D&D 5E What (if anything) do you find "wrong" with 5E?

[glass]

Google is your friend, and not hard to use!

Well there you go, your were right. Two points:

One: It is not my job to back up your arguments for you, it is yours. And when you do that, reasonable people will change their position (as I have just done). It is almost like magic!

Two: Google is really, really not your friend. Which is why I use mostly DuckDuckGo.

Your posts are either res ipsa, or performance art. I don't care to speculate

Care to explain what you mean by that in terms that are...less opaque? EDIT: To be clear, I am not asking you to explain what res ipsa loquitor means - I know that. What I don't get is how it fits into that sentence (either factually or grammatically).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Sure. But the fact that many people make critiques that are ultimately self-serving (which I absolutely agree is the majority of takes about, well, pretty much everything) doesn't mean that SOME critiques aren't valid, and that those critiques might lead to constructive change in the future (and constructive change which broadens the overall play market should be the goal!)

There's a middle path between "5e is super popular, so obviously its core design is great" and "5e's popularity masks how poor its core design is", which is to accept that 5e has a core that works just fine, but can really shine with a little polish. And that it's totally OK to disagree about exactly what parts need polishing without stereotyping pushback as either "white knighting for WotC" or "you just want X edition back".

Eh, I think we might be two ships passing in the night.

There are a TON (both metric and imperial) of good criticisms of 5e. In fact, without criticism ... nothing would ever change. And whether those criticisms lead to changes in the core rules, or changes in optional rules, or 3PP to address the problems, or just cool homebrew stuff ... it's always worthwhile!

The point I am stressing is a little more nuanced; it's not an argumentum ad populum (as you would put it, "5e is super popular, so obviously its core design is great"). No ... it's "Designing things that are popular imposes different constraints than merely designing things that are good.

Easy example- René Arend was the top chef of McDonalds. Arend was a brilliant chef. So, why doesn't McDonalds serve the bestest haute cuisine on the world? Because they have different design constraints than a single restaurant does. When they roll out a product, it has to be able to be sourced (supply lines). It has to be consistent. It has to be able to be made by non-chefs around the world. And so on. He can't just do whatever he wants.

Same here. There are so many constraints when it comes to "rolling out" D&D now to continue to make it popular; that they will choose to sacrifice "best" solutions in order to achieve "broadly popular" solutions that are ... palatable to large numbers of people.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Well there you go, your were right. Two points:

One: It is not my job to back up your arguments for you, it is yours. And when you do that, reasonable people will change their position (as I have just done). It is almost like magic!

You were the one who went off-tangent and made the INCORRECT assertion about the UK.

So yes, it is almost like magic. When someone makes an incorrect assertion, and then repeats the incorrect assertion after it is pointed out that it is incorrect, then you can depend on that person acknowledging the fact only if they can blame the person who was correct.

THE INTERNET! (Said in the same way as THE ARISTOCRATS!).

 

[TwoSix]

Eh, I think we might be two ships passing in the night.

<sad foghorn>

The point I am stressing is a little more nuanced; it's not an argumentum ad populum (as you would put it, "5e is super popular, so obviously its core design is great"). No ... it's "Designing things that are popular imposes different constraints than merely designing things that are good.

Absolutely. My only point is that there are some areas where they probably could have different decisions at the time which would have alleviated some pain points while still fitting well within those constraints. Like, monk could have had a few more modular choices off the bat, or barkskin could have been not such a weird design, or they could have not been wishy-washy on metal armor on druids. Things like that.

Basically, there are definitely things in the book that are unforced errors, stuff where you didn't even need the benefit of hindsight to realize that wasn't the best approach. Those are the kind of things where "But 5e is so popular" isn't a reason not to fix them. That's not me ragging on the edition or the designers, that's just the reality of putting out a complex, evolving document on a limited time scale.

 

[glass]

You were the one who went off-tangent and made the INCORRECT assertion about the UK.

So yes, it is almost like magic. When someone makes an incorrect assertion, and then repeats the incorrect assertion after it is pointed out that it is incorrect, then you can depend on that person acknowledging the fact only if they can blame the person who was correct.

You know what, you're right again. My comment about backing up your arguments was...ill-judged. I should just have thanked you for the information and left it at that. EDIT: I really did look for corroboration on my own, but could not find any, hence why I asked you. I could have been more polite about it.

(Except that part about repeating the incorrect assertion - I did not do that.)

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

<sad foghorn>


Absolutely. My only point is that there are some areas where they probably could have different decisions at the time which would have alleviated some pain points while still fitting well within those constraints. Like, monk could have had a few more modular choices off the bat, or barkskin could have been not such a weird design, or they could have not been wishy-washy on metal armor on druids. Things like that.

Basically, there are definitely things in the book that are unforced errors, stuff where you didn't even need the benefit of hindsight to realize that wasn't the best approach. Those are the kind of things where "But 5e is so popular" isn't a reason not to fix them. That's not me ragging on the edition or the designers, that's just the reality of putting out a complex, evolving document on a limited time scale.

