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

[Nightfly]

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.

Good heavens, that kind of thing happened? I consider myself a chill DM but I would throw a player out of my table if he pulled a stunt like that.

 

[James Gasik]

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).

Personally I think that's incredible, and a reason to put up with the limitations of the Sorcerer...plus, I mean, if players want to burn spell slots faster, I'll tell them not to come crying to me when they run out!

But that's really secondary to the point. I don't want to have to have 6 pages of house rules, because I know that will just confuse most players. Building a game that sometimes seems to require house rules to work* and then charging me 50 bucks a rulebook seems pretty disingenuous.

*This is just an opinion, before there's 9 posts telling me the game works just fine for the posters without any house rules whatsoever, and that I'm wrong, etc. etc.. This is thread where I'm allowed to gripe about 5e!

 

[James Gasik]

Good heavens, that kind of thing happened? I consider myself a chill DM but I would throw a player out of my table if he pulled a stunt like that.

I agree, I've never seen that exact situation occur in all the years I played 3.5/PF1e. Now, what has happened is disputes about whether or not a monster ability is being used correctly- but if you want to create or modify your own beastie, saying "oh but that's not an official monster built by the rules" seems pretty far out there.

However. However! I have met some really terrible players and DM's over the years, in each and every edition, so I know this stuff does happen. At which point, I take the advice in the 1e PHB to heart- if I don't like the way the Dungeon Master rules things, I can always leave and make my own campaign!

 

[Oofta]

Good heavens, that kind of thing happened? I consider myself a chill DM but I would throw a player out of my table if he pulled a stunt like that.

I had a player who would question me on this kind of stuff now and then. I would just shrug and tell him that the monster was working as designed and that if he wanted to be DM instead to let me know.

 

[James Gasik]

Well I've mentioned it a few times today, maybe it needs to be posted for posterity.

 

[Malmuria]

But that's really secondary to the point. I don't want to have to have 6 pages of house rules, because I know that will just confuse most players. Building a game that sometimes seems to require house rules to work* and then charging me 50 bucks a rulebook seems pretty disingenuous.

I don’t think rules-lite games are incomplete; it just means that the fundamental mechanics are simple so as to allow adjudication in the moment. That is, as a GM you don’t need the 6 pages of house rules, you just use the basic mechanics of the system and come up with a ruling on the spot to deal with a particular situation. And actually where 5e falls short for me is not in the core mechanics, which themselves only amount to about 15 pages, but the exceptions to those mechanics in the form of class/monster abilities and spells, which actually take up most of what you are buying for $50. The more of those you add, the more weird interactions you create that make the base game less consistent. This is why play “breaks down” post 10th level, because now play is as much about exceptions to the basic mechanics as adherence to them.

 

[Nightfly]

This is why play “breaks down” post 10th level, because now play is as much about exceptions to the basic mechanics as adherence to them.

This is an interesting point. I don't think the level 16 game I'm running has "broken down", but I can't completely disagree with you either. At the minimum, it's a lot harder to challenge players now.

 

[Ondath]

This is an interesting point. I don't think the level 16 game I'm running has "broken down", but I can't completely disagree with you either. At the minimum, it's a lot harder to challenge players now.

I'm currently running two high-level games and it's definitely a different beast than below Level 10. My level 14 party needed to escort a wounded mage across a battlefield last session, but the party Wizard just decided to burn their 7th level spell slot and teleport the mage to the finishing line immediately. The amount of mobility and alternate tools for solving problems that high-level PCs get is certainly tough to design around.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Rules lite games aren't incomplete. Fate, Blades in the Dark; Rules Lite, perfectly fine.

Incomplete games that are purposefully incomplete because they were just going to be a placeholder for IP, drafted by a skeleton crew that are declared to be rules lite by the fans after the fact are incomplete.

 

[DND_Reborn]

This is an interesting point. I don't think the level 16 game I'm running has "broken down", but I can't completely disagree with you either. At the minimum, it's a lot harder to challenge players now.

I've only run one game to level 20, but never really had any issue making the game challenging for them.

Also didn't have a problem challenging the level 20 party in the final Vecna battle.

The amount of mobility and alternate tools for solving problems that high-level PCs get is certainly tough to design around.

It can be tough, but IME the game just gets to be higher stakes, higher power, etc. The challenges must change, but they're still out there.