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

[DEFCON 1]

Your percentages aren't accurate nor can they be, and only exist to make the opposition look stupid.

As for the rest of your post, there's a lot of room between Ask DM and having more specificity. You reducing it to a binary and saying that people can't agree on things so there shouldn't be any actual new rules is logically nonsensical, and requires you to jump between extremes to make sense. C'mon man. You're smart, I read your posts. Why rely on such inherently bad-faith arguments?

Because I know my responses don't actually matter and that almost none of us are ever convinced of other people's arguments?

Yep, I hyperbolize sometimes. And if I get called out on it (like you just did, and with very good reason)... I can admit it. Yeah, my percentages had no basis in fact, that is true.

But it also doesn't change the crux of my argument that wanting specificity is only useful to a person when that specificity is the way they want the rule to go. And if they don't like the specificity, then what did that specificity gain them? Ask any of us how we want Stealth to work (both in and out of combat) and almost every person will have some different way they think it has to happen. There will be no consensus. Just like there's no consensus on how a Psion or Warlord should be made for 5E.

At least with more generalized rules that are meant to be tweaked and made more specific by a particular DM at their table... or changing rules they don't think work very well via "Rulings, not rules"... any DM has a much better chance of actually seeing the play they like.

No one should want ironclad and immoveable rules in D&D. Cause you ain't gonna like everything that you get.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

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.

Agree

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.

True but the very structure of D&D (D20 + bonus vs Defence Number) militates against any sophisticated take in armour.
The other problem is that full plate and the like are battlefield armours. Generally worn by front line heavy infantry/cavalry and other kinds of troops wore lighter armour. In fact the knights and men at arms often wore the lighter brigantines (or chain in earlier periods) when their primary activity was not to stand and fight - like skirmishing, engineering.

The problem with heavy armour is not that it cuts down mobility but it is exhausting to wear. People skulking around in the woods and entering ancient ruins would be wearing brigandine or chain. Which brings up another issue with D&D: it takes 1,500 years or so (500 AD to 1500AD) of weapon and armour development and treats it all the same.

This is now too embedded as a D&Dism to remove.

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

The longbow short bow distinction should be removed and replaced with warbow/hunting bow. High poundage "shortbow" exist and existed in medieval times and are almost certainly what people scavenging old ruins and dungeons would actually use as a longbow is too bloody big </end rant>
To be honest the Str/Dex attack distinctions is extremely silly in the first place: accuracy is a function of neither it should be really based in a weapon proficiency or perhaps weapon expertise and be class based or maybe sub class based.

Dexterity is too good.

Agreed but it a D&Dism at this point. A pretty radical change in weapon usage would have to introduced to change this.

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

Dunno, I would have to see the actual proposals. I personally would like to see more rituals, particularly in the spells reserved for the non full casters.

Strength based PCs need better range options.

Also agreed.

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.

Also agreed and sorry for picking your post apart like this, but I think that it triggered something in me.

 

[Shardstone]

Because I know my responses don't actually matter and that almost none of us are ever convinced of other people's arguments?

Yep, I hyperbolize sometimes. And if I get called out on it (like you just did, and with very good reason)... I can admit it. Yeah, my percentages had no basis in fact, that is true.

But it also doesn't change the crux of my argument that wanting specificity is only useful to a person when that specificity is the way they want the rule to go. And if they don't like the specificity, then what did that specificity gain them? Ask any of us how we want Stealth to work (both in and out of combat) and almost every person will have some different way they think it has to happen. There will be no consensus. Just like there's so consensus on how a Psion or Warlord should be made for 5E.

At least with more generalized rules that are meant to be tweaked and made more specific by a particular DM at their table... or changing rules they don't think work very well via "Rulings, not rules"... any DM has a much better chance of actually seeing the play they like.

No one should want ironclad and immoveable rules in D&D. Cause you ain't gonna like everything that you get.

But no rule in D&D has ever been ironclad. THe only thing that is for 5E, is roll 1dX + add modifiers, and see what happens. Providing rule structures gives guidance to people who want it, and gives people who want to do their own thing a place to jump off from if they want. While I enjoy having a rulings, not rules model for my TTRPG games, that doesn't mean I don't want any rules or rule structures at all. I buy these books for guidance on how to mechanically play make-believe, not just for fluff (scant as that is these days).

 

[Vaalingrade]

Because I know my responses don't actually matter and that almost none of us are ever convinced of other people's arguments?

Yep, I hyperbolize sometimes. And if I get called out on it (like you just did, and with very good reason)... I can admit it. Yeah, my percentages had no basis in fact, that is true.

But it also doesn't change the crux of my argument that wanting specificity is only useful to a person when that specificity is the way they want the rule to go. And if they don't like the specificity, then what did that specificity gain them? Ask any of us how we want Stealth to work (both in and out of combat) and almost every person will have some different way they think it has to happen. There will be no consensus. Just like there's no consensus on how a Psion or Warlord should be made for 5E.

At least with more generalized rules that are meant to be tweaked and made more specific by a particular DM at their table... or changing rules they don't think work very well via "Rulings, not rules"... any DM has a much better chance of actually seeing the play they like.

No one should want ironclad and immoveable rules in D&D. Cause you ain't gonna like everything that you get.

You have to understand and have a general agreement on what the rules are before you can make effective changes. Otherwise, you get what we have now where five people set down at the table with five different interpretations of the ruleset and the rules only solidify as they become problems at the table.

