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

[Minigiant]

On think about the complexity discussion is that you can add complexity without causing options paralysis in game.

Like I mentioned before, the A5e adept and berserk both get an Uarmoored or Armored AC boost at level one. Once you pick it, that's it. Your AC changes. No more thinking about it. But now you have the option of a STR, DEX, on CON in character creation.

5e did it the "worst of both worlds" by giving you a watered down version of both options and forcing you to go one path.

It would be more accessible to give classes and races a choice of 2-3 strong options rather that waste page space forcing one path and having to "fix" it with feats and subclasses.

 

[Quickleaf]

5e's desire for consistent/universal design in monsters & NPCs leads to some missed opportunities.

For example, there's an entire type of monster which we might call "test/riddle givers" like sphinxes, crypt things, certain types of door monsters (grandfather plaque gargoyles), etc. Giving these kinds of monsters the same treatment as, say, an otyugh or a hobgoblin – while that might be traditionally how it has been done in D&D – doesn't actually reflect the difference in how these types of monsters are used in play. Two basic questions a GM needs answered about a "test/riddle giver" monster are (a) what is the test/riddle? and (b) what are the consequences for answering wrong? Rather than a huge stat block, it might be more helpful if the design focused on answering those two questions first and foremost, and then if there's room place a little stat block there.

Similarly there's another type of monster which have the False Appearance trait, maybe we can call them "false monsters", including gargoyles, mimics, awakened trees, etc. The fundamental question for these monsters is, if it can't be noticed through conventional means / Perception, what are the signs of this monster's presence? what creative ways might the players use to detect it? Generally, these monsters don't have very interesting stat blocks – rather, the most interesting part, which is the lead up to and the "horrific reveal" itself, are left almost entirely up to the GM to sort out.

Same thinking applies to the presentation of NPCs. I was listening to the Adventure Engineers series with Kelsey Dionne, and the host (forget the gentleman's name) mentioned how the NPCs in Waterdeep Dragon Heist are introduced with a mess of stat blocks and formulaic info that really doesn't help the DM portray those NPCs. That's definitely an issue I've seen in other 5e adventures – often the good info is there, but it's not streamlined or presented front and center (essentially, their writing buries the lead with NPCs).

There was a recent interview Chris Perkins gave about the Spelljammer book, and talking about the monster book, he mentioned that Murder Comets came about because of a layout need for a 1-page monster between M and N. While I love the ideas behind the monster, and don't have any criticism there, and I know that layout challenges are real, I do think the top level managerial decision that "each monster must look so-and-so and be laid out such-and-such" is... it's the old model, but it does not (and I would argue never did) reflect/support how certain monsters are actually used at the table.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

100% agree and I hope that 6e will be slowly more 4e like

Main thing I'd take from 4e would be more classes.

Also minions, and more use for the bloodied condition.

 

[Minigiant]

5e's desire for consistent/universal design in monsters & NPCs leads to some missed opportunities.

For example, there's an entire type of monster which we might call "test/riddle givers" like sphinxes, crypt things, certain types of door monsters (grandfather plaque gargoyles), etc. Giving these kinds of monsters the same treatment as, say, an otyugh or a hobgoblin – while that might be traditionally how it has been done in D&D – doesn't actually reflect the difference in how these types of monsters are used in play. Two basic questions a GM needs answered about a "test/riddle giver" monster are (a) what is the test/riddle? and (b) what are the consequences for answering wrong? Rather than a huge stat block, it might be more helpful if the design focused on answering those two questions first and foremost, and then if there's room place a little stat block there.

A lot of that comes from what I said on the first page.

5e assumes the DM is either

1. a 20 year veteran and already knows how to run a sphinx
2. a first year newbie who is following a published module beat by beat and is being told what to do.

5e handles anyone between brand new player and very experienced veteran poorly.

 

[Oofta]

I'm not minimizing it, but it's very clearly an (over)reaction to the old guard's dissatisfaction with 4E. It was clear in the playtest too, where the barrier for exclusion was so low a few complainers could keep something out that they'd never themselves play. "Don't let them order a salad"

The only thing clear to me is that 5e is more successful. Which is good for WOTC, good for the hobby.

They made the right decision.

