Skyscraper
Explorer
I find it humorous that immediately above your comment, Zaran's dislike is that spellcaster's are weak.
He and I are saying the same thing I guess. What's humorous about that?
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E Likes and Dislikes?
- Thread starter MrBookWyrm
- Start date
He and I are saying the same thing I guess. What's humorous about that?
SilverfireSage
Explorer
Meh, I don't want to derail the thread, disregard.
I like the scaled down mechanics.
I dislike that the two-hander fighter and archer are once again the most powerful martial options in the game. In real life, both of these fighting styles were highly limited. Often being able to fight with a one-handed weapon and a shield allowed for far greater maneuverability and effectiveness than a two-handed weapon or slow firing archery. For every edition from 3E on two-hander fighting and archery have been superior to other options. It's not in any reflective of actual fighting. That's why you don't see armies of two-handed fighters or even such fighters in duels. Massed archery was an incredibly effective tactic. No way could archers long 4 to 8 arrows in 6 seconds as they can in this game. I keep hoping for archer and two-hander fighting to be brought down to where they should be, but this will be yet another edition of all martials should use heavy two-handed weapons or archery or they'll fall behind substantially on damage. Very disappointing.
I dislike that the two-hander fighter and archer are once again the most powerful martial options in the game. In real life, both of these fighting styles were highly limited. Often being able to fight with a one-handed weapon and a shield allowed for far greater maneuverability and effectiveness than a two-handed weapon or slow firing archery. For every edition from 3E on two-hander fighting and archery have been superior to other options. It's not in any reflective of actual fighting. That's why you don't see armies of two-handed fighters or even such fighters in duels. Massed archery was an incredibly effective tactic. No way could archers long 4 to 8 arrows in 6 seconds as they can in this game. I keep hoping for archer and two-hander fighting to be brought down to where they should be, but this will be yet another edition of all martials should use heavy two-handed weapons or archery or they'll fall behind substantially on damage. Very disappointing.
Delandel
First Post
I played a ton of 3.5 and ran (but never played) 4e for about a year, so 4e I'm no guru. Based on that:
Likes:
1) Attack bonus and AC increase steadily, instead of getting boosted super high, aka "bounded accuracy." This keeps monsters threatening even after the adventurers surpass them in level, whereas in 3.5 an adventurer's AC could quickly make a low level monster's attacks irrelevant.
2) Combat is quick and lethal, perhaps even moreso than 3.5? Regardless, it's a breath of fresh air compared to 4e, where the thrill of battle quickly devolves into a yawnfest as the fight drags on and on..
3) They got rid of the "immune to sneak attack" BS from 3.5 . Ugh, that crap was so lame.
4) I love the new Concentration mechanic keeping spellcasters in check.
5) Multiclassing is now not always the most optimal way of leveling your character, going straight base class to 20 is always great. That's how multiclassing SHOULD be -- you get something, you lose something -- instead of 3.5 where it was ALWAYS best to dip into a billion different classes.
6) Character building is a lot simpler. Way simpler. I love the proficiency system. Add you proficiency bonus to what you're good at, aaaand done. I hated the ugly BAB charts and spending skill points. This is so much more streamlined.
7) Weapon Finesse is baseline! About damn time! A bunch of other required feat taxes are now incorporated into your character, which is great, because taking those feats never felt good.
8) I love that all spellcasters get to swap out a spell each level.
9) Unlimited cantrips! No more wizard pewpewing for a bit and then busting out a crossbow like some filthy pleb.
10) Streamlined mechanics. Grappling is no longer touch attack (which is removed entirely, no more 3 types of AC, thanks!), then Strength check, then a billion other rules. I love it.
11) ADVANTAGE AND DISADVANTAGE SYSTEM! WOO! Best part of 5e.
Dislike:
1) I feel like they could've done a better job at balancing classes, especially at low levels, I mean that's where they focused most of their R&D right? Why is it that we have person on the forum that whips up, in like an hour, the math to really prove that Moon Druids are OP at low levels? How did they not figure that out themselves? Did they not even playtest Moon Druid or read their own class?
Another point on class balance. I feel like spellcasters are weaker than they need to be at low levels, like ~1-5ish. Lower defense and offense than melee. Which sucks because those are the most played levels by a long shot. I don't care if spellcasters actually become gods at level 16+, if that's even the case, because I've never played at those levels and likely never will. That's not a consolation prize to playing second fiddle to melee at the low levels.
2) Drizz't is the poster boy for the Elven race.
