D&D 5E What does 5E NEED
- Thread starter GameOgre
- Start date
brehobit
Explorer
Errata
Realizing this has turned into something of a flame war, I'll jump in anyways.
The game could use some errata. There are a few problems at a few levels and a few things that just could stand to be fixed IMO. I think warlocks are a bit over powered when it comes to at-will damage from levels 11+. The moon druid is a bit too much at lower levels. The fighter sucks at higher levels if you aren't using feats and the champion could use a bit of a boost. Spells like barkskin could use clarification (stacks with shield? With cover?) Druid armor rules could stand clarification at the least, and some better options at the most (I think it's the only class that if you multi-class into it you lose the use of other abilities). The multi-classing rules on the whole have a lot of gaps, and it would be nice to fill those (how does the barbarian or monk AC abilities work in wildshape for example).
It could also use some fleshing out of player options. I agree cleric domains would be welcome. As would some other sorcerer options. I would like to see a spell-less ranger and I'd like to see a fighter option that leans toward cleric (though the paladin does that okay, I'd claim there is room in there just as the Eldritch Knight is between a bard and a fighter).
But mostly it needs adventures and more (interesting) monsters.
All that said, I think it's the cleanest edition we've had at the start. 3e really needed 3.5 and 4e really (really) needed 4.25. 5e doesn't need much really. But it still could see some improvement.
Realizing this has turned into something of a flame war, I'll jump in anyways.
The game could use some errata. There are a few problems at a few levels and a few things that just could stand to be fixed IMO. I think warlocks are a bit over powered when it comes to at-will damage from levels 11+. The moon druid is a bit too much at lower levels. The fighter sucks at higher levels if you aren't using feats and the champion could use a bit of a boost. Spells like barkskin could use clarification (stacks with shield? With cover?) Druid armor rules could stand clarification at the least, and some better options at the most (I think it's the only class that if you multi-class into it you lose the use of other abilities). The multi-classing rules on the whole have a lot of gaps, and it would be nice to fill those (how does the barbarian or monk AC abilities work in wildshape for example).
It could also use some fleshing out of player options. I agree cleric domains would be welcome. As would some other sorcerer options. I would like to see a spell-less ranger and I'd like to see a fighter option that leans toward cleric (though the paladin does that okay, I'd claim there is room in there just as the Eldritch Knight is between a bard and a fighter).
But mostly it needs adventures and more (interesting) monsters.
All that said, I think it's the cleanest edition we've had at the start. 3e really needed 3.5 and 4e really (really) needed 4.25. 5e doesn't need much really. But it still could see some improvement.
More cleric domains
Dungeon magazine
A better index
A demonstration of how to fill the character sheet.
As for the argument;
Generalist wizard = don't take a school. Bam done.
Skill monkey rogue or ranger = ask your dm to swap sneak attack or spells for more skills. Done
Aragorn, gandalf, Bilbo, and basically any other lotr character = stop tying to make them out to be something they're not. Frodo isn't good at anything. Neither is Bilbo. Frodo is just a nice guy who doesn't succumb to the lust for power. That is it. That is his entire role in the story. They are not DnD classes and never will be. Very few literary characters map on to DnD classes well because they're not built that way. They do what ever the author thinks is good for the story. Their class is simply 'protagonist'. If you want to see DnD classes in stories, read dragon Lance. Even in that, they're nearly all just fighters with different personalities and equipment.
That's my opinion. Caveat; I didn't read lotr until I was in my late 20s and found it to be a terribly boring story about people walking for miles and being basically idiots.
Dungeon magazine
A better index
A demonstration of how to fill the character sheet.
As for the argument;
Generalist wizard = don't take a school. Bam done.
Skill monkey rogue or ranger = ask your dm to swap sneak attack or spells for more skills. Done
Aragorn, gandalf, Bilbo, and basically any other lotr character = stop tying to make them out to be something they're not. Frodo isn't good at anything. Neither is Bilbo. Frodo is just a nice guy who doesn't succumb to the lust for power. That is it. That is his entire role in the story. They are not DnD classes and never will be. Very few literary characters map on to DnD classes well because they're not built that way. They do what ever the author thinks is good for the story. Their class is simply 'protagonist'. If you want to see DnD classes in stories, read dragon Lance. Even in that, they're nearly all just fighters with different personalities and equipment.
That's my opinion. Caveat; I didn't read lotr until I was in my late 20s and found it to be a terribly boring story about people walking for miles and being basically idiots.
Neat and sweet.
The complaints that 5E doesn't support spell-less rangers and sneak attack-less rogues is a head-scratcher to me. I can't vouch for Chainmail or BECMI, but from 1st Edition on, the thief/rogue has had backstab or sneak attack in some form. So why 5E is being blamed for not having a rogue without one of the iconic rogue abilities that's existed since the beginning seems really odd to me. Likewise, the ranger since its first appearance has had spells by default (outside of 4E).
There's been a lot of good suggestions for how to make a "spell-less ranger" in this thread, that have been summarily dismissed because the word "ranger" doesn't appear anywhere on the resulting character sheet. That seems unnecessarily picky, to me.
