What 5e got wrong

[Herobizkit]

Adjunct:

* Deities didn't exist in the DS universe, hence Clerics (and maybe Paladins?) also did not exist.

* (I think) everyone started with a free Psionic Wild Talent power.

* Wizards had two flavors, Preserver (advanced at a slower rate) and Defiler (advanced quicker but spells killed plants/sources of life in a radius around the caster)

 

[Mecheon]

I'm pretty sure elemental clerics at least existed, who more worshipped the elements themselves

 

[Azurewraith]

I think 5e got a few things wrong it is a good system and very easy to adapt. The main things: Encounter building rules are an utter mess, Recharging at separate rates was never going to work, To much carebear!. Most of these issues can be fixed throwing in lingering injuries fixs care bear issues(albeit expanding the table) Encounter building rules well rip out the section of the DMG and re-write it and power re-charges are a minor hiccup.

5e also got some things right such as Dm empowerment, ease of aces, bounded accuracy(maybe they tied the knot a tad to tight).

I have made 5e work with a few house rules and minor tweaks to get the nasty gritty game i want.

 

[Hussar]

I don't agree that Oberoni doesn't work in 5e. At all. It's still incumbent on WotC to provide a good, well-thought out ruleset, regardless of how much they empower DMs to tweak or adjust.

Getting back to ability scores - I never thought that people using Con to attack with made any sense or was a good idea; all it does is further reinforce the class-based score structure d&d has always had. What I'm saying needs to happen is that they need to tie more baseline combat-relevant mechanics to the ability scores to make them less class-dependent than they currently tend to be. There should be some incentive and some payoff for playing a high-int, low-con fighter, for example, rather than just gimping the crap out of yourself to do it. I've actually drafted a number of things over the years in an attempt to facilitate this, like a tactics-style mechanic that works something like HD.

Swimming a bit upthread.

Why? Why should a high Int, low Con fighter be as viable as a high Dex/Str fighter? I really don't get the idea that every concept should be equally viable. If you're really smart, but weak and slow, and lack endurance, then you suck as a fighter. End of story. Physical stats matter for a fighter. You could have an IQ of 180, but, if you can't do more than five push ups, you are not going to last long as a fighter. It would be like saying that a 150 pound rocket scientist should be able to play in the NFL. It just doesn't work. When your basic concept is beating on things with sharp pointy objects, then physical stats are obviously going to have a greater impact.

I agree that the system should be balanced. That's true. No given option should be so much better than all other options that it becomes the default. But, that doesn't mean that all options should be equal. There does come a point where, sorry, no, that concept just doesn't fit with the nature of the character.

D&D has never been a great system for low magic games. 5e lets a little more magic into the classes, but there are fewer magic items.

The cleric, druid, wizard, ranger, and paladin have pretty much the same magic as in 2e when Dark Sun was created. Only the bard only has a little more. There are more classes with magic because there are more classes. If it worked then, it should work now.
/snip

That's not quite accurate. A 2e ranger or paladin still didn't get any actual spells until 8th level or higher. And their spell lists were extremely truncated. And, since bards did not gain at-will spells, 5e bards cast a heck of a lot more spells per day than a 2e bard could even dream of. 5e has added spells to almost all the classes and is a much, much higher magic game than 2e was.

I'm pretty sure elemental clerics at least existed, who more worshipped the elements themselves

This was added some time later to the setting.

 

[iltharanos]

This was added some time later to the setting.

Elemental Clerics were there from the very beginning of the setting, with the release of the original boxed set in 1991.

 

[Staffan]

(About Dark Sun elemental clerics)

This was added some time later to the setting.

No. Elemental Clerics were around in the very first Dark Sun boxed set. In Dark Sun, they replaced the regular 2e sphere system (which was used to determine which priest spells were available to what priests) with an elemental one - clearly elemental-themed spells were put in the spheres of Air, Earth, Fire, and Water, and all the rest in the sphere of Cosmos. Elemental clerics had major access (all spells) to their own element, and minor access (up to 3rd level spells) to Cosmos. Druids had major access to one element based on their guarded land, major access to Cosmos, and possibly minor access to a second element if appropriate to their land (e.g. a druid whose guarded land is a volcanic spring would have major access to Water and minor to Fire). You also had templars serving the sorcerer-kings, who got major access to all five spheres but had a different spellcasting table (for the most part inferior to the cleric one, but at really high levels they caught up and became even stronger).

In the sourcebook Earth, Air, Fire, and Water, about Dark Sun priests, they added Para-elements and clerics of those: Sun, Silt, Magma, and Rain. They also made regular elemental clerics more environmentally conscious (even fire clerics - fire wants things to burn after all), and made para-elemental clerics environmentally hostile (except rain clerics).

 

[I'm A Banana]

Actually, I do have one really big criticism of 5E. It's too hard to run a no- or low-magic game like Dark Sun because so many class features are delivered through spells. I know many people have problems with 4E's powers, but they are great packets for delivering abilities and features, and because of 5E's reluctance to do the same there is an over-reliance on spell lists.

Yeah, while I think this is totally possible as written, 5e could use moar spell-less / magic-naught options. There's a few, but 5e embraced the idea of a magical world and magical people whole-heartedly.

