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

[Gammadoodler]

That's exactly the case I make. Even though I don't have dragonborn, tieflings, etc. as playable species I do have justification for their (rare) existence baked into my setting: some dragons CAN interbreed with Humans, as can some demons and nearly all deities.

Long ago I took the various 1e monster manuals and, using the information and inferences given there, made up a whacking big chart of what can in theory interbreed with what. The very existence of Tabaxi, for example, indicates there is a biological bridge somewhere between Humans (or something similar) and felines (of some sort). Centaurs can in theory breed with both Humans and horses, another bridge. And on and on it goes.

I was quite amazed at the result.

I'm quite amazed that this is a line of reasoning people follow..

"If I can have sex with it, it must not be any more or less capable than I am"

 

[Minigiant]

5E works really well. No major issues

5e works well at providing the base style of game it says it. It is great at it.

The major issue with 5e is that 5e says it also allows for other styles and types of game but doesn't provide provide the story, mechanics, nor guidance for those types of games.

5e lies.

The older editions and D&D-like tend to be clear about what they are doing.

5e says it will give you a Magic School setting without making the magical houses significant or give you a Space Seafarer Swashbuckler without Ship battle and Swashbuckling rules

5e's major issue is it is a liar.

 

[Vaalingrade]

And yet will happily take all day to level up their characters. I don't get it.

Because that's fun and has a point as opposed to 'when will I be punished for not throwing enough gold at arrows?'

 

[Vaalingrade]

5e's major issue is it is a liar.

Always remember the modular design that ended up being vaporware.

And people to this day swear was never a thing.

 

[Maxperson]

Kinda, but not really… still looking for the right spin myself…

Obviously there are things one class is better at than another, that will never change and should not / cannot.

What I would like avoid is everyone but the player with the ‘obvious’ class disengaging from working on a solution because they (feel like they) cannot contribute anyway.
The problem still should favor some class(es), but it should not be unsolvable for the others, to the point that they are not even interested in trying.

What I am looking for is a more level playing field. As to how to accomplish that, the only choice seems to be by mostly bringing casters down a notch

Gotcha. I think I get what you are saying now. And I agree with it to an extent. I'm not sure how you would solve it, though. Players tend to choose the best person for the job to make the attempt, and quite often there's only one go at it.

As an aside, one of the things I really dislike about lots of people trying with skills is that if the person with the double proficiency +10 rolls and fails, it really doesn't make sense for the +2 unproficient whoever to succeed. Yet that's what often happens when you have multiple or everyone at the table trying to solve the issue.

One thing you could do is make sure that in addition to single challenges, you have some group challenges of some sort ready to go.

that works too, but we can help the inexperienced DM by addressing the issue at the root

I'm all for putting some advice to the DM in the DMG, but I wouldn't want any rules changes. I'm a big fan of trial by error and this is a fairly minor problem that the DM can learn from and not repeat.

At this point I've been DMing for 40 years and I still make and learn from mistakes. I wouldn't want the design team trying to save me from myself by altering the rules for an issue like this.

 

[Minigiant]

Always remember the modular design that ended up being vaporware.

And people to this day swear was never a thing.

Not even modular design or vaporware.

5e advertises product then provides the product without critical or near critical elements.
5e sells you a car and tells you to buy the steering wheel on Amazon or attach the wheel from your old car.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I went through the first 20 pages of this thread and the vast majority of the issues raised are not a problem in my games

Why then 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison.

I think the difference between myself and a number of posters on this thread is - It doesn't matter much to me if I have a problem in my game with something or not. If I see a lot of people having an issue with some part of the game or another, with some consensus (I'm not speaking of illogical complaints, playstyle differences, or aspects that change would actively make the game worse) then I tend to agree that the issue is something that should be looked at.

The DMG as a book (more than just the layout) is the one I come closest to agreeing with, but I do not think it rises to an issue.

C'mon, even WotC designers think that the 2014 DMG needs a big overhaul! They KNOW that it wasn't very good. It's not HORRIBLE, in that it has sold and functions basically fine. But again, I say: Should we be shooting for "doesn't totally suck"? Does the thing need to be unplayable garbage to count as an issue?

Some players have noted some of the criticisms raised and said they wish it were different, but they're still having fun with it as is.

Yeah, I mean... I love D&D 5e. I play it multiple times a week. Just because it has a few things that aren't very good doesn't make it a bad game. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

Think of it this way: WotC decided to make a new edition. They make money if it sells. The best way to sell it is to show people how much better it is. Right? You don't sell the new year's car model by showing people it is just like last year's right?

They had lots of research, experience and talent aimed at coming up with the next edition ... and what did they decide to do? Mostly minor tweaks.

That makes it a harder sell, right?

Actually, no. It might be harder to sell it TO YOU, and to people that wanted more change out of it. But I've been selling D&D for 30 years - I have a lot of experience with this. What they are doing with it (rules-wise) is absolutely the right thing to do (sales-wise).

5E works really well.

Agreed.

No major issues.

Hmm... a few. Depends on what you think of as "major". If it needs to be utterly terrible at the table to count as major then sure, nothing major.

Well, strike that. I will say I see one major issue, but I do not recall seeing it in the thread's first 20 pages.

Oooh! I'm on the lookout for missed stuff!

In AD&D through 4E they supported psionics. It became an integral part of many campaign settings. Many of us built homebrew worlds around the rules they provided, and that meant we created elemtns that revolved around psionics ... and WotC left us high and dry in 5E. That was an issue. They should provide some support for psionics within a year of the next edition release, even if it is just a pdf with 'enough to get by' rules. That is the only thing I'd call an issue for 5E.

This probably falls under the "matter of opinion" category, as opposed to the "true" category, even by my much looser than @Stalker0's chosen definition of "true" but I agree with you. Psionics ought to be worked out and printed. It's not - quite - a complete D&D without it.

 

[mamba]

I went through the first 20 pages of this thread and the vast majority of the issues raised are not a problem in my games - at all - and for many of those it is because they tend to be issues that pop up when DMs ignore story

I have no idea how you jump from whatever issue to 'it only is one because they ignore story', for any issue. I can see some of them literally being the opposite of that, but that is where your 'most' covers you.

I - and the players at my table - do not seem to have any issues with any of the stuff in the thread.

that is not a proof of it being an issue with others ignoring story

Care to give some examples?

 

[mamba]

Those aren't thematically necessary similarities. That's the point.

Even if we concede that humans should be perfect earth-human analogues despite all the contrary evidence, there isn't a reason all these other races should be.

It's a function of coincidental mechanics not narrative necessity.

I do not see how this is relevant at all

here are easy experiments for this..think of every time you encounter a situation where you go

"oh there's no way a human could do that in real life"

And then substitute in
..robot
..half dragon
..half giant
..toddler sized person with the strength and toughness of a full grown adult man.
..half cat.
Etc.

sure, and?

I could say the same about Humans, Dolphins, Eagles and Gibbons, how is that relevant? That is the species abilities kicking in

 

[jasper]

Your DM is a rando?

What do you do when you a rando?

Rando
Scorned as the one who ran.
What do you do when you're Rando
And you know you're a DM?

And wherever you go
for the rest of your life
You must prove ...
You're a DM!

source: Branded Lyrics - Theme Song Lyrics