D&D 5E What, if anything, bothers you about certain casters/spells at your table?

[Swarmkeeper]

Is that it? The design intent of WotC 5e is to encourage diversity and to show contrition for past and present branded products that didn't do so to current standards? There's a lot more to D&D than it's stance on diversity (as if any company would take a different public stance on this issue in our present era). Or is this the only thing that matters to game design enough to talk about it?

No, that's not "it". I shared two links.

 

[Hussar]

Probably not a full call-and-response, but it's always "announce intention"->"slight pause to allow DM to clarify if needed"->"roll".

Rolling without announcing your intention first is honestly a bit of a faux pas at pretty much every table I've played at.

This is one that drives me straight up the wall. I keep having to harp on players to announce what they’re doing first before dropping dice and whatnot.

And I’ve had to keep repeating myself like every session with a couple of players.

Thinking about it. My frustration with casters may have some other issues mixed in there.

 

[ezo]

Are the designers "lazy" or is it the DMs who are "lazy" because they can't be bothered to take 3 seconds to make a ruling?

The designers. I already stated that.

Is it really that incomplete? Is a tight, hard-coded game really what most people want from D&D?

Yes. Look at ALL the sites, tweets, etc. online about people asking for clarifications, arguing about design, or lack of design.

If the game is "tight", and people don't like the rules, they can change it, but at least they have a basis for comparison. When left "up to the DM" willie-nillie, it makes it much harder for players and DMs alike IME, especially newer ones.

Somehow it's always the D&D designers who are lazy, but never the players themselves.

They get paid for it. So, it would be nice if they completed the job.

Which of course is nonsense.

Not at all. Sometimes players are lazy, too. And DMs can be lazy, but creating complete, fun, compelling game design is not their job.

And to be clear, the deisgners aren't "lazy", the design paradigm they are using is. This is why I call it "lazy" design.

That's just with a quick search...

Basically, this the problem which led to the "incompleteness" of 5E:

With 5th, we assumed that the DM was there to have a good time, put on an engaging performance, and keep the group interested, excited, and happy.

This is fairly unnecessary as this has pretty much always been true about the DM. Sure, some to greater effect than others, but it's been there.

It’s a huge change, because we no longer expect you to turn to the book for an answer. We expect the DM to do that.

"We expect the DM to do that." Really? LLLAAAA-ZZZZYYYYY!!!!

So, instead of giving me a complete game system, with concrete rules and systems, where players and DMs alike aren't left scratching their heads, they want people to pay them good money for lazy design.

Sure, of course we all know not everything about a game can cover every eventuality, but the issue is where they have a rule or feature or whatever, and its unclear just how it is supposed to work. We end up with thousands and thousands of threads, posts, tweets, etc. asking for help or guidance because the designers decided they want the DMs to do it.

And it isn't even like many of JC's tweet responses are even helpful. "I have a question about XYZ, did you intent this or that?" Response: "the text is clear." Gee, really...? thanks for nothing.

 

[DEFCON 1]

So, instead of giving me a complete game system, with concrete rules and systems, where players and DMs alike aren't left scratching their heads, they want people to pay them good money for lazy design.

Sure, of course we all know not everything about a game can cover every eventuality, but the issue is where they have a rule or feature or whatever, and its unclear just how it is supposed to work. We end up with thousands and thousands of threads, posts, tweets, etc. asking for help or guidance because the designers decided they want the DMs to do it.

And it isn't even like many of JC's tweet responses are even helpful. "I have a question about XYZ, did you intent this or that?" Response: "the text is clear." Gee, really...? thanks for nothing.

You know, if you had all this issues with 5E you probably should have returned the book after reading it the first time and then played something else instead.

I hear that 3E had a lot of concrete rules about just about everything you could ask for. Maybe you should have given that game a try.

 

[ezo]

You know, if you had all this issues with 5E you probably should have returned the book after reading it the first time and then played something else instead.

I hear that 3E had a lot of concrete rules about just about everything you could ask for. Maybe you should have given that game a try.

It's what the groups play, albeit now heavily house-ruled BECAUSE one DM decided he was willing to do their job for them.

However, I do know some players have found 5E frustrating enough to stop playing. The lack of clarity in many places has turned them off of the game, to the point they don't play D&D anymore at all, and some have moved on to other games.

But, I played 3E, found that over-burdened with rules. I realize finding a happy medium is hard, and I've heard 4E was even worse! So, now the design concept went too far the other way. Unfortunately, with 5.5 or whatever coming out, I don't see them shifting gears yet. Either way, I hope there will be better clarity in the books at the very least. Natural language is all good, but there are times when more "technical" approaches are clearer.

 

[Hussar]

I would point out that if everyone was perfectly content with 5e then Tasha’s and now 2024e would be a waste of time no?

There is a world of difference between, “it would be nice if some of these unnecessary vague area in the rules were tightened up a bit and we need to return to the era of 3e or 4e and have a concrete rule for everything.

Taking things to extremes is not the slam dunk argument people seem to think it is.

WotC has acknowledged that the rules need tweaking. All we’re arguing about now is how much.

 

[ezo]

WotC has acknowledged that the rules need tweaking. All we’re arguing about now is how much.

Agreed! I guess that is part of what makes it so hard for me. If you removed half of the full-page art work from the PHB, and used that space effectively to clarify rules, intent, etc., I probably would have very little to complain about.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm gonna bring back my annoyance on Necromancy

Creating lightning energy? Evocation.
Creating death energy? Necromancy.
Summon a demon? Conjuration.
Summon an undead? Necromancy
Speak with outer beings? Divination.
Speak with dead beings? Necromancy

Is death a special barrier that warps magic?

Is the God(dess) of Deatth more powerful than the God(dess) of Magic?!!

Why do undeads get their own magic and not fey, celestials, or fiends?

 

[ezo]

I'm gonna bring back my annoyance on Necromancy

Creating lightning energy? Evocation.
Creating death energy? Necromancy.
Summon a demon? Conjuration.
Summon an undead? Necromancy
Speak with outer beings? Divination.
Speak with dead beings? Necromancy

Is death a special barrier that warps magic?

Is the God(dess) of Deatth more powerful than the God(dess) of Magic?!!

Why do undeads get their own magic and not fey, celestials, or fiends?

As others have argued before, the spell lists overlap too much, the "school casters" are not differentiated enough by restricting or enforcing spell selection, etc.

IIRC necromany, divination, and illusion are the three schools with the fewest spells. Sure, they have some good ones, but no where near the options compared to evocation, transmutation, or conjuration.

 

[Minigiant]

As others have argued before, the spell lists overlap too much, the "school casters" are not differentiated enough by restricting or enforcing spell selection, etc.

IIRC necromany, divination, and illusion are the three schools with the fewest spells. Sure, they have some good ones, but no where near the options compared to evocation, transmutation, or conjuration.

I feel that is because for much of the 50 years of D&D, few sit down "academic" discussion on the schools were made.

One of the poster child classes of D&D is a spell nerd who specializes in schools but getting a hobbies of mostly nerds, geeks, and theatre kids for most of its lifetime to stop and think about the spell schools for more than a minute is dang near impossible to the point that people can't agree what school cure wounds is.