Most frustrating quirk of 5E?

Ath-kethin said:

My main beefs with 5e are the way all wizards end up being the same and how warlocks totally got the short end of the stick.

Click to expand...

• Monster design, particularly in the core books. CRs are unreliable to the point of uselessness, and far too many monsters are just sacks of hit points. It's a huge step back from 4E, which for all its faults was very good at delivering exciting and engaging combats.
• Short rests. The 1-hour short rest is just too long; except on timed missions, it's rare for the party to get an opportunity to take a short rest that would not also allow a long rest, and as a result, classes that rely on short-rest resources (e.g., warlocks) get screwed over. I am aware that this varies from table to table, but it's a common enough complaint that I consider it a legit rules issue. Furthermore, while the "gritty" resting variant in the DMG seems like a solution in theory, it causes significant issues in practice. Too much of the rulebook is built around the assumption of a long rest cycle of 24 hours.

lowkey13 said:

Um .... not sure about which edition you're talking about, but IME in 1e, that wasn't the case.

After all, in addition to running your own stuff, there were a lot of classic low level modules so it would have been pretty stupid to bypass the fun levels.

Also, given that many campaigns petered out by name level, you'd be really restricting your campaign if you were only playing from 4-10 or so.

Click to expand...

SkidAce said:

But in the spirit of the thread, my most frustrating quirk: attunement three slots.

It gets to me cause I have a hard time getting past "Why three?". "Who's enforcing this limit?" etc.

Sure, I am a creative person....

"You may attune three items because magic is based on the trinity of existence, mind, soul, body."

"To become one with an item, you must dedicate a part of your soul to it, ka, the ba, or the akh. (research it, its neat)


It still "quirks" me though.

Click to expand...

akr71 said:

Its the armor & weapons table for me too. Mostly the sameness of the weapons table - a long sword and battle axe are essentially the same thing - 1d8/1d10 versatile, slashing weapons. Gimme a reason to choose one over the other! I don't want one to be superior, just one is better at something and the other some other advantage.

Click to expand...

Dausuul said:

Hmm. I have lots of little nitpicks about 5E, but most of them rarely come up at the table. However, I can think of two that have caused me significant headaches:

• Monster design, particularly in the core books. CRs are unreliable to the point of uselessness, and far too many monsters are just sacks of hit points. It's a huge step back from 4E, which for all its faults was very good at delivering exciting and engaging combats.
• Short rests. The 1-hour short rest is just too long; except on timed missions, it's rare for the party to get an opportunity to take a short rest that would not also allow a long rest, and as a result, classes that rely on short-rest resources (e.g., warlocks) get screwed over. I am aware that this varies from table to table, but it's a common enough complaint that I consider it a legit rules issue. Furthermore, while the "gritty" resting variant in the DMG seems like a solution in theory, it causes significant issues in practice. Too much of the rulebook is built around the assumption of a long rest cycle of 24 hours.

I've been able to address both problems with homebrewed monsters and house rules for short rests, but as we are taught by Oberoni the Wise, the fact that you can fix a problem via Rule Zero does not mean there isn't a problem.

Click to expand...

5ekyu said:

Not that I disagree with the peeve, but once you throw out the cases (for you) where a thing works, everything will seem a problem.

"except on timed missions, "

Click to expand...