5 unpopular non-political opinions... about 5e [Archive]

ad_hoc

2016-12-19, 07:07 PM

I can summarize with one point: If they only use 1/2 their Ki on their sub-class features, they're balanced with a 1/3 caster (ie AT or EK). The most common 'problem' given for them is that their abilities cost too much Ki. This is not the case.

Although I'll admit they're a little limited in at-will abilities, unlike the AT/EK, which get 2 cantrips. Elemental Attunement doesn't really cut it. So there's room for improvement. But that's true with almost any class. Fine does not mean perfect. :smallwink:

Thanks for the reply. Not entirely the same issues I have with it.

1. AT/EK get additional abilities which augment their spells/existing abilities (eg War Magic). Their spells are additional as well. 1/2 spent on Ki gives them the same number, but AT/EK still have all of their base class power.

More importantly:

2. 4E's spells are limited in number and scope. You do them instead of doing Monk things. A Shadow Monk can Pass Without Trace during exploration and then use action/bonus action in combat with Monk abilities. This is why I consider the Sun Soul to be the 4E fix. Burning Hands as a bonus action makes sense. It would be great to see more subclasses like the Sun Soul to broaden the choices.

Now that I have hijacked this thread enough I won't make any further replies.

CantigThimble

2016-12-19, 07:12 PM

1) Tieflings, Dragonborn and Drow only exist because players want to feel like their character is unique without putting the effort in to make their personality memorable.
2) Wand of the war wizard and Rod of the Pact Keeper shouldn't exist.
3) Fighters shouldn't spend their extra ASIs on combat feats or ability scores.
4) You should lose spell slots when you go unconscious.
5) It doesn't actually matter if some players have more powerful characters than everyone else.

King539

2016-12-19, 07:14 PM

5) 5e is, bar none, the best edition of D&D I've played, and as Gygax is my witness I wouldn't want to go back to any previous version.

Amen! Seconded!

ad_hoc

2016-12-19, 07:16 PM

1) Tieflings, Dragonborn and Drow only exist because players want to feel like their character is unique without putting the effort in to make their personality memorable.

Harsh way of putting it but I'm having trouble disagreeing. I strongly dislike those races.

2) Wand of the war wizard and Rod of the Pact Keeper shouldn't exist.

What about the Deck of Many Things? Magic items only exist if they are present. Many of them can completely destroy a game.

3) Fighters shouldn't spend their extra ASIs on combat feats or ability scores.

Any of them?

5) It doesn't actually matter if some players have more powerful characters than everyone else.

Spotlight time is what matters.

Ravinsild

2016-12-19, 07:18 PM

1) I like damage Barbarians instead of Tank Barbarians
2) I like Blaster Casters instead of Controllers and Crowd Control focused casters
3) I hate Polearms and think they are stupid and Polearm Master make me butthurt
4) I love Dual-Wielding for...almost everything even STR Barbarian DW
5) I wish Gnolls were official PC race and not the Demonic race they are in Forgotten Realms :(

CantigThimble

2016-12-19, 07:23 PM

What about the Deck of Many Things? Magic items only exist if they are present. Many of them can completely destroy a game.

Any of them?

I like the fact that the deck of many things/wand of wonder exist even if I would never include them in a serious, long term campaign.

I specified the extra ASIs because I think it's fine for fighters to improve their combat the same amount that other people do, but get some diversity in there. You only get bland combat class features except for ASIs which are the way you make fighters into a real class, but people just throw them away on GWM AND polearm master AND 20 con AND resilient: wis.

jitzul

2016-12-19, 07:23 PM

1) Stunning strike is a stifling ability that limits creativity when it comes to designing monk archetypes. Nobody can do anything interesting with a weapon master monk(see kensai) because everyone is afraid that one damn ability will make them bar non the best martial's in the game.
2) The focus on forgotten realms is sicking at this point. Can we please get something more interesting then the same tolken based world we get from almost every other fantasy setting.
3) Martial's not being able to pull the same crazy stuff at higher level that casters can do. All i'm saying is I would think it would be cool if a level 20 barbarian could lift a ship and throw it straight at a dragons face. Or have a 20th level fighter slice a tower in half.
4) The focus on level 1-10 content. I know that is the level range is the one most played but they could stop the self defeating cycle by releasing good high level content that fleshes out the higher level so people would be less afraid to play them.
5) Monks being master battlefield controls that zip around the battlefield using insane hit and run tactics is a load of bunk pushed by white room minmaxers.

MrStabby

2016-12-19, 07:25 PM

1) Clerics and Monks are overpowered
2) Hallow is the most fun spell in the game
3) Fire damage is one of the more useful damage types; sure it is resisted a lot but when you need it it is golden
4) People should care more about what languages a character knows
5) Daggers are an underrated weapon

pwykersotz

2016-12-19, 07:29 PM

1. D&D 5e magic is the best system magic system I have ever used, but it's unusable and I hate it.
2. D&D 5e combat is the best combat system I have ever used, but it lacks critical support for simple archetypal and cinematic heroes.
3. The current skill system is absolutely amazing. I love it.
4. Wizards are boring and lame. Every other caster is more interesting and fun.
5. We need more variants of all things in a second DMG to encourage a greater scope of world-building and campaign styles.

King539

2016-12-19, 07:31 PM

1) Clerics and Monks are overpowered

I understand your reasoning on Clerics, but why Monks?

Flashy

2016-12-19, 07:32 PM

2) Hallow is the most fun spell in the game

I don't know if this opinion is unpopular so much as hard to acquire. I've just never played in a campaign where the characters had enough cash to burn it on a single location like that.

CantigThimble

2016-12-19, 07:33 PM

5) Monks being master battlefield controls that zip around the battlefield using insane hit and run tactics is a load of bunk pushed by white room minmaxers.

I disagree only because that's exactly what our party monk does, but I can see why you might come to that conclusion. Party composition, enemies and DM tactics all need to align for that kind of strategy to happen.

Ravinsild

2016-12-19, 07:34 PM

hahahaha I'm stealing that one for expressing my opinion on it in the future. "GWM & PAM make me butthurt." :smallbiggrin:

I just think it should apply to all Great Weapons. There are many videos talking about "The Pommel Strike" where you just bash somebody in the head with the hilt of your sword and then you can pierce them or cut them. I don't know I just hate being "locked in" to a Polearm if I want to build the very best possible martial weapon using character because literally no fantasy picture ever shows a great half-orc charging into battle in a furious frothing frenzy with spittle flying from his mouth with....a stupid halberd or glaive. It's 99.9% of the an Axe or a Sword or possibly even a Maul. But for sure not a pike or a quarterstaff are you kidding me. I rage super hard then poke you with my walking stick....least epic moment ever. **** you quarterstaff.

