Most frustrating quirk of 5E?

[Eltab]

I think a useful way of doing this would be allowing the mage's familiar to hold concentration for one spell. It would provide a reason to have a familiar.

In 3e, there was a (spell?) (prestige class feature?) to do just that. I do not remember where I saw it, though. -sigh-

 

[Mepher]

3) DEX-mod to weapon damage. Or for that matter, ANY mod to damage with weapons other than STR. Yes, including ranged weapons; in fact, DEX-mod to damage there is why ranged combat is overpowered in 5e. Also, crossbows shouldn't add any ability mod to damage period.

I have to agree with this one. It makes no sense to me that using a finesse weapons you would get a damage bonus based on your DEX. I understand the DEX mod to attack but your damage bonus should still be based off STR. This goes to the "if the players aren't superheroes then it surely cannot be fun" mentality that is ingrained in 5E. This leads into my biggest gripe "quirk" with 5E and that is damage in general.

The trend began back with 3.0 and has just gotten worse over the years. Somewhere along the line this new thought was ingrained in the new generation of players that less is somehow bad and less fun.

1.) Weapon damages got higher across the board. We added Versatile tag and increased damage with each. Forget the fact that there has always been a large list of 1handed, 2handed, and even some "versatile" weapons such as the Bastard Sword...but now we need to muddle it up even more. Heaven forbid a magic weapon drops and a player might not be able to use that as his preferred weapons....oh wait, nevermind because if he is a fighter he can use everything under the sun at first level anyways. Lets make sure we give light weapons that finesse tag so the Rogues, Bards, Dual Wielding Ranger, hell even the Wizards can hit and damage as well as the Fighters since they stacked points in dex.

2.) Armor Classes got higher across the board. Lets throw away half of the class based armor restrictions of earlier editions or give them feats to use other armors. Don't like the common sense restriction that your rogue or ranger cannot sneak in chinking chain mail? No problem, we will give you a feat that allows you to just ignore the reality of metal on metal might make noise....oh and lets make that armor give you an even higher AC that it normally would. Guess the game needs higher AC because of the first gripe, higher attack.

3.) Attacks abilities went up across the board. So this one is a tough one. I agree that the 1E/2E base options to say a Warrior might sound boring to someone who started with newer edition. The Warrior was THE fighter. They could wear the best armors and got the most weapon proficiencies. They were the only class able to specialize in a weapon giving them hands down the best attack ability of any class. The Paladin and Ranger couldn't specialize so their attack was just under the Warrior but they made up for it with class based abilities. Now I can see how they could add to these classes with some specialized attacks. Look at the Battle Master and all of his maneuvers. I like that concept but I hate it's implementation. The Warrior already has a higher attack skill than any other class so why not give him some maneuvers that if executed do your weapon damage + a special attack such as trip/push/disarm/etc. Instead that isn't enough, we need to do weapon damage + superiority dice damage + an ability. Couple this with the higher damage we already see from weapons and the damage gets even higher. Even at 3rd level a fighter using just a single attack with a great sword could be doing 2d6 + STR bonus +1d8 Superiority Dice + whatever ability the maneuver granted, compared to the 2E Warrior with the Two-Handed Sword doing 1d10 + STR.

That was just the Fighter example. You still have your Hunter Rangers using their Hunter's Mark + Colossal Slayer, coupled with their 2 weapon fighting, boosted by their DEX. Your Rogues with their Sneak Attacks every round (no sure how that qualifies as any kind of sneaking), etc. Hell we can even have our Clerics hurling Fireballs. Your casters are all throwing damaging cantrip (which I am ok with) but they are doing as much damage or more than the other classes with them. Was there any reason casters couldn't be throw 1d4 or 1d6 cantrips when they didn't have spells to cast? Oh yeah...thats right, the last reason is why they need those big damaging cantrips.

4.) Hit points went up across the board. So everyone hit points went up. Classes get more, monsters get more. Healing is fast so those dungeon crawls with item and spell attrition are a thing of the past. Need to heal up and low on spells, no problem just hold up for an hour and spend some hit dice. Next room might be tough, no worries just charge in and blast away all your abilities because we can just rest up and be full after. Of course along with more hit points for everyone and more damage output by the players means we need to increase the damage output by the monsters to "try" and make it a fair fight. Now if everything was equal and we just had larger numbers then combat should be similar....oh wait everyone is hitting easier and harder. The fighters are using bonus actions to heal themselves in combat, and we are downing potions left and right. Better up that monster damage!

