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

[glass]

It's an "apology edition" that has outsold every other edition and continues grow.

Amazes me how far people go out of their way to minimize just how successful the game is.

As far as being bland I simply disagree. I will say that it's flexibility for modifications is one of it's strengths.

Can it not be successful because it's good? It's by far my favorite edition. The people I talked into playing all ended up loving it

Of course it is "good". Nobody believes that it would likely have had the kind of success it had if it was terrible. But while "good" may be necessary for the kind of unprecedented success, it is not sufficient.

3. It was made by haterz! Who sabotaged some mechanics due to reasons and agendas. And no one knows any better

6. Lucky marketing and world events made it successful.

3 is partially true, albeit put in a way that is deliberately disrespectful and belittling of people who people who point out, quite legitimately, that Mike Mearls repeated tired old edition-warrior talking points in official WotC communications.

6 is self-evidently true.

Not sure why you are listing those alongside 1, 2, 4, & 5, which appear to be men of straw.

But this whole "if people were smart and knowledge they'd want something different [insert other game or edition]"* is just silly.

Another straw man.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Wow, HARD disagree from me. Maybe I'm just a grognard, but I adore that fact that 5e began with pretty much the traditional D&D classes (plus warlock, I guess) and then never expanded. There's the artificer, which in theory is only in one setting, and that's been it. Good! Bloat is bad.

One of the turnoffs of Pathfinder to me is that there are all these oddball classes like Witch, Magus, Investigator (?), Kineticist (??), and Gunslinger (yuck). If I sat down for a Pathfinder game, I might have no earthly clue what anyone else in my party was playing. No disrespect to Pathfinder, but that's not what I want in my D&D. I feel like all those weirdo classes should just be subtypes of fighter or wizard or whatever, as Crom intended.

But I'm just a crusty old man, don't mind me.

I'd be fine with that if subclasses actually had a big impact on how the main class played. But for many classes the subclass is this tiny flavour thing.

So any cool mechanics which would suit that character concept need to be watered down, delayed to high level, or removed entirely in order to work. Making them immensely unsatisfying to play compared to a dedicated class.

Which is why we still have weekly 'arcanegishwen?' thread despite there being an absolute ton of arcane gish subclasses. Because not a single one of them plays as nicely as that of a full class in prior editions.

It's why we have weekly 'warlordwen?' threads as well. Because there isn't a single support focused martial class, and trying to glue it onto fighter means that you're still better off running in and hitting things. Which isn't what a warlord is meant to do.

I definitely don't want to go back to 3.5 levels of classes. That was just awful. But for me, 20 classes or a bit under would be ideal. With warlord, swordmage, psion, and beastmaster/summoner deserving their own concepts.

 

[Hussar]

My take on classes and subclasses is that the entire system needs an adjustment. Which, unfortunately, I don't think will happen, but, I think it would help a lot. The fact that some classes start out with subclasses at level 1 and some at level 3 just skews the whole system.

There should be like three base chassis classes - just for levels 1 and 2, with level 3 being the subclass specialization where you get most of the meat of the class itself. So, you start with three base chassis - martial, half caster, full caster. Then, at 3rd level, you become a Paladin (with a specific subclass) or a Ranger (Hunter) or a Fighter (Battlemaster) or a Wizard (Conjurer) or whatever.

It would make things so much easier to design going forward. But, again, standardization like this would have been very much a bridge too far in 2013 during the Next play testing because it would have had FAR too many 4e cooties on it. But, it really would resolve about 99% of the issues with classes if they did this. And then just suggest that if you want to skip the "Apprentice" levels of 1 and 2, just start at 3rd level and off you go.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Not to deride your opinion, it's perfectly valid if you don't like more classes, but I've been playing for quite awhile myself, and I recall early D&D being absolutely lousy with classes- for awhile it felt like every issue of Dragon was offering up Witches, Ninjas, Scouts, Druids of Rhiannon, and the like, as if the existing Fighters, Paladins, Monks, Bards, Wizards, Thieves, Assassins, Illusionists, Clerics, Druids, Thief-Acrobats, Barbarians, and Cavaliers weren't enough to go around.

