D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[doctorbadwolf]

If you don't like, then don't buy it. Next thread.

SO, you've only ever purchased things that were 100% satisfactory in every way? Never purchased clothes that were comfortable and looked nice, but you'd have preferred a longer or shorter sleeve, or a different shade of the color?
Are you one of those people that has to basically redesign your meal when you go to a restaurant?

Seriously, the love it or leave it attitude is always 100% BS.

 

[guachi]

Concentration. Having to make saves to maintain Concentration isn't a good mechanic. I just changed the rule and allow one Concentration spell to be kept active. No questions asked.

The Saving Throw system. I don't object to ability based saves, but I'd rather not have it be three primary stats and three secondary stats. I'd sooner see saves more evenly balanced across all abilities.

My biggest gripe is that of the six full casters, three are Charisma based. What? I mean, what?

 

[GSHamster]

Concentration. Having to make saves to maintain Concentration isn't a good mechanic. I just changed the rule and allow one Concentration spell to be kept active. No questions asked.

How do your players deal with enemy spellcasters who lock them down? They have to outright kill the caster to get the spell to drop?

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

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.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Are you just not a fan of class-based systems, in general? Personally, I'm really digging how 5E lets me focus on just playing the character, instead of making a whole mini-game out of how to mechanically represent that character.

My rule of thumb is, if there are two distinct mechanical ways that you could represent the same character, then there are too many options.

Whereas I--who am *very* much a fan of class-based systems and NOT "build it yourself" stuff--think that that is so restrictive as to make the game unplayable. 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. Plus like three or four points along the gish scale that could all be called "guy who fights with both weapons and spells."

Some of these complaints seem to be more complaints with how D&D works, rather than with 5th in particular, since some of these things have been how D&D has done things for multiple editions.

It's rather difficult to say precisely, because there are very few mechanics that have worked exactly the same across all editions. HP is one of the only ones I can think of, and even that is only "when you are hit, it goes down," because healing has been markedly different in several editions.

I don't feel like very many of my particular complaints were about "how D&D-in-general works" though...but perhaps that's personal bias talking?

 

[Sunseeker]

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.

Wait, I'm confused, You're comparing 5E, to 4E, which aside from a stricter math and a couple very light notes it has almost nothing in common with, yet you're a huge fan of rules, which 4E was very heavy on, but you desire free-for-all multiclassing.

I'm confused.

 

[Sacrosanct]

SO, you've only ever purchased things that were 100% satisfactory in every way? Never purchased clothes that were comfortable and looked nice, but you'd have preferred a longer or shorter sleeve, or a different shade of the color?
Are you one of those people that has to basically redesign your meal when you go to a restaurant?

Seriously, the love it or leave it attitude is always 100% BS.

No it's not. Not when there are thousands of other alternatives out there for you. And no one is saying you have to love it. They are saying if you don't like it, then don't buy/play it. There's a HUGE middle ground between "love it" and "don't like it".

 

[Lancelot]

Off-topic, but though it's not 5E, check out Pillars of Eternity (released in March). It's pretty much exactly what you are looking for.

Played it. Three times. It's good, but it's not really Epic-scale (3 complete run-throughs... all quests... took me 75 hours, which is what I've spent on a single play-through of Baldur's Gate 2) and the NPCs are fairly bland (excepting a certain midwife and a crazed cleric...). Good story and gameplay, though.

It's kind of hilarious how much it rips off D&D. Same classes, most with the same abilities. Sort of a merge between 3e and 4e. I was rolling my eyes hard as I went through the spell lists for my wizard. 1st level: burning hands, magic missile, shield, etc - with different names. 2nd level: scorching ray, mirror image, etc - with different names. 3rd level - fireball, lightning bolt...

The thing about D&D, though, is that it's more than just the rules. It's also the setting and the monsters and the *feel* of it. Regardless of my ambivalent feelings on the Realms, it's kind of nice to see Waterdeep show up. Or Neverwinter. Or... gods save me... Drizzt, or Elminster, or Mordenkainen, or Vecna, or Tanis Half-Elven, or Kylie the Tiefling Tout.

Pillars of Eternity may basically be the D&D rule-set, and a very good game in it's own right, but it doesn't have mind flayers. It doesn't have the Great Ring of Planes. It doesn't have the Blood War. It doesn't have the immense lore and background that D&D brings to the table. It doesn't directly attract new players to the tabletop game. I'm less excited to hear about the politics of the Dyrwood, when I could be hearing about the latest news from Solamnia, or Cormyr, or Sigil, or Barovia.


...which, now that I think about it, ties back into my original point about what I love so much about the game. The rules really don't matter, as long as they're not actively getting in your way (like 3e / Pathfinder used to do for me, as a DM). It's all about the story, the setting, the shared experience. So, much as I enjoyed Pillars of Eternity, it's still not taking the place of the continuing stories of Minsc and Boo... Xanathar the Beholder... the never-ending troubles of Neverwinter... or what happened to the Nameless One after he found out who he is/was....

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Wait, I'm confused, You're comparing 5E, to 4E, which aside from a stricter math and a couple very light notes it has almost nothing in common with, yet you're a huge fan of rules, which 4E was very heavy on, but you desire free-for-all multiclassing.

I'm confused.

I'm a man of many contradictions; what can I say?

4e is the best class-based system I've ever played, but I think that 3e/5e style multiclassing has the potential to be the perfect marriage of class-based and point-based chargen. It allows DMs a quick (and ideally accurate) gauge of character capability; it allows class-loving players to write "[class x] [level y]" on their character sheet, fill in a few pertinents, and be done with it; and it allows point-loving players a high degree of freedom to create just the character they want to play.

 

[Saeviomagy]

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.

A lot of the optional rules in the DMG that I could make up on the spot and do better.

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

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.

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.

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.