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

[Tony Vargas]

In an open ended game like RPGs, where the players can literally try anything, simplicity means ambiguity. ... AD&D was complicated with lots of ambiguity. 5E has simple rules, but it leaves a LOT to the discretion of the DM.

It's clear from your own examples that ambiguity and simplicity are independent qualities. (Not that 5e is really simple - it's familiar, so easy for players of most past eds to master.)

It's fair to note that some things in 5E were left ambiguous not for simplicity, but for style preference.

Yes.

 

[Flamestrike]

Re: CR
A lot of people on this site have griped about it a lot, so I was a bit worried about it when I was using it.
However, at the end of each adventure I built with the CR guidelines, I've looked back and found that things pretty much worked as advertised.

By the finale players are scraping by with their spells basically exhausted, low on HP, have made/failed death saves and are generally worried about their wellbeing which has led them to interesting and creative methods of solving problems.

I'm sure it doesn't work fr everyone. However a number of the complaints I've seen say things like
"I designed a medium encounter and the wizard ended it with a fireball and burning hands". I've had. The same experience, but in the long run, that's part of the design. Another medium encounter or two and that same player is saying
"Uh... Guys... Maybe we should be a little more careful... I'm low on spells"



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It works fine on the longer [standard] adventuring days, and I like it too. Works a treat for me.

In games with DMs who dont police the 5 minute AD (either via choice or ignorance) a [medium-hard encounter] gets nuked inside 2 rounds without the PCs breaking a sweat. Raging GWM Barb and nova smiting paladin pound everything into a fine paste, while the casters unload a few of their highest level slots on the encounter with impunity.

I've seen it numerous times. And the reaction is all to often that the DM logs onto a forum to complain about those classes (and feats), whine that the CR system is broken, and bitch about class imbalance. This is rapidly followed with the DM dialing up encounter difficulty. This of course makes the problem much worse by mandating the 5 minute adventuring day, forcing nova tactics just to survive, rendering the whole campaign into one giant game of rocket tag, and driving an even bigger wedge between class imbalance.

 

[hawkeyefan]

One thing I like that I see a lot of people criticize is the Champion Fighter. It's often cited as the class for noobs and so on...but I don't think that's very fair. I like the narrow focus and lack of "complexity"...I know what his job is, and I know what I'm going to do before my turn comes up.

If I want to have a bunch of options every time it's my turn, there are plenty of classes that function that way. I like the straightforward nature of the class...it reminds me of early edition fighters who didn't need all the bells and whistles.

 

[Pathkeeper24601]

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. 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...

Interesting. I have found that when players get the drop on a creature, they want it to work for them exactly the way that DM did it. Usually as DM, I am the one explaining that combat and surprise don't work that way.

As for the subject, I would have to agree on concentration and the rest mechanic are favorites that I see players complain about. Bonded Accuracy, even though it does get a bit missunderstood. Essentially the decreased proliferation of modifiers without completely removing them.

Edit: Oops, meant to attach this to the earlier message where the DM had the ogre get a free shot, round with the players surprised, and then yet another attack before anyone did anything.

 

[77IM]

Bounded Accuracy.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

Perhaps. It's even possible I'd agree with you on all of the rulings! Of course, people on both sides of these arguments think the answers are obvious and the other side should "try reading the rules first."

Well, no, because it isn't really arguable. It states it clearly with no ambiguity and has been addressed by Crawford. Anyone adding in those arguments are inserting logic that doesn't exist in the game.

Player: Yes, I know I'm in pitch black darkness and don't have darkvision, but why can't I see? I'm not blind!

DM: But you have the blinded condition because you're in pitch black darkness and you don't have darkvision.

Player: But I was never blinded!

DM: ...

 

[Shiroiken]

(Not that 5e is really simple - it's familiar, so easy for players of most past eds to master.)

Oddly, I've had a much easier time teaching players new to D&D than players of earlier editions (especially 3E). I think that's because players tend to carry over too much baggage (assumptions), and the core mechanics (outside of spellcasting) is really simple.

 

[happyhermit]

Oddly, I've had a much easier time teaching players new to D&D than players of earlier editions (especially 3E). I think that's because players tend to carry over too much baggage (assumptions), and the core mechanics (outside of spellcasting) is really simple.

