D&D 5E What are the "True Issues" with 5e?

[Velderan]

Excessive gold was never really a problem in the campaigns I played in. The 2 biggest ways the groups I played with spent gold was buying potions and actually using the material components in spells. From discussions I've had both online and at FLGSs, it sounds like many tables just handwave spell components because hardly anyone seems to want to track that stuff. The costs can add up if you pay attention to it.

 

[Parmandur]

The Four Elements Monk is pretty bad? Like, not ''I'd be better off with no subclass'' bad, but at least ''worst than all the other printed archetypes'' bad?

I think everyone would agree.

No, it's fine.

 

[Velderan]

There are plenty of other games out there that do things differently. Why must D&D constantly change it's rules to accommodate the whims of the designers, or the public? Make a new game, branch out! D&D is not so special that it needs to be everything to everyone.

Because every day a new group of players turn 15 and their tastes are not the same as what ours were when we were 15. While I'd argue that there's certainly some things D&D should retain as part of it's identity, those things are pretty subjective and finding the right balance of new vs. old ideas isn't an exact science.

At some point in time, you just accept "this isn't for me" and find a game that is.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I lean the other way, tone down the spells. Almost no one will bother with the impediments anyway

That's up to them. Making magic harder but not less powerful is more palatable than making casters weaker.

 

[Parmandur]

The issue that truly bugs me is how the way Size rules are set up makes playing anything other than a Small or Medium character basically a no-go. That's something 3E could handle (I had a freind play a Hill Giant in one campaign), and literally the only thing I can think of as a downgrade.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There is a difference between being shackled by tradition and maintaining identity and/or flavour.

Sure. I suspect we draw that line in different places.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because every day a new group of players turn 15 and their tastes are not the same as what ours were when we were 15. While I'd argue that there's certainly some things D&D should retain as part of it's identity, those things are pretty subjective and finding the right balance of new vs. old ideas isn't an exact science.

At some point in time, you just accept "this isn't for me" and find a game that is.

This is why I suggest a different game if you have different preferences. Again, D&D is not special.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

No, it's fine.

I know you'll sat that mathematically, on paper, its the equivalent of a 1/3 caster.

But its not. 1/3 casters do not know only 4 spells over their career. 1/3 casters gain other features other than their spells. Meanwhile, the 4E monk gains, over 14 levels, 4 spells known.

It doesnt fit the fiction its trying to represent. That's why its bad.

 

[Parmandur]

I know you'll sat that mathematically, on paper, its the equivalent of a 1/3 caster.

But its not. 1/3 casters do not know only 4 spells over their career. 1/3 casters gain other features other than their spells. Meanwhile, the 4E monk gains, over 14 levels, 4 spells known.

It doesnt fit the fiction its trying to represent. That's why its bad.

I agree it doesn't fit the fiction of an Avatar Bender, it was probavly a bad idea to try on that framework at all, and thst is where the designers went wrong: botching the narratice. But as an effective Monk, it is fine. It's not a quote-unquote "true issue".

 

[Hussar]

Of course, even here I'm probably violating some Pareto optimality.

Ok, I gotta ask. What the heck does an Italian economist have to do with this discussion?