Even Basic had Avengers, Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Mystics, Shamans, Shamani, and more.

yeah new base classes was always part of what kept D&D fresh and new for me... and something (only partially) that is limiting 5e to me

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Let’s see:

1. WOTC purposely hid flaws to trick people

I don't remember anyone saying this

2. The success is a fluke and it’s only a matter of time (a Decade plus, apparently) until the wheels come off

this is a weird way of saying what you say in pt 6.... almsot seems like you don't get the idea.

3. It was made by haterz! Who sabotaged some mechanics due to reasons and agendas. And no one knows any better

no it was made by fans... but not the best they could.

4. People just haven’t had long enough with the game. Despite its ongoing success, people are leaving in droves due to detection of hidden flaws, finally

wait... who said people are leaving (I know my group is getting ready too but the 2024 announcment and spelljammer are holding us here)

5. People just don’t know better. They will see how limited they are if they just spend a little more time with it and defect.

again I don't think anyone said this...

6. Lucky marketing and world events made it successful.

I mean what could dispute this... if it was the best made edition or the worst made edition (I think it falls inbetween FYI) it STILL benfited by world events and got lucky... and there is no shame in that it is ALWAYS better to be lucky then good.

Or….

It has been well received and well liked. Look at the data and be the judge.

the fact that it has been well received and well like (and that metric is making money) is once again going to lead to Batman V Superman not only being one of the best comic book movies, but one of the top 20 best movies ever made... and even FANs of that movie would be hard pressed to argue it as one of the 20 best movies of all time (I like it more then most critics, but I didn't put it in my top 10 superhero movies)

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I

I don't remember anyone saying this

this is a weird way of saying what you say in pt 6.... almsot seems like you don't get the idea.

no it was made by fans... but not the best they could.

wait... who said people are leaving (I know my group is getting ready too but the 2024 announcment and spelljammer are holding us here)

again I don't think anyone said this...

I mean what could dispute this... if it was the best made edition or the worst made edition (I think it falls inbetween FYI) it STILL benfited by world events and got lucky... and there is no shame in that it is ALWAYS better to be lucky then good.

the fact that it has been well received and well like (and that metric is making money) is once again going to lead to Batman V Superman not only being one of the best comic book movies, but one of the top 20 best movies ever made... and even FANs of that movie would be hard pressed to argue it as one of the 20 best movies of all time (I like it more then most critics, but I didn't put it in my top 10 superhero movies)

I think these things have been said in the “is 5e special!?” Thread. Thinly veiled at times perhaps.

As to the metric of sales…it’s imperfect. Sales and customer satisfaction don’t always make it right. But it’s what we have.

In contrast? No data. Just a minority opinion saying the game is not all that and the suggestion that less popular iterations did more right.

I accept that is an opinion. But dirty data is what we have. We have longevity, sales (both unprecedented) and a lot of positive customer reaction from all age groups…grogs, kids, new players.

Vs?

“I don’t like it.”

I have some issues with 5e. I don’t think its perfect at all. At one time I was feeling done with it but over time that changed.

The truth is simple: we have not operationalized what good or special really means.

But I have erred on bringing that perhaps to this thread.

In conclusion , I do not think broad enduring appeal means it’s good per se. My musical tastes suggest that I don’t always just follow the top 40 (ok ever).

The success of 5e is multiply determined. There are many slices of the pie. Variance due to marketing, historical events…and popular opinion about what a wise cross section wants from the game.

If what people seem to want is at odds with what some think is “good” I can only shrug. A lot of people from all cohorts genuinely seem to enjoy this iteration of the game.

What percentage of this is due to matching what people want? That is the big question. If they are matching what people want….I don’t really see the downside there. Define their tastes and goals as you will. I don’t have data or a way to value what a lot of people seem to like here.

When I talk about iterations I don’t like, I can tell you what my impressions might be. Clunky, lacking variety/choice, feel. And the retort from a subset of people is “no way!” “It is not!”

