(Mostly) Uncontroversial Quirks of 5E

lluewhyn · Jan 22, 2019

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.
4. Number of complaints with bindings on the books.
5. This is a peeve of mind that I don't *think* is uncontroversial, but along with #4, some of the print on the miniatures for the names is illegible. I've had to sometimes look at the name with my phone zoomed in to read what kind of mini it was.

dave2008 · Jan 22, 2019

lluewhyn said:
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?

I think shooting for 99% is to high. For example, I have no qualms with the weapons and armor tables. But I do have one suggestion for your list (and you should update the OP with the list I think):

No PDFs. Although I can understand why they don't have them, I think most can agree that it would be nice to have the option to have PDFs of the books.

Satyrn · Jan 22, 2019

I am continuing to wish they renamed barbarian as berserker.

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

GothicEmperor · Jan 22, 2019

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?

Stalker0 · Jan 22, 2019

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

lluewhyn · Jan 22, 2019

Satyrn said:
I am continuing to wish they renamed barbarian as berserker.

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

That's the first complaint I've heard of it? If some others all jump in with agreement I can add it to the list.

MonkeezOnFire · Jan 22, 2019

Nonvariant human race is very lackluster and variant human is banned in most games I've seen as some of the feat are a bit too much to get at level 1. I like playing human characters so I wish a happy medium existed.

dave2008 · Jan 22, 2019

MonkeezOnFire said:
Nonvariant human race is very lackluster and variant human is banned in most games I've seen as some of the feat are a bit too much to get at level 1. I like playing human characters so I wish a happy medium existed.

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!

ad_hoc · Jan 22, 2019

lluewhyn said:
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.

I think the weapons and armours in 5e are great.

They struck the right balance to encourage the majority of weapons to be iconic fantasy ones without hindering non-standard choices.

'Weapon styles' are rightly handled with character abilities.

ad_hoc · Jan 22, 2019

MonkeezOnFire said:
Nonvariant human race is very lackluster and variant human is banned in most games I've seen as some of the feat are a bit too much to get at level 1. I like playing human characters so I wish a happy medium existed.

In my experience the variant human encourages tables to have more humans which I think is important. Humans are needed to make fantastical races fantastic in comparison.

Level 4 is reached quickly as well. 1-4 is the prologue. The game gets going at level 5 where everyone has a feat.

At the tables I have played at humans are typically about 50% of PCs which I think is the right balance. Keep in mind too that the game is designed narrative first. So as long as a race feels like it demonstrates its narrative role well then the designers have succeeded in their goal. The game isn't written to have a perfect strategic balance as it is impossible anyway.

(Mostly) Uncontroversial Quirks of 5E

lluewhyn

Explorer

dave2008

Legend

Satyrn

First Post

GothicEmperor

Explorer

Stalker0

Legend

lluewhyn

Explorer

MonkeezOnFire

Adventurer

dave2008

Legend

ad_hoc

(they/them)

ad_hoc

(they/them)

Similar Threads