What 5e got wrong

[Jabborwacky]

I would say the sorcerer is definitely not up to par, but only due to a lack of elemental spells. Fire spells are so prevalent on their list that red and gold dragon bloodlines for sorcerer are overwhelmingly preferable to that of any other dragon type. This holds true even with the EE player's guide adding more spells to the mix. Frustratingly, some elemental spells are available only to the wizard for no sensible reason. Melf's acid arrow is one such example. If someone told me that sorcerers are exceedingly rare in adventure league games, I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[ccs]

For me, what 5E got wrong was doing away with the modules concept. The core 5E ... isn't something that I like very much (which shouldn't surprise anyone, it's in my signature). I've played it because it's D&D and that's what a lot of my group want to do.

What would have worked for me is to have the options to make it the kind of game I like baked in as modules. The way the designers talked about it during the launch.

5e is quite modular. The designers have provided some options. And I'm sure they'll add more - eventually. Anything else? That comes from us, the people playing the game. Just like it always has....

So why don't you & your group see if there's changes you could all agree upon to make it more to your liking?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Frustratingly, some elemental spells are available only to the wizard for no sensible reason. Melf's acid arrow is one such example.

If there's a name attached, the implication has long been that some wizard with that name created the spell. Sorcerers don't create, write down, and pass down spells.

 

[Maxperson]

If there's a name attached, the implication has long been that some wizard with that name created the spell. Sorcerers don't create, write down, and pass down spells.

Someone at some point created every wizard spell. If a sorcerer can innately know fireball, they should also be able to innately know any other spell, including named spells.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Someone at some point created every wizard spell. If a sorcerer can innately know fireball, they should also be able to innately know any other spell, including named spells.

It's not really on my agenda to defend wizard-privilege, but I suppose the idea is that a wizard spell that isn't shared with sorcerers is 'advanced' or 'more evolved' or 'more refined' in the sense that creating it required having learned and mastered what other wizards had developed over the centuries and built upon.

Makes wizards sound like engineers & scientists, I know. ;(

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Makes wizards sound like engineers & scientists, I know. ;(

Well, that's fundamentally what they are, albeit perhaps less systematic and more trial-and-error, depending on the campaign.

 

[SteveC]

5e is quite modular. The designers have provided some options. And I'm sure they'll add more - eventually. Anything else? That comes from us, the people playing the game. Just like it always has....

So why don't you & your group see if there's changes you could all agree upon to make it more to your liking?

I would say that 5E is not particularly modular, about average as an RPG. The thing is that it was touted as being especially modular for people like me who were interested in a different play style than it eventually embraced. That never happened. That's a fail from my perspective.

As for additional options from WotC: this is, for all practical terms, not going to happen. There has been a small amount of material released since launch that's amounted to about 20 pages or so. And we're not going to get much more any time soon, since the staff have been reduced to a skeleton crew.

So I'm back at writing game material out of whole cloth, and I just don't have the time for this. I really don't. Three months from now (give or take) I'm going to have a new little one in the world and be a parent. My wife has graciously allowed me to play in one game session a month at that point... and I don't really want much more than that because I'm excited about being a parent. That means "you can always build it yourself," isn't a solution for me, and it's something that, for me I define as a failure for the edition. Specifically: no additional product is a fail, for me.

Now before I sound too negative (I know, too late!) that one game I'm playing in will be a 5E adventure (specifically the new Ravenloft path). I'm playing it because I have one of the best GMs in the world (seriously: Chris Perkins could learn from him) and because I love Ravenloft. I'm expecting to have a blast for the game. The thing is that it will be despite the edition rather than because of it.

Now I know that many people don't agree with me (of course!) but this is really what 5E got wrong for me. So, I'm still with D&D, just frustrated.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I would say that 5E is not particularly modular, about average as an RPG. The thing is that it was touted as being especially modular for people like me who were interested in a different play style than it eventually embraced. That never happened. That's a fail from my perspective.

I also expected more from 5e in terms of being 'modular,' but I think that was just because of the choice of word. Modular implies, to me, that the modules would be seamlessly interchangeable, which would have been very hard to pull off, indeed. Rather, it seems they just meant that there would be a number of prefab variants that you could work with, as well as the usual freedom to house-rule the game as needed. So, sure, maybe 'modular' was over-sold.

OTOH, I think they undersold-just how DM-Empowering 5e was going to be, with it's rulings-over-rules ideal, you don't really need extensive house rules or even 'modules' to get what you want out of the game. From the DM's perspective, that is, of course.

As for additional options from WotC: this is, for all practical terms, not going to happen. There has been a small amount of material released since launch that's amounted to about 20 pages or so. And we're not going to get much more any time soon, since the staff have been reduced to a skeleton crew.

