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

[EzekielRaiden]

What counts as "passes the gauntlet"?

Like, if "passing the gauntlet," means, "receives universal agreement is an issue," or at least, "nobody voices objection," then that would be an unrealistic, and probably unfair, expectation.
There is a frequent thing seen online - that folks want to give criticism, but don't want their critiques themselves open for discussion. That isn't supportable in an open forum like a messageboard, though. The feedback comes with the audience.

Preemptively dismissing disagreement as "shouting down" is not really cool.

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.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The underlying issue with a lot of what is wrong with 5E, which sadly seems to be being repeated rather than fixed with 2024, is that aside from the bounded-accuracy mechanics, the entire game seems to have been extremely rushed, and significant supporting elements, which might seem inconsequential on initial release, turned out to be major problems, like an attractive house with a solid frame that has horrible issues with damp, bad plastering, bad wiring, and so on.

Most of the rest of 5E's problems stem from the fact that it was an "apology edition" aimed at getting back fans. That wasn't a pure negative, let's be very clear - the rules simplification and accessibility it encouraged absolutely helped lay the groundwork for the success of 5E. However, the problems it caused, like bringing back the ill-conceived 3.XE Sorcerer, which honestly basically no-one was asking for as last minute panic move, bringing across the essentially 1E Monk, replete with Orientalist trappings and terrible non-design, and just continuing of the path of the "no ideas" Ranger were not great. It also meant they threw out a lot of 4E stuff that probably few people objected to, and combined with the rush to create panic-designed alternatives, like Hit Dice, which could have been a major and cool mechanic like Advantage, but were not actually integrated into the system (and I see 2024 is just going to keep on with that).

I also think a weirdly large problem was abandoning slightly complicated mechanics from 3.XE, that were actually good mechanics for a game like this. Everyone knows I'm not 3.XE's biggest fan, but some of the stuff it did was smart, and should at the very least made it to the DMG (which of course was even more rushed than everything else - some of the optional rules don't even work on a simple mechanical level!). 4E also had improvements that should have been followed, but weren't because "apology edition".

For example:

Take 10
Take 20
Death by massive damage
INT or DEX for Initiative modifier
Three saving throws, each choosing the best stat

And people are quite right to point out that continuing Full Caster overpoweredness largely comes down to the restrictions on spellcasting being stuff that's hard/annoying to police and that the game does not mechanically support the policing of, like spell components (V,S,M more than the actual material components), having a hand free and so on. Again 4E did a much better job here and with focuses or whatever they were called helped make casters feel more like casters from fiction.

 

[Moonmover]

The gold issue: While many of us might argue what gold should be used for....I think we can all agree that 5e provides a lot of treasure that ultimately has no purpose in the game.

This issue has already been solved in several ways.

1. All the spells which require material components worth a certain amount of gp. Some of them have gp costs in the hundreds.
2. Player's Handbook pages 157-159.
3. Dungeon Master's Guide pages 126-131.
4. Dungeon Master's Guide page 257.
5. Dungeon Master's Guide page 268, if your campaign setting can bear it.
6. Dungeon Master's Guide page 119.
7. Xanathar's Guide to Everything pages 123-134.
8. Ghosts of Saltmarsh pages 196.

There is plenty to spend your money on in 5e.

----

As for issues that really are systemic and most folks seem to agree upon....yeah, the whole of the encounter-building guidelines. They are somehow both too complex and not precise enough.

 

[Parmandur]

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

Per Google, "Pareto optimality (also referred to as Pareto efficiency) is a standard often used in economics. It describes a situation where no further improvements to society's well being can be made through a reallocation of resources that makes at least one person better off without making someone else worse off."

Seems To be a suggestion that 5E might be hard to improve in one area without accidentally making it worse for other people in a different area.

 

[Velderan]

This is why I suggest a different game if you have different preferences. Again, D&D is not special.

I mean I get what you're saying but unfortunately that statement cuts both ways that doesn't care about either of our feelings. The simple fact is if D&D changes in a way that you don't like, it's a lot easier to just go find a game that does what you like than it is to try to convince everyone else they're wrong.

 

[Parmandur]

This issue has already been solved in several ways.

