Most frustrating quirk of 5E?

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Multiclassing in two caster classes is annoying, as others have stated.

The total removal of penalties/loss of powers for violating oaths/going against their deity/changing to a non-compatible alignment/etc. They could have at least put in optional rules for these in the DMG or as sidebars in the PHB. I know they want 5E to be all-inclusive and let anyone be anything with no negatives and award trophies just for participating, but some things still need to be available for us older school players/DMs.

Speaking of alignment, I dislike how they made it almost meaningless in 5E. Sure, in older editions it did carry too much weight, but in 5E it is too light.

And finally, one of the things that kept me from 4E was the mass of unlimited, at-will powers/abilities/spells. If I want this, I will go play a video game, or maybe a superhero RPG where this makes more sense. I can modify or houserule most anything else in 5E that I have mentioned, but this is so baked into the system that I may as well not play 5E if I want to change this to being limited in uses per day.

 

[oreofox]

Practically every ability has limited uses, with the exceptions of swinging a sword and cantrips. So I assume you mean unlimited cantrips, instead of the nonexistent cantrips of AD&D and the limited cantrips of 3rd and Pathfinder. I personally like it. Makes magic users be magic users, instead of dart/crossbow users who can't hit a stationary building 2 feet in front of them.

I do agree with with you about the alignment stuff and the penalties/loss of powers. But you won't get many others agreeing with you about alignment, as the popular thing going around is complaining about alignment and anger that it is still included in the game, even though it's as meaningful and important as your PC's gender (aka it isn't). It is more time consuming and annoying adding in mechanics for alignment than it is taking it out. And now to wait for the flood of people saying otherwise.

I wish they would have stuck with the "modularity" of 5th edition they were touting when it first released, giving us "modules" to make the game more like AD&D, or 3rd edition or 4th edition or to keep it the way it is now (baseline). But I do really enjoy 5th edition as it is anyway, but it would be nice nonetheless

 

[5ekyu]

Practically every ability has limited uses, with the exceptions of swinging a sword and cantrips. So I assume you mean unlimited cantrips, instead of the nonexistent cantrips of AD&D and the limited cantrips of 3rd and Pathfinder. I personally like it. Makes magic users be magic users, instead of dart/crossbow users who can't hit a stationary building 2 feet in front of them.

I do agree with with you about the alignment stuff and the penalties/loss of powers. But you won't get many others agreeing with you about alignment, as the popular thing going around is complaining about alignment and anger that it is still included in the game, even though it's as meaningful and important as your PC's gender (aka it isn't). It is more time consuming and annoying adding in mechanics for alignment than it is taking it out. And now to wait for the flood of people saying otherwise.

I wish they would have stuck with the "modularity" of 5th edition they were touting when it first released, giving us "modules" to make the game more like AD&D, or 3rd edition or 4th edition or to keep it the way it is now (baseline). But I do really enjoy 5th edition as it is anyway, but it would be nice nonetheless

Personally, while I dont bother with alignment -patrons, divines and churches in my 5e game all come with baggage associated with them and since GMs conttol NPCs there are consequences we agree on before character approval for violations of the agreements.

The fact that the rule do not define and limit what those consequences are is to me not restricting me at all.

Cant come to an agreement with a church or patron? What's your next character?

 

[Harzel]

Practically every ability has limited uses, with the exceptions of swinging a sword and cantrips. So I assume you mean unlimited cantrips, instead of the nonexistent cantrips of AD&D and the limited cantrips of 3rd and Pathfinder. I personally like it. Makes magic users be magic users, instead of dart/crossbow users who can't hit a stationary building 2 feet in front of them.

To me, cantrips make magic seem mundane. They are a hard shove in the direction of high-magic settings and it's hard to just eliminate them without players feeling (rightly or wrongly) that the balance between classes is being altered significantly. I don't begrudge cantrips being provided for those that want them, but I'd have much preferred them being an option like feats.

 

[Harzel]

But then, I dont like okra either.

Have you tried it fried? That pretty much eliminates the sliminess issue.

 

[Grainger]

There's also the option to increase the experience points nececarriy for obtaining a new level by some multiple. Want to double the time it takes to level? Multiply the numbers in the current character advancement table by 2.

