Most frustrating quirk of 5E?

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

I have to admit, a lot of your list confuses me @James Grover. Because so much of it just cutting out choices. You don't have to use those choices personally, so it's coming across that when you are a player (because a DM could disallow them) you are upset that others have access to these choices.

I understand your point, Blue. But for me, so many options and choices, as a DM, is just fluff. It isn't essential to the game in any way and makes the process of picking options over-lengthy, confusing, and tedious:

Should I be this? Should I be that? What points should I put where? How can I get my guy ability X? How can I get the most out of my ability Y? And so on...

Now, being new to 5E and most of my players completely new to D&D entirely, there is a learning curve and that takes time. But coming from earlier editions where there was not as much need to make so many choices about so many things, it was faster and we enjoyed more time playing and less time bookkeeping and planning out a character arch.

Why does it bother you that point buy is as valid an option as 4d6 drop the lowest? Why does others having access to classes/subclasses, races/subraces frustrate you as long as they are balanced?

Ah, but many of those things I don't think are balanced IMO. Are they so broken to my thinking they are wrong? No. But they are off enough that I think some of them need to be tweaked at least a bit. Personally, I don't like a standard stat set. It takes the randomness out of character generation compared to the 4d6 method. I like randomness. Life is random. Fantasy, a magic-mirror reflection of life, should also be. Again, these are my preferences and I am hardly demanding anyone share them. Even with my own players, I would rather meet on a common ground about many things on my list than just remove them completely. A DM is god (little "g") in the game, but doesn't have to be a tyrant or dictator.

It's like someone saying "we don't need four ages of dragons, just one dragon of each type like the other monsters. Who the heck needs 40 variations on dragons, use that space in the MM for something else."

We don't need 40, obviously, so I don't think it is the same thing. Having a base age/size and simple rules for adjusting age and size, how these will modify the base stats, would be best. It allows for variety in power of monsters (not just dragons, necessarily) while not creating excessive bloat. That being said, do we really need half-a-dozen variations of Orc? A base, with simple rules for making the base orc stronger, would be sufficient IMO.

I hope that might clear up some of the confusion? If not, well, sorry to hear it. IME, having more options is not always a good thing, even in RPGs. It gets to a point, and again this was true in some aspects of earlier editions, too, where too much is simply--well--too much.

 

[Blue]

I understand your point, Blue. But for me, so many options and choices, as a DM, is just fluff. It isn't essential to the game in any way and makes the process of picking options over-lengthy, confusing, and tedious:

Should I be this? Should I be that? What points should I put where? How can I get my guy ability X? How can I get the most out of my ability Y? And so on...

Now, being new to 5E and most of my players completely new to D&D entirely, there is a learning curve and that takes time. But coming from earlier editions where there was not as much need to make so many choices about so many things, it was faster and we enjoyed more time playing and less time bookkeeping and planning out a character arch.

1. D&D Basic Rules are out, for free, and are exactly as you describe. Few, iconic options. Less choices for new players, get right into it.

2. One common complaint about long time players is that there is a lot less character customization then there were in previous editions (and in Pathfinder) and it is missed.

It seems you can have your cake and let others have their cake as well.

Or if you are the DM, just say "these are the options available in my world". I regularly give thought to shaping the options and picking variant rules to support the feel for a campaign or to match my players.

Ah, but many of those things I don't think are balanced IMO. Are they so broken to my thinking they are wrong? No. But they are off enough that I think some of them need to be tweaked at least a bit. Personally, I don't like a standard stat set. It takes the randomness out of character generation compared to the 4d6 method. I like randomness. Life is random. Fantasy, a magic-mirror reflection of life, should also be.

I'm sorry, do you want balanced or random? 5e design, with the choice of ASI vs. feat, is very unbalanced when you have some players with great rolls and some with lousy rolls - the losuy players get to play catch-up while the great roll players who are already dominating mathematically get new options and enhances to their power.