Oh, I agree! I happen to think that the Way of the Open Hand Monk is, generally, a great design ... but the overall monk chassis is lacking (and I liked the 3PP monk product you linked to the other day).

But you're right. They should not have been so wishy-washy on druids. Everyone knows what happens to druids who wear metal armor.


They explode.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

You know what ....

Fair enough, and I apologize for my tone.

Consider the exchange forgotten.

 

[James Gasik]

I think ultimately, a lot of the arguing about the game's mechanics come down to the very basic argument about what D&D is.

Is D&D a gritty, low magic game where an arrow is a serious threat to most people, and magic is rare and little understood?

Is D&D a high magic game of floating castles and dragons, with powerful artifacts and reality warping magic available to players?

Is D&D a simulation, trying to map rules to some vague sense of verisimilitude?

Or is D&D a game, trying to make rules that are fun and allow for epic shenanigans?

The answer is, all of the above. Any given version of the game attempts to fulfill all of these visions simultaneously. In the 1e DMG, Gary Gygax stated that D&D is not a simulation, and anyone thinking it was or should be was crazy. But at the same time, he crafted a great many rules in order to bind D&D to a medieval-inspired world of castles and hamlets, where wizards were inscrutable, and adventurers very mortal (even as he filled the DMG with fantastical magic items and artifacts, and the PHB with 9 levels of miraculous spells).

The players have argued about what D&D is ever since it's conception. Is it a wargame where you take control not of armies or even squads, but lone heroes?

Is it a game about a group working together to create amazing stories?

The reality is- all of the above. But as long as opposing viewpoints about what the game is (or should be, in their opinion) persist, of course we're going to quibble about whether or not Fighters should be more fantastical or if there's a problem with out of combat healing or if Wizards need to be limited to 3rd level spells.

I've long held the belief that spellcasters are really strong in 5e, despite attempts to ratchet them down in power from 3.5...and yet, recently in a thread about lightning bolt, of all things, I saw some well-reasoned arguments that implied that spellcasters are...not strong enough, of all things, due to limited high level spell slots, spells not improving on their own, and upcasting being weak!

And it made me stop and realize that complaints and debates about the game will never cease, and continue probably until the heat death of the universe, since there's no way we can ever come to any consensus about what D&D actually is.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

So ... it's not that I necessarily disagree with you. But I also think that there are a few unstated premises in your statements that I think might be helpful to understand to see if your suggestions really argue for broader appeal!


Statement 1
My main criticism for 5e is that the appeal wasn't broad as much it focused on newbies who typically don't speak up.

Unstated premise: Focusing on "newbies" is not "broad appeal."

My thought- There's a reason that most companies, in most categories, focus their efforts on young people ("newbies"). They are trying to form associations for life. Heck, most "grognards" today were introduced to the game when they were teens/tweens. So yeah, while not exactly the same as "broad appeal" I would say that the design decisions will always focus on "newbies" first.


Statement 2
Its core was very traditionalist and didn't have space for future input of modern design.

Unstated premise: modern design is necessary for broad appeal.

This is really a core issue. Some aspects of modern design are good, and some are ... less well-suited for a "traditionalist" game with broad appeal like D&D (a so-called "big tent game" with lots of different types of players). In other words, this was likely a deliberate choice- there are aspects of "modern design" that will never be a part of the game (just like there are aspects of modern design that are incorporated into the game).


It's one of those difficult things- obviously, absent a counterfactual, you can't know what "better system" would have done as well. But not everything that is "better" (in terms of quality of product for some) is necessarily "better" in terms of the product's broad appeal or use to bring in "newbies."

You hit the nail on the head.

The discussion about “better” or “special” does not have well operationalized definitions.

What is the goal? Helps to answer the question. Serving the interests of a subset of gamers does not seem to be it.

On the one hand we have complaints that it is all nostalgia based and on the other we have the newbies and kids it’s trying to recruit.

Broad appeal seems to be the goal from where I am sitting. In that, it seems to have succeeded. Some people don’t like it is not much evidence of poor quality if we discourage the millions that do.

A lot of people from all demographics seem to like it. They buy it. They run online games.

Do we have any customer satisfaction information? They were doing surveys for a while.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

A lot of people from all demographics seem to like it. They buy it. They run online games.

Do we have any customer satisfaction information? They were doing surveys for a while.

I mean- this is a perfect example ... and against my interests, as well.

I would love two things-
1. A real psionics class. Not a subclass.
2. A real psionics system that wasn't just "spells."

Now, there was a Mystic UA that wasn't perfect, but ... it was something! But apparently it just didn't cut it.

Psionics might be ... well, might be like the stinky cheese of D&D. Some people love it ... absolutely LOVE IT. But others ... not so much. So if you truly love real psionics, you're probably going to have to go 3PP.