So if not just opinion, what can we use? I am not rhetorically asking! I would like to see the other side of things and see if it makes sense to me. My opinion has changed before…

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think these things have been said in the “is 5e special!?” Thread. Thinly veiled at times perhaps.

try taking what people say not what you think they are saying and this will go better.

As to the metric of sales…it’s imperfect. Sales and customer satisfaction don’t always make it right. But it’s what we have.

I mean we don't even have that... we have a telephone game of guestemits...

In contrast? No data. Just a minority opinion saying the game is not all that and the suggestion that less popular iterations did more right.

we don't know who is the minority... heck WotC is spending big bucks and even THEY most likely wont know for sure.

I accept that is an opinion. But dirty data is what we have. We have longevity, sales (both unprecedented) and a lot of positive customer reaction from all age groups…grogs, kids, new players.

and again... we don't have as much as you think we do. We know that every edition out sold the one before it (source WotC) we also know that we are bringing back some old players from older editions (exact % unknown)... what we DON'T know is if they are happy in the long term or if this will keep growing or hit a platu or down swing.

Vs?
“I don’t like it.”

it is more like "I like it" vs "I don't like it" but with both manipulating the small bits of data we almost have to suit themselves...

I have some issues with 5e. I don’t think its perfect at all. At one time I was feeling done with it but over time that changed.

for me and mine we were ready to quite when tasha'a was announced and again right before 2024 edition was announced... if this news is true we will most likely move to a new system.

So if not just opinion, what can we use? I am not rhetorically asking!

we can only use opinion... but some people (on all sides) try to pretend they have been handed the 1 true truth from on high and can PROVE there opinion is the right one...

I would like to see the other side of things and see if it makes sense to me. My opinion has changed before…

 

[Thomas Shey]

Not to deride your opinion, it's perfectly valid if you don't like more classes, but I've been playing for quite awhile myself, and I recall early D&D being absolutely lousy with classes- for awhile it felt like every issue of Dragon was offering up Witches, Ninjas, Scouts, Druids of Rhiannon, and the like, as if the existing Fighters, Paladins, Monks, Bards, Wizards, Thieves, Assassins, Illusionists, Clerics, Druids, Thief-Acrobats, Barbarians, and Cavaliers weren't enough to go around.

Even Basic had Avengers, Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Mystics, Shamans, Shamani, and more.

Even more if you count all the custom classes that popped up in OD&D era. When you have a narrow class system, the only way to represent things off the beaten path is a brand new class, so that's exactly what happened.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Exactly.
"Everything as a subclass" only works if you designed it to work that way. 5e wasn't. Subclasses have inconsistent or insufficient design space. Ranger and Sorcerer straight up got more spells. Now they want to try 1st level feats.

It's clear proof that 5e'ssubclasses wasn't designed with enough design space for a "no new classes" policy.

I feel like the fact that they were clearly trying to design new classes in the beginning is proof of that.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

To me, it seems 1st and 4th level feats slid in this role because crossclass subclasses flopped in UA.

Crossclass subclasses flopped in UA because the designers didn't design subclasses equally in weight. Same reason why "Everything is a subclass" didn't work. The 5e subclass system was only futureproofed a tiny bit. That's why everything in TCOE is so much more powerful. The limits were hit fast. The story of 5e.

I happen to agree with you on the limits of design space for subclasses. But ... c'mon! The limits were hit fast? The story of 5e?

Let's try and put things in a little bit of perspective.

5e is, far and away, the most popular version of D&D ever. Even adjusting for population, inflation, and cultural ubiquity, it's passed early 80s AD&D.

Tasha's was released in November, 2020. The 5e PHB was released August, 2014.

That gives it more than six years before Tasha's. "5.5e," when it appears (2024) looks to be fully compatible with 5e. So ten years in, we will be running the same system. And it will have been refreshed to continue on.

That means that in terms of time, 5e is moving into 1e territory (1977/79 - 1989) and with the refresh, will move into the combined 1e/2e territory.

That doesn't mean that all the design decisions were good, or infinitely flexible, or work for everyone- but I just can't agree with the bolded parts.