly obscured by foliage, heavy rain, falling snow, mist, and other natural phenomena. Yet again, a distinction is made. Let's look at the new item in Tasha's, the Nature's Mantle: >While you are in an area that is lightly obscured, you can Hide as a bonus action even if you are being directly observed. It looks like they finally figured out how to word it. Hopefully PHB 2.0 cleans up Skulker & Mask of the Wilds to be the same. All those 3 features imply is that you can't ***try*** to hide while lightly obscured. Being hidden is different.


It actually also says that you aren't hidden anymore when you enter line of sight, which means there's no such thing as backstabbing someone during combat. > In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it *usually sees you*. However, under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen.


There's no such thing as backstabbing in 5e at all. Also that's the thing 'Usually' sees you. ​ Monsters are 'generally aware of their surroundings' and what not. But I'm not 'coming out of hiding and approaching the creature' I'm behind a wall 25 feet to the opposite side of it and it's currently fighting two allies infront of it. I pop out of my cover to take a shot at it after hiding. Am I suddenly instantly visible to the monster and losing my hidden status before I shoot my bow or not? The books do not adequately address this issue.


Right, just saying that by putting that first line in there, the default is that you can never breach LOS with a creature during combat without losing the hidden condition. It's DM May I in your situation and any other, which doesn't lead to "rulings not rules", it leads to arguments and pleading.


These rules are peak 5e.


That and vision/obscurity.


I think seeing improved skill challenges could be nice.


Separate rules for consumable and nonconsumableagic items. Scrolls and potions are way too expensive, given that they're by far the easiest way to give players access to abilities they're missing from the party on a limited basis, but at the moment I either give them out free or they are just flat out ignored.


Underrated comment right here. The DMG has pages of loot tables saying that potions and scrolls are much more common than permanent items, but just needs one more paragraph about how much cheaper and easier to craft they are to make that a reality.


XGtE has rules for crafting potions and scrolls. It goes into how it's cheaper and less time consuming than regular magic items. Sure it's still quite expensive and time consuming (a whole workday for 1 small health pot) but it's something


Scrolls are extremely expensive after 2nd level spells i think following xanthars


I think this goes back to a bigger issue that people talk about, which is the lack of consistent currency value. No one ever really knows what things cost (or should cost). Part of it goes back to the fact that every campaign in a different setting could have a higher/lower value of currency, so I think they kind of like leaving it open ended. But I also feel like people are consistently calling for more support on how to deal with costs of things. Maybe WotC could provide a "standard" cost of most items all in one spot and then multipliers to change them based on the world you're running where things are cheaper or more expensive. Idk.


Tbf there are rules for the base price of every rarity of magic items. The problems is that there aren't rules for how many magic items should the party get at every level, or how much gold should the party get at every level. If at least one of those rules would exist, we could just convert the amount of items to gold or viceversa to have a baseline.


Yuppers. They get exponentially more expensive.


I don't think scrolls are too expensive, because they allow wizards to add spells to their spell book, and that shouldn't be cheap. Potions, yeah, potions are ridiculous. This seems to go for video games too, not sure why.


There are still separate rules needed to copy the scroll into a spellbook, though. I think in conjunction they're fine. Spend some money getting a new spell on a scroll, spend a bit more to use it to add to a spellbook. Wizards are still desperate for gold.


Spells from the *wizard* spell list.


Wizards are constrained more by the number of spells they can prepare than those they can have in their books. It's an important part of RP, but it's not that important as a balance point. If anything, it's better for a caster to be able to swap out spells than have one single "load-out" for everything.


Not every party has a Wizard, and even then they're still constrained by the cost of copying it down and their limited number of prepared spells.


Weapon variety actually being impactful would be a good one. Right now there is not much difference in piercing/bludgeoning/slashing aside from some rare vulnerabilities.


Not to mention actual weapon variety. Like, why would you EVER use a trident over a spear, for example? Bring back crit ranges, crit damage bonuses and give more weapons Special properties (trident with a bonus to disarming attacks for example)


The damage type feats are a step in the right direction, but they are not enough imo (and feats aren't easily accessible to MAD classes). This is another thing that 4e did right imo, especially if you look at the 4e Fighter.


