D&D 5E 5E: The Best and the Worst

[Falling Icicle]

Biggest Dislike: Not being able to choose what you summon with a summoning spell.

Favorite Thing: Bounded Accuracy.

 

[77IM]

Dislike: Still too combat-focussed (although moving in the right direction, compared to many previous editions).

Like: The compact way encounters are described in official products, with monster names in bold, tactics and morale spelled out in plain language, and "Treasure" and "Developments" sections.

 

[pdzoch]

Dislike: It is ANOTHER edition. As someone who has played since inception, I wonder how long this edition will last before the new rules come out.

Like: It replaced 4th Edition. Character progression is much better, growing capabilities and survive-ability over time without overwhelming the players.

 

[Mercule]

Dislike: The Realms are baked into everything and it only seems to be getting worse. I'm about done buying 5E goods.

Like: So many. Where do I start? I'd say the hybrid design that makes the system almost as open to tinkering as AD&D while keeping some of the best aspects of 3E (and a few from 4E, actually). It actually feels "best of breed", mechanically.

 

[guachi]

Like: Bounded Accuracy

Dislike: Wish the game had been balanced for 6 players vs. 4.

I've already responded with my like/dislike but your dislike is a huge problem where new players are concerned. I've noticed that the two local gaming stores in my area both have far more people wanting to play, many new to 5e, and not enough DMs.

Four players leaves less margin for error if one (or two - eek!) can't show up for a session. At least a six player party can lose a player or two and not be totally dysfunctional.

 

[The_Furious_Puffin]

Like: Advantage/Disadvantage

Dislike: The removal of exciting tactical decision-making from most of the classes.

 

[Dualazi]

Like: Bounded accuracy, and tighter math in general. There're a few hiccups (looking at you, saving throws) but overall it's done a pretty good job of making character growth meaningful without rendering 90% of the MM obsolete by level 10. Having large groups be dangerous even if they're low level monsters is pretty refreshing.

Dislike: Martial design across the board. The vast majority of them are glorified auto-attackers, and aside from the rogue, most are pretty low on out of combat utility. I feel like this is a huge missed opportunity; even with 5e's focus on simplicity, there are so many options and inspirations that can be drawn from these days as far as mechanics go that I honestly feel pretty let down in this department.

 

[Xeviat]

1) Monsters are boring and fights are too short (sounds like two, but they're two halves of the same issue).

2) I love the 12 classes chosen and the subclass system. I feel like I could make anything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Dislike: the multiclass rules. They seem overly complicated to me when the aim was to simplify things again. Especially when combining caster classes.

Like: overall, the game is streamlined and simpler to learn and play, especially when compared to the overly complex 3rd and 4th Editions. The exception being that 3rd Ed mutliclassing worked better.

 

[Hussar]

List two things.

1) Your biggest criticism or dislike of 5E.

5e has really, really jumped on the "magic, magic, everywhere" wagon. Once upon a time, situations were resolved with maybe 1 or 2 spells or magical effects coming into play. Whether that situation is combat or non-combat. Now, it's multiple spells/spell effects per round of combat, and whenever a situation comes up out of combat, players look down at the spell lists the characters have and come up with a solution.

I really wish D&D would back off a bit on the magic level. When, what, 90% of the classes have spells, it's a bit much for me.

2) Your favourite thing about 5E.

Only one of each allowed.

Absolutely speed of play and simplicity.