D&D 5E Critiquing the System

[The Crimson Binome]

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

While I disapprove of the "heal bot" pejorative, I do greatly enjoy playing a dedicated healer in any game that allows for it. Triage and resource management are more fun for me than trying to win the damage race.

 

[Leatherhead]

Triage and resource management are more fun for me than trying to win the damage race.

But triage and resource management is a damage race, just in the opposite direction.

 

[Fenris-77]

But triage and resource management is a damage race, just in the opposite direction.

But it plays markedly differently, I think is the point. I've always thought so, even though it's not really my bag.

 

[mrswing]

My problems with D&D 5e:

1) combat is BORING. And yet in so many ways the core of the game. Every fight I've been in up til now starts with the opponents doing major damage to the party (helped by a GM who cannot stop rolling criticals for the life of him ), and then halfway through the balance shifts and we destroy the opposition. Also, despite all the conditions, every player either says something like 'I hit it with my sword/I cast Spirit Guardians/I nuke them with Fireball'. And monsters are all the same (even when using say Kobold Games' excellent monster books, the end result is just another bag of hitpoints coming at you with one or two distinctive attacks). I want combat that is exciting, and to me that is visual and dynamic (roll for a parry, let every character attempt common combat actions like a disarm or a parry, use criticals that are spectacular in effect etc.). It's the one point on which I really want something different from what D&D provides.

2) I don't like that certain actions/situations which occur all the time in the fiction (and in real life) are made impossible by the rules. Holding someone hostage with a knife to their throat, punching someone out with one good or lucky punch, grabbing someone's arms so they can't attack or cast spells anymore...

3) The removal of the surprise round now seems to mean that you can never get the drop on your opponents anymore. Whether one is very alert and careful, or whether you just suddenly attack out of the blue or cast an offensive spell, the DM always asks to roll for initiative and that usually ends up really bad for me. This ties in with the previous point: inability to do things that should be possible, because of the rules.

4) two actions, reaction (sometimes), bonus action (sometimes), a move action + an action = 2 move actions but not = 2 actions... I find this far too complicated still, and too chaotic. I used to feel that one action per round is more than enough, but now I'm charmed by the three actions and that's it-approach of Pathfinder 2. Keep it simple and efficient, which makes it newbie friendly and streamlined.

5) the eternal hitpoint situation (no DM has ever said to me when an opponent hit me: 'you are feeling a little less lucky and are a bit more tired now'). It's much better than before on low levels, but the HP bloat on high levels makes combat boring again (see point 1). I feel that high hit points at starting levels and a far less rapid increase later on is a far better way to treat the problem.

6) Stats: I really don't like the fact that stats can keep increasing. Almost every human warrior is stronger than an ogre. I feel that 18 should be the top stat for a human, and only magic can increase this. And non-humans can go up to 20 in one or two stats, but should be limited in others.

7) The option of a pure class, without subclasses which, let's face it, are basically prestige classes, should also be present and viable.

Those are the main points. But the combat is the biggest problem.

 

[Fenris-77]

I don't really get the whole subclasses = prestige class complaint. Not to throw shade on anyone's opinion, which they are, of course, more than welcome to, but it seems to me that each of the classes does have a subclass option that carries the standard 'pure class' banner pretty well. Champion for Fighter, Thief for Rogue, etc, although the exact 'pure class' fit varies a little from class to class. The other subclass options, IMO, are there to support variety in games that aren't allowing MC, and to add even more variety to one's that do. The fact that there are options other than the standard one doesn't take anything away from anyone though.

 

[Blue]

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.

Both parts of that were intentional design decisions, so saying you dislike it without replacing the heavy lifting it is doing is kinda pointless.

They strongly wanted bounded accuracy, which means that they weren't scaling AC and saves way up. HPs were left as the primary knob for scaling foe longevity. This is well documented. (Also add in streamlining, so things like DR that would stop a certain amount of damage was replaced by Resistance which halves damage.)

