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

[SkidAce]

Asking the DM is what makes the game great. Specificity is overrated.

Especially considering specificity of a rule you don't like means you're stuck with it even more than if the rules allowed the DM to change it.

I mean for pete's sake... we've now seen dozens upon dozens of rules that people think are wrong or bad. Do any of you think the game would be improved if the game didn't account for this by telling everyone to just change the rules they don't like and instead said "Nope, these are the rules! Use 'em or find a different game!"

Most of all of our rules changes or things we find wrong in this thread are countered and completely opposite to what other people also say are wrong. Which means you can't ALL get the game you want. It is impossible. Someone will always find fault with the rules because everyone is on opposite sides of every decision. Which means the BEST THING we can do is take the rules we have... and then change the ones we don't like into ones we do. And there is nothing wrong with that.

WotC gave us 98% of completely workable rules for playing D&D. The fact that we might choose to change the other 2% to something our particular playstyle might prefer is a GODSEND, not something to be pissed about.

I think I should make a wall poster of this post and frame it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

If in fact your whole issues with 5E is "Think of the poor inexperienced D&Ders!"

~Looks back at giant wall of issues I have with 5e posted in this thread and replied to by the person saying this~

Nah, fam.

 

[Vaalingrade]

healbots no longer being necessary

Calling this out because I never said it.

In fact, healbots aren't necessary because they just plain don't work. Anyone attempting to heal in combat has been suckered by the designers into thinking that was a reasonable option.

 

[Ondath]

Calling this out because I never said it.

In fact, healbots aren't necessary because they just plain don't work. Anyone attempting to heal in combat has been suckered by the designers into thinking that was a reasonable option.

I simply restated what you said here:

Combat healing isn't actually worth it.

If combat healing isn't worth it, then we no longer need to have a designated healbot (or an endless supply of Wands of Cure Light Wounds). I largely like this model to 2E and 3E's glacial healing pace. Once you houserule around the yo-yo healing problem (and just giving a level of exhaustion to whoever goes under 0 usually does the trick), people being able to heal themselves out of combat makes everything more fun.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Not having a useful version doesn't mean you don't need it.

You know that suckful fake spare tire they give you these days that can only get you down the road instead of a real spare? That's the current healer. You still need healing, you just aren't going to get it.

And the houserule that actually fixes the problem of 'yo-yo healing' is... better healing so people aren't healed for less than the next hit they take rather than the common fixes of punishing the players for healing not working well.

 

[Eric V]

I've found that specificity was meaningless, or at least no more meaningful than the general guidelines we have fo 5e.

But if you can't or don't want to give examples/details of what you mean other than "I'm right, you're wrong" I guess there's no conversation to be had.

Nope.

 

[Mind of tempest]

honestly, I can't complain much as either it is already been said or I having only known 5e can't know it but I hate the lack of experimentation it needs more out there class and subclass ideas as it has played very safe with them races are starting to get more out there but normally in the wacky or just an animal person neither are really my jam so I would like more crazy but interesting.

 

[James Gasik]

"Rulings, not rules" does not grant DM's any freedom they didn't already have. Every. Single. Edition. Of this game, has had a large swathe of DM's (if not, eventually, all of them) who have made their own house rules to modify the game.

The DM never had their power taken away by the rules of the game. Never. Not once. 5e doesn't empower the DM any more than any other edition of the game ever has.

You might say "well, other editions have had complex, interwoven rules that made it difficult to change any one thing without causing other problems". To which I reply, yes, and?

To make good house rules, one must understand the purpose of the rules they are changing in the first place.

5e does not make this task any easier. Does anyone really understand why, if I cast a spell as a bonus action, I cannot cast another leveled spell with my action on my turn? When an Eldritch Knight can cast two leveled spells via Action Surge and cast Shield without incident?

If you do, congratulations. I don't! So as much as I'd dearly love to take that rule and strangle it to death, I don't, because I don't understand what it's there to prevent!

As near as I can tell, it exists to hamstring Clerics for no reason, and to keep Sorcerers from being as good as Wizards.

There are many rules like this, not even picking on the optional ones, where playing the game without intending to make a single house rule, but completely by the rules as written, eventually becomes a Sisyphean task!

The only thing that is empowered by this is my headaches.

 

[tetrasodium]

"Rulings, not rules" does not grant DM's any freedom they didn't already have. Every. Single. Edition. Of this game, has had a large swathe of DM's (if not, eventually, all of them) who have made their own house rules to modify the game.

The DM never had their power taken away by the rules of the game. Never. Not once. 5e doesn't empower the DM any more than any other edition of the game ever has.

You might say "well, other editions have had complex, interwoven rules that made it difficult to change any one thing without causing other problems". To which I reply, yes, and?

To make good house rules, one must understand the purpose of the rules they are changing in the first place.

5e does not make this task any easier. Does anyone really understand why, if I cast a spell as a bonus action, I cannot cast another leveled spell with my action on my turn? When an Eldritch Knight can cast two leveled spells via Action Surge and cast Shield without incident?

If you do, congratulations. I don't! So as much as I'd dearly love to take that rule and strangle it to death, I don't, because I don't understand what it's there to prevent!

As near as I can tell, it exists to hamstring Clerics for no reason, and to keep Sorcerers from being as good as Wizards.

There are many rules like this, not even picking on the optional ones, where playing the game without intending to make a single house rule, but completely by the rules as written, eventually becomes a Sisyphean task!

The only thing that is empowered by this is my headaches.

Healing word is likely the why. On the rulings not rules though I'd say that it actually reduces the gm's ability to modify the system with houserule because they quickly need to start with a bunch of hiuseriles the gm is forced into making to finish things & close problematic loophole a before they can start making houserules. The result leaves the gm with a choice between hat looks to be a Calvinball heavy gm style or an excessive laundry list of houserules when there are really only a small number of actual changes.

 

[Ondath]

5e does not make this task any easier. Does anyone really understand why, if I cast a spell as a bonus action, I cannot cast another leveled spell with my action on my turn? When an Eldritch Knight can cast two leveled spells via Action Surge and cast Shield without incident?

If you do, congratulations. I don't! So as much as I'd dearly love to take that rule and strangle it to death, I don't, because I don't understand what it's there to prevent!

As near as I can tell, it exists to hamstring Clerics for no reason, and to keep Sorcerers from being as good as Wizards.

I have my theory on it, but it's less "explaining-why-as-in-what-was-the-intent-behind-it" and more "explaining-why-as-in-why-it-came-to-be-this-way".

In the very last playtest packet for D&D Next, Bonus Actions were not a thing. Things that are currently bonus actions (Cunning Action, Flurry of Blows, and most important spells with a BA casting time) simply said "you can take an extra action to do this specific thing". In this paradigm, BA spells were known as Swift Spells, and had the general rule of "You can cast it either as an action or alongside an action, if you're doing it alongside an action, that action cannot involve casting a spell or activating a magic item."

Then came the PHB and some of the "take a specific extra action" abilities become Bonus Action abilities, while Action Surge became "take a whole extra action, no limitations". The new way the rules were defined then created this loophole where a Fighter/Wizard multiclass could cast two Fireballs in one turn, while a Sorcerer with Quickened Spell could not.

To be perfectly honest, I dislike Bonus Actions anyway, so in my ideal 5E, all Bonus Action abilities would be reworded to the way they were in the last playtest packet, and BA as a concept would be removed. Then the "only spell + cantrip" limitation would apply to everyone. Problem solved!