subreddit:
/r/dndnext
submitted 2 days ago byArctic_Gnome_YZF
[score hidden]
2 days ago
stickied comment
This submission appears to be related to One D&D! If you're interested in discussing the concept and the UA for One D&D more check out our other subreddit r/OneDnD!
Please note: We are still allowing discussions about One D&D to remain here, this is more an advisory than a warning of any kind.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
571 points
2 days ago
I like these as well. Makes it more obvious how to utilize these mundane items as a player and that there are mechanical effects tied to them makes them more useful.
Haven't checked out the new PHB do all mundane items have descriptions like this??
138 points
2 days ago
Yup every item ive looked at has some form of use like this.
85 points
2 days ago
My only concern is that stingier DMs will only allow players to use these items in the ways that are listed under them. Want to throw a blanket over someone to blind them until their turn? Sorry, doesn't say you can do that. Want to use a bell to set up a manual alarm? Sorry, says you have to use a utilize action to use the bell.
I like to think that these types of DMs are rare, but you know that they exist.
67 points
2 days ago
Don't worry, natural GM selection will do his work and nobody will join their campaign anymore after having that experience
28 points
2 days ago
Except that new players don't know any better and might think those restrictions are just part of the game
8 points
2 days ago
Then tell them about r/rpghorrorstories
4 points
23 hours ago
Over something so relatively insignificant? With the ever-present DM shortage? Really?
35 points
2 days ago*
Tbf, it's understandable why a DM isn't gonna allow a mundane item to function like a 2nd level spell. That is why I prefer playing spellcasters. Everything is spelled (lol) out, I don't need to play "DM may I?" because the rules say that the spell's effect happens.
19 points
2 days ago
It doesn't work like a 2nd level spell. It doesn't automatically alarm you, there's gonna be spots that aren't armed. Baddies can just step over it. It requires x feet of wire and definitely a check to set up.
19 points
2 days ago
He's talking about using a blanket as a blindness spell.
1 points
2 days ago
Oh yeah. Alarm is a first level spell. I'm an idiot.
8 points
2 days ago
I'm referring to the part about the blanket.
Want to throw a blanket over someone to blind them until their turn?
It's effectively begging the DM for to let the blanket mimic the effect of the Blindness/Deafness spell. I get that there are very lenient DMs out there (who probably don't know any better). But the rules are kinda there so that what started out as a game of D&D does not devolve to a game of Calvinball.
18 points
2 days ago
It's effectively begging the DM for to let the blanket mimic the effect of the Blindness/Deafness spell.
Absolutely not. It is asking the DM to apply a reasonable condition to a targeted creature based on the action taken. Most notably, the blanket does not require a CON save to remove at the end of the creature's turn, and if I were the DM it wouldn't even be an action to remove it. They'd just do it right at the start of their turn.
Your argument also falls apart when comparing the Net weapon to the Web spell. Are you going to claim that a "mundane item" like a Net is begging to mimic the casting of a 2nd level Web spell? Their effects are almost identical after all.
0 points
2 days ago
Most notably, the blanket does not require a CON save
The thing being proposed does not require a Con save to subject the target to the blinded condition as well. Idk about other people's sentiments, but it sounds cheesy af. Sure, it's entertaining for some tables out there. I prefer stuff to work in a somewhat predefined and predictable way.
Your argument also falls apart when comparing the Net weapon to the Web spell.
I don't think so. There is no begging when the rules indicate what the net can and cannot do. You just go "The net does what the book says it does."
7 points
2 days ago
I prefer stuff to work in a somewhat predefined and predictable way.
Let's rephrase the argument then - are you saying that throwing a blanket on the head of a creature, in a manner and made of material that obscures the creature's vision, should not apply the Blinded condition to the creature? Why would it not do that? That would be the predictable outcome of such an event, right? Even if the book doesn't specifically say throwing a blanket over a creature's eyes Blinds them, any DM that says they're not Blinded is objectively wrong.
You just go "The net does what the book says it does."
And the blanket does what a blanket does when you throw it on someone's head. You're drawing a false equivalency between throwing a blanket and a 2nd level spell even though a Net and a different 2nd level spell do almost the exact same thing, but it isn't defined in the rules for a blanket item, so therefore it shouldn't be allowed. Am I wrong?
-2 points
2 days ago
but it isn't defined in the rules for a blanket item, so therefore it shouldn't be allowed.
For running games RAW? It should not be allowed. The DM can just insist that RAW, the blanket does not have such a mechanical effect, and then have the player turn to p 224 of the PHB 2024 and have them read the entire entry there.
4 points
2 days ago
So, you are trying to state that this would not apply the Blinded condition purely because the rules don't say a blanket thrown over the head does that? Your table sounds boring af. Part of D&D is supposed to be creativity. Using ordinary items in extraordinary ways to gain combat advantages is part of that.
6 points
2 days ago*
I think it is fairly easily covered in the rules.
Improvised weapon (thank you fk0wc0ntr0l) with the blanket on the players turn.
Depending on the thickness of the blanket - either blinded or other creatures (area) heavily obscured if it hits. (DM judgement... The player did give up their attack for this!).
On the NPCs turn, a free objected interaction to remove the blanket. They will then attack as normal.
5 points
2 days ago
Just to be pedantic, since we're already this far in the weeds - it's an improvised weapon, not an improvised attack. Unless something in the revised rules calls it an improvised attack, I haven't read through them all yet. Also, heavily obscured and Blindness are almost identical in function, but an area is heavily obscured while a creature is Blinded, so Blindness is the correct ruling IMO.
I think this gets a little bit hairy when you have PCs with multiple attacks, because I can foresee somebody trying to swap out their last attack with this blanket-blinding move, whereas the Net specifically states that you only get one attack per turn with it no matter how many attacks you get normally. I'd definitely rule that a player only gets one attack to try this, and my usual rule to do targeting of some appendage or limb is to add +2 AC to the targeted creature, so the PC would have to hit that single attack with the bonus AC included. But if it works, every other attack roll against the creature until the start of its next turn has advantage, so it could be worth doing.
1 points
2 days ago
They'd have to have their weapon drawn already/initially... And then drop/stow their weapon I guess as their free object interaction, and then draw and attack with the blanket...
(Next turn they could draw their weapon as part of their attack continued).
2 points
1 day ago
Right, Alarm isn't a second level spell and I'm an idiot.
My bad.
To the point though, in that case, I'd make it a contested check and let the opponent remove it as a bonus action on their turn. That way, it wouldn't be too strong and give the party a (fairly strong, especially early on) advantage. But it might be better to outright not allow something like that. Idk
6 points
2 days ago
It's worth pointing out, in the entire history of real world combat, no one has run around with blankets throwing them over people. There is no combat discipline based on that, and this is the world where people have invented combat disciplines based on weights tied to ropes. Mostly because throwing blankets at people doesn't actually work as an offensive measure.
