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

[Rogerd1]

Point by point. No, calling something not D&D isn't demeaning, but insisting it has to be might be.

You stated DnD has to be fantasy and I told you this was wrong due to various 3PP that use it yo emulate other genres. So you trying to stick to this same schtick is biased.

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!)

Because DnD fans whine about any little change, and you are proof of this.

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.

Using a D20 engine, all the same stats in 2e. Just removing magic and having powers instead to cover all eventualities. Know what else it also had, a better cosmology too.

And also had gods around mid level and cosmic beings sitting above them. Guess what DnD does not have?

Its main issue is doing street level supers, it can do them but it can feel a but flat sometimes. So refining the 5e so it can shine would ge good.

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.

Wrong.
The rules aren't being changed just some choices at chargen so trying to equate that to changing the game to not be DnD is utterly false. And your thinking, and others like you, is what holds DnD back yo be freer. And quite frankly who cares about tropes, I certainly don't.

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 D20 system is fine, there are some inherent issues that could be improved.

(The core mechanic doesn't a D&D make, you know?)

In actual fact it does, so on this you are wrong. DnD5e is an rpg system, engine.

 

[Morrus]

Because DnD fans whine about any little change, and you are proof of this.

If you can't state your case without insulting people, your case is best left unstated. Cool it, please.

 

[Helldritch]

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.

And both of you are right.
However...
Adjudicating illusion was shown to me in AD&D by my old master. The creature imitated should be no higher in HD than the level of the illusionist. This was not in any edition and it should have been. Well, shadow monsters and demi-shadow monsters had some guidelines that could have been followed but this was left out in the dust for some reasons or simply an oversight.
In 5ed, I tend to follow this same rule. The more you see a monster, the more you can make a very convincing one and the HD metric ensures that the illusionist will not be able to go "over board" with impossibilities.
Also: Yes some creatures can come out of nowhere to help the wizards but at the same time, a meter must be taken.
HD = or less to the wizard ======> Normal save.
HD higher than the wizard ======> Give advantage.
This simple trick ensures that the illusion weaving caster will try to make convincing illusions.

Heck, even silent image can save a full group! When fleeing, one of my group thought they were done for. The apprentice of the wizard had only one 1st level slot available and when the group went in a dead end corridor. The apprentice made the illusion of an empty corridor. A 1st level spell concealed their presence and their pursuers were none the wiser. Illusions do not have to be about offence every single time.

 

[James Gasik]

And both of you are right.
However...
Adjudicating illusion was shown to me in AD&D by old master. The creature imitated should be no higher in HD than the level of the illusionist. This was not in any edition and it should have been. Well, shadow monsters and demi-shadow monsters had some guidelines that could have been followed but this was left out in the dust for some reasons or simply an oversight.
In 5ed, I tend to follow this same rule. The more you see a monster, the more you can make a very convincing one and the HD metric ensures that the illusionist will not be able to go "over board" with impossibilities.
Also: Yes some creatures can come out of nowhere to help the wizards but at the same time, a meter must be taken.
HD = or less to the wizard ======> Normal save.
HD higher than the wizard ======> Give advantage.
This simple trick ensures that the illusion weaving caster will try to make convincing illusions.

Heck, even silent image can save a full group! When fleeing, one of my group thought they were done for. The apprentice of the wizard had only one 1st level slot available and when the group went in a dead end corridor. The apprentice made the illusion of an empty corridor. A 1st level spell concealed their presence and their pursuers were none the wiser. Illusions do not have to be about offence every single time.

This is a workable solution, to be sure. I've considered some kind of ability check to craft a believable illusion but I'm not sure if that would make illusions more annoying to use than is worth it (Grod's Law, and all that).

 

[Rogerd1]

What DnD really needs to do, is change the rules slightly to enable other genres to be emulated more readily, and decide some of its core premises.

Look at Savage Worlds, it splits between normal weapons and heavy weapons (mega-damage). This is emulated in Savage Rifts and Savage Pathfinder, but not in DnD. And this needs to change, as another example.


Most dragons younger dragons could be taken down by high calibre firearms from modern day. Those larger would likely require larger ordinance from say a helicopter, or drone to take down. These would essentially be low powered mega-damage weapons. And might just be within the capability of a level 15-20 party.

