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

[Minigiant]

Is there anything in 5e you do like? If you like some parts, why do you think you personally need to like all aspects even though many others do enjoy things you do not?

I like a whole lot about 5e.

To me 5e feels like a star player on a team with a few good teammates. But the coach and team owner are forcing them to play their way against their strengths.

Watching something be held back due to biases irks me.

 

[DND_Reborn]

You're not wrong, and yet, we hear this sort of thing about Monks more than most other classes.

I suppose. We generally only have one player who plays monks routinely (along with paladins). Others play on occasion, however.

But I certainly won't discount your experience can certainly be different!

 

[James Gasik]

I suppose. We generally only have one player who plays monks routinely (along with paladins). Others play on occasion, however.

But I certainly won't discount your experience can certainly be different!

I mean, I for one had a mostly terrible experience playing a Sorcerer, but all my other characters were pretty much fine (well I had a few hiccups early in my Wizard's career, but that was my own fault for playing a 14 Int Tabaxi Wizard, lol).

And some people do complain about Sorcerers, to be sure. But it seems like if people are going to argue about a class, it's usually Fighter, Monk, and Wizard.

Maybe that's worth a poll thread...

 

[Eric V]

Is there anything in 5e you do like? If you like some parts, why do you think you personally need to like all aspects even though many others do enjoy things you do not?

Yo, check the title of the thread. He's responding accordingly.

 

[Retreater]

Okay, I haven't read through the previous 30 pages of posts - just answering the original question (and apologies if I'm repeating anyone else).
1) Bonus actions are confusing and slow down gameplay
2) Monsters don't get enough interesting actions/abilities.
3) The default challenge level (beyond 3rd level) doesn't scale well and gets too easy.
4) There are not enough customization choices for characters after 1st level.
5) Hit points are too high (or damage is too low). Combats take too long and aren't dynamic/stressful enough without a lot of DM work.
6) The official adventures aren't very good.
7) Overall, the art is not evocative and is very "copy and paste" feeling.
8) There is nothing to spend gold on.
9) Healing Word - bonus action, ranged heal, makes it difficult to feel any kind of stress if a character drops to 0 HP.
10) Nearly every class has access to spells; most classes can heal.
11) Full HP recovered after a long rest.
12) The optional rule of Flanking granting advantage is OP. (But having no flanking is not satisfying either.)
13) Psionics were not implemented in the way I'd like.
14) I haven't found solid 3PP 5e content yet. (We don't have the glut of 3.x d20 stuff, but I don't think we've seen the highs of products like we did with some of the Necromancer Games, Goodman Games' DCC modules, Paizo's d20 compatible stuff, Malhavoc Press.)
15) WotC hasn't used the system for other genres (sci-fi, modern, horror, post-apocalyptic, etc.) nor given much help for DMs wanting to run adjacent genres (mythic heroism, Age of Sail)

 

[Oofta]

But that argument leads to never changing anything, of course.

So if someone doesn't like something, whether they're in the minority or not, it should be changed?

Why is it that people that like the way things are are always the bad guys but people who want change are always right?

 

[Hussar]

One could argue it's because the majority of players are what are sometimes called "casuals" and simply don't care about these things, no matter how real the issues are. It's an attitude that has allowed WotC to justify not fixing their own game.

Proof please.

One could just as easily say that white board theory crafting, while good for identifying potential problems, is not proof of actual problems and that no problem actually exists.

It’s such an elitist position to take. “Oh if you were just a real gamer and not some casual, you’d obviously understand the problem”. It’s based on nothing.

Where’s your evidence? Have you tracked class performance over time across hundreds or thousands of tables? Or is this just yet another “oh well in my experience “ ball of nothing?

 

[Hussar]

People play what they like regardless of effectiveness. Rangers were one of the more popular Everquest characters despite being a DPS class that dealt roughly 1/3 the damage of everyone else. Because OMG Bows!

Then obviously by that argument balance is a non-issue and should be ignored. Why are you yucking in other people’s yum?

Again, evidence please. Not theory crafting but actual evidence.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

So if someone doesn't like something, whether they're in the minority or not, it should be changed?

Why is it that people that like the way things are are always the bad guys but people who want change are always right?

Because no one forces you to use an ability or even write it on your sheet. This goes double for alt class features or feats.

Also, opponents of changes frequently don't even play the classes in question, and try and dictate other player's characters based on their taste. See those who shout down a warlord, mythic martial class, etc.

 

[Helldritch]

I mean, I for one had a mostly terrible experience playing a Sorcerer, but all my other characters were pretty much fine (well I had a few hiccups early in my Wizard's career, but that was my own fault for playing a 14 Int Tabaxi Wizard, lol).

And some people do complain about Sorcerers, to be sure. But it seems like if people are going to argue about a class, it's usually Fighter, Monk, and Wizard.

Maybe that's worth a poll thread...

Well, I don't know. With the little patch we did by allowing monks and sorcerers their related stat bonus to add up to ki or sorcery points we pretty much alleviated the problem. Heck, our monk of the 4 elements is currently the star of the group damage wise and utility wise. She is the scout, the top damage dealer, the trap disabler and get to pick locks to top that up. She almost feel way too OP. We know that when the fighter gets to level 5, things will even out a bit but so far, she is the star of the group. The wizard even complained that his sole utility is to use ritual to read languages written on the walls of the dungeon and to identify magical items. The monk even took alchemy. So potion identification/creation is also a thing she can do.
Who would have thought that the feat skilled with the criminal background would have made such a polyvalent character... Sometimes it is only how the character is built and how the DM will buy into the character concept and how ready he is to allow for the rule of cool to work. And I really like the rule of cool.