D&D 5E (2014) Why can’t I find anything wrong with 5e?

[S'mon]

OP fits my experience, 5e just does not seem to have the big problems that need structural tinkering. I have a couple house rules - short rest is 15 minutes & no more than 3 per day, and detecting an invisible creature who doesn't take the Hide action has a default Perception DC of 20 (the actual rules here, to the extent they exist, being a total mess - just went through my PHB checking 4 different locations with snippets about 'Invisible' > 'Heavy Obscurement' > 'Blinded' - and advice which is basically 'GM decides'). But most of my 5e actual play experience has been cutting out house rules as unnecessary, rather than 3e/PF encountering major structural issues or 4e extensive tweaking with monster stats to get something that works.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Bear in mind when you read those threads about problems or how to 'fix' 5th ed that those problems may be specific to one table. When responding to that sort of thread, I will often accept the OP's premise that their game has the specific issues and contribute on that basis rather than pointing out that I don't have those problems.

In terms of actual changes/houserules I use, most of them are based around the weapons. (The group incorporates quite a few practical history nerds and martial artists.) I gave Bows finesse, made quarterstaves two-handed rather than versatile, removed finesse requirement from sneak attack.
I'm also considering only allowing the -5 to hit/+10 damage from Sharpshooter and GWM to be applied to attacks from the Attack action. (So not bonus action or Reaction attacks.) Haven't implemented that yet, but I'm keeping an eye on them.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

Yeah it's a steampunk setting

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?

I don't know if it would be OP, but I wasn't really kidding all that much. He literally keeps asking me to just give him a magical weapon, because our rogues (we have 3) are the ones discovering the treasure first and they have most of the magical things... Which while I need to talk to them isn't as bad as it seems, since it breaks down as

2 minor magical swords purchased, the aforementioned rifle from a Wish, a minor magical sword from helping a Fey.


I think the frustrating part is he only wants it because he feels he doesn't do enough damage, when he's swinging a 1d12+5 greataxe twice, with advantage and Fell Handed to knock everything prone, and has a damaging rage aura that does 1d6+4 and he's a volo aasimaar ale to add +8 damage a turn.

Problem is he's comparing single attack damage between himself and the rogue's who constantly get sneak attack, which of course spikes higher than his axe.

Anyways, tangent, just frustrated that it seems most of my players will never be satisfied until they all spike for 500 damage in a single blow and they do more damage than the other party members

 

[orderofthings]

thanks for all the XP everybody, y'all just leveled me up

 

[MichaelArkAngel]

From a person that came from AD&D in the 80's, went on a roughly 25-30 year hiatus, and started up again playing 5E it's night and day. 5e just makes more sense without a lot of convoluted processes. I am really liking 5E a lot, and if a change is really needed someplace, I think it's flexible enough to make that change as seamless as possible.

 

[Mercurius]

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.

Haha, sounds familiar. Pemerton, you are missing what I am saying about a spectrum. I am not saying "story and fun vs. rules as central." I am talking about the degree to which rules matter to a person in determining their enjoyment. I used the phrase "story and fun" with the very important "just there for" at the beginning; taking that part away leads to a very different meaning, which you went and ran with in a completely different direction.

It is a subtle, but crucial, point that your quote above misses. You create a different spectrum which certainly has its own validity and has been discussed elsewhere, but is not what I was talking about. In other words, I am *not* talking about DM authority or player autonomy. I am talking about the degree to which the rules system matters to the enjoyment of the individuals involved.

So again, the spectrum I'm talking about is the degree to which the rules matter to an individual's enjoyment of the game. This was in reference to the OP. I'm not really sure there is anything to disagree with or particularly controversial about that.