D&D 5E Likes and Dislikes?

[Wepwawet]

Like: Bounded accuracy and the amount of different flavourful character options at 1st level

Dislike: Spell list layout. They should have included more than just the name. At least a superscript C and R for concentration and ritual spells, and small icons showing the school of the spells. It's annoying the way you have to flip through the spell list and all the spells.

 

[TerraDave]

Like: how it plays, reads, looks, its mechanical and stylistic foundation and where I can go with it.

Dislike: Not putting enough thought into weapons, drow and dragonborn in the PHB, that there isn't a line in the spell descriptions for classes that can cast it, that the DMG still has not come out, that a Fiend Folio has not been announced.

 

[Wulfgar76]

LIKE: bounded accuracy, battle speed, gridless combat, old school feel

DISLIKE: mechanics and powers which use monster CR as their metric (Conjure Spells, Wild Shape, Polymorph) seem poorly balanced

 

[Everyday Paladin]

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.

The Druid and Ranger, in my opinion, don't feel well crafted at all. I completely skipped the playtest, so I'm ignorant of what was included. Were these two classes playtested less extensively? They certainly feel like they were.

Likes: I like how quickly combat runs, and that magic feels magical once more.

Dislikes: I feel like too many of 4E's innovations were tossed out with the bathwater. I hope for optional rules to add them. I can make my own adjustments, so it's not ruinous.

I also dislike spells in monster statblocks rather than "powers". I'll be editing statblocks into a more manageable form when I DM. It's an annoying extra step after 4E's monster statblocks.

 

[Dausuul]

Likes: 5E is awesome. As far as the system goes, 5E is an improvement in just about every area over what came before, and I don't say that lightly. (I used to call myself an edition war mercenary, because I kept fighting for different editions depending on the topic.)

• Combat is fast, intuitive, and encourages creative play.
• Spellcasters are nicely balanced against martial classes; high-level spells pack incredible power, but you get so few of them that you don't have to worry about high-level wizards becoming godlike. At the same time, at-will cantrips ensure casters always have a trick or two up their sleeves.
• "Big feats" are a vast improvement. 5E feats finally feel like what feats ought to be, substantial packages that really change the feel of a PC.
• The inclusion of backgrounds, flaws, bonds, and ideals (as a core element yet) is excellent.
• Wizard specializations really change the feel of playing a wizard now. It's not just "Hey, you get a couple extra necromancy spells" any more. Necromancers feel like masters of black magic; abjurers are the ultimate arcane duelists; evokers are supreme blasters; etc.
• Ditto cleric domains.
• The Monster Manual is a joy to read, bursting with ideas and inspiration for the DM, and monster stats are tight and clean and well-balanced.
• Magic items are no longer assumed. The Christmas Tree has finally been hauled out to the trash heap.
• Bounded accuracy improves the system in so many ways--not just by making monsters usable over a wider level range, but also by helping DMs set consistent DCs. Furthermore, the hard caps on stats mean that rolling for stats works a lot better than it did in previous editions. Roll well or roll badly, you'll still end up with a 20 in your prime stat.
• I love the implementation of legendary monsters. Legendary Resistance especially is a great solution to the problem of "BBEG versus save-or-die." You can still take down a BBEG with such spells, but you have to try a few times before it sticks; and because the monster chooses when to use LR, you can't wear it down with cantrip saves.
• What we've seen of the DMG looks excellent.
• The game is easily moddable, much more so than either 3E or 4E. The elements are not nearly as tightly coupled.
• Lots of small improvements and streamlining.

Dislikes: I have two main gripes about 5E, and both of them are presentation-related:

• Lack of reference tables in the PHB and MM. I get that they were trying to save space, but it would be sooooo useful to have a compact index of monsters by CR and type, and spells by school. Ari's Spell and Monster Sorters are a godsend, but it'd be better if they were right there in the books.
• A number of rules are ambiguous or unclear. Stealth sidebar, I'm looking at you. (There is a key distinction to be drawn here between "leaving some things to DM adjudication," which I fully support, and "writing the rules in a confusing way," which I don't. If D&D is going to put something on the DM to decide, it should be up front about it.)
• I also have various minor issues; the contagion spell's interaction with legendary creatures, the way magic jar works, etc.

Fortunately, my dislikes are mostly things that can be fixed in later printings and revisions, without requiring significant changes to the actual rules.

 

[Everyday Paladin]

Ari made a Monster Sorter, also?

Can anyone provide a link? My google-fu is leading me to a dead document, rather than a functional sorter.

 

[Spooner6]

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 agree that archery and heavy weapon fighting tends to be the route to go, I disagree with the comparison of History. The 14th and 15th Century was dominated by the Yew Bow (mainly used by the English) as well as a transition from shield and weapon to using a heavy two handed weapon. The superiority of the bow put pressure on armor makers to advance the quality and coverage of armor which in turn drove the use of heavier weapons in combat to overcome said improved armor.

 

[Stormonu]

Like: If I don't like something, it's easy to houserule without toppling the whole stack of cards
Dislike: We don't have MM3 yet.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

I like the streamlined, simplified rules.

I miss at-wills. I dislike that fighting classes rely on a simple melee or ranged attack as their bread and butter. To me at-wills make combats more interesting and don't preclude the players from trying something creative with their attack.

 

[Dausuul]

Ari made a Monster Sorter, also?

Can anyone provide a link? My google-fu is leading me to a dead document, rather than a functional sorter.

http://mouseferatu.com/index.php/news/august-20-2014-another-dd-gift/