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

[Zardnaar]

I think -50% is the Pathfinder rule. 5e has it at -100%. So it's possible early, and really unlikely later, which makes you question why is it even there.

I've seen it happen later once you get low hp and get hit with dragon breath or something similar. It's rare though.

 

[Zardnaar]

One not mentioned: combat healing has not scaling and doesn't compete with damage in the action economy.

Point healing sucks in 5E in combat.

 

[Zardnaar]

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this - if I was in charge of making sure D&D kept making money and stayed popular, I wouldn't be relying primarily on outdated surveys of 0.01% of the playerbase.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.

Hell the grogs essentially playtested 5E and it worked out well.

New players dont really know mechanics well enough to articulate things in a playtest. They probably don't know about things like SAD vs MAD, action economy etc. Hell they probably think fireball is a great spell.

5Es been around long enough that new to D&D players have grokked it (personally a veteran player is 3-4 years of moderate play experience).

 

[Vaalingrade]

Hell the grogs essentially playtested 5E

Another True Problem.

 

[Minigiant]

Most of the issues names are just preferences.

The ones that designers even mention:

1. DMG layout
2. Subclass levels
3. Lay of modules and variants for spending or investing treasure
4. Monster variety across CR in MM

All revolve around their assumption that the DMs would be experienced, have their own books from other editions, and would only use the MM and DMG for short reference.

 

[Zardnaar]

Another True Problem.

Well the results speak for themselves.

Can't really have inexperienced anything design something and they tried the top down approach here's your D&D like it or leave. So people left.

 

[Stalker0]

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"?

My OP stated that a true issue was defined as an issue that has an overwhelming group consensus. Aka its very very hard to find someone who goes "actually I like that about 5e".

I would say of the entire thread so far, the only issue I have seen posited that fits that criteria is the 5e index. Every other issue both I or others have brought up I can easily point to another group that disagrees.

 

[Stalker0]

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.

Ok I think this is a candidate. We can likely debate "how bad" the 4 elements monk is. Some think its literally the worst thing in the game, others probably "eh, its not great".

Does anyone actually "like" this subclass? This might be true issue number 2!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

My OP stated that a true issue was defined as an issue that has an overwhelming group consensus. Aka its very very hard to find someone who goes "actually I like that about 5e".

I would say of the entire thread so far, the only issue I have seen posited that fits that criteria is the 5e index. Every other issue both I or others have brought up I can easily point to another group that disagrees.

I don't think that's true, I think that's your perception. Overwhelming would normally mean 60-70%, not the sort of 99% you seem to be implying.

And I think it's easy to suggest a lot of these issues have 60% or more recognition, especially if we weed out people who simply insist 5E has no major issues, who obviously have no valid contribution to a discussion like this.

 

[Stalker0]

Ok I think this is a candidate. We can likely debate "how bad" the 4 elements monk is. Some think its literally the worst thing in the game, others probably "eh, its not great".

Does anyone actually "like" this subclass? This might be true issue number 2!

Nope nvm Panmandur likes it.