Most frustrating quirk of 5E?

[Maxperson]

Yes, my rolls were pretty bad tonight. There were a couple hits but nothing of any real consequence but part of that is due to the high AC of the party also. This is the beginning of level 1 of Undermountain but it's designed for level 5 and if using milestone they should hit level 6 by the end of this level. That encounter with the Bugbears and Goblins really should have been a challenging encounter. I am going to really read through the rest of the level and prep it for next week. Sadly I am pretty disappointed with it so far. I know its only the beginning but from what I have read so far it's not the massive deadly dungeon that it was in 2E. Might need some upgrading to make it worthy. We'll see how next week goes.

That sounds like it was mostly bad luck. Had you rolled better, you'd have eaten more resources that they'll need for the rest of the encounters. It should eventually be balanced out by you rolling well some other time. If the players have made optimized combat beasts, then you might need to up the encounters a bit.

I just bought the module(Because I LOVE Undermountain and have since 2e) on Friday and have just barely started reading through it. I bought the map and card pack as well.

Edit: Remember also that they are not going to be able to leave easily and there will be relatively few safe spots to rest and recover, so that will also factor in later on.

 

[Harzel]

Trying to justify things I said in a rant is probably a fool's errand, but your questions seem legitimate, so I will try to supply answers.

Just for clarity, are you talking about setting issues, or just the number of players wanting to play a character with an element of magic to them within the party?

More the latter, but it was a generalization, so I'm not addressing any particular party. A particular party, of course, could be composed entirely of non-casters, but of the 12 PHB classes, 6 are casters that get cantrips, and (at least ?) 2 more have cantrip-bearing caster subclasses. Without getting into the unresolvable which-classes-are-played-most-frequently issue, I think it is fair to say that it is going to be very common to have half the party able to cast cantrips.

Is your issue the mental image (Wizards shouldn't be able to do magic all of the time) or the mechanical rules (ranged spell attacks use the same basic rules as ranged weapon attacks)?

Yes.
But I suppose I could try to unpack what, for me, the [-]magic-in-name-only feeling[/-] objection hinges on.

EDIT: I noticed that the struck-through phrase didn't entirely represent what I actually prattled on about below.

1. At-will-ness: Definitely being at-will is the biggest contributor. If a character is able to sustain fairly rapid spell casting indefinitely, it feels to me like we should either be talking about a very high-level mage, or a high-magic setting. Since level 1 PCs are not high-level mages, it feels (as I mentioned somewhere above) like I am being forced by default into a high-magic setting (without, furthermore, an admission that that is the case). The only alternative I can see is to treat PC (and caster NPC) spell casting as dissociated from the rest of the world. And I guess, without exactly thinking about it that way, the latter is what I have done. The trouble is not only do I find that grating, but I have players that notice that kind of disconnect. I won't go so far as to say it wrecks immersion, but it does take a hit.

2. Effect: When the effect of a cantrip is solely single-target damage, that pretty much seals the deal for me. Sorry, that is, to me, a ranged weapon attack with a thin and not-at-all-credible veneer of fluff labeled 'magic'. While my objections in (1) still hold, a cantrip that has a rider (and does lesser damage) feels noticeably more like magic to me (but, in the end, not enough to assuage my discontent).

3. Usage: When a PC casts Firebolt round after round after round, if anything was needed to make the cantrip seem even more like a refluffed ranged weapon attack, that certain does it. While this isn't a system design problem per se, it is enabled and greatly encouraged by at-will abilities that do enough damage that the caster doesn't feel the need to find something more imaginative to do.

4. Resolution mechanism: While using an attack roll certainly adds another small bit to the sense that a cantrip is a refluffed weapon attack, I don't think some other mechanic would help noticeably. In fact, spells that are, fluff-wise, "like" a single-target weapon attack, but which nevertheless require a saving throw are really a PITA because a) you have to remember which ones they are (without any particular rhyme or reason), and b) instead of being able to have the player make the attack roll while I am doing something else, I have to roll the opponent's saving throw. (Yes, I could have the player make that roll, but that process is cumbersome enough that I might as well do it myself.)

