D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[Mephista]

Can we not argue about this? I thought the post in question was reasonable and had no problems understanding what was being said. Making a joke about being unclear, if a reader didn't understand,, is within bounds too.

But mocking? That's not cool. Dragging things out like this? Also not cool. The golden rule - be cool to each other.

Personally, I think 5e has a number of flaws - I don't like the Fighter's design. I don't like that Fighting Styles that really seem to be focusing heavily on swords - duelist, great weapon fighting, two weapon fighting all are based around the idea of using swords; technically you can use something else, but they're all geared to primarily use a kind of sword. Archery, protection and defensive are variations, but protection and defensive are both synergetic with using a sword. Archery is the only one that stands out. How about something like a spear or hammer instead? Something that speaks to using a flail or whip, or something that revolves around using Reach weapons? I know its called a Sword and Sorcery game, but come on. A little variety?

Do I think that full spellcasters put half- or non- casters to shame? Not really, especially when we talk about warlocks, sorcerers or druids. Wizards are very versatile, as are clerics to a lesser extent, but those two seem to be heavily favored by WotC. Other casters feel much more limited and... stunted, for lack of a better term, than the main two; as an aside, I do notice that any arguments about casters being too strong revolve around the wizard primarily, and ignore the others. Bards are a bit curious, since they're jacks of all trades, but I find that with their Charisma being such a huge priority, and their default abilities lending themselves to buffing others over the self, its usually not an issue. They simply lack the breadth of spells to step out of their bardy niche, even with magical secrets.

I think the biggest three failures of 5e are 1) how to handle mixed caster-warrior styles (the paladin/arcane trickster work well, but every other one has serious issues IMHO), 2) two weapon fighting, and 3) all the gold and a lack of a workable (even if only from the player's perspective) economy to use all that money on.

 

[RobertBrus]

To go back to the original thread question, "Why does 5e suck?" This question assumes that it has been proven to "suck." It hasn't. For an individual to say it sucks for me is one thing, that is a subjective statement. We all have particular likes and dislikes. But to make an objective statement "it sucks," well, not to be too cheeky, "sucks."

It has issues. So does Pathfinder, 4e, C&C, etc. but for me to say one of those systems sucks is a bit much. If I really hate something that much I would probably have long ago moved on to that which I liked.

5E is malleable enough to allow for the DM and players in any particular group to work out the kinks, as they see them. Many people have commented on how weak, in one form or another, spell casters are in this system. I find them to be bit too strong. So I modulated down some of the cantrips. To each their own. Those who want to build powerhouse characters are probably going to gravitate to Pathfinder. That does not make 5E suck, it simply makes it different.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Um, thread title?

Ah, thank you.

When I choose to reply directly to a thread title, rather than the OP or other post in a thread, I like to put the thread title in my response for clarity.

I must have gotten too used to my preference to see what someone else was doing.

 

[cbwjm]

To go back to the original thread question, "Why does 5e suck?" This question assumes that it has been proven to "suck." It hasn't. For an individual to say it sucks for me is one thing, that is a subjective statement. We all have particular likes and dislikes. But to make an objective statement "it sucks," well, not to be too cheeky, "sucks."

While the title was "Why does 5e suck" the opening post clarifies this by asking "What do you HATE about 5th Edition?" so this thread is literally about personal opinion of 5e. You really do need to read the opening post in conjunction with the thread title.

 

[RobertBrus]

While the title was "Why does 5e suck" the opening post clarifies this by asking "What do you HATE about 5th Edition?" so this thread is literally about personal opinion of 5e. You really do need to read the opening post in conjunction with the thread title.

Thanks for the advice on how to read, but I already had that covered. While it may be true there exists a "clarification," the title stands out such that it is either simply an attention getter, or it is making the truer claim as to the meaning of the posting. If I title a post, "All optimizers suck!" and then go on the say, "well of course I don't mean they really suck, etc. is to be disingenuous at best.

As to the "personal opinion," philosophically speaking, every utterance is personal opinion. But even with this, the term "hate" is a baiting term. I would really have to be upset with a pure abstraction like a set of rules to "hate" it.

But now I digress.

