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

[payn]

In general I agree. However, at the risk of enforcing a particular culture in the game some historically based recommendations would be useful. Part of the problem is that I think that money factors a lot into this.

Like, you succeed in the previous adventure and a grateful patron invites you to a ball. Now what? What things should the DM know about this, and who amongst the PCs should be given guidance due to previous knowledge? Personally, I think that explaining the breadth of human experience in the DMG would be asking a bit much. However, even something along the lines of monthly expenses for given professions and statuses would be a helpful marker.

I think things like this should be open to interpretation. I know folks don't like that ambiguity but there needs to be some. Otherwise you get too bogged down in mechanics doing everything. Instead of relying on the DMG to lead these kinds of efforts, I like the idea of being left to adventure modules.

 

[Oofta]

While 5e is my favorite edition, nothing is perfect. So my list?

Crossbows in general. Hand crossbows are toys with extremely limited range, heavy crossbows need a lever or crank to pull back the string.

Heavy armor isn't good enough (and too often penalized). There was a reason people spent a small fortune on good armor, it worked far better than anything else.

Longbow should at least be versatile, if not strength based.

Dexterity is too good.

I'd like to see a revised rest and power/spell recovery system that has transparent aassumptions that can be easily tweaked.

Strength based PCs need better range options.

Those are the things I can think of off the top of my head. Overall I think the game is solid and strikes a decent balance.

 

[Oofta]

Money is useless, atunement means most magic items are useless.

My solution is simple. Don't give out that much treasure, either in gold or magic items. PCs not glowing like Christmas trees with magic is beneficial to the game. Having to make choices about what options to take or what item to equip have always been part of the game.

I do wish they had a standard price list. On the other hand most people simply aren't that invested in building castles or kingdoms. If you don't have that then you have to go to a magic mart system which, in previous editions was just an upgrade treadmill.

That, and I don't think this is anything new.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Oh yeah thought of one more. Strength and Intelligence are not important abilities, because so much is keyed off of Dex, Wisdom and Charisma

I'd say: they LOOK less important than the other abilities. They are equally important, but it is not that obvious.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

The designers had already given up on metamagic as a thing. They couldn't find a way to balance it and threw the towel in the middle of the open playtest. Only when at the eleventh hour they needed an urgent mechanival hook for the sorcerer -because they had wasted most of the playtest time trying to get rid of sorcerer instead of actually working on it- they came and salvaged metamagic. Without the sorcerer class we wouldn't have had metamagic at all.

god, were these playtests cursed or something?

It does occur to me, though, that just as some feats can give access to some class abilities (ritual caster, and a few others), it might be possible to introduce a weak form of metamagic via feats.

metamagic adept does exist...but that doesn't really address that, at its core, it's a sorcerer class feature in this edition for...reasons. reasons that apparently involve playtest shenaninganery.

 

[Shardstone]

What I hate about 5th Edition is class design from 8th level and beyond, especially for Fighter and Barbarian. Other than subclass features, which for a Barbarian end at 14th level and whose subclass captones really feel mediocre most of the time, most classes (other than casters w/ higher level spells) get absolutely nothing fun at these levels. Indominable is not a fun feature. Brutal Critical could be, if Barbarian also got a bonus to its critical hit range. And most subclass features for any class, with a few exceptions (Warlock), are super boring at the top.

I think the main reason play above 12th level doesn't happen, and especially past 14th level, is because a lot of classes get a lot more boring at those levels. The "story" of your class as a fighter is no longer progressing. Hell, even your story as a Cleric is no longer progressing, or any of these classes; they put a bunch of bland features up there that just don't make those levels engaging to narrative players.

Whenever I make a homebrew class or any supplementary game material for higher levels, this is always on my mind. A Fighter above 10th level feels the same narratively as one at 6th, 7th, 8th levels. A Barbarian too. Instead, they should be climbing to paragon status, which there are literally countless ways to represent mechanically. Everything from strongholds and followers, to superhuman feats, to hyper-effective combat arts, rallying the troops, and so on.