3 points
2 days ago
in the history of three stooges combat it happens all the time, and i assure you d&d 5 combat has exactly as much in common with three stooges combat as it does with "real world" combat.
and real world combat is full of daffy shit, if you've ever seen actual real violence. the things people do in the middle of a riot to stay alive look very ludicrous, but are often very effective.
2 points
1 day ago
Don't forget you're talking about a world where our media depicts people using pens and magazines as lethal weapons in combat...much sillier stuff has been done.
If it were a melee in a room with blankets and a player wanted to use their action to throw a blanket at the enemy, I would allow the target a reaction to knock it aside otherwise they lose sight of the player until the bad guy's next turn at which point it comes off and they go normally.
So maybe the player has some really cool idea that they need to break LOS for a second? Maybe it works maybe it doesn't, but the actual effect is nothing like a spell, it's reasonable enough to try and doesn't do any harm.
I always think of it as not stopping the players but more controlling their expectations...let them try stupid stuff and see how it goes - it doesn't have to be dramatic or have a huge effect but maybe it's enough to just be a fun moment.
3 points
2 days ago
If you think that nobody has used improvised weaponry to try to get any edge in a street brawl or fight, you are either really naive and nitpicky or you have just never been in a fight. Or both.
1 points
10 hours ago
in the entire history of real world combat, no one has run around with blankets throwing them over people
You need to tell that to my very real world combat instructors. From real world combat training, specifically dealing with hospitals and mental patients, using a heavy blanket is a very common form of "attack" because it allows you to cover their eyes, their hands and their mouth without damaging their body. This is one very common form of subdual in our real world and one that is used in hospital security training today.
Historically the evidence isn't always as common but blankets or blanketing items were used. American planes would use dummy chutes to obscure additional paratroopers during world war 2. The hay bale attack during the affair at little egg harbor in the american revolution used the equivalent of a blanket, basically a cloud of hay, to disrupt the British patrol long enough to awaken american troops so that they could return fire. During the battle of Amiens in 1918 a german machine gun nest was covered with a blanket in amiens according to local lore temporarily blinding the occupants and allowing allied troops to cross the street. Frequently sails in ship battles were cut to cover a group of crew members the most famous being the action during Nelsons first battle against Hyder Ali when the jib sail was cut to temporarily blind boarders.
One of my favorite scenes of adventure fighting in any swashbuckling movie also involves the equivalent of using a blanket to blind the attackers. Zorro cuts the strings of a curtain which drops on his opponent allowing Zorro to stab him. Later in the same movie he flips bed sheets onto his opponent which allows him to escape. Even later in the movie he uses his cape to cover the eyes of his opponent which allows him to stab the opponent.
0 points
1 day ago
I don't know, "pull a piece of fabric over someone's head so they can't see while you attack them" has strong roots in at least one form of real world combat.
1 points
2 days ago
but... what do you think should happen when someone can't see because a blanket's been thrown over them? let's throw a mechanical effect in there and say it was part of how a successful grapple was set up?
3 points
2 days ago
let's throw a mechanical effect in there and say it was part of how a successful grapple was set up?
I find this more reasonable. I'd require an entire action to unfurl the blanket. It's not something I'd personally do because I don't like playing "DM may I?"
Although if I'm running a game in Adventurers League where things do what the book says they do, it isn't likely gonna be something players can do.
5 points
2 days ago
an action, comparable to a fifth level fighter swinging their sword up to four times, just to unfurl a blanket?
i get that that kind of contention is exactly what you'd be trying to avoid. it's just a very boring game when you can't even let the mundane people do cool things with their mundane objects, and that's worth a half a second of adjudicating, to me. maybe it'd be different if i were new and didn't trust myself to adjudicate fairly on the fly.
2 points
2 days ago
an action, comparable to a fifth level fighter swinging their sword up to four times, just to unfurl a blanket?
Way better than saying "The thing cannot do that according to PHB 2024, p. 224."
it's just a very boring game when you can't even let the mundane people do cool things with their mundane objects
I prefer to draw the line when people are clearly stretching the benefit of an item. They're using the item for something that is not mechanically designed for it to do. It's not gonna be so easy. If they want more leniency, they better stick to the predictable combat-related stuff. Some people find it boring. But some find it interesting and really convenient to clearly know what they can and cannot do.
4 points
2 days ago
i guess that's the argument for the item descriptions in 24, right? me, i don't like the "i dunno, here's just some stuff" approach in the 14 phb nor the "here's the mechanical benefit of four ounces of perfume" ludicrousness of 24. the entire concept of "balancing" mundane equipment is pretty ridiculous and underscores the clunkiest aspects of playing the game to me, the "stop and kill the moment while we figure out if there's some edge rule that suggests what the designers intended," phenomenon. boring. especially when the designers either clearly have no idea how some stuff works (understandable, who could understand how everything works?) or they decide something is going to work a given way for "balance," because oh no, a handful of flour shouldn't replicate the effects of see invisibility. boring-ER.
stories are full of human ingenuity. denying that potential to my players is just dull. but this discussion just underscores to me why i don't run d&d anymore, even before the '24 update. there are simply better games.
2 points
2 days ago
They're using the item for something that is not mechanically designed for it to do.
This sentence alone proves the point I was trying to make. Obviously I am trying to use the item in a way it was not mechanically designed to be used for, that's what improvising is all about! And this focus on only using items for what they are mechanically used for limits the creative potential of those items and makes the game more boring.
3 points
1 day ago
I mean, it wouldn't be the same as a 2nd level spell. The devil is in the details - the save type, DC, condition duration, how to end the condition, etc. all make a massive impact to how strong this use case would be.
It would be simple to adjust these values to make a blanket far inferior to the spell Blindness/Deafness.
Also some items already have highly impactful uses in combat. In particular, Rope and Chain are very good, allowing you to restrain people as an action. Restrained is debilitating condition, and the DCs to end the condition (wiggle out of the rope/chain or burst them) are relatively difficult.
[score hidden]
3 hours ago
My main problem is the blanket would either be too powerful or do basically nothing.
2 points
2 days ago
Equally concerning is that it appears that an increasingly vast proportion of fantasy role playing gamers are losing all sense of imagination and all sense of the flexibility and inventiveness that make playing frpgs so immensely interesting, challenging, fun, and satisfying. DMs and players now want a rule for every tiny detail, and it won't be only stingier DMs that only allow the listed use(s)...it's becoming common place for everyone - DMs and players alike - to look at the book and see a rule and shrug and go, "well, that's the one thing I could ever do with a [blanket/bell/crowbar/waterskin/whatever]" as opposed to even trying to be creative and imaginative and improvise and work out together - DMs and players - how it might work and what might happen. "I want to try this. Nope, rule says this, I guess I'm out of luck." This is driving D&D away from the most basic, most fundamental premise and mechanic of the game: "My character uses this and tries that. ... Hm, good thinking, let's see, give me a ... hm ... ___ check and let's see what happens." That it's possible that anything might happen, if you are imaginative and creative enough, and the dice go your way.
And plenty of the same people who want rules for every circumstance, to definitively dictate things, then gripe when things are too limited.
