D&D 5E (2014) What (if anything) do you find "wrong" with 5E?

[Hussar]

Again I have to say that I’m just not having these experiences.

But simply theory crafting does not constitute proof of a problem because theory crafting is based on all sorts of explicit and implicit assumptions. If you want to show that a class is underperforming, you actually need to TEST these theories.

Otherwise your theories are just that. Possible problems. If you want to be taken seriously you need to do the work. Track round by round actions of multiple groups under multiple dms over a range of levels.

It’s easy to come up with problems. Especially in a system like 5e where the math is pretty opaque and loose.

The reason we’re not seeing a lot of movement to tweak classes is far more likely because the problems that people do have are a lot more tied to that table than the game itself.

It’s no different than watching people talk about how ADnD characters were so much weaker. Really? Straight out of the PHB 2e, I can make a fighter that can kill trolls in one round at first level. No cheese. No house rules. Just straight up 2e rules. To me, adnd combat was DnD with training wheels. Parties would plough through encounters that would be instant death for a 3e or later group.

But I also realize that so much of this is based solely on my own experience. So I can only talk about the game I played which most certainly isn’t the game you played.

It really helps to keep that in mind.

 

[Oofta]

Do you let popularity and the lowest common denominator dominate all your decision-making though? Chasing favor is a losing game eventually, imo.

Everything is relative. Relative to other classes, monks seem to be as enjoyable as the other classes.

If they were better than every other class you just have people complain that other classes aren't as good as monks.

How else do you know whether the monk design works other than looking at whether or not people choose to play the class in context?

 

[Shardstone]

Again I have to say that I’m just not having these experiences.

But simply theory crafting does not constitute proof of a problem because theory crafting is based on all sorts of explicit and implicit assumptions. If you want to show that a class is underperforming, you actually need to TEST these theories.

Otherwise your theories are just that. Possible problems. If you want to be taken seriously you need to do the work. Track round by round actions of multiple groups under multiple dms over a range of levels.

It’s easy to come up with problems. Especially in a system like 5e where the math is pretty opaque and loose.

The reason we’re not seeing a lot of movement to tweak classes is far more likely because the problems that people do have are a lot more tied to that table than the game itself.

It’s no different than watching people talk about how ADnD characters were so much weaker. Really? Straight out of the PHB 2e, I can make a fighter that can kill trolls in one round at first level. No cheese. No house rules. Just straight up 2e rules. To me, adnd combat was DnD with training wheels. Parties would plough through encounters that would be instant death for a 3e or later group.

But I also realize that so much of this is based solely on my own experience. So I can only talk about the game I played which most certainly isn’t the game you played.

It really helps to keep that in mind.

Above 14th level, I will not play a martial outside of Paladin unless I have some sick ass magical items. Usually, above 11th level. I'm sorry, but Brutal Critical at 13th level vs. literally any spell, let alone 7th level spells, is not balanced against each other. Not in power, not in engagement, not in being a good mechanic, and not in fulfilling the high level class fantasy.

 

[James Gasik]

That's an awfully negative way of thinking about it.

I agree that popularity doesn't equal quality, but longevity generally does. Did thousands of shrieking girls prove that the Beatles were a great band? No, but the fact that "Let It Be" was a top five album last year -- more than half a century after its release -- kind of does. Fads don't last fifty years.

The fact that 5e sold well on release might not mean anything. The fact the latest 5e book sells well might not either. But when the Player's Handbook has continuously been in the top 100 bestselling books on Amazon for eight years (and counting), it should be beyond debate that 5e is doing a lot right. And yeah, some stuff wrong, hence this thread, but a lot more right than wrong.

To be fair though, for people picking up the game, you have to buy the books before you can find fault with the books?

 

[Baron Opal II]

Okay, I haven't read through the previous 30 pages of posts - just answering the original question (and apologies if I'm repeating anyone else).
1) Bonus actions are confusing and slow down gameplay

5) Hit points are too high (or damage is too low). Combats take too long and aren't dynamic/stressful enough without a lot of DM work.

7) Overall, the art is not evocative and is very "copy and paste" feeling.

Yes! Forgot to mention these earlier.

Don't like the bonus action at all. Reactions? Fine.
Don't like the hit point inflation either. I could be persuaded that it's an aesthetic thing, but, yeah, having non-fighters approach or reach 100+ hp is just jarring to my greybearded self.

There is way too much art. I truly don't expect or want AD&D DMG levels of text density, and it would be undesirable at this stage of life. I would need a magnifying glass to read it for any length of time! But, I think they would be able to fit more useful and clearly stated rules if there was less art. Even if you cut the word count in half due to Gygaxian verbosity, that would still be more (hopefully) useful information.

[ DMG word count: ~240,000 (AD&D) to ~80,000 (5E) words. ]

 

[DND_Reborn]

There is way too much art. I truly don't expect or want AD&D DMG levels of text density, and it would be undesirable at this stage of life. I would need a magnifying glass to read it for any length of time! But, I think they would be able to fit more useful and clearly stated rules if there was less art.

Good point. I like much of the art work in 5E's core books, but in the PHB alone one time I figured out removing half the art work would allow clarifications for most, if not all, of the clarifications needed by many players.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I can't believe WotC used extra art as one of the reasons the price of the Spelljammer product went up! Like one of the devs said that in response to a comment on the page count and price. Not a selling point to me, anyway.

Good point. I like much of the art work in 5E's core books, but in the PHB alone one time I figured out removing half the art work would allow clarifications for most, if not all, of the clarifications needed by many players.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

Generally, we don’t police the use of the emoji button…unless someone decides to descend into jerkish behavior. Right now, I’m seeing at least one approaching the jerk event horizon, beyond which there will inevitably be moderator action- either a threadban or a temporary vacation from ENWorld entirely.

Knock. It. Off.

 

[Horwath]

I was outraged that the Playtest Ranger, despite being fairly popular (at least in my area) was never printed!

they decided that playtest Ranger was too powerful for Tasha's, and then they added Twilight cleric... what a joke!

 

[Helldritch]

they decided that playtest Ranger was too powerful for Tasha's, and then they added Twilight cleric... what a joke!

Which is really sad because the UA ranger was on par with the other classes with the small adjustmnent they had done.