So what we have now is combat that reminds me of diablo. Long gone are the drawn out tactical combat and what it's replaced with is a "faux" tactical battle. It's really less tactics and more about how your party can stack their bonuses to burst damage and kill the monster with big hit points and attacks before he kills the players with big hit points and attacks. Battles that in older editions might have gone 8 rounds are now luck to last 2 rounds. Monsters you may have avoided in the past you now rush right in because IF it manages to drop one of you before you burst it to death, we can just get you up with spare the dying, healing potions, healing spells from the cleric/bard/hell any class using the Magic Initiate feat, or if you are all out of everything else, just barricade the door and rest up for an hour. Right as rain.

Now I am sure plenty of people are going to bash me for this one. This is purely my opinion and my biggest problem with 5E. I don't think 1E/2E/3E/4E/5E is any different when it comes to the role playing aspect. Some will tell you that 5E is closer to old school AD&D? I think that is BS. I think the only thing making it similar is the DM and how they run the RP part of it. Mechanically it's nothing like it. The classes aren't similar, the races aren't similar....they only share names. 5E is a fine game and I am glad so many people love it but it's a victim of the more is more mentality these days imo. I just think we went too far and it seems to get even worse with every book as they add more options. Last count I did I think there are 83 Class options (subclasses) and 23 race options (subraces). The idea that more options gives you the opportunity of making a unique character is laughable, they are all just mishmashes of each other.

Big-boy pants on and braced for impact!

 

[Aldarc]

In no particular order...
* Boring weapon and armor tables
* Skills (and Expertise!): the skill list is kinda "meh" and expertise kinda breaks things.
* Short vs. Long Rest class balance
* Boring monster design. Mostly dull sacks of HP in 5e instead of interesting 4e style design.
* Every class is magical! (or overwhelmingly so)
* ASI vs. Interesting Feats - also that only vumans can pick a flavor feat at 1st level
* Half-arsed Inspiration Mechanic

 

[SkidAce]

Big-boy pants on and braced for impact!

While I don't totally agree, I see the value in your post.

I would not call all that a "quirk" however.

 

[Mepher]

While I don't totally agree, I see the value in your post.

I would not call all that a "quirk" however.

You are right, probably not really a quirk. Most of this thread has really turned into more of a "What do I dislike" thread so I just followed suit.

 

[The Old Crow]

What I find most frustrating is the colored font on colored background. I was looking at the monster manual yesterday because I had an adventure idea I was working on, and that hard-to-read color on color was just sucking the joy out of working on the project. Editions one through four books were easy to read just for fun, as I recall. I even remember way back Dragon trying articles on a grey background for some reason, and someone wrote in about being vision impaired and finding it difficult to read, so they went back to black on white. Not sure why they are repeating a mistake they already tried.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I have to agree with this one. It makes no sense to me that using a finesse weapons you would get a damage bonus based on your DEX.

To be fair, it makes about as much sense as Sneak Attack does. Also to be fair, the last time I played a rogue, everyone at the table commented repeatedly that my crossbow was actually an arbalest. It would be somewhat disingenuous of me to complain about one, but not the other; but I'm also not sure how to keep rogues viable, if you take away their core class feature. Extra attacks?

I understand the DEX mod to attack but your damage bonus should still be based off STR.

Honestly, at least from my perspective, Dexterity to attack (but not damage) was pretty problematic. It implied that you could build a viable combatant with high Dex and low Strength, while in practice it meant that you'd hit for trivial damage.

In my own hack, Strength is the melee stat and there's no way around that.

 

[Volund]

The VSM requirements for spellcasting are a quirk from the early days that just won't die. There are so many ways around this now that it's time to admit it should go away. Keep the material components that cost something, do away with the rest, and let casters cast spells if they can speak.

