D&D 5E Why can’t I find anything wrong with 5e?

[wedgeski]

I've changed very little (the odd magic item). I haven't touched the underlying systems at all. I find the game plays like butter.

One of my DM's however is an inveterate nerfer. He just can't help himself. If something does d10 damage you can bet he'll house rule it to d8+1. Random house-rulings thrown out to the table. It drives me bonkers.

So same rule-books, two DM's, different games.

 

[ccs]

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 things are options, not problems.
If these particular options don't work for you? Then use the alternate systems the designers were thoughtful enough to include.....

See also [MENTION=6791950]cmad1977[/MENTION] comment about not blaming the system when the problem is the DM/player.

 

[hejtmane]

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.

Yep we play close to raw/rai but are not 100% and have some minor house rules I brought from the old days and 5e gives us some flexibility to keep things from becoming a mountian when it really is a mole hill. I try to be flexible and reasonable on the rulings and make sure we have fun in the process.

 

[guachi]

I like 5e enough that reading the rules, in this case the free Basic Rules before the PHB came out, made me want to play it.

I can't say the same for 3.5e or 4e.

 

[orderofthings]

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

Oh man, i forgot about the critical miss! Ok, so we have one home brew rule...

Sent from my SM-N920T using EN World mobile app

 

[hejtmane]

I think the degree of the problem is important.

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.
.

Kind of funny I am old school and use the 4d6-l and allow feats and MC have had no issues at the table 5e works just fine. But like people stated if you think they are an issue they included variants rules they provide

 

[Zardnaar]

The things that are wrong with 5E are reasonably minor in the grand scheme of things. They are IMHO.

Certain feats are OP
Some feats feel like feat taxes (resilient, warcaster)
Rules around hand use
2 subclasses are a bit meh (Elemental Monk, beastmaster)
Saving throws kind of break down at higher levels, one can mitigate this with certain classes (class tax?).
Higher levels in general
Monster CR
Dexterity is a bit to good
Gish concept not so good in practice (Valor bards, Eldritch Knight, Bladelock)
Armor rules (may as well be 2 maybe 3 types of armor in the game).

 

[hejtmane]

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

That is of my house rules I have young guys that never played before and told them that was a house rule and they were like cool now after over 1+ years playing if I tried to remove it they probably riot it has caused some of the most fun at the table and they enjoy the mechanic.

 

[nswanson27]

I think you're right.

That said, people complain about 5e for the same reason that Sir Edmund Hillary wanted to climb Mount Everest- because it's there.

I think you can roughly break out the following archetypes-

1. Rules lawyers (or actual lawyer lawyers). People who love to dig into the minutiae of the interaction of various rules.

2. People who have a weekly reminder to post their, "Why 5e is going to fail," thread.

3. Those who played a different edition, and want 5e to be more like that edition.

4. The engineers. You know, the people who DIY, homebrew, tinker, and create.

5. This is the internet; we are here to complain. If you have something nice to say, well, you're probably playing 5e instead of posting on the internet.

I might add one more:
Those who played a different edition that did have problems, and get hyper-paranoid whenever a suggested update to 5e is made in the area of those problems of previous editions.

EDIT: clarification

 

[Istbor]

I guess I wouldn't say that 5e has 'problems'. It has some hurdles or at least what some may see as obstacles, but I have never considered those problems with the game, but issues with me. I understand that nothing is ever going to be exactly what I want unless I make it myself, and in doing so, nothing will be perfect then for my players unless I cater to that.

So I make tweaks here and there, but I wouldn't say it is due to the system itself but my own groups preferences or my personal hang-ups.

I guess case in point is magic items. I hated what they became in 3e. I hated that they were everywhere and that they could quickly become thinks you just throw away for the next big thing.

So I enjoyed that 5e operates under an assumption of less items found and the limit with attuning to your items. I still however feel that items presented are on average kind of boring. I continue to create my own magical items and I deeply enjoy making ones that require attunement as items that grow with you. As you level and your proficiency increases (and you continue to use and be attuned to an item) the item unlocks further abilities and scales with you. There is still that option of trading it in for another item that you prefer, but it allows old favorites to remain competitive and interesting.

I am very much enjoying this edition over the previous 3 I have played. I would also say I don't want to DM in 3e or 4e ever again, if I can help it.