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

[Li Shenron]

Well it's subjective. You gonna use you statement to just dismiss any concerns people have?

I am going to use my statement to just dismiss people who talk about "true issues". As you said, it IS subjective. Talking about "true issues" kinds implies it is objective. Which is not.

We've been seeing this a lot over the last 15 years. 5E isn't perfect.

We've been seeing this since 1974. And maybe the closest thing to be called a "true issue" is that people still cling on the concept of "perfection" that perhaps isn't even applicable to a game (any game, not just an RPG).

 

[Vaalingrade]

Illusions. Illusion magic should be fun, and reward creativity. I have yet to see that happen in 5e, in any game I've played. The rules are very weak on how things interact with illusions, and in multiple games, the best use they're put to is making obstacles to hide behind. Even then, it's all something that has to be negotiated with the DM up front. No other spell school is so poorly supported.A half page in the PHB, with a dozen examples, would be enough to show the spells work in play as designed.

This isn't a 5e thing. D&D consistently doesn't know what to do with illusions beyond letting the DM insist that every guard knows every alley in the city and thus would rub their face on any new, mysterious wall the party is hiding behind in order to break the illusion, and every monster ignores better prey, sexy female monsters or bigger threats to eat the human shaped things.

If we had rules, like a Will save or to behave in the way the illusion is trying to instigate, then we'd have something. But we're not allowed rules, only bad rulings.

 

[Undrave]

To compromise rules they like for, as you say, "simplicity and stream-lining".

I don't have exemple on hand but it's a tip any aspiring game designer has to know: don't get attached to anything. Now, this is mostly a tip for board game design but I think it should apply to the tabletop space as well. Sometimes it's best to just cut out a rule or mechanic and recycle it later than it is to force it into your current project.

 

[Mannahnin]

I just realized there’s a long-standing issue with the game that nobody mentioned yet! For years we’ve had Dragonborns in the game, a popular race that was brought to the fore in 4e and was kept as a base race in 5e… and we’ve still not seen any Dungeonborns! The game is called Dungeons and Dragons people!

Dungeonborn for 6e!

Seriously, though, now I want this to be a background or feat or something for a dungeon-focused game. Or yeah, even a whole species/kindred for some Morlock-like folk native to megadungeons.

 

[AnotherGuy]

This isn't a 5e thing. D&D consistently doesn't know what to do with illusions beyond letting the DM insist that every guard knows every alley in the city and thus would rub their face on any new, mysterious wall the party is hiding behind in order to break the illusion, and every monster ignores better prey, sexy female monsters or bigger threats to eat the human shaped things.

If we had rules, like a Will save or to behave in the way the illusion is trying to instigate, then we'd have something. But we're not allowed rules, only bad rulings.

I'm not sold on this. Why would every illusion spell require a Will save? Because a DM you know insisted that every guard knows every alley in the city at your table?

I'd think a 1/2 a page of advice would go further as per @Kobold Stew.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'm not sold on this. Why would every illusion spell require a Will save? Because a DM you know insisted that every guard knows every alley in the city at your table?

Because an army of DMs insist on that. Because it leaves the door open for any DMs to insist on that.

We need some DM disempowerment desperately.

 

[gorice]

The Essentials Kit adventure "Dragon of Icespire Peak" has one of the jobs the PCs can take at 1st level put the group up against a manticore. The quest says it's balanced for a 3rd level party, but when I ran the adventure that's what my group chose to do at 1st level. At 2nd level, they encountered the white dragon on the random encounter table while traveling to their next quest destination. An experienced DM can make those things work, but putting those possibilities in a book designed for new players that might be a first time DM without a lot more guidance on how to handle those situations is pretty bad IMO.

Generally I like the adventures WotC has put with the various Starter Sets, but would like to see them spend some more time with the DM advice they include in them.

I think this obliquely gets at one of the real and fundamental problems with the game, which is that success is taken for granted. Running into a monster that is out of your league should be fun and thrilling, but a combination of play culture, linear adventures, and rules that don't really inject much surprise or nuance into proceedings, all mean that the game isn't really able to handle situations like that.

If you go back to 'classic' editions, stuff like reaction tables, encounter distance rolls, and rules for escape and pursuit meant that running into a manticore at level 1 wasn't necessarily a TPK. It doesn't need to be in 5e, either, but I think most players have been conditioned to assume they should fight every monster and win every fight, and there aren't any rules to guide them toward other outcomes. It doesn't help that 5e puts a huge emphasis on every PC being an important and special hero, but doesn't offer any stakes for a loss other than death.

Skilled groups can overcome most of this, but it's a terrible introduction to the hobby.

 

[Undrave]

Seriously, though, now I want this to be a background or feat or something for a dungeon-focused game. Or yeah, even a whole species/kindred for some Morlock-like folk native to megadungeons.

Maybe with a symbiotic relationship with some sort of fungus that can act as ‘poison gas trap’, maybe with a talent for hiding things on their body and maybe some kind of stone skin ability in there too?

 

[Raiztt]

We need some DM disempowerment desperately.

Nah, we need more DM empowerment to bring order and consistency.

 

[CleverNickName]

Because an army of DMs insist on that. Because it leaves the door open for any DMs to insist on that.

We need some DM disempowerment desperately.

Nah, we need more DM empowerment to bring order and consistency.

I guess that makes me Goldilocks over here. I think 5th Edition actually managed to get this "just right." If I wanted more I'd play red-box Basic rules, and if I wanted less I'd play 3.5E/Pathfinder.