 

[Lost Soul]

I am mocking it, lightly and with humor, because you obviously left out an important subject matter in your post. Instead of playing along, you're being defensive and insulting. You're now making the hyperbolic statement that literally anyone with basic knowledge of 5e should have understood what you meant despite numerous people, who all are quite experienced with 5e, saying they also didn't know what exactly you were referring to.

You can be more specific with your posts and get better responses, or you can be vague and insulting, and get worse responses. Right now, you're way overreacting apparently out of embarrassment more than anything else. There is no need for that. We were all being friendly to you, a peer, and not actually insulting you. We've all made vague posts before and had to clarify as well. But instead you're responding over the top. Is that really the impression you want to give people about who you are? That people shouldn't ever joke around and be playful with Lost Soul because he's prone to explode and treat it like a personal insult and lash out? Or would you rather just be able to laugh at yourself, and let everyone know you don't take things too seriously and can take a poke as well as give it on occasion?

As for your complaint...I am not seeing how it applies to the classes who literally know all the spells of their class, like Druid and Cleric. I also don't see how it applies to Warlock, who are built around the concept of a very few spells with slots that regenerate swiftly in a manner no other casters do. As for the remaining classes you mentioned, I think it was intentional, to pare back the relative power of those spellcasters to make them more closely align with the rest of the non-magic and half-magic and one-third-magic classes. Have you found in play that the classes you mentioned are underpowered relative to those other classes, or are you saying this purely in comparison to prior editions or on a theoretical basis?

Wow Mistwell. You just don't get it. You trolled me and you get defensive now? Ok. Spells know specifically refers to classes that have a limited number of spells known. Clerics and druids do not fit into this mix. Only the Charisma classes do. The people who were arguing against me instinctively pointed to spells per level which was NOT my original complaint. It was in knowing so few spells as to make spell preparation pointless. being a sorcerer and not being about to cast two spells per level for 1-9 is bad game design. I have played sorcerers through low, mid and high level. It is a huge impediment, especially when spell immunity is involved. Have YOU truly played a sorcerer at all levels? If so, please tell me how you make your spells work for both subclasses of sorcerer. I would be glad to read up on it and it may change my mind. Untill you do, don't throw conjecture and hyperbole my way.

 

[Lost Soul]

But, the comparison should not be relative to other editions. It should be a comparison between what characters can do in this edition vs the challenges they will face in this edition.

You can't just say, "Well, in 3e, you could chain spells together, so, you should be able to do that in 5e too". It doesn't work that way. They are different games.

But, I will give you props for being the first person I've ever seen who's claimed that casters are too weak in 5e. Granted, I don't think they're too strong. I strongly disagree with the idea that 5e is tiered. 5e casters are pretty much on par with everyone else. Which is what it should be.

Really? How come everyone gets to roll that issue at ad nausea when they complain about martial imbalance? Ever single edition of D&D is brought into account. If I am to complain about caster weakness I have to have a correlation to compare it to. The comparison is prior editions. You can see how bad it is when AC is just shrugged off as no big deal where in prior editions you could not wear armor and cast spells unless you multiclass and multiclass characters were restricted on max level so they never gained the uber spells that could break a game. 5E casters on not on par with everyone else, especially sorcerers. Not being able to cast two spells per spell level is WAY underpowered. Also the spells in this edition are nerfed compared to previous editions. Heck, charm person doesn't even work correctly. Ben Kenobi would have never gotten past storm troopers if he had to use the horrible 5E version of charm person.

 

[Lost Soul]

IDK, at will magic is pretty convenient, and much better to fall back in than a crossbow or darts!
Add to that all-spontaneous casting so slots are virtually never wasted and often applied optimally, and scaling favoring save-or-else spells so heavily, and you just don't need a lot of slots to dominate.

In 2nd &3rd, your fireball started at 5d and capped at 10. In 5e, it starts at 8d - it's probably not much worth up-casting unless you just didn't prep any higher level combat spells, but at high level, 8d vs a failed save is as good as 16 dice vs an all-but-auto save.

You get far more spells of high (and every other) level than in 4e, when casters superiority was at it's narrowest margin, and, the number of slots you start with is only part of the story - in 5e, there's never a slot lost or under-utilized because the spell you memorized never came up - or the other spell you memorized came up more times than you'd memorized it. You also don't lose slots to being interrupted. Casters may have less peak power in a hypothetical perfect storm of just the right spell in just tthe right situation vs just the right foes, none of whom happen to roll better than a natural 3 on their saves. But as a practical matter casters've never had it so easy..

