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

[The-Magic-Sword]

I agree that 5e is a pretty good system that way, but it does have a few problems that conflict with the way my group likes to play games.

I prefer the idea of players being able to pick magic items themselves, magic items as they are presented in the DMG are not particularly balanced for players to be able to optimize their characters and selection (That +2 from the hand crossbow, +3 proficiency, +2 archery style, +5 dex mod, no cover because sharpshooter, with like 3 attacks? kind of started outshining the others, and was only gonna get worse as the prof bonus increased, bounded accuracy, +static bonuses are an issue) it's clearly written for the DM to be the one doing the picking full stop. Meanwhile in my games, if someone tells me that their character concept is at it's most basic a 'barbarian with a flaming sword' I want to do everything i can to accommodate that. I also want another lever for them to pull in shaping their characters- there are many things we like about 5e, but that level of customization is something major we miss from 4e, so i've sought to bring it back somewhat.

I do somewhat consider this a flaw, in that the math breaks down a bit with items (a side effect of it being designed as balanced without)

So I took the initiative of creating a magic item system with less straightforward bonuses (no static bonuses, something like a flaming sword doesn't do this metric tonne of extra damage, it can toggle it's regular damage to fire damage instead) and crafted a different itemization scheme (I basically have normal items of roughly uncommon quality, and grand artifact types that scale as you level to unlock additional properties but are story and level gated). Players get to select some of these items and then the DM weaves their acquisition into the story (which, is easy to do in this context, because the basic lore of the world supports many of these minor blessed items floating around)

The whole thing works out quite nicely as a neat bit of unique mechanical crunch to go along with the unique flavor of my setting- players basically act as the hand of fate in selecting what objects their characters will come across. For a mythical swashbuckling setting, I'd say it's thematic at least. They do seem to like the idea and implementation thus far.

 

[Mercurius]

I haven't read any of the thread, so forgive me if I'm repeating what someone else has said. I think it has to do with what type of player you are in relation to the rules. Imagine a spectrum with two polarities:

- People who don't care about the rules at all, are free-wheeling and just there for the story and fun
- People who see the rules as central to the play experience, nitpick every little aspect and like to tweak the system to come as close to their idea of perfection as possible

We can imagine this on a Likert Scale from, say, -5 to +5, with "negative" being the former and "positive" being the latter. We can further describe this as to what degree the rule mechanics matter to your play enjoyment.

It sounds like you are more on the "negative" side of things, while I think folks that find something wrong with 5E (and probably every system to varying degrees) are more on the "positive."

There is nothing inherently wrong or better about negative or positive - it is just a matter of personal style, preference, typology, and psychology.

 

[Harzel]

We can further describe this as to what degree the rule mechanics matter to your play enjoyment.

Pretty much, this. The 5e mechanics are "good enough" that to the extent that anything gets in the way of fun, it is not the rules. Most of my players (and myself) hadn't played since the 1980s (AD&D) and the others had never played at all, and none of us play any other RPGs, so there are no expert eyes scrutinizing the rules for "problems", and no one is pushing the bounds.

My "problems" are

1. Party size (I have 7 players and they operate by consensus, so everything, both combat and otherwise takes freaking forever.) But we all want to play together, so this is just a known trade-off.
2. Player inexperience/rustiness. (Slowly getting better)
3. DM ineptitude. (May never be solved. )

In addition, my world is all homebrewed, so overall it's pretty much all on us, not on the mechanics.

I did choose to go with spell points instead of slots, which has worked fine, but I also tweaked max spell points and how they are recovered which was actually a mistake because I didn't really know what I was doing. But even though I screwed that up the game seems resilient enough that it hasn't gotten in the way of fun. At least not yet. Time will tell.

And yeah, the rules for hiding kind of leave you dangling, but having read through the many discussions of this in this forum, I'm not convinced any other set of rules would be strictly better. (And, please, don't turn this thread into another one of those threads just because I brought it up!)

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

This edition, I made a promise to myself: I wouldn't look for problems. Looking for problems is what made 3E problematic for me and what made 4E unplayable. So, I decided to treat this as an entirely new RPG and just try it out of the gate.

End of the day, 90% of the problems I have with 5E are just personal preferences. 100% of the problems I have with 5E are fixed using variants published in the core books. Most of what I had to homebrew were magic items, where the difficulty is mostly figuring out what power level they are for when they would appear in the campaign.

Overall, I'm happy. I'll admit it's not a generalist setting like GURPs or Savage Worlds or Hero, but it works for me for DnD.

So if you're not finding any problems, my advice is this: Have fun and don't think too hard about the fact other people have problems with the system.

 

[Raith5]

I am in two minds because I play with one group that loves 5E for a fun and fast paced game, and one group that prefers 4E because it has more detailed character building options and more tactical combat. Depending on my mood I either see a lot of problems with 5e (or missed opportunities/missing features is probably a better way to phrase it) or I am keen to have a fast and fluid game of 5e.

 

[Uchawi]

I played D&D for a long time. It is easy to find problems with every edition. Whether that prevents you from playing is a personal decision.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I've not really found a vast number of problems.

One of the most consistent actual problems I've found is crafting rules. A lot of my players enjoy them, but as written they are... kind of crappy and nearly useless, and though I've found a few homebrew rule-sets to expand on them, I haven't found something that really works as well as I want it to and allows us to get what we want from it.


