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

[GMforPowergamers]

I feel like the fact that they were clearly trying to design new classes in the beginning is proof of that.

yeah I still think atleast 1 class per 2 years is needed to keep the game going... and if anything the broad classes are the biggest issue

 

[Shardstone]

It can be so hard to discuss 5th Edition when so many people exaggerate every complaint and try to make it seem like everyone is insane or completely making things up when instead they are sharing basic facts.

D&D 5E starting out as a Apology Edition is a fact. They did all those surveys specifically to see what the then-crowd wanted, which was a game less obviously like 4E and more like a mix of 3E and 2E. This is not up for debate, and I'm tired of pretending that it is. The fact that 5E turned out as a fun and enjoyable game that exploded on the market is not diminished by the fact that it was an Apology Edition. Nor is the belief that WotC is popular, and thus the best game on the market, anywhere close to reality. That isn't how markets work, that isn't how games work, its some kind of weird Capitalist fantasy with no basis in reality.

5E did amazing at first because it appealed to pretty much anyone who would like 2 or 3E. Then it did even better once it started getting marketed to a wider audience. Then it did EVEN BETTER once it started catering material to the new audience. There are other elements involved here, but NONE OF THIS MEANS THAT 5E CANNOT BE A BETTER GAME.

Likewise, the argument that "You can't please everyone" and "There is no perfect TTRPG" is a HUGE cop out. Improving the game isn't about pleasing everyone, nor is it about making a perfect game, its about seeing how D&D can evolve, testing things out, and either rolling them back or going further with the idea. The fact that people have to consistently put an * on every single crticism that says "But I still enjoy 5E and don't think it is terrible" just so people wil llisten to the criticsms instead of sweeping them aside is so INSANE to me. How many times do we have to say that "We like 5E, we're just interested in seeing what it would be like if it was like this" before @Oofta and co finally stop saying "But the game can't be perfect!" ???

Does no one else seriously not see how absurd it is that every thread with any criticism is constantly having issues between one side of members saying "Its the best selling edition of D&D, why change it?" and "We'd be interested in seeing a D&D with these changes, even if they're rolled back" ? And that we constantly have to debate the fact that because D&D is the best selling TTRPG that it isn't automatically the best freaking game to ever grace this Earth?

I know this is probably thread capping, but it is just so hard for me to engage with this thread when almost every other post is someone basically saying that all criticism is junk and that we all need to shut up and suck up the slop of whatever WotC puts out without ever once wanting change.

I can even acknowledge that some people are way more extreme in their opinions then I think is fair for 5E, but I'd rather people be critical so we can actually have a discussion other then having to pretend like 5E literally cannot, should not, and will not change at all in the future, because making $$$$ means that its a golden goose that never in a thousand years can be touched due to its inherent divinity.

That being said, I agree that the 2024 edition will be more of the same for 5E, but with moderate changes that push us further from the crowd that first bought the game in 2014, and closer to the crowd who currently buys the game en masse. This, to me, is good. I'd like to be able to run D&D without having to make up random distances in theater of the mind, or have backgrounds that give feats that better mechanically represent certain character concepts. I probably won't like everything, and I probably won't agree with every opinion, but I can tell you one thing: I sure as hell won't be telling people that their criticisms are a waste of time like so many of ya'll like to do!!

 

[TwoSix]

That gives it more than six years before Tasha's. "5.5e," when it appears (2024) looks to be fully compatible with 5e. So ten years in, we will be running the same system. And it will have been refreshed to continue on.

I would agree with you that it certainly took a fair amount of time to hit those limits; where I would differ is to point out that long period of time corresponds with a relatively (relative to other WotC editions) scarce amount of published material. The fact that core class variants are sort of a side addendum in Tasha's rather than class features being made bespoke choices originally in the 2014 PHB is just one example.

"WotC made correct choices in their 2014 core book design" and "There are plenty of ways the 2014 core books could have been made better" are not contradictory statements. Highlighting deficiencies in the core is not explicit criticism of what we received, it's merely acknowledgment that many things in life can be both right and not perfect.

 

[Garthanos]

Even more if you count all the custom classes that popped up in OD&D era. When you have a narrow class system, the only way to represent things off the beaten path is a brand new class, so that's exactly what happened.

You can make classes more flexible at their core *or make sub-classes better able to override and in theory land balanced multi-classing and feats also accomplish some of that ... but

 

[Minigiant]

I happen to agree with you on the limits of design space for subclasses. But ... c'mon! The limits were hit fast? The story of 5e?

Let's try and put things in a little bit of perspective.

5e is, far and away, the most popular version of D&D ever. Even adjusting for population, inflation, and cultural ubiquity, it's passed early 80s AD&D.

Tasha's was released in November, 2020. The 5e PHB was released August, 2014.

Stuff in the TCOE has been asked for 2 years in.

5e has been sloooooooooooooooooow on delivery of anything of quality that is nontraditional.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

If subclasses had a massive effect and were most of the power budget, I'd happily do down to three classes. Fighter, thief, and magic user.

On the other end of the scale, if subclasses didn't exist, I'd want dozens of classes in order to cover the different character archetypes.

To me, 5e just has too small of a subclass power and theme budget for the amount of full classes it has. With this many classes, I'd want much less power/theme in the full class and much more in the subclass.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I would agree with you that it certainly took a fair amount of time to hit those limits; where I would differ is to point out that long period of time corresponds with a relatively (relative to other WotC editions) scarce amount of published material. The fact that core class variants are sort of a side addendum in Tasha's rather than class features being made bespoke choices originally in the 2014 PHB is just one example.