Secret Wizard

2016-12-19, 07:44 PM

1. Multiclassing should always be banned.

2. Free feats should be granted at 1st level.

3. Any feats or class features that increase attack bonus are worse than Hitler.

4. Forcing Monks into DEX was a terrible choice.

5. DEX to damage was a bad idea because it's only balanced by the ready availability of heavy armor.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-12-19, 07:49 PM

We could always go back to just rolling 4d6b3 once for your character, and that being your class stat for all class-related features, but not used for anything else. Because that's kinda-sorta what Str, Int and Wis were intended to be. Class stats for Fighter, Wizard and Cleric.

Then you can introduce a whole new point-buy system for non-class features, or just have nothing at all and have the DM either just narrate what happens or make up some rule on the spot. :smallamused:
Given how rigidly 5e scales things, it's actually trivially easy to remove Ability scores in 5e-- using Proficiency instead of your modifier gets you about 90% of the way there all by itself, although it's best to smooth out scaling and introduce some "half proficiency" for dabbling (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?503455-5e-Without-Ability-Scores-skills-Skills-Skills).

I just think it should apply to all Great Weapons. There are many videos talking about "The Pommel Strike" where you just bash somebody in the head with the hilt of your sword and then you can pierce them or cut them. I don't know I just hate being "locked in" to a Polearm if I want to build the very best possible martial weapon using character because literally no fantasy picture ever shows a great half-orc charging into battle in a furious frothing frenzy with spittle flying from his mouth with....a stupid halberd or glaive. It's 99.9% of the an Axe or a Sword or possibly even a Maul. But for sure not a pike or a quarterstaff are you kidding me. I rage super hard then poke you with my walking stick....least epic moment ever. **** you quarterstaff.
You totally hit people with the butt of a sword, at least. (http://www.aemma.org/onlineResources/liberi/wildRose/section5.html)

Ravinsild

2016-12-19, 07:51 PM

You totally hit people with the butt of a sword, at least. (http://www.aemma.org/onlineResources/liberi/wildRose/section5.html)

Yeah that's what I mean. The bottom of the handle of the sword. I probably named it wrong but I mean the direct opposite end of the pointy blade, the rounded bit at the end of the part you hold onto. You can smash someone with that and it's basically the same thing as the wording of the Polearm Master feat.

ad_hoc

2016-12-19, 08:05 PM

I specified the extra ASIs because I think it's fine for fighters to improve their combat the same amount that other people do, but get some diversity in there. You only get bland combat class features except for ASIs which are the way you make fighters into a real class, but people just throw them away on GWM AND polearm master AND 20 con AND resilient: wis.

Oh, I missed the 'extra'.

I'm with you. It is unoptimized to ignore the other 2/3 of the game to become slightly better at the part you are already good at.

Lappy9001

2016-12-19, 08:25 PM

1) I really don't feel like a lot of these are unpopular opinions.
2) I don't really have any problem with that, though.
3) I'm just glad people are having fun.
4) Just wanted to point it out.
5) Now I'm doing it too.

rooneg

2016-12-19, 08:29 PM

1. The fighter class fundamentally puts too much of it's power into Extra Attacks, so its archetypes are way too similar. We could have way more interesting fighter archetypes if the base class topped out at two Extra Attacks.
2. If your class/archetype doesn't do its "thing" at 3rd level then it's poorly designed. See, for example, the Conjuration specialist Wizard, which doesn't get to summon anything of consequence until like level 7, or the Purple Dragon Knight, which is a piss-poor warlord for basically the whole game (although some of this is really opinion number 1 manifesting).
3. Three types of arcane casters is two too many. Any given world should have either Wizards or Sorcerers or Warlocks, not all three.
4. People worry too much about maxing out relevant ability scores. You can have more fun spending your first ASI or two on feats in many cases, and get a cooler character sooner.
5. We could get rid of everything before level 3 and after level 10 and the game would be the better for it. Before three is too squishy and after 10 the change in caster power means the game is almost unrecognizable. Might as well concentrate on the parts that actually tend to see the most play at the table, and that's 3-10.

RedGeomancer

2016-12-19, 09:21 PM

1) Tieflings, Dragonborn and Drow only exist because players want to feel like their character is unique without putting the effort in to make their personality memorable.

Oh, snap!

I say that about EVERY edition of D&D while it's out. :smallbiggrin:

Really? Is that because you're counting 4e as a completely different game?

4) People should care more about what languages a character knows

Totally. My world doesn't even have "Common" (blech).

Variant Humans should not exist. Alternatively, the DM should make up specific human ethnicities or cultures for her world and define specific, noncustomizable ASI/Feats/Skills packages.
In a point buy system, racial Ability Score Increases just don't matter that much.
Feats were botched. The point should be character customization, but there are too many Hobson's choices.
In an overreaction against 3x's simulationism, the movement rules (including jumping, climbing, and swimming) are just worthless.
THIS SPACE RESERVED.

Petrocorus

2016-12-19, 09:23 PM

One thing that irks me is the way familiars have been handled in 3.5. They have a Pokemon feel to me now. And the fluff is not the same. I also dislike the fact they are not intelligent any more and it is too costful for a Sorcerer to have one.

I think Beastmasters are fine as far as power goes, but I don't think they do what most people want out of the subclass. Most of the bad subclasses are like this, how they actually play is different than it at first appears.
Then how is it supposed to play and what to expect of the subclass?

Hex is mediocre and yet Hunter's Mark is good (The difference lies in the role it plays in the class).
I don't get it, could you be more explicit?

5. Warlocks are one trick ponies (if you don't get enough short rests)
I would rather say two tricks pony with the possibility to go Darkness + Devil's sight, but otherwise i think everyone would agree that without short rest a Warlock is only going to go Eldritch Blast + Hex.

1) ...Dragonborn ...
I'm personally quite angry about the change in fluff of the Dragonborn between 3.5 and 5E. In 3.5 they had a very strong and original fluff. In 5E, their fluff is just something i saw in many other places.