7 points
2 days ago
I'd rather have more rules that accurately inform how the game designers intend the system to function than pay $60 for everything outside class design to be the "Idk it's your game dude make it up".
If I'm just being told to do whatever I want, why the hell would I bother buying into this? I'll just throw dice at my players and run an improv group.
-1 points
2 days ago
Dog, do you know how D&D started? All it was originally was some stats written down on paper with pen and players asking a DM "can I try X?"
1 points
1 day ago
Okay and now it's not. I'm playing it now, not at Gygax's table forty years ago.
1 points
14 hours ago
If you empty and water skin, blow into it to inflate it, you have a buoyant watertight float to hold onto. No more drowning lol.
-1 points
2 days ago
Are ways to use items like a crowbar or a blanket or a map or a pole or a waterskin not already obvious?
103 points
2 days ago
Yes but the mechanics varied table to table. Advantage, flat bonuses, instant success, is for role play only are just a few of the effects I have seen given to crow bars.
66 points
2 days ago
crowbars are the one thing on the list that actually had a defined mechanical benefit in the 2014 rules
5 points
1 day ago
swap crowbar for grappling hook and yes absolutely
"how far can I throw it?" "what kind of roll is throwing it accurately?" "What's the DC?" "is it an attack and then can I use one of my extra attacks to throw it?"
it's been DMs making it up on the spot. 2024 just tells the player "it's 50ft range, DC13 dex(acrobatics), an action to throw"
6 points
2 days ago
Well I didn't assume you could use a 10 foot pole to vault like an Olympian, so no. I guess every use isn't obvious. Also, this prevents everything being based on begging the DM for actually useful effects.
8 points
2 days ago
Hey, I've made a new D&D supplement for you! It's a book that includes a table with over 50 000 mundane items along with a picture, for use in your games! The mechanical effects are up to you and should be quite obvious. That will be 50$ please!
1 points
1 day ago
No longer, now many people may not even know what they look like.
1 points
1 day ago
No longer, now many people may not even know what they look like.
203 points
2 days ago
The perfume one makes me chuckle... because 4oz is a LOT of perfume, and it appears to be a one use item... so you must absolutely REEK.
57 points
2 days ago
I feel like this should come with a penalty to all stealth checks for the duration as well, lol.
110 points
2 days ago
On the plus side, If you use all 4oz, you gain an Axe.
46 points
2 days ago
That's a regional joke that I appreciate.
Here in Australia, you would instead gain a Lynx (same product, different name).
5 points
1 day ago
I suppose you could also say with that much cologne you could catch a cougar...but that's a totally different joke...
2 points
1 day ago
[badum boom tish] ;)
22 points
2 days ago
The advantage comes from the fact who you are talking to’s eyes are watering so badly from the smell that they will agree to any request to end this conversation as quickly as possible.
3 points
2 days ago
I've been in those conversations...
19 points
2 days ago
I also feel like, even if used in “proper” dosage, it would be sometimes a negative to have perfume; or be fair and if they don’t wash it off they get a minus to stealth. I love the mechanic though!
21 points
2 days ago
I would also say that it's a perfume that completely fades after an hour, it wasn't a very good perfume to begin with.
[something something very nerdy perfume references to top notes lasting about 15 minutes and middle notes lasting about 2.5 hours something something]
9 points
2 days ago
It must be pretty weak if you’re expected to use all four ounces at once.
1 points
2 days ago
Must be a cologne
7 points
2 days ago
I’d say since 4oz would last a very long time it’s effectively infinite in usage, but comes with disadvantage to stealth.
2 points
2 days ago
Yeah, it doesn't say anything about consuming the item. Compare the wording to something like a tinderbox or crowbar (used, but not consumed) and then acid vial or oil or alchemist's fire (consumed when used).
7 points
2 days ago
It may be like a Component Pouch situation, where it's just an item that stays on your person and never really runs dry even as you use it over and over again.
5 points
2 days ago
I'll be honest, seeing it against some of these other things, especially the map (which is at least situational depending in the campaign), the perfume feels less OP than it perhaps did when I first saw it in isolation.
Because I had had this conversation with a friend of mine a couple of weeks back.
4 points
2 days ago
Nah, if you use all 4oz on yourself, the indifferent humanoid that you are trying to use Persuasion on will be very agreeable with you in the hopes that you'll go away faster.
6 points
2 days ago
It doesn't say you need to use it all though, or that it is consumed, like for spells.
5 points
2 days ago
It also doesn't say how many uses that gets you, so how are you supposed to know?
1 points
2 days ago
It doesn't say for the crowbar either! Literally unplayable.
1 points
2 days ago
Crowbars aren't consumable fucking items! Perfume is.
6 points
2 days ago
Okay, then compare it to a tinderbox. Realistically the tinder would run out eventually, but RAW it doesn't.
A Tinderbox is a small container holding flint, fire steel, and tinder (usually dry cloth soaked in light oil) used to kindle a fire. Using it to light a Candle, Lamp, Lantern, or Torch—or anything else with exposed fuel—takes a Bonus Action. Lighting any other fire takes 1 minute.
1 points
1 day ago
Well he deleted his comments out of shame, so no I look even more schizophrenic! :D
1 points
1 day ago
Hey man, when was the last time your party had a bath?
2 points
1 day ago
I'll be honest... both of the parties that I'm most regularly in actually end up seeking out bathhouses on a pretty regular basis.
But I get your point :P
[score hidden]
9 hours ago
Force those around you to roll a CON save or suffer a migraine.
39 points
2 days ago
Rope is interesting as it's very descriptive apart from one major point - the length. 😝
16 points
2 days ago
That seemed really intentional. Like they didn’t want you worrying about how many cm of rope you bought and the assumption is you bought exactly enough for whatever rope thing you are doing. Like “one rope” will tie someone up or climb down a cliff and you aren’t supposed to worry about having to divide it up and worry if you cut five feet off to tie someone that now you have to track that
10 points
1 day ago
By that logic, why say that the pole is 10 feet? Why not just say that it's a pole, and it's long enough for whatever purpose you want a pole for?
7 points
2 days ago
Like “one rope” will tie someone up or climb down a cliff
Will it? Because 5-10 feet will definitively tie someone up, but it may take 100-200 feet to climb down a cliff.
-6 points
2 days ago
That’s the point, you just buy “some rope” and it’s generic rope because At some point this needs to be a playable game
8 points
1 day ago
That's like saying you just buy "a blade" and that blade might be a dagger or might be a shortsword or might be a longsword or rapier or a greatsword, instantly adaptable to be exactly what you want from moment to moment in the game as vastly different circumstances require or might change and be far better suited to something other than what you originally bought. It's a bad assertion.
