D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

S_Dalsgaard · Jun 9, 2015

To me, the best indicator that 5e is a very good game is that so few things in it (rules or otherwise) are universally hated. Except for a couple of extremes (Beast Master and halfling art comes to mind), I can't think of many rules, game mechanics, etc. that doesn't have at least as many proponents as haters (and even the two mentioned aren't considered "burn WotC to the ground" bad by everyone).

spinozajack · Jun 9, 2015

Saelorn said:
I suppose so. I mean, if we had three classes, then it would be obvious which class any given character belonged to. That's really what it all comes down to, is I strongly believe that there must be exactly one way to represent any given character. There should never be a question about which class a character belongs to, and if there is, then there are too many classes. If you have to change the in-game nature of the character in order to justify changing the class, then that is as it should be.

I agree, good insight. Where I see this near-constant desire from some quadrants to reflavor or refluff very distinct and game elements such as race, class, weapons, armor, into things quite different, I often think to myself, a class-based system is probably not ideal if that level of fine tuning the system is desired. It's good for there to be some level of versatility, like a longsword could be an arming sword or a bastard sword, depending on how the player uses it or imagines it or crafts it, and it has the same damage and cost and proficiency. But not to change a flame tongue into an "ice whip" or something. Fire is qualitatively different than ice, or lightning. That's not fluff to me. Spell descriptions are not fluff, the words used are meant to be used when interpreting the effect of the spell, and applied directly or intelligently to the scenario. When I see this taken to an extreme, I think to myself, is this person just min maxing to get the best feat or damage or spell or class shoehorned into their character concept?

In other words, they want to eat their cake and have it too. Well, sometimes the answer is no. You are going to have to multiclass or actually find a way to physically alter your character if you want those big horns or you want your half-orc to be more a half-elf looking thing, or a half dragon. If the system is too flexible that it allows anything, it might as well do it properly, with a point buy system and thousands upon thousands of choices. And therefore you might as well not play D&D. But if you are playing D&D, then you can always modify it through house rules. Just be clear what you're changing and what you're not, because cosmetic changes in my game can have serious in-game repercussions and if that half-orc, for example, doesn't look at all like an orc, that's going to be a huge advantage for the PC. Orcs are KOS in human towns in my game. I don't play all this kum ba ya stuff. My D&D is brutal and dangerous and mean and nasty, more Game of Thrones in tone than Tolkien.

Bacon Bits · Jun 9, 2015

Mistwell said:
I think that's a perspective that fits prior versions of bards, but not this version of the bard. The 5e bard, which is what I was specifically talking about to Saeviomagy (this being a thread about 5e) has the lore bard - and they are in fact the go-to loremasters. They do get some specialties. Now I can understand you not liking that (I do love it, but I can see not liking it), but how is it not true to call them loremasters in this edition? I mean it's right there in the sub-class name: LORE Bard.

Because that's begging the question. You're saying the 5e Bard should have better knowledge skills because the mechanics and flavor of the 5e Bard make it better at knowledge skills.

Mistwell · Jun 9, 2015

Bacon Bits said:
Because that's begging the question. You're saying the 5e Bard should have better knowledge skills because the mechanics and flavor of the 5e Bard make it better at knowledge skills.

I am not saying they should or should not have anything - I am not advocating anything here, I am just describing what's in the game. He said the bard isn't a loremaster (not "shouldn't be" a loremaster, but that they objectively are not). I disagreed, and showed how they are, in this edition, loremasters. I am not advocating for that - I personally like it but I see no issue with someone not liking it. But, it's an accurate description. What do you disagree with? Are you saying in this edition they are not loremasters? I am honestly not sure what you're trying to say, and why you jumped into this part of the conversation to begin with. Is there something you are advocating, or trying to correct me on factually, or what?

DaveDash · Jun 9, 2015

I have my quibbles with it, but so far 5e:

Is the first edition where I want to play all the classes.
Is the first edition where it's become my primary hobby (over computer gaming).
Is the first edition where I want to buy all the books.
Is the first edition where I will complete a game to level 20.
Is the first edition where I want more every time I play.
And has killed all other previous editions, including pathfinder. I can't play or watch them now without wishing they were 5e.

Bacon Bits · Jun 10, 2015

Mistwell said:
Is there something you are advocating, or trying to correct me on factually, or what?

