The 2024 Player's Handbook Wants the Player to Know All the DCs For Some Reason

I had a chance to look over the new PHB and wanted to record some of my thoughts about what I found there. This isn't meant to be an exhaustive changelog with minor revisions to individual classes, subclasses, races, feats, spells, and the like - others have already done that. It also isn't a "review", per se - others have done that, too. Rather, I wanted to call attention to a few topics in particular that I thought were noteworthy changes - some good, some bad, some...interesting - that I haven't seen reported on elsewhere.

It's worth noting that some of these items might be elaborated on further in the DMG. These are just my impressions based on what's available so far.

I'm going through these items in order as they appear in the book, so there's no real rhyme or reason as to how this post is organized.

I love this piece by Noor Rahman in the rules glossary. Click to embiggen.

Skills

I want to call attention to the fact that skill proficiencies are still, by default, tied to ability scores. That is, the player makes a Charisma (Performance) check. I mention this because this little blurb is still included on page 14:

Skills with Different Abilities

Each skill proficiency is associated with an ability check. For example, the Intimidation skill is associated with Charisma. In some situations, the DM might allow you to apply your skill proficiency to a different ability check. For example, if a character tries to intimidate someone through a show of physical strength, the DM might ask for a Strength (Intimidation) check rather than a Charisma (Intimidation) check. That character would make a Strength check and add their Proficiency Bonus if they have Intimidation proficiency.

I understand why skills are tied to ability scores by default - players and DMs can both benefit from having some idea of what normally goes with what - but I personally really wish they had done away with the default pairings entirely. 

It is enough to know that a character is proficient in Intimidation - the DM gets to decide if a situation calls for a character's proficiency to be added to a Strength check, a Charisma check, or some other ability check entirely, and leaving it open might entice players to come up with creative ways to advocate for the use of their skills in unusual situations. Maybe that is just too "advanced" for the PHB, and I certainly wouldn't want players arguing that they can use Strength to make a Perception check, because that doesn't make any sense (not that that's stopping the 2024 barbarian).

The "Skills with Different Abilities" rule is one of my favorites in 5e, and I wish it was used more, but players see "Persuasion (Charisma)" on their character sheet and assume that NPCs can be persuaded only by the character's innate ability to influence (Charisma), and not with logical or intuitive arguments (Intelligence and Wisdom, respectively).

Social Interaction

This is one of my favorite topics to discuss. The social interaction "pillar" is often criticized for being too threadbare. Does the 2024 PHB improve it?

The 2014 PHB took a rules-light approach to social interaction, explaining that players could use a "descriptive" or "active" approach - i.e., describing what their character does or says while interacting with an NPC versus speaking in-character and saying exactly what the character says. The DM then uses their knowledge of the NPC's personality to adjudicate the results, sometimes calling for an ability check. The DMG, in turn, has information on NPC's attitudes (friendly, indifferent, or hostile), associated social interaction DCs, and how to actually adjudicate the interaction.

The 2024 PHB now provides an example of social interaction, including examples of both descriptive and active roleplaying. The friendly, indifferent, and hostile attitudes return, and are now included in the PHB's rules glossary. Player characters have advantage on ability checks to influence friendly creatures and disadvantage on ability checks to influence hostile creatures. The DM can now call on player characters to take the Influence action to urge an NPC to do something.

I like that the PHB explicitly states "The DM will typically ask you to take the Influence action", which will hopefully avoid players simply yelling "I take the Influence action!" instead of actually roleplaying the interaction. Hopefully. 

The rules for the Influence action also state that requests that align with the NPC's desires automatically succeed, and those which don't automatically fail. An ability check is only needed if the NPC is "hesitant". Here's the kicker, though:

The GM chooses the check, which has a default DC equal to 15 or the monster's Intelligence score, whichever is higher. On a successful check, the monster does as urged. On a failed check, you must wait 24 hours (or a duration set by the DM) before urging it in the same way again.

First, I can see why the DM chooses which ability check the player makes, but I also think it should be framed more as a discussion. The player should be able to say "I say 'blah blah blah'." If the DM then says "Okay, make a Persuasion check", the player should be able to say "Wait, no. I was trying to threaten them" (or whatever). It also, again, might preclude the player from trying to convince an NPC using a logical or intuitive argument (if the DM habitually falls back on the default Charisma check). Like with any other part of the gameplay loop, the player and DM need to be on the same page about what the player is trying to do and how they're trying to do it. 

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but the codifying of social interaction in this way feels so rigid. It doesn't seem like it's teaching new players how to navigate these situations in a way which ensures that the DM is hearing them and adjudicating their actions appropriately.

Second, what is with those DCs? 15 or the NPC's Intelligence score - no matter the NPC, no matter their personality, no matter the player's approach? The friendly and hostile attitudes already provide advantage or disadvantage on ability checks, so the DCs don't necessarily need to be modified by attitude as they were in 2014, but I'm otherwise a bit baffled by this. 

Less intelligent NPCs are universally easier to Influence, regardless of whether or not the attempt to Influence them has anything to do with how smart they are, and intelligent NPCs are universally harder to Influence, even if a well-reasoned argument might reasonably appeal more to a more intelligent NPC. A more intelligent NPC might be able to see through lies more easily, but if they are in a situation where they are in danger of being harmed or killed, shouldn't an intelligent NPC be able to recognize that, and perhaps be more susceptible to Intimidation?

Shouldn't some NPCs be more susceptible to one approach versus another? A cowardly politician who goes to the theater and regularly engages in intellectual discourse in the king's court would be difficult to deceive, persuade, or impress with a slam poetry performance, but would be easier to intimidate. A king who values emotion over facts and logic would be more susceptible to an impassioned plea than a cold accounting of the facts at hand. Shouldn't player attempts at Deception be opposed by the NPC's Insight? Shouldn't player attempts to Intimidate the NPC be opposed by the NPC's morale?

Admittedly, I'm realizing that my own social interaction procedures use flat DCs based on the NPC's disposition, which don't account for different approaches when attempting to interact with them, but this is as simple as noting the NPC's personality traits, ideals, bonds, flaws, and goals, and modifying the DCs up and down accordingly if necessary. 

The fact that the 2024 PHB's rules don't even allude to these differences between NPCs is what's driving me nuts. It suggests to players that the most optimal form of social interaction is to only ever use whichever skill they have the highest bonus in. That might be the approach most players take anyway, but if players know that different approaches work better or worse with different NPCs, they'll more likely make some attempt to understand what resonates with an NPC before deciding who in the party should speak to them and how. 

As printed in the 2024 PHB, the game is telling the players that all approaches work equally well with a given NPC, so they should just use whichever skill is best for them. It does offer this tidbit:

When interacting with an NPC, pay attention to the DM's portrayal of the NPC's personality. You might be able to learn an NPC's goals and then use that information to influence the NPC.

But this only really applies if the players are able to identify the NPC's goals such that their attempts to Influence the NPC are automatically successful - if they have to roll, it doesn't make any difference.

There's also something to be said about the limitation that a character can only urge an NPC in a given way once per 24 hours. Does that mean a character can only attempt to Influence the NPC with Persuasion once during that time, or will different approaches to persuading the NPC be treated as different urgings? It doesn't read that way. At least the rules are explicit here that the DM can choose a different duration, although I don't know how much good it does.

Hiding

After plenty of complaints of ambiguity about how hiding worked in the 2014 version of the rules, the 2024 PHB offers some clarity and...simplification. From page 368:

With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so, you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you're Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any enemy's line of sight; if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you.

On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition. Make note of your check's total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.\

The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component.

First, this clarifies when a character can hide. The 2014 PHB, by comparison, says only "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." This is probably helpful to some people, although as a DM, I've never had a problem making a common-sense ruling as to when a creature can hide. I have heard that there are some DMs who are super stingy about when they allow characters to attempt to hide, so making the conditions player-facing is probably meant to alleviate that particular pain point.