2) The focus on forgotten realms is sicking at this point. Can we please get something more interesting then the same tolken based world we get from almost every other fantasy setting.

I totally agree, especially given that i never was a big fan of FR. I can't wait to have (an official and balanced) Eberron.

3) Martial's not being able to pull the same crazy stuff at higher level that casters can do. All i'm saying is I would think it would be cool if a level 20 barbarian could lift a ship and throw it straight at a dragons face. Or have a 20th level fighter slice a tower in half.

Seconded

5. DEX to damage was a bad idea because it's only balanced by the ready availability of heavy armor.

But OTOH, that what make the Dex build to be able to effectively compete with the Str builds.

Feats were botched. The point should be character customization, but there are too many Hobson's choices.

What do you call Hobson's choices?

Potato_Priest

2016-12-19, 09:58 PM

1) Tieflings, Dragonborn and Drow only exist because players want to feel like their character is unique without putting the effort in to make their personality memorable.

Hear Hear! They're not always used that way, but your statement is usually true.

Hard to limit myself to just 5, but here goes.

1. Historical allegory nations make better campaigns faster.
2. Flanking is a good rule.
3. Dealing magical or nonmagical damage should be something fully under DM control up to level 6, for cinematic and story-based reasons.
4. Big monsters should have AOE melee attacks.
5. Big monsters should have very few, very powerful attacks in a turn, not this "Monster the size of a battleship hits you 8 times in a round" bull****.

lonewulf

2016-12-19, 10:23 PM

5. DEX to damage was a bad idea because it's only balanced by the ready availability of heavy armor.

I disagree somewhat. I dont really think it makes that much sense, but then I don't think it makes that much sense that Strength contributes to-hit. Just because you can heft that huge hammer with ease doesnt mean you have good aim with it.

My only actual problem with Dex vs Str (and every other stat) is that Dex does more for a character than Str (or other stats) does. But I dont think Dex should do less, I think the other stats should do more.

But what do I know, there's a reason im not a game designer...

VoxRationis

2016-12-19, 10:27 PM

1. Warlock multiclassing should not be nearly so go-to an option as people seem to think it is. (Truthfully, a lot of multiclassing is bad in this way, but warlock is particular is egregiously over-recommended.)
2. The fatigue from barbarian frenzy is a fine drawback for the ability.
3. Paladins exist because of their oaths; falling for breaking them is reasonable.
4. Echoing earlier sentiments about the "new" PHB races: tieflings are even worse than drow because as written, they are basically an entire race of Drizzts without a larger evil culture to be rebelling from.
5. I feel that the bard's inspiration ability has kind of lost something since 3.5, and I'm not sure becoming a full caster makes up for it. If I wanted to play a wizard, I'd play a wizard.

Contrast

2016-12-19, 10:32 PM

1. D&D 5e magic is the best system magic system I have ever used, but it's unusable and I hate it.

I'd be interested for you to explain why you love it and also hate it.

5. Big monsters should have very few, very powerful attacks in a turn, not this "Monster the size of a battleship hits you 8 times in a round" bull****.

I get where you're coming from in that it feels right for a single dragon swipe to sweep through and mangle someone. Seems to me this was clearly a game design decision as it would be absolutely terrible to actually play. Each turn a single player gets instaglibbed while everyone else stands around twiddling their thumbs and if players aren't getting instaglibbed they'll prolly just win through action economy. This way everyone is involved and the DM/players can try to actually use some tactics about damage and resource allocation.

RedGeomancer

2016-12-19, 10:34 PM

What do you call Hobson's choices?

A lot of optimization threads seem to be answered with Great Weapon Fighting or Polearm Master.

rooneg

2016-12-19, 10:36 PM

1. Warlock multiclassing should not be nearly so go-to an option as people seem to think it is. (Truthfully, a lot of multiclassing is bad in this way, but warlock is particular is egregiously over-recommended.)

Honestly, this whole problem would go away if Eldritch Blast (or all cantrips even, but especially Eldritch Blast) just scaled with class level instead of character level. I've never really understood the logic behind how a 20th level fighter who picks up a cantrip via Magical Initiate can just chuck around 4d10 bolts of fire right out of the gate.

VoxRationis

2016-12-19, 10:37 PM

I get where you're coming from in that it feels right for a single dragon swipe to sweep through and mangle someone. Seems to me this was clearly a game design decision as it would be absolutely terrible to actually play. Each turn a single player gets instaglibbed while everyone else stands around twiddling their thumbs and if players aren't getting instaglibbed they'll prolly just win through action economy. This way everyone is involved and the DM/players can try to actually use some tactics about damage and resource allocation.

That would be mitigated through his 4th point, AOE melee attacks. That giant's club or dragon's tail should hit multiple party members by default.

lonewulf

2016-12-19, 10:39 PM

I'd be interested for you to explain why you love it and also hate it.

I get where you're coming from in that it feels right for a single dragon swipe to sweep through and mangle someone. Seems to me this was clearly a game design decision as it would be absolutely terrible to actually play. Each turn a single player gets instaglibbed while everyone else stands around twiddling their thumbs and if players aren't getting instaglibbed they'll prolly just win through action economy. This way everyone is involved and the DM/players can try to actually use some tactics about damage and resource allocation.

Ive always thought it made more sense that if you have multiple attacks in a turn then you should have multiple initiatives as well (a fighter with 3 attacks rolls initiative 3 times and gets 1 attack at each initiative) instead of unloading it all on 1 "turn". No idea how id make it work as ive never sat down and tried to figure it out but it makes sense TO ME. im sure there is a perfectly good reason that it hasnt been done like that but....yeah....lost my train of thought.

Potato_Priest

2016-12-19, 10:39 PM

I get where you're coming from in that it feels right for a single dragon swipe to sweep through and mangle someone. Seems to me this was clearly a game design decision as it would be absolutely terrible to actually play. Each turn a single player gets instaglibbed while everyone else stands around twiddling their thumbs and if players aren't getting instaglibbed they'll prolly just win through action economy. This way everyone is involved and the DM/players can try to actually use some tactics about damage and resource allocation.

If you take away or limit multiattack, buff the Attack a little, and then give it AOE it works pretty well. Also, I generally don't favor straight damage upgrades to the attack, but effects like proning, grappling, or pushing to give it that "massive force" flavor.