The basic rule is that you need a free hand to hold material components and make somatic gestures, but because in actual play this is really a pain to manage there are a bunch of other rules to neutralize this basic casting rule.
-- spells list material components that nobody pays attention to unless they cost GP, because any generic focus will do and everyone gets one as a graduation present after finishing basic caster training. Alternatively you can get a component pouch that has everything you need just like a Marshall Brodien magic kit.
-- You can make somatic gestures while using the same hand to hold the material component. The range of hand movements I can do while holding onto a staff is pretty limited, but whatever, it's a fantasy game with magic.
-- Clerics and paladins can put their holy symbol on their shield. Druids, who are also described as divine spellcasters, can't do the same thing with a druidic focus. A holy symbol can't be attached to a weapon, but nobody knows why. Seems like the gestures one could make while holding a shield could also be made while holding a mace or sword with a holy symbol attached.
-- Whatever clerics and paladins are doing with their hands while holding the shield doesn't work for arcane foci -- bards, EK's, rangers, AT's, and warlocks can't mount an arcane focus on a shield and get the same benefit, so...
-- Arcane casters can take the War Caster feat which deals with S but not M components. Personally, I let a PC who takes this feat also mount their arcane focus on their shield.
-- Bladelocks can take the improved pact weapon invocation so that their pact weapon can be their arcane focus. Wizards, for all their intelligence, can't figure out how to do this, not even Bladesingers. You could argue that the pact boon + invocation is special, but then we see that...
-- Sword Bards can also use a weapon as their arcane focus. Valor bards can't, even though with shield proficiency they have the greater need.
-- If all else fails, you can drop your weapon, cast a spell, and then pick it up again as a "free" interaction with your environment. Silly gamesmanship to get around a silly rule.

What a mess.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Since this has turned into a sort-of "what don't I like" I am following in that spirit:

• Every race gets only bonuses, no penalties. (Why the heck aren't small races penalized in Strength??? Not even a -1 for crying out loud...)
• Too many pointless subraces. If you want to play a "moonlake wild elf" then just role-play one. The races focus too much on what you get instead of who you are.
• Crazy monster-like PC races (yeah, Dragonborn and Tiefling, BOO! HISS!), even the long-entrenched Half-Orc.
• Darkvision.
• The standard ability score set.
• The point-buy system for ability scores.
• The fact that every class requires the same XP for their level advancement.
• Alignment is basically pointless now since there are no alignment restrictions on class.
• Max HP at first level.
• Too many spell-like or magical abilities for basically every class.
• Most archetypes.
• Bards. (Just play a thief/mage with a lute if you want...)
• Cantrips and their unlimited use.
• Same base attack bonus for every class.
• Only two weapon group proficiencies. (I can understand simplifying them, but I would prefer groups (Swords, Pole-arms, Axes, etc.) in some manner.)
• Monk increased movement (Why has this never died? What possible reason is there for it?)
• Super simple generic "martial arts".
• Three different types of "arcane" casters.
• Inspiration.
• Backgrounds. (Basically useless unless you just can't think of something yourself.)
• Over-simplified Weapons/Armor system.
• Multiclass rules. (WAY too easy and prone to class dipping.)
• Too much ASI, since more interest seems to be in feats anyway.
• Over-simplified encumbrance system.
• Dexterity even more vital to several aspects of game mechanics.
• Charisma now so important to many classes that Intelligence seems to be the new dump stat.
• 6-second rounds.
• Definitions of Dim Light and Darkness.
• Short Rest/Long Rest and associated abilities.
• Too many Hit Points for everything.
• Bounded Accuracy.
• Over-simplied Initiative.
• Death Saves.
• Removing Negative Hit Points and Dying at -10 or whatever you choose to use.
• Alphabetical listing of spells instead of by class and level.
• Changes in many spells (e.g. Enlarge... plus 1d4 damage? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?)
• General format of DMG. (Why waste so much space on world-building and fluff?)
• Too much fluff in many of the books, like they couldn't think of enough useful content but needed to fill the space.
• Lack of Number Appearing in Monster Stat Blocks.
• Only 4 ages for Dragons.
• and on and on and on...

Despite this list, there ARE some things I like, and I am really trying to get past my 1E/2E bias (I even just bought three more 5E books). I know a lot of players love 5E more than prior editions and I am honestly willing to give it a shot before I abandon it.

 

[S'mon]

A few of the spells bug me; the ones that take monsters or PCs out of play. I think this is because it is so hard to make a save in 5e at higher level.

Also Leomund's Tiny Hut is grotesquely overpowered for level 3, and incredibly badly written for a 'safe rest' spell. As written it makes a perfect siege pod and would totally transform any world where level 5+ casters aren't vanishingly rare.