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

[GMforPowergamers]

5e calls it being proficient 4e called it being trained (not referring to real world training but game jargon)
An non proficient history user remains at +0 every level there after in 5e

In 4e you do not have to be trained (proficient) in something to get +0 to +10. level buffs you get them regardless of whether you are "trained/proficient"

and yyet you are the one saying this is more or less the same?

 

[Garthanos]

and yet you are the one saying this is more or less the same?

The math works out because the removed the difficulty advancement... The math is what i said was more or less the same divide by two how they did it by making attributes quite mundane for instance and some of the details do have repercussions.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

now you want to draw the line of taking what WotC says?

Do you even know what your point is? Or are you just engaged in argument?

As I stated previously, there are sources, imperfect sources, that can be used to measure 5e's popularity, or success.

Why did I references these imperfect sources? Because we don't have the exact sales figures. We never have. Well, now we have some of the sale from the AD&D era (good book on that!) but generally, no.

so? I don't understand. Do you not see the same thing with comic heroes sci fi fantasy... the cultural change?

No- what I am saying is that you keep making the same unsourced assertions which seem to contradict things that are either known, or reasonably ascertainable.

For example, we know (thanks to Benn Riggs) that the total lifetime sales of 3e/3.5e PHB were less than that of 1e. We also know (unless 4e substantially outperformed the lifetime sales of 3e and 3.5e combined) that 4e undersold 1e. We don't know if 4e "undersold" 3e, and that would also be a difficult metric to analyze given the differing nature of the core books.

The "So?" is the rebuttal to your continued claim of "every edition performed better than the one before it." Not only do we not know if that is true in general, we have specific evidence that 1e was the best seller until 5e. - ETA primarily because of the early 80s.

sure it was... you were saying just a little while ago about how psionics are provable to not be popular... but you can only show that no version they put out passed the mustard...

I love psionics. I would love for them to do it right. But they tried several ways to do it (I thought the Mystic was promising) and it wasn't popular enough. At a certain point, I have to recognize that the things I like or love might not be broadly popular.

For that matter, I don't have any real evidence that psionics has ever been broadly popular in D&D.

 

[payn]

I don't know what CRB is but we know that the core 3 books sell better then any splat... we know that the core 3 of 5e out sold 4e, we know the core 3 of 4e out sold 3.5... on back to 2e... we do not have before 2e (although maybe in that new book).

of course all of this is taking WotC at there word... and I am fine with throwing all of that out... but that then means we have less info not more.

Sry, I meant PHB with CRB. Is this core books at launch, or just core books all together? Because I have heard the launch statement before, not the entirely statement part.

 

[Garthanos]

For that matter, I don't have any real evidence that psionics has ever been broadly popular in D&D.

Always liked the flavor 1e had the coolest btw... but saw some interesting bits in 3e as well. But never liked the implementation, and not in my favorite edition either.

Blue Oyster Cults veteran of the psychic wars for the win.

 

[MoonSong]

My take on classes and subclasses is that the entire system needs an adjustment. Which, unfortunately, I don't think will happen, but, I think it would help a lot. The fact that some classes start out with subclasses at level 1 and some at level 3 just skews the whole system.

There should be like three base chassis classes - just for levels 1 and 2, with level 3 being the subclass specialization where you get most of the meat of the class itself. So, you start with three base chassis - martial, half caster, full caster. Then, at 3rd level, you become a Paladin (with a specific subclass) or a Ranger (Hunter) or a Fighter (Battlemaster) or a Wizard (Conjurer) or whatever.

It would make things so much easier to design going forward. But, again, standardization like this would have been very much a bridge too far in 2013 during the Next play testing because it would have had FAR too many 4e cooties on it. But, it really would resolve about 99% of the issues with classes if they did this. And then just suggest that if you want to skip the "Apprentice" levels of 1 and 2, just start at 3rd level and off you go.

The problem with this is that some concepts just plain need to be there from level 1. You are either a magical human from birth or a mage that studied a lot. If everybody has to be one for two levels before switching to the other at third then we don't truly have that other in the game. "We still have wizards at the game, they all just happen to be sorcerers at the early levels" or the other way around... The classes we have have some strong flavor and they resist this kind of standardization. It doesn't help that some have a more narrow flavor than others.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Well, to a lot of people, what is broadly popular is a secondary concern to what they want. I can't say I blame them.

 

[Mecheon]

For that matter, I don't have any real evidence that psionics has ever been broadly popular in D&D.

The only widely available stand alone custom class made for NWN not tied to the PRC (the thing that tried to get all of the many, many, many various 3.5e classes into that game, to the best of its ability) was a whole psionics system, so its popular enough to have its fans. We got psionics before attempts at trying to figure swimming or climbing in that came along

I can see Fighter and Rogue in 5e already could merge fairly easily we have dex fighters already... is that knifist a rogue or a fighter did he dash because a maneuver enabled extra movement or because he simply can...

I'm one of those people who'd prefer that classes just focus stronglyl on their archetype, as opposed to wider classes that encompass a lot, but... I don't see any advantage here?

The problem with your hybrid rogue/fighter is you're going to end up either starving them of resources they would have individually had (By say, only limiting a number of points), or giving them things useless to their archetype. The greatsword wielding knight isn't going to be using bonus actions to hide their clanky self, and, well, I'm sure the rogue would love action surge, do we really want to addd that on top of all they have?

The classes play that completely differently in game, so that I cannot see any advantage from merging them into one, aside from confusing new people and making it harder for them to play what they want. Frankly, all this talk of merging classes just reminds me of some of the sillier character building nonsense from 3.5. Classes are a widespread and known thing on pop culture, and newcomers to the game are going to want to play the dashing rogue, the stalwart fighter, they want to play those archetypes. They don't want to play "You have to be a Martial and just pick a limited grab bag of what would work for a rogue" or "You have to play a completely different playstyle for 3 levels"

Gets worse when people suggest merging druid and cleric.

 

[Hussar]

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.

I think this pretty much nails it on the head.

Me saying that I don't like how clerics and druids work or that I think that a more standardized class framework, or an addition of a module for social combat, or better (for a given measure of better) mechanics for exploration doesn't mean that I hate D&D and I want it to be only what I want it to be. I'm currently running a 5e game, playing in another and (half assed anyway) prepping a new 5e campaign for my players to play after Candlekeep Mysteries is finished.

I'd say it's pretty clear that I'm not going anywhere.

But, I do think there are areas that could be done better. But that's the thing. "Could be done better" doesn't mean that the way it's done now is bad. It really doesn't. What's being done now obviously works or we wouldn't all be here. But, D&D has always iterated adjustments. Sometimes it's gone more complicated, sometimes simpler, and the pendulum swings back and forth. It looks, at least a bit, that right now simplicity and streamlining is swinging back into vogue.

So, we get things like floating racial ASI's, slimmed down monster stat blocks, possibly a lessening of the short/long rest cycle in favor of using proficiency bonus. So on and so forth.

It's all cyclical. A few years from now, we'll be right back on the other side, adding in all sorts of complexity to the game again. It's just the nature of how game design works.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Do you even know what your point is? Or are you just engaged in argument?

yes same one I made to begin with... no one has real good fact or evidence so asking for evidence is crazy