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

[Oofta]

Nope.

Great example of a very specific without adding any value. Thanks!

 

[Shardstone]

I would love to see wotc make an opinionated game, not one trying to make a specific audience happy. What kind of game do the designers themselves want to play?

Other than that, I’ll just put this here

D&D General - Rant: Sometimes I Hate the D&D Community

I agree completely. Seeing the kind of game they prefer was something we kind of got with Mearls and his happy hours and his very strange UA articles. It is a shame none of those ideas will never be polished to see what coulda' been.

 

[overgeeked]

"Rulings, not rules" does not grant DM's any freedom they didn't already have. Every. Single. Edition. Of this game, has had a large swathe of DM's (if not, eventually, all of them) who have made their own house rules to modify the game.

The DM never had their power taken away by the rules of the game. Never. Not once. 5e doesn't empower the DM any more than any other edition of the game ever has.

It's not a question of the referee being able to or not. It's a question of normalizing things. It's a question of the books saying the referee is able to...so that when the players inevitably freak out, the referee can point to that line or paragraph in the book. It never seems to ease anyone's trepidation, but it helps...sort of. It's about the players reading the book and seeing that the game expects the referee to make house rules. Instead of the book never mentioning it and the players being surprised when the referee mentions house rules.

You might say "well, other editions have had complex, interwoven rules that made it difficult to change any one thing without causing other problems". To which I reply, yes, and?

Making things harder to accomplish does remove people's ability to do the thing. That's basically the point of laws. Make it really hard to get away with doing something and you've effectively reduced the instances of it happening. Make house ruling your game really hard to do and you effectively reduce the instances of it happening.

To make good house rules, one must understand the purpose of the rules they are changing in the first place.

Exactly. Hence more complex systems are harder to house rule, hence fewer referees are willing to house rules those systems, and since not every referee is a professional game designer, when they house rule complex games, they tend to do so badly...which gives the players a negative reaction to house rules and an aversion to house rules in future...which reinforces the notion that referee's shouldn't house rule complex systems...thus effectively removing the referee's ability to do so. Because a referee who freely house rules a complex game in a community that actively discourages house rules will inevitably find themselves staring across an empty table.

5e does not make this task any easier.

It does by having simpler mechanics that are easier to house rule and the text supports the notion of house rules, whereas other more complicated iterations of D&D with no explicit mention of house rules curtail referees from house ruling things. When you talk about these things in the books themselves, you center that as a normal part of the game. When you don't talk about these things in the books themselves, you erase or remove that as a normal part of the game.

Take for example 5E compared to 4E. The phrase house rules appear on page 6 of the 5E PHB.

"you should check with your DM about any house rules that will affect your play of the game."

It does not appear at all in the 4E PHB. It only appears in the 4E DMG, and the section there is one page that is mostly about admonishing the referee to not house rule things without knowing exactly what they're doing. In the 4E PHB the role of DM is described in four main parts, the one relevant to this discussion is:

"Referee: When it’s not clear what ought to happen next, the DM decides how to apply the rules and adjudicate the story."

Note how it doesn't mention changing any rules. Only that "the DM decides how to apply the rules." The DM has discretion in applying the rules, not in altering them. Further note how it's not a general statement of "the DM decides how to apply the rules," rather a quite limited "When it's not clear what ought to happen next..."

Compare that to page 4 of the 5E DMG:

"And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them."

and

"The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game."

Normalizing things makes them easier. Ignoring or actively erasing things makes them harder.

Again, yes, referees always can and always have house ruled games. It's a question of the expectations of the players. When the books do not mention house rules or the referee having the authority to change the rules, the players expect that to not happen. When the books do mention house rules or the referee having the authority to change the rules, the players expect that to happen.

Doesn't mean that given players will accept specific house rules from any given referee. Just that it's a normal part of the game.

Does anyone really understand why, if I cast a spell as a bonus action, I cannot cast another leveled spell with my action on my turn? When an Eldritch Knight can cast two leveled spells via Action Surge and cast Shield without incident?

Balance. The eldritch knight has fewer spell slots and doesn't have access to the same incredibly powerful spells full casters get. So it's less of a problem that they get to cast more spells.

There are many rules like this, not even picking on the optional ones, where playing the game without intending to make a single house rule, but completely by the rules as written, eventually becomes a Sisyphean task!

The only thing that is empowered by this is my headaches.

Exactly. "Rulings not rules" and "it's your game, house rule it" are a get out of jail free card for the designers. They don't have to work as hard making a well-designed game that interconnects perfectly and just works when they can simply do a good enough job and say, "don't like a rule, change it."

 

[tetrasodium]

It's not a question of the referee being able to or not. It's a question of normalizing things. It's a question of the books saying the referee is able to...so that when the players inevitably freak out, the referee can point to that line or paragraph in the book. It never seems to ease anyone's trepidation, but it helps...sort of. It's about the players reading the book and seeing that the game expects the referee to make house rules. Instead of the book never mentioning it and the players being surprised when the referee mentions house rules.

Making things harder to accomplish does remove people's ability to do the thing. That's basically the point of laws. Make it really hard to get away with doing something and you've effectively reduced the instances of it happening. Make house ruling your game really hard to do and you effectively reduce the instances of it happening.

Exactly. Hence more complex systems are harder to house rule, hence fewer referees are willing to house rules those systems, and since not every referee is a professional game designer, when they house rule complex games, they tend to do so badly...which gives the players a negative reaction to house rules and an aversion to house rules in future...which reinforces the notion that referee's shouldn't house rule complex systems...thus effectively removing the referee's ability to do so. Because a referee who freely house rules a complex game in a community that actively discourages house rules will inevitably find themselves staring across an empty table.