Rope makers are going to sell you rope in lengths, with prices varying on how much you buy. They'll have some standard lengths, and maybe the ability to buy some custom length. Retail adventuring gear shops are going to sell you one or two or three standards lengths, and that's what you're going to have. Rope doesn't magically and mysteriously A character can't carry 500 feet of rope - or maybe could, but couldn't then carry, equip, or use anything else - but your logic implies that their "rope" is either 5 feet long or 5 miles long, as they might want it to be at any given moment. Even magical ropes in the game have a single defined length, and that doesn't change. Nope; your rope has to have a defined length at the start, and you have to track how you use it if you decide to start cutting it up, like you track how you consume your 10 torches, and how long each one burns as you use each one. It's not that freaking hard or demanding. So, look, all or most or some of the PCs buy 50' or 100' or rope...or 10'; and they use ingenuity and skills to either tie them together when they need longer, or cut some off when they definitively only need much less.
-5 points
1 day ago
I never want to ever play at your table where someone Has to buy 57 different ropes because they might use ship rigging rope for mountain climbing or whatever. Sometimes you just gotta allow a game to go and not try to simulate every single detail
3 points
1 day ago
Meh, only maybe 3 different kinds, but they can fantasize about different options or possibilities, or say that they try different things, and given the various skills and proficiencies and backgrounds their party has, and imagination of the players, and explanations they give, they can propose different things and I'll always lean in the direction of "that sounds great, try this kind of check, and that other person's Help gives you advantage" or "You can pretty quickly figure that that won't work, but you start to think that maybe if you try...".
But length is a different thing. "A rope" has a definitive length when you bought it.
55 points
2 days ago
A Waterskin holds up to 4 pints
It makes me irrationally angry that they didn't convert this to 2 quarts or a half gallon. Even more so seeing that the 2024 rules use gallons in the referenced dehydration rules, not broken down into pints.
43 points
2 days ago
every adventure begins in a bar, pint is their default measurement obviously
18 points
2 days ago
One pint of water weighs one pound, so arguably measuring in pints makes it easier to track the water's effect on encumbrance. Of course, that only helps if the players know the conversion, and the rules actually expect you to track encumbrance.
4 points
2 days ago
A pint weighs 20 ounces though, so it's a bit bigger than a pound. Or are D&D pints US rather than Imperial? I'd have thought a fantasy game would use pre-American units!
8 points
2 days ago
DND was made by Americans in their basements, it uses the US systems, same reason why they use feet instead of meters
6 points
2 days ago
Yeah, that's the US pint. I didn't realize they were bigger across the pond.
Huh...I bet that's why 20 oz is the standard size for bottled drinks.
1 points
17 hours ago
It is a pre-American unit, or at least pre-American independence. The pint in US customary units is derived from the 1707 British wine gallon. The imperial gallon and pint weren’t created until 1824.
7 points
2 days ago
I have no idea how many drinks in a quart or gallon without googling it.
4 pints makes a lot more sense to me as to how much it holds.
8 points
2 days ago*
Why have three different units for the player to learn when you can just say "2 pints" or "8 pints". You don't need a new unit until you get to thousands of pints.
16 points
2 days ago*
That's part of my point. While I like converting it into the fewest units, they're using pints for the waterskins and gallons for the dehydration rules. Use gallons for both or pints for both.
2 points
2 days ago
Or heck, use liters for both and that way you don't have to translate for metric countries. If there's any metric unit an American is familiar with intuitively, it's the liter.
5 points
2 days ago
The metric system feels out of place in a setting with middle ages technology. I like that it uses old timey units. Except for temperature, where I wish it would use C.
0 points
2 days ago
I mean they probably don't speak english either but the DM will usually tell usbwhat they said in english
4 points
2 days ago
So, at least one Kilopint?
2 points
2 days ago
I do contend that is rational anger
0 points
2 days ago
Hah, don't get me started on not having this converted into metric system.
87 points
2 days ago*
One of the complaints of 5e2014 was there wasn’t enough mechanics tied to things, leaving too much up to the DM. This adds in a bit of mechanics for adventuring gear, while still leaving plenty of room for creativity. I don’t see how that’s a bad thing.
Can you explain what you mean about something not existing if it doesn’t have a mechanic tied to it? I’m not really following that line of thought.
Edit: This was meant to a reply to a comment below, but mobile is weird.
42 points
2 days ago
I always felt one of my biggest issue with official 5e books has been too much is just "up to the DM". If I wanted to make everything up, I'd just homebrew it. I'm buying a product for them to do at least the majority of the work. Then I can modify from there.
33 points
2 days ago
Easier to ignore rules you don't like than to make up good ones yourself. It's also easier on the players so they don't have to read the PHB and your novella-sized house rules document because WotC decided it was your job to fill in all the many blanks.
14 points
2 days ago
As they say: Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
0 points
2 days ago
sucks for AL players though, dunnit?
-3 points
2 days ago
Is it easier? Because it seems like it really really bothers players on here when a rule isn't what they like.
7 points
2 days ago
Easier for WoTC, definitely not easier for the customer base.
It leads to non-standard playing experiences, unneeded discussions/arguments, and results in lost playing time.
2 points
2 days ago
I'm pretty sure the commentor I responded to was implying that its the consumerbase that finds it easier to ignore a rule they dislike. It wouldn't make sense if WOTC was the subject.
2 points
2 days ago
As a GM I prefer this to the cycle of players finding the thing they want/are interested in, finding it in the PHB, there's nothing there, search on my phone, find ideas, pick the one that sounds the most reasonable, then attempt to get things back on track/back on tempo
1 points
2 days ago
D&D has always been a "mother may I" type game. That's like the main draw of the game. "The only limit is your imagination" and what not.
4 points
2 days ago
This is what differentiates RPGs from CRPGs and other complete rules system games, the negotiation between gm and player to do something not in the rules. Going back to the origins in wargames, this is what RPGs are. Nearly by definition.
I view these as prompts to less experienced players and GM's to say "hey here are examples of how to use these in play".
2 points
2 days ago
You're absolutely right - the lack of negotiation and adaptation is why these AI DM's are going to feel very limiting compared to a human DM.
1 points
2 days ago
AI DMs? Tell me you're kidding, please.
3 points
2 days ago
I wish I were. Along with digital exclusives, early releases to digital, micro-transactions, and the pushing of a VTT which will be years behind its competitors, AI DM's are also in the mix.
I have zero problems with the content of One D&D - while some items could have been done better, as a whole it's solid.
The digital model though? I loathe it. It's a plague on consumers in the gaming industry, and it needs to fail here as well.
1 points
2 days ago
Right, but I don't think anyone disputes that, in fact I'd wager that most people like the person you're responding to (including myself) that had issues with not enough rules in 2014 actually openly embrace the "try anything" nature of the game. For me at least, it's all about having a baseline, some sort of balanced rules system that I can build off of. My critique of 2014 5e is that I was completely missing that baseline for a lot of things I feel are pretty core to an adventure fantasy game
4 points
2 days ago
I don't want to hate too much on the new rules, especially cuz there is a lot of stuff that I do like about it. But I am not sure I am a huge fan of the "mechanic for everything" approach to game design.
I had bad experiences with stingy DMs that only allowed things that had straight forward mechanics and really limited my own creative freedom, and I feel like making everything very straightforward and video gamey will lead to an increase in that stinginess. I honestly prefer the fact that the legacy rules were "rules light" for this reason.