It is weird that successfully hiding gives the creature the Invisible condition, which is not to be confused with being actually invisible in the reality of the fictional world. The capital I Invisible condition doesn't make the creature lower case i invisible, yet in this case, a creature that uses the Search action has to make a Perception check which beats the total of the other creature's Hide action in order to find them. The searcher does not see the hider just by looking at them, even if they are standing out in the open, so...they are invisible, kind of? 

Does Truesight, which allows a creature to see objects and creatures with the Invisible condition, then negate hiding? It shouldn't, because in the fiction, Truesight is the ability to see through illusions, shapechanging, and into the Ethereal Plane - being hidden by non-magical means is none of those things. It's literally giving me a headache to write this out.

Aside from that, the biggest problem I see with this is similar to the main gripe I had with the Influence action. What is with that flat DC? It used to be that Stealth checks were opposed by the monster or NPC's Passive Perception, which made plenty of sense - it represented the creature's ability to passively notice another creature attempting to hide without actively looking for it. Now, so long as the other conditions for hiding are met (and I'm accounting for special senses like Blindsight and Tremorsense here), a creature has the same chance of successfully hiding regardless of the situation or what/who it's hiding from.

A 1st-level rogue, assuming a starting Dexterity of 16 (+3) and expertise (+4) in Stealth (total of +7), has a 65% chance of hiding from anyone and everything. At 7th-level, once the rogue gets Reliable Talent, which gives them a minimum of 10 on the die when they roll any skill check with proficiency, that same rogue can successfully hide 100% of the time.

That's fantastic for the class fantasy of the rogue, and monster and NPC Passive Perception scores in the 2014 rules were such that this was often the case anyway, but it's also extremely simplistic and limiting. Again, aside from monsters and NPCs with the aforementioned special senses, all monsters and NPCs are equally easy to Hide from if the conditions are met.

It should be easier to Hide from a drunken guard than from a paranoid beholder with eyes more or less literally in the back of its head. The beholder can more easily find a hidden creature, I suppose, but it should also be harder to Hide from it in the first place.

Stabilized Player Characters Versus Unconscious Creatures

I'm not going to go off on this one, but I found it weird. In both the 2014 and 2024 rules, when a player character drops to 0 hit points but isn't killed and is then stabilized, they regain 1 hit point and become conscious after 1d4 hours.

In both the 2014 and 2024 rules, a player could choose, when reducing a creature to 0 hit points with a melee attack, to knock the creature out instead of killing it. Presumably, in the 2014 rules, unconscious monsters and NPCs worked the same as unconscious player characters, regaining 1 hit point after 1d4 hours.

In the 2024 rules, an unconscious monster or NPC is instead reduced to 1 hit point (because at 0 hit points they are dead, unless the DM makes an exception). The monster or NPC then starts a short rest, meaning they always regain consciousness after 1 hour, they get to roll all of their hit dice and heal for that amount, and they get back any abilities that recharge on a short rest.

It has more or less always been true that player characters and monsters and NPCs follow different rules, but in a few instances it really bothers me, and this is another such instance. Not a huge deal, but a weird quirk of the rules I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere.

Languages

I've written about languages before. One of my complaints was that it felt too easy to learn exotic languages, and that they weren't sufficiently differentiated from standard languages. The 2024 rules change languages just a bit. It's weird.

First, in desperation to remove any connection between a character's race/species and their culture, player characters no longer gain languages based on their race. Instead, all characters speak Common and two other standard languages.

The funny thing is, it's not clear how a character learns a rare language (exotic languages are now rare languages). The PHB says: "Some features let a character learn a rare language." For example, druids learn Druidic, rogues learn Thieves' Cant, and rangers learn two languages from their Deft Explorer feature. I don't know that there's any other way to learn these languages.

So, according to the rules, an aasimar can't know Celestial, an elf can't know Sylvan, a drow can't know Undercommon, and a tiefling can't know Abyssal or Infernal. A reasonable DM can obviously make an exception, but I do find it funny.

A piece by Chris Seaman shows how adventurers' equipment evolves with the tiers of play.

Starting Equipment at Higher Levels

Finally, a change I kind of sort of like. The 2024 PHB gives some recommendations for what kind of starting equipment newly made higher-level characters should have - some extra gold and magic items.

If I have a concern about this, it's that if a character with a bunch of magic items and treasure dies, the rest of the party can take their stuff, then a new character enters the game with more magic items and treasure. The more characters die, the more magic items and treasure are added to the party. It doesn't make sense to me that if a character with 20,000 gold and 10 magic items dies, the party salvages their stuff, and then another character with 20,000 gold and 10 magic items joins the party. The party as a whole is now 20,000 gold and 10 magic items richer because they messed up and someone died. 

The way I've handled this in my games is to treat magic items and treasure as belonging to the player, not the character. If a character dies with a bunch of magic items and treasure, that player's new character enters the game with equivalent magic items and treasure. If, however, the other characters loot the dead character and either use or sell their stuff, that stuff no longer belongs to the player whose character died, and their new character enters with fewer items and treasure.

It's a bit meta and not entirely fair to the player with the dead character, but they should have thought about that before they died. And they should convince the other players to give them some of their stuff back so that their new character isn't underpowered (making sure the new character isn't underpowered is in the other players' best interest as well).

Backgrounds

As far as I can tell, the 2024 PHB no longer even suggests that backgrounds are customizable, aside from this:

Each background includes a brief narrative of what your character's past might have been like. Alter the details of this narrative however you like.

The 2014 PHB referred to its backgrounds as "sample backgrounds", and went into detail as to how to customize them or work with the DM to create an entirely new one:

You might want to tweak some of the features of a background so it better fits your character or the campaign setting. To customize a background, you can replace one feature with any other one, choose any two skills, and choose a total of two tool proficiencies or languages from the sample backgrounds. You can either use the equipment package from your background or spend coin on gear as described in chapter 5. (If you spend coin, you can't also take the equipment package suggested for your class.) Finally, choose two personality traits, one ideal, one bond, and one flaw.

If you can't find a feature that matches your desired background, work with your DM to create one.

In my experience, most players do not even try to customize their background, but it happened occasionally when we were playing 5e, and I personally tried to do it with all of my characters. Players new to D&D who start with the 2024 PHB might not even think to ask their DM about the possibility, which is a real shame.

Ability score increases are now tied to backgrounds, which is fine. I personally like my dwarves sturdy and taciturn and my elves lithe and frail, but I get why the culture has moved away from that. 

What's funny is that, beginning a few years ago, Wizards of the Coast did away with specified ability score increases entirely in favor of letting players build the exact characters they wanted, then tied the ability score increases to backgrounds in the 2024 playtest materials, and now...made them specific again? For example, a player who chooses the acolyte background can now only increase some combination of Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma (+2 to one and +1 to another, or +1 to all three).

In the 2014 rules, a player might choose to be a dwarf fighter because that race and class synergize well, then have their pick of interesting backgrounds with which to differentiate that character. Now, a player might choose to be a soldier fighter for the same reason, and it is instead the species which differentiates the character.

It's not necessarily better or worse, it's just...different. The race/species and background have just changed places. (Considering the fantasy bioessentialism of it all, maybe it is slightly better now. I just never particularly cared about that but I understand why some people do.)

Perhaps worst of all is that the 2024 PHB does away with traits, bonds, ideals, flaws, and background features (the latter are more or less replaced by origin feats, which are more mechanically useful but less interesting to me). 

I personally loved the TBIFs and used those suggested by each background to create my own for each character. Instead, the character creation chapter suggests one-word descriptors based on the character's ability scores and alignment, which is...fine. It's just kind of a little bit...boring? Uninspiring?

The background features were never terribly exciting - they mostly amounted to some way for the character to obtain free room and board in a settlement - but I felt that they were interesting little roleplaying tidbits. They invited the player and DM to collaborate on something together - the acolyte's home temple or shrine, the criminal's black market contact, or the entertainer's preferred tavern to perform at. It felt good to be the street urchin who could show the rest of the party a faster way through a busy urban neighborhood, or to be the sage who knew how to use the fantasy Dewey Decimal System.

Tools and Adventuring Gear

Every tool and bit of adventuring gear now has a little description about what a character can use it for. Tools list what items a character can craft with them. A character can use perfume to get advantage on Persuasion checks to Influence Indifferent Humanoids. Cute! But also very specific for some reason.