It does by having simpler mechanics that are easier to house rule and the text supports the notion of house rules, whereas other more complicated iterations of D&D with no explicit mention of house rules curtail referees from house ruling things. When you talk about these things in the books themselves, you center that as a normal part of the game. When you don't talk about these things in the books themselves, you erase or remove that as a normal part of the game.

Take for example 5E compared to 4E. The phrase house rules appear on page 6 of the 5E PHB.

"you should check with your DM about any house rules that will affect your play of the game."

It does not appear at all in the 4E PHB. It only appears in the 4E DMG, and the section there is one page that is mostly about admonishing the referee to not house rule things without knowing exactly what they're doing. In the 4E PHB the role of DM is described in four main parts, the one relevant to this discussion is:

"Referee: When it’s not clear what ought to happen next, the DM decides how to apply the rules and adjudicate the story."

Note how it doesn't mention changing any rules. Only that "the DM decides how to apply the rules." The DM has discretion in applying the rules, not in altering them. Further note how it's not a general statement of "the DM decides how to apply the rules," rather a quite limited "When it's not clear what ought to happen next..."

Compare that to page 4 of the 5E DMG:

"And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them."

and

"The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game."

Normalizing things makes them easier. Ignoring or actively erasing things makes them harder.

Again, yes, referees always can and always have house ruled games. It's a question of the expectations of the players. When the books do not mention house rules or the referee having the authority to change the rules, the players expect that to not happen. When the books do mention house rules or the referee having the authority to change the rules, the players expect that to happen.

Doesn't mean that given players will accept specific house rules from any given referee. Just that it's a normal part of the game.

Balance. The eldritch knight has fewer spell slots and doesn't have access to the same incredibly powerful spells full casters get. So it's less of a problem that they get to cast more spells.

Exactly. "Rulings not rules" and "it's your game, house rule it" are a get out of jail free card for the designers. They don't have to work as hard making a well-designed game that interconnects perfectly and just works when they can simply do a good enough job and say, "don't like a rule, change it."

That page is also coincidentally on page 6 of the 3.5 phb but while in the 5e phb it's in an easy to skip/skim Worlds of adventure: using this book section the 3.5 phb it's between character creation & roll ability scores making it a thing with a bit more spotlight

 

[Eric V]

Great example of a very specific without adding any value. Thanks!

Don't even. Your contribution to any thread is always just "Here's what I like!"

 

[overgeeked]

That page is also coincidentally on page 6 of the 3.5 phb but while in the 5e phb it's in an easy to skip/skim Worlds of adventure: using this book section the 3.5 phb it's between character creation & roll ability scores making it a thing with a bit more spotlight

I'll take your word for it as I don't have and never played 3X. It's odd that it's that spotlighted there. A lot of people who seem to really like 3X also seem to be people who really like complex rules and for the referee to not fiddle with things. Stories of players demanding to see the monster's build to verify that the referee actually built a monster to do various things "by the rules" is a common enough example. The referee just saying "this one does" isn't enough, the players need proof that it was built using the monster creation rules to do that thing.

 

[Oofta]

Don't even. Your contribution to any thread is always just "Here's what I like!"

People generally do state their preferences.

I gave my logic and reasoning. I explained why I feel the way I do while providing examples. You can't be bothered to give any detailed examples or explanation. But then it's my fault somehow that I explained what I like?

Oh, and it was just a joke.

Edit: just to be clear, I'm interested in other perspectives. Even if, maybe especially if, someone disagrees. I simply don't see a lot of value in just posting vague generalities with no detail or explanation.

 

[James Gasik]

Reading the 1e PHB (and the DMG) makes it very fuzzy. Interspersed between comments of "the Dungeon Master is the final arbiter" and "make this game your own" are things like "rules not understood should have appropriate questions directed to the publisher" and the infamous admonishments against players ever perusing the contents of the DMG, which thus has "secret rules", or Gary's admonishment that if you alter the rules of the game, you are "not playing Dungeons and Dragons".

Despite that, again, I never met a DM who didn't have house rules, or, at the very least, their own understanding of how the game "should" be played- no matter what the book say.

For example, the 1e PHB says (on page 7): "By means of group co-operation and individual achievement, an adventurer can become ever more powerful. Even death loses much of its sting, for often the character can be resurrected, or reincarnated."

Yet I don't know how many DM's seem to think that players shouldn't grow especially powerful, nor should they be allowed to overcome death at all!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I'll take your word for it as I don't have and never played 3X. It's odd that it's that spotlighted there. A lot of people who seem to really like 3X also seem to be people who really like complex rules and for the referee to not fiddle with things. Stories of players demanding to see the monster's build to verify that the referee actually built a monster to do various things "by the rules" is a common enough example. The referee just saying "this one does" isn't enough, the players need proof that it was built using the monster creation rules to do that thing.

This kind of thing was precisely why 3.x was my least favorite D&D edition. Sure, it had many good things (like finally ditching THAC0), but its power-gamer and rules lawyer empowerment/encouragement was not for me.

(Just a brief aside - please don't think that I am in any-way edition-warring.)

 

[cbwjm]

If you do, congratulations. I don't! So as much as I'd dearly love to take that rule and strangle it to death, I don't, because I don't understand what it's there to prevent!

Probably what I refer to as "The Twin Suns" which is the double fireball that my sorcerer player will sometimes unleash (I ignore the bonus action spellcasting rule).