(Mostly) Uncontroversial Quirks of 5E

[DEFCON 1]

It's an interesting question, but I think to get a true answer (or at least one that more closely approaches your thought of 99%) we need to really consider things under two different parameters--

1) In a perfect world, would we be happier with the fixed quirk, and
2) If the quirk (and only that quirk) was fixed, would it be important enough to us to actually buy a new copy of the book?

So something like you mentioned about the Index... sure, in a perfect world if the Index in the Player's Handbook was better and more intuitive, I'd be fine with having it. And I don't know if there would be anyone who would disagree.

But... if you were to ask me if I'd buy the book over again to get a "fixed" index.... I'd say, no, I don't have enough of a problem with it that I'd bother spending the money.

And this is where you'll probably have a hard time getting into the high 90s. Because while of course there are things you could "fix" that would make the game perhaps slightly tighter, there are none that I can think of that would warrant buying the book over again just to get. Because quite frankly... all the niggling little things that you could "fix" (like the spear/trident situation)... they are all so easy to amend if we need to on our own that they don't warrant re-doing the book.

If people find the current Stealth rules not to their liking, they probably have already ruled on it.

If people find the disparity between Barkskin's fluff and game mechanics bothersome, they probably have already ruled on it.

If people think the sorcerer needs more sorcery points, they probably have already given more out.

If people think more monsters need to be vulnerable or susceptible to the individual categories of slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning non-magical weapons, they probably have already given those out.

If people think dragonborn shouldn't be a main race in the game, they probably have already restricted them.

And so on and so forth.

We might be able to find 90%+ consensus on any number of things that in a perfect world we'd be happier if they had been different. But nowhere near that much if it would warrant purchasing a new copy of the rulebook to get.

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

There was a thread recently where the OP (@James Grover) was adamant that the variant human was among the weakest race choice. He even had a table to back it up. I don't think your going to get to 99% agreement on that one!

I'll give that variant human opinions are controversial. But I think most people would agree that the standard human is pretty boring. Not even under powered. Just boring.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

We had a good thread a few weeks back where people pointed out various things that bugged them. To no one's surprise, a lot of things that bugged people were things that were intentional design and plenty of people liked, so various arguments arose.

Is there a list of quirks with the edition that 99% of the people would agree that could use adjusting, or at least very few people would complain if they did so?

Two examples that came to mind would be the obtuse of the PHB Index, and the lackluster Weapons/Armor tables.

Any others?

1. Obtuseness of the PHB Index. Just gives us the dang page number!
2. The weapons/armor table is very lackluster. Doesn't really encourage a lot of different weapon styles, and is less interesting than the ideas for weapons in previous editions.
3. Should have options for downloading PDFs as part of book purchases.

I think 1 is the only one I really have a problem with, and 3 is pretty unavoidable for wotc unless they want to sour their own online distributor relationships. Paizo and other indies can do it because they either are the distributor (paizo, cubicle7, others), or benefit more from proliferation than from getting money from each copy, or both.

That said, I'd be happy if DnDBeyond let you scan your PHB to add it's content to your "Homebrew" collection without having to input it manually, since inputing it manually is already allowed (you just can't share it with the community, like you can with original homebrew content).

There's maybe...4 items I'd add, and a few I'd change, to the weapons and armor tables. I'd like a dueling spear style weapon (1d6, reach, finesse), I'd change studded leather to banded leather or some other less misleading name (the studs in historical armor were rivets, for the metal bands between layers of leather), I'd have Gambesons be more on par with leather, as they were historically, add a Light Shield that gives +1, and can be donned or doffed just like drawing or stowing a weapon, I'd add a rule that you can pay extra for a shield to get one that is good for bashing, or i'd just give all shields a Bash (1d4) trait. I'd make armor count as half weight when you're wearing it, because it is less encumbering than a pack of the same weight IRL...

Maybe some minor tweaks to some weapons like Tridents, darts...the historical weapons nerd in me wants to do way more, but I really like that 5e doesn't get complicated with weapons and armor. I'd actually only do like half of the above, mostly just the re-balancing of crappy weapons and armor, and instead I'd want a supplement to have a chapter that optionally does the presents the rest for groups that want it.

I am continuing to wish they renamed barbarian as berserker.

This is the 4th edition change they've let me down on.

