D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[Mistwell]

Hates:
The visibility rules that seem to think that standing in the dark means you can't see someone holding a torch.

Uh, how do you figure that's the rules?

Clerics of knowledge being the go-to loremasters while bards and rogues are the go-to for all other skills.

Uh, how are lore bards not go-to loremasters?

 

[Bacon Bits]

Hates:
The visibility rules that seem to think that standing in the dark means you can't see someone holding a torch. For the second edition in a row. Maybe the third.

Oh, every edition has treated light like that. Just use it for determining how far something casts light. Rule #1 for vision is always, "You already know how light and vision work." The only weird bit is Darkvision, because you can't see anybody else's Darkvision light, and darkness spells, because there's no analog in the real world for magical darkness.

Falling back on 'rulings not rules' as an excuse when the rules are as badly done as the prior two.

Agreed. "Rulings not rules" doesn't mean Oberoni isn't waiting in the wings. Still, I was tired of 3e and 4e telling us the world would end if we changed a +2 to a +3 or making us feel like we had to wait for the Rules Team to issue Officially Canonical Errata to make any rules change. Encouraging people to let the rules slide in the name of the game is not a bad thing.

Minor gripes:
Stat balance. Dex and wis are pretty heavily boosted, being great stats to have even if you're a class that doesn't have any abilities that key off them. Intelligence barely does anything.

Yes, stat heirarchy is pretty clear: Dex, Wis, Con, Cha, Str, Int. Dex is a bit too good. Saves and skills are focused in few attributes. Cha is key to too many classes. Int doesn't do enough period. I mean... faster training? Extra languages? Something? I'd like Warlocks to be Con based, actually, as their bodies are conduits for alien powers.

Clerics of knowledge being the go-to loremasters while bards and rogues are the go-to for all other skills. Wizards can't even compete when talking about arcane knowledge, which is supposedly the basis of their entire class.

Well, Wizards will do well because a) they'll have proficiency, and b) they'll have a high Int. Still, it's the 3e argument for Wizards having a lot of skills. It's a consequence of the existing mechanics rather than giving mechanics to the support the flavor. The end result is acceptable, but awkward.

The wild divergence in level 1 class abilities. Compare paladins and rangers to most other classes at level 1. It all balances out by level 3, but I get the feeling they were designed assuming they'd be able to cast spells at 1st level.

Nah, they just assume Level 1 will last one game session at most. I like feeling like an apprentice at level 1.

As for my list:

The organization of spells and spell lists in the PHB. The spells don't list the classes that can use them, and the spell lists don't tell you what the spells do or what school the spells are (in spite of multiple game mechanics that rely on it). I understand that there were problems with the 3e shortened list where players would assume the shortened list was what the spell did, but they've made the spell lists in the PHB actively hostile to use. Seriously, could there be some kind of cross indexing here? Can we at the very least put page numbers in the spell lists, or list in spell descriptions which classes have the spell on the spell list at the start of the damn chapter?

The way everything is written through a filter. Like, I get that they want stealth rules to be intentionally vague. I just wish they had literally stated, "These rules are intentionally vague as no system can adequately account for all situations without being too complicated to actually use in play. Your DM is intended to make rulings for stealth. What follows the general guidelines that should be used for what stealth should be capable of doing." It's like visiting the Wizard of Oz. Stop hiding the designer's intent behind the curtain and the light and sound show all the time. You know, we can make better house rules when we know why a rule exists as it does. Even if this is covered in an Appendix or in the DMG, give us some context!

GWM and Sharpshooter. Because I hate math in combat, and they're kind of stupid at high level.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I also think it completely fails to characterize 5e, as there are at least three ways to represent an archer, and probably half a dozen (at least) ways to represent a swordmaster.

A fighter with a bow is different from a ranger with a bow, both thematically and mechanically. Since a lot of the ranger theme is focused on woodsmanship, and that's achievable through backgrounds, I would agree that 5E has too many options. Likewise, a battle master is not sufficiently distinct from a champion.

What we could have used is more different options, but the designers were somewhat handicapped by their adherence to tradition. The ranger class isn't sufficiently distinct from the fighter, but they had to include it, because it's been its own class for so long.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Uh, how are lore bards not go-to loremasters?