A character can use alchemist's supplies to identify a substance! Cartographer's tools to make a map! Jeweler's tools to appraise a gem! 

What is with these DCs?!

DC 15 to identify any substance? DC 15 to make a map of any area? DC 15 to appraise any gem? It goes on and on like this! A DC 20 check with a gaming set to "win the game". What game? Who is the character playing against? DC 20 to win any game against anyone?

Admittedly, this isn't the first time these DCs have appeared in a book, at least not with regards to tools. DCs to do a variety of things with tools were first printed in Xanathar's Guide to Everything. But now, they've infected the entire equipment list: DC 10 to apply makeup with a disguise kit (what?), DC 13 to wrap a chain around any creature, DC 10 to tie a knot with a rope. It's enough to make me go completely mad.

Of course the DM is well within their rights to change any of this nonsense. Of course. But the DCs are in the PHB! Why? That's DM-facing information - players literally do not need to know this information, and that goes for social interaction, and hiding, and equipment, and everything else. The section on making ability checks should tell the player how to make an ability check, then say "The DM determines the DC." That's all the player needs to know. The book is actively undermining the DM's ability to adjudicate these situations by implying that there are set-in-stone DCs for any of these things.

All of the tools also have an associated ability score, which mostly seem arbitrary. Painter's supplies require Wisdom, as do all gaming sets (dragonchess doesn't use Intelligence, and playing cards don't use Charisma, so no bluffing). All musical instruments use Charisma (dexterous fingers have nothing to do with playing a string instrument - it's all about convincing people that the performance is good through force of personality).

I've seen a few people praise the new equipment section, so I was especially startled when I read and saw just how bad it actually is.

Spellcasting Services

This is nice - there are suggested prices for NPCs to cast spells for the party. Of course, I'm once again wondering why this is in the PHB, and if it must be in the PHB, why there isn't some disclaimer that the DM can change it or decide that certain services aren't available. Still, it's nice enough, and the prices seem reasonable.

I also find it interesting that the table aligns pretty closely with my own ideas about what services are available in which types of settlements. I've always run it so that Tier 1 NPCs can be found in villages, Tier 2 NPCs in towns, Tier 3 NPCs in cities, and Tier 4 NPCs in metropolises, which is exactly what the table suggests (minus the metropolises).

Where Are the Downtime Rules?

I don't know. They're not in the 2024 PHB (crafting is, but none of the other options). 

The new DMG includes rules for player character bastions, so maybe they're lumped together with downtime rules there. Or maybe they've gotten rid of downtime altogether. I wouldn't be surprised.

That's all I've got for now. I've spent a little bit of time looking at how they changed the classes and spells and whatnot but honestly my eyes just kind of glaze over whenever I try too hard to read that stuff.

I'll probably do another post like this when I can get a look at the DMG. Hopefully it will give me less of a headache and I'll have more positive things to say, but I've already heard some things that make me think I, uh...might not like it. Lol.

On Hands (and how to use them)

Okay, weird post title. Bear with me.

This post was inspired by Warren D.'s post "WHAT'S INTERESTING ABOUT BASIC DUNGONEERING: And what is not" on the I Cast Light! blog. What got me thinking about hands specifically is Warren's thoughts on light and weapons (highlights mine):

Light: Due to torch cost and number per slot, it is easy to carry a lot of torches.

Not interesting: Carrying enough light to last 12-24 turns- easily done

Interesting: When torches extinguish-- like in the middle of a fight or when the goblins you are negotiating with get mad; how many hands in the party are occupied by torches

... 

Weapons: I've yet to find a really good way to do weapons simply outside of 1d6 damage for all types. I don't mind BX's variable weapon damage. And I do like some old rulesets sorta "first strike" if your weapon is larger than an opponents other wise smaller, lighter weapons strike first in subsequent arounds.

So here is what I have got so far: Using a weapon two-handed is a +1 to damage, using an off-hand weapon is +1 to-hit, and a shield is of course +1 AC. I do like that fighters with bows can shoot twice if they did not move and the "cleave" ability.

Not interesting: Weapon factors that are so extensive they require a separate rules discussion, trigger player obsession, and/or orient the whole of gameplay to combat

Interesting: What PCs chose to do with their hands: more armor, more weapons, or more light

What I'm interested in is how player characters choose to use their hands. It's a simple thing, but it's important - a hand can do any of the following things:

• Cast a spell with material or somatic components
• Hold a torch or lantern (providing light with which to see)
• Increase weapon damage (per my rules for variable weapon damage, using two hands increases a weapon's damage die size by one) 
• Increase a weapon's reach (most weapons with the reach property require two hands to use)
• Increase a weapon's range (ranged weapons which require two hands, such as bows, usually have a longer range than those which require one hand, such as thrown weapons)
• Interact with objects (open doors, throw levers, withdraw items from a bag or pouch)
• Make an extra attack (if dual wielding or a monk)
• Provide extra protection (a hand used to hold a shield provides +2 to the character's armor class)
• Use items (drink a potion, read a scroll, activate a wand, etc.)

It's something many DMs might not even think about, and I suspect that most modern DMs view it as one of those things - like encumbrance - which is too onerous to keep track of, and simply don't, beyond "Is the character dual-wielding, two-handing, or using a shield?" I have certainly forgotten about it a good number of times. In fact, when thinking about this, I realized that in a recent AD&D 2e session, I forgot about something very important - light.

Who is Carrying the Light?

The player characters were exploring a network of subterranean tunnels made by a brood of ankhegs. When the party first entered the tunnels, I said, "It's dark, so you'll probably want a light source. Who is carrying the light?" Then, when the party had its climactic battle with the ankheg brood, I never once considered the issue of light. Characters were firing bows, dual wielding, two-handing, and wielding shields. Who was carrying the light? Could the characters even see? I don't know.

When not in combat, the question of who is carrying the light isn't incredibly important. One might as well assume that all of the characters are carrying light unless they state otherwise. Characters might place a torch in a sconce when exploring a room or put it on the ground while they check a chest for traps. True, monsters hidden far away in the dark might target the torchbearer specifically, but in that case, the DM can simply check with the players who exactly is carrying the light before springing the ambush, after which the specifics become more crucial.

Once combat begins, it becomes very important who is carrying the light, because that character can't use their light-carrying hand to cast spells, wield a weapon with both hands, interact with other objects, duel wield (aside from using the torch as a weapon), wield a shield, or use items. That character is making a choice to benefit the rest of the party (by providing light) at the expense of their own tactical versatility. It's part of what makes light-providing spells, weapons, torchbearers, and the like valuable - they can provide light without occupying a hand.

Furthermore, the light source typically moves with the torchbearer, unless the torchbearer drops their torch on the ground in order to free up their other hand. Monsters may attempt to attack the torchbearer and snuff out the light. So, keeping track of who is carrying the light in these scenarios is very important. 

Stow, Drop, and Draw

In D&D 5e, a character can interact with one object for free on their turn, as part of their attack or move action (PHB, page 190). This includes drawing a weapon as part of the action they use to make an attack, opening a door as they move through it, picking up a dropped item, stowing an item, or withdrawing a stowed item. Redditors will happily say that according to the rules, a spellcaster wielding a sword and shield can drop their sword (no action required), freeing up a hand to cast a spell, then immediately pick up the sword again (using their free object interaction).

I hate this. It's stupid. Changing what hand is doing what is a tactical choice. It should have benefits and drawbacks like any other.

Baldur's Gate 3 is the current hotness as far as video games based on 5e go, but another 5e-based game, Solasta: The Crown of the Magister, is much better at little rules minutia like this. In Solasta, each character has weapon sets - a primary weapon set, a secondary weapon set, and a light source set. A character can switch between sets once on their turn.

So if a character is wielding a sword and shield, but wants to make a ranged attack, they switch to their longbow. After attacking with their longbow, they cannot then switch back to their sword and shield to benefit from the improved armor class. If light is an issue, the character can switch to holding their sword and torch, but cannot then switch back to their sword and shield.