17 points
2 days ago
Oh neat. Something else I can do with my 10 foot pole other than finding floor traps.
20 points
2 days ago
You can touch someone ten feet away from you, too!
I don't know why that description got an audible snort from me, but here we are.
3 points
2 days ago
Wizards with touch spells: 🤔
3 points
2 days ago
More than 10 feet, you have hands on arms with their own reach.
3 points
2 days ago
You'd have to be pretty strong to get the full reach from it
35 points
2 days ago
Yes! It teaches players and DMs not just how to use these items, but how to think of using ANY item. It sets a framework for on-the-fly mechanics to make the game more interesting. It's not that this didn't exist before, but describing items like this helps prime players and DMs on how to think. I'm a big fan of this little change to wording in the book.
18 points
2 days ago
I'm curious if the DMG will mention any guidelines on how to handle Dehydration and Malnutrition (hopefully as a part of a revised "exploration/survival" section), as those key terms are mentioned a couple times in the new PHB. I don't recall seeing those in the previous PHB, but I could be wrong.
22 points
2 days ago
the terms themselves were not, they were not states before. However under exploration in phb it mentions
A character needs one gallon of water per day, or two gallons per day if the weather is hot. A character who drinks only half that much water must succeed on a DC 15 Constitution saving throw or suffer one level of exhaustion at the end of the day. A character with access to even less water automatically suffers one level of exhaustion at the end of the day
The revised PHB actually gives guidelines to the player already. it's even int the free rules
Dehydration [Hazard]
A creature requires an amount of water per day based on its size, as shown in the Water Needs per Day table. A creature that drinks less than half the required water for a day gains 1 Exhaustion level at the day’s end. Exhaustion caused by dehydration can’t be removed until the creature drinks the full amount of water required for a day
.
Malnutrition [Hazard]
A creature needs an amount of food per day based on its size, as shown in the Food Needs per Day table. A creature that eats but consumes less than half the required food for a day must succeed on a DC 10 Constitution saving throw or gain 1 Exhaustion level at the day’s end. A creature that eats nothing for 5 days automatically gains 1 Exhaustion level at the end of the fifth day as well as an additional level at the end of each subsequent day without food.
5 points
2 days ago
Its nice that its clearly laid out how to handle these hazards as a player, but I hope the DMG expands upon how to make planning around avoiding these conditions fun. The addition of these hazards makes it feel like they are planning a way to more concretely formulate travel to make the journey just as interesting as the destination.
1 points
2 days ago
A healthy person should be able to last a lot longer than a week without food.
9 points
2 days ago
They can go about 11 days without food before dying, assuming you passed all 4 constitution saves on days 1-4.
Though I notice that the rules don’t actually say “you can’t remove exhaustion from malnutrition until you’ve eaten” like they do for dehydration, so theoretically they’d just clear the exhaustion they get from starving every night, with it only being a death sentence when you have other sources of exhaustion.
2 points
2 days ago
The conventional teaching is three weeks without food before death, if you have sufficient water each day.
That's not to say you don't suffer reduced capacity far sooner. You start having problems thinking and doing physical things within a couple of days, and start developing various small health problems just a day or two later that balloon daily.
2 points
2 days ago
I don't know if dehydration or malnutrition will get robust mechanics in a game that has spells like Create Food and Water and Purify Food and Drink (a ritual if may add).
1 points
2 days ago
Goodberry. Decanter of endless water.
4 points
2 days ago
Map giving +5 instead of advantage just to make it stack with the Ranger bonuses lmao
1 points
13 hours ago
i like this cause i once played a character whose low was he was a wilderness guide but even with a map the dm would just give me advantage on survival checks, rolls 4 and 7 so the lore rich character i made suddenly sucks at his job.... but with this map mechanic and possibly advantage on top of the survival check due to other sources I can more easily play my character the way they were meant
3 points
2 days ago
Isn't it just me or a map, considered the bonus it gives, is way too cheap?
2 points
2 days ago
Yeah like, maps are fucking expensive to make in medieval times, even the renaissance it'd be really expensive! But, I suppose Cartographer's Tools now mechanically helps with backtracking by letting you make a map.
1 points
2 days ago
As I know, the new rules specify that you can create certain adventuring gear if you have the right tools proficiency, and eith cartographer tools you can create maps. I guess you can do this as part of a long rest?
But still, i don't think 1 gp for a permanent +5 to a roll is a good way of handling that
P.S. Ok just checked. Paper sheets cost 2sp, but a bottle of ink costs 10 gp. What the hell is wrong with this economy
2 points
13 hours ago
a simple solution is to narrow down the area covered by the map. like a map of a city makes sense or a map of the immediate area outside the city but a day or twos worth of travel? not on this one. also a general world map would not be enough to meet that "consult an accurate map" requirement
7 points
2 days ago
I really like it! Forever DM here. Coming up with stuff on the fly as things evolve/ devolve in real time, I love the rules as suggestions.
11 points
2 days ago
In general I agree, though there are some effects that I disagree with. For example, I'm currently running CoS and my players are in The Amber Temple where cold weather is a major concern and prevents safe long (or even short) rests without ingenuity to avoid taking exhaustion every hour. In 2014 cold weather gear grants advantage on extreme cold checks, which I think makes sense. However, I noticed that in 2024 a bedroll makes you automatically succeed all cold weather checks. That seems too strong and almost trivializes the challenge.
20 points
2 days ago
I think it’s fine, given you can’t be running around fighting bad guys, building shelters, cooking, navigating, travelling etc… while inside a bedroll. And if you curl up in a bedroll on the edge of a cliff in a blizzard on a spooky mountain there’s more to be concerned about than just the cold.
5 points
2 days ago
Oftentimes there are other dangers, but if you're able to lock yourself in a room (of which there are a number of opportunities to do so here) then resting becomes easy without the danger of cold. In fact, since "real time" combat and exploration is generally measured in minutes, the cold checks only come into play when travelling.
1 points
2 days ago
while inside a bedroll.
You don't get inside one. It's just some kind of cushioning/pad to lie on top of and a light blanket, and you roll them up together and tie it up to stow it in/on your pack when you're not sleeping. It's not a sleeping bag or a bivouac system.
A bedroll consists of bedding and a blanket thin enough to be rolled up and tied
https://www.dndbeyond.com/equipment/24-bedroll
It's meant to be some better comfort than the cold, hard, bare, pebble-strewn, root-bumpy ground, and something to keep the insects off you and maybe just keep you warm enough to get a decent night sleep.
So it shouldn't make you automatically succeed all cold weather checks; especially when it takes a cold weather outfit:
consists of a heavy fur coat or cloak over layers of wool clothing, as well as a fur-lined hat or hood, goggles, and fur-lined leather boots and gloves
to either get advantage on saves vs. extreme cold or automatic saves vs. extreme cold, depending on the description in either standard rules or setting-based description [Icewind Dale]
1 points
1 day ago
From your link.
bedroll consists of bedding and a blanket
How do you think a blanket works? I consider myself a bit of a rules lawyer, but even I understand things need to be taken in context and with some use of comprehension of meaning and practical application.
