D&D 5E Odd things in the rules that bug you?

[Don Durito]

Make versatile weapons 1d10/1D12.
Make Duelings style +1 AC and +1dmg when wielding a one handed weapon with a free off hand.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

They won't have access to GWM so damage would be a bit behind a greatsword user and a dex sword and board fighter has better initiative, ranged options, and skill choices.

If your DM is comfortable enough with the system to include optional rules, then they should be comfortable enough with the system to fix any perceived balance issues. That's just one of the reasons why feats are optional.

I'm not saying that a Dexadin should ever be a thing, but given the core math assumptions of the game, I think that allowing Dex to hit but not damage is a trap. The simpler solution is to not allow Dex to hit.

 

[ph0rk]

If your DM is comfortable enough with the system to include optional rules, then they should be comfortable enough with the system to fix any perceived balance issues. That's just one of the reasons why feats are optional.

That's a nice idea, but DMs that played 3/3.5 will likely turn to feats by default.

See also: SR/LR balance and resource management.

I'm not saying that a Dexadin should ever be a thing, but given the core math assumptions of the game, I think that allowing Dex to hit but not damage is a trap. The simpler solution is to not allow Dex to hit.

Yes; and adding specific fixes for classes that need them (like Monk) is better than adding a slew of weapons that most anyone can use that take worrying about strength completely off the table.

The only stat as ignorable as strength in 5e is intelligence. It's weird.

 

[Don Durito]

Feats and multiclassing are not an option that some GMs choose to use in my experience.

They're an option that some GMs choose not to use and players almost always come in with the expectation they will be used.

 

[ph0rk]

Feats and multiclassing are not an option that some GMs choose to use in my experience.

There an option that some GMs choose not to use and players almost always come in with the expectation they will be used.

I've only played 5e with people that had a ton of 3e experience, and in those cases feats are default; if anything multiclassing is more likely to be a maybe.

In cases where feats are off the table there's really not much reason to go with strength.

Or play a fighter, come to think of it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I've only played 5e with people that had a ton of 3e experience, and in those cases feats are default; if anything multiclassing is more likely to be a maybe.

In cases where feats are off the table there's really not much reason to go with strength.

Or play a fighter, come to think of it.

I have a friend whose group only allows feats at level 1, racial feats, and select thematic feats like allowing casters to take ritual casting. The expectation is that player will mostly take ASIs.

Except fighters, who have the full list available to them.

Trance counting as long rest.
My players gripes. Moving through ally position is difficult terrain. Prone requiring half you movement. (This mainly monks.)

IMO that is an area where skills come in. In my games, you can use acrobatics to bypass difficult terrain or stand up using less movement.

 

[Don Durito]

PCs with different movement speeds. If you want to faciliate theatre of the mind and gridless don't throw in distinguishing features in core that rely on a grid.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

PCs with different movement speeds. If you want to faciliate theatre of the mind and gridless don't throw in distinguishing features in core that rely on a grid.

Well, they should have also included a way to translate it from distinct feet to something less concrete, for TOTM, but I know a lot of people who use feet in ToTM as well, so...

 

[Ace]

For a game that is eminently suited for low magic play at all levels there is a serious lack of non spell using options outside of fighter or rogue.

An official optional no spells ranger with decent conclaves would be great and frankly so would more barbarian paths. Heck some kind of scholar/adventurer class would have been a good way to give the game 5 such classes.

Also the game design occasionally tend to incoherence in small ways. The berserker barbacoa path feels as if it was developed in a vacuum.

And yes there are plenty of 3rd party options and homebrew fixes, I just prefer to play "official and RAW." when possible so players have a much lower learning curve and buy in is nearly always assured.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I have a friend whose group only allows feats at level 1, racial feats, and select thematic feats like allowing casters to take ritual casting. The expectation is that player will mostly take ASIs.

Except fighters, who have the full list available to them.

I like this, I’m always looking for new ways to limit feat-cheese, yet keep fighters appealing.