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

[Oofta]

I'd also want to include utility in there as a pricing factor. Something can be (relatively) common but really useful all the time, while something else can be rare but only useful in very special circumstances; and IMO the pricing wants to reflect that a bit.

For example: a straight +3 sword is useful all the time to a swordsman, while a much rarer +0 sword that's +10 vs demons is only really useful if-when that swordsman is fighting demons. I'd probably price the uncommon sword higher than the rare one in this case, or at best have them on par.

There was an interesting experiment I read about recently. People set up a new "high end" shoe shop in a fancy mall, staffed it and then stocked with with shoes from payless. The shoppers went gaga over the merchandise and paid an exorbitant price. Utility and quality often have little association to each other.

But rarity does break things up by utility - a +2 sword is higher rarity than a +1. Xanathars also breaks it down further into major and minor. Not perfect, but nothing ever is.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think that happens anymore.

Not in 5e, no.

 

[Lanefan]

A lot.​

That's the issue.

6-8 encounters of 5e requires a ton of time or multiple sessions. Many of Today's D&D games lack the time to run sessions that can handle 8 encounters and 5e quickly becomes so much resource management that stops and restarting within the resource recordings and mindset is very unfeasible for 3-6 people.

If your table uses the session = adventuring day paradigm then the number of tables I've heard of in my life that actually do it this way just increased from zero to one.

 

[kilpatds]

If your table uses the session = adventuring day paradigm then the number of tables I've heard of in my life that actually do it this way just increased from zero to one.

In AL play, one session is one adventure, and you start the adventure fresh. There might be long rests in the adventure, but are usually not any combat relevant ones. (all combats will be on 'the same day'). Same for LFR.

In my last home game (years ago) I did an "episode" each session, which was structured pretty similar to how organized-play modules work.

 

[Undrave]

The gold issue: While many of us might argue what gold should be used for....I think we can all agree that 5e provides a lot of treasure that ultimately has no purpose in the game. What is the use of a reward that has no value? Whether the edition should remove gold in favor of other rewards, or reward gold more....I hope we can agree that the current middle state is not a good design space.

This is what was fun about Rituals in 4e. It made out of combat magic a PARTY resource because you could all chip in. It was no longer "Bob casts Phantom Steed" it was "We decide to cast the Phantom Steed ritual". People could pool their resources and buy ritual components.

Alchemy also worked similarly. It would have been cool to see 4e Alchemical items combined with a 5e Thief ability to interest with items as a minor action. Would have made a cool character.

The one thing I have not seen debated much is the layout of the books. It’s not campaign dependent and the indices etc are what they are. I think even the authors see some missed opportunities there.

Agreed.

The Monk.......just everything about the Monk.

If I've not said it a thousand times I've not said it once: The Monk looks like a pile of legacy feature arranged in some sort of progression instead of a class designed with a purpose.

Skills. So much promise. So little follow through.

And tool proficiencies. The tools were basically the equivalent to professions of old and I'm surprised they never added more. Seems like it'd be easy to have setting specific proficiencies.

I like 5e's largely pointless gold better than 4e and 3e's threadmill where you have to invest your gold in character upgrades or fall behind the power curve. Why am I even doing this dangerous job if I'm not actually making any profit?

Gold is basically an alternate XP track and should be designed as such.

A lot of people were moved enough to comment for the way I organized the spells in my projects on DMsGuild, dividing spells by level then arranging them alphabetically in each level subsection, making the spells really easy to look up.

Thank you! That's how it should have been from the start! It's so frustrating getting to a new level as a caster or trying to prepare a load out!

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.

Remember how in 4e every race had a unique power? And then in 5e they just gave them spells everybody could grab? Augh...

And the Ranger who has spells who seem to only exist to basically be traps? Instead of creating a trap making framework they just gave them trap spells.

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. This is how you get people unwilling to play casters because it's hard.

B) check exact wording of a spell - you should already know the level so level + alphabet organization is no impediment.

That first scenario happens a lot. Clerics, paladins & wizards preparing spells for special circumstances and every time every spell casting class levels.

The second one doesn't happen a lot and when it does, player casters have their spell list by level as do pregen adventures so again, no impediment. The only time level might not be noted is a homebrew.

You don't make life hard for 65% of players just to save the sloppy 1% from themselves when adding "(4th)" to their notes will fix the issue.

Exactly! Spells by level is superior!

Mostly I look them up because they're referenced in a monster description or a magic item. In neither case do they reliably include the level.

Monster and item stat blocks shouldn't be sending you to another book in the first place!! MAYBE add a section to spell casters called "Other spells" to list some spells those monsters might know but that they won't use in battle and each would be listed by level too.

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

Whining caster fans ruin everything >.>

 

[Parmandur]

I don't think the resource management game is such a big deal in 5e, not like in previous editions. I feel like the vast majority of players aren't playing the game to manage resources, rather they're using it as a system to tell a story. And even if the core of dnd is resource management, 6-8 encounters per day still isn't expected/required.

I mean, people do, and the genius of the game is that it can be engaged with, or not.

 

[Divine2021]

Two things I want: people not to use the term “orientalism” incorrectly, and this new edition not to suck.

 

[James Gasik]

There are many things I could write about, but to be useful and (hopefully) not just cause a fight, I'd say the oddly specific times where the rules are very specific and precise, as opposed to most of the time where they are extremely loose. The "attack with a weapon" versus "a weapon attack" for instance. If you're going to have a very specific rule where most of your game is not, there should be a good reason for it that's easy to find out. So many times it seems like the attempt is to deal with edge cases, when the game tells us it's about DM rulings.

I'll just add: the writing style in general. There's this website called the Hemingway Editor that D&D could really use a run through. Ironically, when I write professionally, my own stuff gets massacred by that site. I know that back in the past this was in response to the 4E "everything is a stat block with keywords," but finding the rules shouldn't be as difficult as it is sometimes.

Having someone go through to use consistent style and tone, along with asking "what does this specific and detailed rule bring to the game" would make me a happy camper.

In fairness, D&D has always had these kinds of problems, it's not unique to 5e. In 4e, I once had a very long conversation trying to explain how an "Opportunity Action Attack" is not the same as an "Opportunity Attack" for the purpose of some magic item that granted a +2 bonus to Opportunity Attacks.

Not to mention the age old question of what it means to "wield" a weapon by D&D rules.

 

[MichaelSomething]

That the game doesn't teach players to value the DM's judgement more then the rules in the book.

Implying isn't good enough when it comes to the central tenet of the game!

 

[cbwjm]

Is the OP @Stalker0 tracking the consensus on this topic to deliver a summary of what has been agreed upon (perhaps nothing has!)?

They'll have to do a WotC and aim for 70% approval... or, I guess, disapproval.