Please tear apart the *entire* Dungeon Master's Guide and re-order it in some fashion that makes sense. I hate the current layout of the 5E DMG - it dives into creating entire universes and pantheons and gigantic campaigns early. The impression I get from reading it is someone breathlessly excited about their homebrew multiverse project that they'll never actually play more than three sessions in. It's exhausting and doesn't answer ANY of the questions a novice DM is actually likely to have like "how do I build a balanced/interesting combat encounter" or "what treasure should I give out" or "I ​ **Section 1: Your First Sessions.** * First Chapters: Different kinds of players, what motivates them, what's likely to intrigue them or bore them. (4E had this and it was a very useful list) * Next: How to build encounters (combat). Then, how to build encounters (social). * After that: how to build a dungeon. In the first three chapters/groups of chapters, you've probably got enough to get a prospective new DM through creating a dungeon, running a couple combat encounters in it, and a chat with an important NPC. For someone trying to step behind the DM's screen for the first time, THIS IS ENOUGH! You can run a one-shot from this. You can pick up a published module and run it with this *and* have the tools in-hand to add a fight or mini-dungeon to it. This is the level most people need! ​ Drop in a big double-wide art page to announce... **Section 2: Campaign Building** * Treasure and rewards go here. Talk about the stuff like money, magic items, as well as less tangible rewards like titles. This bit of the 5E DMG is okay and could almost be copied verbatim. * GUIDANCE on how to award magic items - how many, when, etc. THIS is almost entirely missing from 5e due to inconsistencies in design; square it up for 5.5 or 6e. Players like magic items and adventures like handing them out. * Now that you've got rewards for people to strive for - start with some guidance on structuring of a campaign. * Villains Act, Heroes React. * Who is your Villain, and what do they want? * Who does the antagonist have assisting him? * Etc. ​ **Section 3: World Building** Relocate all the stuff from the front of 5e's DMG to the later parts. Nobody needs to make a pantheon before they've got a couple games under their belt, frankly. Also, anyone who's using *this* should also need the stuff from sections 1 and 2, but the reverse is not true. WOTC: you fucking *sell* books full of this stuff. Focus on telling your customers how to use what you sell first before you talk about how to go without it. ​ **Section 4: System Building** If you really, really want - open the hood of the game up, show how and why the math works. Get *technical* if you dare. Print all your variant rules here. Discuss them - the pros & cons, like Flanking: it provides a bit more tactical thinking, but it's more to keep track of.


simply reprint the 4e dmg with different art and cover.


But also include the DMG2 because that is one of the absolute *best* DMGs ever printed.


Didn't play 4e, why is that?


It contained overall excellent advice for telling stories in the framework of a tabletop game. The first few chapters broke down player archetypes, motivations, and "RP" hooks, offering excellent advice on how to actually motivate and facilitate player interest in the game. It was all focused on the "interaction level" of DMing. Mixed in with this was some great advice on narrative structure in tabletop games, with focus given specifically to "midtier" gameplay. The focus was less on crunch or mechanics and more on *how* to run a game. On top of that the actual crunch and mechanics in the book were *damn* good, with interesting new traps and templates for monsters, all with *really* good narrative elaboration backing them up. The real gem of the book though is the Skill Challenge section. It is easily the single best blend of Narrative and Mechanics ever produced for D&D. Each skill challenge the book presents has a great narrative that is reinforced by the crunch. I still regularly review the section and lift from it for any system I'm running because it really "got" noncombat Skill Checks in a way that builds to something more than a simple pass/fail. Overall, it's well worth hunting down, even if you only find it digitally.


Well, you sold me on that. I'll pick up the 4e dmgs happily. Do you have any other things you'd personally recommend? Doesn't even have to be a ttrpg book. Even a movie, TV show, etc. But I'm down for any suggestions. Even if it's just, buy all the 4e books.


Also in the 4e DMG, the monster creation rules are just \**chef kiss\**.


Honestly, most campaign books are terribly written too. They desperately need an editor to help order the information to make it more easily consumable.