IMO, berserker only fits the one archetype. The others would be just as ill served by berserker as they are by barbarian. Sadly, "Primal Warrior" is a dumb class name, as is "Rager", which are the only two I can think of right now that actually conceptually fit all the subclasses.

Not sure how it'd be adjusted, but here's one that is quite irregular. Cover.

In 5e practically every fixed circumstantial modifier from previous editions has been folded into the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. There are a few mechanics that add slight bonuses (guidance, bless, etc.), but those are random amounts and dependant on player actions/rolls. Cover is just about the only exception; it's very much a sui generis rule within the system. It doesn't quite fit in because of it, and it still trips me up a bit mentally sometimes.

That said, I get why it works with modifiers; this way multiple types of cover can exist, and it can stack with disadvantage, so hitting someone behind a tree at long range is harder than hitting someone at long range. But there has to be another less incongruous solution (such as allowing for double disadvantage with cover, rolling 3d20 taking the lowest), right?

I'd be fine with different covers giving a different die bonus to AC/penalty to hit, somewhere in the d4 to 48 range, but not double disadvantage.



Anyway, my 5e quirks that irks me would be:

A) The fear of certain things because they were potent in previous editions, or bc they bork a white room analysis of relative power, or bc people feel like they'd be "broken". Stuff like flying, or TWF, or familiars/beast companions. Yes, getting more attacks per round was one of the few balance straining builds of 4e that didn't require wierd combinations of multiple feats, items, powers, and a lenient DM, but in 5e that just isn't the case, and still wouldn't be if TWF just tacked an attack onto your Attack Action, and the feat for it was actually potent. For flying, I blame the fans.
Familiars are okay, though I think they should explicitly say they can help you with stuff like scribing scrolls, adding spells to your spellbook, brewing potions, enchanting items, etc, and I don't think that letting the owl get it's 1 damage attack in is going to hurt anything. As for beast master companions...well, there are too many threads as it is.

I think that no matter what you think of my examples, almost everyone has something in the game that they think is restricted more than it needs to be in order to stay within the 5e balance bandwidth.

2) Monk weapons are too restricted, as are rogue weapons. The restrictions for balance I'm ok with, though some i disagree with, but it's the stuff like Rogues not being able to SA with clubs and staves that annoys me. And Monks...just let me use a longsword or rapier instead of having to pretend a shortsword is a dadao or whatever. Like...being able to get up to d10 isn't going to upset party balance. And there is nothing for someone who wants to use a hammer or other heavy kung fu associated weapon, or something like a rope dart (let me use a whip!). The fact that their solution is to let you get more weapons piecemeal by taking a specific subclass is...not a solution, IMO. Kensai is the most boring subclass in the game, other than Champion Fighter.
And even the Kensai can't fulfill a polearm monk concept!

iii) Changing longstanding lore in ways that change the basic nature of gods, races, etc. Mordy's Fome of Toes really went the extra mile in changing who some cosmic level beings are, and I don't see what was gained in the process. Corellon is...a bad guy, now. Like...the elves are cursed to racial meloncholy now because their distant ancestors briefly flirted with choosing Llolth over their completely indifferent absent father-god? Moradin is even worse, as are the ancient dwarves. Oh, your cousins got mind-ed and experimented on to make better servants, and when they freed themselves and wanted to come back to Moradin and their fellow dwarves, y'all spat in their faces, called them freaks, and told them to gtfo? lol "lawful good" my hairy butt.

And the Raven Queen...why even bring her back? Literally what is the point? This is some "film adaptation that snags the name and very basic themes from the book, and makes a whole new, less interesting, story out of it for the movie" level nonsense. Not a god anymore I can live with. But now she is a malevolent interloper in the natural order of death, who steals souls to make them relive their worst moments forever for her entertainment. WTF?

None of these are more interesting stories. The most interesting stories I've ever read about Correlon were those in the Heroes of The Feywild book from the end of 4e (primarily a lore book, but some crunch ranging from great to okay, and a really fun Origin Story chapter, similar to the Xanathar's "This Is Your Life" chapter).

 

[DEFCON 1]

Also the fact that the classes that can use a spell aren’t listed in the spell description.

I'm actually one of the ones that is happy that spells do not list which classes have them in their spell block description.

Because I would find it irritating to not only have to list every standard class that gets a particular spell *and* each subclass that gets a spell (which the primary class doesn't get)... we would then have any number of missing classes and subclasses from the pages once new classes and subclasses got released in new books.

