(Mostly) Uncontroversial Quirks of 5E

[Blue]

I'm on board for the index.

I like the spells as they are - by class with repeats is a waste of space, and listing classes means it is immediately wrong when something new comes out - bad information is worse then no information.

Hmm, I don't think it's uncontrovesial, but I wish feats were core. That makes the vHuman the default human to get rid of boring mcblandville, gives more flavorful options for character advancement, and helps keep the extra ASI that some classes get relevant. And if they are default, give one out at 1st level.

 

[Dausuul]

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!

You might not get to 99% on Variant Human being a powerhouse (though I think 90+% is achievable; I recall the "variant human is weak" opinion being an extreme minority).

But surely we can all agree that Non-Variant Human is lousy? Not only is it mechanically underpowered, it's boring. +1 to all stats and that's it.

<Korben Dallas>Thrilled.</Korben Dallas>

 

[jmartkdr]

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.

Tridents already ignore underwater disadvantage, as do spears. Seriously. tridents are pointless, when they should have about three.

But I don't know if I'd rather have a longer, more detailed weapon list overall or a shorter list with a bunch of names for each entry. Neither option seems objectively better than the other.

 

[ad_hoc]

Tridents already ignore underwater disadvantage, as do spears. Seriously. tridents are pointless, when they should have about three.

But I don't know if I'd rather have a longer, more detailed weapon list overall or a shorter list with a bunch of names for each entry. Neither option seems objectively better than the other.

Tridents aren't pointless.

Creatures use them.

There are also iconic magical tridents.

They need to be in the game but they also shouldn't be a common choice. They are just how they should be.

 

[Old One Eye]

Another vote on the index.

It buggers me that the victim of charm person knows they were charmed. It makes the iconic spell never used at my table.

I wish the class spell lists included the school of magic.

The binding on my PHB and MM has fallen apart. Quality control, WotC.

Halfling art as Funko pops. Ug.

In some corner cases, multiclassed spellcasters get jipped on their spell slots. E.g., a wizard/fighter-eldritch Knight. Fix that.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Tridents already ignore underwater disadvantage, as do spears. Seriously. tridents are pointless, when they should have about three.

+1 I see what you did there.

Tridents, however, aren't supposed to be good. The reason retarii used them was not because they were effective weapons, it was for a better show for the audience.

 

[KarinsDad]

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 have the opposite complaint.

I think advantage and disadvantage is handed out like candy way too often. They are basically the equivalent of +5 or -5 to the roll.

I don't have a problem adding or subtracting 2 from a number and wish that a lot more game features used +2 or -2 as a slight gain/loss instead of throwing advantage or disadvantage into the works as often as they do.

In addition to the stacking issue you point out, another issue for cover is that there is 1/2 and 3/4ths. When there are multiple degrees of penalties, just plain old disadvantage doesn't cover it.


I think that the OP is going to find very few uncontroversial features of the game where people don't take sides.

 

[ccs]

1) Ugh, yes, the index....

2) The art on covers of, well, most of the books. But in particular the PHB/DMG/MM + Volos - the books nearly always present on our table.
Nor do I like the variant covers (particularly the finish on Mordankainens) or the 3 book core set released this Christmas.

3) The page #s being printed in that small & unobtrusive lt brown on parchment colored backgrounds.

4) The poor binding quality on the early print runs of the books. PHB, MM, DMG.
Yes, I know I could've sent them in to Wizards. But I was in the middle of USING them, spreading the gospel of 5e.... Kinda hard to do when your the 5e DM & your lacking the DMG/MM (the PHB I could've made do without for a moment as nearly everyone had a copy)

5) That each adventure (except Yawning Portal?) has a section of new Monsters not later reprinted elsewhere.
I'm sorry Wizards, but I'll NOT be buying a $50 adventure book for a handful of stats. Nor will I be subscribing to anything. No, I'll just pirate a PDF of your book.

 

[Prakriti]

I am continuing to wish they renamed barbarian as berserker.

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

This is the first time I've heard of this. But it just gives rise to the question, Why is the Barbarian its own class and not a subclass of Fighter? Its niche obviously isn't wide enough to support a whole class, as evidenced by the weak subclass offerings (weak from a conceptual, not power perspective).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

+1 I see what you did there.

Tridents, however, aren't supposed to be good. The reason retarii used them was not because they were effective weapons, it was for a better show for the audience.

Historicity is irrelevant. People expect a good weapon, it should be a good weapon. It’s a game, not a re-enactment.

This is the first time I've heard of this. But it just gives rise to the question, Why is the Barbarian its own class and not a subclass of Fighter? Its niche obviously isn't wide enough to support a whole class, as evidenced by the weak subclass offerings (weak from a conceptual, not power perspective).

Ugh. No. Every concept that swings weapons is not better as part of the fighter.

The idea of the Barbarian having conceptually weak subclasses is just inane silliness, though.