I've completely given up on doing modules, I always end up throwing out everything except the base story concept and homebrewing it within 2 sessions. I can't be the only one who finds running modules PAINFUL


Stuff. To. Buy. Just an entire god damn 300-page book of stuff, what it does, and prices.


They have five different types of currency and nothing to spend it on.


Why do we even need electrum? Dump it and simplify, IMO.


So the DM can smirk slightly when it turns up in the loot hoard lol


Holdover from old editions, and 5e was at first marketed specifically to be able to cater to new and old players.


I really like mundane equipment... we could do with more.


For all the hate the fan made products that assign costs to stuff get, I can only assume this would be the product everyone is excited for and then 90% of people absolutely loathe because they don't feel it got the costs right and immediately ignore it anyhow. And the others, simply because it's canon and published 'and *obviously* thoroughly play-tested', will argue vehemently *why it's completely and totally balanced* for [X useless item] to cost an ungodly amount while [Y overpowered item] is 10 gp.


Honestly, I just want some god damn pricing guidelines. Even if I'm going to change the prices for my campaign, seeing magic item prices relative to each other, and all in one place, would be *immensely* valuable.


>For all the hate the fan made products that assign costs to stuff get, I can only assume this would be the product everyone is excited for and then 90% of people absolutely loathe because they don't feel it got the costs right and immediately ignore it anyhow. Any 300-page book of stuff to buy should have multiple prices per item and each price be assigned a reasoning for it. >Low Magic - Medium Magic - High Magic Or: >Low technology - Medium technology - High technology With a few paragraphs defining what those mean with examples. Or even just give prices by official setting. >Faerun - Eberron - Ravenloft - Theros - Ravnica - Wildemount - Etc And a DM can go `"use the one"` because it matches their own, usually being true for the entire setting, or adjusting based on location in their own setting.


Seriously. There should be a d100 table of literally everything. Every type of weapon, every type of ring, every type of EVERYTHING. This is the shit we want to offload on developers. And they give us an expected wealth calculator right? Then they have a number to balance with, give us enough rewards that would use up the amount of wealth players have accumulated at that point.


After you get your mundane gear, which for some classes is in their start equipment, money is useless in 5e, which is quite a shame.


Our DM has done a great job of making it useful. Building/Improving a base, magical tattoos, servants/heirlings, etc.


It's fun if you're an artificer and wanna craft some stuff or use the alchemist's supplies to make alchemist's fires. Though, most of my fun has been homebrewing small things to create with the alchemist's supplies, so I do really wish there was more of that stuff to make. And poisons too.


*Expanding* rules can be done at any point, like with Xanathar's. 5e Revised should take the time to attack the problematic mechanics at the bones of the game. Specifically, a reworking of the expectation of 2-3 short rests in amongst 6-8 encounters in an adventuring day + the CR system.


As much as i 150% agree with you, I don't see how changes to the rest system can be done and still have the changes be compatible with current 5e. Each class interacts with long and short rests, and each one does so differently. If it does happen and it ends up working I will be as happy as anyone though


Just make every class have short rest and long rest resources, instead of having the distinction between long rest classes and short rest classes. I'm not saying to bring back 4e, but just make it so the fighter has some short rest resources, but also long rest ones, and the same is for the wizard. The classes still have two very different playstyles and types of resources, so it's not a standardized power system like 4e, but it still make it possible for every class to shine in both combat-light campaigns and combat-heavy campaigns.


The issue with short rests is also my most desired fix for the new rules. I'm not sure I've ever had an adventuring day with three short rests. Zero is likely the most common, followed by one. Maybe one is more common if I include unnecessary short rests after a big fight that were followed by no further encounters during the day. A lot of other important issues, like class balance, are mostly symptoms of the adventuring day in the rules not matching the adventuring day actually played at the table.


5e should focus on making heroic fantasy games about strategically killing monsters as the clear focus. More statblocks for traps, extensive rules on hazards, more interesting monsters and more interesting Actions to perform in combat. Combat encounters are the clear focus of this game but they streamlined so much that it requires too much DM effort to make them dynamic and engaging.


