What 5e got wrong

[ChrisCarlson]

I'm just idly wondering how many years into 5e will we have to get before people finally stop mischaracterizing what bounded accuracy is what it actually does...

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think the "healing not mandatory" model is a huge step forward, and makes low- and non-magical parties a much more viable option.

I agree with this. However, I also think that when you do have a healer, that healer is effective at healing while still in combat.

 

[Tony Vargas]

IMO what 5e got wrong:

1) Nerfed in-combat options for a lot of classes. I enjoy playing classes that have a variety of in-combat options and don't often end up with one dominant strategy.

5e classes tend to have more option available than in prior eds. Neo-Vancian casting combines the 3.5 Sorcerer's 'spontaneous casting,' with preparing daily from the class list (or known spells picked/gained from a class list). That's a tremendous number of options available when you think about it. The Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Bard, Ranger, Paladin, Fighter & Rogue all have access to that system's unprecedented flexibility. Though the Warlock uses a different system, it still has a lot of choices compared to a 3.5 or 4e Warlock. Arguably, the Monk and Barbarian have fewer combat choices than at their peak in 4e, but the Monk has more than in most other prior editions. The Sorcerer might come out a little behind it's original 3.0 incarnation.
Of course, at the sub-class level, there are some real losers in terms of options, but just a few.

In 4e, I made a character based on concept and felt I could enjoy pretty much any class because they all had a good range of options. In 5e, I'm kinda stuck to full casters minus a few of those casters who often end up with a dominant strategy anyways outside of certain subclasses or feat usage.

You can always willfully decline the optimal strategy, if there are viable alternatives. If you're 'stuck with full casters,' that still more than half the available sub-classes - Cleric & Wizard, alone, account for 15 sub-classes, plus 2 each for the Bard & Druid is 19, that's half, and/or if you credit the Sorcerer or Warlock with 'full caster' status, there's more. That's a lot of potential PCs to explore.

2) Making feats such a small part of the game. On top of that certain things I like in my characters(e.g. more than one damaging cantrip option, being able to cast with my hands full, being able to actually keep a target on me when I'm trying to play a Defender) often require feats

It just makes them optional. As long as you & your DM are on the same page, that way, it shouldn't be that bad.

which means no matter how much I want to play a certain race, I often just end up playing a Human so that I can play the character I want to play from early on instead of having to wait like 2 or 3 months or so after character creation to hit level 4.

Those first 3 levels go really fast. One adventuring day each to reach 2nd, and 3rd at the standard exp budgets, only half-again as long to get to 4th. As fast as 4e combats run, you could reach 4th in as few as 4 sessions if you manage to blow through a whole 'day' per session.

3) Bringing back VSM components. Ugh! I hate jazz hands and jibber jabber. What was wrong with details agnosticism in how powers happened? Couldn't they leave those rules out and then just EMPOWER the DM to make RULINGS on when a given spellcaster couldn't cast?

The details can always be reskinned.

6) The last one is probably more a community thing than an actual edition thing, but I feel like D&D has become more reactionary this edition.

Oh, it's definitely both, and it's no accident. The Essentials 'Red Box' and 5e were both intentionally trying to tap the largest segment of D&D players - those who were no longer playing D&D, and hadn't since the late 80s or the 90s at the outside. Essentials failed dramatically, but 5e, to all appearances, has succeeded. Yes, it's retro - but it's the right kind of retro at the right time to move books. It's shaping up to be a full-fledged come-back, possibly as dramatic as the OSR, maybe even bigger (OSR really appealed to hard-core old-school gamers, while 5e seems able to appeal to causal one-time players who tried D&D back in the day or played it more casually, or maybe even were just 'exposed' to it without actually jumping in at the time and wishing they had, who constitute a much larger potential audience).

Oh well. I mean I guess in some ways 2e was pretty reactionary when compared to 1e. Maybe that means 6e will be crazy revolutionary when it comes out roughly when all the people who actually know what a Grey Mouser is are in retirement homes or in the ground.

