D&D 5E Likes and Dislikes?

Like. With a few exceptions I like most of 5e. The big winners for me are Backgrounds, the Artwork & Monster Manual.
Dislike. Monsters having spell lists. The design of The Fighter.

I have mixed feelings about how open the rules are to DM interpretation, however I think it is good for the most part.

MrBookWyrm said:

I'm new here and the welcome email said to ask a question.

I am wondering what people think of the new 5th edition D&D. In one sentence, what is your favorite part? And in another sentence, what do you dislike most?

Click to expand...

Welcome aboard! I like the sig.

FAVORITE: Feeling "welcome" in D&D again. (I shan't say more to avoid edition warring.)

DISLIKE MOST: A few items are TOO simplified. Whips, for instance, have become pointless without the ability to trip.

-The Gneech

Wow! I miss checking in after work yesterday, and the thread goes crazy! You guys sure now how to make someone feel welcome.

I'm going to answer my own question:

FAVORITE: Advantage and disadvantage. Simple, elegant, fun.

DISLIKE: Current level advancement. Not enough XP required for the first few levels.

Favorite: The ease of running it.
Dislike: The nattering on about how this/that/the-other-thing is broken.

Like: Backgrounds, the Advantage and Disadvantage system, and the classes (minus Ranger and Warlock)

Dislike: The massive nerfing of magic, Legendary Resistance, and the inability to learn new skills outside of feats or multiclassing.

Like:
- Narrative elements (Background, Personality Traits, Bonds, Flaws) that were inspired by story-telling games
- More abstract combat does away with lots of tiny little modifiers, instead using simple advantage/disadvantage mechanic.
- Bounded accuracy
- Concentration limits number of active spells
- De-emphasize magic items
- No more feat taxes (eg finesse). If its practically required to be viable, the class gets it in the ordinary course.
- Different spell lists for Wizards and Sorcerors.

Dislike:
- Monsters are somewhat bland.
- Monster stat blocks sometimes list spells as a Monster power. I preferred 4e style statblocks that didn't require any cross-references.
- All the giants are Huge. I like Large-sized giants.
- No core Witch class. (Warlock is close, but wrong flavor)
- Wild-shaping for druids too easy and powerful.
- Dragonborn in core rules.
- Forgotten Realms too prominent. Greyhawk not prominent enough.

All-in-all, the things I dislike are easy to fix or ignore, in part because the core system is simple and adaptable.

Spooner6 said:

I agree that archery and heavy weapon fighting tends to be the route to go, I disagree with the comparison of History. The 14th and 15th Century was dominated by the Yew Bow (mainly used by the English) as well as a transition from shield and weapon to using a heavy two handed weapon. The superiority of the bow put pressure on armor makers to advance the quality and coverage of armor which in turn drove the use of heavier weapons in combat to overcome said improved armor.

Click to expand...

I understand what you're stating as far as military options go. This is not true for the type of combat D&D engages in. That is what I'm talking about. You are talking solely massed military units, not the small unit or one on one fighting between people dueling or traversing a castle hall alone. If a pike or pole axe wielder were fighting one on one against a knight rather than as part of unit meant to take on mounted knights, that person would be dead meat due to the superior capability of the smaller and more maneuverable sword wielder or similar weapon a combatant would use up close. The Yew bow has never been used as a close combat weapon and impossible to fire in a continuous manner as they use it in D&D. Even a good English longbow user pumped out maybe one arrow per D&D combat round. The power of the Yew bow (longbow in D&D) was exhibited in massed fire, not individual fire. No Yew bow user would ever attempt to get off an arrow in close combat range against a sword wielder. Just not practical and usually a death sentence.

Yet if some person read D&D books thinking they in anyway simulated real combat, they would be dead meat. Meaning if they tried to use a Yew bow or a poleaxe, greatsword, or the like against a sword and board fighter or single blade user in a close combat situation one on one, they would most likely be dead meat. "Hey. Great weapons do much better. Look at my bow, bonuses to hit. I'll crush that sword and shield wearing fool...only one sword? He's going to die quick." Then that guy would be "Oh damn. He dodged my blow. He's inside the reach of my poleaxe. I'm dead."