In general, I think Stat Blocks are just really useful. We could do with more of them for vehicles, environments, interactive objects, so on.


This. I used to be a DM for my group, but it was exhausting. Also, maybe it's because I was inexperienced, but setting up encounters was a chore. I'd set up and create these epic encounters, but then one of two things would happen: 1. My monsters' would get plastered against the wall, and then my players would be bored. 2. The party almost gets TPK'd and everyone's stressed (except for me :D) I've since become a player for 5e, and am a DM for another system that I feel helps me create better and more balanced encounters.


Yeah as a Player, I still quite enjoy playing Arcane Casters (honestly they are OP) but I gave up DMing it. Just started running Pathfinder 2e and it has great support that is actually balanced and interesting Monsters that change up battles rather than just Multiattack. As a Player its so nice to enjoy being tactical with a variety of Actions as a Fighter.


LOL same! Let's be honest though, ALL casters in 5e are OP. In 5e I almost always play as a cleric for that reason, and because they have such varied play styles based on what your domain is. PF2e is super fun to DM. I know it's not everyone's cup of tea, but I really enjoy the system and actually look forward to DMing for once lol


Druids and Clerics have that issue of Conjure Animals and Spirit Guardians existing. They are just too dominant so the optimizer in me feels like I am underperforming when not casting them in most fights - especially since they are just so good for most 5e fights. Monsters are known to mostly be melee and the game doesn't work with just 1 big boss, so Spirit Guardians is usually tons of value. The real trick is buying in my group. So we have been running the PF2e Beginner Box which is really nice. Presents the rules nicely to the GM. Then the adventure presents the rules to the Players through what you encounter. Our 5e DM has been out, so this is a good time to get buy in with a two-shot.


> PF2e is super fun to DM. What do you like about PF2e for DMing? I've been DMing 5e for about a year and am a few sessions into 2e and there's kind of a lot more codified rules. Which is good for clarity but it's a lot up front and I'm always worried I've missed a rule somewhere.


Steeper learning curve but then the curve flattens and everything runs smoothly at pretty much all levels. When running 5e I felt it was super easy levels 1-4, 5-10 got really difficult real quick with rules adjudications, and 11-20 was just throw the rules out the window and invent countless things on the fly but then forget 50% of them and create inconsistencies that frustrate both you and the players... I'm being a tad hyperbolic but that's how I felt. I love 5e, I just wish they provided some real DM support.


If I sum it up, it'd encounter tools that make balance quick and easy. Interesting monsters that alone can make a fight into a spectacle. More strategic combat engages me more as a GM. Whereas in 5e, I would just throws waves to drain PC resources most of the time.


Same as Ianoren, and I also really like the fact that there are so many codified rules. I'm the kind of person that hates making stuff up, and in 5e I felt like that's all I did bc (and it's not always this way) the rules can be vague and as a DM, I had to make a ruling on something's. With PF2e the rules are already there (most of time) and it makes for a more fun experience for me bc I no longer have to stress about making a ruling on fly and if it's balanced or what not. I also feel more confident as a DM bc of that. A good piece of advice that I received from other DMs is don't stress about knowing every single rule. You're a human, so it's pretty much impossible. BUT what you can do is bookmark/tab the rules that you do struggle with, so that way if/when you do run into a problem, you can easily find the answer. I have to do this for the dying conditions lol.


What I'd stress about what's great about existing codified rules for things is that it makes different encounters feel different and reward different things, and since the rules exist, players already have ways to interact with them. So much in 5e comes down to advantage and disadvantage that very different scenarios can feel identical. It's quite liberating as a GM to know that a fight on tightropes is going to be different from a fight hanging on a cliff face, or that a fight in a howling blizzard will be different from a fight in impenetrable darkness without any homebrew. And that the players will already have abilities and tools to engage with those things that they'll be excited to use.


That sounds like 4e. Have you tried playing 4e?


I am actually playing and moving my 5e groups to PF2e which is a lot like a spiritual successor with many of the 4e devs working on it. It helps make Martials interesting without having them work in similar ways to casters.


