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

[Hussar]

I really wonder if I play the same game as you folks. The absolutes that I see get thrown around are just mind blowing.

Answer me this. If monks and rangers are so bad, why are they so commonly played? Years after release both are still middle of the pack for numbers played.

If the issues were as bad as people claim, one would think that no one would play these classes.

 

[Helldritch]

5e is heroic not superheroic. Outside of toughness and spells, 5e is very tame.

You don't get to do the feats of action movies, video games, anime, comics, and cartoons. PCs and NPCs are slow, have full reactions, and lack inhuman strength, intelligence, wisdom, and charm.

Full heal over night is pretty much super hero for me and a lot of posters here.
Super human strength? A fighter with 20 strength is stronger than... an ogre at 19... That should say a lot.

I don't wanna be that guy but 4e managed to get a fantastic monk, TWO types of beastmsters, and action movie fighter, rangers, and rogues in it's first try. And a druid that was playable by new players (oh man is the 5e druid complex).

And them being easy to fix is the point. The 5e designers didn't put emphasis on fixing them until their was a backlash. Almost everything nontraditional in 5e was printed with issues, came years later, or is still in testing.

Ahem... Why did they released the essentials to cover their mistakes as they said that: "Essentials are what 4ed should have been all along."
4ed had its issues as well. But as a fan of 4ed, it worked better from the get go than 5ed at low levels. It is after a few levels ('round 11th) that the seams start to appear and crack. Claims that all classes were more or less the same with only the names of powers that was changed from one class to the other were not entirely off tracks. The Essentials corrected a lot of the sameness but it was too little too late.

 

[Horwath]

I really wonder if I play the same game as you folks. The absolutes that I see get thrown around are just mind blowing.

Answer me this. If monks and rangers are so bad, why are they so commonly played? Years after release both are still middle of the pack for numbers played.

If the issues were as bad as people claim, one would think that no one would play these classes.

because they are fun and iconic concepts.

and that is all that is going for them.

same as dual wield, it's looks cool. the end.

played both monk and ranger, and both needed to be house ruled.

ranger pretty light, just replacing favored terrain and enemy with something reliable.

but monk:
d8->d10
martial arts die increase by one step, 1d4 going to 1d10 improved to 1d6 going to 1d12.
+1 skill proficiency
light armor proficiency(can use light armor and dex or armor and wis or dex and wis)
wis mod to ki points
can use any melee weapon as monk weapon.

that is just to bring it to mid level.

 

[d24454_modern]

Full heal over night is pretty much super hero for me and a lot of posters here.
Super human strength? A fighter with 20 strength is stronger than... an ogre at 19... That should say a lot.


Ahem... Why did they released the essentials to cover their mistakes as they said that: "Essentials are what 4ed should have been all along."
4ed had its issues as well. But as a fan of 4ed, it worked better from the get go than 5ed at low levels. It is after a few levels ('round 11th) that the seams start to appear and crack. Claims that all classes were more or less the same with only the names of powers that was changed from one class to the other were not entirely off tracks. The Essentials corrected a lot of the sameness but it was too little too late.

Strength is determined by both the Score and the actual size of the creature, not to mention bigger creatures can use bigger melee weapons.

Ogres are still stronger.

 

[Helldritch]

Yeah.

The PHB barbarian's only nonmagical subclass is bad.
The PHB monk is only good at stun locked BBEGs and the subclass based on a newer IP doesn't work as expected.
The PHB ranger was designed for a exploration sunsystem that doesn't exist and should have been made more skill or combat focused if they weren't gonna print exploration mechanics.
The PHB sorcerer has too few spells known and sorcery points. And there was little design dive into the sorcery points mechanic and the concept of sorcery.
The PHB warlock Pact of the Blade doesn't do what anyone who wanted a blade using warlock to do.

The PHB bard got luck that they gave up on JOAT or music magic and made it a full caster. And the PHB paladin relies on Divine Smite being really strong.

Sure many of these issues were fixed. However since the classes were designed more for traditional D&D, it left little leeway for wiggling around in the skeleton. So with a "no class errata" policy, nearly all the nontraditional options early in the game is clearly weaker.

The Berzerker is the favourite barb in my games.
The monk only needed wisdom bonuses to be added to ki to work as intended. Try the Kensai and you'll see.
PHB ranger was fine. Just remove concentration from Hunter's Mark for single classed ranger and you got it fine. Make it so that the beast will follow the last order until it no longer can and all of a sudden the beast master is fixed.
The sorcerer just needed to add charisma bonuses to spell point.
Warlock needed no adjustment. It is really strong but we removed concentration from Hex for single classed warlock and here you go.
Bards should not have been in the PBH. Should have been half casters as a subclass of the rogue.
Paladin ... do not touch the paladin.

 

[Helldritch]

Strength is determined by both the Score and the actual size of the creature, not to mention bigger creatures can use bigger melee weapons.

Ogres are still stronger.

Mechanically, the ogres does 2d8 +4 dmg. (13 dmg)
The fighter with a two handed sword does 2d6 +5 dmg. (12 dmg)
At one point less, without using the dread feat, I'd say the fighter gets the upper hand as any two weapon fighter will use the feat. And what if the fighter gets enlarged?

 

[Horwath]

Mechanically, the ogres does 2d8 +4 dmg. (13 dmg)
The fighter with a two handed sword does 2d6 +5 dmg. (12 dmg)
At one point less, without using the dread feat, I'd say the fighter gets the upper hand as any two weapon fighter will use the feat. And what if the fighter gets enlarged?

to be fair ogre would use a large greatsword for 4d6 damage so it is 18 vs 12.

 

[Shardstone]

Ahh. Sorry. Now I understand the confusion.

I totally agree with you. I love the ideas you have here.

But I’m also realistic enough to understand why WotC isnt going to do it. .

This is t about what I want. It’s about understanding the reasons why you’re not going to get what you want.

Oh well in that case, yes, I fully understand why we'll never get Half-Dragons as opposed to Dragonborn. Just wish Dragonborn had a bit mor metal aesthetic.

 

[overgeeked]

--- The game has one dial and it's called dis/advantage.

This is one that confuses me. There's a lot more than just dis/advantage at play. Auto success, auto failure, the entire range of DCs, the full range of static modifiers, dice modifiers...one of which is dis/advantage...along with anything else the referee can think of. The referee can fiddle with any of those, stack and manipulate them however they wish, etc.

The problem being once that dial has been turned there is no use trying anything else creative at all.

A lack of creativity is a lack of creativity. No system can make people creative. And if players are only being creative if it gives them some carved-in-stone, by-the-book mechanical advantage...that's a problem of refereeing. The referee should be rewarding creativity will any and all of the above and beyond.

 

[Oofta]

yeah, most people could agree that, PHB atleast, monk is unsalvageable, ranger is horrible and rogue is just the best of the worst 3.

Gloomstalker and Tasha's options saved the ranger, Scout became rogue/ranger hybrid(No.1 skill monkey), mercy monk barely put monk into playable category. Or maybe I am too generous with monk here.

Wow. Unplayable? So the guy in my game is just pretending to play a monk? One of the PCs on Critical Role is just that good an actor? My monk that I'm playing that regularly does the most damage in a round is just an illusion?

Good to know.