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

[James Gasik]

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.

At least on ENWorld, I agree, outright derisive statements are rarer, usually it's just a "I don't like 4e because of X", where X is usually not 100% accurate. Now if you went to, say, the Giant in the Playground forums or (shudders) Reddit, it's a whole different kettle of fish.

The way I see it, people who didn't want or ask for 4e are perfectly justified to a point with their scorn (I was once part of this group) and people who liked or wanted more improvements for 4e are equally justified. And if you have legit complaints, like skill challenges being kind of meh, or support for anything that isn't combat being all but nonexistent, or even just not liking the idea of encounter powers (or daily powers on non-casters), or the idea that until you run out of healing surges, you can keep adventuring as long as you get a mandated 5 minute rest between fights- by all means, rant away.

It's when you see people parroting comments like "4e was an MMO" or "every class was exactly the same" that usually make me want to clarify the point.

However, since that just seems to add fuel to the fire, I realize I'm going to have to stop doing that, lol.

 

[Hussar]

While I mostly agree with you, while D&D is the big dog in the room, there's always going to be incentives for people to want their new game to be able to tap that market, if for no other reason than the resistance some people to learning new mechanics.

Oh, I totally agree there. The mentioned Doctor Who game using 5e mechanics is a perfect example of this.

But, it's not billed as a "D&D" game is it? It's billed as it's own thing. Even going back to things like Mutants and Mastermind - while built on the d20 system - it wasn't billed as D&D but with mutants. It was billed as its own game. Using the d20 chassis is perfectly fine. You can get all sorts of games out of that. But, D&D isn't d20. Doctor Who isn't D&D. There are a shopping list of games that aren't D&D that use the 5e base framework. Which is fantastic. I just don't see why we would want or need a D&D that baseline supports all these niches. D&D is not a generic game. It has never billed itself as a generic system. No one has ever claimed that D&D is the baseline system like GURPS or Savage Worlds. The d20 underpinnings of D&D can be used to build all sorts of other games. Great. That's what the OGL is for after all. But, I think that it's not all that necessary to try to pound D&D itself into all these specific genres where a custom built mod of the system would work SO much better.

In other words, Doctor Who probably wouldn't work terribly well with clerics.

 

[James Gasik]

Oh, I totally agree there. The mentioned Doctor Who game using 5e mechanics is a perfect example of this.

But, it's not billed as a "D&D" game is it? It's billed as it's own thing. Even going back to things like Mutants and Mastermind - while built on the d20 system - it wasn't billed as D&D but with mutants. It was billed as its own game. Using the d20 chassis is perfectly fine. You can get all sorts of games out of that. But, D&D isn't d20. Doctor Who isn't D&D. There are a shopping list of games that aren't D&D that use the 5e base framework. Which is fantastic. I just don't see why we would want or need a D&D that baseline supports all these niches. D&D is not a generic game. It has never billed itself as a generic system. No one has ever claimed that D&D is the baseline system like GURPS or Savage Worlds. The d20 underpinnings of D&D can be used to build all sorts of other games. Great. That's what the OGL is for after all. But, I think that it's not all that necessary to try to pound D&D itself into all these specific genres where a custom built mod of the system would work SO much better.

In other words, Doctor Who probably wouldn't work terribly well with clerics.

On the other hand, if you've read the horror that is Castle Greyhawk, you may have encountered Professor Why and his CURDIS...

 

[Minigiant]

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.

Didn't say 5e is low magic.

What I said is 5e is designed to support the DM who runs a LOTR clone game over the majority who run games with standard D&D assumptions.

For example, Monsters are designed as if your DM doesn't use magic items. But most DMs do. So PCs are quickly above the thresholds the game expects them to be at.

 

[Hussar]

I have to admit that this is one of the stranger threads on En World I've seen in a while. Are we actually discussing Palladium? Seriously?

But, as far as monks go, I think that this is a really good example where it needs more play testing. I'm certainly not having the issues that @Mind of tempest is having. Nor am I seeing it in as great light as @Helldritch. The monks I've seen played are pretty much middle of the road - not the stars but, not in the back either. IOW, pretty much fine as they are. But, I think it does need a bit more digging to find out why folks are having the experiences that they are.

 

[James Gasik]

Didn't say 5e is low magic.

What I said is 5e is designed to support the DM who runs a LOTR clone game over the majority who run games with standard D&D assumptions.

For example, Monsters are designed as if your DM doesn't use magic items. But most DMs do. So PCs are quickly above the thresholds the game expects them to be at.

