D&D 5E What 5e rule/option/class/item etc. do you regret allowing into your game

[Mort]

My group has not played with feats and there does not seem to be many power problems that some of the feats seem to have. Some of the small things that seem to be a problem include; backstab damage and AC limit.

The thief backstabs just about each round since we tend to play with flanking and advantage. At a certain level that damage is the highest in the party. Not necessarily the worst thing, but it stands out, even with the fighter getting 2 attacks and the higher chance for criticals.

Interesting. Personally, I really like how much less situational backstab is now.

The fighter makes up for the damage with the highest AC and becomes nearly untouchable unless I ramp up the monster challenge or make overwhelming numbers. He has plate, shield, defensive stance and was given the ring of protection I figured another PC would take. With a 22 AC and the other PCs in the 15-18 range I became torn with what monsters to throw at the party.

Players has fun and nobody was upset at the other PC powers and shtick but those are the big that stood out last campaign.

What level is your group? By the time they are encountering CR 4 monsters, the fighter is getting hit about 20% of the time (most CR 4 have a +5 to hit) , 35% with some of the CR 4 ones(+8). And it only goes up from there, unless the fighter has access to something that imposes disadvantage? Then the chance of hitting him plummets. I've noticed characters, in general, get hit A LOT more in 5e.



Sent from my SM-G930V using EN World mobile app

 

[Staccat0]

My players suck, so nothing yet.

Having two players with Lucky was annoying last time. I might make a houserule for this campaign that fears are exclusive to the first player to take them.

I kiiiiinda wish we weren’t using feats at all, but I’m not sure enough about it to say “no feats” yet.

 

[Yaarel]

I'm actually at this issue right now, specifically with Dragonborn. They were never in Greyhawk before and the question is what to do with them :

1. Ban them, never in before, why start now ;

2. Retcon them in from the beginning, fully integrated;

3. Have Dragonborn be from a different part of Oerth such as Hepmonaland.

4. Have Dragonborn come through a Rift from a completely different world.

I'm partial to 4 because I can integrate it into the start of the campaign and also link it to further adventures.

For Greyhawk, maybe pin a tail on the Dragonborn and refluff the stats as a full on actual Dragon. A Wyrmling newly hatched. The kind of Dragon depends on the breath weapon.

I forget the lifespans, but it would probably take centuries (?) for these stats to no longer apply. Maybe require feat choices to develop draconic themes and toughness. Unique Dragons exist, so it is ok if one of them is a player character. Arguably, Dragons grow and mature magically, so it can be unnecessary to follow a specific timeline. You as DM can decide when and how the character ‘unlocks’ certain draconic abilities, if at all. The Dragon can shed skin like a snake, with each cycle metamorphizing new features. Make wings a characteristic that develops with physical maturity.

 

[Croesus]

I'm starting a fresh 5e Greyhawk campaign - the players should be generating new characters soon. I'm generally pretty permissive and have been doing this long enough to spot traps/trouble but it's always good to crowd-source these kinds of things.

So, as the title says, What rule/option/class etc. do you regret allowing into your game? If you're a player - what do you wish hadn't been allowed into the game? Basically, what addition/option (be it feats, a UA option, a certain class, etc.) do you believe was not good/fun for your game?

Two things: Rolling stats, and items with plusses. Bounded accuracy is already strained if PCs have good stats. Add in weapons and armor with plusses, and things can get out of hand in a hurry. Note, I'm a player in this particular campaign, and we are fairly overpowered, forcing the GM to really boost the challenges, sometimes in ways that strain credulity. (C'mon, 12 drow knights guarding a slave caravan??)

For example, there's a human paladin who at 1st level had 18, 18, 18, 16, 11, 10 for stats. (The GM not only had us roll stats, he gave every character 3 extra points to assign after rolling). The paladin has a 21 AC due to plate armor and a +2 shield (which goes up to 23 AC when hasted by the sorcerer). Almost everyone in the party has at least one +1 weapon and/or +1 armor/shield. At first it was a lot of fun to get all that stuff, but now most of it just isn't special - though the intelligent sword with an attitude is a hoot.

I think the GM overcompensated a bit for my own campaign, where I only allow point buy (29 total points). I also didn't give out any plus items, though magic weapons were relatively common (to bypass DR).