3) I would've preferred if they left out Variant Human.
4) Would've been nice if Dragonborn's breath attack kept up with Burning Hands.
5) I don't like that Hide/Stealth was left purposely ambiguous. A lot of a rogue's balancing power is derived from hiding in combat, so I wish the rules there were more streamlined.
6) Arcane Tricksters can't sneak attack with spells -- umm what?
7) I dislike how much better Draconic Heritage is compared to Wild Magic for sorcerers. Wild Magic is entirely dependent on your DM being super generous wild surge rolls or else it does pretty much nothing, and that's the only thing Wild Magic has got going for it.
Guess all my dislikes are about class balance. Hmm.
Likes:
1) Attack bonus and AC increase steadily, instead of getting boosted super high, aka "bounded accuracy." This keeps monsters threatening even after the adventurers surpass them in level, whereas in 3.5 an adventurer's AC could quickly make a low level monster's attacks irrelevant.
2) Combat is quick and lethal, perhaps even moreso than 3.5? Regardless, it's a breath of fresh air compared to 4e, where the thrill of battle quickly devolves into a yawnfest as the fight drags on and on..
3) They got rid of the "immune to sneak attack" BS from 3.5 . Ugh, that crap was so lame.
4) I love the new Concentration mechanic keeping spellcasters in check.
5) Multiclassing is now not always the most optimal way of leveling your character, going straight base class to 20 is always great. That's how multiclassing SHOULD be -- you get something, you lose something -- instead of 3.5 where it was ALWAYS best to dip into a billion different classes.
6) Character building is a lot simpler. Way simpler. I love the proficiency system. Add you proficiency bonus to what you're good at, aaaand done. I hated the ugly BAB charts and spending skill points. This is so much more streamlined.
7) Weapon Finesse is baseline! About damn time! A bunch of other required feat taxes are now incorporated into your character, which is great, because taking those feats never felt good.
8) I love that all spellcasters get to swap out a spell each level.
9) Unlimited cantrips! No more wizard pewpewing for a bit and then busting out a crossbow like some filthy pleb.
10) Streamlined mechanics. Grappling is no longer touch attack (which is removed entirely, no more 3 types of AC, thanks!), then Strength check, then a billion other rules. I love it.
11) ADVANTAGE AND DISADVANTAGE SYSTEM! WOO! Best part of 5e.
Dislike:
1) I feel like they could've done a better job at balancing classes, especially at low levels, I mean that's where they focused most of their R&D right? Why is it that we have person on the forum that whips up, in like an hour, the math to really prove that Moon Druids are OP at low levels? How did they not figure that out themselves? Did they not even playtest Moon Druid or read their own class?
Another point on class balance. I feel like spellcasters are weaker than they need to be at low levels, like ~1-5ish. Lower defense and offense than melee. Which sucks because those are the most played levels by a long shot. I don't care if spellcasters actually become gods at level 16+, if that's even the case, because I've never played at those levels and likely never will. That's not a consolation prize to playing second fiddle to melee at the low levels.
2) Drizz't is the poster boy for the Elven race.
3) I would've preferred if they left out Variant Human.
4) Would've been nice if Dragonborn's breath attack kept up with Burning Hands.
5) I don't like that Hide/Stealth was left purposely ambiguous. A lot of a rogue's balancing power is derived from hiding in combat, so I wish the rules there were more streamlined.
6) Arcane Tricksters can't sneak attack with spells -- umm what?
7) I dislike how much better Draconic Heritage is compared to Wild Magic for sorcerers. Wild Magic is entirely dependent on your DM being super generous wild surge rolls or else it does pretty much nothing, and that's the only thing Wild Magic has got going for it.
Guess all my dislikes are about class balance. Hmm.
Last edited:
Lancelot
Adventurer
I like the speed of play, bounded accuracy, backgrounds, the reduction in needless complexity, the "old school" feel, and the excellent production values. In particular, I like that the 5e PH and MM are books that I actually enjoy reading and flicking through. The 3e and 4e PH and MM were more "rules-based". I referred to them during the game, but I was less interested in simply reading them as a book, if that makes sense.
More than anything else, though: I love that they put the power back in the hands of the DM. Magic items aren't listed in the PH. Some rules are left intentionally vague, and open for DM interpretation. I recognize that some people may see this as a bug, rather than a feature (organized play, etc). However, I have never considered D&D to be a competitive or highly regulated sport. For me, it's a story-crafting hobby to be shared amongst friends. A more flexible rule-set helps achieve this for me.
...
