Summary

• The one spell slot per turn rule can be frustrating for players, limiting versatility.
• Counterspelling counterspells can feel tedious and anticlimactic, suggesting a change.
• Material component costs can be streamlined for a smoother gameplay experience.

Let's face it, at the end of the day, 168澳洲幸运5开奖网:Dungeons & Dragons is a really complicated game with a ton of different rules൩ to memorize. For both players and Dungeon Masters alike, this can sometimes prove to be overly complex. Or, some rules in Dungeons & Dragons just don't always feel necessary, and can detract from the experience.

Personally, I have a vendetta against some of these rules that, in my opinion, are either unnecessary or just annoying🦹 to implement in the game. So, let's take a look at some Dungeons & Dragons rules for fifth edition that should be removed.

10 🦄 One Spell Slot Per Turn ꦆ

Let Me Do More

This rule is one 🃏that I would like to do away with as a player, as I always find it frustrating to work around. While I totally understand how it serves a need for ꦫbalance and reducing the power of some spellcasters, ultimately, it's always felt a little unintuitive to me.

When it comes to your action economy in Dungeons & Dragons, you have an action, a bonus action, and a reaction. However, when it comes to casting spells, you can only use one spell slo﷽t per turn. This means you can't cast a bonus action spell that's not a cantrip if you've already expended a spell slot on your action. T♐his always makes it difficult to pull off attacking and healing in the same turn, which is frustrating to say the least.

9 🐓 Counterspelling Counterspells

Weirdly Anticlimactic

This is more of a rule that I think should be added to Dungeons & Dragons, not so much removed. Technically speaking,💯 there's nothing stopping DMs and players alike from Counterspelling someone else's use of Counterspell. Depending on how many people have access to the spell, this can go on for some time.

Personally, I think we should make it so that once someone's Counterspelled, that's it. T🍰he spell is canceled. It becomes too anticlimactic and strange at times to have multiple counterspells counterspelled over and over again.

8 ඣ ꦐ Material Component Costs

Can Be Fixed

This is a rule that I think can be tweaked and improved upon. When it comes to casting certain spells in Dungeons & Dragons, you'll have to use what's called a Material Component. Some of these are free, and don't cost players anything; however, some spells require more expensive items that actually have a cost to themඣ.

While this makes sense, as some of these spells would be game-breaking without this rule, ultimately, it feels like t𒁏here should be a way to streamline this. The specifics of tracking down diamond dust or some other precious stone feel too nebulous. Perhaps just finding any item worth a certain amount of gold or just expending the gold itself would feel more streamlined.

7 💧 Help Actions 💞

Gets Too Redundant

This is another rule that can probably be mo🦹difওied in some way, but until conditions improve, I think it's best we get rid of it. This is a particularly annoying rule to DM for.

Whenever a player takes an action or makes an attack within five feet of an ally, you can use your action to grant advantage on the roll to your fellow player. While this rule works better in combat at times, outside of combat, it just feels too easy to constantly be givꦓing other players advantage. This causes a lot of policing as a DM.

6 Cover

Frustrating To Track

Cover is one of those rules that makes a lot♌ of sense, but often feels tough to explain to other players, particularly newbies, or feels too granular to implement properly. In combat, there's half cover, three-quarters cover, and full cover. To me, full cover is the only one that makes sense.

After all, how do you really define different degrees of cover? This rule is a really easy way for players and Dungeon Masters alike to grant themselve🤪s a hyper-powered boost to their Armor Class that doesn't alw🌜ays feel warranted.

5 Carryi☂ng Capacity

Does Anybody Like This Rule?

168澳洲幸运5开奖网:Encumbrance and Carrying Capacity are both rules t𓃲hat never really feel welcome in any game. I know personally that, even in a video game, I really don't take pleasure in having to navigate inventory screens to make sure my carrying capac🦋ity hasn't been exceeded.

That's why I think a lot of DMs do away with carrying capacity and encumbrance in Dungeons & Dragons. Technically speaking, if your carrying capacity is exceeded, your speed can't exceed five feet. This is a steep punishment to be sure. Just ⭕give y🐎our party a bag of holding and be done with it, that's what I say.

4 ജ Passive Perc🍸eption

Just Roll For It

This is a rule that I know a lot of DMs are divided on. In one respect, Passive Perception is a useful tool to cut down on the number of Perception checks a party has to make. However, some players will take advantage of 📖this system, buffing their Passive Perception so that they basica🅘lly never have to make a roll again.

This rule could definitely be amended to feel fairer. For example, perhaps Passive Perception could only be used forಞ non-threatening Perception checks, leaving the possibility of surprise rounds intact. Or, we could just get rid of it altogether. Pick your poison.

3 ꦗ In🔥stant Death

Too Harsh

While most of the time, you'll get the chance 168澳洲幸运5开奖网:to make death saves in Dungeons & Dragons when you fa🅺ll unconscious, there are a few ways that you can instan⭕tly die. For example, if you take damage past zero hit points equal to your hit point maximum, you die instantly, no death saves required.

However, this ve𝓰ry rarely happens to higher-level characters and players, who are more likely to enjoy a mechanic like that. Rather, this is far more common at lower levels of play. But, in my opinion, this feels unnecessarily ꧃cruel to newer players, or players who are just less experienced. I personally homebrew rules so that lower-level players can't die in this manner.

2 XP

Team Milestone

Experience Points versus Milestones is a debate as old as time. It feels like, as long as 🔯we have access to both as DMs, we'll never truly settle on one. That being said, I'm #TeamMilestone all the way. I think, in its current state, XP just isn't as gratifying as it should be, and feels too nebulous.

Yes, there's a clear-cut way to 168澳洲幸运5开奖网:dole out XP based on combat. But, what if you're using a homebrew stat block, or your campaign is more roleplay-focused? The Dungeon Master's Guide doesn't offer much in terms of guidance on how you should determine how much XP to grant to players for these types of encounters. In some ways, out꧑side 🦩of combat, it feels like you're basically just doing milestone-based level-ups anyway for these types of situations.

1 Challenge Ratinꦑg

More Of An Amendment

Along the same lines as XP, Challenge Rating is another system that's been around a long time, that most people agree just isn't that intuitive. Sure, if you can master it, ꧃it works. However, there's still something that the Challenge Rating can't really account for, like action economy and special player abilities. These types of abilities must be balanced on the DM side outside of Challenge Rating.

It would be great if Dungeons & Dragons could come up with another system that feels a bit more streamlined and less math-focused. Maybe that's just me, but I feel like DND already has enough math in it. We certainly don't neeꦺd to do more.