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

[Hussar]

Aren't Warforged a magical mutation too? And aren't Autognomes literal built robots? And Glitchlings just random spirits of order that got a body? And fairies any of the infinity of possible fairies? I think half-dragon works, and there's only an ick factor if you put it there to discount the idea.

Yes, I want an empire of half-dragons built on the corpse of a Grave Wyrm that's out here givin hands and flying around and drinking bad, bad brandy.

Ahh. Sorry. Now I understand the confusion.

I totally agree with you. I love the ideas you have here.

But I’m also realistic enough to understand why WotC isnt going to do it. .

This is t about what I want. It’s about understanding the reasons why you’re not going to get what you want.

 

[delericho]

Yup. And does anyone think half-orc is going to make the cut in the next release? It's going to be replaced by full orc for exactly the same reason.

I certainly hope not. Every edition of the game that has removed the half-orc from the PHB has failed spectacularly. Hell, one of them killed the entire company!

(And, for the avoidance of doubt: yes, that's hyperbole; yes, I'm aware correlation isn't the same as causation; and no, I'm not actually serious.)

Half-elf? No real ickiness factor there at all. So, that won't be an issue.

Honestly, I'd prefer that they either keep both half-orcs and half-elves or (probably better) drop both. As I've said before, I'd tend to suggest that for each race there should be an "X-blooded" feat (or similar) to allow characters of any race to have a mixed heritage - and by introducing this each time they add a race, they get a nice easy way to mix and match.

But given that half-elves are popular PCs choices and half-orcs aren't, I can't imagine we'll actually see that.

 

[delericho]

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.

Possibly the best way to square the circle on this one is to leave the "wings and tail" decision to individual DMs, but have them be non-functional at the outset. Then add some feats that allow them to gain a tail action, the ability to hover, and eventually true flight.

That said, if they haven't introduced those things in Fizban's, it's highly unlikely they'll add them anywhere else, given the relatively light release schedule.

(Speaking of Fizban's, that does remind me: unless they've changed it, or I misremembered, Dragonlance's Draconians are now considered to be Dragonborn, and most of those canonically have wings.)

 

[Minigiant]

I have to admit, I find the whole caster/fighter split to be rather overblown. Yes, I think casters might be a bit stronger than non-casters, but, overall? It just hasn't seemed to have much of an impact.

I do have a larger issue with the fact that 5e is just SO heavy magic. Like, spells every single round from every single spell caster. Which has meant that the players automatically default to casting spells to solve every problem rather than trying to use skills. But overall? No, I don't really see the issue in play.

Yeah, it's less caster vs martials and rogues and more spells vs everything. The low number of core defined used of skills and abilities of means the DM has to make rulings on everything that isn't a spell or weapon use.

This means a Wizard at Table A, B, and C feel the same. But a Fighter or Rogue at Table A has an extremely different play experience from Table B or Table C. So everyone defaults to magic spells and magic items for reliability

This is because 5e was written for a group of 30-60 year olds who have gamed together for a long time,play the same style and genre of D&D over and over, and teach the under 30 players to game like them. So everyone knows what the DMs allows and how difficult it is to do.

Once you have a community of players or younger fans restarting campaigns constantly and moving from group to group, that lack of standarization (even as an option) shifts the game hard to the well defined magic spell rules.

 

[Helldritch]

Yeah, it's less caster vs martials and rogues and more spells vs everything. The low number of core defined used of skills and abilities of means the DM has to make rulings on everything that isn't a spell or weapon use.

This means a Wizard at Table A, B, and C feel the same. But a Fighter or Rogue at Table A has an extremely different play experience from Table B or Table C. So everyone defaults to magic spells and magic items for reliability

This is because 5e was written for a group of 30-60 year olds who have gamed together for a long time,play the same style and genre of D&D over and over, and teach the under 30 players to game like them. So everyone knows what the DMs allows and how difficult it is to do.

Once you have a community of players or younger fans restarting campaigns constantly and moving from group to group, that lack of standarization (even as an option) shifts the game hard to the well defined magic spell rules.

I rarely saw such an agism post. 5ed was not made for one age category only and liking one type of play does not lock one into that playstyle. I have young and old at my table and if anything, D&D help lessening the gap between generations. D&D, whatever the edition, is not reserved for the old or the young buy it is for everyone.

The difference in experiences at different tables are not related to the age of the DM nor what a DM will allow related to how old the person is in anyway. It is simply a matter of taste.

 

[Minigiant]

I rarely saw such an agism post. 5ed was not made for one age category only and liking one type of play does not lock one into that playstyle. I have young and old at my table and if anything, D&D help lessening the gap between generations. D&D, whatever the edition, is not reserved for the old or the young buy it is for everyone.

The difference in experiences at different tables are not related to the age of the DM nor what a DM will allow related to how old the person is in anyway. It is simply a matter of taste.

