D
dco
Guest
Because you like how it is, other people prefer things in another way and dedicate their time to change them, and others don't waste their time and play other games. Nothing new under the sun.
D&D 5E Why can’t I find anything wrong with 5e?
- Thread starter orderofthings
- Start date
abirdcall
(she/her)
I think the degree of the problem is important.
I think 5e's problems are mostly small ones. The 4 Elements Monk for example is not well designed. The base Monk is so it is still a character that works in play. The problem is that the subclass doesn't meet its goals. You get a Monk, you just don't get a Monk that is good at using the elements. There are also a bunch of Monk subclasses that do work including a rework in the Sun Soul. So it's a minor problem.
Another problem is that 4d6-L doesn't work, especially with feats. Getting an ASI is great, unless you have already maxed out your stats. It stifles character progression. Rolling for hit points can also be disastrous because of how important HP are in the balance of the game. The good news is that there are rules for both point buy and taking a fixed amount of HP. So it's a minor problem. It's fun to have randomness in character creation, but the default rules don't work well.
These are about the biggest problems I can think of that I have with it, and they are both minor as far as rules problems go. 5e is designed to be played at the table and for that play to be a smooth and enjoyable experience. It succeeds at that goal so the minor hiccups in the rules don't really matter.
I think 5e's problems are mostly small ones. The 4 Elements Monk for example is not well designed. The base Monk is so it is still a character that works in play. The problem is that the subclass doesn't meet its goals. You get a Monk, you just don't get a Monk that is good at using the elements. There are also a bunch of Monk subclasses that do work including a rework in the Sun Soul. So it's a minor problem.
Another problem is that 4d6-L doesn't work, especially with feats. Getting an ASI is great, unless you have already maxed out your stats. It stifles character progression. Rolling for hit points can also be disastrous because of how important HP are in the balance of the game. The good news is that there are rules for both point buy and taking a fixed amount of HP. So it's a minor problem. It's fun to have randomness in character creation, but the default rules don't work well.
These are about the biggest problems I can think of that I have with it, and they are both minor as far as rules problems go. 5e is designed to be played at the table and for that play to be a smooth and enjoyable experience. It succeeds at that goal so the minor hiccups in the rules don't really matter.
pming
Legend
Hiya!
Well, [MENTION=6856566]orderofthings[/MENTION], we are in the same boat...99.9% anyway. We don't use Feats or Multiclassing...so that right there save a LOT of potential "problems", IME (we tried Feats...three times for three different campaigns lasting between 2 and 6 months...each time we didn't like it).
I think the only thing I think I (we...all my players agreed) changed was the way natural healing was handled. The "You stagger to the inn, each in the single digits of HP's. You bind wounds, stitch yourself up, eat and get nice and drunk to numb the pain of loosing 65hp. The night passes by uneventfully and you awaken to the smell of bacon and eggs! Oh, and POOF! You are all healed up full". That's how the default natural healing works.
For us, that just killed our suspension of disbelief instantly and without mercy, right then and there the very first time we saw the rule and used it in the first game. We used it that one time. My house rule for it is now simple: Everyone gets 1/2 their total HD to heal at the end of a good, long, comfy, safe rest. PC's can also use their 'regular' HD as normal on top of this in the morning. Effectively, if one is REALLY beat up, one *could* use the free HD's, then us all their normal HD's and be almost guaranteed full HP recovery. I don't think I've ever seen any of my players do this though...as I said, kills the believability of the game for us.
I think that's the one and only "house rule" we use when we play in the World of Generika (yeah...sue me...it was a 'test world' for 5e). That said...when we are gaming in Greyhawk, I do have 'houserules', but they aren't because 5e is broken, they are there to help bring the feel of Greyhawk for us (slower advancement after level 3, FAR less xp from monsters, xp from treasure gained, rules ported over from BECMI/RC, different, minor, adjustments to the human cultures, etc). Again, not "because something's broken", but because it needed to be done to bring the feel of Greyhawk.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Well, [MENTION=6856566]orderofthings[/MENTION], we are in the same boat...99.9% anyway. We don't use Feats or Multiclassing...so that right there save a LOT of potential "problems", IME (we tried Feats...three times for three different campaigns lasting between 2 and 6 months...each time we didn't like it).