1. All the spells which require material components worth a certain amount of gp. Some of them have gp costs in the hundreds.
2. Player's Handbook pages 157-159.
3. Dungeon Master's Guide pages 126-131.
4. Dungeon Master's Guide page 257.
5. Dungeon Master's Guide page 268, if your campaign setting can bear it.
6. Dungeon Master's Guide page 119.
7. Xanathar's Guide to Everything pages 123-134.
8. Ghosts of Saltmarsh pages 196.

There is plenty to spend your money on in 5e.

I think the issue is that some people want the gold to be a gaming system, when gold in 5E is more or less a plot device.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Excessive gold was never really a problem in the campaigns I played in. The 2 biggest ways the groups I played with spent gold was buying potions and actually using the material components in spells. From discussions I've had both online and at FLGSs, it sounds like many tables just handwave spell components because hardly anyone seems to want to track that stuff. The costs can add up if you pay attention to it.

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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean I get what you're saying but unfortunately that statement cuts both ways that doesn't care about either of our feelings. The simple fact is if D&D changes in a way that you don't like, it's a lot easier to just go find a game that does what you like than it is to try to convince everyone else they're wrong.

And I have, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no creative reason to keep making changes to the same game, over and over. Other games don't do this, even the ones that have been around a long time.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This issue has already been solved in several ways.

1. All the spells which require material components worth a certain amount of gp. Some of them have gp costs in the hundreds.
2. Player's Handbook pages 157-159.
3. Dungeon Master's Guide pages 126-131.
4. Dungeon Master's Guide page 257.
5. Dungeon Master's Guide page 268, if your campaign setting can bear it.
6. Dungeon Master's Guide page 119.
7. Xanathar's Guide to Everything pages 123-134.
8. Ghosts of Saltmarsh pages 196.

There is plenty to spend your money on in 5e.

----

As for issues that really are systemic and most folks seem to agree upon....yeah, the whole of the encounter-building guidelines. They are somehow both too complex and not precise enough.

Absolutely not. This sort of commentary is in fact downright unhelp and I would suggest intentionally disingenuous, because I feel like you know that isn't true.

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. You're even citing an adventure for god's presumably it has boats for sale or something?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The underlying issue with a lot of what is wrong with 5E, which sadly seems to be being repeated rather than fixed with 2024, is that aside from the bounded-accuracy mechanics, the entire game seems to have been extremely rushed, and significant supporting elements, which might seem inconsequential on initial release, turned out to be major problems, like an attractive house with a solid frame that has horrible issues with damp, bad plastering, bad wiring, and so on.

Most of the rest of 5E's problems stem from the fact that it was an "apology edition" aimed at getting back fans. That wasn't a pure negative, let's be very clear - the rules simplification and accessibility it encouraged absolutely helped lay the groundwork for the success of 5E. However, the problems it caused, like bringing back the ill-conceived 3.XE Sorcerer, which honestly basically no-one was asking for as last minute panic move, bringing across the essentially 1E Monk, replete with Orientalist trappings and terrible non-design, and just continuing of the path of the "no ideas" Ranger were not great. It also meant they threw out a lot of 4E stuff that probably few people objected to, and combined with the rush to create panic-designed alternatives, like Hit Dice, which could have been a major and cool mechanic like Advantage, but were not actually integrated into the system (and I see 2024 is just going to keep on with that).

I also think a weirdly large problem was abandoning slightly complicated mechanics from 3.XE, that were actually good mechanics for a game like this. Everyone knows I'm not 3.XE's biggest fan, but some of the stuff it did was smart, and should at the very least made it to the DMG (which of course was even more rushed than everything else - some of the optional rules don't even work on a simple mechanical level!). 4E also had improvements that should have been followed, but weren't because "apology edition".

For example:

Take 10
Take 20
Death by massive damage
INT or DEX for Initiative modifier
Three saving throws, each choosing the best stat

And people are quite right to point out that continuing Full Caster overpoweredness largely comes down to the restrictions on spellcasting being stuff that's hard/annoying to police and that the game does not mechanically support the policing of, like spell components (V,S,M more than the actual material components), having a hand free and so on. Again 4E did a much better job here and with focuses or whatever they were called helped make casters feel more like casters from fiction.

Much as it pains me to go to bat for 3e, it did actually have rules for Take 10 and Take 20. They weren't as coherently integrated into the rest of the system and were kind of overlooked, but they were there.

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 believe the word you're looking for re:4e spellcasters is "implements," though "foci/focuses" would also work (and is the term preferred by 5e.)