NecroDancer

2016-12-19, 10:40 PM

In all honesty the Teifling race should have been introduced in a Planescape splat-book. Making them be "cursed" and "edgy" humans takes away from their inherent coolness as a planar race. Genasi are 100 times more interesting than teiflings because Genasi are planars! Not some "cursed and hated pseudo-humans". At least they haven't ruined the Gith by making them "outcast humans warped by psionic powers".

VoxRationis

2016-12-19, 10:40 PM

Ive always thought it made more sense that if you have multiple attacks in a turn then you should have multiple initiatives as well (a fighter with 3 attacks rolls initiative 3 times and gets 1 attack at each initiative) instead of unloading it all on 1 "turn". No idea how id make it work as ive never sat down and tried to figure it out but it makes sense TO ME. im sure there is a perfectly good reason that it hasnt been done like that but....yeah....lost my train of thought.

In AD&D you'd just take your iterative attacks after everyone else has already gone in that turn. So basically you'd start the turn over again, but without actually going into the second turn (assuming multiple people are getting iterative attacks in the first place).

lonewulf

2016-12-19, 10:46 PM

In AD&D you'd just take your iterative attacks after everyone else has already gone in that turn. So basically you'd start the turn over again, but without actually going into the second turn (assuming multiple people are getting iterative attacks in the first place).

Yeah, thats where I started my D&D gaming...I didnt really like how it handled that way either, lol. I'll probably never be "happy" about the way it plays in any edition but it isnt a big enough deal to make the game not-fun. I still love playing every edition except 4th (I dont hate 4e at all, it just didnt feel like d&d).

ad_hoc

2016-12-19, 10:58 PM

Then how is it supposed to play and what to expect of the subclass?

The Beastmaster is a powerful subclass because the beast is an extra body for the party and it can absorb attacks. It makes the party much more survivable. However, most people don't find it fun to use the beast as a sacrificial meat shield.

I don't get it, could you be more explicit?

Hex is mediocre, Hunter's Mark is good.

Hex on a Warlock uses up a high level spell slot and their concentration. What ends up happening is that in easier fights they win more. In a fight where they just want to use a cantrip to conserve energy, they end up using up a high level spell slot on Hex. In tougher fights the extra d6 per hit is not nearly as impactful as a different 3rd-5th level spell would be. Further, if they are using Hex they can't also use their good concentration spells.

Hunter's Mark remains a 1st level spell for Rangers. The concentration limit is not as impactful either as many of their spells are useful outside of combat. In combat they want to be attacking and Hunter's Mark is a decent buff for that.

Ogre Mage

2016-12-19, 11:44 PM

1. 5E is too limiting with concentration. I understand the reason for it after 3.X, but it went too far.
2. I prefer Land Druids to Moon Druids.
3. The 5E favored soul sorcerer variant is not overpowered. In fact it is my favorite class.
4. The 5E warlock is a mess (but cool thematically).
5. I hate halflings. I wish I was an oni snacking on halflings.

pwykersotz

2016-12-19, 11:45 PM

I'd be interested for you to explain why you love it and also hate it.

Basically, I have come to very much dislike spells. Not magic, mind you. I hate the codified bit of text that allows an overspecialized action to take place. It takes up huge amounts of my brainspace to store this information, and for very little good. Yes, I have rules clarity, but at enormous cost. I would much prefer a free-form system that details how the magic works and then lets you combine it in fun ways. Like the spheres in Mage the Ascension. I also have a highly Americanized view of powers in my head. Using magic should tire you out. You should be able to put in more effort and get a bigger effect. Powers should have a strong central theme. The source of your powers should matter. I want there to be rules that govern these things that are highly intuitive, incredibly streamlined, and cause little or no math at the table (marking radii and counting distance and such).

I don't care about Vancian casting vs MP or anything, I just want magic to take up maybe 10-20 pages in the sourcebook and then leave the rest to the players and the GM. My ideal system would probably look something like the 5e skill system. You have a power, you name an action. The DM decides the difficulty or if a roll is even necessary. On a success it works, on a failure it doesn't. I think FATE came the closest to working, but my table can't stand FATE points, so that collapsed a lot of it. There were also a few other nuances that caused it to fall through.

Unfortunately, there do not appear to be any systems that meet my lofty standards. I've tried countless systems, reading up on them and spending days and weeks dissecting the magic. Ars Magica, FATE, GURPS, World of Darkness, and dozens more. I've started delving into more indie games too, but I'm still not finding what I want.

That said, 5e has the most restrained spell system I've ever seen while also providing a large variety of powers. To many fewer spells and you'd be missing archetypal abilities. Too many more and naming conventions begin to get more esoteric. "Okay, so Firebolt does X, but Fireblast does Y and Flame Bolt does Z!" They simplified the overly specialized subsystems that bloated 3.5 spells and the casting mechanics are extremely easy to understand and use. It doesn't match the feel I want, but mechanically it's incredibly solid. If this is the best that I can get with magic systems, I'll call it good enough.

MeeposFire

2016-12-19, 11:57 PM

Hmm how about this one.

1. Dex is way overrated (it is good mind you but sheesh just because some class uses dex instead of something else does not make it so good it overpowers the game).

2. Related initiative is overrated (for some classes it is really good but there are a lot of classes where it is not really that important).

dejarnjc

2016-12-19, 11:59 PM

Hex is mediocre, Hunter's Mark is good.

Hex on a Warlock uses up a high level spell slot and their concentration. What ends up happening is that in easier fights they win more. In a fight where they just want to use a cantrip to conserve energy, they end up using up a high level spell slot on Hex. In tougher fights the extra d6 per hit is not nearly as impactful as a different 3rd-5th level spell would be. Further, if they are using Hex they can't also use their good concentration spells.

Hex after 3rd or 4th level lasts most of the adventuring day. A warlock can just precast hex, short rest an hour and then have it ready for when they need it.

xyianth

2016-12-20, 12:04 AM

1. Rangers should use Intelligence for their spellcasting, and Survival should be based on Intelligence.
2. DM, err Divine Intervention is not and should never be a class feature... it is and always will be rule 0 and is therefore omnipresent.
3. The bless spell is too powerful and far too universally applicable.
4. Druids shouldn't be full casters, there I said it. Wild shape is always far too potent to be bolted on to a full caster.
5. Multiclassing should be balanced by powerful class features in the mid and late levels. Warlocks are a dip class because you get 95% of the class by 3rd level.

ad_hoc

2016-12-20, 12:16 AM

Hex after 3rd or 4th level lasts most of the adventuring day. A warlock can just precast hex, short rest an hour and then have it ready for when they need it.