So...my recommendation is no plus items, no rolled stats, give the PCs some good stuff, but not too many items.

 

[Mort]

So...my recommendation is no plus items, no rolled stats, give the PCs some good stuff, but not too many items.

I always use point buy now, have rolled stats in the past, but everyone in the group now agrees point buy is the way to go.

While I'm not averse to giving out powerful items, I always prefer flavor over power:

I recall giving out a Flametongue sword with the slight hindrance that the command word to ignite it must be shouted. The (normally extremely taciturn) player who got it, shouted the command word with such relish and gusto each and every time he drew it that to this day, some 15 years later, players will still yell out the command word (usually at wholly inappropriate times) just to get a laugh.



Sent from my SM-G930V using EN World mobile app

 

[Prakriti]

Feats and multiclassing. For one thing, I don't like the a la carte approach to multiclassing in 5E. It's too strong of a temptation to power-game, and players start seeing their characters as arrays of numbers after a while. Feats, on the other hand, are simply too fiddly or overpowered. Feats like Lucky, for example, can slow down the game considerably, as they require players to interrupt the action.

Also, if you have some players powergaming, choosing optimal feats and multiclasses, and other players choosing flavorful but sub-optimal options, then feats and multiclassing create large power disparities in a group. By level 8 or 9, a fully optimized character will run circles around a non-optimized character.

The fighter makes up for the damage with the highest AC and becomes nearly untouchable unless I ramp up the monster challenge or make overwhelming numbers. He has plate, shield, defensive stance and was given the ring of protection I figured another PC would take. With a 22 AC and the other PCs in the 15-18 range I became torn with what monsters to throw at the party.

I recommend spellcasters or other monsters that target saving throws. A high AC won't help against a fireball.

 

[Mephista]

I allow any official book, full use of feats / multiclass (though I start from level 1, which interestingly discourages multiclassing, I notice). In terms of UA, I allow the Revised Ranger. Anything else is reserved on a case-by-case basis.

Most of my hoiuse rules tend to revolve around making the setting unique rather than the rest of the rules. I do notice a lot of people default to Greyhawk / FR assumptions, so I have to constantly remind them on that. That's more than enough nagging from me

 

[Mort]

Feats and multiclassing. For one thing, I don't like the a la carte approach to multiclassing in 5E. It's too strong of a temptation to power-game, and players start seeing their characters as arrays of numbers after a while. Feats, on the other hand, are simply too fiddly or overpowered. Feats like Lucky, for example, can slow down the game considerably, as they require players to interrupt the action.

Also, if you have some players powergaming, choosing optimal feats and multiclasses, and other players choosing flavorful but sub-optimal options, then feats and multiclassing create large power disparities in a group. By level 8 or 9, a fully optimized character will run circles around a non-optimized character.

Feats certainly seem to be a very divisive aspect of 5e, I tend to allow them, but I certainly see why people don't.

Multiclassing though, I like 5e Multiclassing. It tends to at versatility at the serious expense of focus and specialization. So far, I haven't found any Multiclassing characters overshadowing single classes, though my group is pretty light on powergamer tendencies so maybe it just hasn't been apparent.





Sent from my SM-G930V using EN World mobile app

 

[Azzy]

I'm actually at this issue right now, specifically with Dragonborn. They were never in Greyhawk before and the question is what to do with them :

1. Ban them, never in before, why start now ;

2. Retcon them in from the beginning, fully integrated;

3. Have Dragonborn be from a different part of Oerth such as Hepmonaland.

4. Have Dragonborn come through a Rift from a completely different world.

I'm partial to 4 because I can integrate it into the start of the campaign and also link it to further adventures.

As a suggestion, you could make them native to the Hellfurnaces and the Sea of Dust (say, expanding from the Hellfurnaces into the Sea of Dust after the Twin Cataclysms). Perhaps that are making more forays into the Flanaess in recent decades.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I wish I had people use point buy and fixed HP.

If I may ask, is it because of
(a) low rolls (characters are not up to challenges)
(b) high rolls (characters find challenges too easy), or
(c) the variation between players (and so differences between characters at the same level)?