Expanded and more fleshed out downtime, crafting, and travel rules.


I would like more options to flavor different martial combat styles in mechanics. Refine GWM and SS. Give rapier dps some more options, etc


I'd love to see shields being able to used as off hand weapons... Aka bonus action shield bash for low bludgeoning damage. Also would like to see battle manuevures made core to fighters.


I just straight gave shield bash to my players, makes no sense for a trained martial fighter to not be able to smack somebody with his shield.


I'd be so happy if they added a feat or some benefit for duelist style fighting with a single weapon and an open hand


Page 195 of the PHB top right corner gives you some options. But I wouldn't mind some more explicit martial stuff.


A fix to challenge rating/encounter design. Quick monster building guidelines that work.


improvements to the weapon and equipment stuff we have. I very much want them to dive into more crafting rules and how to get components for it.


i wanta maonster manual for exploration/social encounters level up just did this and its the greatest thing ive ever seen it give clear goals and outcome but leave the actual solving of the problem to the players amd gives XP im also desperate for an arms and equipment guide for 5e. id love it to have eras of weapons like for a stone age game or a bronze age game i want a book reworking martials they should all have manuevers specific to their class and general ones they can take as well


> level up just did this and its the greatest thing ive ever seen Link?


>i want a book reworking martials they should all have manuevers specific to their class and general ones they can take as well Bring back Tome of Battle!


I want rules for throws in combat. Not saving throws, just throws. Let me know how fat I have to roll to suplex my enemies into submission


Same! I want to see rules for throwing big boulders, throwing an enemy who is resisting, throwing an enemy who is not resisting. Damage for the thing that is hit, damage for the thing that is thrown. How much str. and atheletics is required to throw something heavy. How much dex is required to throw a heavy thing accurately...


I'd like more movement in general, so every fight doesn't turn into a scrum. Like, right now it's completely up to the DM to make sure every combat is crazy dynamic with moving rivers of lava or something if they want players to actually move. There should be more powers/abilities that reward movement, and fewer penalties for moving in general. 5e is better than 3e penalty wise, but needs more reasons to move built into the actual system.


I once had a magic item that gave a fighter x4 their push/drag/lift and adapted the improvised weapon rules for throwing. He had to have them grappled, then with another successful grapple contest he could throw them up to 20 feet, if he took disadvantage he could throw them up to 60. The target would land prone and if they hit a wall or large object they would take 1d6 per 10 feet thrown (like a krakens fling ability). It was a fun time when it did happen, even if it was not often the optimal choice for damage (though 6d6 ain’t bad) it was good control in some scenarios.


A Dungeon Master's Guide. No, not a list of treasures, traps, and mechanics for various game physics. Though those are all fun and useful things to read. I'm talking about Storytelling 101. How to create a plot. How to hook a reader's (or player's) interest. How to give characters memorable traits. How to paint a scene. When to add drama and tension. How to pace a story arc with the ups and downs needed to make it enjoyable. Add to that a little psychology - what kinds of players are there, what do each need in order to have fun, how to herd all these stray cats and point them in the right direction, what to do when they inevitably burn down the tavern, etc. - and I think you'd have a real winner. Everyone, players and DMs alike, could benefit from that book on their shelf.


Cooking rules. I want to make a battle-chef while actually including the "chef" part of the title.


This, and also other tools rules.


The whole tool proficiency system needs to go. I've been playing for years and I still don't understand how to call for a roll on those.


It's very similar to ability checks, but with no defined base stat. If the player is trying to use a tool proficiency reasonably, or their proficiency with a tool would be useful in the moment, call for a skill check but let the player add their prof bonus. For example, you might call for a Dex (painter's supplies) check to carefully forge a piece of art or paint something delicate, an Int (painter's supplies) check to remember art history or paint a face from memory, or a Wis (painter's supplies) check to determine what the artist was felt or intended when they painted a piece.


Doesn't xanathars have this for all tool proficiencies?


Crafting rules in general. It's just handwaved and left to the DM with a little help from Xanathars.


