Bagpuss
Legend
So far the only thing I dislike is the halfling art in the PHB, they look like bobbleheads, was that really the look they wanted to go with?
D&D 5E Things I like and dislike about 5e...
- Thread starter brehobit
- Start date
pming
Legend
Hiya.
Re: Skills. We don't have a problem with it right now, but I had seen potential problems. Primarily I see a problem when someone with a skill has an average or slightly-better Ability score, versus someone who doesn't have the skill but has a really high Ability score.
For example, I have one player playing a Ranger. She makes her Nature check with +3 (+2 for Proficiency and +1 for her Int). However, the bard, who grew up in a city, gets to make his Nature check with +4 (Int 19). This just feels...odd to us. We get that he's a freaking smarty-pants with an IQ of, what, 190+? But surely the Ranger, trained to live in the wilds, growing up in the wilds, and constantly focused on said wilds should just "know more".
Anyway, what my house rule is, is that only a character who is actually Skilled in something can possibly roll with Advantage. If you don't have the skill, you can't roll with Advantage. So, in my example above, 'flat' rolls would give the edge to the braniac bard... but if something gives them help, the Ranger may be able to roll with Advantage. So, hitting up a library might give a +2 bonus...oh, but the Ranger actually has the skill, so she also gets Advantage. So the bard rolls once and adds 6. The bard rolls twice, takes the highest roll, and adds 5.
So far, that little "but you have the chance to actually roll with Advantage if you are Skilled in it" has made a HUGE difference in player-to-player perception of which character is "better" at something...even if they have a lower bonus than someone else. Just that one little thing, that doesn't come up all that often...makes the skilled person the "go to guy" when the players start role-playing their character. They don't think in numbers nearly as much. They see someone with a skill and think "Miranda the Ranger knows all about Nature. Lets ask her!", and they don't think "Miranda only has +3...so lets ask Leu the Bard because he has +4".
Weird how one, simple little rule can completely change the mindset of players...
Just one of the reasons why I (and my group) absolutely LOVE the Adv/Disad rule system! 
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Re: Skills. We don't have a problem with it right now, but I had seen potential problems. Primarily I see a problem when someone with a skill has an average or slightly-better Ability score, versus someone who doesn't have the skill but has a really high Ability score.
For example, I have one player playing a Ranger. She makes her Nature check with +3 (+2 for Proficiency and +1 for her Int). However, the bard, who grew up in a city, gets to make his Nature check with +4 (Int 19). This just feels...odd to us. We get that he's a freaking smarty-pants with an IQ of, what, 190+? But surely the Ranger, trained to live in the wilds, growing up in the wilds, and constantly focused on said wilds should just "know more".
Anyway, what my house rule is, is that only a character who is actually Skilled in something can possibly roll with Advantage. If you don't have the skill, you can't roll with Advantage. So, in my example above, 'flat' rolls would give the edge to the braniac bard... but if something gives them help, the Ranger may be able to roll with Advantage. So, hitting up a library might give a +2 bonus...oh, but the Ranger actually has the skill, so she also gets Advantage. So the bard rolls once and adds 6. The bard rolls twice, takes the highest roll, and adds 5.
So far, that little "but you have the chance to actually roll with Advantage if you are Skilled in it" has made a HUGE difference in player-to-player perception of which character is "better" at something...even if they have a lower bonus than someone else. Just that one little thing, that doesn't come up all that often...makes the skilled person the "go to guy" when the players start role-playing their character. They don't think in numbers nearly as much. They see someone with a skill and think "Miranda the Ranger knows all about Nature. Lets ask her!", and they don't think "Miranda only has +3...so lets ask Leu the Bard because he has +4".
Weird how one, simple little rule can completely change the mindset of players...
Just one of the reasons why I (and my group) absolutely LOVE the Adv/Disad rule system! ^_^
Paul L. Ming
Falling Icicle
Adventurer
A +2 bonus may not seem like much, but it's pretty significant in this edition with bounded accuracy. Think of it this way, would your character not be very happy to find a +2 magic weapon? That's the same bonus as being trained in a skill at low levels. It's also about the same as the bonus granted by spells like guidance and bless.