I think the only thing I think I (we...all my players agreed) changed was the way natural healing was handled. The "You stagger to the inn, each in the single digits of HP's. You bind wounds, stitch yourself up, eat and get nice and drunk to numb the pain of loosing 65hp. The night passes by uneventfully and you awaken to the smell of bacon and eggs! Oh, and POOF! You are all healed up full". That's how the default natural healing works.
For us, that just killed our suspension of disbelief instantly and without mercy, right then and there the very first time we saw the rule and used it in the first game. We used it that one time. My house rule for it is now simple: Everyone gets 1/2 their total HD to heal at the end of a good, long, comfy, safe rest. PC's can also use their 'regular' HD as normal on top of this in the morning. Effectively, if one is REALLY beat up, one *could* use the free HD's, then us all their normal HD's and be almost guaranteed full HP recovery. I don't think I've ever seen any of my players do this though...as I said, kills the believability of the game for us.
I think that's the one and only "house rule" we use when we play in the World of Generika (yeah...sue me...it was a 'test world' for 5e). That said...when we are gaming in Greyhawk, I do have 'houserules', but they aren't because 5e is broken, they are there to help bring the feel of Greyhawk for us (slower advancement after level 3, FAR less xp from monsters, xp from treasure gained, rules ported over from BECMI/RC, different, minor, adjustments to the human cultures, etc). Again, not "because something's broken", but because it needed to be done to bring the feel of Greyhawk.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
dave2008
Legend
In general my groups are very flexible and enjoy playing the game by RAW with no issues. We never had issues with caster supremacy in 1e, long battles in 4e, or ranged combat in 5e. However, I (the DM) am a designer by profession (architect) and I can't help but tinker with the game. So I am one of those people always messing with it, and, fortunately, my groups are fine with trying them out in play as well.
TallIan
Explorer
Some people, me included, just fancy themselves as amateur game designers.
A lot of the time I look at a rule and I think, "i could have done..."
I still run my games RAW apart from adding a critical miss mechanic to combat. But that was because the first natural 1 to hit rolled nearly caused a riot at the table because there was no consequences. Oddly (or perhaps to the players credit) it was a PC that ruled the 1.
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
A lot of the time I look at a rule and I think, "i could have done..."
I still run my games RAW apart from adding a critical miss mechanic to combat. But that was because the first natural 1 to hit rolled nearly caused a riot at the table because there was no consequences. Oddly (or perhaps to the players credit) it was a PC that ruled the 1.
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
Cyrinishad
Explorer
Well said... I think 5e is a home-run.
For me it is as simple as "Playing RAW is not inherently better than not playing RAW, so there's no reason not to make adjustments to the game to better the experience."
I give my players little boons all the time (for any number of different reasons, none of which might be in the rules to do.) I will merge subclasses together for players if it comes out of how their characters are played. I will expand on monster abilities if they aren't doing a job I'd like them to do. I will change the mechanics of certain subsystems in different campaigns if they aid in setting up the essence of the new campaign. If my style of table makes certain subsystems either work too well or not well enough, I'll tinker to get the game to a better spot.
And there's nothing wrong with any of that. No one gets any award for "playing by RAW", just like there's no award for "playing by RAI" or "rules, not rulings" or "rulings, not rules"... so questioning why you do or do not do any of it is absolutely pointless.
I give my players little boons all the time (for any number of different reasons, none of which might be in the rules to do.) I will merge subclasses together for players if it comes out of how their characters are played. I will expand on monster abilities if they aren't doing a job I'd like them to do. I will change the mechanics of certain subsystems in different campaigns if they aid in setting up the essence of the new campaign. If my style of table makes certain subsystems either work too well or not well enough, I'll tinker to get the game to a better spot.
And there's nothing wrong with any of that. No one gets any award for "playing by RAW", just like there's no award for "playing by RAI" or "rules, not rulings" or "rulings, not rules"... so questioning why you do or do not do any of it is absolutely pointless.
hawkeyefan
Legend
My group and I have largely been happy with the game as is. The only tinkering we've done is that I've altered monsters to create more fun encounters, and created a few homebrew type monsters and the like. I think we altered one feat a bit for someone based on their preference, but not because it was seen as broken or anything.
All in all, things have run very smoothly and any changes we've made are not out of necessity to make the game work.
All in all, things have run very smoothly and any changes we've made are not out of necessity to make the game work.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
Sometimes I tinker around the margins when I want the mechanics to support a particular play experience. Otherwise, I think the game works perfectly fine as-is.