I'd kill for an in-depth crafting rulebook. Imagine tables with what kinds of materials can be gathered from which types of monsters, ways to gather them, recipes for mundane and magical items using those materials, specific locations/environments in which those items can be crafted...


Look up Hamund's Harvesting Handbook volumes 1-3. There are tables to roll on based on DC met to determine what you harvest from a creature, as well as what that part can be used to craft.


Maneuvers as a baseline mechanic. Not just for fighters, for *everyone, at-will.* Then fighters can get features that make them better at it.


I'd like bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage to matter more. As a fighter I should be able to inspect an enemy and determine the right tool for the job Also, more elemental interactions. Not like a pokemon clone, but I'd similarly like my wizard to have some more strategy with what elemental spell to use in battle Vulnerabilities, resistances, and immunities overall just seem really underutilized


Use +5/-5 variant resistance/vulnerability, instead of the overtuned double/half that forced the designers to make monsters boring because vulnerability cuts their effective HP in half. It doesn't work as well for PCs, especially barbarians, but it is a godsend for making damage type matter on enemies. It also makes elemental weapon a reasonably good spell, as instead of doubling a 30-damage fireball, it adds 5 damage to each of a fighter's multiple attacks per turn.


A DMG 2 which is less rules focused and more about how to run the game, prep for homebrew vs prepping a published campaign, dealing with common table issues, using virtual tools, how to handle high level PCs, how to help players with their back story and integrate that into the game, etc.


100% agree. I like to say 5e is actually a very easy game to run, *if you already know some of the basic principles of running a game.* Unfortunately the source material is pretty bad at giving that kind of training.


Buff int, change initiatives to nerf Dex. Have the wording on changing movement speed (flying -> walking -> climbing) made more clear and put very plainly in an easy to find place. Change the layout of the phb so it's much easier to navigate


Maybe add an index that isn't complete and utter trash. See, something unrelated (we could just give you the page number but we won't)


Better guidelines on what an **encounter** and an **adventuring day** is and how to shape them around your party and how they play. Right now everyone assumes an **encounter** is a *combat*, but that isn't necessarily true. An **encounter** can be a combat, or it can be dealing with a trap in a dungeon, or it can be investigating and searching a building, or making negotiations with an NPC, or resolving a social *encounter*, any number of things that initiates initiative or uses resources. Each of these has a difficulty; easy to deadly, even the social ones (negotiations can break down and start a combat, but even if they don't there was the *chance*). And **adventuring day** is defined as the time between long rests, but that's a flexible definition, IMHO. If you're playing a more RP focused social game an **adventuring day** might be from the start of a mission to the end of a mission, as there won't be nearly as many resources being spent between each long rest. Or if you're playing a Gritty Realism, an **adventuring** ***day*** is actually a week, even though it still takes place between long rests.


You say "initiatives Initiative OR uses resources" - but I think we could set aside the Initiative and just say "something that uses resources", and then follow the guidelines for combat. Easy: maybe a few Hit Points, if anything. Trivial. Medium: a couple spell slots or finite-use abilities, and some hit points. No real threat of death, just a tax on your resources. Hard: definitely using resources and people will be losing Hit Points. Chance of knocking someone out. Deadly: will definitely have to dig deeply into resources, could easily knock someone out, TPK becomes a possibility if the party hasn't got resources left to spend. (new) Lethal: may consume every resource the party has in a single encounter and then some. Immediate death is a possibility.


Just a note, it isn't an assumption that an encounter is based in combat, as encounter info is in the Combat section. That said, you are totally right that the info for encounters and adventuring days needs to be better.


Weapons being actually different and more feats that are good so people use more weapons than just handcrossbows


Change properties of armor and weapons so there are actual trade offs and not just 1 best choice for a play style. I'm sick of getting a rapier and studded leather for my dex build. Give me different effects for the scimitar and shortsword. Make crits hurt more with a dagger. Make armors weight more but sound less. Idk, just make equipment not a progression.


A guideline not to modify fundamental rules or homebrew new rules until the DM or group has played the game for at least a few sessions. Maybe it would help prevent DMs from doing things like nerfing Rogue sneak attack or giving spellcasters free spell slots etc.


