Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Einlanzer0" data-source="post: 7874113" data-attributes="member: 6788934">5th edition does a lot of things right.&nbsp; Curious to hear what peoples' biggest issues are with it.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.2. Subclasses are great, but I think there's been an over-reliance on them as expansions to character options, and I'm a bit disappointed there are no &quot;multiclassing&quot; rules around them.3. In general, they have been a bit too conservative. As an example, the D&amp;D cleric is really overdue for an overhaul so it can properly be broad enough to incorporate a wide range of priestly archetypes the way the other 3 core classes can within their archetypal domains. This is part of the reason why people question the existence of classes like Paladin and Ranger.3.&nbsp; 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.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 &quot;stock build&quot; issue for each class as it is, leading to too little diversity between characters and making character building feel shallower than it needs to.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Einlanzer0, post: 7874113, member: 6788934"] 5th edition does a lot of things right. Curious to hear what peoples' biggest issues are with it. 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. 2. Subclasses are great, but I think there's been an over-reliance on them as expansions to character options, and I'm a bit disappointed there are no "multiclassing" rules around them. 3. In general, they have been a bit too conservative. As an example, the D&D cleric is really overdue for an overhaul so it can properly be broad enough to incorporate a wide range of priestly archetypes the way the other 3 core classes can within their archetypal domains. This is part of the reason why people question the existence of classes like Paladin and Ranger. 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. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification