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

FitzTheRuke

Legend
I think it’s worth saying, that despite a lot of the criticisms I’ve seen. 5e is still the best version D&D I’ve seen.

Agreed. I'm very critical of 5e, but that's only because I think it could be better. I like it best, but there are parts and pieces of other editions that I liked more, and there are things that I think could make it even better!

Some of the criticisms are just other sides of the coin of things that also really annoy me…

Lack of things to spend money on vs Xmas tree magic shops
Too simple in combat vs To much complicated maths and number crunching
Too boring to level up vs 1,500 feats to choose from.
Again, I agree! But those things don't have to be clocked at either extreme. Nor do they have to wind up at a wishy-washy "middle-ground". There are other solutions.

Now, I know this thread isn't about solutions, because that would probably derail it into arguments, so while I was going to suggest some "other path" solutions to your three problems (and I agree, both ends are problems), I think that I will sit on it until I have time to post it in its own thread.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Clint_L

Hero
The 6-8 encounters per day thing. I can nickpick on a few other things such as specific spells and two-weapon fighting, but the encounter expectation affects allotment and regeneration of abilities on a more fondamental level.

Another issue I have with 5e is how anything that is mildly supernatural has to be a spell. I understand the desire to produce a universal metric and consolidate all powers in one section of the book but it has been overdone IMO.
Agree on the former - it makes class and encounter balance way too dependent on an encounter heavy style of play I don’t think is very common.

I’m not seeing the latter. Rage, Primal Awareness, Second Wind, Action Surge, Lay on Hands, almost everything a monk does, half of what a rogue does, warlock does…tons of spell-like effects are core features of class design.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
They are in any event. But my claim here is that brand name D&D has structural reasons that make “act as a good compromise game/base to compromise from” a primary design goal that don’t apply to other TTRPGs.

If I make a game that 10 people love and 10,000 people like okay and put it on itch, I move 10 copies (and hopefully those 10 people find each other lol.) If I make a game that 20 people love and 9,990 hate to their fuckin bones, I sell 20 (to the extent that selling is really something I care about at all.) The calculus is the other way around for WotC.
WotC has  financial reasons to milquetoast D&D as much as the fanbase can stand, not creative ones.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
I think we had similar ideas there with making it less reliable and have side effects, not necessarily just weaker overall, but I would not mind weaker in addition ;)
I'm against weakening what spells are capable of in general. That compromises world building in so far as what magic can do.
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
So how are we doing so far?
Well, here's a compiled list from the previous 7 pages.

THE "TRUE ISSUES" WITH 5E
Economy:

  • Gold has no purpose/not enough purpose
  • Magic item prices aren't listed
  • The resting mechanics
Combat and Encounters:
  • Expected number of encounters
  • Expected difficulty of encounters
  • combat is uninteresting
  • combat is too simple
  • combat is too complex
  • The caster-vs-martial disparity
  • lack of 4E monsters
  • lack of 4E character options
  • lack of high-CR monsters
  • monster design section of MM
  • no risk
  • combat lacks depth
  • the Size rules
  • monsters are boring
  • better rules for encounter design
  • saving throws as ability checks
Exploration:
  • lack of exploration rules
  • darkness and visibility rules
  • skill system doesn't match actual play
Characters and Leveling:
  • Subclasses have different leveling structures/complexity.
  • the monk
  • the wizard being too similar to a video game
  • multiclassing rules are "a hot mess"
  • multiclassing rules aren't like 4E
  • lack of full classes
  • the experience system
  • hit points representing all types of harm
  • Ability scores not balanced
  • fighters have too little to do
Meta:
  • People shouting down other peoples' discussions of these issues
  • These issues presented are all subjective, and not 5E specific
  • People not agreeing with other peoples' opinions
  • The players
  • Tradition
Spellcasting:
  • not impeded
  • spells kept at the same level of power
  • spell schools poorly implemented
  • everything supernatural is modeled after spells
  • arcane spells lacking creativity/boring
  • the simulacrum spell
  • the spellcasting being too similar to a video game
General:
  • The layout of the books.
  • The awful index
  • The terrible binding
  • 5E is an "apology edition"
  • 5E isn't the game everyone wanted
  • 5E isn't perfect
  • Font size
  • lacks support for high-level play
  • the game feels rushed
  • Pareto Optimality (shout-out to the economists out there)
  • lack of guidance in the DMG
  • no "advanced" version for experienced players
  • too much focus on campaigns, not enough on adventures
  • no DungeonTM or DragonTM Magazine
  • some rules are very specific, others very vague
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
For my part: there are plenty of things that I don't like about 5th Edition, but they're all matters of personal preference. None of them are "true issues." Like, 5E has way too many core classes (seriously, we're over a dozen now) when it only ever needs 4. But that's not a problem, I don't have to use all thirteen. The multiclassing rules wreck the game, but that's okay too: they're optional, and I don't have to use them.