It still uses up their first slot. They also must make a concentration save every time they get hit. You also lose it when you want to cast a good concentration spell.

It's just not that good. It's not terrible either which is why I say it is mediocre.

Pex

2016-12-20, 12:52 AM

1) Dexterity is overrated. Strength is underrated. Initiative is not the be all end all of everything you must have high Dex else you're The Suck.
2) Not every warrior will have Great Weapon Master and/or Pole Arm Master and/or Sentinel or Sharpshooter when feats are available.
3) Charisma Class X/Warlock 2 is just a character with a glorified range attack instead of using a bow.
4) There is no problem whatsoever having fire damage spells and effects. It is irrelevant how many monsters in the manual are resistant/immune to fire. The only thing that matters is how often they appear in the game you're playing.
5) Magic items exist in 5E. The game does not forbid them. The game does not fall apart into unplayability because the party has magic items. +# weapons do not destroy the game and are not boring to all players.

Secret Wizard

2016-12-20, 12:58 AM

I disagree somewhat. I dont really think it makes that much sense, but then I don't think it makes that much sense that Strength contributes to-hit. Just because you can heft that huge hammer with ease doesnt mean you have good aim with it.

I think it's very intuitive. The stronger you are, the more momentum to bash your enemy with your bludgeoning weapon, impale them with your piercing weapon, or rake through them with your slashing weapon.

Take a simple punch. If you swing towards an opponent and go wide (i.e. roll lower than average), but still manage to clip your rival (say, by connecting with the side of their head), then the strength of your blow matters to determine the effectiveness of your attack. If it's a weak attack, it will simply slide off the side of your rival's head. If it's a powerful blow, even if it barely connects, it will still tear flesh and send your opponent's head spinning.

Adding momentum to attacks is a function of tensile strength as much as limberness.

Cespenar

2016-12-20, 01:00 AM

1) Bounded accuracy is a backwards implementation of a concept that has little-to-no place in a level-based game where progression is the entire point of the structure.

This, so much.

I'll expand with even more outrageous ones:

1) d20 is one of the worst ways to do "random". No one acts at their maximum or minimum as commonly as their average. It should be 3d6, or basically a bell-curve at any rate.

2) Instead of pumping campaign set after campaign set, Wizards should provide additional rulesets to convert to game into modern era, dark age, other known settings (Planescape, Dark Sun, etc.).

3) Level 1-15 mega-adventure campaigns are not a good design decision. There should be more but shorter adventures instead, and I'm not talking about those one-shot, mostly shallow existing adventures.

4) The existing campaigns feel a lot like attempts at bedazzling the community with the most well-known D&D buzzwords, instead of making stories and filling them afterwards. Demons! Elementals! Dragons! Undead! Giants!

5) Of the oft-spoken "three pillars", the rules seem like favoring combat the most, the other two pillars providing mainly to be distractions or excuses to go into combat anyway. See the care gone into various attacks, action economy, damage types, etc. and contrast with the simplistic shells which are Perception or Diplomacy.

You may bring the cross.

Jerrykhor

2016-12-20, 01:30 AM

It still uses up their first slot. They also must make a concentration save every time they get hit. You also lose it when you want to cast a good concentration spell.

It's just not that good. It's not terrible either which is why I say it is mediocre.

That's not the way to judge a spell's quality. You look at whether the spell is worth keeping as you level up. And it is the best spell in the Level 1 spell list. Ok, maybe AoA is worth considering, but i don't really need it since i have thp from Fiend pact.

Being able to last for hours and even through short rest, Hex is clearly the most efficient use of a spell slot, and warlocks love that. Plus, the disadvantage debuff is sweet and versatile.

Getting hit is easily avoided barring ambushes and surprise rounds. Most of your spells have more than 100 ft range.

ad_hoc

2016-12-20, 03:57 AM

That's not the way to judge a spell's quality. You look at whether the spell is worth keeping as you level up. And it is the best spell in the Level 1 spell list. Ok, maybe AoA is worth considering, but i don't really need it since i have thp from Fiend pact.

But there are no level 1 spell slots after level 3. You don't need to have any level 1 spells at all.

Hellish Rebuke is better and scales better.

Being able to last for hours and even through short rest, Hex is clearly the most efficient use of a spell slot, and warlocks love that.

Please back up that statement. It's either superfluous in easy battles or inconsequential in more difficult ones.

Plus, the disadvantage debuff is sweet and versatile.

It is very niche. It will probably have a use at some point in the campaign, but it's not going to be every day.

Getting hit is easily avoided barring ambushes and surprise rounds. Most of your spells have more than 100 ft range.

If getting hit is easily avoided then you don't need any spells. It's just win more.

MrStabby

2016-12-20, 04:25 AM

I understand your reasoning on Clerics, but why Monks?

THis is based on the games I have DMed. A well judged monk rarely runs out of resources as they can recover on a short rest. They "nova" well in the sense of being able to effectively spend a lot of resources in one turn. Walls, bridges, obstacles or other terrain features don't stop them. They pretty much make it trivially easy to have an encounter focused on a small number of enemies higher level than the party.

The ability to spend just enough resources to make encounters easy makes monks so efficient.

I would rate shadowmonks the strongest - the surprised condition is great - letting your whole party sneak up on the enemy is brutal. Silence can wreck some encounters when used right. Shadowstep means even forcecage isn't going to stop one of these boys.

High dex means monks are likely to go first - taking some enemies out of the fight before they get to go. Combined with advantage from the stunned condition they are pretty likely to never get a go at all unless they are total beefcakes.

If you measure a class power by how frequently the DM has to/has justification to revise encounters to take account of a class to ensure they remain a challenge then monk is pretty close to the top of the list. I have had parties take down deadly encounters before losing no HP due to a monk's stunning strike.

gfishfunk

2016-12-20, 08:10 AM

1. Pale should not be able to heal. And their at will smite should be weaker than their spell smites, do that they are opportunistic bonuses versus planned out smites.
2. Clerics should not have offensive magic. They should be buff bots, healers, and de-buffers.
3. Barbarians should be called Berserkers with a Barbarian subclass.
4. Every class should have an invocation-like feature that allows for further choices during character creation.
5. About 1/3 of all spells should not be available to PCs, reserved as forgotten lore, usable by bad guys, possibly fitted as a quest reward, or found on a spell scroll for wizards.
6. Sorcerers should not cast spells but use some form of raw magic that is unique to their class.

