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

[Helldritch]

Because it utterly fails to do what it should. The rules are awful, magic terribad, and copy-pasta tables in different formats. All horrible. Mechanics don't match fluff. Magic etc should ge the first level of play, then when you do Heroes Unlimited, this should be dropped and all powers draw from the same source. And powers should be balanced.

This is not the case.

Truth be told, there have been threads over at rpg.net where people discussed getting new rules and new powers for heroes. The general agreement is that we would all play it to death.

And yet, it sells. This means that people playing with the game system are actually getting what they want.
And your appreciation of the system (and those whom you mention) is just that. An appreciation. That you like it or not is irrelevant. It still sells and it still have its fans. Heck, they even started to make hardcover books of their best sellers now. And guess what? They sell. So there are people out there that thinks that the Palladium System is better than D&D and it is their taste. I do like it myself, but I do think D&D is superior in its simplicity. But this is only my appreciation.

 

[Minigiant]

Speaking of genre.

One thing wrong with 5e.


The base game was designed first to support a low magic fearless, magic item less, system.

However most groups use:

1. Magic spells
2. Feats
3. Magic items

So a lot of the assumptions of challenges and customization are off. Forcing more work on DMs

 

[Helldritch]

focused damage deal is not the fundamental fantasy of the martial artist, mages are rare enemy and boss are built or modified to solve the weakness, scout is also not the main goal of the monk.

aside from the monk's inability to use its cool stuff as much as it should they get really samey over time, they should have more options and lots of good options.

this is not coming from someone who wants the monk gone I want it to finally be all it can be.

Mages and cleric are common enemies. Cultists are there, warlocks too. Do not judge the monk by how your games go. Mine see a lot of casters as enemies. Most encounters are built with three to five different types of enemies. A few melee types, a few ranged type and sometimes casters (arcane and divine) and a few strikers such as roguish types or whatever. The monk shines when the three later types shows up. And when a boss is there, well, I saw enough to know that the monk is dangerous.

For the inability... Just add wisdom to Ki. It does wonders!

The monk can be anything it wants to be. But it might not be to your tastes. The main problems of the monk are not at low to mid levels. They start around level 11-12 where they fall a bit below the curve. We will see if the adjustments we want to introduce pass the test.

 

[Helldritch]

Speaking of genre.

One thing wrong with 5e.


The base game was designed first to support a low magic fearless, magic item less, system.

However most groups use:

1. Magic spells
2. Feats
3. Magic items

So a lot of the assumptions of challenges and customization are off. Forcing more work on DMs

You are sooooo right on that one. This is quite the opposite I see.
100% of all the DMs / Tables I am aware of use: Feat, Magic Items and have Magic spells. For something that was supposed to be "optional" the option is pretty much the norm.
Maybe a change will come in 2024?

 

[Minigiant]

You are sooooo right on that one. This is quite the opposite I see.
100% of all the DMs / Tables I am aware of use: Feat, Magic Items and have Magic spells. For something that was supposed to be "optional" the option is pretty much the norm.
Maybe a change will come in 2024?

This is one example of where 5e catered to a certain group or groups so hard that they messed up the base game

They designed some of the base classes and races so bland, single focused, or lack of breadth that feats, spellcasting and magic items became near mandatory to evoke the identity of your Player character.

 

[Rogerd1]

And yet, it sells. This means that people playing with the game system are actually getting what they want.
And your appreciation of the system (and those whom you mention) is just that. An appreciation. That you like it or not is irrelevant. It still sells and it still have its fans. Heck, they even started to make hardcover books of their best sellers now. And guess what? They sell. So there are people out there that thinks that the Palladium System is better than D&D and it is their taste. I do like it myself, but I do think D&D is superior in its simplicity. But this is only my appreciation.

Those buying it are by and large the hardcore fans. Many of whom hate the MDC aspect of the game. Just go look at the PB boards.

Here's another set of facts you selectively failed to mention, some of their products are vapour ware, others extremely late. In fact did they not at one time put out 2-3 products per year, now barely one.

Other issue is KS being a litigious A-hole, preventing a lot of fan sites, which only in later years seems to be less of a thing. And let's not forget KS begging for fans to support them with money.

And I suspect it only survives due to deals with Pinnacle based upon Savage Rifts. So your statement is somewhat nebulous.

 

[Oofta]

Well it usually goes like this:

Step 1- Discussion.
Step 2- Strays into mechanics.
Step 3a- Someone says something derisive about 4e mechanics.
Step 3b- Someone says something positive about 4e mechanics.
Step 4- Someone else expresses an opposing opinion.
Step 5- This is now a 4e thread.

I agree, but I don't see a lot of "derisive" statements. Seems like frequently anything not positive is taken in the most negative light possible.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Mages and cleric are common enemies. Cultists are there, warlocks too. Do not judge the monk by how your games go. Mine see a lot of casters as enemies. Most encounters are built with three to five different types of enemies. A few melee types, a few ranged type and sometimes casters (arcane and divine) and a few strikers such as roguish types or whatever. The monk shines when the three later types shows up. And when a boss is there, well, I saw enough to know that the monk is dangerous.

For the inability... Just add wisdom to Ki. It does wonders!

The monk can be anything it wants to be. But it might not be to your tastes. The main problems of the monk are not at low to mid levels. They start around level 11-12 where they fall a bit below the curve. We will see if the adjustments we want to introduce pass the test.

cleric do not even have a foe stat block and most mage enemies are bosses so not common.
why should you be allowed to judge the monk by your game and I not?

I add wisdom as a ki multiplier but that does not change the basic class needs an overhaul.

it can not be anything it wants it is stuck being the destroyer an utterly irrelevant set of novels these days, I would carve it to better fit its cultural inspirations for a start.

at a low level it is forced to be basic as for some reason martial classes have to be the kid's table given how technical martial art is and the number of real mundane moves before we get into the hyper flashy mystical stuff is utterly massive it should be a very varied set of options.

 

[James Gasik]

Speaking of genre.

One thing wrong with 5e.


The base game was designed first to support a low magic fearless, magic item less, system.

However most groups use:

1. Magic spells
2. Feats
3. Magic items

So a lot of the assumptions of challenges and customization are off. Forcing more work on DMs

Is it really a low magic game? Even without items, most classes use magic, five of them can use 9th level spells, and even the classes that don't use magic have a magic using option.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Is it really a low magic game? Even without items, most classes use magic, five of them can use 9th level spells, and even the classes that don't use magic have a magic using option.

D&D's relationship via a certain corner of the fanbase that necessitated the Final Destination, Fox Only, No Items mode of design have a strained relationship with magic and fantasy.

Magic is fine if it is in discreet packages doled out in an attrition-based system. But permanent magic items that can be purchased and crafted in an in-game economy, or naturally occurring magic or non-magical fantastic elements are too magical.

So you get this weird result where 'the christmas tree effect' is a bridge too far in a game where a dude can exist as the eye of a hurricane of lasers and explosions.