What 5e got wrong
- Thread starter Einlanzer0
- Start date
Azurewraith
Explorer
If you strike me down I will become more powerful than you can imagine!
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Dust of Disappearance?
Azurewraith
Explorer
And get dust on my suit? Never
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
hawkeyefan
Legend
I don't have any major complaints about 5E, overall. Little ones here and there, but most of those are easily fixed. I feel like this edition is the one that most encourages personalizing the game, so even the things they got wrong are manageable.
Thinking about things though, I think that they could have simplified the system even more. People complain about the lack of a warlord or other classes...I feel like there really only needs to be three classes. Martial, magical, and skilled. Every one of the existing classes can be boiled down to one of these three.
I think that rather than having the "illusion" of choice, I'd prefer a limited base choice, followed by many options that I can mix and match within that base choice. Just take all the fighter, ranger, rogue, monk, and paladin abilities and dump them into a pool. If I choose a martial character, I can mix and match abilities from the martial options.
And perhaps an option for "lesser access" to the options for a second class. So if you wanted, you could be primarily a martial, with minor access to magical options. This would allow for characters resembling the paladin or a subclass like eldritch knight.
It would have been a radical departure from prior editions, so I know why they didn't do it, but it would have been interesting to see.
Thinking about things though, I think that they could have simplified the system even more. People complain about the lack of a warlord or other classes...I feel like there really only needs to be three classes. Martial, magical, and skilled. Every one of the existing classes can be boiled down to one of these three.
I think that rather than having the "illusion" of choice, I'd prefer a limited base choice, followed by many options that I can mix and match within that base choice. Just take all the fighter, ranger, rogue, monk, and paladin abilities and dump them into a pool. If I choose a martial character, I can mix and match abilities from the martial options.
And perhaps an option for "lesser access" to the options for a second class. So if you wanted, you could be primarily a martial, with minor access to magical options. This would allow for characters resembling the paladin or a subclass like eldritch knight.
It would have been a radical departure from prior editions, so I know why they didn't do it, but it would have been interesting to see.
darkrose50
First Post
I like the idea of tying abilities to the Hit Die pool. You have a certain number to use per day, and it represents a pool of some form of stamina. So 1/day should be fine, and then additional times would cost 1+ hit die.
The issue is, in many cases, the elements they chose were the worst ones. Multiclassing, for example. 1E, 2E and 4E all had essentially the same take, yet they chose to use the terrible 3E version and make it worse.
There are so many good ideas brought about for 5E that were just botched in execution. It turned out a rather kludgy, fan service edition for grognards rather than a great product to the point you'd swear Mike Mearls and JJ Abrams were the same person.
ChrisCarlson
First Post
Who decided that was true? Certainly not by my reckoning. IMO, they took all the right parts of all the editions and mushed them together into the best edition ever.
Looks like our votes cancel each other out. Where does that leave things now?
ccs
41st lv DM
In the 80's the art in Basic (BECMI) looked pretty much like the art in 1e.
In the 90's the art in Basic looked pretty much like the art in 2e.
Why? Because they used the same artists. So who ever they were using at the time....
Similar Threads
