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

[Ruin Explorer]

3- treasure having little value to players removes the sense of wonder from the proceedings- if I describe a massive gold idol, the players shrug and go "eh, that's cool I guess". This is so far from the D&D experience it boggles the mind.

Yeah this is fascinating because in every previous edition of D&D, albeit for kind of different reasons in different editions, players were SUPER-excited about anything worth cash money. Yet in 5E, one of the first things I observed with the same main player group, after only a few sessions, was that money was drastically less motivating/exciting to them.

I did also note that in one of my brother's campaigns, he had a system where you could essentially purchase magic items (it was a bit more complicated but...), and they had specific (somewhat negotiable though) values and suddenly money started seeming a whole lot more interesting again (in that campaign only).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

While it may solve the majority of your complaints, it doesn't for many others. Once more posts have come in, I'll summarize everyone's issues and we'll see more then (maybe I am wrong???).

But FWIW, I am also in favor of a truly "Basic" 5E...

Yeah I don't think an ultra-basic 5E would solve our problems nor be interesting to my group. If we wanted significantly less crunch, we wouldn't use a modern D&D system at all.

We'd use something like Dungeon World, EZD6, or RC D&D (if we did want some crunch, but less than 5E).

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yeah this is fascinating because in every previous edition of D&D, albeit for kind of different reasons in different editions, players were SUPER-excited about anything worth cash money.

I know for myself partly this was grounded in the fact that in AD&D you got XP for treasure, so it was always exciting.

Yeah I don't think an ultra-basic 5E would solve our problems nor be interesting to my group. If we wanted significantly less crunch, we wouldn't use a modern D&D system at all.

We'd use something like Dungeon World, EZD6, or RC D&D (if we did want some crunch, but less than 5E).

Oh, no, that wasn't my point. My point was there seems to be (from this very limited sample albeit!) a place for a Basic and Advanced D&D, IMO 5E is too much in the "middle" ground, so is not making either of those two desires a reality.

 

[overgeeked]

While it may solve the majority of your complaints, it doesn't for many others. Once more posts have come in, I'll summarize everyone's issues and we'll see more then (maybe I am wrong???).

But FWIW, I am also in favor of a truly "Basic" 5E...

Sure. A lot of people want the crunchiest crunch that ever crunched and won't be happy until the PHB is the size of all three 5E core books combined. Then the DMG is the same size. And the MM is just as big, if not bigger. Then there's the other side of the coin, the people who want a simpler and slimmer game. I may dislike a lot of what 5E does, but at least they seem to have erred on the side of less and simpler this time around rather than the rules, rules, and more rules approach of 3X and 4E.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I want a simpler game than WotC wants to sell.

Me too. Or more accurately, I want any complexity to be in slightly different places. Only where necessary to make things dynamic and interesting. For example, when I say I want monsters to be more than a bag of HP. I don't mean that I want them to be as complicated as the 5e monsters that ARE more than a bag of HP. Most of THOSE (full page or more stat-blocks) I find TOO complicated.

 

[payn]

2- concentration on spells seems to prevent the kind of play where casters are happy to support the melee by buffing them. Now most buffs are sad, and just about any one you want to cast is limited in targets and you can only commit to one per combat, which also turns off a lot of other good spells you might want to cast, like crowd control or debuffing enemies. Add to that the fact that most casters don't have Constitution save proficiency, even ones designed to cast spells in melee, like Clerics or Paladins, and pretty soon, combats revolve around one big spell and lots of explosions.

I wonder if con mod spells at a time would work out?

 

[overgeeked]

Me too. Or more accurately, I want any complexity to be in slightly different places. Only where necessary to make things dynamic and interesting. For example, when I say I want monsters to be more than a bag of HP. I don't mean that I want them to be as complicated as the 5e monsters that ARE more than a bag of HP. Most of THOSE (full page or more stat-blocks) I find TOO complicated.

Agreed. Monsters don't need more than AC, HP, immunities/resistances, vulnerabilities, attacks, save DC, and description. The rest is a waste of space as it's basically never used except in exceedingly narrow edge cases. But what's there should be interesting. The description should be useful fluff, not generic fluff.

 

[James Gasik]

I wonder if con mod spells at a time would work out?

I mean really, it still comes down to how many resources you want to expend for one encounter. Whether I want to cast 2 Fly spells, 2 Fireballs, or 2 Sleet Storms, 2 spell slots is 2 spell slots. There really doesn't need to be any difference, unless we're just coming out and saying +1d4 to my Fighter's damage rolls for a combat is equal to me tossing out 6d6 of scorching rays...and until much higher level, it's highly unlikely to be the case.

 

[Minigiant]

I agree with many statements here so I'll deep dive into part others havent gone on

Exploration
5e doesn't provide anything for the Exploration Pillar past Tier 1. This is mainly why people dislike the ranger originally. The Ranger cancelled Tier 1 Natural Exploration. It wouldn't be a problem if their was Exploration challenges in Tier 2-4. No magical weather. Not supernatural environment. No fey,giant, or demon tainted nature. Heck, there are barely rules or tools for extreme real world hazards.

I mean that's 1/3 point of the Ranger and Druid. To escort the part through a super blizzard, a knife storm, or some fey trick that reverses reality.


Social
The social pillar is so barebones and has no options for expansion. There are almost not mechanics and nonmechanical advice to upgrade it or add nuance. This is why a high CHA, easy to get skill proficiency, tongues, and an emergence charm wrecks the system.

No dialects or accents options, no bases of knowledge, few social spells, no psychology, no bartering system options, no optional minigames, no advice on the likes, dislike, and landmines of each race/faction/culture., no Tier 2-4 stuff.

 

[James Gasik]

I agree with many statements here so I'll deep dive into part others havent gone on

Exploration
5e doesn't provide anything for the Exploration Pillar past Tier 1. This is mainly why people dislike the ranger originally. The Ranger cancelled Tier 1 Natural Exploration. It wouldn't be a problem if their was Exploration challenges in Tier 2-4. No magical weather. Not supernatural environment. No fey,giant, or demon tainted nature. Heck, there are barely rules or tools for extreme real world hazards.

I mean that's 1/3 point of the Ranger and Druid. To escort the part through a super blizzard, a knife storm, or some fey trick that reverses reality.


Social
The social pillar is so barebones and has no options for expansion. There are almost not mechanics and nonmechanical advice to upgrade it or add nuance. This is why a high CHA, easy to get skill proficiency, tongues, and an emergence charm wrecks the system.

No dialects or accents options, no bases of knowledge, few social spells, no psychology, no bartering system options, no optional minigames, no advice on the likes, dislike, and landmines of each race/faction/culture., no Tier 2-4 stuff.

See these are problems for me as well, but exploration challenges have not been a concern for WotC for what, 15 years? And what version of D&D ever really had good support for Social encounters? I guess you could make a case for a social 4e Skill Challenge, but those always felt underwhelming to me.