I don't like some of the art. As many have noted, I don't like Driz'zt as poster boy for the elves. Some of the halfling art is questionable. I would have liked to have seen even more humor in the art; I really like the modrons in the MM, the simple line drawings in the MM index (otyugh+outhouse, flumph+10'pole, etc), and the drawings for the Conditions in the back of the PH.
I would have liked to have seen some more classic vistas or maps. I want to see a big full-page picture (+ exterior map) of the Caves of Chaos, or the Ghost Tower of Inverness, or the Palace of the Silver Princess. A thousand adventures have been written and run simply because TSR included a single-page map of the Haunted Keep in the old red box Basic Set, or the sample dungeon map in the 1e AD&D DMG. Nothing inspires a DM (and many a player) like a good map.
Rules-wise, I'm actually pretty comfortable with what I'm seeing. I'm DMing a Druid of the Moon, and I don't feel like he's either over-shadowing the rest of the party, or that he's invincible. Sure, his brown bear form can tear through "standard" opponents, but there are too many threats in my DM arsenal that he's no better at handling. Flying opponents, missile weapons, creatures resistant to non-magical weapon damage, etc. It's a bunch of bonus hp, but he has terrible AC in bear form. I'm okay with it.
Also, you'll never convince me that spellcasters are living in the shadow of the fighters. That has absolutely not been my experience with 5e so far.
The only thing I've had to house-rule so far is the paladin's Lay on Hands. Example: a 6th level paladin has a 30hp pool of Lay on Hands. If that's portioned out at 1hp per time, that's 30 "kick-ups" per day. A heavily-armored paladin can keep the rest of the party in the fight almost indefinitely, better than any cleric. Every time a PC drops, he'll be back up again almost immediately. 30 times per day. If you have two paladins in the party, they can even kick each other up. I've had to house-rule this so that the paladin, if they use their Lay on Hands on an unconscious target, must use their entire remaining pool (rather than simply 1hp at a time). So, that's my main rules annoyance so far (and easily house-ruled).
More than anything else, though: I love that they put the power back in the hands of the DM. Magic items aren't listed in the PH. Some rules are left intentionally vague, and open for DM interpretation. I recognize that some people may see this as a bug, rather than a feature (organized play, etc). However, I have never considered D&D to be a competitive or highly regulated sport. For me, it's a story-crafting hobby to be shared amongst friends. A more flexible rule-set helps achieve this for me.
...
I don't like some of the art. As many have noted, I don't like Driz'zt as poster boy for the elves. Some of the halfling art is questionable. I would have liked to have seen even more humor in the art; I really like the modrons in the MM, the simple line drawings in the MM index (otyugh+outhouse, flumph+10'pole, etc), and the drawings for the Conditions in the back of the PH.
I would have liked to have seen some more classic vistas or maps. I want to see a big full-page picture (+ exterior map) of the Caves of Chaos, or the Ghost Tower of Inverness, or the Palace of the Silver Princess. A thousand adventures have been written and run simply because TSR included a single-page map of the Haunted Keep in the old red box Basic Set, or the sample dungeon map in the 1e AD&D DMG. Nothing inspires a DM (and many a player) like a good map.
Rules-wise, I'm actually pretty comfortable with what I'm seeing. I'm DMing a Druid of the Moon, and I don't feel like he's either over-shadowing the rest of the party, or that he's invincible. Sure, his brown bear form can tear through "standard" opponents, but there are too many threats in my DM arsenal that he's no better at handling. Flying opponents, missile weapons, creatures resistant to non-magical weapon damage, etc. It's a bunch of bonus hp, but he has terrible AC in bear form. I'm okay with it.
Also, you'll never convince me that spellcasters are living in the shadow of the fighters. That has absolutely not been my experience with 5e so far.
The only thing I've had to house-rule so far is the paladin's Lay on Hands. Example: a 6th level paladin has a 30hp pool of Lay on Hands. If that's portioned out at 1hp per time, that's 30 "kick-ups" per day. A heavily-armored paladin can keep the rest of the party in the fight almost indefinitely, better than any cleric. Every time a PC drops, he'll be back up again almost immediately. 30 times per day. If you have two paladins in the party, they can even kick each other up. I've had to house-rule this so that the paladin, if they use their Lay on Hands on an unconscious target, must use their entire remaining pool (rather than simply 1hp at a time). So, that's my main rules annoyance so far (and easily house-ruled).
Doug McCrae
Legend
Like: No battlegrid
Dislike: The art
Dislike: The art
Similar Threads