Or just do away with XP (it's just accounting anyway) and decide when the players level up. Decoupling progress from combat is healthier for the game, too. I run a slow-progression game (although I level them to 2 very quickly), and I just ask the players to level up their characters at the end of every few sessions. Obviously, significant points in the campaign might be specific triggers for a level up.

 

[Maxperson]

]The total removal of penalties/loss of powers for violating oaths/going against their deity/changing to a non-compatible alignment/etc. They could have at least put in optional rules for these in the DMG or as sidebars in the PHB. I know they want 5E to be all-inclusive and let anyone be anything with no negatives and award trophies just for participating, but some things still need to be available for us older school players/DMs.

5e does not have a total removal of penalties/loss of powers. Paladins can lose their powers for oath violations. It's right there in the PHB. The loss of your class is a pretty big penalty.

 

[Blue]

To me, cantrips make magic seem mundane. They are a hard shove in the direction of high-magic settings and it's hard to just eliminate them without players feeling (rightly or wrongly) that the balance between classes is being altered significantly. I don't begrudge cantrips being provided for those that want them, but I'd have much preferred them being an option like feats.

For me this is the opposite. When I used to play AD&D, a 1st level caster got theri 1-2 spells a day and after that WAS actually completely mundane. They'd use a darts, or a crossbow.

Cantrips actually took casters out of the mundane and made them magical because they could now stay in the magical realm. They could light their pipe with a snap, float keys to their hand, or let out a burst of flame instead of doing mundane things.

Forcing casters to do things mundanely makes them more mundane, not less. Coming from decades of play like that.

 

[Harzel]

For me this is the opposite. When I used to play AD&D, a 1st level caster got theri 1-2 spells a day and after that WAS actually completely mundane. They'd use a darts, or a crossbow.

Cantrips actually took casters out of the mundane and made them magical because they could now stay in the magical realm. They could light their pipe with a snap, float keys to their hand, or let out a burst of flame instead of doing mundane things.

Forcing casters to do things mundanely makes them more mundane, not less. Coming from decades of play like that.

Yes, I remember (dimly) AD&D casters also, and your point about them is well-taken. It just seems to me that 5e has gone too far in the other direction. But to be fair, I think my complaint rests on more than cantrips (and on more than their at-will-ness); they are a principal contributor, but not the whole story. The other major part of the problem is that you cannot turn around without bumping into a caster. And, of course, then the majority of them get cantrips. The overall effect is that spell casting becomes magical-in-name-only, as it is ordinary, commonplace, unremarkable - mundane in the common sense of the word.

So when the wizard casts Firebolt, well, shrug - it doesn't feel any different that if he shoots a crossbow. He makes an attack roll and he can do it every round. What's the difference?

My other complaint about cantrips is the business of damage scaling with level in order, presumably, to ensure that our poor caster never feels left out. Eff that. That's the way casters (or at least wizards-as-successors-to-1e-magic-users) are supposed to feel in return for the limited* occasions when they can grab the spotlight and do something awesome that no one else can even come close to. Oh, but I forgot; everyone is a caster now, so they aren't that special anymore, so yeah, I guess we have to do that because we wouldn't want different classes to actually play differently or anything.

Not to mention that at-will spell casting opens the door for abominations such as Guidance.

Not to mention that by the way now many casters get a decent at-will ranged damage capability that bypasses both the need to have a weapon in hand and the need for ammunition. (Admittedly this is a complaint about particular cantrips, not cantrips in general. But again, if you have at-will spell casting at all, you probably get some version of these.)

</rant>
though I'm not sure where I should have put the corresponding <rant>

* And, yes, I still agree 1-2 times per day is maybe a little too limited, but that really only applies at very low levels. And in 5e it starts at 2 and goes up fairly quickly. Thinking about it, I'd probably be in favor of a slightly faster ramp in #s of spell slots if I could get rid of cantrips. Or have a fairly generous, but not unlimited, supply of 0-level (cantrip) spell slots.

 

[Eubani]

The most annoying "quirk" is that the designers keep applying band-aids to issues rather than fixes. Some point at 4e as to why you do this but neglect to mention that you need not swing from one extreme to another.