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

[Hussar]

The AD&D illusionnist was a beast of a class. It's only weakness was how willing was the DM to see his monsters being bullied around. You would not get a save against illusion unless you actively acted to disbelief. Many DMs would just say ok, roll a save while it was not so.
An illusionnist could "summon" an Ogre. That Ogre strikes you and deals damage (illusory, but the player and character do not know). So it must be an illusion! Guess what? To be rid of the illusion, you had to actually spend a round and risk being hit once more. And if the save failed... that Ogres would stay for 3 rounds after concentration. (Yep the illusionist had to concentrate on the phantasmal force). But at higher level, that would not be an ogre, it could be a demon. And that demon might come from demi-shadow monster which were partially real and unlike summon monsters would be entirely chosen by the illusionist.

The risk in using lower illusions to have monster to attack would simply be a bonus to disbelief as the character would start "seeing" that the "monster" was too good to be true. Not so with higher level spells such as Phantasmal killers and demi-shadow monsters (and shadow monsters) where the spells were fire and forget. Illusions would affect undead and even blind monsters as illusions had a sensory component to them. The only real problem of the illusionist was that the spells he could use would effectively shut down the precious BBEG and a lot of DM did not appreciated that. So they would gutter the power of illusions in the hands of the players (but not when it was in theirs).

Also, Demi-shadow monsters would only inflict a % of real damage. That did not mean that they would inflict that % only. Only after the fight would the faked loss HP would come back. Many DM would simply have an ogre dealing normally 10 points of damage dealing only 4. Which was not what it was supposed to be. Illusions were hard to track on the DM side has he had to actually note how much damage was caused by illusion and to which player(s) in addition to his monsters. And remember, one round of doing nothing but disbelieving was required to even get a save... Something that many people would simply not do. It was dropped in 2nd edition for obvious reasons.

None of this actually counters my point. I said that the class was unplayable. For exactly the reasons you outline here. The class was entirely dependent on the DM making it work and many DM's didn't do that. So, the class was unplayable. And, since the mechanics were so poorly explained, often contradictory (if I touched an illusion, my hand passed through it... sometimes, but, if it hit me, I'd take damage? But not real damage. But there's no "temporary damage" rules in AD&D. But.. but...but..)

So, yeah, I'll stand by my original assertion - the illusionist is a very good example of an unplayable class because, unless the DM was 100% on the ball, the class was largely unplayable.

 

[Helldritch]

None of this actually counters my point. I said that the class was unplayable. For exactly the reasons you outline here. The class was entirely dependent on the DM making it work and many DM's didn't do that. So, the class was unplayable. And, since the mechanics were so poorly explained, often contradictory (if I touched an illusion, my hand passed through it... sometimes, but, if it hit me, I'd take damage? But not real damage. But there's no "temporary damage" rules in AD&D. But.. but...but..)

So, yeah, I'll stand by my original assertion - the illusionist is a very good example of an unplayable class because, unless the DM was 100% on the ball, the class was largely unplayable.

Nah...
The class was quite playable. In fact, independent of the DM it was playable as written. But since illusion are as strong as the imagination of the player using them, a lot of DMs felt hosed by illusionists. This was exactly the problem you are describing.
As written, the illusionist works quite fine. Too fine I would say. So many DMs were downgrading and upgrading the power of illusions to the point that in their hand, illusions could and would be devastating but in the hands of the players they were barely able to whoosh a goblin...

This was a real case of a DM's houseruling something but only towards his/her way.

But, again, if you take the rules as written. Illusions were devastating. Heck, the class was so stong that Gygax decided to make super intelligent foes (19+) immune to illusions! 1st level at 19 intel up to 7th level illusion at 25 intelligence. They were that powerful.

As for no temporary damage in AD&D. Yep, there were. But they had not yet name it. Record the damage done and if the player survives, restore the lost HPs as all the damage was imaginary (unless facing shadow magic...). A character killed by an illusion would simply be knocked unconscious (unless killed by shadow magic). A few groups survived and woke up in a cell in the stronghold of an illusionist.

This is exactly the same thing that happened to Paladin once the rules to gate them as a super class were alleviated by the UA. Paladins were so strong that many DMs gated them with one thing: Lawful Stupid. The restrictions they were imposing on the paladins were so, well, restrictive that many players started to hate paladins and whenever one was in a group, the restrictions would apply to the group too! No wonder people hated (and still do even today) the paladin.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah I’d agree with all of that.

And it really speaks to the problems with only looking at mechanics. On paper the illusionist works. But in play it was a mess.

It speaks to the importance of actually testing things.

 

[Helldritch]

Yeah I’d agree with all of that.

And it really speaks to the problems with only looking at mechanics. On paper the illusionist works. But in play it was a mess.

It speaks to the importance of actually testing things.