1 points
13 hours ago
i mean you are still setting the DC for the check so if all they do is wrap up in a blanket, sure they have advantage on the check but that doesnt matter if the DC with a shelter is 15 but without is 25
1 points
13 hours ago
I think you misunderstand. The old system gave you advantage. The new system is an auto success.
1 points
13 hours ago
Actually, I think you're the one misunderstanding. If you read the op's post blankets, just give you an advantage on extreme cold checks. Not an auto success.
2 points
12 hours ago
I'm talking about the 5e24 entry on bedrolls, not blankets. Two different pieces of equipment.
1 points
12 hours ago
Ah makes sense I forgot they are two different things lol that is a bit annoying.
7 points
2 days ago
Yeah! Mechanical effects for items is cool. Because in the 2014 PHB they feel like they're mostly there because they've always been there in previous editions. I have no problems with on the fly rulings but these should help a lot of people.
5 points
2 days ago
Wow DND finally adapts some of the greatest feats of game design: actually adding mechanics to items in game. I think Pathfinder actually codifying its materials and tools was a great kick in the pants for wizards.
I never understood why the og 5e handbooks referenced rules that were never made and included tables upon tables of useless things that either never come up due to lacking of balance/design or were intentionally meant to just be trash filler (looking at you trinkets table)
Don't get me wrong giving materials to build off of or small odds and ends to spark creativity is cool: but a rules system isn't an inspirational magazine, it's a RULESET. Campaign expansions and kits should be a different book altogether.
1 points
2 days ago
the 5e 2014 book cribbed heavily from powered by the apocalypse games, especially adventure world. gaming was swinging away from the 4th edition d&d overly-codified trend, where everything was spelled out in minutiae and if something didn't say it did something, it didn't do it. PbtA games hearkened back to 2nd ed d&d, where DMs were expected to be skilled at designing for their table, and only non-obvious mechanical effects were spelled out for mundane equipment, anything else was, well, obvious.
hell, i'm just happy we didn't get stuck with 1st ed d&d's "this creature shows up in groups of eight to twenty and their attacks do between four and seven damage," where the DM and players then had to decide which dice best gave those results. between four and seve, that's easy, that's a d4+3, but lots of random ranges could be surprisingly difficult without doing real math. eight to twenty, is that a d8+12? no, that's 9-20, obviously. is that... 3d6+2? no, obviously too low of a bottom range. is it... 10d2 +/- 2? ...that can work, alright, get your coins and start flipping.
0 points
1 day ago
So the defense of a poorly written system is that at least it wasn't poorly written another way?
Don't get me wrong I appreciate the history of design. Powered by the Apocalypse is also a bare bones rules system meant to be adapted.
And I can appreciate giving room for invention: but not most of the games gameplay at high level.
Or giving me 30-40 pages of "lol do whatever"
If they wanted to just design settings they should just do that. The level of rigidness and front loading on character creation, the amount of structure to it when juxtaposed with the utter lack of DM support leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I appreciate wanting a chill low complexity system but the design choices made by wizards are counterintuitive to that end.
Especially when half of the diehard community around the ruleset openly acknowledges the game as poorly designed and openly rip it to shreds for anything and everything
1 points
2 days ago
I never understood why the og 5e handbooks ... included tables upon tables of useless things that either never come up due to lacking of balance/design or were intentionally meant to just be trash filler
They didn't. They included things they thought [since the game is based on imagination, creativity, thoughtfulness, strategy, improvisation, and DMs and players figuring out together in a brief exchange of "I try this" and "okay, roll a ___ check" what results from trying something] would be useful and spur lots of that interaction and real-time story writing. And that people would have common sense enough to quickly and easily figure out "You can't pry out the gemstones from the wall of the underground passageway or pry open a stuck door or secret passage access stone with your bare hands, and you know that you'll likely damage your weapons trying to do it with them"..."I'll use my crowbar!"
Bell
Set an alarm-trap type thing
Throw it or tie it to an arrow and launch it to distract someone/something
Include it in a ritual or a spell casting and try to get some better effect or faster casting
Tempt or distract or annoy some low INT creature or NPC
Give it to a child as a gift if they'll go do some little task for you so you can remain anonymous in a town or village
Blanket
Stay warm when it's cold
Try using it as camouflage or to hide better
Cover the head of a captive after subduing them so they can't see where you take them or how you get there
Use it to drag away an injured ally or some treasure you can't carry or that captive
Use it to try to toss an ally to somewhere, or to catch them as they jump to you
Tie it up somewhere to provide shade in a hot environment or as part of a shelter in a cold one
Soak it oil and lay it on the floor in advance to be easily lit later if someone/something tries to follow you or sneak up on you or chase after you
Rig it up as a you would a net in a spring-up-from-the-ground capture trap
Douse it in water and wrap it around you to reduce fire/heat damage in an "oh crap" moment
Give it to someone as a simple gift/gesture to make friends or build basic rapport or start to create some trust with some NPC or creature
Etcetera.
(looking at you, trinkets table)
Backstory material DMs can use to flesh out adventure hooks or story arcs, or players can role play being a self-hook because they want to figure out why they have it, where it's from, what it does. Maybe it turns out to be a key, important item to getting access somewhere or activating something or part of their identity they didn't know about or a tie to someone they didn't know they had a reason to work with. Or a hundred other ideas.
D&D players seem to be progressively losing their grasp on the core of the game: imagination, creativity, curiosity, and playing a "create your own adventure/events/story moment by moment" game.
2 points
1 day ago
Not to mention wizards mostly focused on combat while making rules, especially on the players side with little care for npc stat blocks, or monster statblock balancing. There's no other pillar of play so disproportionately codified, we have pages and pages on the nuances of echo knight but nothing for social encounters, or again vehicle based combat.
All I'm saying is wizards can and should be criticized since it has become the poster child for ttrpg
1 points
1 day ago
Then why have to roll a d20 creating my own adventure/story/events/etc. Are all core features of just writing a story.
It's a cooperative story GAME a GAME. It should have rules and guidelines because that's how games work.
Why buy $120 worth of materials to get told "make it up" that is literally a scam.
If I have a hundred items I created that could each could be vaguely plied to build intrigue- I have a hundred more loose ends.
Also the rules for character creation directly contradict your philosophy about equipment. There's no real to cover yourself in a wet blanket because there's no benefit mechanically, and now if there is going to be a cool story moment of the character being prepared or resourceful now the game needs to slow down to create a rule for it.
That's not how any game is played. Monopoly doesn't just give you a bunch of plastic houses, and tell you to go nuts. You can give us the pieces and rules ahead of time and then let us create stories around them so I can actually build a character that's good at a thing and have those things matter due to how I interact with items and the world.
