D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[Lanliss]

I misread this as 'epic necromantic rat'. So now I have an idea for my next BBEG.

I misread this as "epic romantic rat". I now a slightly more confusing BBEG...

 

[ccs]

While "hate" is far too strong a word, I will confess that there are some aspects of 5e that do sincerely bug me, which I can generally break up into Crunch and Fluff.

Fluff:

• Reversion to Old Fluff in General: Really, this sums up almost every single problem I have with 5e in terms of fluff. Although I certainly can agree that rolling back to pre-Spellplague Forgotten Realms was probably the better thing to do, as I can understand why that was the setting change that most upset the fanbase, the 4th edition came up with so many brilliant ideas that have now been all swept away in a desperate battle to win back the crowd.

Well, what do you think was more important to WoTC? Fluff? Or our $?
Besides, if you're a 4e fan you didn't "lose" any of your fluff. It's sitting right there on your bookshelf.

• Loss of the Nentir Vale: The Points of Light setting, ultimately renamed the Nentir Vale, was the core of the World Axis cosmology that 4e created, and so it really felt like a place where anything and everything was possible. It had character, but was blank enough to be whatever you wanted it to be. Reverting back to focusing everything on Forgotten Realms is a big step backwards that, honestly, rather bugs me.

Again, not lost. Walk over to your bookshelf.

• Return of the Great Wheel: While I admit that the 5e version is slightly better than old version, particularly with the tweaks to the elemental planes, the shearing of Alignment as the focus, and the retention of the Feywild & Shadowfell, I still wish they'd kept more of the World Axis cosmology. I simply found it far more enjoyable than the Great Wheel - to the point my interest in Planescape is more for Sigil itself than the rest of the multiverse. I'm particularly bugged by this because it means we've lost the Primordials, who were far more developed and interesting than the Archomentals.

See above comments....

• Monodimensional Gnolls: I've complained about this elsewhere, so I'll be brief - 4th edition gave gnolls a huge level of character development despite their "usually villainous" role, and 5th edition's monolithic focus on them as mindless demonspawn is a waste and an insult.

Gnolls are monsters that should be farmed for XP.
That said, refer back to my comments about fluff not being lost.

• Loss of Adamantine and Iron Dragons: I never liked the Alloy Dragons, so when 4e pushed them out of the limelight and gave us the Adamantine and Iron Dragons, complete with making the Iron Dragons the "Metallic Feral" and so better contrasting the Chromatics, I was greatly enthused. Their loss is a true shame.

Did you ever actually play a game involving them though?
Is there anything stopping them from being in games you run?

• Loss of the Primal Spirits: In all honesty, I've always hated the Druid class. It just feels completely wrong - some overpowered mashup of a shapeshifting wizard and a nature cleric and a ranger. 4th edition was the first time I actually liked the Druid, and that's because there was finally a decent amount of lore focused on why druids are actually different to nature Clerics. They paled before the Warden and the Shaman in terms of enjoyability, but at least they finally felt like they had a place. So, 5e getting rid of the Primal Spirits and going back to "they're different from nature clerics just because!" is a huge step backwards to me.

But those spirits didn't do anything. And there's nothing stopping you from saying your 5e druid draws his powers from them.
As for being different "because"? Well, that was my impression of ALL the 4e classes thanks to the AEDU system....
Though I will agree with you that shape-shifting should never have been THE main feature of druids.

 

[Iry]

So many people have brought up so many great points. I share most of them, but one thing in particular niggles at me.

5E Brought back class tiers. Whatever negatives that 4E possessed, it went an enormously long way towards balancing the classes against each other. There was still some unbalance, because that is inescapable, but it was a breath of the freshest air compared to spellcasters ruling the roost in 3.5 and Pathfinder.

Now we have returned to martial classes having very few tactical and non-combat options compared to spellcasters. And while the concentration mechanic does go a long way towards making the gulf between spellcasters much smaller than 3.5 and Pathfinder, the sheer amount of options in the hands of spellcasters ensures that class tiering is alive and well.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Reversion to Old Fluff in General: Really, this sums up almost every single problem I have with 5e in terms of fluff. 4th edition came up with so many brilliant ideas that have now been all swept away

Besides, if you're a 4e fan you didn't "lose" any of your fluff. It's sitting right there on your bookshelf.[/I]

As is all the 'Old Fluff' before it, right there on the shelf, so there was no need for 5e to 'revert' to it, it could move forward with it's only fluffiness...

... thing is, it kinda did, here and there.


Seriously, QB, if the only fault is fluff, re-fluff it. It'll involve some rules tweaks here and there, since 5e doesn't have that Wall of Separation between Crunch and Fluff. (OK, it was just 'putting fluff text in italics and mentioning you could change it,' - but, I felt like tossing in a Thomas Jefferson reference), but just because it's a little harder is no reason to be down on 5e. Well, only a little more reason than for being down on 4e.

Return of the Great Wheel: While I admit that the 5e version is slightly better than old version, particularly with the tweaks to the elemental planes, the shearing of Alignment as the focus, and the retention of the Feywild & Shadowfell, I still wish they'd kept more of the World Axis cosmology.

Y'know the World Axis is briefly presented as an option? Just like the Great Wheel was briefly outlined in 4e.

I'm particularly bugged by this because it means we've lost the Primordials, who were far more developed and interesting than the Archomentals.