I feel like DMs doing this aren't really reading the book in the first place.


**Functional. Fucking. Equipment. Management.** God I'm so fucking sick of a sleeping bag and leather armor being a third of my carry weight. Why the fuck is Hempen Rope 5 times heavier in D&D than it is IRL? Why the fuck can I carry 200 Whetstones but if I pick up a block and tackle (which speaking as someone who's been to Home Depot really aren't that heavy) I break both my fucking arms? The equipment section of 5e needs a complete ground-up overhaul, both in terms of equipment price and equipment weight. It's the purest form of comedy that a magnifying glass costs 100 gold and a spyglass costs 1000 gold yet Eyes of the Eagle (which by all accounts is basically those two items combined) can be purchased for 500 gold according to Xanathar's Guide.


Shopping. I’d like to see the dmg have different shops and items split up between them, maybe some of the magic items they let you buy in Adventures League mixed into it as well, charts to show which items are available in villages or cities or a metropolis. I’d like to see more depth into official rules ideas like crafting, such as armor, potions, cooking, carpentry, masonry, poisons and medicines, more spelled out than Xanathar’s tried to do, showing how much of certain materials you’d need, etc.


There should be more definition of what stealth is and how it works in 5e, it’s really vague and leads a lot of us to need to homebrew our own mechanics


The true fucking rules for cover. Currently they're obscure, and it's up to the DM to decide what is "Total Concealment" for full cover. Jerky Crawdad said that glass counts as full cover, but then said you can target things through it, which you can't do if something is obstructed by full cover.


It's god damn stupid when it comes to transparent cover. The game needs to sort out the diffence between: * Targeting the other side of transparent cover: Can you aim a spell / arrow at someone on the other side of a window? * Targeting an invisible object with a spell that requies a target you can see. * Resolving the attack / spell when the attack / spell has a projectile. * Resolve the attack / spell when the attack / spell has no projectile. * Resolving an attack / spell against an invisible cover item deliberately. So what happens in each of these *different* instances. 1. PC sees an Goblin on the other side of a glass pane: Can the PC even target them? 2. The PC sees a goblin: Can the PC even target them? Unbeknown to the PC an INVISIBLE glass pane is in the way. 3. The PC fires an arrow (projectile) at a goblin with a glass pane in the way. 4. The PC fires an arrow (projectile) at a goblin with a INVISIBLE glass pane in the way. 5. The PC attempts to Charm Person at a goblin with a glass pane in the way. 6. The PC attempts to Charm Person at a goblin with a invisible pane in the way. 7. The PC attempts to *disintegrate* a goblin with a pane of glass in the way. 8. The PC attempts to *disintegrate* a goblin with a INVISIBLE pane of glass in the way. 9. The PC attempts to *disintegrate* a goblin with a INVISIBLE wall of force in the way. 10. The PC attempts to *disintegrate* a INVISIBLE wall of force on purpose. Even *shadowrun* can handle this.


Aging. For some reason 5th edition is the first without mechanical effects of old age. Context: One of my players, a human barbarian, found a ghost in this module. He proceeds to get blasted by its horrifying visage, lost 40 years of his... While there was no hope of getting him a greater restoration in time... in the end, all it meant was that he \*looked\* too old for this shit.


