What 5e got wrong

[Ancalagon]

I think the list of domains for clerics is too short. There should be 4-5 more IMO.

 

[MechaPilot]

I think the list of domains for clerics is too short. There should be 4-5 more IMO.

I agree that a few more are in order, but what those would be will probably vary with each style of game. For example, I'm currently working on a Love domain for my courtly intrigue game. That domain is definitely not well represented by the Life domain it gets folded into in the PHB, but whether it's really needed or not definitely depends on the type of game being run.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I agree that a few more are in order, but what those would be will probably vary with each style of game. For example, I'm currently working on a Love domain for my courtly intrigue game. That domain is definitely not well represented by the Life domain it gets folded into in the PHB, but whether it's really needed or not definitely depends on the type of game being run.

I agree too, it certainly seems like there should be more domains... I just can't quite figure out what domains.

I mean, I didn't even realize there wasn't a 'magic' domain until the SCAG came out with one, so I'm probably missing at least 3 more "obvious" choices.

 

[delericho]

I think the list of domains for clerics is too short. There should be 4-5 more IMO.

To be honest, I feel the list of subclasses for all the classes are too short (except Wizard). It's one of several areas where 5e seems ideally suited for expansion (backgrounds being another prime candidate), and one of the reasons I'm so surprised WotC haven't gone down the splatbook-route with this edition.

 

[Azurewraith]

To be honest, I feel the list of subclasses for all the classes are too short (except Wizard). It's one of several areas where 5e seems ideally suited for expansion (backgrounds being another prime candidate), and one of the reasons I'm so surprised WotC haven't gone down the splatbook-route with this edition.

I was going to say the exact same thing. Didbt want to though someone may of told my opinion was wrong

 

[psychophipps]

To be frank, D&D has been used to tell great stories for over four decades now. Many of those years with a far worse dice engine, character options, and ruleset than the current edition. Nothing personal, but if you can't get the job done at the gaming table with the basic three, it's because you choose to fail due to reasons of your choice or lack of ability, not because the game isn't giving you what you need to get the job done.

 

[Guest 6801328]

To be frank, D&D has been used to tell great stories for over four decades now. Many of those years with a far worse dice engine, character options, and ruleset than the current edition. Nothing personal, but if you can't get the job done at the gaming table with the basic three, it's because you choose to fail due to reasons of your choice or lack of ability, not because the game isn't giving you what you need to get the job done.

That's kind of a harsh way of expressing that.

I think some people just enjoy having lots of character options to fiddle with, and they are disappointed when they don't have enough buttons and dials to play with. It doesn't mean they aren't telling good stories and enjoying playing.

However, I agree that the game is first and foremost supposed to be about the telling of the stories, and that could be done perfectly well, forever, with nothing but the basic 4 classes. If adventures and challenges show variation, you shouldn't need character option variation for the game to always feel fresh.

 

[psychophipps]

That's kind of a harsh way of expressing that.

Yeah, it was and after 48 pages it was time to get down to brass tacks.

Being a long-time player (30+ years) I have learned that 95%+ of these discussions pivot on three basic steps:
1) I have a great idea for a character.
2) I have noticed that a simple solution like a Capt. Obvious multi-class straight from the book doesn't solve it.
3) I choose to whine about "How the new D&D failed!" online rather than discuss the situation with my DM in a constructive manner with a open mind on maintaining game balance and allowing for other players to maintain their well-deserved spotlights in the story.

 

[Tony Vargas]

To be frank, D&D has been used to tell great stories for over four decades now. Many of those years with a far worse dice engine, character options, and ruleset than the current edition.

Yep, it's a matter of 'want' not need. You can tell a great story freestyle, you don't even need a system. You could run a game where the PCs are all identically-statted bog-standard MM kobolds, just give 'em names, personalities, a source of conflict, and opportunities for character development (in the storytelling sense, no need for any stats to change)...

Even so, you might not always want to use that kind of approach.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Yep, it's a matter of 'want' not need.

People 'want' all kinds of things. That doesn't necessarily mean the game would be well served trying to meet all those 'wants'.

You can tell a great story freestyle, you don't even need a system. You could run a game where the PCs are all identically-statted bog-standard MM kobolds, just give 'em names, personalities, a source of conflict, and opportunities for character development (in the storytelling sense, no need for any stats to change)...

Would you believe, there is a game systems to emulate that very thing.

The point being, there are different systems that meet different needs. And that's okay.

Even so, you might not always want to use that kind of approach.

And I would not expect to try and use the system I linked above to play a game featuring Marvel superheroes.