D&D 5E Things that "need" errata

[Moorcrys]

I'm okay with a big thread of "I have problems with this, this is how I houseruled". That's great. But that's a very different thread with a very different focus. And it's a positive thread as it's suggesting fixes and working to improve the game for interested people.
Threads calling for errata are different. They're negative and pointing out problems in a game, often without suggesting fixes (even easy ones) and placing the onus on "fixing" the game on an external source, typically the dev team. At best it's shifting the buck to someone else and at worst it's just whining.

Oh no! Double teamed by Jesters! A Feast of Fools. Beaten down by rubber chickens.

I think the OP was looking for the former, while calling it errata made others assume it was the latter. I think it's a bit of miscommunication. I tend to tread lightly on threads like this - perhaps I didn't tread lightly enough. Intimating that one is incompetent at best or a whiner at worst when the thread goes in a direction one doesn't feel it's supposed to go is the best way to break a discussion down from positive to negative quickly enough, imho. I thought it was a nice discussion otherwise.

Cheers.

 

[Moorcrys]

What might be cool would be a semi-regular online retrospective by the design team on, "Common balance desires and suggested hacks." A look back at 1 year of the game and ways that some people have modified the game to power-up or power-down various classes, features, etc. DM's can then look to that document if they want to and implement any changes that address areas of the game that they are not happy with. The DMG already has a lot of this, but it would be great to see these things evolve as the game continues to rack up more and more play-hours all over the world.

I think that's a pretty awesome idea, actually.

 

[Jester David]

I think the OP was looking for the former, while calling it errata made others assume it was the latter. I think it's a bit of miscommunication. I tend to tread lightly on threads like this - perhaps I didn't tread lightly enough. Intimating that one is incompetent at best or a whiner at worst when the thread goes in a direction one doesn't feel it's supposed to go is the best way to break a discussion down from positive to negative quickly enough, imho. I thought it was a nice discussion otherwise.

Cheers.

The OP did set things off on the right foot by proposing some fixes. I'm still reading through the thread and digesting before I join the chorus of proposing fixes.

 

[Jester David]

I have to agree with Dave. The fighter should be the flat out best damage dealer in the same way the barbarian is the flat out best at taking damage. All the fighter does is hit stuff. He provides no buffs. He can't do many effects. He isn't highly skilled. He pretty much uses weapons to hit stuff for damage. He should do it better than anyone else.

Warlock has a lot of nifty abilities. Warlock-fighter in our group is making the regular fighter he ran in the last campaign look like a gimp.

The fighter should be the best at dealing damage with weapons or the best at wearing armour. They're the weapon class. A spell class based around damage should be comparable with magic. If the warlock puts all their tricks into ranged combat rather than utility or control, then they should be comparable.
The Dex fighter is still better, because even with feats and fighting style dedicated to archery, they can still grab a rapier and mix it up in melee with the best of them and take a hit. If an enemy rushes into melee with a ranged warlock the warlock is in trouble.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The fighter should be the best at dealing damage with weapons or the best at wearing armour. They're the weapon class. A spell class based around damage should be comparable with magic. If the warlock puts all their tricks into ranged combat rather than utility or control, then they should be comparable.
The Dex fighter is still better, because even with feats and fighting style dedicated to archery, they can still grab a rapier and mix it up in melee with the best of them and take a hit. If an enemy rushes into melee with a ranged warlock the warlock is in trouble.

Warlocks are also very vulnerable to counterbattery fire, and they're not as good at shooting targets under hard cover (because fighters get Sharpshooter for "free" with their extra feat(s), whereas warlocks have trouble affording Spell Sniper).

It's ironic that "Sharpshooter -5/+10 needs nerfing" and "fighters need buffing" both occur in this thread. Fighters are strong precisely because of Sharpshooter (and to a lesser extent GWM). It's how they exploit their extra attacks-per-round in a way that no one else can quite match except Sorlocks (and fighters are better at sustaining that damage output consistently).