I could not agree more.
If a DM isn't able to handle a class, he/she should simply ban it entirely and explain it to his/her players.

I was invited to play in a cousin's game when I was a young DMs and in vacation at Montreal. His DM was quite good and I rolled an illusionist. They were level 9 so I made an 8th level illusionist. When I created the illusion of an ogre to distract wights, the DM told me they made their saves. I asked when did they stopped a full round to disbelief and he said undead were immune. I pointed him that undead were immune to charm, hold and sleep. Not to illusions and that to have a save, you needed to actually spend a round to disbelief. I even told him the page number where it was written in the DMG (as well as example of monsters in the MM). My illusionist literally destroyed his BBEG with the simple Phantasmal Killer spell. He told my cousin to never bring a rule lawyer again in his game... Because I knew how to play an illusionist I was regarded as disruptive. And yet, I only used the spells as they were written. Illusions are so versatile that this DM was at lost on how to adjudicate them and on how his monsters should react.

He could just have told me to not play an illusionist and I would have complied.

The main problem is that many DMs do not like their player to "cruise" through their adventure and often design encounters/dungeons/adventures in a mono type encounter way. A goblin cave filled with only... basic goblins, a lost temple filled with... undead and on and on. Variety is what surprises players and put them on their toes. What if that goblin cave has a few cultists and a wizard apprentice or two? What if that undead filled lost temple has a few oozes and animated objects (or golems) in it? What if in both, an antagonist had put a summoning circle and a few demon/devil/fiends of appropriate level appears? As the goblin flees, he accidentaly knocks over an oil jar that erase part of the circle and thus the fiends are freed! Or that goblin could simply hold the jar and warn that if they do not surrender/leave, a great evil will come with the drop of the jar...

 

[Micah Sweet]

I could not agree more.
If a DM isn't able to handle a class, he/she should simply ban it entirely and explain it to his/her players.

I was invited to play in a cousin's game when I was a young DMs and in vacation at Montreal. His DM was quite good and I rolled an illusionist. They were level 9 so I made an 8th level illusionist. When I created the illusion of an ogre to distract wights, the DM told me they made their saves. I asked when did they stopped a full round to disbelief and he said undead were immune. I pointed him that undead were immune to charm, hold and sleep. Not to illusions and that to have a save, you needed to actually spend a round to disbelief. I even told him the page number where it was written in the DMG (as well as example of monsters in the MM). My illusionist literally destroyed his BBEG with the simple Phantasmal Killer spell. He told my cousin to never bring a rule lawyer again in his game... Because I knew how to play an illusionist I was regarded as disruptive. And yet, I only used the spells as they were written. Illusions are so versatile that this DM was at lost on how to adjudicate them and on how his monsters should react.

He could just have told me to not play an illusionist and I would have complied.

The main problem is that many DMs do not like their player to "cruise" through their adventure and often design encounters/dungeons/adventures in a mono type encounter way. A goblin cave filled with only... basic goblins, a lost temple filled with... undead and on and on. Variety is what surprises players and put them on their toes. What if that goblin cave has a few cultists and a wizard apprentice or two? What if that undead filled lost temple has a few oozes and animated objects (or golems) in it? What if in both, an antagonist had put a summoning circle and a few demon/devil/fiends of appropriate level appears? As the goblin flees, he accidentaly knocks over an oil jar that erase part of the circle and thus the fiends are freed! Or that goblin could simply hold the jar and warn that if they do not surrender/leave, a great evil will come with the drop of the jar...

To be fair, most of the stuff you described would also be vulnerable to illusions.

 

[James Gasik]

I don't cast illusion spells, save for those that are very clear about their effects, like mirror image or invisibility. The reason is, over the years, I've encountered many DM's who have a serious problem adjudicating illusions.

What sort of illusion is "unbelievable", in a world of magic, for example. A wizard can conjure monsters out of the clear blue sky, and so can an illusionist. But it seems like everything an illusionist does is put under a microscope, attempting to find some loophole or justification for the illusion not to function.

People, I realized, don't like to be tricked. And some DM's, being people, don't like to be "tricked" either, or to feel like a player "got one over on them". Because of how open ended even a low level spell like Phantasmal Force is, you run into situations where some DM's feel like "It doesn't make sense" for the spell to function the way it does.

"So wait, my monster failed his save, so now he is stuck attacking an illusion, taking 1d6 psychic damage every turn, unless he spends a turn doing nothing to make an Investigation check?"

And you reply, yes, that's about the size of it. And suddenly the DM turns into a rules lawyer, trying to find a way to salvage his encounter, no matter how illogical his attempts become.

You can, of course, run into this kind of behavior with any kind of spell, but illusions seem to invite this sort of reaction more often. To the point that I'm perfectly happy to limit my activities to spells that have "real" effects, rather than turn every attempt to use an illusion spell into a debate with a sore DM.