This is more or less how I do it in my games, although locking characters into using predefined "weapon sets" is not exactly lifelike. Instead, I implement a stow/drop/draw action, which allows a character to switch what they're holding in each hand once per turn. They can drop their torch and draw another weapon, stow their sword and draw their wand, stow two items to free up both hands, or any combination of those things, so long as the item being held or not is interacted with just once, and the hand switches between only two items per turn. That means no dropping an item to do something with the hand and then picking the item right back up again.

To Two-Hand or Not to Two-Hand

A character who chooses to wield a two-handed weapon is making a deliberate choice. They are doing more damage if they hit, but they are sacrificing increased armor class (from a shield) and number of chances to hit (a dual-wielding character is making an extra attack each round). 

Only, are they actually doing more damage than a dual-wielding character? Using my own rules for variant weapon damage, a character wielding a heavy martial weapon with two hands does d12 damage. A character wielding a light martial weapon in each hand does d6 damage with each. If they hit with both, they do an average of 7 damage, versus the two-hander's average 6.5. Not a huge difference, but it's there.

On top of that, normally, the player does not add their character's Strength or Dexterity modifier to the damage roll from their off-hand weapon, but the two-weapon fighting style allows them to do so, which can make the disparity greater. The dual-wielder also has an extra chance to score a critical hit.

But aha, two-handed weapons only require two hands when making an attack (PHB, page 146)! The second hand is free for the rest of the character's turn, allowing them to manipulate objects, draw items, and the like. If they can cast spells, they might also use their now-free hand for that (more on that later). If the dual-wielder wants to free up a hand, they have to use their stow/drop/draw action on that turn to do so, then use their stow/drop/draw action again on their next turn to switch back. Not a huge difference, but it's there.

Shields

Shields might be an exception to the stow/drop/draw action rule. In 5e, shields require a full action to don or doff (PHB, page 146). This feels overly punitive to me. I would rule that a character could switch their shield out for another item as if that hand was holding anything else. Maybe this isn't realistic (assuming the shield is strapped to the arm), but the gamey, mechanical tradeoff decision from round to round is what I'm interested in here, not realism.

This requires another change - in 5e, a character can benefit from a shield even if they're not proficient with shields. Here's the tradeoff: "If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can't cast spells" (PHB, page 144). 

That above rule doesn't matter (aside from making saving throws) if the character has already taken their action that turn, meaning a character without shield proficiency could take their action as normal, then whip out a shield to benefit from the extra AC. I don't want that.

So if we remove the action required to don or doff a shield, we have to go a bit further and say "You do not benefit from the bonus to Armor Class when wielding a shield with which you are not proficient." Easy.

The Buckler Shield

One thing I miss from AD&D is different types of shields. 2e has buckler shields, small shields, medium shields, and body shields. I've simplified this a bit in 5e, introducing light (buckler) shields, medium (standard) shields, and heavy (body) shields. 

A character no longer needs proficiency in shields to use one - they just need proficiency in the corresponding armor type. This means that classes which don't normally get to use shields (most bards, rogues, and warlocks) can now use some certain shields, which doesn't bother me.

Standard shields work the same as the typical 5e shield. Body shields are similar, but against ranged attacks from the front and flanks, the character is treated as having three-quarters cover (+5 to AC, instead of the +2 typical of shields).

The buckler is the important shield when it comes to the discussion of hands, because it's light and fastens to the forearm, allowing the hand of the shield arm to be used to do things like fire a bow or crossbow, cast a spell, hold a torch, open a door, or the like. So the character wielding a buckler never needs to worry about stowing, dropping, or drawing their shield.

The tradeoff is that the buckler shield only grants the +2 bonus to Armor Class against one attack per round, and only if the character uses their reaction. It comes in handy (haha), but only if the character's reaction isn't already spoken for, and it's still not as good as having a proper shield.

The Components of a Spellcaster

Finally, I want to talk about spellcasting components. There are three kinds of spell components in D&D 5e: verbal, somatic, and material (PHB, page 203). Every spell in D&D requires at least one of these components, but more often, some combination of two or all three components in order to cast. 

Verbal components are "mystic words" which are spoken aloud as the spell is cast. It's not enough to simply say the words - the combination of sounds requires "specific pitch and resonance" to "set the threads of magic in motion". It's why, in my opinion, a character cannot "quietly" or "stealthily" cast a spell. Uttering the verbal components is loud and showy - it's evident to everyone present that a spell is being cast, disgraced 5e designers be damned.

Somatic components "might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures". Material components are "particular objects" but can be substituted by a component pouch or spellcasting focus so long as the components has no cost and isn't consumed by the spell.

Here's where we get to hands: To cast a spell with somatic components, "the caster must have free use of at least one hand". To cast a spell with material components, "a spellcaster must have a hand free to access [the] material components". However, the hand used to access the material components "can be the same hand that [the caster] uses to perform somatic components".

It used to be that a caster's whole body had to be free to cast a spell. A spellcaster casting a spell with somatic components couldn't just wiggle their fingers. Their whole body had to move. They had to do a dumb little dance. A spellcaster could not move on the same turn they cast a spell. If they were on a ship in the middle of a storm, the rest of the party would have to brace them to hold them still so that they could cast without being thrown around the ship. This, along with proper Vancian spellcasting and simultaneous actions in combat - allowing spellcasters to be interrupted while casting - was a huge element of reigning in the power of spellcasters. 

5e has a much different conception of spellcasters. They're basically hyper-mobile artillery. They can run, ride, and fly around casting spells, and all the while, they only need one hand free. They can be restrained by a titanic boa constrictor and can still cast spells with somatic and material components, so long as they can wiggle their fingers.

I personally rule that a spellcaster can't cast spells with somatic components if they're, for example, grappled or restrained, and in that case, they also can't cast spells with a material component unless those materials are already in hand.

I'm inclined to take it a step farther. What if spellcasters needed one free hand for somatic components, and another for material components? Casting a spell which requires both is a full-body action, meaning the character has to stow or drop whatever other items are occupying their hands before they cast.

Unfortunately, the characters who would suffer most from this aren't the dedicated casters, who probably aren't holding much other than a spellcasting focus anyway - the true victims are those that straddle the line between fighting and spellcasting: artificers, clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers. These characters are spellcasters as well as characters that want to wield weapons and, often, shields.

Most of these classes have features which would mitigate the impact of this effect, allowing them to substitute some other item for a spellcasting focus. Artificers can use infused items as spellcasting foci, meaning that an artificer could infuse their weapon or shield, using it for their material components. Clerics and paladins can etch their holy symbol into a shield or, even better, simply wear it visibly on their person. Druids and - as of Tasha's Cauldron of Everything - rangers can use a druidic focus, which can be a staff, which is also a weapon (although maybe not the preferred one). 

In baseline 5e, this allows each of these character types to wield a useful item while still casting spells which require both somatic and material components (oddly, if the spell only requires a somatic component, they still need a free hand). If we change the rule to require one free hand for each of these components, then they at least need one less hand free.

These classes can also benefit from taking the War Caster feat, which eliminates the need for a free hand to use somatic components, so long as the character is wielding weapons or a shield in one or both hands (my reading of it is that the character couldn't cast a spell requiring somatic components while holding a torch in one hand and holding a potion in the other, for example).

Certain subclasses suffer more greatly - those classes which normally don't cast spells, but have subclasses which do, such as the eldritch knight fighter or the arcane trickster rogue, or those classes which normally don't wield weapons, but have subclasses which do, such as the swords and valor bards and the hexblade warlock. Since 5e is designed in such a way that casting spells with somatic components, material components, or both requires just one hand, this isn't normally a problem. If we require them to use both hands, they become much more limited. If I were to implement the house rule I'm proposing, I would likely give these subclasses some extra feature that allows them to use a weapon or shield as a focus.

Overall, I've not totally sold myself on making this change. It's not like changing a single spell or the way a class feature works, which is relatively easy - it's changing the base rules about how spellcasting as a whole works, which potentially has tons of knock-on effects. 