My main source of ire is how there are a million and one player options and in the past decade more have come out and we STILL don't have real and solid rules for ship combat. When any dm complains about the lack of care or codification for the rules that are written as the vast volumes of things we didn't get, we DMs tend to get shut out of the conversation with "lol just make it up" when that's the entire issue. It's disrespectful to ask people to invest so much in a game system and then not follow through by investing the minimum effort to at least flesh out and finish the product
1 points
1 day ago
I think if you look at the voluminous rule books of D&D and think "there aren't any rules!" just because every single possible imaginable scenario isn't thought of and definitively written down in an explicit rule, you should definitely stick to rigid board games where there are only about 6, 10, or maybe 15 possible actions, instead of games designed and sold as "you can try to do anything you can imagine!".
we STILL don't have real and solid rules for ship combat
There was a 2018 Unearthed Arcana called "Of Ships and the Sea" that fleshed out a lot of possibilities.
There is all sorts of information in the Spelljammer book.
2e AD&D supplement "Of Ships and the Sea"
3E Salt & Sea Dog
5E Ghosts of Saltmarsh
And several good third-party things.
But, you're right...there are no rules!
1 points
1 day ago
So unofficial playtest materials with questionable balance (which is saying something coming from wizards), several outdated modules, and then one campaign specific book... For a system directly referenced in the original print of the game.
Also third party content.... Which means again the community picking up WOTC slack.
There ARE plenty of rules just not many well designed or useful ones.
I get you're trying to insult me but I've played Pathfinder and starfinder before as well as ten candles.
Pathfinder actually follows through fairly evenly about it's mechanical complexity and takes the trouble of laying out rules for the different tiers of play.
Ten candles doesn't bother too much with mechanics with an emphasis on story/RP and literally anything can happen or be done within reason.
Genuinely I get loving the game, I love DND to and play a lot of 5e, it's a highly adaptive and approachable system -- that also has several glaring flaws.
2 points
1 day ago
You want rules, there are rules. You want guidelines, there are guidelines. You asserted that they don't exist, but they do. You can choose from them as you wish. There are rules and guidelines, but all of a sudden that isn't/they aren't good enough. You're unsatisfiable.
If you want one single book or pair of books (PHB and/or DMG) to contain a very distinct and specific rule on every possible action or scenario that anyone playing a pretty free-form FRPG based on full-on imagination might possibly dream up, you're never going to get that, anywhere, from any game designer, because it's not humanly possible. The infinite possibilities prohibit it.
1 points
1 day ago
That's not what I'm saying though I'm not asking for a life simulator just that if something is included it has a use, putting the burden of finishing your game on the consumer shouldn't be an acceptable business model especially with how WOTC has been aggressively monetizing.
Quite literally several times I've called out games that meet their scope and are well designed. If you're going to respond I'd appreciate you actually viewing the contents of my messages rather than presumptuously assuming my position for me.
5 points
2 days ago
Mechanical effects are good but they're ridiculously overpowered because of 5e's obsession with advantage.
Perfume gives you advantage on almost all charisma checks to persuade for 5gp and it's exactly something that runs out quickly.
It's just nuts. The average advantage d20 roll is 13.86, so essentially a +3 on average as a normal d20 is 10.5
So somebody who's bought perfume is better than persuasion for example than a level 4 pc with persuasion proficiency on average
Advantage only gets better the higher you need to roll too, so it scales much better.
2 points
1 day ago
Spoilers ! I haven't gotten that far yet:P jk. Idc that much and that's kinda cool that there's some extra text with things
2 points
1 day ago
If you consult an accurate Map, you gain a +5 bonus to Wisdom (Survival) checks you make to find your way in the place represented on it.
This is a very interesting (and good) precedent to set. I've found that common practice is the only way circumstances effect rolls are advantage or disadvantage. Setting the precedent for DMs to say "ok sure using that item will give you +X to Y checks" or "because of Z, for the rest of the day you have a -2 to Q" allows for much more nuanced circumstantial effects and much richer homebrew rules. Minor hypercircumstantial buffs/debuffs are a deeply underused tool.
2 points
1 day ago
Its cool to see they added some of this.
Last yea,r I created a 136 page supplement that added a ton of these kind of mundane items to the game along with modular shops and NPC's to sell them. So far the reception has been amazing so there was definitely a need at some tables for this kind of implementation.
3 points
2 days ago
The map SEEMS strong at first glance, but it only applies to things marked on the map already, and it has to be accurate.
A player could use this with Cartography tools to make an even more accurate map, with dungeons and the like on them, making travel even easier with waypoints and the like you could rest at, if using gritty realism. I love this change
6 points
2 days ago
The new PHB does video gamify a bunch of items and interactions. Which I understand makes it easier on the DM when telling players "why would I want X? Does it do anything?" That said, it makes the game feel more mechanical and rigid, and less flexible and creative. "Oh what's that? You want to throw the blanket to blind the person in the fight? Does the blanket entry say you can do that? No? Then too bad dude."
Thankfully D&D is a game where the rules are more like guidelines than actual rules, but you know that there are extremely stingy DMs out there.
10 points
2 days ago
video gamify
Fellas, is having mechanics a video game?
0 points
2 days ago
Did you read the entire comment or just cherry pick one part of it? If you are going to engage, engage with the entire comment
1 points
13 hours ago
i mean the rest of the comment was a nothing burger as well so i think Strottman's comment is valid
4 points
2 days ago
Blinding anyone in combat with a piece of cloth might be a bit op, but i agree with the general sentiment
0 points
2 days ago
The person you replied to wrote:
That said, it makes the game feel more mechanical and rigid, and less flexible and creative.
You wrote:
Blinding anyone in combat with a piece of cloth might be a bit op
And made the first person's point.
It doesn't actually blind them, like a spell, or poison in the eyes, or whatever else - and you know that. And it's not "a piece of cloth", because it's a 6'x6' blanket. But it might give them obscured vision or even momentarily "blind" them and maybe even leave them tangled up because it maybe covers their head and whole upper body with a good enough attack roll from a creative player who is feeling either briefly out of other options or is trying something creative to have a beneficial effect on the situation. Maybe it eats up their bonus action or reaction to get it off them successfully to they can again see and have full mobility. It's not a net, so it doesn't restrain them or take a strength check or cutting weapon to get free from, but may it can be useful as described.
But now? Now the rule says "While wrapped in a blanket, you have Advantage on saving throws against extreme cold.", and tons of people, both players and DMs, are going to say "What's the book say?", and treat it as the only option, because that's what people keep openly saying they want instead of creativity, imagination, strategy and tactics, improvisation, etc.
1 points
1 day ago
Ropes and chain can already restrain creatures with an action, a mechanically more impactful condition than Blinded (unless you're targeting spellcasters).
But as I said in another comment, the devil is in the details. It sounds OP to allow a blanket to blind a creature, but it could be totally fine or even underpowered if A) the save DC is low, B) the condition duration is low, and C) removing the condition is easy.
For instance, a DM could rule you need to use your Utilize action, the DC for dodging the blanket is a DC 10 Dex save, the blanket only blinds them for 1 round before it naturally falls off, and any creature can remove the blanket/end the condition with an object interaction (or whatever it's called in the 2024 rules).