Also, I don't like the community's love for hardcore balance when 5E is not a hardcore balanced game, only a moderately balanced game. For example, at level 1, the Paladin starts with Lay on Hands, the Fighter with Second Wind. Lay on Hands is a better Second Wind in every way, and scales far better into the game. Everything from healing, to removal of diseases and poisons, and that compares to Second Wind how? I understand not wanting another 3/3.5E with crazy balance problems, but I don't think its sensible to pretend like 5E is an iron-clad and even game. It isn't.

 

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

My broad brush stroke answer to the OP’s question is the dwindling sense of Jeopardy when you go up in levels in 5e.

Focusing down a bit I’d like to see:

• Some kind of consequence if you fall to zero hit-points. Perhaps a reworked but much simplified optional wound system. It could be presented as a 5e condition. Some people house rule Exhaustion for this use. The One Ring does this brilliantly with ‘light’ and ‘severe’ wounds. No need for graphic descriptions, leave that for the players and DM to colour.

• Separate healing and class feature recovery. So a Dm can penalise healing but allow the recovery of class features. Though ‘healing kits’ already kind of allow this option, so maybe not essential?

• More focused advice on improvised actions in the game, and how to adjudicate them in 5e. There’s a fine line to walk between class features and improvised actions. Improvisation is the key to preventing the game feeling like a board game with a series of set moves, so be good to see this highlighted and expanded in future editions - It’s nice to have the special class abilities, but also nice to improvise and keep the creativity alive.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Funny, because that might be my favorite feature of 5e. If I ever ran 13th Age, for example, I'd probably try to houserule Adv/Disadv into it. I don't ever want to play a RPG without it now!

To be clear, the things its designed to fix can be fixed in other ways, and the all-or-nothing element of it is not in any way a virtue from where I sit, and when it does kick in I think the effect is too large. But then, there are all kinds of rules decisions in 5e that move toward things I don't think are virtues, A/D is just the nail that sticks out the most.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Basically, the design philosophy writ large.

'Ask your DM' is not game design.

I have no idea what they think 'natural language' is, but... this ain't it, chief. It just adds more ambiguity seemingly to encourage people to ask their DM.

The cruelty of knowing there were better designs in D&D Next and we'll never get them.

Levels 1 and 2 are pretty empty and you aren't really the character you're trying to be in most classes (subclasses). This is meant to create 0-levels, but they're too strong to be 0-levels and too weak to be fun for people who don't want 0-levels.

Bounded accuracy makes leveling not feel like advancement and acts like it's a feature that you get to fight the same boring monsters forever. All to make the math simple, which to me is not a worthy design goal.

We can't have just setting books and just options books because of the business model.

"Math is hard, let's get rid of static bonuses. Let's also add randomized bonuses like +1d4."

'Optional' features means we can half-ass them: magic items, feats, etc. Oh, you want a good magic weapon that's not a sword or ax? Go fish. Want decent magic economy or craft? Don't make us laugh. Want feats to have an interesting character design? We have one for you. One.

Tons of ASIs, but max is 20, which you can start with your primary at anyway. Stat boosting items set your stat, so you wasted your ASIs, chump.

Daily Attrition design has reached its apotheosis and they're planning on doubling down on it.

Heavy dependence on subclasses and a stubborn refusal to admit some chassis can't handle everything and just make some new classes.

Design space is self-limited. Advantage/disadvantage for EVERYTHING.

Monsters. Where to start? CR is a cruel joke on new DMs, spellcasters require you to get another book, Too few cool abilities.

Combat healing isn't actually worth it.

6 saves to make things 'simpler' than 3... somehow.

 

[Eric V]

I guess you're right. I wonder why I don't really care when I level up in D&D then? Maybe it's just a me thing.

There are no "dead levels" but there are definitely some "on life-support" levels.