 

[DaveDash]

Stealth complaints tend to come because it's impossible to hard code Stealth. You have players trying to run Stealth RAW using Rogue's Cunning Action and something like the Halfling ability to gain the hide bonus every round even though it is completely ridiculous. Or using the Wood Elf hide in light obscurement to Hide every round. Neither of those abilities obviates that if the opponent knows where you are, you don't get to use Hide. Once the Halfling runs from behind the other player, he doesn't get to hide behind them every round. The opponent knows that trick and is watching for it. That's why you leave it to the DM to figure out after listening to the player's arguments and examples as to why he wants to do something. I always get the feeling when I read these threads some players are trying to make DMs follow "RAW" for something like Stealth. That shouldn't be the case. Stealth is far too variable. DMs have to make calls and stick by them understanding what an ability might look like then expect some hard coded perfect answer applicable in every circumstance for an extremely variable ability. First line under any Stealth rule should be DM decides on a case by case basis. Here are your basic guidelines.

That's all well and dandy but the designers have said they will errata rules that cause arguments at the table. Stealth has caused arguments at our table. Our Rogue player firmly believes that the intention of the class is to be able to hide and gain advantage every round. Most of the rest of us disagree, but it caused an argument.

Naturally the DM won, but rightly or wrongly the player felt pissed off and gimped. By RAW the player is even right.

While you can't actually have stealth rules that are elegant and cover all scenarios, the 5e rules definitely need to be cleaned up, or made very clear to players that its the DM call on how they work from the get-go.

 

[Jester David]

* Great Old One Warlock's Create Thrall ability needs to be rewritten to give you some kind of control over your thrall. Currently it only gives you telepathy, advantage on Charisma checks and prevents them from attacking you. That's pretty weak for a 14th level ability. As I read it, it's intended to make them your slave, but the text was probably written by someone who didn't fully realize that "charm" has changed in 5E. I know I didn't realize how minimal the effect was until someone pointed it out to me on the Internet! The ability seems intended to be powerful and iconic, but due to RAW it's flaccid and almost irrelevant. The best use for it as written is probably to enthrall another PC so you can communicate with each other over great distances. Suggested fix: add wording to say, "The creature is then is charmed by you and obeys your commands until..."

Never really looked at that power before and, damn, that's kinda awesome. No save and permanent. It's basically "create Renfield". And they make great spies since they can talk to you telepathically. Plus, the warlock is a Charisma based class, so they should be able to nail some checks with advantage.

* Too weak: berserker barbarian's Frenzy. Suggested fix: instead of a bonus action attack, make it a straight-up regular attack like the Haste spell grants. That's not ridiculous for something that costs a level of exhaustion.

That's actually be a nice fix. And it'd leave some room open for two-weapon using barbarians.

 

[Coredump]

Your players are ok using Frenzy one time a day? Even if they're able to rage 3 or 4 times a day?

So they can do something more powerful less often then they can do something less powerful.... how is that a surprise? How is that any different than almost every other aspect of the game?


The change I would ike to see is allowing them to Frenzy when they Rage, instead of having to wait until the next turn.

 

[Jester David]

While you can't actually have stealth rules that are elegant and cover all scenarios, the 5e rules definitely need to be cleaned up, or made very clear to players that its the DM call on how they work from the get-go.

From the Basic Rules:

In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen.​

The rules make it pretty clear if you're visible you're spotted unless the DM rules otherwise. Not that you're unseen unless the DM rules otherwise. The DM always has to allow you to remain hidden.
I'm not sure how the rules could have been more clear that it's the DM's call.

 

[redrick]

That's all well and dandy but the designers have said they will errata rules that cause arguments at the table. Stealth has caused arguments at our table. Our Rogue player firmly believes that the intention of the class is to be able to hide and gain advantage every round. Most of the rest of us disagree, but it caused an argument.

Naturally the DM won, but rightly or wrongly the player felt pissed off and gimped. By RAW the player is even right.

While you can't actually have stealth rules that are elegant and cover all scenarios, the 5e rules definitely need to be cleaned up, or made very clear to players that its the DM call on how they work from the get-go.

As long as hiding and sneak attack are intertwined, stealth rules will always be a topic for debate at tables. The rogue is always going to argue for the most latitude, because it's a major difference in their damage output every turn.

We had one last week, and it happened to be about a subject that was very explicit in the RAW. ("If you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you.") Didn't stop it from getting a little heated.