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

[Oofta]

It wasn't a gotcha scenario at all. It was simply showing that damage is not the only metric to consider when comparing martials to casters. Yes, of course there are instances that shut down a caster as well as a martial character. But the caster has more potential options. And they have tools that can do very powerful things that don't involve dealing hit point damage.

They also have more limited resources and tend to be glass cannons. D&D is a team game, I find that it works best when different PCs fill different roles. I don't see wizards as being the end-all be-all in games I play.

 

[James Gasik]

Being "doable" and doing it well are different things.

I suppose, though I'm not sure what system does it well exactly, then, to be honest. I've played a lot of fantasy ttrpg's, and the ones that are low magic and gritty tend to turn characters into hamburger rather quickly, which isn't quite the pulp sword & sorcery experience I imagined- just reading Red Nails, I got the idea that Conan has several hundred hit points and divine protection on his side.

 

[Vaalingrade]

we can't have half dragons for balance reasons hence the Dragonborn who are dragons but PC sized.

Very dumb balance reasons brought to us by people who have yet to master 'indoors' and 'tree' technology.

And as stated, the problem with dragonborn si that they're not very dragony.

 

[Vaalingrade]

are you not aware of power dynamics? a dragon is by nature longer lived, often more intelligent, more physically powerful and even more wealthy if they want to rule a nation it does not take them long, it would be like you dating a particularly smart bee.

Power dynamics are only a problem if they're exercised either actively or institutionally.

Just being a rich dude doesn't mean you can't have relationships with the unrich.

 

[James Gasik]

They also have more limited resources and tend to be glass cannons. D&D is a team game, I find that it works best when different PCs fill different roles. I don't see wizards as being the end-all be-all in games I play.

It's not that they are, either. I can't speak for anyone else's opinion, but when I talk about martial/caster disparity, it really comes down to variety of options and relative power of said options. There are many things a caster can do that can have very dramatic effects on the game. One spell slot can fundamentally change the nature of an encounter, adventure, or even campaign.

The only way to balance this is to pressure casters to get them to use more of their spell slots, but as they gain levels, each spell slot has increasingly more value, and ability to prevent them from having to expend as much energy to resolve scenarios.

The Barbarian and Fighter, on the flipside, has much fewer methods by which to alter the course of the game. Their damage potential certainly can end fights quickly by granting that most potent of status ailments...death....and it's certain that they have their place in the game.

But the game has taken away their truly incredible powers to alter the landscape of a world. No ability to raise a barbarian horde or an army of trained soldiers, unless the DM specifically gives them that power.

Whereas nobody has to specifically give a Wizard the power to create Simulacrums or create a fortress for himself. He has spells that do that. It doesn't help that spellcasting warriors like Paladins are just as effective as their non-spellcasting counterparts, or that WotC is content to let casters usurp more of what makes non-spellcasters stand out.

Many players are perfectly content dishing out hit point damage and turning enemies into mincemeat, and probably don't care what things spellcasters can do. Many spellcasters are equally content just tossing out fireballs and cones of cold to directly support the cause of "make enemies dead".

But spellcasters don't have to do this. They can use a spell slot to turn a tough to win encounter into "mopping up charmed foes who have no ability to fight back". Or avoid an encounter completely. Or multiple encounters. Or to change the course of mighty rivers or grab the MacGuffin and teleport away to a place of safety.

It's not about what will the spellcaster do, but what they could do, that is my concern. I don't think all this potential should be given strictly to those who wield spells, especially narrative potential.

When I talk about martial/caster disparity, I'm not saying that Fighters are irrelevant. I'm saying they should be more relevant, and the fact that the game designers are perfectly content to let a party of four casters function better without a Fighter or Barbarian than a party of four Fighters and/or Barbarians (or Rogues, for that matter) strikes me as very odd.

But I know there are people who feel this is working as intended, and it's fine for them to have that opinion. I don't understand it, that's all.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Very dumb balance reasons brought to us by people who have yet to master 'indoors' and 'tree' technology.

And as stated, the problem with dragonborn si that they're not very dragony.

adding a tail would be fine honestly, but working wings are a bit more difficult as that lets them bypass many challenges and if you counter that the player may think the dm is picking on them thus a difficult problem for a basic universal race.

Power dynamics are only a problem if they're exercised either actively or institutionally.

Just being a rich dude doesn't mean you can't have relationships with the unrich.

rich people rarely have a non-ruling relationship with the non-rich full stop and I think you missed my point about them living longer than many nation states and being literally predatory by nature we are their food or proxies for the insane dragon cold wars they must be doing over the limited supply of gold.
then you factor in the fact they unlike us have never needed technology to live and many can cast magic just so they can make killing easier.
it is like dating a minor god not like Hercules but say BOREAS the wind god they are more than you will ever be.

