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

[Thomas Shey]

I don't understand why it bothers people that a tiny percentage of all the class options available don't fit their personal preference.

If it was something esoteric, it probably wouldn't. But when its something like the Fighter? Yeah, that's going to bother a lot of people.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Where's my simple caster who just casts the same cantrip every round and has no spell slots?

They're called the Warmage, from Mage Hand Press. It's a little more complicated than that, but not much.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If WotC was going to make that class, I'm quite certain they would have. The masses appear to be fine with fighters as they are.

Presumably that's true of almost every complaint in this thread. That doesn't require people to like it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Presumably that's true of almost every complaint in this thread. That doesn't require people to like it.

No, but they're going to be very unhappy if they don't accept WotC's stance on the matter and either look to 3rd party or make their own stuff. I speak for myself as well.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Where's my simple caster who just casts the same cantrip every round and has no spell slots?

I honestly think there needs to be one of those too. I was working on an elementalist, with a scaling elemental blast/burst/armor/weapon options. You got a new element every 5 levels with riders based on the element.

Likewise we could use a shapeshifter class.

 

[Thomas Shey]

No, but they're going to be very unhappy if they don't accept WotC's stance on the matter and either look to 3rd party or make their own stuff. I speak for myself as well.

People are. That's why a lot of them play other games, even though they're still fundamentally wanting things in the D&D sphere.

 

[Nightfly]

This isn't about them being weak though. I perfectly agree that they are strong, but limited. Too limited, in my opinion, but YMMV.

I don't disagree. But ultimately, if people want to play fighters, and have a good time playing them, then fighters are working by definition. If some other people do not like fighters, that's also fine, but that doesn't nullify the experiences of the people who do.

 

[Oofta]

So we can put you into the camp that says "martial/caster disparity exists, but I don't care"?

You can put me in the camp

They're different and better balanced than most other editions. I don’t see a fighter nerfed any more often than casters. Many of the cool wizard features are things the DM throws in so that the caster feels awesome but there would be other options if there was no wizard. I like fighters and will likely play them again.​

But no, I don't think the disparity is everything people make it out to be. It's not an issue when I play, it's not an issue for my players.

 

[MoonSong]

What's particularly notable is that D&D did "Dark skin = Evil" at a time when even sources it was drawing from did not. D&D's Dark Elves draw from Elric and other sources, but the Melniboneans (even more directly copied in Warhammer's Dark Elves) have pale-as-hell skin, not black skin.

Which makes sense to me. I think the name was something like cave albinism in which animals that live in the dark all of their lives start losing all pigmentation, from arthropods to mammals.

 

[Oofta]

That post never mentions making all martials fantastical. It points out that classes like the Fighter and Barbarian are starved for options other than "kills things," which is a facet of the game, but spells enable other classes to do that and more.

If they are more than mundane/natural* then they are by definition supernatural.

*In 5e they do push the boundaries into action movie hero but that's just kind of the nature of the game.