RedGeomancer

2016-12-20, 08:19 AM

Take a simple punch. If you swing towards an opponent and go wide (i.e. roll lower than average), but still manage to clip your rival (say, by connecting with the side of their head), then the strength of your blow matters to determine the effectiveness of your attack. If it's a weak attack, it will simply slide off the side of your rival's head. If it's a powerful blow, even if it barely connects, it will still tear flesh and send your opponent's head spinning.

Arguably that's the damage roll, not the attack roll.

TheTeaMustFlow

2016-12-20, 08:23 AM

1. Feats are not overpowered, and in fact make the game more balanced by narrowing the gap between casters and martials.
2. Polearm Master, Crossbow Expert, Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter are not overpowered, and Shield Master is just as good as them.
3. As a corollary, the aforementioned feats do not force Fighters and such into particular styles of fighting, given that they cover all weapon choices but one (Dual Wielding, which is by contrast underpowered)
4. Dips are overrated, the Warlock 2 dip in particular. Often, and especially for spellcasters, the best build is going straight with one class.
5. While they should be rarer than in previous editions (and by previous editions, I mean 3.5), magic items are a necessary part of the game, and PCs should get some at a relatively low level. In particular, martials need a way to deal magical weapon damage by around 8th level or so.

MrStabby

2016-12-20, 09:46 AM

My AL experiences say this one is wrong. A warrior without one of these feats or Shield Master, by 8th level at the latest, is vanishingly rare. And the exceptions are almost universally TWF warriors (with or without Dual Wield).

I play with a paladin who, as their first two ASIs took mage slayer and mobile. They are thinking lucky for their next one. Actually they are very effective.

Generally though a warrior class will end up with one of the feats you mentioned.

Laurefindel

2016-12-20, 09:48 AM

1) healing is too easy in 5e
2) the wizard should be the only prepared caster class
3) the ranger should have been a spell-less class with a 1/3 casting subclass
4) I strongly dislike spiritual weapon as a spell; both mechanically and fluff-wise.
5) there shouldn't be a "common" language

rooneg

2016-12-20, 10:29 AM

HidesHisEyes

2016-12-20, 10:30 AM

1) Bounded accuracy is a backwards implementation of a concept that has little-to-no place in a level-based game where progression is the entire point of the structure.
2) Ability scores are a sacred cow that have no right being 50% of your competence, and serve primarily to limit options and stifle counter-intuitive builds
3) DPR calculations have little to no place in discussions of balance, particularly when used to quibble about single-digit differences
4) 5e's balance ("no-one is terribly good at anything") is deep and robust, and is not going to be significantly upset by anything you're proposing, honestly.
5) 5e is, bar none, the best edition of D&D I've played, and as Gygax is my witness I wouldn't want to go back to any previous version.

(That last one may not exactly be unpopular)

I'm with you on the last one, very much against you on the first two! I love bounded accuracy. It's so nice to be able to be "quite good" at something beyond about level 5, as opposed to having to choose between "the peak of human ability" or "totally useless". It's also nice, particularly as a DM, knowing that DC10 is easy and DC20 is hard regardless of PC level, instead of it being all weird and relative.

MrStabby

2016-12-20, 10:39 AM

I'm with you on the last one, very much against you on the first two! I love bounded accuracy. It's so nice to be able to be "quite good" at something beyond about level 5, as opposed to having to choose between "the peak of human ability" or "totally useless". It's also nice, particularly as a DM, knowing that DC10 is easy and DC20 is hard regardless of PC level, instead of it being all weird and relative.

Its also nice as a DM to have more interesting encounters to give players. For mid+ levels you can still use lower CR creatures to assist fights. Now Evil King Megaman and his elite guards are not fighting you alone, they have the minions you leveled up against there as well - they didn't just wander off deciding you were too tough and they are still useful.

HidesHisEyes

2016-12-20, 10:52 AM

1. Multiclassing should always be banned.

I don't agree that it should always be banned but I wish there were more people at least open to the idea of a non-multiclassing game. Last time I brought it up on these forums there was a discussion about whether the classes are character concepts in their own right or tools for creating concepts of your own. I think they can be either but I don't think viewing them as the former automatically leads to dull characters - either mechanically or thematically - and that seems to be quite a controversial opinion.

Its also nice as a DM to have more interesting encounters to give players. For mid+ levels you can still use lower CR creatures to assist fights. Now Evil King Megaman and his elite guards are not fighting you alone, they have the minions you leveled up against there as well - they didn't just wander off deciding you were too tough and they are still useful.

Yes definitely. Much more options for building encounters.

2D8HP

2016-12-20, 11:16 AM

Ones I argue all the time:
1) Dumping Int on an EK or AT is a waste of your sub-class.
2) PHB Beastmaster Rangers & Way of the Four Elements Monks are fine.
3) Alignment in 5e is the most useful version of Alignment D&D has ever had.
4) 5e is more balanced without Feats or Multiclassing*
5) 5e is great for resurrecting an old-school D&D feel by resurrecting a few minor play-style tweaks: strict time keeping & logistics tracking, wandering monsters, and a combat-as-war mentality. High lethality optional but strongly encouraged!

*I don't think people really will disagree 5e is more balanced without Feats & Multiclassing. I just think it's more popular to play with them anyway.Can you be my DM?
Please?
With sugar on top?

1. PCs don't have to be "magical" (i.e use magic) in any way in order to be interesting.
I agree completely.
4. INT. SHOULD. NEVER. BE. A. DUMP. STAT. I very much disagree, as I'm not smart enough to really role-play an above average intelligence character.

Historical allegory nations make better campaigns faster.Yes! Yes! Yes!

1) healing is too easy in 5e Yep.

3) the ranger should have been a spell-less class with a 1/3 casting subclass Yes sir!

5) there shouldn't be a "common" languageAlso yep.

5e is, bar none, the best edition of D&D I've played, and as Gygax is my witness I wouldn't want to go back to any previous version.

(That last one may not exactly be unpopular)The more I'm a player of 5e the more I agree, but......

*looks for pitchforks*

Ahem.

1) All the shiny PC options and abilities that make it more fun to play, than say 1977 "blue book" D&D, make it more intimidating and difficult to DM thus lessening oppurtunities to actually play the game.