Wizards do nothing but study the Arcane. They get up in the morning. They study the Arcane. They have a bite to eat. They study the Arcane. They get a bit of dinner. They study the Arcane. Then they go to bed.

Wizards, not Bards or Clerics, have always held the central place of knowledge -- in literature as well as in-game. They're the most intelligent and their low hp was always attributed to their eschewing the real world for knowledge and magic.

Bards, in the context of D&D, study music. And fighting. And poetry. And thievery. And odd bits of lore. And diplomacy. And healing. And a little bit of everything. If there's one thing a Bard should never, ever be, it's an expert. Maybe an expert in music or the arts or hisotry, but certainly not an expert when compared to anybody who has dedicated their life to a very limited range of study, as most every other class has.

 

[bgbarcus]

)
9.) Other Worlds (a bit on Mystara, Kara Tur, Zakarha, and Nentir Vale. No real rules info here).
.

No, no, leave Mystara out! It belongs to the community now and we're not letting WotC have it back.

 

[spinozajack]

I don't hate 5e. But I have no plans to buy or play it, because I can't help comparing it to 4e.

I almost got excited when I read the free pdf and saw that 5e has 3.x a la carte style multiclassing...but then I saw the prereqs and the front-loaded classes, and thought "Oh well." Oh, and the lackadaisical 'rulings not rules' attitude is a huge turn-off. As a DM, I generally like rules; I don't use them all, but it's better to have 'em and not need 'em than need 'em and not have 'em.

As a DM, you can choose not to use the multiclassing rules, and instead make 4e-style MC feats that allow you to pick certain class features at certain levels. Besides, multiclassing early is somewhat of a mixed bag in terms of power. As a fighter / barb / ranger / paladin, you really want that second attack at level 5 ASAP, and as a pure caster you really want those 3rd level spells. So if you're smart, you multiclass at level 6. Giving up your feat and stat boost by MCing before level 4 is a serious reason not to. And if you're worried about the classes being front loaded, well, it's mostly the fighter who's front loaded and at least the armor proficiencies and save proficiencies don't stack when add classes.

I was surprised also by them reversing the trend of D&D systems increasing the number and intricacy of rules, and going rules-light by trusting DMs to make calls. I'd much rather have to endure the occasional bad DM ruling than an entire system that I find badly designed with a hodge podge of hokey jargon and confusing, counter intuitive corner cases.

Mr Mearls said it right when he said there is no way they could publish a game with a rule for every situation that could possibly come up (better to have'em when you need 'em). It's fairly straightforward that the desire for rules-completion is an unachievable goal and probably undesirable as well. Given how successful 5th edition is, its flaws are minute compared to the overall wisdom they had in deciding to keep the game simple and easy to play. This allows fast combat, and better storytelling. Game rules jargon coming up often is not very immersive.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Yes, stat heirarchy is pretty clear: Dex, Wis, Con, Cha, Str, Int. Dex is a bit too good. Saves and skills are focused in few attributes. Cha is key to too many classes. Int doesn't do enough period. I mean... faster training? Extra languages? Something? I'd like Warlocks to be Con based, actually, as their bodies are conduits for alien powers.

In my version of AD&D-style/Speed Factor Initiative, I have monsters and PCs declare actions in order of Intelligence, lowest to highest. It makes Intelligence hugely important for anyone who wants to do complex situationally-dependent tactical stuff in combat, but unimportant if you just want to hit the guy in front of you with a club. It works very well.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

A fighter with a bow is different from a ranger with a bow, both thematically and mechanically. Since a lot of the ranger theme is focused on woodsmanship, and that's achievable through backgrounds, I would agree that 5E has too many options. Likewise, a battle master is not sufficiently distinct from a champion.

What we could have used is more different options, but the designers were somewhat handicapped by their adherence to tradition. The ranger class isn't sufficiently distinct from the fighter, but they had to include it, because it's been its own class for so long.

So...it really depends on the resolution to which you're talking about "represent your character," doesn't it? I mean, sure, this is already a matter of taste, but "only one way to represent your character" seems to be a hell of a lot more ambiguous than how you originally presented it, if we're able to take in all the details of fluff and such.

As a DM, you can choose not to use the multiclassing rules, and instead make 4e-style MC feats....

Funny how this is exactly the kind of thing I mentioned earlier. That is: "You're the DM! Make something up!" as an ironclad, unassailable explanation for why any and all dissatisfaction with the system can be handwaved away.

