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

[Lanefan]

And like was suggested, spell effects being described in comparison to relevant mundane tools and equipment:
a lantern illuminates X area with bright light and Y further area with dim light, it may be extinguished if XYZ occurrences,
Then later on in spells:
the light spell causes an affected object to produce light equivalent to a lit Lantern, the spell lasts for...

Nice in theory, a nuisance in practice: if I need information here I shouldn't be directed to look it up somewhere else.

Repeat the specs in the spell write-up then add "(equivalent to a lit lantern)".

 

[Parmandur]

I'm sure I'm going to get lamb basted with this one and I should probably put it in the "Unpopular Opinions" thread, but after playing 5E up until a year or so ago, when D&D 2024 started its playtest, it made me realize that this edition was a step backwards, harkened back too much to 3E and the core d20 mechanic, and didn't do much, if anything to innovate the game. For me that's the true issue with 5E D&D.

It freed the game from the shackles of corporately mandated "innovation." One of the best things to happen to D&D since the 80's. Now the hobby is sustainable.

 

[Lanefan]

My group and I decided to get rid of Tiny Hut, Rope Trick and the other ways to avoid a large portion of the game. We enjoy it. Talk to your group about it and see.

Yeah, Rope Trick is on my hit list too. I've already designed a couple of lower-powered replacements.

Thing is, though, there's been a couple of really creative uses of Rope Trick crop up over the years and I'd hate to lose those opportunities.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Hard to create a plausible imaginary world if you're exclusively focused on things that "impact play". That philosophy also tends to increasingly restrict what can impact play. Straight nope.

First of all, that isn't what I said.

Second of all it is blindingly easy to build plausible worlds with rules content focused on equipment that impacts play.

I know this is true because alreasy most of the objects in the setting have no mechanical impact and no entry in the PHB.

We encounter this as early as the first session when we go into the tavern, sit down on the mechanically irrelevant barstools and drink from the mechanically irrelevant beer steins, eat off out mechanically irrelevant plates with our mechanically irrelevant utensils. Maybe we pull the mechanically irrelevant curtains to look out the window at the blacksmith across the square using their mechanically irrelevant tongs to pull a mechanically irrelevant plowshare out of the forge.

None of this stuff is in the phb and none of it needs to be. Setting plausibility is unchanged by their absence.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Nice in theory, a nuisance in practice: if I need information here I shouldn't be directed to look it up somewhere else.

Repeat the specs in the sepll write-up then add "(equivalent to a lit lantern)".

Of course, have the mechanics written in both gear and spell descriptions I just didn’t want to write it all over again on mobile, but you agree with the concept of making drawing equivalencies between gear and spells with comparable effects, yes?

 

[Lanefan]

It feels like I might want a "winter gear" category. But I think that's fine enough grain for me.

I have "winter gear" as an option in my equipment list, along with a detailed list of what is included if someone pays for "winter gear" and notes it as such on the character's sheet. That way, the detail is preserved but the player only has to write two words and deduct one cost.

 

[Lanefan]

This existing is horrifying and a ‘true issue’ with DnD, i hope to soon forget i ever learned of it.

Hell, I love whimsical items like that! I suspect ol' Mr. S. might show up in my game, and sooner rather than later...

 

[R_J_K75]

It freed the game from the shackles of corporately mandated "innovation." One of the best things to happen to D&D since the 80's. Now the hobby is sustainable.

Calling corporate interference is fair enough, but if the game isn't growing and innovating, I don't see the point of any new edition. I've outgrown 5E as a player and DM. Anyone can quote subtle differences between editions from 3E to 5E, but at the end of the day it's still using the d20 chassis, which to me, 23 years later is boring.

 

[Lanefan]

First of all, that isn't what I said.

Second of all it is blindingly easy to build plausible worlds with rules content focused on equipment that impacts play.

I know this is true because alreasy most of the objects in the setting have no mechanical impact and no entry in the PHB.

We encounter this as early as the first session when we go into the tavern, sit down on the mechanically irrelevant barstools and drink from the mechanically irrelevant beer steins, eat off out mechanically irrelevant plates with our mechanically irrelevant utensils.

And then a bar brawl breaks out and suddenly those mechanically irrelevant barstools and utensils ain't so irrelevant any more....

And every character I ever play lists "cup-plate-utensils" among its field possessions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm sure I'm going to get lamb basted with this one and I should probably put it in the "Unpopular Opinions" thread, but after playing 5E up until a year or so ago, when D&D 2024 started its playtest, it made me realize that this edition was a step backwards, harkened back too much to 3E and the core d20 mechanic, and didn't do much, if anything to innovate the game. For me that's the true issue with 5E D&D.

To be fair, it was  never the intention of WotC to innovate with 5e. That part of their design philosophy hasn't changed.