Every trained polearm user usually carried a short sword or something similar for close up work. Bowman the same. Because those weapons were not effective in the type of battle we often see in D&D. If the distance was closed, you had to switch to a close combat weapon like a sword and use a shield if you lacked good armor. Though plate armor often was used in a similar manner to a shield deflecting blows and setting up attacks. A good knight knew where to take hits on his armor and set up counter-attacks while doing so.

My basic point is that D&D is not massed combat. Sword and shield or single weapon user would be more effective on average than a Yew bow user. A true two-weapon fighter would decimate almost anyone incapable of fighting in that manner. Two-weapon fighting was highly specialized. One of the greatest practitioners was Miyamato Musashi, one of the greatest swordsman to ever live. Yet in D&D both sword and board and two-weapon fighting are inferior to great weapon and bow. Very misleading as to what is most effective in real close combat fights.

Like: Rogue. I haven't played a rogue in probably twenty years. They were never my preference in any edition of D&D other than an occasional multi-class (which I usually left to others). Rogue was one of the worst designed classes in 3E and stayed that way in Pathfinder (now the Pathfinder rogue was replaced by ninja, swashbuckler, and slayer). Almost no one at my table has played a rogue since 3E became the D&D standard. Rogue has been a dead class in my group for well over a decade.

5E rogue is a blast to play and mechanically interesting and effective. I went out of my way to play a rogue this time because they looked fun. Now that I'm playing one, they are fun. They truly standout with their ability to get double proficiency bonus on a few skills. Makes them the best stealth and spotter class in the game, very much like the old days. Sneak Attack always works as long as the requirements are met, which aren't that hard. Effective sentry removal has returned with low hit point guards being prominent again since you can gain xp from them. Glad to see the rogue effective again. Gray Mouser and Subatai have returned.

My favorite thing hands down is bounded accuracy. Nothing else even comes close. I'm so grateful to be rid of the arms race I can't even tell you.

Right now my least favorite thing, and I'm not even sure it is real, is a lack of variety. From the dungeon master's screen, it feels like we're back to the AD&D2 paradigm of "I attack, you attack, the monster attacks, the mage casts a spell, I attack, you attack." I feel like we may have sacked some of the breadth of D&D along with the unnecessary amplitude. My players don't seem bothered, though.

DMZ2112 said:

My favorite thing hands down is bounded accuracy. Nothing else even comes close. I'm so grateful to be rid of the arms race I can't even tell you.

Right now my least favorite thing, and I'm not even sure it is real, is a lack of variety. From the dungeon master's screen, it feels like we're back to the AD&D2 paradigm of "I attack, you attack, the monster attacks, the mage casts a spell, I attack, you attack." I feel like we may have sacked some of the breadth of D&D along with the unnecessary amplitude. My players don't seem bothered, though.

Click to expand...

My feeling is that variety will come down to the ability of the DM. I love that. If you want to do something creative, the DM must come up with a ruling on the fly. He has a simple mechanic to work with to do it. All the old things are possible, but the DM and player have to discuss it an work it out.

Scouting and movement are fluid now. I haven't had so much fun scouting ahead and taking out sentries in ages. Passive Perception against Rogue Stealth is good fun. Sneak up, hit them with sneak attack, and move. You can move back and forth from cover easily. Help action is simple and gives a powerful advantage at useful times. I think the variety is still there. It's going to take some time for players to get used to how it all works. And DMs are going to have be more open to player creativity. If a player wants to disarm an opponent, the DM is going to have to come up with the mechanic on the fly. If the player wants to knock a guy off the edge of a cliff, he's going to have to decide the mechanic on the fly according to things like distance from the edge, relative size, strength, and the like.

It puts so much creativity and DM/player interaction back into the game. That is where the variety will come from like it did in the old days. No more slogging through a ton of rules. Instead the player asks if he can do something, describes how he wants to do it, and the DM thinks out how it would work and decides how difficult it is. I love that about 5E.

As far as the initiative order, players did that anyway. 3E was move, attack. Move, cast spell.

Now with 5E, you can move, attack, move, attack, bonus action disengage, move to cover. It's so much more fluid, imaginative, and fun in my opinion. Until people get older mechanics out of their head and understand the new fluidity of combat, it will seem less varied when it is actually more varied.