D&D 5E Parts of the game that get a lot of hate but you love

[FormerlyHemlock]

I don't get why people have difficulty with hiding. Either you're hidden, or you're not and you can't hide if you don't have something to hide behind. Simple.

There is controversy over whether, if you go behind a tree and Hide, you are actually hidden, or whether the fact that I know you went behind the tree means you're not hidden. Also, there's controversy over whether if I go behind the tree too, you are still hidden, or if I automatically see you. There is also controversy over whether taking the Hide action is the only way to hide, or whether improvised actions or certain circumstances can also make you hidden without Hiding. E.g. a Shadow Monk using Pass Without Trace uses his Cloak of Shadows ability to become invisible and then Shadow Steps across the room. Is he hidden from his opponent automatically? Could that be considered an improvised/circumstantial action which justifies a Stealth roll vs. Wisdom (Perception/Hearing) to become hidden (that's how I'd run it)? If he just automatically not hidden because he didn't Hide? What if his opponent is deaf or within Silence? If a deaf guy can't see you or hear you or see your tracks, how can you not​ be hidden? People argue it both ways.

Not all controversy is justified, but it exists.

 

[ad_hoc]

Every conversation I've seen about CR has been that it's a total mess and, if anything, misleading.

I also find CR to be accurate and useful.

I'm currently on the fence about it. I've never liked multi-classing and I love this edition's rules for it because it's so restrictive and requires a lot of thought. BUt on the flip-side, players love to multi-class. It's probably the one thing that I could say almost every player wants to do, and because the multi-classing rules are so well balanced and restrictive, it ends up being a huge trap for those without at least a moderate degree of system mastery. So I have to warn players and disencourage it, simply so that they're not left with a character that falls significantly behind everyone else's.

Not at my table, we don't use that optional rule.

I love that it is an optional rule, and I also love that with subclasses I don't feel it is necessary or adds much. I like that D&D is a class based system and I have always disliked how multiclassing muddles that. Subclasses are the perfect solution.

 

[Shiroiken]

The best thing about 5E that I love (and many hate) is how the simplicity of the rules put the game back in the hands of the DM. It probably makes Organized Play a nightmare, but since I don't do OP, I don't really care

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Shasarak]

There has certainly been a lot of stupid stuff mentioned so far, but my favourite is Drizzt Do'Urden.

 

[Flamestrike]

The best thing about 5E that I love (and many hate) is how the simplicity of the rules put the game back in the hands of the DM. It probably makes Organized Play a nightmare, but since I don't do OP, I don't really care

For a DM its fantastic. You can shrug and say 'ruling' and win.

From the other side, rocking up to a table with a bad DM is painful. Ive had to pull the whole 'Oh hey, just got a text from my dying mother and I have to leave' on a few occasions.

Once when this odious grinning neck-beard had a hidden creature attack me before initiative was rolled. He then got in a second attack during a 'surprise round'. Seeing as he won initiative on round 1, it became three attacks in a row. The first two of which he rolled with advantage (creatures in the 'surprise round' get advantage apparently).

Also the creature was hidden while I spoke to another creature, [weapon up and expecting combat]. I wasnt allowed a perception check either [or even to apply my passive perception to spot the hidden creature] because to quote our fine DM: 'I didnt ask for one'.

Not that it mattered as the creature didnt have to roll a Stealth check either seeing as 'it was behind total cover and I had no way of seeing it'.

No amount of polite pointing to the rules (attacks happen after initiative not before, there is no such thing as a surprise round, and even if there was, there is no advantage granted against a surprised creature, and in any event, I shouldnt have been surprised as I was alert to danger and aware of the hidden creatures presence, I should have at least applied my passive perception to the creatures Stealth check [which was never made], and I cant exactly ask for a perception check to spot a creature I don't know its there) mattered.

Also, the creature I failed to notice was an Ogre. I was proficient in perception, not that it mattered because the Ogre was (for reasons described above) imperceptible.

But that was the case with PF as well. Bad DMs gonna bad DM, no matter what system you put in front of them.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The best thing about 5E that I love (and many hate) is how the simplicity of the rules put the game back in the hands of the DM.

It's more the ambiguity that does that. If it were all that simple, players wouldn't need rulings. Rules that need rulings put the ball back in the DM's court.

It probably makes Organized Play a nightmare, but since I don't do OP, I don't really care

Organized play has not been that nightmarish for me, as a DM. While you do have to stick to the groundrules (so there are feats & the odd MC or Variant Human character, for instance), the game still gives you plenty of latitude, in play....



... for instance, if I decide a monster is going to surprise the party, I don't have to delve into the minutiae of the stealth rules and make contested checks out in the open or anything, I can just rule that the poor suckers are surprised - and give the monster Advantage if I want...

 

[Krachek]

Basic human, +1 all stat. I made my first character with it. Never regrets.

 

[Ath-kethin]

I really thought I would hate the vague rules for doing stuff and 'ask your DM'.

I love it.

Depending on the DM of course!

Beat me to it. The return to a "rulings not rules" paradigm is one of my favorite things about 5e.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

From the other side, rocking up to a table with a bad DM is painful

Well, I mean, yeah... that's true no matter what kind of approach the game in question takes.

I guess something could be said about putting the rules in the hands of DMs enabling or encouraging bad DMs... but on the other hand, I've never seen a rule-set that successfully reduced the impact of a bad DM, even when a few have tried.