Many of the problems I see reported on the forums are playstyles better suited to other editions of the game or just plain DM skill in my view. For my part, I adapt my playstyle to fit the game I'm playing. And I'm forever questioning and trying to improve upon my own DM skills. I don't blame the rules for my shortcomings.
Many of the problems I see reported on the forums are playstyles better suited to other editions of the game or just plain DM skill in my view. For my part, I adapt my playstyle to fit the game I'm playing. And I'm forever questioning and trying to improve upon my own DM skills. I don't blame the rules for my shortcomings.
Willie the Duck
Hero
I think what I would say is that it is a lot easier to run 5e roughly RAW and not run headlong into glaring and gaping problems than in previous editions. To be clear, there are still 'broken' things in the game (the whole 'rulings, not rules' design philosophy made pretty clear that the creators were not going to torture their product into becoming immune to cracking). They just aren't the kind of things you 'can't not see.'
Using CodZilla as an example, there's no opening the PhB and saying, "wow, why would a druid ever not take Natural Spell as soon as they qualify?," nor is there Divine Metamagic and Persistent spell as feat options in the same splatbook.
I think you really have to want to break 5e open to find "brokenness" (and by that I don't just mean clearly better and worse options, but some vague idea of the entire game playing quite differently before and after one discovers and implements a specific exploit).
Thinking back to 3e, and comparing it to 5e:--
•Pun Pun: this one is relatively easy not to repeat. There are no obscure splat with rules on gaining godly power.
•CoDzilla: this does not show up in 5e. The concentration mechanic disrupts the basic premise. Clerics can help in combat, but the lack of extra attack means that their abilities do not scale, meaning that they have to spend their spells on helping fight, just like any other long-rest ability contributor. More broadly, while one might say that one class is a little better than another, each does their own job better than anybody else does (so there's no equivalent to "a cleric can be a better fighter than a fighter can").
•Minionmancy: Regular summoning is useful, but not insane (I think certain low-CR creatures are too cheap, and thus "best option," but still the spell is not the clear and obvious winner. Planar ally makes clear that it doesn't let you control the allies actions, so it is very much in DM control. Planar binding is strong, but the effort to bind a powerful creature looks like an adventure in and of itself to successfully accomplish (and thus should be worth a powerful benefit).
•Ice Assassin and the like: This is semi-avoided - Simulacrum is pretty abusable, particularly in creating a wish loop (but let's be honest, the first thing one has to do in any version of the game is tell your players, "bleat all you want, if you create a method of gaining infinite wishes, it won't work"). Regardless, it is not free like an ice assassin of an ice assassin.
•Hulking Hurler: specific example was avoided. As to the general concept of a poorly thought out situation where a rule is used in a place it was never meant to go, thus causing chaos, the closest contender is using athletics (skills in combat) as grapple, creating the rogue/bard grappling champion who is better than a barbarian (or most any monsters in the MM, since most aren't even proficient in acrobatics/athletic).
•All-access spellcasters (archivists, spell-to-power erudites, Rainbow Servant-beguiler/dread necromancer/warmage): this is half-avoided/half-embraced. There is no equivalent for across the board spell selection. Feats or class features allowing plucking 1-3 spells from another class are built into system, and the system balance (hopefully) accounts for this.
•Personal demi-planes and the like: people talked on message boards in 3e like it was normal for wizards over a certain level to never adventure in person because they were always actually astrally projected from personal demiplanes (crafted to make detection and invasion nearly impossible). I guess those campaigns don't have githyanki with silver swords. Either way, it's still possible in 5e, although astral projection has a cost.
•Shapechanging: druid shapechange still upsets a lot of people. This time by giving you a truckload of hp (effectively infinite at level 20, although enough in 1 round can still get you, as well as any non-hp related death). It doesn't make you the combat monster it did in 3e, though.
•Breaking (/maximizing) WBL: The crux of 3e is something 5e went to a lot of trouble to prevent. While there are undoubtedly infinite gp abuses (I haven't checked the price of ladders vs. 10' poles, for instance), the rules make pretty clear that you aren't going to get to turn that gp into every magic item you want unless the DM says so. Assuming the DM doesn't allow some truly out there interpretations ("It doesn't say I can't polymorph this pile of dirt into a Holy Avenger long sword."), you are stuck with the magic item support the DM lets you find for sale or you legitimately earn in your adventuring.