I'm not particularly interested in going through the whole spell list and analyzing the edge cases of which spells become more or less effective with different classes and subclasses depending on what they can and can't use as a spellcasting focus. It's the kind of thing that would require playtesting. Maybe next time I run a 5e game, I'll try it. Or maybe by then I'll have decided I don't really care.

The important take away is that I'm trying to pay more attention to what my players' characters are doing with their hands. Doing so generates interesting round-by-round decision points (holding a light source, choosing weapons, using a shield, and casting spells are all meaningful tradeoffs). This, and a healthy dose of common sense, reigns in more powerful character concepts, such as spellcasters (a wizard can't cast elaborate spells while being throttled by a tentacled beast). That at the very least is worth considering.

On Identification

In my most recent AD&D 2e play report, the player characters wanted to discover the properties of a strange alien helmet they found in an old tomb. The helmet had seemingly been used to torture someone so badly that they became a ghost, so of course none of the characters dared to try it on and find out for themselves what it was capable of. The players are not quite ready to embrace the old-school approach that is bribing or bullying their henchmen and hirelings into being magic item guinea pigs, either. So, they decided to find the most capable wizard in town and ask her to identify the item for them. 

The problem? According to Table 69 of the 2e DMG (page 154), getting an NPC to cast identify should cost at least 1,000 gold pieces per item or function of an item to be identified. The DMG states that "the costs of purchasing a spell are such that it is far better for someone in the party to learn the spell. In general, the mercenary use of NPC spellcasters should be discouraged whenever possible. The player character are supposed to face challenges on their own!"

Clearly, there is an intended playstyle justification for the high cost of getting an NPC to cast an identify spell. But there is also a mechanical justification - identifying magic items in 2e is hard! Below is the description of the identify spell in 2e, with important parts bolded (PHB, page 175):

Range: 0

Components: V, S, M

Duration: 1 rd./level

Casting Time: Special

Area of Effect: 1 item/level

Saving Throw: None

When an identify spell is cast, magical items subsequently touched by the wizard can be identified. The eight hours immediately preceding the casting of the spell must be spent purifying the items and removing influences that would corrupt and blur their magical auras. If this period is interrupted, it must be begun again. When the spell is cast, each item must be handled in turn by the wizard. Any consequences of this handling fall fully upon the wizard and may end the spell, although the wizard is allowed any applicable saving throw.

The chance of learning a piece of information about an item is equal to 10% per level of the caster, to a maximum of 90%, rolled by the DM. Any roll of 96-00 indicates a false reading (91-95 reveals nothing). Only one function of a multifunction item is discovered per handling (i.e., a 5th-level wizard could attempt to determine the nature of five different items, five different functions of a single item, or any combination of the two). If any attempt at reading fails, the caster cannot learn any more about that item until he advances a level. Note that some items, such as special magical tomes, cannot be identified with this spell.

The item never reveals its exact attack or damage bonuses, although the fact that it has few or many bonuses can be determined. If it has charges, only a general indication of the number of charges remaining is learned: powerful (81% - 100% of the total possible charges), strong (61% - 80%), moderate (41% - 60%), weak (6% - 40%), or faint (five charges or less). The faint result takes precedence, so a fully charged ring of three wishes always appears to be only faintly charged.

After casting the spell and determining what can be learned from it, the wizard loses 8 points of Constitution. He must rest for one hour to recover each point of Constitution. If the 8-point loss drops the spellcaster below a Constitution of 1, he falls unconscious. Consciousness is not regained until full Constitution is restored, which takes 24 hours (one point per three hours for an unconscious character).

The material components of this spell are a pearl (of at least 100 gp value) and an owl feather steeped in wine; the infusion must be drunk prior to spellcasting. If a luckstone is powdered and added to the infusion, the divination becomes much more potent: Exact bonuses or charges can be determined, and the functions of a multifunctional item can be learned from a single reading. At the DM's option, certain properties of an artifact or relic might also be learned.

The key takeaway is this: In 2e, the caster must spend 8 hours preparing to cast the spell, as well as at least 8 hours recovering from casting the spell, and because the caster must handle each item, they are vulnerable to any curses which might befall them from doing so. Additionally, unlike in D&D 5e, for example, material components of spells are consumed unless stated otherwise (PHB, page 114) - in 5e, they're not consumed unless stated otherwise (PHB, page 203) - meaning that every casting of identify in 2e consumes a 100 gp pearl.

In 2e, when the player characters pay 1,000 gp to an NPC wizard to cast identify, they are paying for an entire day of the wizard's time (8 hours of prep and at least 8 hours of recovery), as well as reimbursing the wizard for the lost pearl, the risk of curses, and the risk of falling into a brief coma. Suddenly, 1,000 gp sounds more fair.

Also worth noting is that identify in 2e does not automatically reveal information about the item (the spell always has a chance of failure). A higher-level wizard has a better chance of determining an item's properties, and a wizard with access to powdered luckstone can discern more specific item properties like exact bonuses and number of charges. If anything, identify should be more expensive depending on the level of the wizard whose services are employed, as well as any additional components they might be using.

This guy will risk getting cursed and falling into a coma for 1,000 gp.

Identification, Made Easy

Over the editions of D&D, magical item identification has gradually become faster, more reliable, and less costly. In 3e, identify takes 1 hour to cast and requires no recovery time, and it automatically reveals all properties of a single item, including the means of activating the item and how many charges it has (if any).

I don't remember much from my brief time with D&D 4e, but from Googling around it looks like this was the edition which introduced the concept of automatically identifying items on a short rest, which brings us to 5e (DMG, page 136):

"A character can focus on one magic item during a short rest, while being in physical contact with the item. At the end of the rest, the character learns the item's properties, as well as how to use them."

The identify spell still exists in 5e, for those players who don't want to have to take the time to identify items the more accessible way. 5e's identify takes 1 minute to cast if a spell slot is used, or 10 minutes when cast as a ritual (avoiding the use of a spell slot). The 100 gp pearl is no longer consumed. The spell allows the character to "learn [the item's] properties and how to use them, whether it requires attunement to use, and how many charges it has, if any" as well as "whether any spells are affecting the item and what they are" and "which spell created [the item]." (PHB, page 252)

So, at worst, the player character can spend an hour to identify an item without error (without even being a spellcaster or having any knowledge of magic). At best, they can spend a spell slot to identify it in 1 minute (if they know identify and/or have it prepared). In the middle, they can spend 10 minutes and no other resources to identify it (if they know identify and can cast ritual spells).

From 2e to 5e, we went from 16 total hours of time spent on a single casting of identify to as little as 1 minute, from a 100 gp pearl which is consumed with every casting to a 100 gp pearl that can be used indefinitely, and from an uncertain prospect of success and a one-property-at-a-time process of discovery to an automatically thorough and accurate reading of an item with a single casting.

Much like the intended playstyle of 2e (player characters should overcome challenges on their own) informs 2e's approach to identification, the intended playstyle of 5e informs 5e's approach to identification. In 5e, player characters aren't meant to struggle with mundane adventurer tasks like figuring out what their new toys are and how to use them. Player character abilities simply work, they work instantaneously, and they do not usually have drawbacks, penalties, or restrictions.

This is especially true of spells - players can only learn a handful of spells as their characters progress, so they're unlikely to choose those which they deem "underpowered" or unreliable Thus, all spells must attempt to be equally compelling in order to attract players to choose them. (Wizards can technically learn every spell available to their class, but even their potential, from the player's perspective, is throttled by the greedy DM's draconian vice grip on scrolls and spellbooks found in treasure hoards.)

The modernization of magic in D&D comes at the expense of the fiction which the game was originally intended to emulate - conjurers can pick and choose exactly what otherwordly creature they summon, and have perfect and minute control over such creatures, transmuters can spend lifetimes polymorphed into monsters with no risk of ever truly becoming monsters themselves, and rare, powerful, and alien artifacts readily and reliably yield all of their secrets and powers in as little as a minute (or at most, in an hour, to any non-magic-using schmuck who handles them and thinks really hard about it).

This guy doesn't even know magic, but even he can force the cube to yield all of its most occult secrets during his lunch break!

