D&D 5E Criticizing the new edition of D&D (because I like it a lot)


log in or register to remove this ad

bolo__

First Post
Fighter
Great Weapon Fighting. Treat 1 and 2 as 3 instead of re-rolling 1 and 2. Otherwise the 2d6 weapon damages are vastly superior to the 1d12 weapon damages.

I could be wrong about 5e's mechanics, but I'm pretty sure there are two things messing with your math here:
1) you can only re-roll 1 die. so if you roll 1 and 1 on 2d6 you only get to re-roll one of those dice and...
2) you must accept the second roll. So if you re-roll your one die from the 1 and 1 on 2d6 example and get a third 1 you still end up with a total of 2.
So from the initial roll of 2 you would end up with a possible result in the range of 2 to 7.

Whereas a 1d12 weapon damage roll of 1 would be re-rolled to have a possible result of the entire range of 1 to 12!

Please let me know if my reading of the rules two days ago is wrong.
 
Last edited:

Cybit

First Post
There are a lot of little things about the new edition I could grump about, but the single biggest thing which is essentially a deal breaker?

Spellcasters are going to stomp all over martial classes, just like 3.5.

That would be patently incorrect. :D (As probably the only person who has done multiple high level PvP tests of 5E here). By the third test; no one even wanted to play a caster, even assuming you get all spells back when one respawns. Casters get wrecked.

Every time someone carouses about casters at high level in this game, please go read the sheer amount of spells that require concentration, and then realize that you can ever only have a single one of them up at a time.

Also, is there a reason we have a giant flood of just created accounts? Not sure if this happens normally or we have a lot of secondary and tertiary accounts being made...
 

Cybit

First Post
I disagree with nearly every one of your changes. :lol: But I think it's a great set of houserules. I'm kind of tempted by the CON for death saving throws myself.

Pretty much. Definitely some good house rules, but understand that it would throw the balance of the game off. (Especially the Protection one)
 

evilbob

Explorer
Nah, they're fine the way they're doing it. People like the idea of optional feats, even if many don't.

Great Weapon Fighting.
Your proposed change makes it worse, as others have said. This problem is better solved by simplifying the weapon list, which I agree with you about. Or just allow a greataxe to do 2d6. But if you really want to fix the math, an entirely different mechanic will be needed.

Protection fighting style with a shield
...is fine. Don't take away the tiny amount of love shield fighters get!

Second Wind of fighters
Also fine. This is a personal preference, not a mechanical problem. Also I figured it's part of how they are making fighters not suck vs. casters.

Sneak Attack works with a thrown Strength attack
Seems like a rare corner case, but sure, that's odd. Might as well count this as a "houserule if needed."

Potent Cantrip
Wow, so Potent Cantrip is 100% useless - that is a good catch. Since cantrips are so junky anyway something big could certainly stand to be done here. Damage on a miss makes everything into Magic Missile, so I don't think I'd do that, but maybe just add more damage or something? But yeah, something needs to happen here, definitely.

Switch the crowning 20th level class power to an ability score increase/feat
Not even sure why this is useful. It's just semantics.

Mountain dwarf +2 Strength
Yeah I think they'd rather give them +2 Str (bounded) than the +1 AC (unbounded). Also the proficiency being so poor is why they get the +2 Str, I think.

Medicine is still a useless skill
Medicine should 100% be wrapped up in Survival. It does allow you to identify a disease, which is nice, and I thought it could help when you're making saves against disease and poison? Maybe I made that up. Anyway, the skill list is too long and this is one that could go, easy.

the standard action cantrip Spare the Dying a poor choice (unless changed to a bonus action or given a range)
100% agree. This cantrip should either be a bonus action or have 30' range. Given that making it a bonus action would make death saving throws almost pointless, range sounds more appropriate; maybe 20'?

Meh. Fewer options are better, so I don't mind what they deleted. Padded being bad for Stealth is hilariously silly but it will 100% never come up anyway.

So many pointless or redundant weapons
100% agreed! The weapon chart is way too long; they should have had groups of weapons that include X, Y, and Z and they all do XdX damage. The separation seems to be done exclusively for the piercing/bludgeoning/slashing thing, which is a little cumbersome but whatever. In the end I plan on letting any weapon do the same damage as any other reasonably similar weapon. I have a player that LOVES axes and I am not gonna make him use a greatsword just because greataxes are traps; the greataxe will just do the same damage as whatever is the best two-handed non-reach weapon. Easy to houserule, and some people like their endless pointless weapon charts complete with traps, so whatever.

Did we really need V, S, and M again?
I guess some people like it? Everyone else will ignore them. Possibly everyone.

100 gp for Identify?
Honestly this I am ok with. It's basically a magic item tax; you pay 100g to protect you from bad items and the like. The spell's effect is so good (and so much faster and more complete than "experimenting with it") that I'm ok with this. Plus it makes low-level parties more wary.

100 gp for Stoneskin?
Ok yeah that's stupid. GONE.

Languages
Eh, simple to houserule, and the way it is now it gives you more of a reason to train.

Ability Scores
This I completely disagree with. 15 max is PERFECT: DO NOT CHANGE. When the best stat you can start with is 16 (because 17 is a trap) that is WAY better and actually encourages variant builds instead of 100% the same builds. Allowing higher stats just means you will min/max them. Max 15 on point buys was brilliant.

Advantage and Disadvantage
We will also be doing this, probably. It's actually much more intuitive when you're used to counting bonuses. I can see the counterpoint - that people will nitpick what counts and what doesn't - but people will do that anyway just to grab a single disadvantage for the enemy (or advantage for them) to cancel out bad situations. Thankfully painless to houserule.

the charge action
Don't need it. Move/attack/move. All charge did was bring up rule discussions.

Constitution bonus on death saving throws.
Yeah, I'm not sure why they DON'T work this way, other than it's just plain simpler for everyone if all you have to remember is "10." I think this is one we'll play with and if it gets to be annoying we will houserule, but it's a small factor either way. Oh, and it also means negative Con mods are extra horrid, which you may or may not like.

Encumbrance
Not really a big problem because these rules are not really useful regardless. They had to put something in the book so they went with something easy to remember. Nearly everyone will continue to ignore them anyway.


Overall these are fine observations! Thanks for some of the smaller catches. I still can't believe Potent Cantrip doesn't do anything. That's just too funny.
 

cpendlet

First Post
The identify spell does not consume the 100gp pearl. You just need to have one and you can keep reusing it. If you look at the spells carefully from the basic PDF you will see some explicitly state the component is consumed (resurrection/raise dead for example) and others do not (Identify). In the rules section for spells it states that spells only consume the components if the spell explicitly says so.
 

evilbob

Explorer
Oh, nice catch! I sure did not realize that - what a tiny semantic difference! That makes Identify WAY better and Stoneskin WAY worse! :)
 

Gilwen

Explorer
good list and there are some things I might consider in the future...now though I just want to play the game as written until I get a feel for what works in actual play vs thought experiments.
 

Dausuul

Legend
Feats are a good example. Instead of making them a variant rule, make them core, but preserve the choice that is being suggested now. If you want them, you can have them. If you don't, you can take an ability score bonus. That way people who want complexity can have it (without any variant rule restrictions), and people that don't can abstain. You can even have both types of people playing at the same table in the same party.
So... you want things exactly the way they are now, but with the words "optional rule" deleted.

I tell you what. Go to the store. Buy a black Magic Marker. When you get your Player's Handbook, find every place where feats are referred to as an "optional rule," and black out the word "optional."

There you go.

Or is your complaint simply the fact that you have to pay for the book with the feats in, rather than getting it as part of the Basic download?
 


Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top