It's less an agism argument and more that 5e didn't focus on getting fantasy tropes after 2000 right. The focus was on getting the fantasy ideas that where popular in the 70s and 80s done well.

Energy into getting new fantasy concepts like the 4 elements monk, beastmster ranger, magical nonspellcasting fighters, balance shorter workdays, relationship mechanics and nontraditional monster right came later in 5e. And some haven't be touched like superheroic genres.

 

[Helldritch]

It's less an agism argument and more that 5e didn't focus on getting fantasy tropes after 2000 right. The focus was on getting the fantasy ideas that where popular in the 70s and 80s done well.

Energy into getting new fantasy concepts like the 4 elements monk, beastmster ranger, magical nonspellcasting fighters, balance shorter workdays, relationship mechanics and nontraditional monster right came later in 5e. And some haven't be touched like superheroic genres.

5ed is already super heroic like enough already. I surely hope they do not go further down that way.

As for the tropes... I think they got them mostly right. Some were missing and not correctly implemented but in general they did quite a good job. For the monk, just add wisdom bonuses to ki and all of a sudden, the 4 elements monk is way better. Around 16 wisdom, it may means 9 more ki points to work with.
And the other problematic classes like the beast masters were quote easy to work with a simple solution. Most problems had simple solutions and I wonder if they had really tested them fully. I prefer my solutions to what TCoE did, but that book did made some progress in fixing the bugs. No edition has ever been perfect and working around the missed mark is pretty much ingrained in any RPGs.

 

[Minigiant]

is already super heroic like enough already. I surely hope they do not go further down that way.

5e is heroic not superheroic. Outside of toughness and spells, 5e is very tame.

You don't get to do the feats of action movies, video games, anime, comics, and cartoons. PCs and NPCs are slow, have full reactions, and lack inhuman strength, intelligence, wisdom, and charm.

for the tropes... I think they got them mostly right. Some were missing and not correctly implemented but in general they did quite a good job. For the monk, just add wisdom bonuses to ki and all of a sudden, the 4 elements monk is way better. Around 16 wisdom, it may means 9 more ki points to work with.
And the other problematic classes like the beast masters were quote easy to work with a simple solution. Most problems had simple solutions and I wonder if they had really tested them fully. I prefer my solutions to what TCoE did, but that book did made some progress in fixing the bugs. No edition has ever been perfect and working around the missed mark is pretty much ingrained in any RPGs.

I don't wanna be that guy but 4e managed to get a fantastic monk, TWO types of beastmsters, and action movie fighter, rangers, and rogues in it's first try. And a druid that was playable by new players (oh man is the 5e druid complex).

And them being easy to fix is the point. The 5e designers didn't put emphasis on fixing them until their was a backlash. Almost everything nontraditional in 5e was printed with issues, came years later, or is still in testing.

 

[Horwath]

I don't wanna be that guy but 4e managed to get a fantastic monk, TWO types of beastmsters, and action movie fighter, rangers, and rogues in it's first try. And a druid that was playable by new players (oh man is the 5e druid complex).

And them being easy to fix is the point. The 5e designers didn't put emphasis on fixing them until their was a backlash. Almost everything nontraditional in 5e was printed with issues, came years later, or is still in testing.

yeah, most people could agree that, PHB atleast, monk is unsalvageable, ranger is horrible and rogue is just the best of the worst 3.

Gloomstalker and Tasha's options saved the ranger, Scout became rogue/ranger hybrid(No.1 skill monkey), mercy monk barely put monk into playable category. Or maybe I am too generous with monk here.

 

[Minigiant]

yeah, most people could agree that, PHB atleast, monk is unsalvageable, ranger is horrible and rogue is just the best of the worst 3.

Gloomstalker and Tasha's options saved the ranger, Scout became rogue/ranger hybrid(No.1 skill monkey), mercy monk barely put monk into playable category. Or maybe I am too generous with monk here.

Yeah.

The PHB barbarian's only nonmagical subclass is bad.
The PHB monk is only good at stun locked BBEGs and the subclass based on a newer IP doesn't work as expected.
The PHB ranger was designed for a exploration sunsystem that doesn't exist and should have been made more skill or combat focused if they weren't gonna print exploration mechanics.
The PHB sorcerer has too few spells known and sorcery points. And there was little design dive into the sorcery points mechanic and the concept of sorcery.
The PHB warlock Pact of the Blade doesn't do what anyone who wanted a blade using warlock to do.

The PHB bard got luck that they gave up on JOAT or music magic and made it a full caster. And the PHB paladin relies on Divine Smite being really strong.

Sure many of these issues were fixed. However since the classes were designed more for traditional D&D, it left little leeway for wiggling around in the skeleton. So with a "no class errata" policy, nearly all the nontraditional options early in the game is clearly weaker.