D&D 5E Critiquing the System

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I have a few problems:

1) Hit Points: Simply bloated.

2) DEX and STR: A 18 DEX, 18 STR fighter wielding a longsword deals as much damage as a 18 DEX 3 STR fighter wielding a rapier. Which doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

3) Expertise: It's easier to make a master of arcane knowledge (the arcana skill) as a rogue than as a wizard. Expertise does strange things when only two classes get it.

 

[ChaosOS]

My issue with the proposals in the thread to let fighters be better at fighting (more proficiency bonus! Strength and dex scaling!) Is it doesn't actually fix the issues with fighters this edition. Due to HP bloat on the monster side, the raw DPS of fighters actually makes them quite good in combat even at higher levels, and if you go Battlemaster they have interesting choices and strategies. The fighter's core issue is that they're one of the worst classes at the other two alleged "pillars" of play. Adding more reason to pump ASIs into fighting ability scores won't fix that.

 

[Nebulous]

The system I use is purpose designed to be easy to remember for all parties involved. Less record keeping for the DM, and easier access and use for the players. I use physical reminders, and both I and the players have them, so there's some dramatic tension involved, which helps keep the system from falling by the wayside. I also use a similar system for time, and the two systems next to one another kind of represent the changing tides of time and fortune. It's works for us anyway, which is what matters.

Well what are the details, maybe I can use it. I heard some groups use tokens.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I have a few problems:

1) Hit Points: Simply bloated.

2) DEX and STR: A 18 DEX, 18 STR fighter wielding a longsword deals as much damage as a 18 DEX 3 STR fighter wielding a rapier. Which doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

3) Expertise: It's easier to make a master of arcane knowledge (the arcana skill) as a rogue than as a wizard. Expertise does strange things when only two classes get it.

For #2, I swear I read someplace in a core rule book or on SA that STR penalties always apply to melee attacks, so your DEX 18, STR 3 fighter would have a -5 penalty to damage, even with the rapier. The DEX +5 would cancel that out, but you get the point (no pun intended...).

I'll see if I can find the source.

 

[Fenris-77]

Well what are the details, maybe I can use it. I heard some groups use tokens.

Yeah, tokens. For the inspiration side I use black and white jelly beans. Black for me and white for the players. Good roleplaying, whatever that looks like, is rewarded by a white. I purposefully dont tie them too firmly to a particular bonus or stat, its more "I want to do something awesome (or not die), and I'd like an assist". Anything within reason is in play and its let's me step outside the RAW when heroic stuff needs to happen. Black beans are the opposite, you getbthe picture there.

On the passing time side, I use slightly modded version of Angry GMs encounter pool. That works like a charm pretty much right out of the box. With two token systems in play, both with consequences baked right in, it doesn't get forgotten.

 

[Morrus]

Oh, what a surprise. A combative post from you instead of just contributing to the topic with your general thoughts like everyone else. I'm not going to waste time justifying my perception to you to allow you to lure me into an argument about it.

Please avail yourself of the ignore function. Thanks!

And @Mistwell, please consider not replying to Einlanzer0.

 

[tetrasodium]

Like @Einlanzer0 mentions, 5e does indeed do a lot of things right, the problems imo fall into three categories.

The first category is things like how PCs are practically indestructible short of a failed disintegrate save & how any monster not just "way beyond the PCs current capability" like an ancient dragon vrs a party of level 3PCs falls into a grouping of either"toothless and not scary to a party not suffering from lobotomized players" or "capable of instantly killing someone" with almost no middle ground. This is a forgivable design choice where I think they just went too far. A player shouldn't need to have the entire table unexpectedly soused in order to find themselves a little nervous in combat about anything other than "yea even half damage from a super nova still kills me"

The second category is frustrating things that annoy me like the fact that damage types are practically irrelevant as long as you aren't dealing bludgeoning piercing or slashing damage with a nonmagical weapon. the massive overvaluing of charisma probably falls here too.

The third category is completely unforgivable things that are more difficult to believe were accidental unforeseen things that escaped basic sanity checking than it is to believe WotC is capable of being that bad at sanity checking. Tiny hut, heat metal, banish, the number of front loaded sorcerer or warlock abilities that just that completely avoided sanity checking as is or by RAW(especially if paired with things like tiny hut abuse), etc.

Somewhere in those three is the devaluing of int & strength mixed with the elevation of dex & charisma.

Something I do that helps with the indestructable problem in my non-AL game is to tell players do not take average... Max+con at 1st then roll HP& add con, but if you roll less than your strength mod use strength mod+con for that level... healing potions are 2hd+2 not 2d4+2... & medium/heavy armor grants dr equal to half/full proficiency bonus against physical attacks. It results in a 3.5 style curve where things that should be crunchy (ie heavy armor strength builds) can take a huge beating & still reasonably recover but the light & no armor wearing types would just get knocked flat in the dirt. Even at level seven the wizard scorlock & rogue frequently say things like "wow, that's more HP than I even have max." (obviously I use more powerful foes to match)

 

[ChaosOS]

sorlock frontloading I think is more a victim of "We want to give you cool features that define who you are as a character fundamentally" not mixing with "Oh, we're going back to 3.5 style multiclassing where you just kinda take levels willy-nilly". 4e by no means was the best solution, but there are some major fundamental design constraints imposed by generic multiclassing.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I do not have any problem dropping or even killing PCs in 5e. My death rate is pretty even across all editions, and it's not low. I'm not sure what's all that different, either -- I use encounter guidelines a tad slanted towards harder encounters, but not much. I'm pretty free with rest opportunitues and healing. It remains not a problem. Heck, in my current campaign my campaign houserule is that a PC can't die unless the player says so but then I get to be mean to the PC. And we've already invoked that rule 5 times (5 players) from 5th to 8th level. Almost did it again twice last session (dice went very much in the player's favor at the end).

So, I have no idea why I don't have a problem, but I very much don't. Maybe pacing?

 

[Shiroiken]

5th edition does a lot of things right. Curious to hear what peoples' biggest issues are with it.

I'm gonna guess that most people's problems with it are based on it not fitting their specific preferences. Since it was designed to fit the largest player base possible, it's not going to perfectly fit most serious gamers. On the plus side, 5E is very easy to modify since it sits on a solid chassis (unless you hate the chassis, like I did 3E, in which case you're better off with another edition or RPG). None of my issues are seriously game breaking, and many of them I've simply found fixing to be more work than the problem.

1. Equipment - most expensive armor is always best, medium armor is iffy, weapons are all over the place, a magic item is listed as adventuring gear (potion of healing), and a single piece of adventuring gear defeats the purpose of a cantrip and skill (Healer's Kit).

2. ASI and Feats - fortunately feats are an optional rule, but in any game that uses both rolled ability scores (as many, many groups prefer) and feats (which a lot of groups do), you have an imbalance. Even though the maximum is 20 (and I REALLY wish they'd have kept it to 18), if a player has just better rolls, they will always stay ahead of a worse rolled character, because they'll switch to feats once they max out. Without feats, you instead have a set of diminishing returns, where the better rolled character stays ahead, but in secondary and even tertiary ability scores that matter less.

3. Saving Throws - I love the fact that all six ability scores can be used for saving throws, but the legacy of keeping Dex, Con, and Wis as the primary saves was a hugely wasted opportunity. If the saving throws were evened out, then having a "dump stat" would always be an actual negative. As it stands, most characters can put their lowest ability into Int with little to no consequence, with Str and Cha occasionally following suite.