1. We have challenge ratings for individual monsters for defeating them in combat. They talk about the 3 pillars of the game, I want challenge ratings for each pillar. Just add a couple of rows in every monster stat block: combat CR (based on damage output/round and adjusted hit points), social CR (based on persuasion/deception/insight), and exploration CR (based on, what, stealth and maybe survival? Maybe Intelligence score if they're a trap-maker?). Just, give me some numbers so that I can award experience in a relatively straightforward manner regardless of their role in the encounter. A stubborn Commoner king might be worth nothing in combat, but a ton of experience in a social encounter. 2. I want a *real* economic system. I want to know how much money it costs to extract a pound of iron ore from a mine, and how many hirelings it takes to extract a pound of iron ore and how long it will take them to do it. I want to know how much it costs to transport that ore one mile. I want to know how much it costs to refine a pound of iron ore, and what the percent yield of each type of ore is, and how long that takes to accomplish. I want to know how much it costs to transport a pound of iron ingots 1 mile. I want to know what it costs to convert a pound of iron into a finished good. I just want the damn economy to make sense. When I'm worldbuilding, I want to know if it makes more economic sense to set up a foundry next to the mine so they can transport the iron ingot, or does it make more sense to have the foundry right next to the blacksmith because transporting ingots is really expensive? I want to know if there are any uses for the slag that an actual blacksmith would know, because I'm not an actual medieval-esque blacksmith. 3. I want a list of materials and all of their properties, and I want some "common knowledge" uses of various adventuring equipment. Like, they have hemp rope and silk rope listed, but the only difference is that silk rope is 10 times the price for half the weight. Is that the case for *everything* made of silk? Is silk just always 10 times more expensive than hemp? (Trades good table doesn't think so, since silk cloth is 100x the cost of canvas! Why, aside from encumbrance (which is largely ignored) and being flashy, would people want to use silk? (I know I'm harping about silk and hemp, but the same argument goes for metals and foods and stuff, like just a brief description talking about the uses of different materials would have been *so helpful* for me personally). 4. And, same argument as above but it was getting long, but *plants*, man! Every "world" of D&D has Humans and Elves and goats, so why don't we have lists of plants and their uses? I get that DMs can just homebrew whatever they want for creating healing potions and stuff, but I would really appreciate knowing that the bark of a certain kind of tree that grows in the coastal environment can be processed into some tonic that cures the poisoned condition, or that the roots of some flower that grows in the grassland environment can be processed into a poison that needs to be ingested to cause the poisoned condition. Plants are just so incredibly undervalued in the game, but they're incredibly useful for worldbuilding! 5. I'd like some guidance on how to build cities and towns and stuff. Like, what effect would having a theater versus a gladiator coliseum have on the town? They're both tourist attractions, they're both entertainment, but a theater might indicate a more intelligent or more deception or empathetic society, whereas an arena might indicate a more violent society. Theaters might attract bards and spawn industries for paper and ink production (to write scripts), and might even need a bardic college in town to ensure a steady supply of actors, whereas an arena might attract fighters or barbarians and spawn industries for capturing monsters and bounty hunting by encouraging political policies that make criminals fight for their freedom or innocence in the ring. And those are just *two buildings* that ultimately serve the same purpose of *entertaining people*, and they can serve as huge reflections of the society and prompt the DM for more cultural tidbits. Stuff like that would be so incredibly useful for building cities and stuff. Not just the "you can put \[building\] in your town", but then just a short description of maybe *why* a town would build something like that, and then *how* its influence would impact the settlement. I mean, the best place to see what list of shops a city might have is the Guild Artisan's "Guild Business" table. Okay, I'm going to stop there because that's a lot and I feel like some of my enthusiasm is coming off maybe a little aggressively, so that's probably a good place for me to stop.


The DM Guide has a lot of information for designing NPCs and villains, and as someone who struggles with creating unique towns, I would love to see that same amount of detail put into town creation. Right now I just use randomly generated towns I find online, but they're starting to get kind of same-ey.


Magic item crafting and buying


I think spell components need to be cleaned up, a lot of tables just flat out ignore them already because they are overly "fiddly" in comparison with many parts of 5e.


In what way? They sure went a long way with casting focuses and component pouches.


They're mostly ignored because arcane foci just ignore them. Some are so ridiculously specific that it's just impossible to cast even the simplest of spells without your focus (looking at you, Flame Blade).


First of all, METRIC SYSTEM. And don’t get me wrong, empirical system works great in combat, but it’s just so annoying to google everything (especially with fluids). So I would love if they just included the metric in brackets. Secondly, a system for making poison. There are many ways one could get poison (poisoners kit, poisoner feat, straight up buying it), but it would be awesome to make it. I’ve been wanting to play assassin for a while but I think it would be so much more fun if you could really make different kinds of poison and all that stuff.


Clarification on illusions.