Most frustrating quirk of 5E?

[Zardnaar]

I really like 5e but there are quite a few things that could be done better/differently.

Having to choose between feats and ASIs.

Tool proficiencies being for the most part flavor only but taking up the space of a skill.

The ranger :/

This is more of a personal pet peeve. Different classes getting class and subclass abilities at different levels instead of having a shared table. It feels as if each class was developed by a different person or they run out of time and outsourced it to different people without giving direct guidelines.

Edit: No primal spell list for druid and ranger.

Having to choose between feats and ASI keeps the power level own but gives you choices. Stat bump + feat didn't work so well in 3E and 4E. Neither did unifying the classes, at the very least that would imply getting rid of spellcasters tables whcih leads it wiide open to accusations of "Not D&D" since level 1-9 spells are a big thing for D&D IMHO.

Doesn't take a rocket scientis to work out why they brought them back in 5E.

My quirks are subclasses compared with other subclasses (Hunter Ranger vs Beastmaster, 4 Elements Monk vs the other 2), long and short rest classes don't play nice together, higher level play still not great, power disparity between feats, and saves not scaling very well at all.

 

[PrimevalSeeker]

Having to choose between feats and ASI keeps the power level own but gives you choices. Stat bump + feat didn't work so well in 3E and 4E. Neither did unifying the classes, at the very least that would imply getting rid of spellcasters tables whcih leads it wiide open to accusations of "Not D&D" since level 1-9 spells are a big thing for D&D IMHO.

Doesn't take a rocket scientis to work out why they brought them back in 5E.

How is every class getting to chose a subclass at the same level (all either at 1st, 2nd or 3rd for the first level) imply getting rid spellcaster tables.

 

[Ath-kethin]

My main beefs with 5e are the way all wizards end up being the same and how warlocks totally got the short end of the stick.

 

[Seramus]

Yeah, with 5e combats only lasting about 3 or 4 rounds at most, common per-encounter powers wouldn't really work.

They work great. 1-2 per encounter seems to be the sweet spot at my table (depending on level).

 

[Mepher]

I heard you on the other ones, but this one seems off. A medium encounter @ 1st level has an XP budget of 50XP per PC. But that's not actually 50XP earned each, that's after the difficulty modifier - x2 for 3-6 monsters, a common place. So it's 25XP per PC per encounter. 300XP is 12 encounters.

For us, that's about two encounters a night, and we play every other week. So it's about 12 weeks to get from 1st to 2nd. Sure, some encounters are tougher and grant more XP, but not every session has two encounters, so it evens out.

The point before had the DM controlling the speed of power creep by the rate of giving out items. If your table finds it to fast do the same, control the speed of leveling to be happy for your table.

I think you misunderstood my point. I wasn't referring to the speed of leveling, it was about the way even 1st level characters "feel" powerful. In older editions you were the lowly farmer/commoner/whatever striking out as an adventurer. You were fragile and struggled as you grew in levels and power. In 5E that "weak" feeling is VERY short. The point is that by 3rd level the players feel invincible. It's more about my own feeling of the game. When you hit 3rd level and your party is hunter's marking & hexing creatures for extra damage, damaging cantrips are flying left and right, and the party is dropping bosses in 2-3 rounds because they have enough abilities to stack big damage fast if they want, it just doesn't feel right to me. As DMs we can challenge them how we see fit but the rules allow them to stack abilities, take extra actions, and put out a lot of damage fast. The slow methodical fights of older editions are replaced with the big BOOM of power.

 

[Krachek]

The bonus action.
The -5/+10 feats.

 

[lluewhyn]

I think you misunderstood my point. I wasn't referring to the speed of leveling, it was about the way even 1st level characters "feel" powerful. In older editions you were the lowly farmer/commoner/whatever striking out as an adventurer.

Which is why virtually every game ended up starting characters at level 3 or 4 after the novelty of playing a neophyte wore off. Cool to be "wet behind the ears" the first time around, but the vast, vast majority of players, when starting a new campaign, came up with a character concept that they wanted to experience at least partially immediately, not fumble around for a month or two before feeling satisfactory. I could see that working if a typical group of gamers had single campaigns that lasted for 5-10 years, but with shorter campaigns and new players coming and going, it's not as attractive.

 

[lluewhyn]

Definitely, the half-baked Tool proficiencies are just inelegant along every possible metric. Why can't Thief Tools just be folded back into a Thievery skill?

If they wanted to go the route they did, I think they should have used the 3E Profession (whatever) Skills. Either make Thievery its own skill again, or at least say Profession: Thief. I also think it's more intuitive to explain to a Newbie that they're proficiently trained in being an Alchemist or Baker rather than being proficient in Alchemist Tools or Baker's tools. The latter implies needing the tools on hand, whereas the former might inspire the player to try justify using a profession skill in situations where they're not sitting in their workshop.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Azzy]

Instead I find the approach of favouring non existing stuff perfectly reasonable in a fantasy game.

You do you, then.