Etc.
 

They are in any event. But my claim here is that brand name D&D has structural reasons that make “act as a good compromise game/base to compromise from” a primary design goal that don’t apply to other TTRPGs.

If I make a game that 10 people love and 10,000 people like okay and put it on itch, I move 10 copies (and hopefully those 10 people find each other lol.) If I make a game that 20 people love and 9,990 hate to their fuckin bones, I sell 20 (to the extent that selling is really something I care about at all.) The calculus is the other way around for WotC.
My contention would be that I don't think 2024 is doing a particularly good job of acting as a "good compromise" or "base to compromise from".

The issue here stems from two things:

1) A lot of the stuff being put up to playtest by WotC is peculiar, and doesn't seem to match up with any vision of D&D, nor with anything players have actually asked for. It's very peculiar stuff.

2) The surveys are being answered by about 0.01% of WotC's estimated current playerbase. That is not a good sample size. You have to jump through hoops and sign up to even answer them, that they are then incredibly tediously long, that their questions are not at all focused or thoughtful or specific, but utterly generalized and generic, and soon. This means that I suspect that 0.01% is largely the same sort of people - mostly grogs like myself - who answered the DND Next surveys a decade ago.

I.e. not the main bulk of the playerbase of 5E currently, which is new players. I just really doubt many people in their teens and 20s are filling in the literally dozens to hundreds of needlessly detailed yet unfocused questions asked by the surveys. Yet they are the largest group of D&D players now, by far.

What we're getting isn't a compromise among the desires of the actual playerbase of 5E. We're getting a compromise with the grogs once more. We're getting "apology edition 2.0", where good ideas, which would have proven popular with the 20+ million newer players are thrown back in the fire because some 40-50-something grog like me, representative of about 10% of the playerbase at most (the 40+ section), wants D&D to change as little as possible, and thus some essentially good idea got 60% instead of 70%, and WotC are throwing that baby straight out with the bathwater, right out the window.

Put it like this - if I was in charge of making sure D&D kept making money and stayed popular, I wouldn't be relying primarily on outdated surveys of 0.01% of the playerbase. I would be aggressively conducting research on the people who played my game and what they actually like/dislike/see as missing (which probably won't be very similar to the surveys, I note). There will be some who say, "Well maybe they are!", but I do not believe that for one second, because when companies are doing that kind of research, they're extremely proud of it, because it's basically a good thing for the customers. And Crawford loves to talk - he'd have mentioned it. Instead it's surveys, surveys, surveys.
 
Last edited:


And I have, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no creative reason to keep making changes to the same game, over and over.
There obviously is reason. To try new things. The older editions don't cease to exist. Since people can keep playing an older edition if they want, there's no reason not to try something new instead of just doing more of what you've been doing for a decade.
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
Unless you're saying that's just true for you, you're support @EzekielRaiden's point that some people just don't even really accept criticism of 5E on a fundamental level. But it's unclear - are you saying, nothing you personally care about is a "true issue", or that 5E doesn't have any "true issues"?
The first three words of my post are "For my part", so--yes, I am only speaking for me. I don't think 5th Edition has a "true issue" that everyone will agree with. (Except maybe the books' indices? Those are a waste of paper and ink.) But I think @EzekielRaiden has a point: some folks will not tolerate any criticism of their Darling, or any praise of their Nemesis, and threads like this one always turn into a shouting match. It's kind of a bummer.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top