The second thing is more of a personal series of things, partially traceable back to my worry and inexperience of breaking the game. I don't know if this is standard or not, but my players tend to ask for the weirdest, most obscure, or off the walls rule, things, and who knows what else. A lot of the time I get the feeling they are trying to push the envelope and get away with massive power-buffs, looking for any way to deal insane amounts of damage or become invincible that they think they can sneak past me.

I know it isn't quite that bad, but I'm constantly feeling like I need to be on alert for them, allow them to get cool things, but then also prevent them from overshadowing everyone at the table (One player for instance has hounded me for a year and a half about getting an oathbow, and recently used a genie wish to wish for an oathbow rifle, for an assassin rogue character. Another guy is constantly asking for me to hand him a magic greataxe that casts hunter's mark at-will for his Barbarian character. )

 

[Harzel]

One player for instance has hounded me for a year and a half about getting an oathbow, and recently used a genie wish to wish for an oathbow rifle, for an assassin rogue character.

An oathbow rifle? Meaning you have firearms in your campaign?

Another guy is constantly asking for me to hand him a magic greataxe that casts hunter's mark at-will for his Barbarian character. )

No problem. Next treasure hoard contains the Axe of Sven Nordlund, +3/+3 greataxe that casts hunter's mark at will. At least that's what it seems to be. Until he wields it. Turns out it is a cursed -3/-3 greataxe that casts hunter's mark at will.
Definitely magical.
Definitely a greataxe.
Definitely casts hunter's mark at will.
Be careful what you wish for.

Nah, that would be mean. Perpetual Hunter's Mark is pretty much +3 damage. So would a +3 damage greataxe be OP for his level? If not, then how about a nice long hard quest to obtain said greataxe? Maybe all their requests are just plot hooks waiting to happen?

 

[Horwath]

As as system 5e did great job.

But as always there could be improvements and they are doing it.

They released most UA for ranger class because it was the worst in the start(reminds me of 3.0 vs 3.5),


IMO, spell should go to 10th level available at lvl19 for pure casters so to punish multiclassing casters little more.

There could be levels that you get feats only not ASI with option to get a feat.

I would like to see more attacks per round for all classes at higher levels.
I.E. 2 attacks at 5th, 3 at 9th, 4 at 13th and 5 at 17th for martial classes,
hybrid classes could get an extra attack every 8 levels instead of every 4(rogue/warlock)
and full casters 2nd attack at lvl 17.

 

[pemerton]

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

I read thread after thread, with tons of ideas for “fixing” aspects of the game and I sit here wondering "what is wrong with the players at my table?". We run the game RAW, and have not had a single mechanics-related problem.

<snip>

Are we playing it wrong? Not paying enough attention?

Just because someone hasn't found a problem with the game doesn't mean something is wrong with them or they aren't like "normal" people.

There few, if any, actual objective problems with 5e. There are subjective problems based on personal preference.

I think some things are subjective.

I've read a lot of threads, for instance, where posters say that if 5e had damage on a miss from weapon attacks; or had martial/inspirational healing on a par with clerical healing; then that would be a problem for them. For me, those things would increase the appeal of the game. That seems to be a matter of subjective opinion.

I've also read a number of threads that point out ways in which 5e makes ranged combat build more powerful, relative to melee builds, than tended to be the case in earlier editions (eg because of the movement rules and the feats available). The general form this analysis takes resembles those analyses of 3E that point out how, compared to AD&D, it made spell-casting more effective (eg saves get worse rather than better over time; no spell disruption; etc).

These analyses are not just matters of subjective opinion. They are attempts to work out the logic and implications of the game rules.

Whether or not they are diagnoses of problems is a further thing, though. Clearly some people don't mind a game in which, as levels increase, a wizard is more rather than less likely able to charm a fighter. And clearly some don't mind a game in which ranged combat enjoys a higher degree of mechanical enhancement than it previously has - maybe because they like playing archers, or maybe because they play melee warriors regardless of which way the mechanics lean.

Imagine a spectrum with two polarities:

- People who don't care about the rules at all, are free-wheeling and just there for the story and fun
- People who see the rules as central to the play experience, nitpick every little aspect and like to tweak the system to come as close to their idea of perfection as possible

We can imagine this on a Likert Scale from, say, -5 to +5, with "negative" being the former and "positive" being the latter. We can further describe this as to what degree the rule mechanics matter to your play enjoyment.

It sounds like you are more on the "negative" side of things, while I think folks that find something wrong with 5E (and probably every system to varying degrees) are more on the "positive."

There is nothing inherently wrong or better about negative or positive - it is just a matter of personal style, preference, typology, and psychology.

One thing that I think is pretty clear from reading these boards is that different players take very different attitudes to what the rules are for. Those differences of attitude are pretty clearly going to lead to different play experiences relative to a given ruleset.

But I don't think I would put those different attitudes on a spectrum. Someone can play the game for story and fun, but nevertheless see the rules as central to the play experience - because (as they play the game) the rules are what determine the outcomes of action declarations, and those outcomes are the content of the story. That sort of person has a very different approach to the game from someone who (for example) wants the GM to tell him/her what happens next; but both players might be there for story and fun.