 

[Jester David]

Suffice to say, 5e needs to be flexible, and that takes a lot of DM adjudication, and thus Rule Zero gets implemented a lot in 5e. Oberoni Fallacy doesn't really work when talking about 5e because 5e de-emphasizes the purpose of CharOp (power to the players). This is probably my biggest issue with the D&D Adventurer's League – it takes away the power of houserulling from the DM for the sake of "fairness" and thus imposes a structure on 5e the edition was never meant to carry.

I don't agree that Oberoni doesn't work in 5e. At all. It's still incumbent on WotC to provide a good, well-thought out ruleset, regardless of how much they empower DMs to tweak or adjust.

This got me thinking.

I think the Oberoni Fallacy still applies to 5e. WotC is responsible for providing a (reasonably) balanced game, and one with as few flaws as possible. 4e showed that balance isn't everything and if balance is achieved at the cost of play style and flexibility then the game is still flawed, albeit in a different way.
5e was based on the design of being a highly flexible retroclone. Being the best edition of D&D and feeling a little like playing all prior versions of the game. As such, anything that really breaks away from the D&D feel would be contrary to that design goal and a flaw.

However, while the Oberoni Fallacy applies, the innate flexibility of the system - a game designed to be modular - means that less things can be considered a "flaw".
Loopholes are still a problem. Broken combinations or imbalance are a problem. Mechanical issues are a problem.
Something like the current discussion on low magic are not a problem and do not fall under the purview of the Oberoni fallacy. Because they are not universally a problem and the game is designed to be modular and customizable. By being a modular ruleset, the game was designed to accommodate those changes.

 

[n0nym]

PoE did things really well for a video game, but I agree that it's a bit too complicated for a real-life RPG. I think what 5th edition designers should have done, is give us an alternate attribute system in the DMG. They tried to do something like this, with the introduction of the Sanity and Honor attributes, but should have gone a bit further imo.

I personaly chose to rewrite the attributes by merging several of them and getting a 5-stats system like several other RPGs have (7th sea, L5R). Unfortunately, only one person gave me his opinion in the thread I created (thanks btw !) so I think it's a good place to repost them. Please note : Classes get one strong saving-throw and half their proficiency bonus in their second saving throw.

Dexterity : virtually unchanged except : applies to attack rolls with all weapons (except Heavy) and to damage rolls with Ranged and Finesse weapons. Still applies to Initiative, AC, skills.

Sturdiness : compound of Strength and Constitution for saving throws, concentration, etc... Applies to damage rolls with all weapons (except Ranged and Finesse weapons) and to attack rolls with Heavy weapons. Sturdiness score is used to calculate Wound points (I'll be using a kind of Vitality system).

Wits : compound of Wisdom and Intelligence for saving throws (except Charm and Fear) and most skills. Now applies to Initiative and Deception checks as well.

Fortitude / Determination : replaces Charisma for saving throws, Wisdom for Charm and Fear saving throws and maybe Constitution for spells and effects like Finger of Death. Used for Persuade, Intimidate, Perform and some Animal Handling checks. Modifier adds to Vitality points.

Fate / Luck : used for Death Saving Throws (no proficiency allowed). Gives [modifier] "Fate points" (act as Luck points) each Session or Long Rest (if Gritty Realism is used). Used for "luck" checks (like trying to find a needle in a haystack). If the modifier is negative, the DM gets the "Fate points" instead and can use them against this character.

PS : I'm running a 5th ed Dark Sun campaign with Templars being Paladins (mostly low-ranking ones) and Clerics (high templars) and it's working really well. Rogue and fighter subclasses are also psionic in nature, just like the bard. I'm not a purist though, so what works for me probably doesn't work for a 1st edition rigorist.

 

[Jester David]

That's not quite accurate. A 2e ranger or paladin still didn't get any actual spells until 8th level or higher. And their spell lists were extremely truncated. And, since bards did not gain at-will spells, 5e bards cast a heck of a lot more spells per day than a 2e bard could even dream of. 5e has added spells to almost all the classes and is a much, much higher magic game than 2e was.

2e rangers and paladins didn't get spells to 8th level, but in Dark Sun you started at 3, so 8 wasn't *that* far away. Rangers and paladins were more likely to have spells in Dark Sun. Well... rangers, since Paladins didn't exist.

The only class was significantly more magic was the bard. Which is a very different character in Dark Sun, and a Athasian bard might work better as a rogue subclass.

Bards did not have spells in 2E Darksun they rewrote the class. The 5E bard would not exist on DS along with most of the other subclasses. the Bard would be a Rogue:Assassin with the entertainer back ground. The only martial clases in 2E were.

Fighter
Thief
Gladiator
Bard (rewritten)

Most of the 5E classes and sub classes would not exist in a faithful adaption of 2E DS. YOu would have 5 domains for the clerics (elemental+templar or refluffed PHB domains), the 8 wizards, maybe the 3 fighter subclasses, maybe the 3 rogue subclasses, Druids of the Land (no moon Druids).

No Barbarians, Monks, Paladins, Sorcerers (PHB ones anyway), Half Orcs, Gnomes, Drow, Tieflings, Dragonborn. Hell you would probably rewrite the races.

As [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] says, psionic magic was everywhere, almost every person had a psionic magic talent. So it's not really low magic.
I don't see why barbarians get excluded. They weren't one of the 2e Dark Sun classes, but barbarians didn't really exist in that edition. They'd fit the setting nicely. Ditto warlocks. And maybe tieflings.

But Dark Sun was always a setting that required a lot of customization.