D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[Mistwell]

Wow Mistwell. You just don't get it. You trolled me and you get defensive now? Ok.

No defensiveness on my part (and I was not trolling you, I was making a joke). Like I said, you're free to continue to over react and insult in response to light fun. Nobody is going to stop you, but you might not get the kinds of responses you're looking for if you do. But, I am not taking it personally at all. You want to be that way, go for it.

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.

So it's not all casters (which some speculated you meant) and it's not all full casters (which some speculated you meant) and it's not even casters who must memorize spells (which some speculated you meant) but then you say it's the "charisma casters" (which is Bard, Drow racial spells, Paladin, Sorcerer, Tieflling infernal legacy spells, and Warlock). But instead of actually talking about "Charisma casters" you reduce it down to just "Sorcerer". Which literally nobody, nobody at all, had guessed you meant by that post. LOL. Way to communicate your point dude! Even the guys defending you had no clue you meant just sorcerers. Maybe use the word "sorcerer" or "sorc" next time you mean sorcerer?

As it stands, the people you were arguing with didn't even know what you were referring to either. It's pretty much a total reset on your point - you didn't mean "casters" but did have a specific complaint about a specific class. Well OK. Have at it. There are a couple of other people around here who have issues with sorcerers as well, maybe you can commiserate with them.

 

[Hussar]

Good grief. This is a specific complaint about Sorcerers? Having seen high level Sorcs in play, I really have no idea where [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] is coming from. Sorcs can drop multiple spells per round, something no other caster can do. If your Sorc is weak, that's on you.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

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.

But it balanced casters in an incredibly boring way. Wizards and other casters became just another boring combat machine. The lack of general-use utility spells made me cry and turned me off of the game. combat is the dullest, least creative part of the game. I prefer to spend as little time there as possible.

 

[Imaculata]

Having played 5e at least once, it played just fine. But it felt like an oversimplified 3rd edition... so I decided to stick to the complexities of the edition I have the most books for. I just really like the number crunching of it all.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Having played 5e at least once, it played just fine. But it felt like an oversimplified 3rd edition... so I decided to stick to the complexities of the edition I have the most books for.

Well thanks for giving it a fair shot. ;P

But it balanced casters in an incredibly boring way. Wizards and other casters became just another boring combat machine. The lack of general-use utility spells made me cry and turned me off of the game. combat is the dullest, least creative part of the game. I prefer to spend as little time there as possible.

I'm amazed you'll play any version of D&D, if that's how you feel, combat's always been a major focus, getting the lion's share of the applicable rules. It wasn't until 2e Skills & Powers that it really opened up, and even then, non-combat was generally just a check by a specialist in a skill, that didn't change much until 4e, which not only didn't roll that back, but pulled out non-combat magic in the form of rituals that didn't compete for limited uses so were more generally available - a feature 5e has retained, if in a less-clearly presented way - and expanded on the use of skills with Skill Challenges and group skill checks - the latter 5e also retained, though it abandoned the deeper/whole-party non-combat resolution of Skill Challenges.

One way in which 5e doesn't suck for you, though, is it's much-trumpeted, largely successful 'fast combat' goal. Combats are fast. They're complaints that they're "too easy" or 'boring,' too - but none that they're too long - you can be happy that 5e combats will be mercifully brief, and you can get on to enjoying the portions of the game the rules barely touch upon.

 

[Imaculata]

Well thanks for giving it a fair shot. ;P

Haha. Well, it just so happened that during one of our gaming weekends, one of our friends wanted to try DM'ing a 5th edition session with us. So we thought, why not? And we had fun, lots of fun. I didn't notice anything wrong with the system, apart from being a lot more simple than what we're used to.

But in the end we are all 3rd edition players, with tons of 3rd edition books. Several of us simply found the character options a bit lacking in depth and number tweaking. 5th simply isn't different enough, or good enough, for me to switch.

That said, I would still encourage any players that are new to D&D, to start with 5th edition.

 

[Sleepy Mage]

my biggest complaint is that some of the classes are, to me from what ive played, staight up inferior to anything that can use magic. i dont feel like im getting stronger when i level up given that, as a monk with decent ability scores, the ability score increase is useless to me, i dont need any feats, and the fact that some levels the ability i gain like slow fall or tongue of the sun and moon is flat out useless to me, i just feel like im not getting stronger

 

[doctorbadwolf]

my biggest complaint is that some of the classes are, to me from what ive played, staight up inferior to anything that can use magic. i dont feel like im getting stronger when i level up given that, as a monk with decent ability scores, the ability score increase is useless to me, i dont need any feats, and the fact that some levels the ability i gain like slow fall or tongue of the sun and moon is flat out useless to me, i just feel like im not getting stronger

Unless you rolled at least 3 18s, ASI aren’t useless. You know that increasing your wisdom increases your AC, Wisdom Saves, and Stunning Strike DC, right? Dex is obvious, and Con should be for a melee, but your tertiary stats also matter, and will make you a better party resource if you really don’t see the use of any feats.

But let’s look at two feats for monks.

Mobile. Even greater speed, no Opportunity Attack from targets you have hit that turn (eliminating the need to pretty much even Disengage, and wildly opening up your combat mobility.

Mate Slayer, let’s you run straight to the mage, and take them down. The disadvantage on concentration when you deal damage to them is stronger on a monk than on most other characters, because you hit so many times.

Both excellent choices that will make you noticeably more effective. Then you got stuff like Skilled that is good for any character, plus the race feats if applicable, Tough, Durable, Athlete is extra fun on a monk, especially if your DM likes knocking PCs down.

As for class features...are you kidding? Tongue of the Sun and Moon is literally the only feature for monks that isn’t totally badass.

Slow Fall is crazy. Anyone else would have to cast a spell to avoid falling damage, you get it for free.

And you can run up walls, across water, and yes, by RAW, up waterfalls. In heavy enough rain, you could run up the rain. You can run up a secured rope.

Stunning Strike.

Not to mention whatever your subclass is.

Don’t be absurd. Monks are badass. Your issue is with you, not the game.

 

[Hjorimir]

The only thing that sucks about 5e is not being able to play it more than I already do.

 

[Tony Vargas]

my biggest complaint is that some of the classes are, to me from what ive played, staight up inferior to anything that can use magic.

To be fair, some of the /sub/-classes (there's 5 whole non-magic-using sub-classes in the PH, out of 40 or so). If you want to play a fighter, but don't want to be a zero when times come to do a little casting, you can always play an EK, for instance.

i dont feel like im getting stronger when i level up given that, as a monk with decent ability scores, the ability score increase is useless to me, i dont need any feats, and the fact that some levels the ability i gain like slow fall or tongue of the sun and moon is flat out useless to me, i just feel like im not getting stronger

You're getting more hps every level, and your damage should be increasing, as well. Due to BA bonus-quelling, that's where most of the scaling is to be found in 5e, hps/damage (well, y'know, and spells - but Monks accumulate magical abilities fueled by Ki as they go, too).

But let’s look at two feats for monks. ...

...Mobile. ....

Mate Slayer...

...any homicide detective will tell you, look at the S.O. first...