D&D 5E What (if anything) do you find "wrong" with 5E?

[Mistwell]

People on this site, in general, don't seem to want the simple game that WotC clearly wants to sell. Of course, there are exceptions (some quite vocal), but the hordes of new players WotC is catering to don't seem to be well-represented here.

I think most of us are quite happy with it. This is a thread asking specifically for things we don't like so of course it biases to....things we don't like.

 

[humble minion]

Dipping didnt bother me that much. I always enjoyed the interesting combos I could make. The things I like less are the level one items you take and then almost never think about again.

Yeah, I didn't mind dipping in principle either. 5e obviously discourages it with the multiclassing rules and by making low-level class features distinctly anaemic compared with high-level features, but it was a good way to round out a character when a single-class PC could sometimes be a bit one-note.

Point is that perception skills have been powerful in every D&D edition ever, and players WILL find a way to get them...

 

[rooneg]

Point is that perception skills have been powerful in every D&D edition ever, and players WILL find a way to get them...

There’s a reason that PF2 builds Perception in to every class, so you don’t feel compelled to jump through hoops to get proficiency in it.

 

[MGibster]

5th edition D&D has been my favorite version of the game, but there are some things I've had a problem with.

1. Treasure: I know the DMG has ideas about treasure and rewards for players, but there comes a point very early in campaigns where gold/gems/wealth is almost meaningless. Even in campaigns like Acquisitions, Inc., the amount of gold needed to upgrade/upkeep your corporate holdings is trivial compared to the amount of wealth generated just by adventuring. It just feels so pointless to keep track of treasure in 5th edition.
2. Charisma/Wisdom/Dexterity are fantastic not only for combat but for skills which are useful in non-combat situations. For most situations, no way am I going to make a Fighter because Strength and Constitution are not going to help me outside of combat situations and especially.
3. I'd kind of like all the rules to be consolidated in one place. If WotC is going to be using Tasha's for new races/monsters going forward, I'd just like that to be in the PHB.
4. More skills/utilities for all classes outside of combat. Pretty much every class is useful in combat, but if I want to run a game heavy on social interactions and role playing, some classes get the short end of the stick. Fighter, I'm looking at you.

 

[James Gasik]

5th edition D&D has been my favorite version of the game, but there are some things I've had a problem with.

1. Treasure: I know the DMG has ideas about treasure and rewards for players, but there comes a point very early in campaigns where gold/gems/wealth is almost meaningless. Even in campaigns like Acquisitions, Inc., the amount of gold needed to upgrade/upkeep your corporate holdings is trivial compared to the amount of wealth generated just by adventuring. It just feels so pointless to keep track of treasure in 5th edition.
2. Charisma/Wisdom/Dexterity are fantastic not only for combat but for skills which are useful in non-combat situations. For most situations, no way am I going to make a Fighter because Strength and Constitution are not going to help me outside of combat situations and especially.
3. I'd kind of like all the rules to be consolidated in one place. If WotC is going to be using Tasha's for new races/monsters going forward, I'd just like that to be in the PHB.
4. More skills/utilities for all classes outside of combat. Pretty much every class is useful in combat, but if I want to run a game heavy on social interactions and role playing, some classes get the short end of the stick. Fighter, I'm looking at you.

Point 2 is an interesting one. If you can make a character that functions just as well as one that focuses on Strength by using Charisma instead (I'm looking at you, Hexblade!), why not play that character?

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Oh yeah thought of one more. Strength and Intelligence are not important abilities, because so much is keyed off of Dex, Wisdom and Charisma

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've mentioned before that Advantage/Disadvantage as its handled is very much not what I want on multiple levels.

 

[Raith5]

Skill challenges weren't perfect. 5e just went backwards on the concept instead of improving it and making it optional.

I think groups checks in 5e are a good idea that could be expanded upon. They dont replace the idea of skill challenges but are a simple starting point for collective party skills check in social or exploration contexts.

 

[Nightfly]

I find myself sometimes perturbed by the "magic everywhere" that seems to be in the game, especially in endless cantrips. I think magic should be somewhat more rarer than it is in the game.

I don't ever want to go back to the days where wizards were throwing darts all day. That sucked. It's arguable that cantrips in 5e are a little too good, but I have found cantrips to be a good bit less strong then martial attacks, so I'm not sure that's true.

I'd also like a few more skills in the game. There just seem to be some gaps or things that map badly to skills. Monster Lore would be one I'd like to see, for example.

For better or worse, monster lore in 5e is Nature and Arcana (or Religion, rarely). What's wrong with that in your opinion?

 

[Nightfly]

I've mentioned before that Advantage/Disadvantage as its handled is very much not what I want on multiple levels.

Funny, because that might be my favorite feature of 5e. If I ever ran 13th Age, for example, I'd probably try to houserule Adv/Disadv into it. I don't ever want to play a RPG without it now!