D&D 5E 5e's stumbles

[AverageCitizen]

I think there are some abilities (feat), like warcaster, that help with spell economy, or basically when you can cast a spell with like you weapon and shield or what have you in hand ...
I had issues in one battle where I switched from firing and using a loaded crossbow, to a sword and shield, and it took my whole action one round to ready the shield, so... yeah still figuring out when to use bonus actions, actions, extra attacks, reactions... but it does seem simplified and kind of scaled down, and in a lot of ways i think that is good... and i like that all the classes keep getting really cool things as they go up levels, but not ridiculous amounts of powers that I can never remember ... I guess in 4e that was neat flavour but it really is a lot for someone with memory issues to remember... when you get closer to 40th level... whew!

See, warcaster is part of the problem, though. Because it exists it indicates that we are expected to keep track of this hand economy stuff, but the game doesn't really help with it very much, and RAW the best way to warcast right now involves dropping your weapon in between turns to cast certain spells. I doubt anyone actually plays that way, though. It just gives me anxiety that I might, theoretically, meet someone who does. I am not sure if I could handle that.

 

[AverageCitizen]

Oh, it is Wednesday already, with our "Here's things that suck about 5e!" thread?

Merge alert. Please put this in with the other redundant threads.

5e totally has its problems. Small oddities, problem rules, and personal dislikes.

But this thread isn't about fixing those problems, just whining about them.
So I'll pass. Enough negativity on the board as it is.

Oh, you cards, you.

 

[AverageCitizen]

where are these twitter de facto hiding rulings?

And what did Primeval Thule did to fix it (in brief)?

I'm a bit perturbed about how important the number of encounters per day is for class balance.

From what I gather on reposted twitter answers, Mearls rules that if you start combat hidden you can get a sneak attack + advantage, and then if you try to hide again you have to break line of sight (barring special abilities, of course) and you get disadvantage on the hide check since they know you are around there somewhere.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[AverageCitizen]

5. Those started by dread Nyarlathotep, only of his name, ruiner of Gods, in an attempt to undermine the peace of the mind of men.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Yeah, except Mearls said you can play the bagpipes with perform. I don't get it.

That's an interesting stance for him to take. I'd be interested in the context of said answer. Please cite for reference. Thanks.

 

[Jester David]

In fairness, there are four kinds of 5e criticism threads, which I will delineate as thus-

1. Those started by those who genuinely like 5e, but have noticed "small oddities, problem rules, and personal dislikes." Which is inevitable! But part of fixing problems (either in hope that WoTC fixes them, or coming up with a house rule) is identifying what the problem is, or if it's even a problem. Heck, for that matter, sometimes it just is a good thing to talk about it. I've mentioned (as I did here) that I wish they hadn't had such a focus on spells for abilities (the so-called ubiquity of magic), but that's something that I can deal with.

Those threads can be good if the tone is positive. If it's pointing out a problem and positing solutions, or requesting fixes. I love those threads. Both reading other people's fixes or suggesting my own.
And threads about larger design trends (such as the ubiquity of magic) are bigger issues, and worthy of discussion. They're discussion points and conversations.

But threads like this one aren't about fixes, they're just about the complaining. Picking nits. It's neither productive nor a discussion. It's not even long enough to qualify as a rant-blog.

2. Those started by those who don't like 5e. It has been my experience that there are, in fact, people who are fond of other editions, and other TTRPGs. As such, the threads aren't really about the specific thing in 5e, they are about, "Why isn't 5e exactly like what my preferred edition/TTRPG is."

I made a lot of those during 4e when I felt disenfranchised by D&D, and 99.5% were a waste of my time and my reader's and I should have just focused on fixing 3e or doing stuff I liked.
My attitude now tends to be "Unsatisfied with the current edition? Odds are there's another game out there just for you!"

3. Those started by people who sort others into arbitrary groups.

I can't think of many of those off the top of my head.

4. Those started by the innumerate.

Or those who didn't fully read a rule/ spell/ power/ feat.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Andy has to play One-Eyed Willie's organ

I'm never going to think of that movie in the same way again.

 

[AverageCitizen]

That's an interesting stance for him to take. I'd be interested in the context of said answer. Please cite for reference. Thanks.

Oh, man. Probably not going to happen. I have no idea where I read it. So, you can dismiss it if you want, since it doesn't make sense anyway, but he was talking about how Perform would be used to make a moving, emotional performance on the instrument and the instrument proficiency would be used to put on a dazzling display of technical skill.

I guess it works, since in 5e you can hand-wave a lot of character details that used to have crunch. Like now, if your character was a blacksmith, he can just be a blacksmith if he feels like it.

So maybe the idea is if your character plays the bagpipes FROM THE HEART, not like the stiffs up at the Bagpiping Academy, you take Perfmormance and fill in the detail that it is bagpiping. Then when straps on his tartan leg-warmers and plays for that scholarship at the Bagpiping Academy, you dump a bucket of water on him and roll Charisma (Performance), not Charisma (Bagpipe proficiency). They will surely be moved by his passion.

EDIT: Upon reading, I am just saying what @Iosue said. Except I made a flashdance joke and he made an anatomical pun. The message is the same, though.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Hrm, okay. I suppose. <shrug>

One thing I've noticed in practically all the MM comments I've read like that, is that he is careful to note that he doesn't do rulings, only how he would probably do it it at his table given the circumstances. He's pretty careful to point out he doesn't provide rule clarifications. Something to keep in mind when presenting his supposed statements like that. Just sayin'.