So far, we haven't seen a lot of new stuff in print. We have seen more than a few things in UA, though, including the Mystic Class. Those things are supposed to be in a sort of ongoing playtest status, so we may see them in print, someday.

Now before I sound too negative (I know, too late!) that one game I'm playing in will be a 5E adventure (specifically the new Ravenloft path). I'm playing it because I have one of the best GMs in the world (seriously: Chris Perkins could learn from him) and because I love Ravenloft. I'm expecting to have a blast for the game. The thing is that it will be despite the edition rather than because of it.

I just ran the opening event, The Death House, yesterday, and it was fairly successful. I had signed up for a 4-hr slot, and it wasn't enough time to finish the run - other tables were still going, but I had plans for late that evening. Most of my players really enjoyed it, the ones that didn't so much, it was because of the venue, which gets a lot of background noise from the other tables (we all had the AL-max of 7 players). I think it promises to be a particularly good season.

Now I know that many people don't agree with me (of course!) but this is really what 5E got wrong for me. So, I'm still with D&D, just frustrated.

I get it, but maybe there's still reason to feel hopeful.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I also expected more from 5e in terms of being 'modular,' but I think that was just because of the choice of word. Modular implies, to me, that the modules would be seamlessly interchangeable, which would have been very hard to pull off, indeed. Rather, it seems they just meant that there would be a number of prefab variants that you could work with, as well as the usual freedom to house-rule the game as needed. So, sure, maybe 'modular' was over-sold.

Maybe? Try definitely. Even from the beginning they were making "promises"--really, easily-misinterpreted suggestions--that they never delivered on and had to back away from. We had people talking about ultra-simple, at-will-only Wizards. I'm 99% sure Mearls *actually did say* that he wanted to be able to have "old school"-style nearly-empty-character-sheet players at the same table as chock-full-o'-options "new school"-style characters--only to retract it and say he just meant both styles could exist, not coexist, within the game.

OTOH, I think they undersold-just how DM-Empowering 5e was going to be, with it's rulings-over-rules ideal, you don't really need extensive house rules or even 'modules' to get what you want out of the game. From the DM's perspective, that is, of course.

Hence the Standard Fifth Edition Response in help/advice threads: "You're the DM, just make something up!!" Which is, of course, as useless as saying, "That's not a problem at *my* table."

I get it, but maybe there's still reason to feel hopeful.

Speaking as a major 4e fan? Nah. I gave up back in early 2014, when people started telling me I would need to give the game a year or two after release before I could REALLY say it wasn't for me. I have, since, tried to appreciate 5e for what it does; every time I've done so, it has ended up providing a distinctly less enjoyable experience than I had wanted, and was only worth my time because I shared it with good friends.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm 99% sure Mearls *actually did say* that he wanted to be able to have "old school"-style nearly-empty-character-sheet players at the same table as chock-full-o'-options "new school"-style characters--only to retract it and say he just meant both styles could exist, not coexist, within the game.

Yeah, it happened. The L&L's long since been taken down, but sure, there was a lot of vapor-ware and marketing spin that could be taken like promises, and some more solidly-stated goals that could be taken as such. (Ironically, given the 6-8 encounter/day threads currently fulminating, one of the more definite promises made in an 'L&L' was that there would "crystal clear guidance" on where the at-will (fighter) types and daily (caster) types would balance. And they delivered on that promise. And people are mad at them for it.)

Hence the Standard Fifth Edition Response in help/advice threads: "You're the DM, just make something up!!" Which is, of course, as useless as saying, "That's not a problem at *my* table."

It's slightly less useless, and at least doesn't imply snide superiority the way the latter can.

Rule in favor of fun. You know your table better than we do. Make the game your own. They're fascicle answers, sure, but not without a grain of useful advice.

Speaking as a major 4e fan?

Yes, I think my 4venger cred still stands. And, yes, I'm happy to accept 5e for what it can already do well, for now while still holding out hope that it'll be able to do more of the thing's we'd like it to going forward.

Nah. I gave up back in early 2014, when people started telling me I would need to give the game a year or two after release before I could REALLY say it wasn't for me.

It hasn't been 2 years yet.

I have, since, tried to appreciate 5e for what it does; every time I've done so, it has ended up providing a distinctly less enjoyable experience than I had wanted, and was only worth my time because I shared it with good friends.

At least your giving it a chance, and not letting it come between you and those friends. Even if you decide 5e wasn't for you, walk away from it quietly, don't go down that same road that led to the edition war. And, similarly, take a second look when future supplements finally do come out, don't just grumble 'too little too late' and miss out.