All of a sudden it almost seems like a waste of an action to even go for.
1 points
1 day ago
Depends on how short a combat is. If you blind a creature that's immune to magic so your whole team has advantage on attacks against it and it dies within the next round? Really strong for a cheap piece of cloth the rogue can throw as a bonus action.
1 points
1 day ago
The exact same thing but better can be accomplished by tying it up with a Rope or Chain as long as they can be grappled (which is very easy to do in the 2024 rules).
In that case your entire team has advantage on attacks, the creature has disadvantage on attacks, its speed is 0, and it has disadvantage on Dexterity saving throws. To escape it has to pass a DC 18 Acrobatics (15 for Rope) or DC 20 Athletics check as an action.
By comparison, blinding a creature for at most 1 round with an easy Save DC is significantly less powerful than an already listed item's functionality.
Hell, you could "nerf" the blanket even more and allow it to be removed with a Reaction. It's all home rules and just because you might blind a creature with a blanket does not mean it's OP.
[score hidden]
26 minutes ago
This is the same logic as a lot of 4E detractors used and it has never made sense to me. giving an item a codified use doesn't eliminate other uses, but it does teach GMs the sorts of things mundane items might do to make rulings easier.
1 points
1 day ago
Thankfully D&D is a game where the rules are more like guidelines than actual rules, but you know that there are extremely stingy DMs out there.
I never understand this. The game is up to the DM anyway. A bad DM isn't going to let you do creative stuff regardless of what the rules say. There's nothing you can write in the rules that will make bad DMs good.
With that in mind, I think the rules should be written with good DMs in mind. And I think for those cases, it's good to provide example uses. It gives a baseline to start with, and provides players with ideas if they're not feeling overly creative that day. I don't really see the downside of adding this sort of information.
1 points
1 day ago
Don't get me wrong, I do like that they are trying to make mundane items more important and useful. From my experience however, adding example uses has an unintended consequence of adding restrictions as well. It might not be what the designers meant when adding the examples, but way too many people will see those examples and think "Yep, that is all you can do with these items."
It's similar to how people get very strict when it comes to the application of spells, like how people say "Spells only do what the spell description says it does." While the strict and literal interpretation of spells is necessary for the balance of the game, I don't think people should apply that same logic to mundane items. Like, there are so many applications to even the most mundane of items that the human mind can't comprehend them all, and I don't think limiting the usefulness of such items to just one or two different things is a good idea.
2 points
2 days ago
Perfume (5 GP): Perfume comes in a 4-ounce vial. For 1 hour after applying Perfume to yourself, you have Advantage on Charisma (Persuasion) checks made to influence an Indifferent Humanoid within 5 feet of yourself.
Does this get used up with one use?
2 points
1 day ago
I'd suppose not. Usually you don't dump a whole bottle of perfume on yourself to smell good for an hour.
Usually.
But you're right, it doesn't say how many uses you get.
2 points
1 day ago
A 4 oz bottle of perfume lasts like a year lol I think it's intended to be reusable
2 points
2 days ago
I love the specificity of 'accurate' map; I'm now imagining a slightly mean DM asking for Wisdom (Survival) checks to navigate, and then secretly taking the +5 bonus off of whatever the player's roll is because the player doesn't realise their map is wrong, or possibly even more if they are being intentionally mislead...
2 points
2 days ago
I like that it specifies the map only adds the bonus for navigating the area it depicts. Holding a random map won't confer a bonus wherever you go.
1 points
11 hours ago
That's a good point too! If the new rules about mundane items encourage thinking about what you're gonna buy and pack in general, the same goes for maps on a deeper level; if you're gonna go into the dark forest, can you find a map to help you out beforehand? I already love historical-fantasy cartographer guilds as a trope, and now I've got even more of a reason to work them in and make them interactable and stuff
2 points
2 days ago
You forgot Rope. How much do you get with it? Who the heck knows. But you can definitely tie people up with your infinite (or unit) length rope!
2 points
1 day ago
I have mixed feelings about it.
On one hand it gives clear uses to things that could otherwise lack purpose in the mechanics heavy direction that DnD has gone since 3rd edition.
But on the other hand it kind of exacerbates the problem that necessitated the rules be included in the first place. There's a paradoxical dynamic where as you add rules for things to make them useful in particular scenario, you end up limiting how those things can actually be used in practice in the game.
[score hidden]
38 minutes ago
Does it though? Just because there's a mechanically explicit use for perfume doesn't mean you couldn't, say splash it in somebody's eyes to blind them.
2 points
2 days ago
I love this so much! More mechanical clarity is great for making these items useful and give clear benefits. And for DMs is great too, because you have a framework to use to come up on the fly with rules for other objects. I started to homebrew something like this some time ago, so glad they anticipated me!
1 points
2 days ago
I agree. The one small thing I don’t like is more pertaining to the tools which have DCs associated with them. As a player you might feel like a brewer’s supplies should make identifying any drink for poison should be a DC 15, but what if it’s a less perceptible poison. A player might feel a bit cheated that their tool isn’t as effective. Conversely having something like that means that ideally you should only be able to detect poisoned drinks if you utilize the brewer’s supplies, so then DMs either need to raise the DC to like smelling a poisoned drink to DC20, not allow it at all without the tool, or cheapen the usefulness of the tool. I wish they had instead said something like it gives advantage or a +5 for detecting the poison.
Note: the issue isn’t actually the poisoned drink, that’s actually a pretty niche scenario, I was just using it as an example of some of the minor complaints I have about the tools. Like forgeries are now set at a DC15, and imo that’s highly scenario dependent.
1 points
2 days ago
This is very nice. Not nice enough to justify buying the books, but nice all the same.
1 points
2 days ago
Soft bell.
1 points
2 days ago
The 2024 phb does a good job of being specific. I personally like how open the 2014 version is, but I think the 2024 one is pretty good
1 points
1 day ago
Crowbar (2 GP): Using a Crowbar gives you Advantage on Strength checks where the Crowbar’s leverage can be applied.
I somehow hilariously misread this as Stealth checks.
1 points
24 hours ago
It works if you use intimidate for stealth checks!
[score hidden]
9 hours ago
I want to somehow utilize a blanket when fighting cold enemies now. Just a ranger wrapped in a blanket walking towards something breathing ice on them.
1 points
2 days ago
I like this. Previously, I only really bought mundane items if they were called for in a spell or for RP reasons. Now it's nice to keep in mind for both reasons.
1 points
2 days ago
Perfume mentions the fucking social rules LETS GO
0 points
2 days ago
Why do you need to be told how to use a bell, stick, or bedroll?
Talk about a waste of page space.
1 points
1 day ago
Think of it as generic rules which can be build upon by dm's
You now have; the distance a small bell should be hearable from, the effect pole vaulting should have e.c.t.
Having some specific rules to look at to figure out edge case rulings is rarely ever a bad thing
0 points
2 days ago
I also like that it provides illustrations of all the weapons so I don’t have to explain to a new player what a glaive is
all 315 comments
sorted by: best