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

[delericho]

[ DMG word count: ~240,000 (AD&D) to ~80,000 (5E) words. ]

Surely that can't be right? Lost Mine of Phandelver is approx 55000 words, so the DMG has to be much more than 80k.

 

[Hussar]

Considering the PHB is over 200 000 words (at least according to the 30 second google search I did) I'm going to take a stab and think that that 80k number is mistaken.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So we're left looking at what people play.

As I've said, that's literally useless as a measure of whether a class' mechanics work correctly.

Fortunately there's a really easy alternative - we can look at the mechanics!

 

[DND_Reborn]

Surely that can't be right? Lost Mine of Phandelver is approx 55000 words, so the DMG has to be much more than 80k.

Considering the PHB is over 200 000 words (at least according to the 30 second google search I did) I'm going to take a stab and think that that 80k number is mistaken.

Might have been a type-O, perhaps it is 180,000 and the 1 was left out?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I actually wonder how much most players even care about the Shaolin thing. How do we know that's a worse problem in player's eyes than the monk's other issues?

They're kind of one and the same, though. The Monk chassis is overloaded with very specific abilities because it's based on Shaolin Monk myths specifically (it's the only class in 5E remaining with a specific singular real-world myth origin-point - even Druids are much broader).

This overloading of the chassis is why Monks have basically no options, and why the whole "spam Stunning Strike" thing exists. It's why the Monk subclasses are so mechanically weak (even when thematically strong) and offer so little, because so much is in the main chassis, and it's devoted to this singular goal of simulating Shaolin Monks, like this was 1975.

I doubt most players today are even actively aware that it's a Shaolin thing specifically, note, because that myth has basically dropped out of pop culture entirely (Shaolin Soccer is about as close as you're going to get) aside from aficionados of ageing action movies, and not even most of those, because it's a '70s thing, and people usually only go back to the '80s with bad action movies. They probably just think it's "weirdly specific".

 

[Hussar]

As I've said, that's literally useless as a measure of whether a class' mechanics work correctly.

Fortunately there's a really easy alternative - we can look at the mechanics!

But there are problems with that analysis. There are so many assumptions that can be made that any analysis can be made to prove any point.

Looking at the mechanics is a start, not an end point. It can identify potential problems but until the actual work is done, testing an theory of how the mechanics work, it doesn’t actually prove anything.

Take the recent point about low level AL play skewing DND Beyond results. It’s plausible sure, but there’s some giant holes there. We have an idea that there are about 10 million DnDBeyond users. How many Adventure League players are there? Of those how many use DnD Beyond?

In other words, is lower level play over represented on DnD Beyond because of AL numbers?

Who knows? Not you or me and probably not anyone reading this. But apparently we can dismiss DnD Beyond play numbers because they don’t match the narrative we want to create.

If you actually want to make the claim about play, do the work. Otherwise all you can talk about is your own personal experience with the knowledge that it’s just dueling anecdotes.

 

[Horwath]

They're kind of one and the same, though. The Monk chassis is overloaded with very specific abilities because it's based on Shaolin Monk myths specifically (it's the only class in 5E remaining with a specific singular real-world myth origin-point - even Druids are much broader).

This overloading of the chassis is why Monks have basically no options, and why the whole "spam Stunning Strike" thing exists. It's why the Monk subclasses are so mechanically weak (even when thematically strong) and offer so little, because so much is in the main chassis, and it's devoted to this singular goal of simulating Shaolin Monks, like this was 1975.

I doubt most players today are even actively aware that it's a Shaolin thing specifically, note, because that myth has basically dropped out of pop culture entirely (Shaolin Soccer is about as close as you're going to get) aside from aficionados of ageing action movies, and not even most of those, because it's a '70s thing, and people usually only go back to the '80s with bad action movies. They probably just think it's "weirdly specific".

well that depends on the player creating the character.

I played two monks in 5E(that is why I say that they are worst class).

One was a high elf,
he was a high guard of Evereska, just a warrior that is trained to be always ready, independent of having gear around.
OFC, weapon is better, but you need to be always watchful.
With zero shaolin mysticism involved
later, with shadow subclass he trained in infiltration and counter intelligence.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But there are problems with that analysis. There are so many assumptions that can be made that any analysis can be made to prove any point.

Looking at the mechanics is a start, not an end point. It can identify potential problems but until the actual work is done, testing an theory of how the mechanics work, it doesn’t actually prove anything.

Take the recent point about low level AL play skewing DND Beyond results. It’s plausible sure, but there’s some giant holes there. We have an idea that there are about 10 million DnDBeyond users. How many Adventure League players are there? Of those how many use DnD Beyond?

In other words, is lower level play over represented on DnD Beyond because of AL numbers?

Who knows? Not you or me and probably not anyone reading this. But apparently we can dismiss DnD Beyond play numbers because they don’t match the narrative we want to create.

If you actually want to make the claim about play, do the work. Otherwise all you can talk about is your own personal experience with the knowledge that it’s just dueling anecdotes.

I'm literally not even sure what you're talking about, I'm afraid.

Game designers don't design classes based on their popularity on DNDBeyond or whatever (obviously, as they'd need to be psychic to do so). They design them based on the mechanics of the class. They can be assessed based on that. Any other position seems, well, patently wrong.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

well that depends on the player creating the character.

I played two monks in 5E(that is why I say that they are worst class).

One was a high elf,
he was a high guard of Evereska, just a warrior that is trained to be always ready, independent of having gear around.
OFC, weapon is better, but you need to be always watchful.
With zero shaolin mysticism involved
later, with shadow subclass he trained in infiltration and counter intelligence.

My point is that whilst you can try and pass stuff off as "not Shaolin mysticism", it's still Shaolin mysticism/mythology and the attempt to emulate it that gives the Monk those features.

I'm confused about the Evereska guy though, you say "OFC, weapon is better", but mechanically that's simply not true with Monks (again because of their Shaolin roots).

 

[Horwath]

My point is that whilst you can try and pass stuff off as "not Shaolin mysticism", it's still Shaolin mysticism/mythology and the attempt to emulate it that gives the Monk those features.

I'm confused about the Evereska guy though, you say "OFC, weapon is better", but mechanically that's simply not true with Monks (again because of their Shaolin roots).

longsword is better than a fist.