Oh sorry, I misunderstood, when you said it was designed to support that, I was confused, since there's a great deal of magic in the base game.

 

[Hussar]

Didn't say 5e is low magic.

What I said is 5e is designed to support the DM who runs a LOTR clone game over the majority who run games with standard D&D assumptions.

For example, Monsters are designed as if your DM doesn't use magic items. But most DMs do. So PCs are quickly above the thresholds the game expects them to be at.

I can see this. The difference between groups can be really stark depending on what parts of the rules you are using. A no-feat, no magic item game would be a VERY different animal to a full feat, lots of item game. Granted, this part has always been true. Go back to 1e and compare group experience where one DM was really, really stingy with magic items to a group, like mine, that played a lot of modules (most of which absolutely dripped with magic items) and those two groups might as well be playing different games.

I think the issue isn't so much about the design as the lack of transparency. It's been pretty revealed in play what the differences and pitfalls become between groups, but, on paper, you wouldn't really know how much of an effect feats or magic items (or even specific magic items) will have. Give a fighter a flaming sword and you effectively double that characters damage output. Given them a +1 sword and it probably won't have too much of an impact.

And then you can flip it around too. I had a DM who absolutely would not allow my Forge Priest to have a magic weapon at 1st level. Was totally against the idea as too powerful. So, it became a simple +1 non-magical weapon - a sort of high quality thing. It made a difference in exactly 1 encounter across 12 levels. And never minding that a cleric's cantrips are better than weapon attacks anyway, meaning that every cleric in play comes with magic weapons built in.

More clarity in the DMG discussing impacts of the mechanics would not be amiss. LOTS of sidebars please.

 

[James Gasik]

I can see this. The difference between groups can be really stark depending on what parts of the rules you are using. A no-feat, no magic item game would be a VERY different animal to a full feat, lots of item game. Granted, this part has always been true. Go back to 1e and compare group experience where one DM was really, really stingy with magic items to a group, like mine, that played a lot of modules (most of which absolutely dripped with magic items) and those two groups might as well be playing different games.

I think the issue isn't so much about the design as the lack of transparency. It's been pretty revealed in play what the differences and pitfalls become between groups, but, on paper, you wouldn't really know how much of an effect feats or magic items (or even specific magic items) will have. Give a fighter a flaming sword and you effectively double that characters damage output. Given them a +1 sword and it probably won't have too much of an impact.

And then you can flip it around too. I had a DM who absolutely would not allow my Forge Priest to have a magic weapon at 1st level. Was totally against the idea as too powerful. So, it became a simple +1 non-magical weapon - a sort of high quality thing. It made a difference in exactly 1 encounter across 12 levels. And never minding that a cleric's cantrips are better than weapon attacks anyway, meaning that every cleric in play comes with magic weapons built in.

More clarity in the DMG discussing impacts of the mechanics would not be amiss. LOTS of sidebars please.

Yeah, the only sidebar on this topic I remember seeing was in Xanathar's, where it talks about the problems martial characters face if they don't have magical weapons, and how abilities like the Monk's to overcome physical resistance become much more powerful as a result.

 

[Minigiant]

I have to admit that this is one of the stranger threads on En World I've seen in a while. Are we actually discussing Palladium? Seriously?

But, as far as monks go, I think that this is a really good example where it needs more play testing. I'm certainly not having the issues that @Mind of tempest is having. Nor am I seeing it in as great light as @Helldritch. The monks I've seen played are pretty much middle of the road - not the stars but, not in the back either. IOW, pretty much fine as they are. But, I think it does need a bit more digging to find out why folks are having the experiences that they are.

I believe the whole monk thing is the monk being special only in look.

The monk is not best in any of the major categories or roles of a D&D class not is it best at a combination of categories/roles. So it feels pointless outside of fluff and feels unnatural in-world.

THEN you add in that the monk doesn't match any modern representation of a fantasy martial artist and BOOM!

It isn't a class that sits near the top of anything mechanically AND it doesn't really do what you want it to. It becomes a case of being unable to strongly translate a cool idea in your head to the table.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Which is really pretty funny since frequent magic-item drops go all the way back to OD&D. You might not have much control what you ended up with, but as an example, by the time you were hitting 8th level you probably were handing off magic swords to henchmen if you rolled that way because you had so many of them. And it was, while not likely, entirely possible for a Staff of Wizardry to drop as soon as the tables that had staves on them showed up (and that wasn't all that late).