D&D 5E What are the "True Issues" with 5e?

[DarkCrisis]

IMO it's not less complicated than AD&D, it's just as complicated in a different way.

As for actual issues, holds the players hand to much but that's just personal preference. I get a lot of today's players prefer a tad less danger in their D&D. "Here for the story" as it were....

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

I have lots of grog nagging about settings etc, but that is more a Wizards than a system problem. But I have one major overarching problem with 5e.

D&D is a combat focused system, and still the combat is incredibly dull. Monsters are boring bags of hit points, there is very little meaningful tactical choice, and combat takes way to long for the parameters in play. I mean, you can make combat simple and quick, or middle ground with meaningful tactical choice and fun factors (like Savage Worlds), or make combat long and tactical chess games with many moving parts (like 4e). 5e does none of it, combat is just long and boring.

Now, if Wizard made masterclass campaigns and inspiring settings with full support, one could still play 5e and look past the dull system. Instead, the absolute majority of campaigns and settings are piles of fecal matter.

And that's why 4e is my favorite edition and why I don't play 5e anymore.

 

[Zaukrie]

Devils and Demons don't do magic damage (even if holding magic weapons), which is why the Blood War can never end, they can't kill each other .....

 

[CleverNickName]

I moved this over to another thread, to keep from derailing this one.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Moved!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

D&D is a combat focused system, and still the combat is incredibly dull.

This has been the long-term issue with 5E for my main group.

Nobody is mad about it or anything. And it wasn't immediately obvious, either. It's just that, we've now played 5E longer than we played 4E, and the combat is just nowhere near as fun. Like, it's not even close.

And I'm not saying "BRING BACK 4E!!!!!" or something or RETVRN TO 4E or whatever. I know that's not practical or reasonable and there are elements of 4E even I don't want back - a lot of them combat related (especially immediate actions, high numbers of reactions, and so on).

What I'm saying is, 5E's combat could have been made a lot more interesting if they'd designed both the classes and especially the monsters better.

Now I will say with 2024, they're not surveying at all on the monsters, and it kind of sounds like, contrary to their total lack of vision re: classes and limited vision re: races (more than classes, though), they do have an actual vision to genuinely improve the monsters, and thus improve combat. But my issue with that is, you're improving only part of the problem. It's like putting better tires, brakes, and similar on a car, but refusing to replace or even really fully tune the rather anaemic and inefficient engine. Will there be an improvement? Yes. But it'll be a fraction of what it could have been.

Of the players in my main group, I'd say 4 out of 6 have actually said "I think 4E was more fun" or something close to that.

I belong to three different gaming groups. And of those 18 people in total, I'm the only one who is following the development of the game at all.

That is very similar to my experience!

I am the only one I know IRL following it in any real way - but I am not the only one with critiques and opinions about D&D! Not in the least. One of the other DMs, who is very good, frankly a better DM than me, had multiple cogent critiques of 5E when I spoke to him about the new edition - I suggested he should do the survey. But when I spoke to him again, he'd said he'd looked at the survey, got about two pages into it, and decided "this is just timewasting" (paraphrasing heavily I admit). This is a more serious and better DM than me (imo). I did get him to read one (1) playtest packet, which is the very most I've achieved with anyone lol.

Another DM is clearly aware of it and has even sent me a couple of articles about it, but they were outdated and misguided stuff from Bell of Lost Souls or something, and he's never actually looked at the UAs. I'm not saying he needs to either, but like, it's just not something normal DMs are interested in - yet normal DMs absolutely have opinions about the rules, the classes, the monsters and so on!

The OGL debacle did get a few more people from my groups talking about it, but mostly in a "Why are WotC being weird?" way, not even mad just confused.

 

[jmartkdr2]

This is a big one.

I belong to three different gaming groups. And of those 18 people in total, I'm the only one who is following the development of the game at all. I'm the only one who knew that Wizards of the Coast is working on a new edition rules revision, and my fellow gamers get really defensive when I mention it. One guy will actually growl at me every time I bring up the playtest, "We are not changing editions again!" They weren't even aware of the OGL debacle earlier this year, and it was supposed to have blown up the Internet.

These are people that I game with every week. We schedule and coordinate our games through social media, so it's not like they live under a rock either. But I'm literally the only 6% of gamers that I know of who are even aware of these playtests. I imagine the number of folks who are aware and interested is even lower. How much less, then, for the number of people who are (a) interested enough to (b) download the material, (c) read it, (d) playtest it, and (e) provide feedback?

And that fraction of a fraction of a fraction of people that made it all the way to Step (e) is supposed to be everyone's voice in the room.

I don't have a better idea, but still. That's a big ask.

I, for one, don't answer the surveys. I got turned off pretty early in the playtest process and just no longer care what they do with it.

So even among grognards who go online to discuss the future of DnD - they're getting a sample. Possibly a good sample of that small group, but still.

 

[CleverNickName]

This is off-topic; I'm going to fork it over to a new thread. @Ruin Explorer @fluffybunbunkittens and @jmartkdr2 , could you copy your responses over to it when it's done?

Trying to preserve the discussion without derailing this thread.

 

[Parmandur]

This is a big one.

I belong to three different gaming groups. And of those 18 people in total, I'm the only one who is following the development of the game at all. I'm the only one who knew that Wizards of the Coast is working on a new edition rules revision, and my fellow gamers get really defensive when I mention it. One guy will actually growl at me every time I bring up the playtest, "We are not changing editions again!" They weren't even aware of the OGL debacle earlier this year, and it was supposed to have blown up the Internet.

These are people that I game with every week. We schedule and coordinate our games through social media, so it's not like they live under a rock either. But I'm literally the only 6% of gamers that I know of who are even aware of these playtests. I imagine the number of folks who are aware and interested is even lower. How much less, then, for the number of people who are (a) interested enough to (b) download the material, (c) read it, (d) playtest it, and (e) provide feedback?

And that fraction of a fraction of a fraction of people that made it all the way to Step (e) is supposed to be everyone's voice in the room.

I don't have a better idea, but still. That's a big ask.

Apparently about 900,000 are involved in the playtest, versus 13 million who have Beyond accounts.

 

[Vaalingrade]

One not mentioned: combat healing has not scaling and doesn't compete with damage in the action economy.