I'm sure some will have other examples, or disagree with my thoughts on them, but that's where I stand. There are things I don't like about 5e. There's ridiculousness stuff (one-handed quarterstaves and PAM, life clerics getting more out of goodberry than druids do, bard wrestling champions). But it is very easy to play the game without feeling it is broken unless you are actively trying.
Using CodZilla as an example, there's no opening the PhB and saying, "wow, why would a druid ever not take Natural Spell as soon as they qualify?," nor is there Divine Metamagic and Persistent spell as feat options in the same splatbook.
I think you really have to want to break 5e open to find "brokenness" (and by that I don't just mean clearly better and worse options, but some vague idea of the entire game playing quite differently before and after one discovers and implements a specific exploit).
Thinking back to 3e, and comparing it to 5e:--
•Pun Pun: this one is relatively easy not to repeat. There are no obscure splat with rules on gaining godly power.
•CoDzilla: this does not show up in 5e. The concentration mechanic disrupts the basic premise. Clerics can help in combat, but the lack of extra attack means that their abilities do not scale, meaning that they have to spend their spells on helping fight, just like any other long-rest ability contributor. More broadly, while one might say that one class is a little better than another, each does their own job better than anybody else does (so there's no equivalent to "a cleric can be a better fighter than a fighter can").
•Minionmancy: Regular summoning is useful, but not insane (I think certain low-CR creatures are too cheap, and thus "best option," but still the spell is not the clear and obvious winner. Planar ally makes clear that it doesn't let you control the allies actions, so it is very much in DM control. Planar binding is strong, but the effort to bind a powerful creature looks like an adventure in and of itself to successfully accomplish (and thus should be worth a powerful benefit).
•Ice Assassin and the like: This is semi-avoided - Simulacrum is pretty abusable, particularly in creating a wish loop (but let's be honest, the first thing one has to do in any version of the game is tell your players, "bleat all you want, if you create a method of gaining infinite wishes, it won't work"). Regardless, it is not free like an ice assassin of an ice assassin.
•Hulking Hurler: specific example was avoided. As to the general concept of a poorly thought out situation where a rule is used in a place it was never meant to go, thus causing chaos, the closest contender is using athletics (skills in combat) as grapple, creating the rogue/bard grappling champion who is better than a barbarian (or most any monsters in the MM, since most aren't even proficient in acrobatics/athletic).
•All-access spellcasters (archivists, spell-to-power erudites, Rainbow Servant-beguiler/dread necromancer/warmage): this is half-avoided/half-embraced. There is no equivalent for across the board spell selection. Feats or class features allowing plucking 1-3 spells from another class are built into system, and the system balance (hopefully) accounts for this.
•Personal demi-planes and the like: people talked on message boards in 3e like it was normal for wizards over a certain level to never adventure in person because they were always actually astrally projected from personal demiplanes (crafted to make detection and invasion nearly impossible). I guess those campaigns don't have githyanki with silver swords. Either way, it's still possible in 5e, although astral projection has a cost.
•Shapechanging: druid shapechange still upsets a lot of people. This time by giving you a truckload of hp (effectively infinite at level 20, although enough in 1 round can still get you, as well as any non-hp related death). It doesn't make you the combat monster it did in 3e, though.
•Breaking (/maximizing) WBL: The crux of 3e is something 5e went to a lot of trouble to prevent. While there are undoubtedly infinite gp abuses (I haven't checked the price of ladders vs. 10' poles, for instance), the rules make pretty clear that you aren't going to get to turn that gp into every magic item you want unless the DM says so. Assuming the DM doesn't allow some truly out there interpretations ("It doesn't say I can't polymorph this pile of dirt into a Holy Avenger long sword."), you are stuck with the magic item support the DM lets you find for sale or you legitimately earn in your adventuring.
I'm sure some will have other examples, or disagree with my thoughts on them, but that's where I stand. There are things I don't like about 5e. There's ridiculousness stuff (one-handed quarterstaves and PAM, life clerics getting more out of goodberry than druids do, bard wrestling champions). But it is very easy to play the game without feeling it is broken unless you are actively trying.
Similar Threads
D&D General
Why Combat is a Fail State - Blog and Thoughts