AT will magic is the same as using a crossbow. Its pathetic. Only difference is that I get more dice that I cannot add my stat to damage with. I don't care where my fireball starts I care where it ends and it ends badly in 5E. The damage is sub par. Spell memorization does come up because you are not given enough spells know or spell preparation to matter. This results in the 'same' spells being taken at each level because there is not enough room for variety. If you only get one lousy spell for levels 6-9th then you are not going to diversify you list. It also makes mage battles rather boring as globe of invulnerability makes over three quarters of your spells useless.

The only thing that casters have easier compared to other editions is that they do not suffer a chance of spell disruption. The reason for this is that their spells have been so heavily nerfed that there is very little danger of one spell totally swinging a fight like it could in prior editions. Also, please do not bring up 4E for spell comparisons. That is a whole other system. It would be like comparing D&D casters to casters from White Wolf's Mage the Ascension game. Yes, a D&D wizard gets more spells than a MAGE gets spheres of magic but what a MAGE can do with a 3 rating in sphere dwarfs what most D&D wizards can acomplish

 

[Lost Soul]

I didn't find that to be the case at all. My 5e Mountain Dwarf Transmuter KICKED ASS. Some types of spells seem to be a bit weaker, requiring concentration for instance, which isn't a HUGE big deal but can somewhat limit certain types of buff stacking.

As for the sheer power of high level spells... I just picked the 6th level spell Disintegrate as a simple straightforward example. The 1e version kills its target outright, unless it makes a save vs spell. The 5e version does 10d6+40 damage if it fails a DEX save. Now, a 1e AD&D level 13 fighter or wizard will save on an 8 (and probably has magical bonuses to that in most cases at those levels, possibly substantial ones since magic armor will count, as will rings of protection, some staves, etc.). The 5e 13th level target is making a DEX save, and he might reasonably have anywhere from a +0 to a +10 on that save and the DC is likely to be around 22 at that level. Even the guy with a great DEX save will need to roll a 12, most targets probably save 25-30% of the time IME.

In other respects these spells are fairly equivalent, 10d6+40 damage is unlikely to kill a 13th level target by itself, but it does have the advantage that even if the target doesn't die, they're badly hurt, and if they're hurt, they will die. Its a pretty good spell in 5e. Yes, eventually my 1e wizard gets to cast his version several times per day, if he cares to put all his slots into it.

The point is, I hardly felt constrained by 5e's spell lists. Each spell is slightly less 'bent' but the overall effect is quite strong. My Transmuter was easily the linchpin of the party. He did many of the key things that won battles, enabled entire strategies, and shaped much of the party's adventures. The existence of rituals and cantrips, as well as spell recovery, etc. and the ability to move spells up to higher slots to allow for a greater variety of options, was huge. My similarly leveled 1e MU had to have a Staff of the Magi, several other powerful items, and pen many scrolls, in order to achieve similar flexibility (and spent a fortune copying and buying spells too).

In the sense of a guy who could just obliterate you with one (lucky) spell cast, yeah, the 1e guy is a bit ahead there. In terms of actually delivering reliable and highly effective spell support to the party, the 5e wizard is hard to compete with. Honestly, I thought it was a bit much. I mean, my character was a pretty decent melee combatant on top of all that! Nothing like competitive with the Weapon Master, but he killed that nasty Bugbear king in Phandelver with an axe blow!

The 5E Disintegrate is infinitely weaker than the 1E version. Your 5E 13th level fighter will have on average 109 hit points (based on average of taking 6 hit points per level with a 16 con). The disintegrate spell won't even work if he fails his save AND I roll max damage. On top of it I only get one sixth level spell. I would rather take the chance that the fighter screws up his roll and gets a six then dies rather than know he will fail the save and not die from the effect because he is a hit point sink.
Also, am glad that you enjoy your dwarf wizard and like the fact that he can enter melee and duke it out with the baddies. I think that is a flaw with this system. I think the fighter should be fighting and I should be using magic to overcome foes. I know opinions will vary but I don't want to be doing what the fighter can do too. I want to be different

 

[Tony Vargas]

AT will magic is the same as using a crossbow. Its pathetic.

