D&D 5E Likes and Dislikes?

[The Mirrorball Man]

The spellcasters blow through all their spells in the first encounter of the day, then the party has to go back and take a long rest. So each adventuring day lasts only 15 minutes.

Had the game designers called 0-level spells "at-wills" instead of "cantrips", I have a feeling that people would not complain about that nearly as much. The fact is that in 5e, spellcasters never run out of spells.

 

[MoonSong]

Like: pretty much everything, but the novelty of short bows being simple weapons and automatic finesse is a cool one.
Dislike: The sorcerer, the first previews were promising, but they dropped the ball by taking away spears - the iconic sorcerer weapon, it is like taking away cleric's maces,- and extremely limiting their spells known. Them being so limited in possible flavours and the spell list doesn't help, they were so close, but at first level a sorcerer feels like a wizard--.

 

[SilverfireSage]

Like: Ease of play and general rules emphasis on the things that matter.
Dislike: Lots of balance issues and poorly worded rules suggest a product that was thrown together in a rush.

I know I should respond to stuff like this, but they did a two year long play test of this game. There's nothing in it at all that seems like it was thrown together.

 

[SilverfireSage]

Like: Ease of play and set up, the culmination of all Dungeons and Dragons before it.
Dislike: Wizards teasing us with the DMs guide previews.

 

[TrippyHippy]

The spellcasters blow through all their spells in the first encounter of the day, then the party has to go back and take a long rest. So each adventuring day lasts only 15 minutes.

5e has some features to mitigate this (I anticipate replies like, "what about arcane recovery? and battlemaster dice? and the warlock? huh? huh?") but it can still be a big problem in some adventures.

Yes, it’s a nonsense criticism. Cantrips can be cast all the time - and their effects can be substantial. Your entire argument, in any case, is based on the notion that all characters would basically blow all their spells on the first encounter that came along, regardless. It’s just a total non-argument.

 

[Quickleaf]

I like Bonds, Flaws, Ideals, and Personality Traits being a significant part of play; it helps orient new players, reminds old gamers, and having it there on the front of the character sheet emphasizes that this is a roleplaying game.

I dislike much of the monster design which strikes me as too simplistic and too reliant on referencing spells in the PHB.

 

[pedro2112]

I love the vast majority of the rules, but mostly the speed of combat.

One thing that irks me somewhat, however, are how at most tables I've played or DMed 5th Ed, the rogue does not find traps particularly well. It's odd, but does anyone else notice that clerics are the "trapfinders" of the party?

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

Based on the PHB only...

Like: Mechanics that streamlined the fiddlier aspects of 3E in particular: advantage/disadvantage, chunky feats, standard proficiency bonus.

Dislike: That they couldn't find similar solutions to other parts of the game. Particularly within classes and subclasses where you might have three or four different mechanics to cast spells (Warlock) or several powers that have different uses, refresh rates and all need to be tracked independently.

That said, this PHB was probably the best out of the gate for inspiring actual play and usability for both new and old players. It is an impressive work. I don't think it could ever "unify the editions" even in spirit, but I think they got far closer than I ever expected in letting player's build a lot of common character types just from the PHB.

 

[CrusaderX]

Likes: Quick and streamlined play with an Old School feel

Dislikes: The bland and uninspiring art in the PHB.

 

[fuindordm]

Like: the vast scope of character archetypes supported by the PH.
Dislike: vague and sometimes contradictory treatment of companions/mounts/familiars/summons.