Shrodinger's Rules, only becoming real as the waveforms collapse.

 

[DEFCON 1]

But no rule in D&D has ever been ironclad. THe only thing that is for 5E, is roll 1dX + add modifiers, and see what happens. Providing rule structures gives guidance to people who want it, and gives people who want to do their own thing a place to jump off from if they want. While I enjoy having a rulings, not rules model for my TTRPG games, that doesn't mean I don't want any rules or rule structures at all. I buy these books for guidance on how to mechanically play make-believe, not just for fluff (scant as that is these days).

Honest question then... do you feel you cannot play D&D with the rules in the 5E books?

If I had to make an educated guess... I'd say the rules of 5E D&D are more than able to allow you to play the game for the most part of how you like it (because if you really hated the 5E rules, you probably would've stopped playing it by now.) Are there things you wished we different? Sure! That's not surprising, and it's completely reasonable. And it's the same with me, there's a bunch of 5E rules I think could work better for my particular playstyle (and which is why I houserule all kinds of stuff happily.)

But I'll say this... I would MUCH prefer to take a more generalized 5E as-is and modify bits of it to fit my needs, than to take a very concise and specific ruleset like 4E and try and change THAT into something more my speed. And that's entirely my point. 4E (for good or bad) has a very specific gameplay format and style. That's why those who love it really love it... and those that don't really hate it. But trying to hammer 4E into something different than what it is? Much more difficult and dare I say almost not worth doing?

But 5E isn't like that. It being everyone's "2nd Favorite D&D game" to quote the joke... means that I can make it my own because it leaves things more open and less specific. And I'll go to my grave thinking that the design paradigm that gave us this was what makes it great. 5E could have been as specific in its design as 4E... and we would have had just as much (if not more) complaints about it as we did 14 years ago.

 

[DEFCON 1]

You have to understand and have a general agreement on what the rules are before you can make effective changes. Otherwise, you get what we have now where five people set down at the table with five different interpretations of the ruleset and the rules only solidify as they become problems at the table.

Shrodinger's Rules, only becoming real as the waveforms collapse.

Well... if you are constantly sitting down at tables where you have four other players you know nothing about and thus all five of you have no idea how each of you prefer to play D&D and are finding yourselves constantly at odds because the DM is making rulings the others don't like... then yeah, 5E might not be the game you should all be using. If you all were to switch over to 4E, you'd all have a much more concise and specific ruleset to use. Assuming you all like 4E, I'd call that a win.

If none of you like 4E though... I fail to see how trying to turn 5E into 4E by making all the rules one specific way with no allowable change or variance would be beneficial.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Honest question then... do you feel you cannot play D&D with the rules in the 5E books?

If I had to make an educated guess... I'd say the rules of 5E D&D are more than able to allow you to play the game for the most part of how you like it (because if you really hated the 5E rules, you probably would've stopped playing it by now.) Are there things you wished we different? Sure! That's not surprising, and it's completely reasonable. And it's the same with me, there's a bunch of 5E rules I think could work better for my particular playstyle (and which is why I houserule all kinds of stuff happily.)

But I'll say this... I would MUCH prefer to take a more generalized 5E as-is and modify bits of it to fit my needs, than to take a very concise and specific ruleset like 4E and try and change THAT into something more my speed. And that's entirely my point. 4E (for good or bad) has a very specific gameplay format and style. That's why those who love it really love it... and those that don't really hate it. But trying to hammer 4E into something different than what it is? Much more difficult and dare I say almost not worth doing?

But 5E isn't like that. It being everyone's "2nd Favorite D&D game" to quote the joke... means that I can make it my own because it leaves things more open and less specific. And I'll go to my grave thinking that the design paradigm that gave us this was what makes it great. 5E could have been as specific in its design as 4E... and we would have had just as much (if not more) complaints about it as we did 14 years ago.

Excellent point. It also makes me wonder what 5e would be like if they made it in 2022 and not in 2014. Assuming the player base WotC is trying to court now. Would you like it better as a ground up new game conforming to today's desires, or the modified 5e we're going to get in a couple years?

 

[Eric V]

Specificity is frequently just an illusion that makes the DM's life more difficult.

No. Specificity gives me a reference point for when I might want to change things.

Been playing a long time now, mostly as a DM, and I have never found specificity to make things more difficult for me.

 

[Eric V]

Well... if you are constantly sitting down at tables where you have four other players you know nothing about and thus all five of you have no idea how each of you prefer to play D&D and are finding yourselves constantly at odds because the DM is making rulings the others don't like... then yeah, 5E might not be the game you should all be using. If you all were to switch over to 4E, you'd all have a much more concise and specific ruleset to use. Assuming you all like 4E, I'd call that a win.

If none of you like 4E though... I fail to see how trying to turn 5E into 4E by making all the rules one specific way with no allowable change or variance would be beneficial.

I don't think this point has anything to do with 4e.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Well... if you are constantly sitting down at tables where you have four other players you know nothing about and thus all five of you have no idea how each of you prefer to play D&D and are finding yourselves constantly at odds because the DM is making rulings the others don't like... then yeah, 5E might not be the game you should all be using.

So...

IF you're just starting 5e, 5e might not be for you?

Because people just starting, people playing pick up games at their local store, people who are not blessed as I and probably you are to have a years or decades old play group are exactly the kind of people hurt by lazy design and unclear rules that give themselves an out by appealing to the nostalgia of the older players who will not be thus effected.