No, you are simply not having the same discussion I am.

FormerlyHemlock · Jun 10, 2015

It would be nice if 5E spells, adventure maps, and monster crunch were written by people who had a good understanding of how far 100' is. In AD&D (2nd), the Tarrasque could frighten anyone who was within visual range of it. Didn't matter if they were 10 miles away--as soon as the Tarrasque came over the horizon, horses would freeze and militiamen would falter. In 5E, it's up to the DM to roleplay all of that because the actual Fear effect doesn't kick in until you're practically within arms' length of the beast (120'). That's one reason we see ridiculous "5th level wizard kills the Tarrasque" exploits. In AD&D you had to be at least 7th level to beat it.

houser2112 · Jun 10, 2015

Too rules-light (rulings, not rules)
No OGL
No legal way of playing the game without books
Feats and Multiclassing are optional
ASIs/Feats use the same "resource"
ASIs/Feats are class features instead of character features
Concentration (everything about it)
Exhaustion being too difficult to recover from (should be short rest or lesser restoration to reduce, instead of long rest or greater restoration)
6 saving throws
Only Wizards have a good use for Intelligence
Favored Enemy is strictly non-combat
TWF requires a bonus action and never scales
Magic Item creation takes too long, and there is no cost guidance for purchasing for those that wish to have MI shops
Spell stat blocks don't show enough information (no class reference, save required, or target/AoE information)
Not enough ritual spells, especially beyond 5th level
The Sorcerer class (all spellcasters are now spont casters, metamagic is now a sorc-only feature, no generic "arcane"-y origin, spell list too short, known spells too few, origins don't grant spells)

Sacrosanct · Jun 10, 2015

Hemlock said:
It would be nice if 5E spells, adventure maps, and monster crunch were written by people who had a good understanding of how far 100' is. In AD&D (2nd), the Tarrasque could frighten anyone who was within visual range of it. Didn't matter if they were 10 miles away--as soon as the Tarrasque came over the horizon, horses would freeze and militiamen would falter. In 5E, it's up to the DM to roleplay all of that because the actual Fear effect doesn't kick in until you're practically within arms' length of the beast (120'). That's one reason we see ridiculous "5th level wizard kills the Tarrasque" exploits. In AD&D you had to be at least 7th level to beat it.

Heh. But yeah, I get your point. I alluded to this the other day in the thread about a dragon's speed. A duck in real life is twice as fast as a D&D dragon, and an eagle is 4x as fast. In fact, a dragon in flight is only as fast as a human sprinter. For context, The Lonely Mt is 30 miles or so away from Lake-Town. It would have taken Smaug about an hour and a half to get there if he were a D&D dragon.

Like the dragon's speed, the fear distance you mention I have a strong feeling is done because they are still viewing D&D combat as happening on a grid as the default. An influence from 4e, where nearly every combat encounter was grid based I'm guessing. Seeing as how you can't have a 1000ft grid with 5ft squares fit on most gaming tables, all these distances and rates were compressed.

I'm not a fan of sacrificing that level of verisimilitude for metagame reasons. YMMV of course.

bgbarcus · Jun 10, 2015

Sacrosanct said:
Heh. But yeah, I get your point. I alluded to this the other day in the thread about a dragon's speed. A duck in real life is twice as fast as a D&D dragon, and an eagle is 4x as fast. In fact, a dragon in flight is only as fast as a human sprinter. For context, The Lonely Mt is 30 miles or so away from Lake-Town. It would have taken Smaug about an hour and a half to get there if he were a D&D dragon.

Like the dragon's speed, the fear distance you mention I have a strong feeling is done because they are still viewing D&D combat as happening on a grid as the default. An influence from 4e, where nearly every combat encounter was grid based I'm guessing. Seeing as how you can't have a 1000ft grid with 5ft squares fit on most gaming tables, all these distances and rates were compressed.

I'm not a fan of sacrificing that level of verisimilitude for metagame reasons. YMMV of course.

Your note about dragon flight speeds in the other thread made me do some research. By tripling the MM dragon speed I'll get it to slightly under half as fast as a California condor. Most monsters don't bother me when stats are wimpy but dragons should have received more attention. OTOH, I now have done nasty surprises for the players who insist on studying the MM.