The 'Dawn War Pantheon' is also presented.

Monodimensional Gnolls: I've complained about this elsewhere, so I'll be brief - 4th edition gave gnolls a huge level of character development despite their "usually villainous" role, and 5th edition's monolithic focus on them as mindless demonspawn is a waste and an insult.

Can you really insult anthropomorphized hyenas? Wouldn't they just laugh at you? (Before or after eating you - but not during, because you can choke on a human-bone that way.)

Loss of the Primal Spirits: In all honesty, I've always hated the Druid class.

I had great fun playing Druids back in the day. We're talking 1e D&D, Animal Friendship was just a spell not some big honking 'Companion' class feature, Druids could heal, could shape-change, could summon all sorts of things (including elementals that didn't turn on them) & call lightning, etc...

It just feels completely wrong - some overpowered mashup of a shapeshifting wizard and a nature cleric and a ranger.

Yeah... Don't forget concentrating on Call Lightning, shapechanging into an inconspicuous bird, and decimating an army...

4th edition was the first time I actually liked the Druid, and that's because there was finally a decent amount of lore focused on why druids are actually different to nature Clerics. They paled before the Warden and the Shaman in terms of enjoyability, but at least they finally felt like they had a place.

The 4e/E Druid was a bit of a let-down, comparatively. The PH2 Druid could shapechange but not heal or summon, the HotFK Druid could heal but not shapechange or summon, and the HotFw Druid could summon but not shapechange or heal. How lame is that? You had to cut the druid into Three pieces? (Actually, the number 3 was of particularly mystic significance to the Celts...)
OK, so the D in CoDzilla was a tad broken and the 1e Druid was a much-underestimated powerhouse. The trisection of the Druid into two controllers and a leader could be justified on the grounds of class balance. Fine. For 4e. Not so much a consideration for 5e....

So, 5e getting rid of the Primal Spirits and going back to "they're different from nature clerics just because!" is a huge step backwards to me.

I don't recall that 'just because' language, though I guess there's an element of arbitrariness differentiating classes, in general. Druids could very easily be interpreted as nature clerics priests, heck, in 2e, that's exactly what they were. They could also be interpreted as jacking into nature itself, natural forces, the elemental planes, or 'primal spirits' - or 'The Force' well we're at it.

Personally, I was disappointed by the whole Primal Spirits thing. I was looking forward to Druids that gained their powers from the Primordials. A nice (though, perhaps uncomfortable, so I can understand not going with it) parallel to RL 'Old Religion' vs monotheism.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I misread this as "epic romantic rat". I now a slightly more confusing BBEG...

I think we all tried to laugh at this too, and got told to wait 5 minutes! lol.

 

[CapnZapp]

 

[Grandvizier]

Stats are more than just mechanics

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.

Glad to see someone else recognising stats are more than just a game mechanic. I regularly use intelligence checks or wisdom checks for players who aren't necessarily bright enough to see the obvious, but whose "character" certainly is. Conversely a player who deliberately downplayed his characters intelligence to match his stats, certainly got rewarded in individual XP award, for good "character" play. My players certainly found fate against them, if they were playing "out to f character" for their stats.
Hating a game for its mechanics, misses the whole point of the exercise, their is a reason it's called "role playing", and not Tetris. If you find an individual rule that works better for you in an earlier system, adopt it, record it an hand players a summary of house rules at start play. I adopted the D20 system for combat to my 2e game as soon as it was released. Hell of a headache converting my Monsters on fly as GM but I liked improvement that much I felt it was worth it. Glad to see WotC have recognised flexibility is key to a good game.

 

[AlphaDean]

Glad to see someone else recognising stats are more than just a game mechanic. I regularly use intelligence checks or wisdom checks for players who aren't necessarily bright enough to see the obvious, but whose "character" certainly is. Conversely a player who deliberately downplayed his characters intelligence to match his stats, certainly got rewarded in individual XP award, for good "character" play. My players certainly found fate against them, if they were playing "out to f character" for their stats.
Hating a game for its mechanics, misses the whole point of the exercise, their is a reason it's called "role playing", and not Tetris. If you find an individual rule that works better for you in an earlier system, adopt it, record it an hand players a summary of house rules at start play. I adopted the D20 system for combat to my 2e game as soon as it was released. Hell of a headache converting my Monsters on fly as GM but I liked improvement that much I felt it was worth it. Glad to see WotC have recognised flexibility is key to a good game.

Adapting the rules to your game play is a hallmark of any good DM.

 

[knasser]

Glad to see someone else recognising stats are more than just a game mechanic. I regularly use intelligence checks or wisdom checks for players who aren't necessarily bright enough to see the obvious, but whose "character" certainly is. Conversely a player who deliberately downplayed his characters intelligence to match his stats, certainly got rewarded in individual XP award, for good "character" play.

I took the other side of that coin. I gave players XP for coming up with clever ideas or dialogue if it fitted their character, but I don't do that if it's out of character. So the dump-statted low Int combat monster (this wasn't D&D) whose player kept trying to advise the group on tactics and clever ideas found that they didn't get XP for it. They bought up their Int score a few points pretty fast after that!

 

[Poisonthorns Duelist]

5e seemed to throw out game balance as there are several ways to play that are significantly more powerful than others, and it seemed to have oversimplified things that didn't really need it (but that comes from someone who loves complicated games). Other than that though, it's pretty solid.