Scaling cantrips are designed to flatten the power curve between when casters burn spell slots and when they don't.

Sure, and they do. But beyond catering to certain preferences, why is that a good thing in and of itself? Maybe I didn't make it clear enough, but IMO, that's actually a bad thing because I think playing a caster (or at least a wizard) ought to feel somewhat bumpy.

It removes some of the nova issues

I'm not sure I understand what you are referring to here. 'Nova' usually refers to expending all your limited resources (or as many as possible) in one encounter. I could try to guess what you think the connection is to cantrips, but I'd rather you speak for yourself. (And if I'm being dense, I apologize.)

and helps balance between the casters and non-casters.

Well, I can see that it probably make balance easier to assess by making them more samey-samey. But I don't see how it otherwise 'helps' balance.

 

[5ekyu]

Yes, my rolls were pretty bad tonight. There were a couple hits but nothing of any real consequence but part of that is due to the high AC of the party also. This is the beginning of level 1 of Undermountain but it's designed for level 5 and if using milestone they should hit level 6 by the end of this level. That encounter with the Bugbears and Goblins really should have been a challenging encounter. I am going to really read through the rest of the level and prep it for next week. Sadly I am pretty disappointed with it so far. I know its only the beginning but from what I have read so far it's not the massive deadly dungeon that it was in 2E. Might need some upgrading to make it worthy. We'll see how next week goes.

The key thing is this - and it's been true since the first RPG - there is no average party only your party and since mostly forever every module talks about how to adjust to suit your group specifics.

You have some higher AC front me with support, so a mostly slam brute squad does not get far by wailing with bad dice - but what if one goblin uses help so the bugbear attacked with advantage? What if two goblins coordinated to shove with advantage to knock down so bug bears could jump over to get to the softer targets?

Against more than a few parties of four, that fight would have been a bit more of a threat- but high AC front line and brute slam tactics is z double whammy rock vs the PC paper.

Of course, a single fireball or other 3rd level slot swings it to easy pretty quick and cue the burned resources mantra.

 

[Mepher]

The key thing is this - and it's been true since the first RPG - there is no average party only your party and since mostly forever every module talks about how to adjust to suit your group specifics.

You have some higher AC front me with support, so a mostly slam brute squad does not get far by wailing with bad dice - but what if one goblin uses help so the bugbear attacked with advantage? What if two goblins coordinated to shove with advantage to knock down so bug bears could jump over to get to the softer targets?

Against more than a few parties of four, that fight would have been a bit more of a threat- but high AC front line and brute slam tactics is z double whammy rock vs the PC paper.

Of course, a single fireball or other 3rd level slot swings it to easy pretty quick and cue the burned resources mantra.

As per my policy for the last 30 years, I don't do knee jerk reactions. Last night was a bad night. I wasn't fully prepared, in fact with the holidays I didn't get a chance to reread level 1 before the session. I had read it a single time back when I purchased it. Add to that my bad rolls and it just seemed like a bad joke. The reason why my group still doesn't have any house rules after months of 5E play is that I like to see how everything plays out. I will be much more prepared next week. The book is going with me to work today and I wont make that mistake again. We will see how things play differently next week.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Excuse me as I ignore 250 or so posts.

Bonus actions. I'm playing with a bunch of new players, and this is the part that seems least intuitive to them. I have to have the Action, bonus action, reaction conversation every session.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

The only alternative I can see is to treat PC (and caster NPC) spell casting as dissociated from the rest of the world. And I guess, without exactly thinking about it that way, the latter is what I have done. The trouble is not only do I find that grating, but I have players that notice that kind of disconnect. I won't go so far as to say it wrecks immersion, but it does take a hit.

This is the bit that I was particularly wondering about. If maybe 10% of the population actually have PC class levels, and the majority of those are not going to be full caster classes, then cantrip-users are still going to be rare in the world. Not disassociated from the world, but unusual.
Even in a wide-magic setting like Eberron, with its wandslingers, people with the ability to throw damaging cantrips are rare.