It's the same in that they both do damage at range and have no hard times/day limit. It's different in that the crossbow doesn't scale with level while the cantrip does, and that you can run out of crossbow bolts... So, not the same: better.

I don't care where my fireball starts I care where it ends

You're ahead of the game from 5th through 7th, tied at 8th, and only fall a maximum of 2d behind at 10th. Hardly seems terrible.

Spell memorization does come up because you are not given enough spells know or spell preparation to matter.

A 5e wizard starts out able to prepare several spells and has two slots, he gets better from there. At 5th, he's probably prepping 8 or 9 spells, and casting from 9 slots, the 1e 'Magician' is memorizing into 6 spell slots, even if the 5e wiz were also stuck memorizing into slots instead of rock'n spontaneous casting, he'd be ahead by one spell of each level. The inflection point is sometime after 12th level (at 11th the 5e wiz has 6th level spells, the AD&D MU gets 'em at 12th, and, while at very high levels - levels 5e doesn't even go to, the MU chart gets rediculuous, it's not like a lot of folks played at those levels, and it'd be a very, very long slog to get there).

This results in the 'same' spells being taken at each level because there is not enough room for variety.

That's what happens with traditional Vancian, you can't afford to mix it up much, even when you do, you have one or two uses of an unusual spell, tops, and are giving up the more usual suspects. In 5e, you have a defensive spell or two, a solid scalable damage spell if you want to be able to punch above the cantrip baseline, and from there you're prettymuch free to use your remaining spells prepped - and you have one or two remaining, even at 1st level, how you see fit. If the oddball choices you prep don't come up, you still blow all your slots on the stand-bys that do - and if they do come up a lot, you spam them. It's a vast upgrade in flexibility from the challenges of playing an MU back in the day.

The only thing that casters have easier compared to other editions is that they do not suffer a chance of spell disruption.

Well, there's that /too/. No interruption, not even an AoO for casting in melee, not even a penalty for casting save spell in melee, able to cast in almost any circumstance (in 1e the list of things you couldn't do while casting was daunting - you couldn't even go down on one knee to get better cover from a low wall, you had to be upright, gesturing & manipulating components with both hands! - since 3e you've been able to move & cast, cast while prone, etc), barely inconvenienced by components, not needing to blow slots on rituals, never wasting a spell slot because you memorized something that didn't come up, always able to fall back on cantrips when the target doesn't /quite/ warrant a spell, able to re-charge the odd spell on a short rest...
....I'm probably leaving something out again, the advantages heaped on 5e casters are so many, varied, and occasionally even subtle, it's hard to marshal the whole list...
...oh, less healing burden because of HD...

The reason for this is that their spells have been so heavily nerfed that there is very little danger of one spell totally swinging a fight like it could in prior editions. Also, please do not bring up 4E for spell comparisons. That is a whole other system.

It was still D&D, and it was notable as the closest D&D ever came to balancing casters & non-casters. To do so, it nerfed spell far harder than 5e, and cut spells/day down to a handful. 5e doesn't return to the full glory of 3.x CoDzilla & God-Wizards, but it's Tier 1 casters have it much easier by way of compensation for being less wildly overpowered at their most 3.x-RAW-optimized.

Even so, it's not like 5e comes in 2nd-to-last ahead of a distant/nearly-balanced 4e, it's just off the 3.x peak of caster supremacy....

The 5E Disintegrate is infinitely weaker than the 1E version.

Depends on your 1e DM even more than your 5e DM. I've known some who'd allow magic armor & shield bonuses to apply to many of your spell saves, for instance, even without that, a high-level target likely has a pretty good save, and, on a save, either version of Disintegrate does nothing. But, in 5e, you can use it against a target with a bad REF save and there's little chance of it saving....

Your 5E 13th level fighter will have on average 109 hit points (based on average of taking 6 hit points per level with a 16 con). The disintegrate spell won't even work if he fails his save AND I roll max damage.

Max damage is 105, and it does work (he has 4 hps left) it just doesn't also disintegrate him. Waiting until the enemy has been whittled down enough that it likely will work (after about 35 hps of damage on that 13th level fighter, and that isn't long to wait the way damage flies around in 5e) is the obvious tactic - in that way, it's more like the 1e Power Word: Kill.