D&D 5E Likes and Dislikes?

[DMZ2112]

My feeling is that variety will come down to the ability of the DM. I love that. If you want to do something creative, the DM must come up with a ruling on the fly. He has a simple mechanic to work with to do it. All the old things are possible, but the DM and player have to discuss it an work it out.

But then it's not up to the dungeon master, is it? It's up to the players. I can't give a ruling on something I'm not asked.

Scouting and movement are fluid now. I haven't had so much fun scouting ahead and taking out sentries in ages. Passive Perception against Rogue Stealth is good fun.

...That's because stealth always wins! Why are the sentries using passive perception? They're sentries! They had one job!

Now with 5E, you can move, attack, move, attack, bonus action disengage, move to cover. It's so much more fluid, imaginative, and fun in my opinion. Until people get older mechanics out of their head and understand the new fluidity of combat, it will seem less varied when it is actually more varied.

I agree that the rogue class almost forces a player to "think D&D5," if you will, but that's cold comfort to a fighter. I do like that our party has four fighters and they are all unique, but in terms of actions all they do is pound on bad guys. They just use different implements of varying bluntness.

As I said, they don't seem to mind, but I do. One thing I definitely plan to do after the campaign leaves Phandelver and transitions to Solamnia in a few weeks is design encounter spaces with more opportunity for tactics. We don't use a battlemat, but even so the encounters in Lost Mine have been very straightforward line-of-skirmish style conflicts.

 

[Piratecat]

Right now my least favorite thing, and I'm not even sure it is real, is a lack of variety. From the dungeon master's screen, it feels like we're back to the AD&D2 paradigm of "I attack, you attack, the monster attacks, the mage casts a spell, I attack, you attack." I feel like we may have sacked some of the breadth of D&D along with the unnecessary amplitude. My players don't seem bothered, though.

Random commentary: Remember that players can do cool stuff with ability checks, and it's up to you as to whether the Proficiency bonus (or a skill bonus) apply. For instance, we've recently had...

- someone loop their silk rope through a minotaur's nose ring, drag him through a grease spell, and spin him into a fireplace
- someone risk an opportunity attack to get in close to an opponent and use sleight of hand to steal their weapon from their sheath
- someone jam a barrel onto an enemy's head, blinding them

I'd argue the robust use of ability checks actually supports this. It's one of the reasons that the feat which makes you proficient in improvised attacks is so much fun.

 

[DMZ2112]

I'd argue the robust use of ability checks actually supports this. It's one of the reasons that the feat which makes you proficient in improvised attacks is so much fun.

I'm in total agreement. This sort of thing was rampant pre-D&D3, and I can clearly see the opportunities here. But I can't ask my fighter players, "Would you like to jam a barrel over his head to blind him?"

Takes some of the magic out of the thing, it does.

Put another way, I am regrettably having a similar problem with D&D5 that I had with D&D4, albeit for the absolute opposite reason. Players are only doing what the rules say they can do. Yes, if they interpret the rules loosely, it opens up all kinds of variation for them, just like it did in D&D4, but ultimately that does not matter if they do not interpret the rules in that fashion. In D&D4 we had players reading their actions off a list, and in D&D5 we have players taking only the obvious action.

This is one of those situations where the game is not the thing -- instead, how the game is played is the thing. You can lead a horse to water, etc.

 

[Osgood]

Biggest like: Fast combats.
Biggest dislike: Tough one, I'll have to go with Monster stablocks are not easy to use at the table (though gargantuan-headed halflings was a close second... seriously, where is their racial ability that allows them to not topple over?)

 

[Eric V]

I am playing an arcane trickster and I can fully agree with you on rogues in 5e, though I also thought they were great in 4e (not earlier, though).

 

[Celtavian]

I'm in total agreement. This sort of thing was rampant pre-D&D3, and I can clearly see the opportunities here. But I can't ask my fighter players, "Would you like to jam a barrel over his head to blind him?"

Takes some of the magic out of the thing, it does.

Put another way, I am regrettably having a similar problem with D&D5 that I had with D&D4, albeit for the absolute opposite reason. Players are only doing what the rules say they can do. Yes, if they interpret the rules loosely, it opens up all kinds of variation for them, just like it did in D&D4, but ultimately that does not matter if they do not interpret the rules in that fashion. In D&D4 we had players reading their actions off a list, and in D&D5 we have players taking only the obvious action.

This is one of those situations where the game is not the thing -- instead, how the game is played is the thing. You can lead a horse to water, etc.

So you're players aren't varied at the moment. Maybe they need time to get acclimated to the system. It's very different from previous paradigms.

 

[Grainger]

Like: the general tone and feel (feeling modern yet retro, with a lack of silly exploitative fantasy artwork), the emphasis on DM fiat, the wide range of character options, the grid is gone by default.

Dislike: it's still a bit fiddly for my liking (lots of powers for players to keep track of, plus I'm not sure we really need ability scores, saving throws and skills as three parallel systems; the Euro-gamer in me senses it could be even more pared down without losing any tactical function), the hobbit artwork in the PHB, the lack of physical description for monsters in the MM (I know 99% of other DMs don't care but it's a big omission as far as I'm concerned).

 

[The_Gneech]

I'm in total agreement. This sort of thing was rampant pre-D&D3, and I can clearly see the opportunities here. But I can't ask my fighter players, "Would you like to jam a barrel over his head to blind him?"

Takes some of the magic out of the thing, it does.

Put another way, I am regrettably having a similar problem with D&D5 that I had with D&D4, albeit for the absolute opposite reason. Players are only doing what the rules say they can do. Yes, if they interpret the rules loosely, it opens up all kinds of variation for them, just like it did in D&D4, but ultimately that does not matter if they do not interpret the rules in that fashion. In D&D4 we had players reading their actions off a list, and in D&D5 we have players taking only the obvious action.

This is one of those situations where the game is not the thing -- instead, how the game is played is the thing. You can lead a horse to water, etc.

So turn the tables! Have your ogre shove the dwarf into a barrel (etc.). Players learn by watching what the DM does.

-The Gneech

 

[Hereticus]

Most people like the retro feel to 5.0e, including myself. Old AD&D characters had very few frills to them, and as editions came and went characters were loaded with more options, which reached an apex in Pathfinder. This edition scales it back to pre-3.0 levels. Back in AD&D magic users were the broken class, especially at higher levels. Now monks are the new magic user, with dexterity being the super stat.

Bottom line... it's the best system yet. However monks have been powered-up a bit too much, and pure arcane spellcasters (aka "Mr. Utility") have been powered-down a bit too much.

 

[Zhaleskra]

5e is doing a lot of things I do like, however; the goal of "one D&D to unify them all" does not sit well with me.

Art Style: So far all the female characters I've seen are anorexic, androgynous, or both. The men tend toward the beefy side. Armor is simultaneously both more reasonable, and more cartoonish. Some character examples look more like they're headed out for Halloween than on a life endangering adventure. On the other hand, the gals aren't breasts so big they'd break their backs in chainmail bikinis.

Background ideas: Nice for people who want to jump in, and giving some kind of bonus is nice. I don't like how shallow I feel some of those descriptions are.

Villanous NPCs: "with classes and levels" keep this line, "using the rules in the Player's Handbook" remove that line. Ideas for villain weaknesses are very nice, even if the soul item is known to be specific to liches.

Advantage/Disadvantage: Swingy, I like it.