Some of the really huge ones, the one around the building would require a MOAB as nothing else would cut it. Or a low yield nuke - well beyond any norm of any party without adding in extra rules.

 

[Hussar]

Again, though, the issue isn't really about the specific mechanics of illusions. It's that the mechanics of illusions in D&D are... well... not great. Which resulted in DM's largely avoiding them. It's kinda the same issue with psionics really. The AD&D psionics rules were a mess. Whether it's the half baked rules in the 1e PHB or the 2ed Complete Psionics, it was just far, far more headache than it was worth.

Could you make them work? Sure. Absolutely. But, was it worth it to make them work? Well? The jury is a bit out on that one and I think a lot of DM's (myself included) are very gunshy about having psionic rules that are run alongside magic rules. We have lots of experience making the magic rules work and it's not always easy. But, add in the complication of an entirely separate rule set for psionics that interacts and intersects with magic and it can be overwhelming.

Again, the issue isn't really that the psionics are too powerful or too weak. It's that they are too much of a PITA. So, DM's (again I'm including myself here) just blanket throw up their hands and don't want anything to do with them.

Rolling this all the way back to my original point though and it's not really something that becomes apparent in theory crafting and only looking at the mechanics. On paper, illusion magic is fine. On paper, psionics looks perfectly fine. But, when the rubber hits the road and you're trying to figure out how, exactly, the game works when you've got a psionic character trying to use telepathy on an illusion, what happens?

Note, that's a tongue in cheek example and I don't want or expect an answer. The point is, you can make all these "Well, the game is unbalanced" arguments until you're blue in the face. The thing is, most players really, REALLY don't care if Bob does 5 more points of damage per round than they do. So long as everyone is in roughly the same ballpark, most players are pretty happy. Fighters between 5th and 10th level deal about 25 points of damage per round on average. At least, that's my experience across a lot of tracked rounds. So, so long as everyone is averaging somewhere in that ballpark, everyone is pretty happy.

Higher level? I don't know. I'm just starting to play a higher level game for the first time. YAY! But, I'm pretty sure that the characters are going to remain pretty close to on par most of the time. No one is absolutely hogging spotlight, none of the characters have been rendered redundant. I'm currently in a fight with a Chasme, half the party has failed their saves and are sleeping and two of the characters are one hit away from straight up death (Chasme kill PC's at 0 HP, most of the time anyway). Really not seeing any problems with balance between the classes.

 

[Hussar]

What DnD really needs to do, is change the rules slightly to enable other genres to be emulated more readily, and decide some of its core premises.

Why? Why does D&D need to emulate other genres? There are great games for emulating other genres.

I've never understood this impulse to pound every game into D&D. There's a whole library of great games out there. There's no need to have Kaiju battling mecha in D&D.

 

[glass]

Notice the important words "and distance themselves from it." Earlier versions of D&D did not try to ignore their predecessors. In most cases they tried to claim they'd taken the best of the earlier editions and improved on them.

They had Mike "shout their guts back in" Mearls as head of the design team. It seems like having an edition warrior in charge probably had more to do with the lack of overt 4e in the design than any commercial considerations. Note that in the early days of DDN they talked a lot about how there were going to be things for fans of all editions, and for 4e specifically (things that never materialised of course).

_
glass.

 

[Rogerd1]

Why? Why does D&D need to emulate other genres? There are great games for emulating other genres.

I've never understood this impulse to pound every game into D&D. There's a whole library of great games out there. There's no need to have Kaiju battling mecha in D&D.

Because if DnD cannot do other genres it cannot evolve and expand and will eventually die out, the same way that Palladium is currently in its death throes.

Additionally, as has been seen with other 3PP it can make inroads to do other genres, just that some of the current mechanics act as inhibitors. Remove those, and with some tinkering it would work.

 

[glass]

Because if DnD cannot do other genres it cannot evolve and expand and will eventually die out, the same way that Palladium is currently in its death throes.

Paladium's been in its "death throes" for at least 20 years now. If it is finally giving up the ghost, I suspect it has more to do with Kevin Siembieda's age than any lack of evolution.

_
glass.