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

[Stalker0]

Kind of both? The Sublcass works in play as a Monk, so I would say it is not a "true problem," but it makes sense that it is being Revamped for the new PHB because it isn't scratching the itch it was meant to.

Let me aks you this. If all subclasses were to the level of quality as the 4elements monk, do you think that would be a detraction from the game, or the game would be "fine enough."

 

[Ruin Explorer]

honestly though I can easily point to a lot of your issues and point to many intense debates about them on these very forums.

I agree 99% is not going to fly, but a lot of the issues noted here are clearly preferences in the face of clear and strong oppositional debate.

To really get the community on the whole to all agree that something is "bad for the game" I think is pretty rare, and I think this thread so far is proving that.

I just don't think you can support that last sentence. Plenty of this stuff is pretty broadly agreed, or people who've looked into it agree, and other people just don't have an opinion.

Further, again, if we eliminate people who don't think there's anything wrong with 5E at all, and I think we must, then the issue you're so concerned about suddenly becomes far smaller. Because it's more like there's a solid 10% or so the community (and it used to be more like 40%, but it's really dropped) who will just not accept 5E has any real issues. And people did the same in every edition.

 

[Lanefan]

5e has universal spell levels, there is no reason not to factor them into organization.

Why do people look up spells?

A) to prepare/learn spells: you want spells clustered by level so that you don't need to flip through 95% of the spell list to get from Animal Friendship to Unseen Servant at 1st level.

So if-when a spell is different level for different classes, then what?

Repeat its full write-up in each class' list? Waste of page space. Put in a "See write-up on page xxx" note"? No thanks!

 

[SteveC]

Social stigma for disagreement from those that are being disagreed with has increase markedly in the last decade.

Unfortunately, that's true almost universally. There are a number of posters here on ENWorld that I disagree with on the kind of games I like but who I agree with on other non-gaming topics. And the reverse is true as well. Both of those are okay! So yes, sadly, I have to agree with you.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I actually think the change really happened during the edition wars. I've been on Enworld a very long time, and though we had the fiercest of rules laywers debates in the 3e era, it wasn't until the 4e era that I felt like debate shifted to be "personal". People moved away from logic in debates to more angry rhetoric and attacking the debator rather than the debate. It of course happened during the 3e era as well, but not to the same degree.

Though I feel like that is a reflection of the greater break down in debate I see (at least in America). People really just seem to have lost the art of constructively disagreeing with people.

Whilst I think that's a real thing I think that's a different thing from what I was talking about.

In 2014-2018 period there was a lot less name-calling and real aggression or the like, and a lot more "Oh, you're just silly for saying there's anything wrong with 5E, let's continue discussing how great 5E is!", and that just never happened with 3E or 4E, not even at their peak popularity. It was a whole other thing. No rules lawyering, not really "angry" rhetoric, just dismissiveness towards the entire concept that 5E could be flawed. I don't think it was a majority opinion, but it was large minority, which more recently has shrunk considerably.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So if-when a spell is different level for different classes, then what?

Is that the case with any 5E spells? I ask because I genuinely cannot remember.

 

[Parmandur]

Let me aks you this. If all subclasses were to the level of quality as the 4elements monk, do you think that would be a detraction from the game, or the game would be "fine enough."

Also both? The Subclass functions properly on the mathematical level. Would the game be worse if every Subclass worked mathematically but gave people bad vibes? Sure. But it's different from a "true issue" like the joke of an index.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

So if-when a spell is different level for different classes, then what?

Has there been any such case in 5e..? Every single time I see exciting stuff like Steel Wind Strike, turns out it's a 5th-level spell for everyone (no matter how much sense that would make for a melee Ranger to have), why aren't you a Wizard9 if you wanted access to it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Has there been any such case in 5e..? I just remember always being disappointed by how stuff like Steel Wind Strike would be perfect for Ranger, but nope, it's a 5th-level spell for everyone, why aren't you a Wizard9 if you wanted access to it.

Another good TSR idea dropped.

 

[Lanefan]

In 3.x and 4e, you could casually purchase magic items. That's it. That's all that's missing. How much more support do you need for,

Player: "Hey DM, I want to buy [expensive thing]."
DM: "Okay, it costs [amount of money]."

To start with, a price list.

Using one from an older edition might seem the obvious workaround, but those lists don't reflect the generally lower treasure expectations of 5e and would make magic way too expensive.

Also, price lists for other big things e.g. castle construction would be useful here. (the 1e DMG has a good list but again, not reflective of the 5e economy)