I have seen similar situations, especially those that started with 3.x and 4e. I have personally seen much better results teaching 5e to new-to-TTRPG players than any D&D "edition" other than Basic, and many other "simple" systems.

As to the OP, I wasn't going to respond as most of mine have already been mentioned, but I can't sleep so I might as well.

I LOVE the champion, in many ways. By having very few mechanically defined and spelled out abilities it has been great for certain players, supporting their play-style, representing certain characters, etc. which is great from the GM perspective. It is the Class I most often find myself wanting to play (when that ever happens).

I love the Berserker frenzy/rage, I have seen it open up so many interesting situations in game, I love the difficult choice it can present. It is probably next in line for PCs I most often find myself wanting to play, despite having a love/hate relationship with Barbarians in general (outside of 5e).

I love the slow release/anti-bloat/story first/long term plans for the edition. To the point where I have mixed feelings about the upcoming "Major mechanical expansion". I am sure by that time I will love it as much as I am loving Volo's, I just wish I had some more time with 5e while it's still young and cute and slim, there are so many things I want to do.

The only thing I don't recall seeing mentioned that I love, that gets a LOT of hate from some (though not that much on this forum) is the asymmetrical nature of the game, classes in particular. It makes things more complex to "balance" and some people seem to have emotional issues tied to "simple fighters" or "complex wizards", but it is sooo worth it to me. Without that asymmetry much of what made D&D great and different is lost IMO, and there are so many other systems that can give me a symmetrical game (with varying degrees of "balance").

 

[Tony Vargas]

Oddly, I've had a much easier time teaching players new to D&D than players of earlier editions (especially 3E). I think that's because players tend to carry over too much baggage (assumptions), and the core mechanics (outside of spellcasting) is really simple.

Nod, I had the same issue with 4e, long-time players would step up thinking their experience meant the new 'dumbed-down edition' would be a breeze, and quickly become frustrated, while new players would absorb it easily. The only things I see long-time players having an issue with in 5e is neo-Vancian casting (everyone's spontaneous, but there's still prep, as well - but, then, new players have at least as much trouble with it) and 'lack of options' (something from an earlier edition they miss). Logically, if you already know D&D, a new edition is a matter of learning what's new, and un-learning & re-learning what's different. I can't see why 3e players, in particular, would have much trouble with that, 5e doesn't change that much relative to 3e - the afore-mentioned spellcasting, proficiency instead of BAB/ranks/saves - the biggest shift is one of attitude, really.

Interesting. I have found that when players get the drop on a creature, they want it to work for them exactly the way that DM did it. Usually as DM, I am the one explaining that combat and surprise don't work that way.

Yep, I've seen that, too.

Edit: Oops, meant to attach this to the earlier message where the DM had the ogre get a free shot, round with the players surprised, and then yet another attack before anyone did anything.

NP. I was going for the humor of an intentional call-back with that one.

As for the subject, I would have to agree on concentration and the rest mechanic are favorites that I see players complain about. Bonded Accuracy, even though it does get a bit missunderstood. Essentially the decreased proliferation of modifiers without completely removing them

Bounded Accuracy.

BA, like Adv/Dis, seems like one of the most well-received arguably-'new' things in 5e, I don't see much hate for it, at all.

 

[77IM]

BA, like Adv/Dis, seems like one of the most well-received arguably-'new' things in 5e, I don't see much hate for it, at all.

Yeah, Bounded Accuracy seems to get more love than hate. But on the internet, anything that gets a lot of love is going to have some vocal and opinionated opponents, too.

People who don't play 5E often cite Bounded Accuracy as one of the reasons. To be more specific, a lot of people WANT to have wildly asymmetric success rates -- they want their character's modifier to shoot up to ridiculous amounts at high levels, as a way of quantitatively demonstrating that they are the best.

Also I occasionally see people complain in the other direction, pointing out edge cases where Bounded Accuracy is badly broken. I remember one guy who figured out some wacky combo of magic items that made AC so high you'd be unhittable, and claimed the entire system was broken because of it (never mind that the odds of rolling those items on the random tables was basically nil).

I guess, because I love Bounded Accuracy so much, this counts as "a lot of hate" to me.