D&D 5E What I Love Best and What I Hate Worst about D&D5

[seebs]

Wizards get Religion as an optional skill because it's a thing that used to be a Knowledge skill in previous editions, and wizards got all Knowledge skills as options.

Rogues get int saves because everyone gets one strong save (wis, con, dex) and one weak save (cha, int, str), and int made more sense than the other two.

 

[Cadriel]

What I love best is how combat feels. It's exciting and varied without being overly simplistic, and doesn't get mired down in details. It feels deadly (lots of PCs hit 0 hp in my games) without slaughtering truckloads of PCs. I also love the backgrounds and how PCs feel more three-dimensional while still growing in play.

What I hate most is how the system doesn't map well to certain instincts I have honed over the last few years running different editions of original and classic D&D and their clones. What I mean is, for instance, rolling for surprise is still weird to me because it feels really arbitrary whether or not it happens. I really liked all the d6 rolls in classic D&D - surprise, secret doors, hear noise, wandering monster, triggering traps - and not having them in 5e makes it feel like I'm just winging it when I run situations that were in my wheelhouse in classic.

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't have enough experience on 5e for a definitive opinion, but at least I'm getting to know the edition... so here are my current thoughts:

"What I love best..."

1) simplified combat:

- that the action economy is so minimal, that I don't have to constantly look at a table of actions to know "how much they cost"
- that OA are limited to running away from combat, so once again I don't have to check what provokes and what doesn't
- that positions in combat are not very important, so that (a) we can play without a grid or without a map at all, and (b) players don't have to think too much about precise movements

2) no assumptions on magic items:

- that the game is built without assuming the PCs at level X must have certain bonuses from items, so I am free to play with no items at all if I want
- that there is little standardizations on magic items, so I can make whatever items I want, and players don't have expectations on how they "should" work
- that there is no fixed price tag on magic items, no suggestions that availability is guaranteed

3) the proficiency system:

- that there is just one proficiency bonus to rule them all, this is IMO the best mechanical innovation of the new edition (even if it isn't perfect)


"What I hate most..."

That I still feel like there's a lot of opportunities missed by the final books, compared to the playtest:

- the PHB has too few subclasses per class, especially way too few Clerical domains and Rogue schemes
- the PHB has too few feats, and practically zero feats to represent elite groups
- the PHB has too few arcane spells, missing a few key traditional spells
- the PHB has a bit too few skills and tools as well
- the MM doesn't have many variations on monsters
- the MM doesn't have monsters templates
- the DMG doesn't have rules to easily run battles with lots of monsters

 

[Mouseferatu]

- the DMG doesn't have rules to easily run battles with lots of monsters

Did you miss the "fighting mobs" section? I think that covers at least a good starting point for this stuff.

 

[machineelf]

For my table, I have them roll for hit points but they get to re-roll on a 1. It works out well for us. Now, the worst roll to get is a 2.

 

[DaveDash]

Love:
The unique feeling of the classes.
Less but more powerful spells.
The smoothness of combat.
Backgrounds.

Hate:
Streamlining of monsters (lack of abilities).
Lack of monster templates.
Many core monsters from previous editions missing due to more flavour text.
Lists in alphabetical order instead of grouped by type.
Vague rules, although I understand in the long run this is better.
Slower release cycle.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

HIGHER than average in fact.

The average of a d8 is 4.5.

Since you get 5 if you take the average, I can't see how I would ever want to roll.

To me it is obvious that rolling means taking a risk. I would only take that risk if there's an reward associated with it. If the average would have been rounded down, at least there would have been a sound reason to take the risk.

As written, the system only penalizes people who love to roll so much they don't care, people with poor statistical skills that think rolling is good for them, and any combination thereof.

The only sound reason to roll is if you expect to be able to pressure your DM into giving you a reroll if you whine and complain loudly enough when you roll bad, i.e. if you somehow can raise the effective average enough.

I agree entirely. There's no reason to roll unless you can complain loud enough to get a reroll whenever you roll badly, and just keep it whenever you roll well. The same goes for abilities, IMO. I can't describe how many times I've seen one player roll average, and be forced to keep his character, while another rolls terribly, whines, and rolls again, and gets a powerhouse. How's that fair to the first guy?

Point buy for me, thanks.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

While I'm posting on this thread, I may as well post to the point.

What I like best:

It "feels" like classic D&D while having what I see as the good stuff from post-TSR D&D. I think they did an excellent job of capturing a best-of feel.

I like that we're encouraged, perhaps more than ever before, to make the game our own. It's very clear, IMO, that if you don't like something you can modify or remove it, and it's generally very easy to do so.

What I don't like:

The skill system. It never quite got there before the playtest ended, and we're left with something that still isn't quite there. That said, the framework of it is excellent (it's more the specific skill list and how it interacts, or doesn't, with tools that I don't like) and it's easy to modify. In fact, there's options I quite like in the DMG, so I don't even have to come up with something on my own.

So far, so good.

 

[ren1999]

I've got a multi-classing system that is very easy to follow.

All classes are divided into 4 main archetype classes.

Martial
Skilled
Mixed
Casting

If a Martial class character wants to have more skills, the character uses the skilled class table for the duration.
If a Martial class character wants to use spells, it moves to the mixed class table.
If a Casting class character wants to use heavier weapons and armor, it moves to the mixed class table.

Skilled classes get exclusive use of Survival, Nature, Theives Tools, and Stealth skills.
Mixed classes get exclusive use of Life(Necromancy) Spells.
Casting classes get exclusive use of area spell effects.

 

[Blue]

13th Age fixes some of the flaws

You know, most of these are around in 13th Age, which is similar to 5e.

I hate a few mechanics of the races. 1.) Though giving ability increases is traditional with races, it encourages meta-gaming. Some players will always play certain races for that ability score+ factor. They will never try to play a new race. Moving the ability increases to class will fix that.

13th Age does that. You get a bonus to one of a few from race, and a bonus to one of a few from class, but it has to be a different one. So you'll always be able to get a bonus to what the class wants, and still have races feel different mechanically.

2 handed, and secondary and primary weapon damage works great and is balanced now. I love it. But some weapons don't do enough damage and other weapons that are less lethal do more damage. I really think weapon damage according to class makes more sense. Calling weapons Martial and Simple, makes no sense. Heavy, Medium, Light weapons make more sense.

13th Age does like this but takes it another step - weapons (and armor) are just categories and you can define the specifics of your character's weapon. But it also breaks up the mechanical bits by class. Fighting types do the most damage with a weapon, casters with the same weapon will do less. Rogues go more with light weapons than anyone else, even before sneak damage.