D&D 5E Critiquing the System

[Charlaquin]

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.

If you read that, it was someone's homebrew. It is definitely not a rule in 5e, or in any of the Unearthed Arcana articles.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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

There are basically only two problems with 5E:

1) Everyone's already said it, but Hit Points. Not only do characters have too many HP at any but the lowest levels, but they recover those HP far too quickly, which trivializes any combat that doesn't end in death. It doesn't matter if you get shot for 75 damage, when you can spend nothing and be back to full like it never even happened; and if it doesn't matter, then why are we wasting time on it?

2) Bounded Accuracy describes a bizarre, non-sensical world, where the world's strongest human routinely fails to lift an objects that can be lifted by the world's weakest human. The differences between individual capability are much smaller than the uncertainty of the die roll, which is so far out of line with our daily experiences that it sticks out like a sore thumb.

 

[bedir than]

There are basically only two problems with 5E:

1) Everyone's already said it, but Hit Points. Not only do characters have too many HP at any but the lowest levels, but they recover those HP far too quickly, which trivializes any combat that doesn't end in death. It doesn't matter if you get shot for 75 damage, when you can spend nothing and be back to full like it never even happened; and if it doesn't matter, then why are we wasting time on it?

2) Bounded Accuracy describes a bizarre, non-sensical world, where the world's strongest human routinely fails to lift an objects that can be lifted by the world's weakest human. The differences between individual capability are much smaller than the uncertainty of the die roll, which is so far out of line with our daily experiences that it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Why would you role to lift an object where there is no consequence of failure

 

[MichaelSomething]

There are basically only two problems with 5E:

1) Everyone's already said it, but Hit Points. Not only do characters have too many HP at any but the lowest levels, but they recover those HP far too quickly, which trivializes any combat that doesn't end in death. It doesn't matter if you get shot for 75 damage, when you can spend nothing and be back to full like it never even happened; and if it doesn't matter, then why are we wasting time on it?

You (among others it seems) sound like a person who would enjoy playing a heal bot and/or five minute adventuring days...

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

You (among others it seems) sound like a person who would enjoy playing a heal bot and/or five minute adventuring days...

Sometimes it's difficult to cram 6-8 encounters in one day. That's why I always use the Gritty Realism resting variant from the DMG.

 

[ccs]

My only real 5e dislikes are;
* The ability score modifier range of -5 to +5. But I haven't been a fan of this model since 3e....
I'd much prefer the 1e scale of things. But WoTC is not going to change & it's not worth pressing the issue at the table when I DM. The players are content as is & all decreeing a change would do is generate endless complaining from all but maybe one.

* The skill system.
To be fair I've yet to find a system in D&D (any edition) that I actually like though.
The system in PF2 seems better, but I'll withhold judgement until I've played at least a dozen sessions. If I still like it I might consider porting it.

* The AC on most monsters feels a bit low. Solution: I often just up it by a few pts.

* I don't like the healing system here in 5e. I will change it one of these campaigns.

 

[Horwath]

There are basically only two problems with 5E:

1) Everyone's already said it, but Hit Points. Not only do characters have too many HP at any but the lowest levels, but they recover those HP far too quickly, which trivializes any combat that doesn't end in death. It doesn't matter if you get shot for 75 damage, when you can spend nothing and be back to full like it never even happened; and if it doesn't matter, then why are we wasting time on it?

2) Bounded Accuracy describes a bizarre, non-sensical world, where the world's strongest human routinely fails to lift an objects that can be lifted by the world's weakest human. The differences between individual capability are much smaller than the uncertainty of the die roll, which is so far out of line with our daily experiences that it sticks out like a sore thumb.

1. I would like th 4E version of healing surges. something like 3-4 healing for 25% of your HPs during short rest. They would recover during long rest.