Identification, Made Boring

The consequence of the modernization of magic item identification is that there's simply no reason for player characters to experiment with magic items ever again. Why would they, when, in a worst case scenario, they can simply sit for an hour and think really hard about the item to unerringly learn all of its properties?

The 5e DMG (page 136) does shoutout experimentation as a means of identification, for some reason: "Wearing or experimenting with an item can also offer hints about its properties. For example, if a character puts on a ring of jumping, you could say, "Your steps feel strangely springy." Perhaps the character then jumps up and down to see what happens. You then say the character jumps unexpectedly high."

Why special mention is given to experimentation when the mechanics almost completely eliminate the need for it is anyone's guess. In some scenarios, the party may have no spellcasters capable of casting identify, and may not have time to stop for an hour, or may have need of the item urgently, but this has never happened in one of my games. It's probably because one of my players almost always plays a wizard.

The DMG also has a variant rule which eliminates the ability to identify magic items on a short rest: "If you prefer magic items to have a greater mystique, consider removing the ability to identify the properties of a magic item during a short rest, and require the identify spell, experimentation, or both to reveal what a magic item does." 

Of course, there's no example given as to what a combination of identify and experimentation looks like, which would be helpful, given that identify, as written, is 100% accurate 100% of the time - so in what scenario would experimentation also be needed? Even in a campaign where short rest identification is eliminated, the identify spell is still foolproof. 

If the player characters can't cast identify themselves, they can probably find an NPC to do it for them, and certain official Wizards of the Coast products list the price of magic item identification being as cheap as 20 gp per item, which is trivially cheap even at 1st-level. There is still no incentive to experiment.

Identification, Made Interesting

Ultimately, I was inspired to write this post by two things - my above reading of the AD&D 2e description of identify, and Prismatic Wasteland's post on Potion Clues. 

Warren's post specifically made me think about how in 5e, the DMG provides a brief description of what every potion looks like. A potion of healing is red and glimmers when agitated. A potion of fire breath is flickering orange, and smoke fills the top of the container and wafts out whenever its opened. A potion of animal friendship is a muddy liquid containing a fish scale, a hummingbird tongue, a cat's claw, and a squirrel's hair. 

Details like this invite players to speculate as to a potion's properties, take notes on potions they've encountered in the past, and perhaps most importantly, experiment. The characters have had potions of healing before, so they are able to recognize the glimmering red liquid. They are able to intuit from the appearance of a potion of fire breath that the potion has something to do with fire. In en encounter with a wild animal, they might risk quaffing a potion of animal friendship, having deduced that it has at least something to do with animals, and might give them an advantage. 

Hilariously, the DMG specifically says "Potions are an exception [to the usual identification rules]; a little taste is enough to tell the taster what the potion does." On the one hand, we have an interesting way for player characters to deduce a potion's properties just by looking at them. On the other hand, the DMG says, "Nevermind all that - just take a little sip, which has no consequences whatsoever, and all will be revealed!"

Warren writes that making the effects of a potion less immediately transparent "rewards characters who can identify potions, encourages seeking out sages who identify them, and creates interesting decision points when they have unidentified potions in their bags but their backs are up against the wall." I would go a step farther and apply this approach to all magic items.

In fact, the 5e DMG even suggests that all magic items should be visually distinct (page 136): "The command word to activate a ring might be etched in tiny letters inside it, or a feathered design might suggest that it's a ring of feather falling."

A few pages later, the 5e DMG has a great section on "Special Features" of magic items (page 141). That section includes tables to determine who or what created the item or was intended to use it, details from the item's history, and minor properties and quirks of the item. 

There's probably enough material here for a separate post which goes into more detail on making magic items themselves interesting, so that the process of learning their properties is in turn interesting. Discovering that a war hammer is a +1 war hammer and only a +1 war hammer is never going to be interesting no matter how the DM adjudicates it. So, a DM should never simply give the players a +1 war hammer - they can buy that in a shop, if all they want is a +1 bonus (magic item shops are already almost completely devoid of wonder, so the items to be found there might as well be accordingly wonder-less). 

Instead, that magic war hammer the player characters find by chance in an actual dungeon on an actual adventure is the Black Earth Bludgeon, crafted of solid stone and bejeweled with polished rock. It was made by cultists of Ogrémoch to slay beings of elemental air and the worshippers of Yan-C-Bin. It grants the wielder uncanny senses when underground, but makes them slothful and lethargic on the surface world, beneath the open sky.

So, how do the player characters learn all of this about the seemingly humble +1 war hammer? The purpose of my approach, which I'll detail below, is for a magic item's properties to be communicated entirely within the fiction of the game, and to encourage experimentation by the player characters as the single best way to truly discern an item's various properties.

Identification, Made Complex

First, we have to entirely eliminate identification via a short rest. It's both easy and reliable, which makes it boring. Then, we have to make identification via identify less informative. I don't want identify to reveal an item's properties at all - only fictional information about the item's identity. Casting identify should only reveal the +1 war hammer's name, origin, and purpose.

At the DM's option, identify could also be made more costly, and less reliable. Let's say that each casting of identify requires an Intelligence (Arcana) check to properly identify the item, and that the DC is determined by the item's rarity, like so:

Item Rarity    Intelligence (Arcana) check DC
Common         10
Uncommon     15
Rare                20
Very Rare        25
Legendary       30
Artifact            35

Now, a 1st-level wizard, assuming that they have proficiency with Arcana and start the game with an Intelligence of 16 (+3) - although I don't mind player characters starting with higher ability scores - can somewhat reliably identify common and uncommon items, and can less easily identify rare and very rare items. By 13th-level, the same wizard probably has +10 to their Arcana skill, meaning they can reliably identify rare items, and can occasionally identify even legendary items. Only a character with expertise in Arcana can ever properly identify an artifact.

On a failed check, the caster has failed to magically divine the item's identity from the depths of time. On a successful check, the caster learns that the +1 war hammer is the Black Earth Bludgeon, crafted by cultists of Ogrémoch to slay beings of elemental air and the worshippers of Yan-C-Bin. There's still plenty to learn about this item, but the player characters have a place to start.

What's to stop a caster from simply attempting to identify an item over and over again until they succeed? Make the 100 gp pearl component consumable when used to attempt to identify a magic item. Now, every attempt comes with a cost.

Players and their characters can still intuit things about an item based on its appearance, as I described with regard to potions. In the case of the Black Earth Bludgeon, the players, drawing on their knowledge of the genre, might conclude that the bejeweled stone hammer was crafted either by dwarves or elementals. They might seek out these creatures, or NPCs who are knowledgeable about these creatures, to attempt to learn more about the item.

If the players don't intuit information themselves, they might lean on their characters' skills to do so. A character proficient in History, Religion, or jeweler's or mason's tools might recall reading about the item in An Encyclopedia of Elemental Evil, recognize certain symbols of the Black Earth carved into the hammer's head or haft, or recognize the magical stonecutting employed by Black Earth artisan-priests. 

Loosely interpreting a rule from Xanathar's Guide to Everything (page 78) - as I've done in the past - tool proficiencies can be combined with skill proficiencies to gain advantage on ability checks. In my case, I allow two proficiencies of any type to combine in this way, not just one tool proficiency and one skill proficiency - so a character with any combination of History, Religion, and jeweler's and mason's tools would have an increased chance of recognizing the origin of the Black Earth Bludgeon. I would use the same DC-by-rarity guidelines I outlined above for identify.

This eliminates the need for identify to some extent, but this is a good thing, as it rewards players for being able to draw their own conclusions, or for making characters with niche knowledge and skills. In a scenario where none of the players or characters have any idea what the nature of an item might be, identify still exists, but it's more costly, in addition to being somewhat unreliable.

So, either through player skill, character skill, leveraging knowledgeable NPCs, or falling back on the identify spell, the players and their characters now know a bit more about the item. How do they figure out what it actually does?

Identification, Made Fun

They experiment! 