A party that has several cantrip-users in it stands out as an unusual concentration of magic, but PCs are meant to be unusual and special. If half the players wanted to play characters able to manipulate magic, that isn't too unusual from a player standpoint. (A big draw of playing in a magical world like D&D settings is the ability to play a magical character.) However such a party is probably very unusual from a setting standpoint.

Outside of a few specialised builds, a cantrip isn't going to deal greater damage than a round of attacks from a more martial type. Unless the rider was particularly important, the cantrip-user is going to be the best character to pick something other than dealing damage to their enemies.

Sure, and they do. But beyond catering to certain preferences, why is that a good thing in and of itself? Maybe I didn't make it clear enough, but IMO, that's actually a bad thing because I think playing a caster (or at least a wizard) ought to feel somewhat bumpy.


I'm not sure I understand what you are referring to here. 'Nova' usually refers to expending all your limited resources (or as many as possible) in one encounter. I could try to guess what you think the connection is to cantrips, but I'd rather you speak for yourself. (And if I'm being dense, I apologize.)

Well, I can see that it probably make balance easier to assess by making them more samey-samey. But I don't see how it otherwise 'helps' balance.

By Nova, I meant the ability of a caster to achieve much greater results by burning off their spell slots compared to conserving them. - Pretty much what your understanding was.
If cantrip damage was reduced, the power of spell slots would likely have to be increased in turn to maintain balance between classes. The classes appear to have been balanced around 20 rounds of combat per day, with the expectation that even a full caster wouldn't be casting spells every round. However, it seems common for the number of rounds of combat in actual play to be less, which discourages conservation of spell slots and throws the balance of classes out of whack.

Increasing the effectiveness of burning spell slots compared than conserving them by using cantrips instead is going to increase the power of going nova. And thus discourage conserving those spell slots. Currently, with casting a cantrip being less powerful than a martial attacking by a certain amount, there is less pressure to burn those spell slots than if your sorceror was just a fourth-rate crossbowman when they weren't actually burning resources, both from a "contributing to party" standpoint and a "character image" standpoint.

Weaker cantrips and stronger spell slots will throw balance much further out than currently when the actual adventuring day is shorter than the expected 20-odd rounds. It will make players of magical characters feel not only that they aren't contributing much when they aren't burning their resources, but also likely feel that they aren't being the magical character that they wanted to play.
(Of course some players may want to play characters that do mix weapon attacks and spellcasting. - There are ways to express this character vision in 5e as well.)

 

[Mepher]

By Nova, I meant the ability of a caster to achieve much greater results by burning off their spell slots compared to conserving them. - Pretty much what your understanding was.
If cantrip damage was reduced, the power of spell slots would likely have to be increased in turn to maintain balance between classes. The classes appear to have been balanced around 20 rounds of combat per day, with the expectation that even a full caster wouldn't be casting spells every round. However, it seems common for the number of rounds of combat in actual play to be less, which discourages conservation of spell slots and throws the balance of classes out of whack.

This is the part of 5E and a new generation of players that I just don't understand. At what point did we decide that all players need to be equal and balanced? Yes in AD&D wizards were squishy and vulnerable. At low levels they relied on the rest of the part to keep them alive but they shined when they stepped up and put the monsters to sleep, held that boss that was kicking in the fighter, or dropped that runner with his magic missile. At high levels everyone took cover when the big magic came out and he showed them how it's done. It definitely wasn't a class for everyone but those that played Wizards generally loved the class because of the late level power.

Clerics were that all around class that wore heavy armor, wielded a mace, could take and dish out hits only second to the Fighter but when someone needed healing or that horde of undead showed up, he was there to heal and turn those undead. At later levels he stepped up with his call lightning, hold person, etc.

The thief was the go to guy when you were crawling through the dungeon. He kept the party safe finding the traps, opening the doors and when combat broke out he was able to hide and deal the big damage backstab if he was lucky.

