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

[Zardnaar]

I'll add another vote to the 5E phb index. It's trash always has been.

Spell description as well even 3.5 did it better. You gave to cross reference the spell description with what class can cast it pita.

 

[Stalker0]

I don't think that's true, I think that's your perception. Overwhelming would normally mean 60-70%, not the sort of 99% you seem to be implying.

And I think it's easy to suggest a lot of these issues have 60% or more recognition, especially if we weed out people who simply insist 5E has no major issues, who obviously have no valid contribution to a discussion like this.

honestly though I can easily point to a lot of your issues and point to many intense debates about them on these very forums.

I agree 99% is not going to fly, but a lot of the issues noted here are clearly preferences in the face of clear and strong oppositional debate.

To really get the community on the whole to all agree that something is "bad for the game" I think is pretty rare, and I think this thread so far is proving that.

 

[Parmandur]

My OP stated that a true issue was defined as an issue that has an overwhelming group consensus. Aka its very very hard to find someone who goes "actually I like that about 5e".

I would say of the entire thread so far, the only issue I have seen posited that fits that criteria is the 5e index. Every other issue both I or others have brought up I can easily point to another group that disagrees.

The PHB and DMG would be better served with no Index at all, frankly: they were super bad. The Glossary approach they are taking now is very clever, in contrast.

 

[Stalker0]

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.

I actually think the change really happened during the edition wars. I've been on Enworld a very long time, and though we had the fiercest of rules laywers debates in the 3e era, it wasn't until the 4e era that I felt like debate shifted to be "personal". People moved away from logic in debates to more angry rhetoric and attacking the debator rather than the debate. It of course happened during the 3e era as well, but not to the same degree.

Though I feel like that is a reflection of the greater break down in debate I see (at least in America). People really just seem to have lost the art of constructively disagreeing with people.

 

[Parmandur]

Nope nvm Panmandur likes it.

Like may be a strong word, but it's cromulent. I recognize thst they failed to provide something thst fulfills the narrative people wanted from it, so I put it in the same b9x as the Veast Master: it works, but only if you work with it as the designers intended. Which is a design flaw: a good design should make the ideal playstyle just obvious (like the Champion).

 

[Stalker0]

Like may be a strong word, but it's cromulent. I recognize thst they failed to provide something thst fulfills the narrative people wanted from it, so I put it in the same b9x as the Veast Master: it works, but only if you work with it as the designers intended. Which is a design flaw: a good design should make the ideal playstyle just obvious (like the Champion).

So is it "good enough" or do you think its ultimately a bad design?

 

[SteveC]

I don't think that's true, I think that's your perception. Overwhelming would normally mean 60-70%, not the sort of 99% you seem to be implying.

From what I saw in a recent video with Crawford's reaction to surveys, WotC puts the bar to what's staying in the 2024 books to around 70%. So I'd say if we have around that level of confidence on something, that works for me. We will never have a 99% agreement about anything relating to D&D because people want radically different things out of the game. So yeah, a lot of the problems we're discussing rise to what I think is reasonable.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I actually think the change really happened during the edition wars. I've been on Enworld a very long time, and though we had the fiercest of rules laywers debates in the 3e era, it wasn't until the 4e era that I felt like debate shifted to be "personal". People moved away from logic in debates to more angry rhetoric and attacking the debator rather than the debate.

Though I feel like that is a reflection of the greater break down in debate I see (at least in America). People really just seem to have lost the art of constructively disagreeing with people.

Social stigma for disagreement from those that are being disagreed with has increase markedly in the last decade.

 

[Parmandur]

So is it "good enough" or do you think its ultimately a bad design?

Kind of both? The Sublcass works in play as a Monk, so I would say it is not a "true problem," but it makes sense that it is being Revamped for the new PHB because it isn't scratching the itch it was meant to.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So is it "good enough" or do you think its ultimately a bad design?

Its a decent base from which to build the D&D you want, but that's about it.