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

[James Gasik]

And in Dragonlance, you can have half-Kender!

 

[Maxperson]

only if you have nothing else to do this day, if you are juggling three things anyway, little might be lost


not true, it could have been been riskier, or they did not bother searching for a different solution since they already had an easy one

Either way it's a group decision. I mean, if the rogue wants to spend most of the day resting so that the wizard can cast knock, then the rogue is okay with it.

I don't know why you'd play a rogue unless you wanted to risk doors and locks, though.

I do not like the idea of every problem being for exactly one person to tackle while the others just sit around, let them all work on it / be able to help with it

It isn't that way. I've been playing a very long time and I've never seen one person solve everything. Casters just don't have enough spells or slots to do that. And the odds are very high that they don't even have the right spell in their spellbook.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I'm disinclined to describe any design choice as a "true issue" with a game - it's not a problem that monopoly doesn't have rules for hiring mobsters to burn down your opponent's hotels, after all. Just not the game they wanted to make.

Which means the very long tangent here about what high-level nonmagical fighters and rogues should be able to do is irrelevant to OP's point: even if you believe the designers choose poorly, they made a choice about what those characters should be capable of. They didn't want mundane martials. It might have been more fun for some people if they did, but it wouldn't be objectively better.

For me, a true issue would need to be a way the design of the game fails to meet its own goals - and the goal is heroic fantasy adventures.

Which means a variable that falls in that category easily, but doesn't work well. I'd say the disparate effects on class balance by shortening the adventuring day falls into that, and broadly martial-caster disparity does as well.

I'd separate out the game itself from the presentation - it' all one product but flavor =/= presentation - and note that when it comes to how the books are laid out/presented/organized/etc - there's broad consensus that it could be a lot better with The Terrible Index being the most obvious example.

(I will admit m-c disparity is solvable in a couple easy-ish ways, many of which you'd want to do anyways like 'give out magic items,' 'have many encounters,' and 'deliberately focus on certain pc's form time to time.') This is is why most people who actually play at high level rarely seem overly bothered. But the underlying problem is there, because you might not do those things and suddenly you have a problem that can really yuck someone's yum.)

 

[Mannahnin]

I'd say the dearth of dungeon crawling and overland exploration procedural mechanics is an issue.

Past editions of D&D have had these, and they gamify one of the three main pillars of play in a really useful way, giving a framework and structure newbies and vets alike can use.

 

[Undrave]

If you have an Idea on how to improve encumbrance, be my guest. Buy removing it kills a big part of exploration.

Would that I could, sir, would that I could.

 

[Vaalingrade]

If encumbrance is so important to exploration that a big part is 'killed' by it, then exploration needs to go back to formula.

It's always bothered me that 'exploration' is always described as 'camping, but more annoying' which loads of fiddly logistics and punishments for not doing them, but nothing in the way of exploring: finding and interacting with interesting environments that should exist in a fantasy roleplaying game, but are consistently replaced by the same Vancouver forest half of Stargate: SG1 was filmed in with wandering monsters that contribute nothing to the story but a bit more annoying, fiddly attrition pretending to be gameplay.

 

[Mannahnin]

If encumbrance is so important to exploration that a big part is 'killed' by it, then exploration needs to go back to formula.

It's always bothered me that 'exploration' is always described as 'camping, but more annoying' which loads of fiddly logistics and punishments for not doing them, but nothing in the way of exploring: finding and interacting with interesting environments that should exist in a fantasy roleplaying game, but are consistently replaced by the same Vancouver forest half of Stargate: SG1 was filmed in with wandering monsters that contribute nothing to the story but a bit more annoying, fiddly attrition pretending to be gameplay.

Wait, the D&D games you've played in with overland travel haven't involved finding neat stuff? Just traveling and the occasional random encounter?

 

[mamba]

All of these indicate biologies which differ dramatically from humans.

Sure, they differ, no one said they are identical to humans.

How much more can an Elf with Strength 15 lift than a human with Strength 15? What about a Triton? How much better are they at Investigation when they all have the same Intelligence?

They are essentially humans in costumes, what sets them apart are some abilities their species come with.

 

[mamba]

It isn't that way. I've been playing a very long time and I've never seen one person solve everything.

not one person everything, everyone whatever fits their niche

And the odds are very high that they don't even have the right spell in their spellbook.

possibly, but that kinda sounds like addressing the same problem in a slightly different way

 

[Vaalingrade]

Wait, the D&D games you've played in with overland travel haven't involved finding neat stuff? Just traveling and the occasional random encounter?

It'd be nice if the 'Exploration Pillar' even pretended that was a thing that should happen instead of focusing on bean counting and its love affair with exhaustion death spirals.