We don't need 40, obviously, so I don't think it is the same thing.

We already have 40 dragon variant taking up the MM already. Four age stages times ten dragon types.

Having a base age/size and simple rules for adjusting age and size, how these will modify the base stats, would be best.

Coming a moment ago wanting simplicity and taking out options, now we want more.

Players have ONE PC to run - they can deal with some choices that every once in a while between sessions when they level up. This is a place to grant them customization.

DMs have EVERY monster to run, prep done every session. Having lots of templates to adjust things would add to prep time. Also keeping DMing simpler opens it up to more people.

That being said, do we really need half-a-dozen variations of Orc? A base, with simple rules for making the base orc stronger, would be sufficient IMO.

DMG, pg 273. Modifying monsters.

I hope that might clear up some of the confusion? If not, well, sorry to hear it. IME, having more options is not always a good thing, even in RPGs. It gets to a point, and again this was true in some aspects of earlier editions, too, where too much is simply--well--too much.

I absolutely agree with too many options can drive you crazy. That's a very different statement then "having some options to customize your character" is too much. The book-a-month from 3.5 ane 4e times, every single one of them having player crunch because it sells, is not the same as just about everything you need to create characters in players and Xanathars, with a small section from SCAG and some monster races - if allowed - from Volo's.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

It seems you can have your cake and let others have their cake as well.

Exactly. It is my list. Let's leave it at that. You don't have to agree with it in part or at all--I"m not asking you to since you aren't one of my players.

 

[Maxperson]

Why does healing over a long rest bother so many people? Hit points are a measure of how tough a character/creature is. It's not merely raw physical damage sustained. It is supposed to represent much more then that. It's an abstract system meant to encompass more raw damage but still kept simple. Getting your wind back, recovering from shock, minor sprains, so on and so forth.

I can't answer for others, but for me it's because if you are one death save from dying, you shouldn't be able to run around 8 hours later like nothing ever happened without some serious magic healing involved. If you CAN just run around like nothing happened after only 8 hours of rest, then there was absolutely nothing that should have required even a single death save.

 

[5ekyu]

I understand your point, Blue. But for me, so many options and choices, as a DM, is just fluff. It isn't essential to the game in any way and makes the process of picking options over-lengthy, confusing, and tedious:

Should I be this? Should I be that? What points should I put where? How can I get my guy ability X? How can I get the most out of my ability Y? And so on...

Now, being new to 5E and most of my players completely new to D&D entirely, there is a learning curve and that takes time. But coming from earlier editions where there was not as much need to make so many choices about so many things, it was faster and we enjoyed more time playing and less time bookkeeping and planning out a character arch.



Ah, but many of those things I don't think are balanced IMO. Are they so broken to my thinking they are wrong? No. But they are off enough that I think some of them need to be tweaked at least a bit. Personally, I don't like a standard stat set. It takes the randomness out of character generation compared to the 4d6 method. I like randomness. Life is random. Fantasy, a magic-mirror reflection of life, should also be. Again, these are my preferences and I am hardly demanding anyone share them. Even with my own players, I would rather meet on a common ground about many things on my list than just remove them completely. A DM is god (little "g") in the game, but doesn't have to be a tyrant or dictator.



We don't need 40, obviously, so I don't think it is the same thing. Having a base age/size and simple rules for adjusting age and size, how these will modify the base stats, would be best. It allows for variety in power of monsters (not just dragons, necessarily) while not creating excessive bloat. That being said, do we really need half-a-dozen variations of Orc? A base, with simple rules for making the base orc stronger, would be sufficient IMO.

I hope that might clear up some of the confusion? If not, well, sorry to hear it. IME, having more options is not always a good thing, even in RPGs. It gets to a point, and again this was true in some aspects of earlier editions, too, where too much is simply--well--too much.

