D&D 5E Things I like and dislike about 5e...

[brehobit]

On the whole, I am very happy with 5e. While I've only played a bit, it seems to be a great system. Thus far I like it better than any other edition and, while there are other RPGs that cover different ground, I think it's my favorite RPG (previously either 3.5e, Hero, or maybe True20).

Things I really like:

• Feels like D&D. The classes, races and general play style all feel like D&D. In many ways 4e (which I rather liked) did not. And many other games, even d20 variants, really don't. True20 is cool but not D&D etc.
• Combat seems to go quickly. This is huge coming from 3e and 4e. It feels more like the pacing of 1e or 2e which is great.
• Backgrounds. Very nice idea and very nice implementation. I like the "RPG" bonus as well as a bit of crunch (skills). One of those ideas that are obvious in retrospect.

Things I have issues with:

• Skills. This is the big one. I feel the bonus for being skilled is just too small, especially at first. Sure, I'm "proficient in stealth" but I'm only 10% more likely to succeed than someone who isn't? To me this really make backgrounds less fun than they could be because proficiency just doesn't matter much RAW. Now of course the GM could fiat a lot of stuff (oh, you are prof. in cooking, sure, your food is generally just fine). I'd also like to see a way to become "expert" other than being a rogue or bard.
• Flexibility. (minor concern and I'm not sure it's really an issue) I'm a bit worried that after a bit a member of a specific sub-class will feel a lot like the next member of the specific subclass. As taking stat bonuses is probably the way to go (rather than feats) it seems like feats will often come very late in the game. Multi-classing may well address this nicely, but it _seems_ like a sub-optimal choice much of the time (especially for non-casters in this edition!)
• Alt human is too strong. Don't get me wrong, I think the alt human is cool. But the other races are generally sub-optimal (elf monk and dwarven fighter might be on-par?) as far as I can tell. In our current game we all (all!) independently choose to play an alt human. The bonus feat is just too good (and flexible) to pass up.

I've also got doubts about class balance, but I'm interested in seeing how those play out--pure theorycraft doesn't mean much there--they are just too complex. And I've not seen enough different classes in play.

I think all of those are fixable (if they need fixing at all). I'm tempted to just give a generic +2 additional bonus for proficiency and start everyone with a feat. I think that would make the skills feel more useful and make the alt human less desirable. Also would create greater variety in characters.

So...

What do you like and dislike? What do you think of my issues and praises?

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Skills. This is the big one. I feel the bonus for being skilled is just too small, especially at first. Sure, I'm "proficient in stealth" but I'm only 10% more likely to succeed than someone who isn't? To me this really make backgrounds less fun than they could be because proficiency just doesn't matter much RAW. Now of course the GM could fiat a lot of stuff (oh, you are prof. in cooking, sure, your food is generally just fine). I'd also like to see a way to become "expert" other than being a rogue or bard.

I hear good things about the Proficiency Die option from the DMG. Also class benefits like Expertise can boost the prof bonus to stellar totals in a short amount of time.

Flexibility. (minor concern and I'm not sure it's really an issue) I'm a bit worried that after a bit a member of a specific sub-class will feel a lot like the next member of the specific subclass. As taking stat bonuses is probably the way to go (rather than feats) it seems like feats will often come very late in the game. Multi-classing may well address this nicely, but it _seems_ like a sub-optimal choice much of the time (especially for non-casters in this edition!)

Background skills, feats, multi-classing, racial differences, character-defining magic items, etc should all smooth this out. When I first started playing D&D there were something like 8 classes, total.

Alt human is too strong. Don't get me wrong, I think the alt human is cool. But the other races are generally sub-optimal (elf monk and dwarven fighter might be on-par?) as far as I can tell. In our current game we all (all!) independently choose to play an alt human. The bonus feat is just too good (and flexible) to pass up.

I have yet to play a human, though I've contemplated the alt build more than once. Different strokes.

Power is a strange thing. IMHO, players are never TOO powerful when faced with a DM who knows how to scale appropriately. Glad you enjoy the game!

 

[wedgeski]

I couldn't agree more with your positives. I love the mechanical contribution made by backgrounds, and my players and I are constantly amazed at how many combats we can get through in a session. That was my only real beef with 4E, and now we have (much of) the excitement and variety of 4E combat combined with the speed of AD&D. Blissful.

Skill proficiency I honestly don't have a problem with. I look to my players for this one and they seem happy that proficiency means "better enough". Those differentials will increase with level, don't forget. Flexibility is a difficult one that will require more time to judge.

On the alt-human issue, I think I agree with you, insomuch as I couldn't wait to take it when I built my first PC. In play, though, he hasn't shown himself to be markedly superior.

I'm still collating my overall opinion on the absolute strengths and weaknesses of the system. I've only DM'd a dozen-or-so sessions, and haven't seen or played enough of the classes to feel qualified to judge.