I find a list with missing entries to be much more bothersome than no list at all.

 

[Satyrn]

I'll give that variant human opinions are controversial. But I think most people would agree that the standard human is pretty boring. Not even under powered. Just boring.

I like my boring options. I like the champion fighter, too.

 

[AriochQ]

The weapon armor table is still a debate point, some see it’s genericness as a strength.

Now the index? I haven’t met a single person who thought it was good, just varies from “utter garbage” to “meh it ain’t great”.

Also the fact that the classes that can use a spell aren’t listed in the spell description.

That’s as probably as much consensus as you’ll ever get. But no actual game content are you going to find 99% consensus

D&D Beyond has tags at the bottom of each spell telling you who can cast it. One of the advantages of digital content is they can keep it current with new releases, unlike the hardcovers. I generally like to have the book in hand when I game, but D&D Beyond has many features that make it more desirable than a physical book.

 

[Blue]

2. The weapons/armor table is very lackluster. Doesn't really encourage a lot of different weapon styles, and is less interesting than the ideas for weapons in previous editions.

Actually, I think it's too detailed. Right now there's just a few best weapons for any type of fighting, so everyone if forced to use of of those regardless of character concept. The armor table has the same thing.

The idea that every character concept that wants to do X is best served with a weapon with property Y really cuts down on variation and makes characters more same-ish.

I much prefer just some broad categories and the player can skin the weapon. So I might use a wooden stick studded with shark teeth (actual Polynesian weapon) while you use a kris-bladed sword. Or whatever.

 

[Satyrn]

IMO, berserker only fits the one archetype. The others would be just as ill served by berserker as they are by barbarian. Sadly, "Primal Warrior" is a dumb class name, as is "Rager", which are the only two I can think of right now that actually conceptually fit all the subclasses.

But at least they'd be ill-served in a manner that wouldn't (minorly) irk me as much.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

There was a thread recently where the OP (@James Grover) was adamant that the variant human was among the weakest race choice. He even had a table to back it up. I don't think your going to get to 99% agreement on that one!

Actually, that thread showed (by my reckoning anyway ) that variant human was towards the middle (not among the weakest by any means) with Dwarf, Elf, and Half-Elf above it and all the rest below it. At any rate, the house-ruled changes have leveled the field nicely and everyone in our group is pleased by the results.

But to the point of this thread:

1. Haven't used the index much, but usually can find what I need if I know what it is called.
2. Weapons and armor are lack-luster, but there is not enough variation in ACs or damage dice to have too much. If you don't want a "Longsword" you can have a "Viking Sword" or "Knightly Sword", but they would have the same stats for the most part.
3. DEFINITELY would like PDFs. I have purchased eight books, and I think I pdf download should have been included. I know why they didn't since otherwise you could just copy the pdfs to everyone.

Add:

4. A better spell section. I know it saved space to have them all alphabetical, but it is frustrating not knowing which spell is available to which class. I would list them by level and included class availability in the spell stat block. Having it by level first IMO always works better because at first level you are only browsing through descriptions of spells you might actually get instead of the entire list where most of them you won't.

I miss a lot of the rules that were removed for simplicity's sake. It is nice as that different games will rule various processes differently, but once I establish a method to accomplish something I have to add it to the house-rules for later use anyway...

 

[doctorbadwolf]

But at least they'd be ill-served in a manner that wouldn't (minorly) irk me as much.

LOL fair enough.

2. Weapons and armor are lack-luster, but there is not enough variation in ACs or damage dice to have too much. If you don't want a "Longsword" you can have a "Viking Sword" or "Knightly Sword", but they would have the same stats for the most part.

4. A better spell section. I know it saved space to have them all alphabetical, but it is frustrating not knowing which spell is available to which class. I would list them by level and included class availability in the spell stat block. Having it by level first IMO always works better because at first level you are only browsing through descriptions of spells you might actually get instead of the entire list where most of them you won't.

I agree on spells! Honestly, just make the class symbol more prominent on the pages for that class, and then use that symbol. There is plenty of room in the spell blocks for some letter sized symbols in the top right corner.

For weapons and armor, I mostly agree. I think tridents could be fixed by having a small bonus to disarming targets, and negating disadvantage for attacking underwater like crossbows do. Otherwise, I just disagree with some decisions on who can use certain weapons, or what armor properties are. Nothing to worry much about.