"Ah, but many of those things I don't think are balanced IMO. Are they so broken to my thinking they are wrong? No. But they are off enough that I think some of them need to be tweaked at least a bit. Personally, I don't like a standard stat set. It takes the randomness out of character generation compared to the 4d6 method. I like randomness. Life is random. Fantasy, a magic-mirror reflection of life, should also be."

These are preferences and preferences are not under any requirements.
One can like cornbread and not like hush puppies even tho both are deep fried cornmeal goop.

But, the preferences listed in this section seem contradictory, not just different tastes.

Random chargen bting more imbalance than any sub-class that requires only "at least a bit" of tweaking for balance. It's like carefully measuring out a quarter tsp of salt and then just dumping in any amount of water into your stew... the latter makes the "precision" of the former wasted.

 

[5ekyu]

I can't answer for others, but for me it's because if you are one death save from dying, you shouldn't be able to run around 8 hours later like nothing ever happened without some serious magic healing involved. If you CAN just run around like nothing happened after only 8 hours of rest, then there was absolutely nothing that should have required even a single death save.

To handle the aesthetics...

1 You regain no HP over a long rest but you do regain HD as per the rules.
2. Inttoduce Rebirth of the Bold Ritual - Whrn performed at the start of a long rest, the user and up to six allies will regain all their missing HP over the course of the long rest. Requirements: Vary by Setting.

That way the HP regain occurs "cuz magic" not just "cuz rest" and problems all gone.

 

[Azzy]

Never said many of my complaints about 5E didn't have similar ones in 1E and 2E. Eventually, I house-ruled the changes to fix the issues as I saw them in earlier editions, and will do the same with 5E I am sure eventually. I don't expect many people at all to agree with a lot of the list, so please don't bother arguing against my points since this is all a matter of preference and opinion anyway.

No, I just thought it was funny given the that the thread is quirks about 5e and some of your entries are universal to all editions.

 

[Maxperson]

the Surprised condition. I preferred the "Surprise Round" mechanic.

Also, reminded about at last play session: the PH Index leaves a lot to be desired. Just TRY to look up something that you don't remember where it is!

Yeah. Half the things you looking up telling you to "See" some other term rather than just giving you a page number is a bit absurd. They used more text space telling me what to see than giving me a page number would have used.

 

[Azzy]

I can't answer for others, but for me it's because if you are one death save from dying, you shouldn't be able to run around 8 hours later like nothing ever happened without some serious magic healing involved. If you CAN just run around like nothing happened after only 8 hours of rest, then there was absolutely nothing that should have required even a single death save.

While overnight healing may compound the issue, D&D, hit points, and near death experiences have always been wonky. You can be at 1 hp and you're as physically able as if you were at full hit points. You could be at -4, and with some minor healing magic you pop up with no ill effects. Now, like you said, you can be at death's door, and 8 hours of rest makes you right as rain.

While that's fine with many people (I just don't care, myself), I can see why it's a sticky point with some and why there are alternate rules (of questionable worth to some) in the DMG that addresses this. It's definitely something that I've seen people here address time and again.

 

[Maxperson]

While overnight healing may compound the issue, D&D, hit points, and near death experiences have always been wonky. You can be at 1 hp and you're as physically able as if you were at full hit points. You could be at -4, and with some minor healing magic you pop up with no ill effects. Now, like you said, you can be at death's door, and 8 hours of rest makes you right as rain.

Yes, it has always been wonky. However, there are degrees of wonkiness and this is quite a bit past being at 1 hit point without penalty. I'm personally fine with walking around on a light sprain and not seeing a doctor. I can't say the same about a broken ankle.

While that's fine with many people (I just don't care, myself), I can see why it's a sticky point with some and why there are alternate rules (of questionable worth to some) in the DMG that addresses this. It's definitely something that I've seen people here address time and again.

I'm going to try a long rest taking a full week to happen and spreading out the encounter day. If that doesn't work, I'll try something else.

My group has played 5e, but my first time as DM will begin in January, so I'll know more about what I do and don't like then, and know better how I'm going to "fix" the things that bug me.