Low end was more of the complaints how 4e everyone started very powerful and was a regression back to how earlier editions did it in order to woo players back.

So ... how would you solve these problems with their same constraints?

2. Subclasses are great, but I'm actually not sure I like them more than prestige classes. As time goes on, subclasses are starting to feel more restrictive and "forced" while prestige classes feel more loose and flexible. Also, there's inconsistency in design scope between classes and subclasses. As an example, the D&D cleric is really overdue to be overhauled to make it thematically broader so it can hold a lot more divine/priestly archetypes. This is part of the reason why people question the existence of classes like Paladin and Ranger.

Subclasses are again harking back to earlier editions (where Ranger and Barbarian and such WERE subclasses of fighter). They tried bringing back PrCs in a UA article, and the survey results for it were bad enought hat they never opened that can of worm again.

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.

I'm with you here. Feels like they wanted a nod to the more narrative games out there and a way to mechanically support RP. But it feels bolted on - it's not integrated into the classes or anywhere else. Even back in the 90s World of Darkenss had following your Virtue or Vice to replenish willpower which fueled things. Plus it's a lot for the DM to remember, five be character. While FATE asks the DM to know five Aspects per character, that's 80% fof the entirety of what's on their character sheet.

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.

Agreed. I'd even like if there were multiple different choices for a class to grant variation. Your CHR-based bard is a performer, while your INT-based bard is a loremaster. Same abilities, not taking the place of subclasses. Just alternate ways to build. But to do that you need to do as you say and balance the ability scores against each other first.

 

[DND_Reborn]

My problems with D&D 5e:

1) combat is BORING. And yet in so many ways the core of the game. Every fight I've been in up til now starts with the opponents doing major damage to the party (helped by a GM who cannot stop rolling criticals for the life of him ), and then halfway through the balance shifts and we destroy the opposition. Also, despite all the conditions, every player either says something like 'I hit it with my sword/I cast Spirit Guardians/I nuke them with Fireball'. And monsters are all the same (even when using say Kobold Games' excellent monster books, the end result is just another bag of hitpoints coming at you with one or two distinctive attacks). I want combat that is exciting, and to me that is visual and dynamic (roll for a parry, let every character attempt common combat actions like a disarm or a parry, use criticals that are spectacular in effect etc.). It's the one point on which I really want something different from what D&D provides.

2) I don't like that certain actions/situations which occur all the time in the fiction (and in real life) are made impossible by the rules. Holding someone hostage with a knife to their throat, punching someone out with one good or lucky punch, grabbing someone's arms so they can't attack or cast spells anymore...

3) The removal of the surprise round now seems to mean that you can never get the drop on your opponents anymore. Whether one is very alert and careful, or whether you just suddenly attack out of the blue or cast an offensive spell, the DM always asks to roll for initiative and that usually ends up really bad for me. This ties in with the previous point: inability to do things that should be possible, because of the rules.

4) two actions, reaction (sometimes), bonus action (sometimes), a move action + an action = 2 move actions but not = 2 actions... I find this far too complicated still, and too chaotic. I used to feel that one action per round is more than enough, but now I'm charmed by the three actions and that's it-approach of Pathfinder 2. Keep it simple and efficient, which makes it newbie friendly and streamlined.

5) the eternal hitpoint situation (no DM has ever said to me when an opponent hit me: 'you are feeling a little less lucky and are a bit more tired now'). It's much better than before on low levels, but the HP bloat on high levels makes combat boring again (see point 1). I feel that high hit points at starting levels and a far less rapid increase later on is a far better way to treat the problem.

6) Stats: I really don't like the fact that stats can keep increasing. Almost every human warrior is stronger than an ogre. I feel that 18 should be the top stat for a human, and only magic can increase this. And non-humans can go up to 20 in one or two stats, but should be limited in others.