I was surprised also by them reversing the trend of D&D systems increasing the number and intricacy of rules, and going rules-light by trusting DMs to make calls. I'd much rather have to endure the occasional bad DM ruling than an entire system that I find badly designed with a hodge podge of hokey jargon and confusing, counter intuitive corner cases.

And I would much rather have a system that's just well-designed to begin with. I'm not asking you to like something you don't. You're asking me to like fixing something I don't like. Why on earth would I like doing that? Especially if I *already* have something I like better AND which needs few to no modifications, which is exactly what the person you quoted said?

Mr Mearls said it right when he said there is no way they could publish a game with a rule for every situation that could possibly come up (better to have'em when you need 'em). It's fairly straightforward that the desire for rules-completion is an unachievable goal and probably undesirable as well. Given how successful 5th edition is, its flaws are minute compared to the overall wisdom they had in deciding to keep the game simple and easy to play. This allows fast combat, and better storytelling. Game rules jargon coming up often is not very immersive.

A few points of order:
1) Wanting rules when you "need 'em" is not "a rule for every situation that could possibly come up." You are twisting "gee, I wish I had rules for extremely common situations" (like, say, the value of items if there WERE a magic item economy, which the default setting *has*) into "this doesn't have rules for riding a penguin down the nether-ice glaciers of the Inverse Mountains, so it's totally useless to me." Wanting a game to cover common issues, or *at least* provide a couple of suggested options (like, I dunno, modular stuff?) is not the same as wanting "a rule for every situation." If you think it is, you have a serious misunderstanding.

2) Thanks for calling my tastes "fairly straightforward[ly]...undesirable." Or, y'know, not.

3) Questions of "success" or "failure" are rather premature, wouldn't you say? 4e was also selling quite well less than a year after release. I'm not saying 5e isn't successful, nor that it absolutely has to follow a similar path to 4e. Just that any argument which starts with "given the success..." is not really going to convince me, or most people who disagree with you here.

4) You keep calling it "simple" and "easy." For me, it's exactly the opposite. Forging into unknown rules territory on a regular basis and "making something up" is not "easy" or "simple." I find these both daunting tasks, have legitimately failed at them multiple times in the past, and am very thankful that I've never actually been a DM for anyone else before because I am *certain* I'd have screwed up and damaged others' fun as a result.
I'm certain that, for you, the "do whatever you want, you're the DM!" philosophy is freeing, regardless of whether it's "how hard are monsters?" or "what's the difficulty of penguin-sledding down a nether-ice glacier?" On the latter, I'd even agree with you, because I'd never expect a core rulebook to deal with something like that. On the former, however, your "freedom" is my "shackles." That you cast it in utterly absolute, everyone-should-feel-like-I-do terms doesn't help the discussion.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So...it really depends on the resolution to which you're talking about "represent your character," doesn't it?

I suppose so. I mean, if we had three classes, then it would be obvious which class any given character belonged to. That's really what it all comes down to, is I strongly believe that there must be exactly one way to represent any given character. There should never be a question about which class a character belongs to, and if there is, then there are too many classes. If you have to change the in-game nature of the character in order to justify changing the class, then that is as it should be.

 

[Mistwell]

Wizards do nothing but study the Arcane. They get up in the morning. They study the Arcane. They have a bite to eat. They study the Arcane. They get a bit of dinner. They study the Arcane. Then they go to bed.

I understand that's what you prefer and how you think of them, but I was responding Saeviomagy on whether Bards are go-to loremasters in this edition, and not commenting on wizards either way.

Bards, in the context of D&D, study music. And fighting. And poetry. And thievery. And odd bits of lore. And diplomacy. And healing. And a little bit of everything. If there's one thing a Bard should never, ever be, it's an expert. Maybe an expert in music or the arts or hisotry, but certainly not an expert when compared to anybody who has dedicated their life to a very limited range of study, as most every other class has.

I think that's a perspective that fits prior versions of bards, but not this version of the bard. The 5e bard, which is what I was specifically talking about to Saeviomagy (this being a thread about 5e) has the lore bard - and they are in fact the go-to loremasters. They do get some specialties. Now I can understand you not liking that (I do love it, but I can see not liking it), but how is it not true to call them loremasters in this edition? I mean it's right there in the sub-class name: LORE Bard.