 

[Emirikol]

Another thing I don't like about 5e: My beef with the DMG not having a character replacement standard that isn't a DM-dick-move.
In 1974, you got punished for losing a character. You started over. Heaven forbid you were a good, loyal, player who kept notes and stayed in character--ha ha! You. Get. Screwed. Start over mutha-fatha! You' a' loser!

Fast-forward to 5e: Nothing has changed in the DMG. Without specificity, DM-culture still feels it is necessary to punish players who have a character die/retire/replaced. It's a minus 10% penalty to experience, or start over a level 1 lower, or whatever else the dick-DM decides to throw on a player.

Character death is ALWAYS a sore spot in campaign play (one-shots, who cares?) and the DMG needs a statement that "Standard is: your replacement character begins with 100% of previous character's xp." Instead, there is still this 1974 mentality of punishing players. The DMG does zero to deal with this single issue. "Let the DM decide." Sure, but how about we begin with a decency standard of not punishing players.

We wouldn't need "impossible to die" rules (3 saves? full overnight healing? instant 40 hit points from a HD heal..really?) if the roleplaying standard were updated in the DMG to "Don't punish a player for character death..oh, and remind them to always have a back-up so they can jump back into play as soon as they're ready."

 

[Oofta]

It's not that they are, either. I can't speak for anyone else's opinion, but when I talk about martial/caster disparity, it really comes down to variety of options and relative power of said options. There are many things a caster can do that can have very dramatic effects on the game. One spell slot can fundamentally change the nature of an encounter, adventure, or even campaign.

The only way to balance this is to pressure casters to get them to use more of their spell slots, but as they gain levels, each spell slot has increasingly more value, and ability to prevent them from having to expend as much energy to resolve scenarios.

The Barbarian and Fighter, on the flipside, has much fewer methods by which to alter the course of the game. Their damage potential certainly can end fights quickly by granting that most potent of status ailments...death....and it's certain that they have their place in the game.

But the game has taken away their truly incredible powers to alter the landscape of a world. No ability to raise a barbarian horde or an army of trained soldiers, unless the DM specifically gives them that power.

Whereas nobody has to specifically give a Wizard the power to create Simulacrums or create a fortress for himself. He has spells that do that. It doesn't help that spellcasting warriors like Paladins are just as effective as their non-spellcasting counterparts, or that WotC is content to let casters usurp more of what makes non-spellcasters stand out.

Many players are perfectly content dishing out hit point damage and turning enemies into mincemeat, and probably don't care what things spellcasters can do. Many spellcasters are equally content just tossing out fireballs and cones of cold to directly support the cause of "make enemies dead".

But spellcasters don't have to do this. They can use a spell slot to turn a tough to win encounter into "mopping up charmed foes who have no ability to fight back". Or avoid an encounter completely. Or multiple encounters. Or to change the course of mighty rivers or grab the MacGuffin and teleport away to a place of safety.

It's not about what will the spellcaster do, but what they could do, that is my concern. I don't think all this potential should be given strictly to those who wield spells, especially narrative potential.

When I talk about martial/caster disparity, I'm not saying that Fighters are irrelevant. I'm saying they should be more relevant, and the fact that the game designers are perfectly content to let a party of four casters function better without a Fighter or Barbarian than a party of four Fighters and/or Barbarians (or Rogues, for that matter) strikes me as very odd.

But I know there are people who feel this is working as intended, and it's fine for them to have that opinion. I don't understand it, that's all.

If you don't want to play a mundane fighter, no one is forcing you. In games I play they're reasonably popular. If you want a warrior with a bit (or a lot) of magic there are plenty of options.

I don't want to lose the option to play a PC that does not rely on explicitly supernatural abilities. I also don't want fighters given spell-like abilities that are given a different label.

I don't understand why it bothers people that a tiny percentage of all the class options available don't fit their personal preference.

 

[CreamCloud0]

adding a tail would be fine honestly, but working wings are a bit more difficult as that lets them bypass many challenges and if you counter that the player may think the dm is picking on them thus a difficult problem for a basic universal race.

Would love to see a tailed dragonborn have a sweeping tail attack that could be used to try trip everyone within 5ft, or as a natural weapon whip that had reach

Flying races are always going to be an issue but you could at least give them the ability to glide or hover

Is this something people might like to talk about more in depth in it’s own thread ‘making a more dragony Dragonborn’?

 

[CreamCloud0]

If you don't want to play a mundane fighter, no one is forcing you. In games I play they're reasonably popular. If you want a warrior with a bit (or a lot) of magic there are plenty of options.

I don't want to lose the option to play a PC that does not rely on explicitly supernatural abilities. I also don't want fighters given spell-like abilities that are given a different label.

I don't understand why it bothers people that a tiny percentage of all the class options available don't fit their personal preference.

Probably because we know wizards would cram the mundane, heroic and superhero fighter into the same class competing with each other’s design space or only do one, so they want theirs to be the top dog.