D&D 5E 5e's stumbles

[ChrisCarlson]

Who is more complain-y? The complainer, or the one who complains about him?

So what is to be made of someone complaining about a complainer complaining about a complaint?...

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Gradine]

So what is to be made of someone complaining about a complainer complaining about a complaint?...

It truly is a vicious circle

To speak to the "Bagpipes" skill/tool dilemma, here's how I understand Mearls' own answer which I will be shamelessly pilfering for my own rulings on the subject. Proficiency with the "tool" of an instrument means you have training in how to play the instrument. You know the scales, the chords, you can tune it properly, and you probably know quite a few songs you can play by heart. Proficiently. Playing, let's say, an ocarina, with the precise notes necessary to open a magically locked door? I'd call it a Dexterity (Ocarina) check. Playing that same ocarina in a bar to get the drunk patrons to tip you generously? Charisma (Performance) check, and only if the player also has proficiency in the ocarina.

Or another example. Say you're at a piano, getting ready to play one of Chopin's nocturnes. If your aim was to play it perfectly; not missing a single note, with absolutely perfect timing; that's a Dexterity (Piano) check. Playing it with the passion and raw energy necessary to move a crowd, emotionally, though? That would be a Charisma (Performance) check, because then it's less a measure of your skill with the instrument (though again, I would require at least some measure of proficiency with it); it's about reading and manipulating the energy of the room.

To a lay person that may seem like a distinction without a difference, but to a performer it's incredibly significant.

 

[Satyrn]

OMG. You just made me remember something I despise about the 5e PHB (well, other than the index). The way the spells are listed in alphabetical order.

I hate hate hate hate hate hate that. I think there's two mind sets to it- should the spells be organized so that someone can quickly find a single spell, or organized so that someone can sort through various similar options (what 2nd level spell should I take)?

Here's the thing- the second way doesn't make it that much harder to look up spells, but putting it in alpha order completely destroys any ability to compare the same level spells in a class. I can't stand it.

And, in order to be a part of the solution, here it is- go back to listing spells by level and class. Admittedly since there's so much cross-over in spells between classes (*cough* Bard *cough*) there might be some difficulties with that, but I have a simple solution for that as well. Make the spell lists more differentiated between classes.

I have encountered something even worse than alphabetical order. 3e's Book of 9 Swords arranged the maneuvers by discipline, then alphabetically,. It was horrible trying to compare two maneuvers.

 

[Jester David]

OMG. You just made me remember something I despise about the 5e PHB (well, other than the index). The way the spells are listed in alphabetical order.

I hate hate hate hate hate hate that. I think there's two mind sets to it- should the spells be organized so that someone can quickly find a single spell, or organized so that someone can sort through various similar options (what 2nd level spell should I take)?

Here's the thing- the second way doesn't make it that much harder to look up spells, but putting it in alpha order completely destroys any ability to compare the same level spells in a class. I can't stand it.

And, in order to be a part of the solution, here it is- go back to listing spells by level and class. Admittedly since there's so much cross-over in spells between classes (*cough* Bard *cough*) there might be some difficulties with that, but I have a simple solution for that as well. Make the spell lists more differentiated between classes.

Which is great so long as you know what level a spell is. When the tiefling gets darkness or hellish rebuke you suddenly have two or three places to look (1st, 2nd, and 3rd level spells). And if a monster can use a spell... fuggedaboutit. Like the glabrezu that can cast confusion, fly, and power word stun 1/day with no mention of level.

I remember 2nd Edition when monsters had spells, and I had to guess whether it was a wizard or cleric spell and then go through each spell level. Not fun and just slow at the table.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

And, in order to be a part of the solution, here it is- go back to listing spells by level and class. Admittedly since there's so much cross-over in spells between classes (*cough* Bard *cough*) there might be some difficulties with that, but I have a simple solution for that as well. Make the spell lists more differentiated between classes.

Two more possible solutions (1) CB tool that brings up the correct spell list for you to browse through, and prints out the spells you actually choose. (2) Spell cards: you build a 'deck' of all the spells your character can cast, then pick out a 'hand' of spells you have prepped. Nice thing about these solutions: 3pps have already provided both of them.

Doesn't reduce the complexity of sifting through a lot of spells and re-evaluating them on a daily basis, but it does avoid added, unnecessary complexity.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[JeffB]

1. Caster hand economy. This whole concept is a mess (I hate that I even have to type "caster hand economy" but there it is), and RAW for it is buried in several separate places.
2. Monster stat blocks. I loved that in 4e you had everything you need for a monster in its block. Now they are back to spell lists so I am printing things out ahead of time or flipping through the PHB. Bummer.
3. Skill/tool proficiency overlap. What the heck? Perform vs. instrument proficiency especially. Not hard to adjudicate around the problem, but RAW it makes little sense.
4. Hiding is all over the place, again. The Twitter de-facto rulings are good.
5. The "rulings, not rules" mentality is good, but some people think it makes 5e above reproach and that anyone who has a problem with the rules doesn't "get" 5e. I like the hands-off approach too, guys, but that doesn't mean 5e doesn't have room to improve.

Overall, I really like 5e. It is my favorite edition so far. Really, it only drops the ball in a few non-critical areas.

#2 is a huge negative for me. 4e was a godsend. 5e is a huge step back. I pretty much never use enemy casters unless they are very low level in any edition except 4e (and 13th Age if that counts).

 

[Koren]

My own peeve with 5e is concentration. It seems like everyone else has largely made their peace with it, but I don't think a week goes by that we don't have someone cast two different spells requiring concentration, or forget to make concentration checks on taking damage, or something else related. My own fix (for sub level 10 games) has been to ignore the concentration check on damage rule, but the whole system felt inelegant to me when I first read it and hasn't gotten better with actual experience playing with it.

I noticed I was forgetting to make my players make concentration saves and they would constantly have to remind me to make them when a caster NPC was concentrating on a spell and took damage. So, I modified the spreadsheet I use to track everyone's initiative and hp to include a column for each player's concentration. Now when any pc or opponent cast a concentration spell, I put it on the sheet, and when one of them takes damage, or goes to cast another spell requiring concentration, it's right there to remind me. Worked pretty well.

What about the system do you find inelegant?