 

[Mercurius]

A lot of your concerns, which are reasonable imo, are why I think a "revised edition" isn't a bad thing a few years into every edition cycle. Even with all of the playtesting, there's no way to catch some of these things without countless hours and different playing every possible variation through every level. For instance, what you say about feats and ability bonuses implies that either feats need to be more of a higher level thing, like the original "heroic feats" idea, or they need to be ramped up - possibly both. Or maybe ability increases are automatic and PCs get feats in addition - sounds like a good house rule.

Your concerns highlight just how easy it is to house-rule 5E. It would be easy to add in something for skills, for instance. Or you could adjust your nonhuman races so they get some kind of extra, distinctive racial power specific to your campaign setting.

All in all I think 5E is simply terrific and any issues that I've seen or heard about can be easily addressed by house rule and/or could be tweaked for a later revision. I don't think "5E revised" would need to be "5.5" but that "5.1" or "5.2" would suffice, and maybe not even that. But the point is, they could come out with revised core rulebooks that wouldn't drastically alter everything.

 

[Paraxis]

My next campaign is going to be set in Eberron and because the way they worked dragonmarks I will be giving every character a feat at first level and disallowing the variant human, to make the standard human more attractive I will be adding the bonus skill proficiency to it.

So if you dislike the Human (variant) option either don't use it or don't use it and give everyone a feat at first level.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

To address a few concerns:

"Skills. This is the big one. I feel the bonus for being skilled is just too small, especially at first. Sure, I'm "proficient in stealth" but I'm only 10% more likely to succeed than someone who isn't? To me this really make backgrounds less fun than they could be because proficiency just doesn't matter much RAW. Now of course the GM could fiat a lot of stuff (oh, you are prof. in cooking, sure, your food is generally just fine). I'd also like to see a way to become "expert" other than being a rogue or bard."

I view your total die modifier as training (proficiency bonus) + aptitude (stat bonus). 1st -3rd level is the apprentice tier, and your modifier rises soon after. An apprentice ISN'T that well trained in comparison to a random guy off the street with equal aptitude. Rather than futz with the modifiers, might I suggest often granting auto success to those trained for DC's under 10 or so, or in rarer occasions, only allowing trained to roll? You let the trained skill feel like it counts more, and in circumstances where everyone is rolling, all have a shot. Moreover, there is still uncertainty. I feel this was lost in 3E, where your bonus soon rapidly eclipsed even a 20, often making the roll itself pointless other than to see how well you succeeded.

As far as other classes becoming an expert - welcome to a class based game! Things are set aside for class/niche protection, otherwise we may as well just do free form point buy on character creation (which is perfectly fine, but in general considered "not D&D"). Only paladins and clerics can turn undead. Only rogues can sneak attack. Only barbarians can get mad enough to get a damage bonus.

Flexibility. (minor concern and I'm not sure it's really an issue) I'm a bit worried that after a bit a member of a specific sub-class will feel a lot like the next member of the specific subclass. As taking stat bonuses is probably the way to go (rather than feats) it seems like feats will often come very late in the game. Multi-classing may well address this nicely, but it _seems_ like a sub-optimal choice much of the time (especially for non-casters in this edition!)

as noted above, there are lots of mechanical components of a character. Skill choice, background, race, subclass. But the most important choice for character differentation is how you roleplay them. Even if mechanically identical, a hothead champion fighter is going to seem different in play than the grizzled vet who is only 2 dungeons away from retirement. I think this is more an armchair analyst concern. As a DM, I get that, we spend more time looking at the big picture. However most players tend to focus on their own character's abilities. So long as they get to do cool things, it doesn't matter that much if someone else can theoretically do the exact same cool thing. Plus, how often is this going to come up? Same build in the same game? 5E could stand to grow a bit in options, but I can't take another Pathfinder/3E/4E crunch bloat onslaught. Or hey, grant a feat at 2nd level. I did to give one group more options, and just count them 1 level higher when building encounters. It doesn't break the game, everyone gets to play with the new toys before their "mandatory" prime stat bumps. The game engine is really resilient w 5E.

Alt human is too strong. Don't get me wrong, I think the alt human is cool. But the other races are generally sub-optimal (elf monk and dwarven fighter might be on-par?) as far as I can tell. In our current game we all (all!) independently choose to play an alt human. The bonus feat is just too good (and flexible) to pass up.

I'd argue non-alt human is too weak, barring a lucky random stat array and a class that can benefit from all the boosts. Halfing, tiefling and half elf are really popular here. The ability to re-roll 1's always brings a smile and the extra skills from half elf are just great.

 

[TwoSix]

I share a lot of your concerns based on my play experience, so let me share some ideas I'm tinkering with for when I start my 5e game.

1) Proficiency dice are a great idea. It's a visual indicator of the character's proficency, it's slightly stronger than the normal bonus (a half point higher, on average), and it lets you get results higher than you normally could with just the proficiency bonus.

2) Treat backgrounds as having a greater amount of story authority, above and beyond rolling. For example, a Noble background grants the character a lot of privileges that she wouldn't normally get, like getting to talk to the duke without needing to roll, or a Charlatan getting away with certain lies without needing to roll Bluff.

3) Change the Ability Score Improvements to either a +2 to a stat, or a +1 AND a feat. Encourages more feat taking. Although in my own play experience, people are still gravitating towards feats, so this may not be needed. I'm still debating it.