I'm not immune to this effect either, mind- it takes a great deal of will to remind myself that illusions are legitimate spells with rules when one comes up. The thing that annoys me the most is that players rarely make credible illusions, but decide to flex their creativity to call forth manifestations of incredible creatures, or even gods, as opposed to a more subtle approach.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't cast illusion spells, save for those that are very clear about their effects, like mirror image or invisibility. The reason is, over the years, I've encountered many DM's who have a serious problem adjudicating illusions.

What sort of illusion is "unbelievable", in a world of magic, for example. A wizard can conjure monsters out of the clear blue sky, and so can an illusionist. But it seems like everything an illusionist does is put under a microscope, attempting to find some loophole or justification for the illusion not to function.

People, I realized, don't like to be tricked. And some DM's, being people, don't like to be "tricked" either, or to feel like a player "got one over on them". Because of how open ended even a low level spell like Phantasmal Force is, you run into situations where some DM's feel like "It doesn't make sense" for the spell to function the way it does.

"So wait, my monster failed his save, so now he is stuck attacking an illusion, taking 1d6 psychic damage every turn, unless he spends a turn doing nothing to make an Investigation check?"

And you reply, yes, that's about the size of it. And suddenly the DM turns into a rules lawyer, trying to find a way to salvage his encounter, no matter how illogical his attempts become.

You can, of course, run into this kind of behavior with any kind of spell, but illusions seem to invite this sort of reaction more often. To the point that I'm perfectly happy to limit my activities to spells that have "real" effects, rather than turn every attempt to use an illusion spell into a debate with a sore DM.

I'm not immune to this effect either, mind- it takes a great deal of will to remind myself that illusions are legitimate spells with rules when one comes up. The thing that annoys me the most is that players rarely make credible illusions, but decide to flex their creativity to call forth manifestations of incredible creatures, or even gods, as opposed to a more subtle approach.

I am a DM that has run into this, and to be honest, it IS really annoying. By logic, illusions are probably just too powerful, as an intelligent user can legitimately make them punch WAY over their spell level with very little effort.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah I’d agree with all of that.

And it really speaks to the problems with only looking at mechanics. On paper the illusionist works. But in play it was a mess.

It speaks to the importance of actually testing things.

Even that only helps so much if its too dependent on GM interpretation too often. Your feedback can be all over the map.

 

[MoonSong]

M&M 2e was DnD / PF Supers done right but still retained the core mechanic and could emulate science fiction, fantasy, cyberpunk etc so you are still wrong.

Cosmic alignment is how it was done and is basically crap. Old hat and can be done better examples going DC Comics cosmology. M&M, Modern Age (Threefold) are two other examples which allows magic and science to work.

As to it being Fantasy, this is garbage, look at the various 3PP stuff out there, Esper Genesis, Dark Matter, Redsky (out to backers). All excellent. So by saying what uou just said you degrade, and demean 3PP hard work, and graft and is simply unacceptable.

It is also why in the DMG it lists various different cosmologists to play with, not be too fixated on one thing.

Magic could easily be a Feat / Edge, split into Arcane, Pact, Innate etc. Then players can bespoke class abilities more freely. As it stands classes are shoehorned into settings where they have no place being.

My way just dispenses with that inclusions enabling freer thinking, and more choices. Plus Spell slots are just dumb - various DnD 3PP products have fone this, and magic is improved as a result.

Point by point. No, calling something not D&D isn't demeaning, but insisting it has to be might be. A lot of these 3P aren't looking to be D&D, but looking to harness D&D for their own ideas. (All three of the kickstarter expansions you mention keep classes, races and levels!) In fact M&M was specifically meant as not being shackled by D&D, but to stand alone on its own. It can cover multiple genres because superheroes is a kitchen sink genre.

And I didn't say you couldn't change a single thing without your game turning into not D&D, but change too many things and you no longer have something that can be recognized as D&D.

And your way, it might be freer, but not necessarily better. Choices aren't inherently a good thing, and by getting rid of limits you get rid of tropes that people enjoy and of conveniences bred by them. If you need to rewrite the core rules, then you aren't playing the same game anymore.

If you don't enjoy class and levels, fantasy, the six abilities, nor the D&Disms, then what exactly do you like about D&D? (The core mechanic doesn't a D&D make, you know?)

 

[Hussar]

Even that only helps so much if its too dependent on GM interpretation too often. Your feedback can be all over the map.

Well exactly. There’s a very good reason why 4e dropped illusions off a cliff. If you’re designing from the point of view of minimizing variance between tables, illusions are a big problem.

And 5e hasn’t exactly leaned hard into using illusions either. I’m struggling to think of any illusions in the modules I’ve run or played and it’s been very sparse.

Not counting illusion spells with concrete effects of course.