D&D 5E What are the "True Issues" with 5e?

[Oligopsony]

Ok, I gotta ask. What the heck does an Italian economist have to do with this discussion?

Something is Pareto optimal if you can’t make it better for anyone without making it worse for someone else.

So I’d like faster and more lethal combat, but other people enjoy combat as a minigame or really don’t like their character dying. I don’t like the character build minigame, while others do. Easy ways to make one of us happier, not easy ways to make all of us happier.

 

[Oofta]

For at least the first four or five years of 5e's existence, it was genuinely impossible to voice criticism thereof.

I had people say, to my (internet) face, that it wasn't possible for someone to not actually like 5e, because it had something for everyone. That nobody could truly dislike it. Any criticism, no matter how mild, would in fact get drowned out by folks only interested in singing its praises. Even the few "criticisms" were often, if you'll allow the turn of phrase, praising with faint damnation.

I am, to my surprise, seeing very little of that here. Perhaps, with nearly a decade under its belt, it's finally possible to criticize and not have seven people jump on you for disliking something. I'm quite surprised, for example, to see people generally agreeing that 5e lacks for options. Even as recent as a couple years ago, accusing 5e of lacking options was controversial, e.g. several discussions of Level Up getting crowded by posts talking about how that isn't necessary, or threads about what's missing from 5e being taken over by claims that it actually has too much already kthx.

Really? Impossible to criticize? Like you do with pretty much every post I've seen from you? Practically every other thread seems to have `people talking about how the game and WOTC are trash. You may get people who disagree because they actually like the game, but expecting criticism to always be agreed upon and lauded is not realistic. Especially not on a forum dedicated to the game.

If you can criticize - and I have criticisms of my own - then people can also talk about why they like the game.

 

[Parmandur]

i'm not exactly sure which direction you're coming at the argument from? admitting it's a problem or saying it isn't one, like the initial issue is excess gold: having very little to do with it once you have it, you say the biggest ways you spent gold is on potions and material components(which you then admit most groups waive), which honestly to me don't sound like the biggest money drains to me?(correct me if i'm wrong) even for the priced components.

There are also cost of living issues. These things can add up pretty easily.

 

[Nikosandros]

Or maybe they'll save it for an expansion book. Leomund's Large Chest of Capitalism.

Gnomes endlessly toiling away in gardens while bards are exploited as performers in taverns and repaid by exposure.

 

[Velderan]

i'm not exactly sure which direction you're coming at the argument from? admitting it's a problem or saying it isn't one, like the initial issue is excess gold: having very little to do with it once you have it, you say the biggest ways you spent gold is on potions and material components(which you then admit most groups waive), which honestly to me don't sound like the biggest money drains to me?(correct me if i'm wrong) even for the priced components.

I'm saying from my experience, it wasn't a problem. Between buying potions and material components, my groups always had things to buy and rarely had an excess of money. I'm suggesting it may have been more of a problem for some tables because they just handwaved some of the things I saw in my games as being a way to deplete the party's gold. Does that make more sense?

 

[Moonmover]

None of that solves the gold problem, you're citing random things you could, technically, in theory, maybe spent gold on, when you know perfectly well that the game doesn't really support that in the way previous editions have.

I don't know that I do.

In 3.x and 4e, you could casually purchase magic items. That's it. That's all that's missing. How much more support do you need for,

Player: "Hey DM, I want to buy [expensive thing]."
DM: "Okay, it costs [amount of money]."

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Also, IIRC, death by massive damage is still a thing in 5e. I could be mistaken but I'm pretty sure you die outright if you take a single hit that drops you below -50% HP.

I think -50% is the Pathfinder rule. 5e has it at -100%. So it's possible early, and really unlikely later, which makes you question why is it even there.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Something is Pareto optimal if you can’t make it better for anyone without making it worse for someone else.

So I’d like faster and more lethal combat, but other people enjoy combat as a minigame or really don’t like their character dying. I don’t like the character build minigame, while others do. Easy ways to make one of us happier, not easy ways to make all of us happier.

That's why every should really pick a lane and devote energy towards the playstyle they want players to experience. For example, I don't like 4e, but it did an excellent job picking a lane. 5e, on the other hand, seems to actively drive on the divider.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Also, IIRC, death by massive damage is still a thing in 5e. I could be mistaken but I'm pretty sure you die outright if you take a single hit that drops you below -50% HP.

No, that's a different mechanic. Death by massive damage was you having to take a death saving throw if an individual hit was beyond a certain threshold (50 HP in 3.XE I think). So things like long falls could be fatal.

With 5E's extremely high HP totals, getting someone to -50% in a single hit is a bonkers task. It's not really mathematically possible, given the rules, above a certain level (assuming a certain amount of CON, at least). That's there more to murder low and mid level PCs when monsters hit them hard.

EDIT - Wait it's -100%? That's even more bonkers!

They're different rules with different purposes and different effects. 5E's one does nothing but make people on low health try to avoid big single hits.

Really? Impossible to criticize? Like you do with pretty much every post I've seen from you? Practically every other thread seems to have `people talking about how the game and WOTC are trash. You may get people who disagree because they actually like the game, but expecting criticism to always be agreed upon and lauded is not realistic. Especially not on a forum dedicated to the game.

If you can criticize - and I have criticisms of my own - then people can also talk about why they like the game.

I think you should be a bit kinder and more realistic about this.

You'd describe me as irascible, right? Like, I'll argue with anyone about almost anything if I disagree - sometimes even if I agree.

But from 2014 to 2018 here the attitudes were so dismissive and snooty re: anyone trying to critique 5E in a serious way that you couldn't argue with them. Not because they brutally beat you down for stepping out of line - nobody did - but because people mindlessly dismissed criticisms, which, in retrospect were not only correct, but criticisms some of the same people who dismissed them now make themselves.

That's not a critique - I strongly support people being willing and able to change their minds!

But it is a change. And the change really happened during COVID, that was when 5E went from people routinely dismissing criticism, to wanting to actually discuss it. I don't think it was a result of COVID, but I do think it was partly due to people having played so much 5E that even people who'd been dismissive were starting to see some cracks.

 

[Oofta]

I think -50% is the Pathfinder rule. 5e has it at -100%. So it's possible early, and really unlikely later, which makes you question why is it even there.

At higher levels many monsters have multiple attacks. Attacking an unconscious creature is an automatic crit, a crit causes 2 failed death saves. I just killed a 20th level paladin in my game over the weekend. So you don't need death from massive damage as much.

Admittedly the paladin wasn't perma-dead but that's been an issue with higher level D&D forever.