4) Grant everyone a feat at 1st level, and ban the alt human. I've seen alt human being by far and away the most popular choice, and I'm also debating whether or not I want to encourage more non-humans. If I decide I do want more non-humans, this is the option I'm looking at.

 

[Tormyr]

Skills: Remember that there are not skill checks. There are ability checks that can have a skill proficiency applied. Skills have that slower progression so that there is generally a chance for a low level creature to accomplish a hard task and a high level creature to fail an easier task. A level 1 character can have anywhere from a -1 to +5 modifier on a skill. While proficiency is only +2 for levels 1-4, it is part of how the whole system balances out. by level 4, that swing can increase by 1 because of ASI, and it increases again at 5 from the proficiency bump. At 8 it can increase again from ASI (and at 6 for the fighter), and at 9 it gets another proficiency bump. At that point, the difference between a character who is bad at something and a highly trained character can be -1 to +9.

Proficiency is generally 40% of that gap. After the ability is maxed, proficiency becomes a bigger part of that difference. By level 20 the difference is -1 to +11 and proficiency is half of the difference. So have of a character's ability to do something is "natural" ability and the other half is training. This gap gets bigger really fast when expertise kicks in. At level 9 our Rogue had a 21 passive perception. That makes it difficult, though not impossible, for something to go unnoticed. The rogue also has expertise in thieves tools for a +13 to Dexterity (Thieves Tools) checks. Most locks and traps don't stand up to that. Add something like bless or the cleric's cantrip, and it gets even better.

So while proficiency may seem small, it is only half of how well a task is accomplished. This seems like a good system to me, and it has played out well at our table.

Flexibility: I have 8 players at my table, and only a couple are members of the same class. Eldritch Knight, Dragon Sorcerer, Transmutation Wizard, Life Cleric, Moon Druid, Anciencts Paladin, Shadow Monk, and Thief Rogue 8/ Elements Monk 3. So it is harder for me to comment on this. The two monks play quite differently, and I see the rogue/monk continuing to play differently even in how the monk portion of the character advances. The Eldritch Knight's magic definitely sets it apart from how other fighters would handle things. Our EK usually uses magic for ranged combat.

Alt Human: Like most everything in 5e, Alt Human is a tradeoff. In this case, +1 to everything for being quite good at something in particular. Personally, I prefer the +1 to everything. I mostly do point buy, and those +1s are very valuable. Compared to other races, the human gives up a lot of different things, most of which are not combat oriented.

Class Balance: I don't quite understand how this works, but even with 8 people at the table, everyone contributes, both in combat and out. The classes do things very differently from each other, but they are all very effective at contributing to the party.

The best thing for our table has been that everything pretty much just "works" and stays out of the way of communally telling a good story.

 

[neobolts]

Feels like D&D.
Combat seems to go quickly.
[*]Backgrounds.

These are all points I agree with. Adv/disadv I think plays a big part in the speed of play and doesn't get enough credit. Backgrounds are a great way to add variety to the characters.

Things I have issues with:
Skills. This is the big one. I feel the bonus for being skilled is just too small, especially at first. Sure, I'm "proficient in stealth" but I'm only 10% more likely to succeed than someone who isn't? To me this really make backgrounds less fun than they could be because proficiency just doesn't matter much RAW. Now of course the GM could fiat a lot of stuff (oh, you are prof. in cooking, sure, your food is generally just fine). I'd also like to see a way to become "expert" other than being a rogue or bard.

One of the issues in 3e was skill gods. Each skill would have a superstar and a bunch of chumps at it, and that felt artificial (or perhaps unfun) in its own way. By max level, DCs had to be set so high that the other PCs were hopeless at the same task. 5e goes the other way, keeping the group more together in ability, so that any party member can contribute. Don't think of it as nerfing the superstar, think of it as bolstering the chumps.

Flexibility. (minor concern and I'm not sure it's really an issue) I'm a bit worried that after a bit a member of a specific sub-class will feel a lot like the next member of the specific subclass. As taking stat bonuses is probably the way to go (rather than feats) it seems like feats will often come very late in the game. Multi-classing may well address this nicely, but it _seems_ like a sub-optimal choice much of the time (especially for non-casters in this edition!)

I think the "right answers" in character choice are more in-your-face in 5e than 3e edition, but less in-your-face than the clear cut AEDU level up options in 4e. 3e/PF have them same problems, just in different places...like obvious feat and gear "taxes". Fighters tend to take the same feat trees, everyone goes for the raw number boost gear (ring of protection, cloak of resistance, belt of strength). So ,I guess what I'm saying is "sameness" is an issue, but not any different than any other edition.

Alt human is too strong. Don't get me wrong, I think the alt human is cool. But the other races are generally sub-optimal (elf monk and dwarven fighter might be on-par?) as far as I can tell. In our current game we all (all!) independently choose to play an alt human. The bonus feat is just too good (and flexible) to pass up.

Haven't seen a human alt in play yet.

 

[Jeff Albertson]

How do Proficiency Dice work for monsters with a Proficiency Bonus of +7 to +9?