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

[Lanefan]

There's this big problem with RPGs which is that a lot of players, especially older ones, actually want some sort of science-y "sim" where everything is elaborately explained, rather than a more myth/legend-oriented game. But what Gygax actually designed was something more myth/legend-oriented, not a science-y sim.

You call it a big propblem where I call it a feature: we get to apply a science-y sim to it if we want to.

Look at Lord of the Rings - Legolas, Aragorn and Gimli run for literally days on end to catch up with the hobbits who'd been taken. Obviously physically impossible. Why can they do it? It's not explained. It's never explained. Tolkien doesn't take us aside and explain the biological reasons why, because he's not thinking about that and doesn't care about that. They're heroic characters from a myth he's creating

And, love Tolkein as I do, that's one bit of LotR that's always nagged at me.

Then again, the Orcs run just as far just as fast; so the issue might be more one of his having to shoehorn the chase into the timing of things going on elsewhere in the setting/story. Either way, having that chase take even an extra day to cover the same distance would make it far more believable.

Because you want science-fantasy or ultra-grounded fantasy to be the only things allowable for D&D, you want A Princess of Mars or maybe at most The Name of the Wind or A Game of Thrones, and a lot of people want fantasy - which includes elements of myth and legend, elements of mystery and the unknowable and the truly supernatural,

Those elements of mystery, the unknowable, and the truly supernatural still need a grounded background to stand against; if only to call themselves out as being such.

(Part of the problem here, if we're real, is Vance's baleful influence. I like a lot of elements of Vance's work (not the misogyny!), but it's essentially closer to science-fantasy than heroic or epic fantasy, and he likes to give things rational reasons, even if they're sort of dashed off, and unfortunately because it provided an easy model for the early game to ape re: magic, it gave early D&D a slightly confused and science-y vibe - and some people in early D&D days clearly wanted to be running something more science-y.

Ayup. And I've never read a word of Vance in my life.

But none of that is true today - just look at the big podcasts like Critical Role - even when modern or steampunk trappings are involved, they're not treated in a science-y way. The guns don't work in a science-y way. They're as mystical and metaphysical as everything else. Even D&D's spells, once quasi-science-y have regained an element of mysticism for the people playing in and watching those games. The same is true of most D&D podcasts, I note, especially ones with people in their 20s and early 30s, I note.)

I'm not sure I consider that to be progress.

 

[Lanefan]

Again I say: Why would we settle for a D&D that works "fine" when you "play by RAW", or "Houserule it until it works"? I don't understand why anyone would actively argue for mediocrity.

Because "houserule it till it works" allows and encourages each DM to tailor the rules to suit the specific game-setting-campaign she wants to run; and also allows those tailorings to go off in different directions from the same base chassis.

Nailing it all down hard might suit one table just fine but make the game unplayable for another. I don't think WotC wants to go this route.

 

[Lanefan]

I'd like us to take another pass at @CleverNickName's Master List of the Issues that were raised in the first 7 pages. (To my knowledge nothing of significance was added in the 37 pages since, but I could be wrong! Also, a few of these clearly don't count, but I think there's quite a few corner-case, that (to me at least) ought to count as "close enough" to an "actual issue" with the game, that in the very least, no one ought to be upset if the problem were FIXED. I'm going to green ones that I think are worth another look. Feel free to argue with me!

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 (okay, I'm kidding about this one)
• 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

Good list; however I'd add "stealth-hiding-perception rules" in there somewhere.

 

[Lanefan]

Also sorry but BECMI absolutely features heroic characters even more outrageous than 2E or 3E, are you forgetting the CMI of BECMI all of a sudden?

You'd think, right? But then you pick up an Immortal module and look at the pre-gens, and other than their insane level number they really ain't got all that much going for them. I was truly taken aback the first time I read an Immortal module and saw how wimpy the pre-gens were, but since then have come to appreciate that even with those crazy level numbers the characters are still at least a little bit grounded; and I like that.

 

[Lanefan]

And I think lots of people would still like to get some sort of power,-up every x sessions like they do now (even if it is smaller) instead of just every 2x or 3x sessions.

Now that's what needs to change: the expectation of getting a power-up every x sessions. If that expectation could somehow be changed to only getting a power-up half as often, or a quarter as often, you could run a decent-length low-ish level game/campaign without really having to change much else.

 

[Milieu]

You pretty much never see a 9-0 ruling on anything

In fact, the US Supreme Court issues plenty of 9–0 rulings. Except for the two most recent terms, the plurality (and sometimes the majority) of cases have been 9–0 every term since before WotC bought TSR (at least; scotusblog only has stats going back to 1995–06 term).

(Source: scotusblog.com)

The only reason you "pretty much never see" them is because these 9–0 cases are usually not the hot-button political cases (like Wizard v. Fighter) that the news media spends a lot of time reporting on.

 

[Gammadoodler]

When we're told something is a Human I think we get to assume it's just like us until-unless told otherwise.

Exactly how much 'otherwise' is needed? Every class has explicitly otherworldly elements. All of them.

D&D humans can be any of them..straight out of the box.

D&D humans can pick up feats that allow them to cast spells..also straight out of the box.

In a relatively small number of levels, D&D humans can fall distances that would kill many real world humans, and walk it off.

D&D humans can in some cases have externally observable conversations with their gods.

And the list goes on..

The vast majority of the Players Handbook is telling you otherwise over and over and over again. Assuming D&D humans are "just like us" is an assumption tilted against a mountain of contrary evidence. It's irrational defiance of fantasy.

 

[James Gasik]

It doesn't help that the PHB has two different Humans either!* Or that a given Human couple could give birth to an Aasimar or Tiefling! I'd mention Sorcerers, but the flavor for Sorcerers is not strongly tied to "your grandmother was a dragon!" in 5e.

*While I get that you're probably supposed to use one or the other, in AL and all the 5e games I've been in that allow Variant Humans in the first place, regular Humans are never banned as an option.

Heck, even Tolkien had more than one Human type, as the Numenorians were a cut above regular old Humans, due to their ancestry.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Good list; however I'd add "stealth-hiding-perception rules" in there somewhere.

Yeah, that's a good one. I can't imagine that anyone would suggest that a very important subsystem to the game couldn't be better designed than the one we have in 5e. (I can see "the 5e version is fine (because my group knows how to use it)" but the idea that it couldn't possibly be better? I don't think that can be reasonably argued.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Exactly how much 'otherwise' is needed? Every class has explicitly otherworldly elements. All of them.

D&D humans can be any of them..straight out of the box.

D&D humans can pick up feats that allow them to cast spells..also straight out of the box.

In a relatively small number of levels, D&D humans can fall distances that would kill many real world humans, and walk it off.

D&D humans can in some cases have externally observable conversations with their gods.

And the list goes on.. the vast majority of the Players Handbook is telling you otherwise.

But only in the rules. The non-rules text says nothing. I accept that otherwise normal humans can learn or might have magic, because supernatural classes exist. I don't assume that means the human race is fundamentally different in D&D.