"WotC made correct choices in their 2014 core book design" and "There are plenty of ways the 2014 core books could have been made better" are not contradictory statements. Highlighting deficiencies in the core is not explicit criticism of what we received, it's merely acknowledgment that many things in life can be both right and not perfect.

Eh, this is one of those unanswerable questions. Because with 20/20 hindsight, people can always say ... "Well, sure, it worked in practice, but imagine how much better it would have worked in theory!"

That doesn't mean 5e is perfect, but it is interesting that people say it could have been so much better, with "better" always meaning, "Designed to more closely match my own gaming preferences."

I think that what most people forget is that design involves a lot of tradeoffs. Added complexity (and classes and "design space") might mean that the game is less accessible to certain people. More importantly, features that some people love (to make it "more like" 1e, or 2e, or 3e, or 4e) would not be popular with people playing today.

In other words, I agree that things can be better (not right). But the majority of people I see criticizing 5e are not making the critiques from the point of view as to what would make it an even-more broadly popular product, but instead, what works for them.

I mean, I love stick shifts. I think cars should have them. I buy cars with them. I always advocate for them. But my niche desire would not be appropriate for a broadly popular car.

 

[Shardstone]

Eh, this is one of those unanswerable questions. Because with 20/20 hindsight, people can always say ... "Well, sure, it worked in practice, but imagine how much better it would have worked in theory!"

That doesn't mean 5e is perfect, but it is interesting that people say it could have been so much better, with "better" always meaning, "Designed to more closely match my own gaming preferences."

I think that what most people forget is that design involves a lot of tradeoffs. Added complexity (and classes and "design space") might mean that the game is less accessible to certain people. More importantly, features that some people love (to make it "more like" 1e, or 2e, or 3e, or 4e) would not be popular with people playing today.

In other words, I agree that things can be better (not right). But the majority of people I see criticizing 5e are not making the critiques from the point of view as to what would make it an even-more broadly popular product, but instead, what works for them.

I mean, I love stick shifts. I think cars should have them. I buy cars with them. I always advocate for them. But my niche desire would not be appropriate for a broadly popular car.

If you can understand that people mean "Better for them," perhaps you can take the next logical step, where you discuss their preferences instead of just reminding them over and over again that their taste is not universal.

Ideas for change starts from a personal place. Once we've talked about our personal ideas, we are equipped to talk about broad applications, why something might be dropped, and so on. But we can never get to that place if the conversation always ends at "Ya but that's just you're opinion, so keep it to yourself!"

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

If you can understand that people mean "Better for them," perhaps you can take the next logical step, where you discuss their preferences instead of just reminding them over and over again that their taste is not universal.

Ideas for change starts from a personal place. Once we've talked about our personal ideas, we are equipped to talk about broad applications, why something might be dropped, and so on. But we can never get to that place if the conversation always ends at "Ya but that's just you're opinion, so keep it to yourself!"

That's not what I'm saying. If you have read my posts (or gotten past the first 1500 words in any of a number of posts that I start) you know that I am not shy about expressing my opinion. I express my opinion about things- and what I WANT TO SEE IN 5e ALL THE TIME Here, let me remind you ....

#GREYHAWKCONFIRMED

Good? Are we good on that?

So, what am I actually saying? Allow me to repeat-

In other words, I agree that things can be better (not right). But the majority of people I see criticizing 5e are not making the critiques from the point of view as to what would make it an even-more broadly popular product, but instead, what works for them.

So this is the specific context of people criticizing 5e. I always want people to get everything they want and desire (sometimes, as Mencken put it, they deserve to get it good and hard). But far too often, criticisms of 5e do not come with the understanding of the product qua product.

For example, I used to agitate, a lot, for more low-magic, low-powered, high-lethality options. And while I think that it is fine for 3PP (or optional rules in the DMG), I am quite cognizant that this is never going to be a part of the mainstream 5e rules, because this isn't something that is broadly appealing.

This is a game that is going to have a (fairly) low barrier to entry, and a lot of continuity with the past. And while it is great to express opinions regarding the things we want to see in the game, when we move on to critiquing the design decisions, we need to keep in mind that they are designing a product that is meant to be broadly popular, and, more importantly, is meant to be broadly popular with the youngest fans joining the game today. To the extent that we ignore that, our critiques do not take into account actual real-world practices, and is nothing more than, to use the analogy, my demanding that all new cars have a manual transmission option.

Now, if you want to just express your opinion- feel free! If you are engaged in a serious critique of the design decisions, then you have to operate under the same constraints that they do- what is popular?

 

[Garthanos]

If subclasses had a massive effect and were most of the power budget, I'd happily do down to three classes. Fighter, thief, and magic user.

On the other end of the scale, if subclasses didn't exist, I'd want dozens of classes in order to cover the different character archetypes.

To me, 5e just has too small of a subclass power and theme budget for the amount of full classes it has. With this many classes, I'd want much less power/theme in the full class and much more in the subclass.

Hmm and there are ways of making individual components more flexible for instance a parry maneuver may be allowed to affect attacks against allies who are within weapon reach and the entire Purple Dragon Knight can be collapsed into the base fighter as choices on the fly for how you use the maneuvers/ability ... ie build the fighter with other allies considered in the first place. Allow core abilities to be swapped out on the fly.