I was converting a ninja/wujen from my first 2E campaign, just to see if I could make it work, and the resulting character was a re-flavored Shadow Monk/Fey Warlock of the Tome. No mechanical changes, just changing the fluff. Did it replicate the original character exactly? No. But the feel of the character was the same.
5E gives a lot of options and flexibility between the backgrounds, classes, sub-classes and feats. Do they replicate everything one could think of? No. Do I think there could stand to be more options, particularly for classes like the Sorcerer? Yes. But there's still a big toolbox to play with, even if it doesn't have every specialized tool possible.
There's been a lot of good suggestions for how to make a "spell-less ranger" in this thread, that have been summarily dismissed because the word "ranger" doesn't appear anywhere on the resulting character sheet. That seems unnecessarily picky, to me.
I was converting a ninja/wujen from my first 2E campaign, just to see if I could make it work, and the resulting character was a re-flavored Shadow Monk/Fey Warlock of the Tome. No mechanical changes, just changing the fluff. Did it replicate the original character exactly? No. But the feel of the character was the same.
5E gives a lot of options and flexibility between the backgrounds, classes, sub-classes and feats. Do they replicate everything one could think of? No. Do I think there could stand to be more options, particularly for classes like the Sorcerer? Yes. But there's still a big toolbox to play with, even if it doesn't have every specialized tool possible.
This. I'm happy with 5E's basic system as it is, but a really crunchy optional tactical module could bring in some of the people who haven't jumped in from 3.5/PF or 4E so far.
nightspaladin
Explorer
Options.
They have given us a wonderful system that has just the right amount of moving parts and interesting choice points. Each of those points just need more options. No rules changes just filling in the lack of choices a little.
And AP paths. The 2 book hardback doesn't work. Paizo has the right model. Subscription and smaller chunks
And a character builder. And this time around, they need to let you make your own content on the builder. Ideally, even create an online community built into the program, where you can search for subclasses, feats etc, others have made and use them. It's a nifty way to do a controllable OGL in a way without losing money, because WoTC would still have control of who could access the system.
They have given us a wonderful system that has just the right amount of moving parts and interesting choice points. Each of those points just need more options. No rules changes just filling in the lack of choices a little.
And AP paths. The 2 book hardback doesn't work. Paizo has the right model. Subscription and smaller chunks
And a character builder. And this time around, they need to let you make your own content on the builder. Ideally, even create an online community built into the program, where you can search for subclasses, feats etc, others have made and use them. It's a nifty way to do a controllable OGL in a way without losing money, because WoTC would still have control of who could access the system.
Tony Vargas
Legend
While 4e was criticized as being a 'tactical board game' by people who were looking to rationalize their hatred of it, and while some 4e fans certainly appreciated the depth of tactical play it provided, that depth was in large part dependent upon both character class that all gave a reasonable amount of tactical choice/agency in play, and in monsters & PCs that stuck around long enough for such tactical choices to matter. 5e's emphasis on hardwiring fast combats into the system and making classes distinct through mechanical variation in the degree of said choice/agency (both tactically and in the other two pillars) would make the publication of any sort of '4e style tactical module' an empty gesture. 5e simply has a very different design philosophy. (I'd also venture to say its unnecessary as most 4e fans have either embraced 5e, or at least refrained from waging anything resembling the edition war against it).
Similarly, while 3.5 defaults to the use of a grid, it lends itself to a relatively limited set of tactical permutations, with most combats either ending quickly (derided as 'rocket tag') due to strong builds and good tactics or becoming 'static' exchanges due to interaction of movement and full-attack and spellcasting rules that minimize the practicality and importance of tactical movement. So it seems unlikely that many 3.5 fans are staying away from 5e /just/ for want of a few more tactical options. Besides, with Pathfinder still going strong, there's little reason for 3.5 fans to even try 5e, even if it were clearly superior to 3.5/Pathfinder.
Similarly, while 3.5 defaults to the use of a grid, it lends itself to a relatively limited set of tactical permutations, with most combats either ending quickly (derided as 'rocket tag') due to strong builds and good tactics or becoming 'static' exchanges due to interaction of movement and full-attack and spellcasting rules that minimize the practicality and importance of tactical movement. So it seems unlikely that many 3.5 fans are staying away from 5e /just/ for want of a few more tactical options. Besides, with Pathfinder still going strong, there's little reason for 3.5 fans to even try 5e, even if it were clearly superior to 3.5/Pathfinder.
Flexor the Mighty!
18/100 Strength!
I've had people who were big fans of 4e tell me it was a tactical board game in essence.
Sacrosanct
Legend
Same here. Often in the context of a selling point. The implication from Tony that people classifying it as such do only as to justify their hatred of 4e seems really odd. Heck, even for people like me who don't like 4e because it's feels way too much like a tactical boardgame, it doesn't mean I hate it. I just don't prefer it.
There's always this weird commentary that always pops up that you have to either like 4e, or you must be an irrational hater of it. Often partnered with comments that any criticism of 4e is taken as personal attacks by it's fans. That's just really weird to me to see it come up all the time. Maybe it's just because it's the most recently displaced game, and the same thing happened when 3e went away, and when 2e went away, etc.