2) Role-playing is stressed too much.

3) So is combat "roll-playing".

4) The back-stories we write for our PC's don't help much.

5) D&D is best when we empathize exploration and adventure, and it's more fun to play characters that don't know the history and mores of the region the adventure is set and if instead we discover them in play.

Dalebert

2016-12-20, 12:09 PM

1) Tieflings, Dragonborn and Drow only exist because players want to feel like their character is unique without putting the effort in to make their personality memorable.

But as often as people play them, it seems like a failed strategy. They're too common as PCs to feel unique.

4) You should lose spell slots when you go unconscious.

Okay, but what class features would other classes lose?

1) I really don't feel like a lot of these are unpopular opinions.
2) I don't really have any problem with that, though.
3) I'm just glad people are having fun.
4) Just wanted to point it out.
5) Now I'm doing it too.

I want to play with or under you!

1. Warlock multiclassing should not be nearly so go-to an option as people seem to think it is. (Truthfully, a lot of multiclassing is bad in this way, but warlock is particular is egregiously over-recommended.)

That's a design flaw IMHO. A 2 level dip in warlock is so enticing because it's almost the only way to see through magical darkness. Blind-fighting is gone now. Blindsight is difficult to get unless you're a beast when it's less useful. There should be some non-perfect way to simply have a benefit from fighting in darkness over creatures that haven't trained for it. The blind master concept (Daredevil, dozens of Asian martial arts movies, etc.) is huge in fiction and is completely unrepresented in 5e. Meanwhile, dipping warlock has role-playing implications that most people just disregard, i.e. the making deals for something. The price you pay for being a warlock is glossed over most of the time, and it kind of should be. If paladins and warlocks are supposed to have extra restrictions, and they should, then they should get commiserate power to compensate, but they really don't.

rooneg

2016-12-20, 12:10 PM

Apart from Tolkien's Rangers of the North, D&D is the fictional source for Rangers. So that doesn't make any sense.

I don't recall either Aragorn or Drizzt, the two Rangers who get the most screen time in fiction (D&D or otherwise) spending a lot of time casting ranger spells (Drizzt's faerie fire and darkness are Drow spells). When those are the rangers that most people remember don't be shocked when they consider it strange that a significant portion of the class is devoted to nature themed magic.

VoxRationis

2016-12-20, 12:18 PM

That's not a particularly unpopular opinion, at least online. What I can't ever understand is why? Barring 4e, Rangers have always been spellcasters. Since 2e, at relatively low levels.

Ignoring fictional counterexamples that defy this portrayal, rangers are usually described in D&D as "woodsmen and trackers" or something to that effect. So if you want to make a wilderness-oriented archer and hunter, you make a ranger. Then you realize that the ranger is half-druid, and it's jarring because you didn't really picture your rugged mountain man as waving his arms about and casting entangle. It's not quite as bad in 5e, because backgrounds can help give reasonable competence in survival and tracking skills without taking the Ranger class, but the issue is still there to some degree.

lonewulf

2016-12-20, 12:26 PM

Ignoring fictional counterexamples that defy this portrayal, rangers are usually described in D&D as "woodsmen and trackers" or something to that effect. So if you want to make a wilderness-oriented archer and hunter, you make a ranger. Then you realize that the ranger is half-druid, and it's jarring because you didn't really picture your rugged mountain man as waving his arms about and casting entangle. It's not quite as bad in 5e, because backgrounds can help give reasonable competence in survival and tracking skills without taking the Ranger class, but the issue is still there to some degree.

I tried a "wilderness" Rogue a while back and RP'd like a Ranger rather than a burgalar....it was really fun, actually.
Everytime someone OoC referred to me as "The Rogue" I would correct them by saying "you mean Ranger", lol.

CantigThimble

2016-12-20, 12:26 PM

Okay, but what class features would other classes lose?

Ahem.

5) It doesn't actually matter if some players have more powerful characters than everyone else.

But more specifically, it almost doesn't matter how much you neuter spellcasters. The abilities they have are irreplaceable, someone in the party always should and will play one because of that. You could make it so that wizards got a handful of mediocre spells per day, went down in one hit, lost all their spells when they went unconscious and couldn't use a weapon or armor to save their life and it would still be tactically sound for at least one member of the party to play them. Case in point: second edition. It just changes the tactical situation from being able to have an entire party of wizards with little issue to needing several fighters who constantly need to protect them in combat so that when the time comes and the party needs magic it will be there.

Oramac

2016-12-20, 12:27 PM

I only have 3:

1) with bounded accuracy, the shield is too good.

2) Alignment is stupid and railroads people into playing their alignment instead of their character.

3) Edged weapons can and should be able to deal Bludgeoning, Piercing, or Slashing damage at the players discretion.

EDIT: adding a 4th

4) The Spell Point Variant in the DMG should have been the default.

rooneg

2016-12-20, 12:27 PM

I tried a "wilderness" Rogue a while back and RP'd like a Ranger rather than a burgalar....it was really fun, actually.
Everytime someone OoC referred to me as "The Rogue" I would correct them by saying "you mean Ranger", lol.

Honestly, if I was going to build a "Ranger" these days it would probably be some mix of battlemaster fighter and swashbuckler rogue with a suitable background.

Petrocorus

2016-12-20, 12:32 PM

The Beastmaster is a powerful subclass because the beast is an extra body for the party and it can absorb attacks. It makes the party much more survivable. However, most people don't find it fun to use the beast as a sacrificial meat shield.

So the point of the Beastmaster is to provide a meat shield? Aren't the Summon spells here for this very reason?
And i don't think it's a great meat shield anyway. The Companion, after level 5, will basically have 4 HP per Ranger level. That's less than the Wizard. Against level appropriate foes, it will be quite fragile, only buying you a turn or maybe two. Granted, buying a turn or two is very good, but you will be able to do it only on a couple of encounters per day or expand much resources to heal it and that's the whole point of your sub-class. And yes, given that the beast is the whole point of your subclass and that your PC is linked to her, i think it' pretty normal that people don't think of the beast as a glorified meat shield.

Hunter's Mark remains a 1st level spell for Rangers. The concentration limit is not as impactful either as many of their spells are useful outside of combat. In combat they want to be attacking and Hunter's Mark is a decent buff for that.