I also expected people to max out their ability scores first, but to my surprise, every player in my group took a feat at level 4. A +2 increase is powerful, but it just doesn't seem to have the appeal that feats do. An ability score increase is kind of like getting clothes for Christmas. It's practical and useful, but most kids would much rather get a shiny new toy.
I think the normal human is underestimated. A +1 to every score is the equivalent of three ASI features or feats. Some might argue that some ability scores aren't as valuable to a character as others, and this is true, but every score is still valuable, especially since every ability is used for saving throws in this edition.
GlassJaw
Hero
Agreed. This is what I would offer the player. Expertise is certainly feat-worthy, and I don't feel it takes away from the Bard or Rogue at all. Spending a feat is a big cost.
Mishihari Lord
First Post
I haven't actually had a chance to play 5E yet, but the one point that stands out to me from the OP is that skills are weaksauce. This stands out the most to me in thief skills like climbing. Climbing, pick pocket etc used to be the thief's niche, but it looks like that part of niche protection has gone away. This looks like an overreaction to the problems others cited above about skills in 3E, where a challenge for someone with a maxed skill means that no one else can even attempt the task. I'd rather see a middle-ground approach.
Falling Icicle
Adventurer
5e is my favorite edition of D&D by far. The biggest things I love about it are bounded accuracy, advantage/disadvantage, backgrounds, subclasses, magic items being both optional and special, and the spellcasting system (at-will cantrips, spells scaling when cast in higher level slots, separating preparation from spell slots, etc). There are also far too many little things I like to even list. Among those are the ability score cap of 20, magic item attunement, no confirming critical hits, no level drain, and so forth. The last two were things 4e also did away with, but I still greatly enjoy their absence in 5e.
There are some things I dislike, of course, but most of them are relatively minor. I don't like tool proficiencies, there are some broken spells (polymorph, forcecage, simulacrum, etc.), and I don't like having to wait until level 7 before my wizard can summon monsters. The biggest issue I have with 5e is the feats. I don't like having to take a feat to be able to do things like charge, pin a creature, draw 2 weapons at the same time, etc. IMO, those are things any character should be able to do. I don't like having to spend a feat to learn new skills. Some feats feel useless (i.e. durable), while some others (sharpshooter, great weapon master and polearm master) are overpowered.
The only other major issue I have is with multiclassing. I don't like how taking some classes in a certain order yields a more powerful character. For example, taking a level of fighter after level 1 means you don't get heavy armor proficiency, taking rogue after 1st level means you get 1 less skill than if you took rogue at 1st level, etc. Having to plan out your character in advance was one of the things I really hated about 3e multiclassing, and while 5e is nowhere near as bad, there are still some trap options.
Psikerlord#
Explorer
Hiya.
Re: Skills. We don't have a problem with it right now, but I had seen potential problems. Primarily I see a problem when someone with a skill has an average or slightly-better Ability score, versus someone who doesn't have the skill but has a really high Ability score.
For example, I have one player playing a Ranger. She makes her Nature check with +3 (+2 for Proficiency and +1 for her Int). However, the bard, who grew up in a city, gets to make his Nature check with +4 (Int 19). This just feels...odd to us. We get that he's a freaking smarty-pants with an IQ of, what, 190+? But surely the Ranger, trained to live in the wilds, growing up in the wilds, and constantly focused on said wilds should just "know more".
Anyway, what my house rule is, is that only a character who is actually Skilled in something can possibly roll with Advantage. If you don't have the skill, you can't roll with Advantage. So, in my example above, 'flat' rolls would give the edge to the braniac bard... but if something gives them help, the Ranger may be able to roll with Advantage. So, hitting up a library might give a +2 bonus...oh, but the Ranger actually has the skill, so she also gets Advantage. So the bard rolls once and adds 6. The bard rolls twice, takes the highest roll, and adds 5.