 

[Oofta]

AND there is still room for improvement or at least greater modularity AND it may be time to re-examine whether the current crop of new players are more open and supportive of concepts that did not go down well with older gamers.

No game is perfect. I have my own complaints.

But this whole "if people were smart and knowledge they'd want something different [insert other game or edition]"* is just silly.

I like the core design of 5e. The so-called newbies have been playing for years. We are seeing some modifications and options. But radical changes? Don't need it, don't want it. Why would they kill the golden goose?

*Toss in some ageism for good measure.

 

[Malmuria]

It's undeniable that 5e has extremely broad appeal due to a combination of great marketing, solid game design and hitting just the right nostalgic notes to bring back old fans who had not played in years. It's damn good at what it does, but there are limits to what it does.

There is absolutely no need to place the game on a pedestal above other games. That's where a lot of this pushback comes from. Not acknowledging that other games that were not as commercially successful can still be just as good at what they do.

Honestly a lot of this mentality does the game disservice. It makes it hard to be a fan of 5e and other games. The constant sideswiping of alternatives and my game can do anything your game can do better crap almost make me not want to be a part of the community.

Sir, this is a 50-page thread of people complaining about 5e’s design faults

 

[James Gasik]

There is not now, or ever was a perfect TTRGP, let alone a perfect edition of D&D. The game has always been what the players make of it. If one version speaks to an individual, and it's easier for them to "make it their own", then it's going to be the "best" version of the game, even if it took some finagling to get there.

I know people who swear up and down AD&D is still the best thing ever, but the amount of rules they ignore, or house rules they employ are staggering, yet, lol, that's never brought up in their defense of the game.

I don't really mind someone saying "5e is the best game for them". That's great! It gets obnoxious when people say things like "I have not now, or ever had, or ever will have any problem you describe, and neither does anyone I know, have known, or ever will know", when you bring up an issue you have with 5e or any version of the game- again, this goes back to "the game is what you make of it".

I've seen firsthand what happens when gamers who have played since the 80's, and have a "Fighters rule, Wizards drool" mentality have an encounter upended by the use of a 4th level spell. Because either nobody played Wizards, or they didn't get to that high of level, or they thought fireball was the height of a Wizards power, and never took a close look at other spells.

Some people engage with theoretical situations, others need to see it happen before they are willing to devote brain power to it. So I know I have had to start to accept that (gasp!) people are different, and so are their experiences.

Ultimately, wanting the game to be "better" is a personal desire. Others may agree with it, but one man's better is another man's worse. We will always have to take the good with the bad, and hope the developers give us enough insight, or at the least, after enough examination of the game, we can decide how to make it better for ourselves.

WotC isn't invested in making a game for you.* They are invested in making a game that will earn them money, because it seems like Hasbro doesn't understand TTRPG's or their market, and just making money or being successful isn't enough anymore.

Corporations need you to make all the money. And that will be the force driving development forward for the foreseeable future.

*However, there is a chance that the game they make is "good enough" for you, in which case, congratulations! But I do hope you realize good enough for you isn't necessarily good enough for everyone.

And that you also realize that the game can change once the majority decides it's no longer "good enough" for them. The pendulum is always ready to swing in a new direction.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Something I've noted with mild displeasure (though I'm guilty of it myself) is, I think, less about 5e and more about where D&D has gone in recent years: leveling up happens awfully fast these days. Again, there's nothing at all in 5e (or any other rules system) that causes this--it's just a trend I've noticed.

Actually, that goes all the way back to 3e. And its absolutely a deliberate design; the idea that if you're going to have 20 levels, that it should at least be vaguely feasible to get to them for people who don't play 260 session campaigns.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I know, and I specifically don't want to put this at the feet of 5e or any other system, as it's really up to the DM/GM to determine the rate at which players level. As I am the DM right now, it is 100% my fault that they're leveling up quickly. My sense of things is that it's just gotten to the point where this is almost expected and a DM's refusal to go along with it creates friction.

Back in dem olden times called "high school" in the 80s, I had a cleric who topped out at 16th level before DM and I both got bored with him and we killed him off in a spectacular fashion. It took me about a year and a half to get him to that level.

This is not a great comparison, because honestly, OD&D through AD&D2e didn't really have much intention that you got above 10-12th level. That's simply not been the assumption from 3e on.