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

[payn]

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.

Of course, I was thinking of system wide changes to make con more attractive to casters. It wouldn't be a slap in house rule that would make any difference as is.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Resting and healing rules.

Organization of the DMG.

Tool proficiencies.

 

[Medic]

Since we're all complaining about skills, I think this is a fine time for me to complain about skills.

Unless you take a proficiency at first level or somehow acquire it by alternative means, there's absolutely no way to increase skills that you still desire but don't intend to focus on. A Rogue of 20th level that did not pick up Athletics at character generation is worse at climbing than a 1st level Fighter that did.

I mean, come on! Skill Points were imperfect, but the idea of specializing in Hide/Move Silently and sometimes kicking points into Climb or Bluff now and again existed, even if the implementation was flawed.

 

[Malmuria]

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.

In the context of dnd, what support looks like is more advice and principles for playing npcs (or creating factions etc). The community has picked up the slack here: I’d advise a new dm to just read mike shea’s stuff instead of the dmg. Other games also help; you can port over a lot of ideas from worlds without number or dungeon world, for example.

 

[overgeeked]

Since we're all complaining about skills, I think this is a fine time for me to complain about skills.

Unless you take a proficiency at first level or somehow acquire it by alternative means, there's absolutely no way to increase skills that you still desire but don't intend to focus on. A Rogue of 20th level that did not pick up Athletics at character generation is worse at climbing than a 1st level Fighter that did.

I mean, come on! Skill Points were imperfect, but the idea of specializing in Hide/Move Silently and sometimes kicking points into Climb or Bluff now and again existed, even if the implementation was flawed.

This is one of the reasons I like some of the optional rules from the DMG. Being proficient in an ability instead of specific skills, based on your class...so rogues get proficiency in Dex...and any related "skills." Or something like giving advantage to characters based on race, class, and background instead of specific skills from each. If you're a rogue, you should be good at climbing...here's advantage.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In the context of dnd, what support looks like is more advice and principles for playing npcs (or creating factions etc). The community has picked up the slack here: I’d advise a new dm to just read mike shea’s stuff instead of the dmg. Other games also help; you can port over a lot of ideas from worlds without number or dungeon world, for example.

The problem is, while people definitely want and need advice, I don't think a book of advise would sell. WotC knows what people spend money on, and the community is covering this for them so they don't have to devote page count to it over new PC options.

 

[James Gasik]

The problem is, while people definitely want and need advice, I don't think a book of advise would sell. WotC knows what people spend money on, and the community is covering this for them so they don't have to devote page count to it over new PC options.

Ah 5e, the "Elder Scrolls edition". Don't worry if the game isn't 100% finished, folks, the modding community will fix it for us, and we'll profit!

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is one of the reasons I like some of the optional rules from the DMG. Being proficient in an ability instead of specific skills, based on your class...so rogues get proficiency in Dex...and any related "skills." Or something like giving advantage to characters based on race, class, and background instead of specific skills from each. If you're a rogue, you should be good at climbing...here's advantage.

If you don't differentiate between skills governed by the same ability, why have them at all? Just provide a list of things an ability governs, and have the PCs get progressively better at ability checks. It's not how I would it, but it would work.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

WOTC did exploration better in 3e and 4e. 3e used the "print all the books" method so they eventually printed hazards for all types of exploration and the items/spells/skills to defeat them. 4e had Skill challenges at core and also had rituals to counter hazards.

So if your party trekked through a terrible blizzard made by frost giants, 3e and 4e gave you new rules and advice for it. 5e justhas everyone with cold immunity or resistance make a check.

None of the editions were great at social. 4e was best as it had skill challenges at core and tongues only lasted 10 minutes and had a HS cost. So the fighter who spoke Dwarf had to do the talking in a dwarf town over the bard.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ah 5e, the "Elder Scrolls edition". Don't worry if the game isn't 100% finished, folks, the modding community will fix it for us, and we'll profit!

Yup, precisely. We're doing their work for them, and they have no $ reason not to keep doing it that way.