The Black Earth Bludgeon was crafted by cultists of Ogremoch to slay beings of elemental air and the worshippers of Yan-C-Bin, so the player characters might try using it to fight air elementals, Howling Hatred cultists, and flying creatures. Against these foes, the hammer feels twice as heavy when delivering blows, but not any more difficult for the wielder to swing. These enemies crumble against the hammer's awesome might. Perhaps, against these enemies, it grants additional bonuses to attack and damage rolls, or advantage on attacks. It might cause flying enemies to fall to the ground immediately, turn enemy cultists to stone, or banish air elementals back to their home plane.

The Black Earth Bludgeon is clearly attuned with the earth itself, so the player characters might try bringing it underground. Suddenly, the wielder has an intuitive sense of how deep they are beneath the surface, and which direction is north. Secret doors and maybe even dungeon walls crumble beneath the hammer's blows. Perhaps the hammer's head pulls in the direction of precious stones.

When they return to the surface, the wielder notices that the hammer feels twice as heavy. Their every step is a burden. The endless, wide open sky feels like it's crashing down around them. They're becoming agoraphobic.

In this way, the magic item becomes another character in the game. The player characters have to spend time with the item, devote resources to uncovering its secrets, and most importantly, play with it. 

For this to be truly interesting and fun, the magic item should likewise be interesting and fun. It should have a unique appearance from which players can draw conclusions, an origin and history which the player characters and NPCs might be aware of, and multiple features, including both benefits and drawbacks, which are discovered only through continual experimentation in a variety of scenarios. Player characters cannot simply find an item, sit down with it during a coffee break, and immediately decide if they want to use it or throw it in a bag of holding to sell at the local Magic Mart.

This playstyle isn't for everyone. To some extent, it's working directly against the intended playstyle of modern D&D, which might be too much for some DMs and players. There's presumably a reason why WotC designed this element of the game this way. I'd guess that it's probably because players complained about identification being too onerous in the past. WotC loves to design by committee, rather than by vision.

I'm sure there are plenty of players who simply want to hit the identify button and be done with it, and get to using their new toy, but sometimes it's more fun to start playing with the toy without knowing what it might do.

On Weapon Damage

The main complaint about weapons in 5th edition Dungeons & Dragons is their simplicity, the lack of meaningful choice, and the existence of clearly "better" options than others of the same kind. "Where are the maneuvers for each weapon type that I can only do once per short or long rest for some reason?" one might ask, if they're, for example, a Redditor. When I think about the issues I have with weapons in 5e, however, I'm mostly weirdly bothered by the inconsistency of the damage dice.

Take the light hammer, for example. It's a simple melee weapon with the light and thrown properties. It has a range of 20/60 and it does 1d4 bludgeoning damage. Okay! But then there's the handaxe, a simple melee weapon with the light and thrown properties. It has a range of 20/60 and it does...1d6 slashing damage. Why?

Maybe that's just an anomaly. For example, the javelin is a simple melee weapon with the thrown property and it also does 1d6 damage! But it doesn't have the light property. I understand why it doesn't, but then why is the damage die the same? Shouldn't two throwable light melee weapons do the same damage? Shouldn't a non-light weapon do more?

It's not just simple weapons, either. Somewhat famously, the greataxe is a martial melee weapon with the two-handed property, which does 1d12 damage, whereas the greastsword and maul - also martial melee weapons with the two-handed property - do 2d6 damage. This doesn't seem like a problem - the damage range of the greataxe is 1 to 12 with an average of 6.5, whereas the damage range of the greatsword and maul is 2 to 12 with an average of 7 - until a player makes a barbarian and gets their Brutal Critical class feature. 

Brutal Critical allows the player to roll an extra die of damage when they roll a critical hit, which with a greataxe is an additional d12, but with a greatsword or maul, that's only going to be an extra d6. This particular problem is solved simply enough by ruling that Brutal Critical allows the player to reroll all of their weapon damage dice, not just one, but that doesn't cut it for me. I want the consistency.

Why does the rapier get to do 1d8 damage and have the finesse property when the humble war pick is stuck with 1d8 and no additional properties - not even versatility, which its alternatives, the battleaxe, longsword, and warhammer all get? Has any player ever used a war pick?

Using All the Dice

For my 5e games, I use a modified weapons table based on simple guidelines:

• To start, all simple weapons do d6 damage, and martial weapons do d8 damage.
• If the player character uses their Dexterity score to determine the attack roll and damage bonus, the damage die decreases by one (take that Dexterity!). This applies to ranged weapons like bows and slings, and weapons with the finesse property, like darts, daggers, rapiers, shortswords, etc. If the PC wields a finesse weapon but chooses to use their Strength score to calculate attack rolls and damage, the die is unchanged.
• Weapons with the heavy property have their die size increased by one. This applies to melee weapons like the greataxe, greatsword, and maul, but also ranged weapons like the heavy crossbow and the longbow.
• If the PC uses two-weapon fighting, light weapons they wield in either hand have their die size decreased by one (if you are dual wielding a dagger and a handaxe, for example, both weapons do d4 damage, rather than d6). This does not apply to characters with the Dual Wielder feat, who can use two-weapon fighting with weapons which don't have the light property.
• Weapons with the loading property have their die size increased by one. This applies to crossbows (and firearms if the DM allows them).
• Weapons with the reach property have their die size decreased by one. Optionally, the DM can rule that the die size decreases only if the reach property is used, so that if you attack with a glaive from only 5 feet away, the damage die remains unchanged.
• Two-handed weapons have their die size increased by one - this includes versatile weapons which are wielded with two hands, as well as heavy weapons. This means the damage die increases twice for heavy weapons - once for the heavy property, and again because the weapon necessitates being wielded with two hands.
• Die size increases and decreases stack, to a minimum of d4 and a maximum of d12. So a shortsword, which is a martial weapon and therefore starts at d8 damage, becomes a d6 if its finesse or light properties are used, but becomes a d4 if both properties are used simultaneously.
• As always, weapons with the special property (lances, nets, and I include blowguns here as well) are their own category and may have totally different damage die sizes and properties.

The Composite Bow

This system lays the foundation to introduce into 5e a weapon that is sorely missed: the composite bow (a Strength-based longbow or short bow). It's always made more sense to me for bow use in D&D to be tied to Strength, rather than Dexterity. I also love the original Baldur's Gate games, and the plethora of composite bows the player can give to the likes of Minsc, Kivan, and other incredible archer companions.

Using my system, the short bow is a simple weapon, so its die size is d6 to start. It uses Dexterity for its attack and damage rolls, so its die size decreases to d4. Because it's a two-handed weapon, the die size increases again to d6.

The longbow is a martial weapon, so its die size is d8 to start. It uses Dexterity for its attack and damage rolls, so its die size decreases to d6. Because it has both the heavy and two-handed properties, its die size increases by two, from d6 all the way up to d10. This is already more damage than it does in baseline 5e. I think this is a good thing because the longbow is a weapon that, as good as it already is in 5e, it still somehow feels underrated when you consider its historical significance.

The composite bows take this one step further. They're largely the same as the other bows, except they're special ranged weapons which use Strength to calculate their attack and damage rolls and require a Strength score of 13 or more (for a short bow) or 15 or more (for a longbow) to use. Because it uses Strength instead of Dexterity, the composite bow's damage die has one less decrease in size, allowing the composite short bow to deal d8 damage, and allowing the composite longbow to reach the maximum size of d12. 

Those who are concerned with balance might caution against allowing a ranged weapon to do the same damage as a greataxe, but unless those people are getting rid of features which allow spelllcasters to excel at range, like the Spell Sniper feat and the Eldritch Lance Eldritch Invocation, I'm not listening.

The Strength-Based Monk

A knock-on effect of this system is that I felt the need to retool monks slightly. I house rule that beginning at 1st level, monks' unarmed strikes and attacks with monk weapons deal d6 damage. If they choose to use their Dexterity score to calculate the attack and damage roll, the die size decreases to d4. This doesn't change the progression for Dexterity-based monks in 5e, but allows Strength-based monks to eventually reach a d12 martials arts die at 17th level.

Other monk abilities like Deflect Missiles and Unarmored Defense are unaffected - the tradeoff is that the monk player has to choose between doing more damage or being harder to hit.