2. Bounded accuracy is not the problem, it one of the better things in 5E. main problem of d20 system is the d20. It's too enreliable. 3d6 with bounded accuracy is great. with 3d6 a weak individual with 8 str has a check spread of 2-17 while a individual with 20 str has 8-23 and with a bell curve there is much smaller chance of a weak character defeating strong.

additional.

There should be more 1-2 expertise per class at 1st level.
Especially in a skill that should define a class.

I.E.
Barbarian: expertise in one skill out of athletics, perception, survival,
Bard: expertise in perform, one music instrument, and one of arcana, religion or nature.
Cleric: expertise in religion,
Druid: experise in nature,
Fighter/monk: expertise in athletics or acrobatics,
Ranger; expertise in survival and one of nature or perception
Rogue; expertise in thief tools and 3 skills
Sorcerer: expertise in a skill determined by bloodline
Warlock; expertise in one of arcana, religion or nature. depending on patron
Wizard; expertise in arcana and alchemy tools

 

[Jd Smith1]

I jettisoned Inspiration on the first read-through.

I an not thrilled by the volume of hit points, but I buff monsters and NPCs accordingly to balance it out.

I abandoned D&D before 2E came out, and didn't return until 5e, so I can't weigh in on the prestige/sub class debate.

I am thinking of adding a seventh attribute, this being Perception, in future campaigns, but otherwise I think the attributes are ok.

I like the advantage/disadvantage system; one of the things that caused me to leave AD&D and not return for so long was the endless series of pluses and minuses. Design a workable system, and you won't need that.

I would like to see a more dynamic skill system, but what they have is basically workable. In future campaigns I may tweak it.

 

[Lanefan]

1. HP scaling is an issue as I think you start with too few and end up with too many. The should have normalized starting HP and per level growth a bit better.

Where my take on it is you start with more or less the right amount (or even a few too many on average?) but gain far too many as you go along.

But then, I prefer characters to be a bit fragile at all levels; certainly more so than 4e-5e have made them.

Another problem I see with starting PCs out with lots of hit points boils down to internal consistency within the game world unless your commoners and peasants also have lots of hit points, because in my eyes a 1st-level character isn't very far removed at all from commoner or peasant status* other than they've shown aptitude enough to train into a class and mustered up the courage to go adventuring.

* - and if, like in 4e, they are quite far removed, what goes in between?

3. Inspiration is an interesting idea that is very wonky in its execution. I've gone through several different iterations of it to try to make it work better and have a more significant and consistent place at the table.

Inspiration is an example of the sort of blatantly-metagame mechanics I toss out the window on sight.

4. The ability scores are still not balanced well, and don't offer enough to PCs outside of what they do for your class. All ability scores should have significant class-agnostic secondary benefits the way Con does. There's too much of a "stock build" issue for each class as it is, leading to too little diversity between characters and making character building feel shallower than it needs to.

Diversity doesn't have to be mechanical. You can have two mechanically identical characters and still make them as different as night and day just by the personalities and characterizations you give 'em.

Put another way, diversity doesn't come from build but from roleplay.

That said, you're quite right about the stats, and it's been a problem in every edition since 1974. There's always been a go-to stat or two, and there's always been at least one dump stat; and every fix I've ever seen or tried usually ends up sorting out one aspect while breaking something else. In my modified 1e system, for example, charisma is usually the dump stat and every time I think about how to beef it up I end up somehow wrecking wisdom in its place.

 

[NaturalZero]

I like the core rules, for the most part. They seem like a solid base onto which you could add a lot but WotC doesn't seem to want to go that route.

I think my main issue is just how classes are designed on a fundamental level. I would have much preferred every class to get a subclass at level 1, allowing for much more flexibility in swapping out basic functionality, and a little more weight from the class features shifted to the subclass. Also, I feel like we could have filled many more archetypes in compelling ways if you took the wizard schools, warlock, and sorcerer and redivided them into classes that supported iconic things like necromancer more fully. The wizard and sorc certain look exactly like classical DnD classes but, compared to what they could be, they're needlessly generic jumbles of different spells.