Yeah, we're old. And we'll be playing D&D instead of bingo in those retirement homes. And medical technology is improving all the time, so we're not going away anytime soon. ;P
Seriously, though, no, 2e wasn't reactionary, at all (there was nothing to react against) and had a long run that added a lot of detail ('bloat') and multiple new settings to the game. It was very incremental and conservative, though. 5e will probably have a run at least as long as 2e's (10 yrs), if not 1e (13) or BECMI (15). It could even turn out to be the last version of D&D and stay in print as long as Monopoly has - or until it's entirely replaced by MMOs or VR or holodeck LAPRing or whatever.

 

[TwoSix]

Yeah, I'm playing a cleric, and I've found myself many times thinking, "If we can just make it past this combat, I'll do Prayer of Healing then. A few d8 ain't gonna do much in combat when I could use that same slot to thunderclap or something."

Which is too bad, really. Unless you're a life cleric, with they way HP and damage scale, even if you spend an upper slot, you're not curing nearly as much damage as what is coming your way.

In all fairness, I am playing a tempest cleric, so I'm sort of built to be using my spells to sling lightning/thunder damage, rather than a healer. I'm finding that the best use of my spells is for buffing or direct damage (destructive wave is one of my favorite spells. Holy cow).

Right now, one of my characters is a 4th life cleric with the Healer feat. Even with the heal bonuses, the Healer kit right now is a better deal at 1d6+8, rather than a 1st level cure wounds at 1d8+5. I save my limited spells for bless and healing word to get people up from 0 as a bonus action. I'm a MUCH better healer, at low levels at least, with the Healer feat than I am as a life cleric. 1d6+4+level, once per short rest per character, is amazing at low levels, and I imagine still a big efficiency gain even at higher levels.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm just idly wondering how many years into 5e will we have to get before people finally stop mischaracterizing what bounded accuracy is what it actually does...

Anywhere between 7.5 and 40, based on mischaracterizations of editions past.

 

[Zardnaar]

Right now, one of my characters is a 4th life cleric with the Healer feat. Even with the heal bonuses, the Healer kit right now is a better deal at 1d6+8, rather than a 1st level cure wounds at 1d8+5. I save my limited spells for bless and healing word to get people up from 0 as a bonus action. I'm a MUCH better healer, at low levels at least, with the Healer feat than I am as a life cleric. 1d6+4+level, once per short rest per character, is amazing at low levels, and I imagine still a big efficiency gain even at higher levels.

Healer feat is amazing at lower levers and at higher levels its like a mass cure spell.

 

[abirdcall]

The only thing I am disappointed by are saving throws. The idea was right, make them apply to all stats, but then at some point the distribution of those saves didn't work out. Still, the core idea is good.

I suppose the other thing is that it would be nice to not have 4d6 drop lowest be the default stat method. The vast majority of balance complaints happen because people assume Max stats. The game plays much better with lower starting stats.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I've gamed for a long time. I can't recall, other than when the PC's may have been captured and had their equipment stripped, ever giving the slightest thought to spell components. Does anyone actually track this stuff? Has it ever come up at your table? It really hasn't at mine.

Back in the day, scrupulously, yeah, but I don't recall a lot of other players doing so. Kinda like how I was alone in thinking Weapon vs Armor type adjustments were a good idea. But, when I started running, one of the variants I came up with was a way around components, and players were delighted with it. Besides, 5e gives you a way out of tracking material components.

I suppose the other thing is that it would be nice to not have 4d6 drop lowest be the default stat method. The vast majority of balance complaints happen because people assume Max stats. The game plays much better with lower starting stats.

I've found the opposite (at low level, most especially 1st level), that higher stats make the game run a little better. I agree that 4d6-L seems to be the best choice, but because it does tend to deliver better stats than the array.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Anywhere between 7.5 and 40, based on mischaracterizations of editions past.

That's not a very bounded number....

 

[abirdcall]

I've found the opposite (at low level, most especially 1st level), that higher stats make the game run a little better. I agree that 4d6-L seems to be the best choice, but because it does tend to deliver better stats than the array.

The problem is that there is nowhere to go when you start with the highest stats you can get. Character progression is all messed up. Feats become overpowered and I would assume so does multiclassing.

The low levels go by very quickly, and the whole point of them is that the characters are not super powerful yet.