My updated weapon list for 5e can be found here.

On Magic Items and Treasure Hoards

I find the official method for determining what magic items are included in a treasure hoard in 5th edition Dungeons & Dragons to be pretty unsatisfying. Basically, the Dungeon Master rolls d100 to determine the type of treasure hoard, depending on the "Tier" of the characters - Tier 1 is levels 1-4, Tier 2 is levels 5-10, Tier 3 is levels 11-16, and Tier 4 is level 17 and up (Dungeon Master's Guide, page 133). 

If there are magic items present, there will be one or 1dX magic items from Magic Item Table Y. My issue with this is that the magic item tables in question (page 144) are organized mostly by rarity (page 135) and by whether the items are "Minor" or "Major" items (I can't seem to find where the distinction is laid out, but generally speaking, "Minor" items are either consumables like potions and scrolls or more permanent items which have less significant (i.e. non-combat) utility effects - lots of "meme" items like the bag of holding, alchemy jug, immovable rod, and the like - whereas "Major" items tend to be weapons and armor, rods, staves, wands, and the like - many of which have some impact on the game's math or grant a combat ability).

So what's the issue with this method of organizing the tables? Well, I didn't really realize there was a problem until around 14th-level of my most recent campaign, where one dungeon's treasure hoard contained a +2 suit of armor, an Oathbow, and a staff of power. This in and of itself is not a problem, as these are perfectly acceptable treasures for a 14th-level party to acquire (bafflingly, the party sold the armor, gave the bow to an nonplayer character follower - who became a DPS juggernaut as a result - and the character who took the staff retired from the campaign immediately afterward, but that's besides the point). 

The issue became apparent when I prepped the next dungeon, which contained nothing but potions and scrolls. The first dungeon had a handful of great, iconic, useful items because when I prepped it I happened to roll the treasure type which directed me to roll on the magic item table consisting only of great, iconic, useful items. The second dungeon had a handful of consumables which the party promptly forgot about because when I prepped it I happened to roll the treasure type which directed me to roll on the magic item table consisting only of easily forgotten consumables (there's something to be said of players' tendency to forget about consumables and/or their hesitance to use them, but again, besides the point).

Another time, I might detail my method for determining the contents of treasure hoards, which includes magic items (the gist of it is that I use 5e's treasure tables in combination with Courtney Campbell of the Hack & Slash blog's excellent treasure tables in the Hack & Slash Blog Compendium II). For now, let's assume the DM is preparing a treasure hoard containing X magic items. If the DM is running 5e, their roll on the Treasure Hoard table tells them how many items are present and what magic item table to roll on, so they end up with a handful of the same type of item.

Contrast this with the original 1974 edition of  D&D - the monster encountered determines the "type" of treasure found (Book II: Monsters and Treasure, pages 3-4), and the type determines the chance for magic items (page 22), some of which are specific (i.e. "Weapon, Armor, or misc. weapon", "1 Potion", "1 Scroll", etc.), while others are general ("any 3"). In the case of the latter, the DM then refers to the following table (page 23):

Each of the magic item types then have their own unique tables on the following pages.

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (both 1st edition and 2nd edition) handle it similarly - each monster has a "type" of treasure in its lair, the type refers to a table, and the roll on the table determines if and how many magic items are present. A subsequent table is used to determine the type of these magic items:

AD&D 1e DMG, page 121

AD&D 2e DMG, page 183

The result of this system is not only a greater variety of types magic items in a given treasure hoard, but because the subsequent tables for each type of magic item aren't organized with the characters' levels in mind, it also allows the chance for low-level characters to stumble across something truly special, game-changing, and character-defining.

But, I understand why "new school" DMs might be hesitant to entirely dissociate character level from the power level of magic items they might find the way earlier editions of D&D did. Which is why I'm going to suggest an entirely different magic item table from another 5e book.

Fizban's Treasury of Dragons, published in 2021, is the rare post-Tasha's Cauldron of Everything (published in 2020) Wizards of the Coast book that I actually recommend (TCE is where WotC truly lost me with lazy, sloppy products of dubious worth to DMs - not to say there were not similar products before that - but perhaps that's a topic for a later date). FTD is a good book and an obvious resource for any DM who wants to include dragons in their game with "dragons" in the title. But it also contains a hidden gem - a second, more secret, better magic item table than that found in the DMG.

The table is in Chapter 4: Lairs and Hoards, on page 72. Like other treasure tables, it uses a d100 roll. The DM is meant to roll on the table corresponding to the dragon's age category (wyrmling, young, adult, or ancient). This is similar to how the tables in the DMG are broken up by tier, or character level.

Assuming the DM knows how many magic items are present (FTD similarly suggests a number of magic items in a given dragon's hoard, again determined by the dragon's age category, but the DM might prefer to use the DMG's tables as to number of items, or some other method of determination like I do with Courtney Campbell's), the DM can roll d100 however many times on the appropriate column of the table in FTD (treating wyrmling as Tier 1, young as Tier 2, adult as Tier 3, and so on). The DM can decide if the column they're rolling on is determined by character level or by the "tier" of the adventure site where the treasure is found (if the DM is running a sandbox, for example, where characters can presumably attempt to go anywhere and do anything, Tier 1 characters might end up trying their luck in a Tier 2 adventure site, and end up with Tier 2 treasures as a result).

This method produces a spread of magic items which is more diverse in terms of rarity and distribution of minor and major items. A Tier 1 party (or a party adventuring at a Tier 1 location) is still most likely to find common minor items, but there may be rarer items and major items mixed in as well. Another option, which I haven't playtested, is to treat a roll of 100 (or the DM's preferred number) as a reroll on the next highest column of the table, so that even greater items occasionally appear as well.

With both this system and that laid out in the DMG, it's still impossible to randomly find an artifact-level magic item. The DMG states that "artifacts only appear when [the DM] wants them to", hence why they're not included on random tables. Maybe this is good advice and what the DM wants, or maybe it isn't. I know from my own prep style that I'll probably never remember to deliberately place artifacts in my game. If the DM wants a chance for artifacts to appear randomly, they might treat a roll of 100 on any column of FTD's table as an artifact. They may want to follow up a roll of 100 with a subsequent d100 roll to confirm. Or, a roll of 100 might only result in an artifact when it's rolled on the highest (ancient/Tier 4) column of the table.

I would go so far as to also use the tables from past editions (2e is mine of choice) to determine the type of each magic item (i.e. potions and oils, scrolls, rings, etc.) so that these are also diverse - however, some knowledge of what constitutes a minor or major item in 5e would be required. For example, most or all consumables like ammunition, potions, and scrolls are considered minor items, and there are only a handful of minor armors, rings, rods, shields, staves, and wands. "Wondrous Items" (formerly known as "Miscellaneous Magic") can be either minor or major depending on what they do.

A secondary benefit of this system is that, while the DMG's magic item tables (understandably) include only those magic items published in the DMG, this method allows the DM to include magic items from those other sources published since the DMG's release. Using D&D Beyond (or some other filterable or searchable database of 5e resources, for those of us who don't give money to WotC anymore 😉 ), the DM can filter or search for minor or major items of the appropriate rarity and type to choose from. Frustratingly, at some point WotC stopped identifying items as minor or major (the aforementioned table from FTD uses the terms, but the items in the book itself are identified as neither - like I said, lazy, sloppy, of dubious use, etc.), so the DM will have to use some judgment as to what constitutes a minor or major item in some cases.

And that's it! Hopefully this post communicated what I intended, which is that the treasure and magic item tables in the DMG provide same-y, unsatisfying results (for me - maybe they're great for every other DM). I enjoy a bit more variety in the type, rarity, and power level of magic items my players find, and I don't mind doing a bit of extra work to get the results I enjoy seeing in prep. There are undoubtedly a lot of DMs who simply include the items they want to be in their games, whether because they're cool, important to the setting or "story", or particularly suited to a specific player character, and those DMs probably don't notice these issues at all. My prep style is randomization plus imagination, and I'm always looking for ways to make my randomization methods yield results that are satisfying and inspiring.