Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorhook" data-source="post: 6634476" data-attributes="member: 58401">Hate is a strong word, but yep, I've got some gripes about 5E.My main gripe is that for as awesome as the framework of 5E is, some parts of it feel distinctly underdeveloped or untested. If we limit 5E to Basic, everything in the game is solid gold. Once we open up the Player's Handbook, there are a lot of parts that feel like they're still under construction:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Clerics domains are inadequate. They tried to nail down eight broad cleric concepts that ought to fit any cleric, but instead these "broad concepts" leave a whole bunch of concepts out in the cold. The Light domain is good for a Sun cleric (maybe), but it's not a good fit for a Fire cleric...especially an elementally focused one. The Knowledge domain has a bunch of mind control spells, which seem out of place for clerics of Boccob or Oghma or Aureon. The Death domain is strictly evil/necromancer/NPC territory, which doesn't do neutral death priests (such as Kelemvorites) any favours, considering undeath is an insult to their faith. All said and done, I think 5E's domains are far less versatile than even the plain ones in 3E/3.5E, and not even close to as cool as 2E's specialty priests.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Sorcerers aren't well implemented here. All sorcerers are forced to either specialize in an element and become a dragon (dragon sorcerer) or become a ticking time-bomb dependent on their DM awarding wild surges (wild magic sorcerer). These concepts are too narrow. Worse, the dragon sorcerer offers features that are redundant for dragonborn, supposedly one of the iconic races for that subclass. Even worse, the Player's Handbook doesn't even have enough (cold, lightning, poison, or acid) spells for non-fire-based dragon sorcerers to be fully viable. Additionally, sorcerers use a subset of the wizard spell list, but there's not much explanation why some spells are available to sorcerers and others aren't. WotC seems to know that 5E sorcerers aren't adequate, so they added two new subclasses via online articles, both of which are mostly superior to the two choices in the PH.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Warlocks are absolutely dripping with delicious flavour and inspirational material. That said, the class is absolutely chock-full of trap options which severely reduce the breadth of viable choices for warlock characters. The warlock also has a lot of "taxes" in its invocations; agonizing blast should have been built into eldritch blast directly, and the pact-specific invocations should just be class features for those pacts. Eldritch blast and hex seem like they were meant to be class features too, but they're out in the spell section, starting arguments about "balance" for other classes. Overall, like the sorcerer, the warlock really feels like it could've been a much better class with just a bit more playtesting.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Elemental monks need more options.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The weapon list could use a revision to weed out imbalanced options.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Stealth is confusing and depends on the DM's judgement to a greater degree than it should.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Two-Weapon Fighting is significantly suboptimal for fighters, rangers, and berserker barbarians after 11th level. This is tied to the problem that certain feats (Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, and Sharpshooter, to name a few) seem a lot more powerful than others.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The spell list seems like it needed a few more additions or revisions (re: Warlock, Sorcerer, and Cleric variety). It's not well organized either, but that's just a pet peeve of mine.</li> </ul>I'm enjoying the hell out of 5E, but it's kinda frustrating that certain elements of the game feel so undercooked. I've spent a lot of time asking mechanical questions about the game and houseruling more than I wanted to.Also, I'd like it if there were more products for me to look forward to.</blockquote>

Verification