So far, that little "but you have the chance to actually roll with Advantage if you are Skilled in it" has made a HUGE difference in player-to-player perception of which character is "better" at something...even if they have a lower bonus than someone else. Just that one little thing, that doesn't come up all that often...makes the skilled person the "go to guy" when the players start role-playing their character. They don't think in numbers nearly as much. They see someone with a skill and think "Miranda the Ranger knows all about Nature. Lets ask her!", and they don't think "Miranda only has +3...so lets ask Leu the Bard because he has +4".
Weird how one, simple little rule can completely change the mindset of players...
^_^
Paul L. Ming
We do something similar re skills. Sometimes if you make a check, and you have a relevant skill or background, you get adv on the check (not just the prof bonus). Works wonders for things like that ranger example.
My favourite thing about 5e is throwing away the grid and combats being fast.
It does feel like D&D again. The only edition of D&D I haven't liked is 4E. I don't have a favorite. I've had fun with every edition I've played. Fun has more to do with the friends I play with and how each character I make or adventure I run plays out. I've been able to make enjoyable characters and adventures with every edition I played from the red box set to now.
Backgrounds are cool. I allow ample customization.
Things I have issues with:
I don't mind the way skills are done. They way 5E handles skill checks, you only need skill checks when the DM deems it important. You don't need a complex skill system to handle the occasional check. I like that bards and rogues stand tall as the ultimate skill masters.
Certain feats are very desirable. Others not so much. After the first stat boost, certain feats are more desirable like Great Weapon Mastery or Sharpshooter.
Darkvision is a lot to give up for a feat. If you play in a game where lighting doesn't matter, darkvision is no big deal. In a game where the DM uses lighting as part of the environment like I do, not having Darkvision is a big deal. It leads to getting ambushed a ton. If someone snuffs your light source in a dungeon, you're in a lot of trouble against creatures with Darkvision. It's very hard to stealth with an active light source in dungeons with creatures with darkvision that see an active light source as a flashing neon sign saying "Enemy with no Darkvision." They snuff your light and you're dead meat.
I think humans are like 3E humans. Some like the feat and hope the lack of Darkvision is a minor inconvenience. Others find out Darkvision is a huge advantage to any race that has it. I use it to my advantage against creatures without it.
I like the game for the most part. I miss the customization options of 3E. You could do a lot with that system with a character. I don't like it more than the easy playing 5E. The character's are interesting, but not overly complex.
I like encounter design. The incorporation of lairs as active entities is very cool. I like legendary actions and the ability to make monster tactics individualized and interesting in ways that surprise players.
I very much like that magic had some of its power returned. I'm not a fan of balance trumping genre conventions. Magic should be powerful, more powerful than swinging a sword. It should be able to do things that no one can come close to accomplishing with mundane means. It's back in that position.
Some things I dislike or am not sure about:
Legendary Resistance: Seems to go overboard neutering magic. They incorporated the kitchen sink to limit magic. Magic resistance that gives advantage against spell attacks, immunities to many conditions caused by magic, damage resistance and a save against magical damage that can't be bypassed, immunity to spells, bounded saving throws and high stats and saves to many end game creatures, all of it topped off with legendary resistance for the very rare chance that an end game creatures misses a save for a round. It makes affecting a creature in an end game encounter nearly impossible. That isn't very fun as a caster.
Last edited:
Actually, this IS the middle-ground. In 4E, the only difference between skilled and unskilled was a flat +5 difference. With the way 4E was setup, this difference became smaller as time when on, compared to 1/2 level and ability modifier. With 5E, Skills are helpful, but not necessary.
As to niche protection... I actually agree to a small extent. 5E set itself up to remove the need for any single class and/or role (healer is up for debate, but that's another argument altogether). This is generally a good thing, but it meant an adjustment on the old school Thief/Rogue mentality. Due to Expertise, they are much better than anyone just trained in the skill, but they still don't break the overall math. They have greater combat utility now, which tends to makes up for it.
Hussar
Legend
The only thing I find lacking in 5e so far is the lack of summoning. I want to play my summoner wizard again. It's something I've played since my 2e days (off and on) and I'd love to bring him back in 5e. Just not possible.
Other than that, pretty minor quibble, I'm pretty happy about 5e.
Other than that, pretty minor quibble, I'm pretty happy about 5e.
Similar Threads