Now a days it's not enough to play that specified role, we all have to be "equals" in combat. If the fighter gets big swings then by golly the rogue should be able to sneak attack every round, the wizard should be hurling flame bolts every round and the cleric should be flame striking everything in sight. It reminds me of the ADHD kid with sensory issues that cannot sit still and must always be doing something with his hands. Players are less worried about roleplay in combat because they have too many roll play options at their disposal. There are no more distinct roles because the cleric can heal, but so can the ranger and the bard. No need for the rogue because the fighter with the high perception can find those traps just as well. We don't need the wizard to identify anymore because we can just play with our new weapon for an hour, attune it and we know all we need to know. It's just all very generic now and I don't understand why everyone feels that everything has to be balanced.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

This is the part of 5E and a new generation of players that I just don't understand. At what point did we decide that all players need to be equal and balanced? Yes in AD&D wizards were squishy and vulnerable. At low levels they relied on the rest of the part to keep them alive but they shined when they stepped up and put the monsters to sleep, held that boss that was kicking in the fighter, or dropped that runner with his magic missile. At high levels everyone took cover when the big magic came out and he showed them how it's done. It definitely wasn't a class for everyone but those that played Wizards generally loved the class because of the late level power.

However this isn't very good design, particularly considering the level of turnover that characters were assumed to have.
Sidelining a player by giving them less opportunities to contribute is not good, and "balancing it out" by sidelining a different player a few years later isn't either.

Now a days it's not enough to play that specified role, we all have to be "equals" in combat. If the fighter gets big swings then by golly the rogue should be able to sneak attack every round, the wizard should be hurling flame bolts every round and the cleric should be flame striking everything in sight. It reminds me of the ADHD kid with sensory issues that cannot sit still and must always be doing something with his hands. Players are less worried about roleplay in combat because they have too many roll play options at their disposal. There are no more distinct roles because the cleric can heal, but so can the ranger and the bard. No need for the rogue because the fighter with the high perception can find those traps just as well. We don't need the wizard to identify anymore because we can just play with our new weapon for an hour, attune it and we know all we need to know. It's just all very generic now and I don't understand why everyone feels that everything has to be balanced.

A game like D&D is never going to be perfectly balanced, but deliberate bad balance is poor design. Players like to feel like they are contributing to the success of the party as a whole, and so being severely outshone, or feeling like you cannot do anything effective to help the group is generally not pleasant - a big problem for a game where fun is the objective.

Nowadays there is much more emphasis on having a character concept from the start that you would like to roleplay rather than just rolling up stats, slapping a class and name on and marching off into the dungeon.
You no doubt remember the days where one of the the players had to be browbeat into playing the cleric. Now a party can get by without a primary healer, and if they do want to play someone with the capability to heal, a player is able to play a concept other than a militant religious fanatic.
Likewise a party isn't required to contain any other specific character classes. This caused breakdown of parties, or even gaming groups when there were only three or four classes, let alone when there are 12+.

I'm not sure quite what the comment about the "ADHD kid with sensory issues" was referring or relevant to, or the roleplay vs rollplay in combat. Could you elaborate please?

 

[Maxperson]

This is the bit that I was particularly wondering about. If maybe 10% of the population actually have PC class levels, and the majority of those are not going to be full caster classes, then cantrip-users are still going to be rare in the world. Not disassociated from the world, but unusual.
Even in a wide-magic setting like Eberron, with its wandslingers, people with the ability to throw damaging cantrips are rare.

For me, it isn't about the rarity(or not) of cantrip users, even if going with the 10% number. What bugs me is that they can launch a cantrip every six seconds for days on end if they can stay awake to do it. That's just waaaaaaay too much magical power. If it were say, limited to 10 or so cantrips before needing a short rest to recover, that would make more sense to me. It would supply a lot of extra magical oomph, without having PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER!!

 

[Particle_Man]

A minor quirk: someone that has both vulnerability and resistance to the same damage doesn’t have it cancel out completely because resistance comes first and the round down rule means that for odd hp damage you would still take one fewer hp of the damage. Would have been cleaner to have vulnerability count first.