7) The option of a pure class, without subclasses which, let's face it, are basically prestige classes, should also be present and viable.

Those are the main points. But the combat is the biggest problem.

If I write my supplemental rules systems I think you will like it a lot!

1. Combat isn't boring if done right IMO. We had a single combat that took 4 hours (we play LONG sessions, like 10-16 hours typically) at the end of our game Saturday night. It was INTENSE! Our 5 PCs (roughly 11th level but mostly MCings) versus 4 drow, two hill giants, two ogres, and a cave bear..., and then throw in a yochlol and a shadow demon! The DM warned us before hand (we had scouted out the situation so knew mostly what we were getting into) that this could be a TPK, but we had a good plan and thought we would have a better chance with the element of surprise.

We lost.

4 PCs down and making death saves. The last PC forced to surrender as one of the drow warriors threatened to kill one of the PCs if she didn't. She tried to bargain, the drow thrust his sword into the monk, giving two failed death saves instantly. She immediately dropped her weapon and was taken.

Now, we had to decide... is the game over? or do we want to play out an attempt to escape? It seems hopeless, but we've decided to play it out next weekend.

My point is, even non-insane encounters can have great combat. Sure, sometimes it is routine, a back-and-forth, but not often at our table. The DM sets up the encounters and uses environment (even weather) and other factors to make it more entertaining. Given our long sessions, we usually have 3-8 combats per session.

2. Yep. This is one reason why I want to write my rules supplement. You can grapple, but it doesn't do much unless you also knock your opponent prone. And there is very little in the way of progressing from a grapple to the restrained condition. We had two ogres in another encounter grapple our sorcerer, so the DM prevented him from doing somantic spells, but RAW that isn't the case. Seems "incomplete", most of the rules...

3. The surprise round isn't gone so much as hidden IMO. We commonly, not always, have one or more individuals (both PCs and enemies) surprised. That means everyone rolls initiative. If you are surprised, you cannot take any reactions until your turn comes. When your turn comes, you cannot act at all. (You're surprised... so that makes sense.) After your first turn, you can make reactions and act on your initiative normally.

Is your DM doing it differently?

And I agree with a lot of your other points as well.

 

[Coroc]

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) Simply adjust for it, one way or the other. Gritty Healing, Stronger mobs, or if you do not want to change anything let them start at 1 and roll their 1st level HP and thereafter no rerolls.

2) BA has its issues but not those you mention. The "wizard does act of physical strength while barbarian fails" is simply fixed with introduction of attribute threshold for certain tasks. Do you allow the barbarian with -1 in arcana to suddenly translate those old draconic runes just because he rolled a nat. 20 on it?

The real "downside"of BA is that you have to be careful in some items like those with a high + like +3 because they can be shifting the game. The other thing is you best do never break the 20 limit for natural score by more than e.g. +2 you can get from a tome, same reasons apply.
It gets hefty unbalanced in physical combat if some PC has AC24 and another only 16 and both are "front line fighters".
But careful planning gets around that issue also.

 

[Stalker0]

My only true beef with the system is the that the monsters are far too weak once the party hits 5th. I routinely throw CR 12-14 monsters at my 8th level party and they do just fine.

My secondary beef is the assumption of 6-8 encounter days...with no adjustment for less than that. Sorry but I can't imagine making that my default every game session....once in a while sure...but every single time?

 

[Tony Vargas]

My problems with D&D 5e:
Every fight I've been in up til now starts with the opponents doing major damage to the party, and then halfway through the balance shifts and we destroy the opposition.

Sounds like 5e is working really well for your group. That's prettymuch an idealized D&D combat dynamic, right there.

7) The option of a pure class, without subclasses which, let's face it, are basically prestige classes, should also be present and viable.

Some sub-classes sure, would've been better as PrCs, especially the later ones, but some, like the Champion, Thief, and Life Cleric, already feel like the 'pure' - classic - class.