The concentration limit on the Hunter's Mark is as bad as the one on the Hex, maybe more. Most of the Ranger's spells that improve his damage use concentration, with the exception of Conjure Barrage and Conjure Volley. So does his few summon or control spells. You cannot combine Hunter's Mark with Swift Quiver, or Stoneskin, or Pass without Trace. So you're forbidden from some nova combos or to keep Hunter's mark and Pass without trace up at the same time.

And their "spells useful outside of combat" are not that numerous. They are in practice even quite scarce given the Ranger's awful limit on spell known. So the Ranger cannot truly count on them. Which is actually another thing that irk me with 5E. Why the F does the Ranger have a limit of spell known? He's the only one divine caster to have one, and there's no fluff or balance reason for that, given that the spell list is far from being that awesome.

lonewulf

2016-12-20, 12:32 PM

Honestly, if I was going to build a "Ranger" these days it would probably be some mix of battlemaster fighter and swashbuckler rogue with a suitable background.

I almost splashed some Battle Master, actually, but decided against MCing...the character was working fine without it, but its still a good idea.

Dalebert

2016-12-20, 01:20 PM

But more specifically, it almost doesn't matter how much you neuter spellcasters. The abilities they have are irreplaceable,

After playing in or running close to 4 games a week for over a year, I feel nearly the exact opposite. I've seen all kinds of combinations and an entire party of melee folks will usually wade through most of my threats with ease. If anything, spellcasters often feel like a liability until occasionally they have just the right spell for a specific situation that makes things even easier for what the melee probably could have handled fine anyway. Melees are tough and due better damage overall, more so when they don't have to chaperon squishies.

This seems particularly so since 5e did away with the need for a dedicated healer. I've seen so many parties form without any healer and worry about it only to be fine. Just have a few PoH for an emergency and they typically do.

And that's the thing. There are typically spellcasters even in an all melee group--EKs, paladins, rangers, monks. There's almost always spells available even when there's no full caster. They don't feel essential at all to me. People play them because variety, fluff, and fun but not due to need or mechanical benefit.

2D8HP

2016-12-20, 02:22 PM

I already did my five, but another thread has inspired one more:

Very few house rules are enough to make 5e feel like Oe, 1e, or 3e (and probably 2e, 3.5, and maybe 4e).

It's becoming increasingly apparent that the main feature of old D&D is the warm, fuzzy feeling of superiority towards people who play anything newer.

But of course!
:wink:
(Actually there's a lot I like about 5e more than old D&D, but there's also a lot about old D&D that I like more than 5e, but the best D&D is always a game that you can play with actual other people whatever the edition. Unless the game was Cyberpunk or Vampire which were lame :yuk:)

Since this thread has taken a turn towards comparing editions I thought I'd through my two coppers in.
Take what I say with a mountain of salt since most hours that I've spent playing D&D were from 1979 to 1983, with most of the rest of the time after 2014 with other less-fun-for-me RPG's in between, and my memory of the old days is pretty dim (strangely though I remember early D&D rules much better than the rules of games I've played more recently. Odd that).

In new D&D more time is spent building your PC's skills, powers etc.

In old D&D that time was instead spent budgeting and deciding on equipment.

The ten foot poles, iron spikes, flasks of oil etc. and how we used them seemed to have much bigger influence on whether our PC's survived than did our PC's abilities.

Then as now time was spent looking at our character sheets for ways out of a jam, but back then it was mostly our inventory that we looked at.

I was terrible at it, and my "kick in the door" style of play ment that I seldom had a PC that survived more than two sessions.

But I loved it anyway.

I'm actually playing and loving a game of 5e D&D that with just a few house rules feels a lot like old D&D.

The game is still there trapped underneath, and you don't have to remove many layers at all to uncover it.

Pex

2016-12-20, 02:23 PM

My AL experiences say this one is wrong. A warrior without one of these feats or Shield Master, by 8th level at the latest, is vanishingly rare. And the exceptions are almost universally TWF warriors (with or without Dual Wield).

Yah. To pull a observed percentage out of my ass (ie probably totally wrong :smallwink: ) I'd say a good 80-90% of non-TWF warriors (Barbarians, Paladins, or Fighters) have at least one of these feats.

Proves my point it's an unpopular opinion. :smallwink:

I don't play AL. The Barbarian in one of my games does have Great Weapon Master. In that same group, neither Fighter has any. The Eldritch Knight went for ASI and the Battle Master went with Crossbow Expert. My Paladin has none, using a maul and great sword. Smites give all the damage I need.

My other group is still low level, but having just hit 4th the Fighter and Paladin have none at this time.

lonewulf

2016-12-20, 02:48 PM

1) Champion Fighters are actually fun to play and are only boring if YOU are boring.
2) Playing a EB-spamming Warlock is actually fun (with the same caveat as Champion).
3) Halflings are the best race, no contest.
4) Drow and Tieflings are awesome (and I do not care about Drizzt in the least), interesting races.
5) DEX isnt "too good", the other stats just arent good enough.

Ovarwa

2016-12-20, 02:52 PM

Willie the Duck

2016-12-20, 03:28 PM

1) Clerics and Monks are overpowered

Okay, someone asked you on monks, now I'm going to ask on clerics. Why are clerics overpowered?

1) I really don't feel like a lot of these are unpopular opinions.
2) I don't really have any problem with that, though.
3) I'm just glad people are having fun.
4) Just wanted to point it out.
5) Now I'm doing it too.

People aren't being too serious about that part, so it's all good. But you are right, the OP topic is a little too pat-ourselves-on-the-back-for-the-outspoken-opinions-we-have-that-aren't-really-outspoken-at-all. Just calling it a "what do you secretly have a burning desire to say about 5e" would be more accurate, but likely less fun. :-D

MrStabby

2016-12-20, 03:29 PM

Five, huh?

1) Everyone should roll d20s for hit points.
2) Barbarians are better casters than wizards
3) Gelatinous Cubes should be a playable race, and humans should be reserved for NPCs
4) All PCs should have the same class in a given campaign
5) No one should be allowed to play a character whose Int is greater than 14, since your group is not likely to have a player (or GM) whose Int is greater than 14 and therefore cannot rp such a character realistically.

Int 14 is smart but not that smart. Less than two standard deviations above the mean anyway. Kind of what you might expect from a group of students at an OK university. The rest seem reasonable anyway.

Flashy

2016-12-20, 03:34 PM

youtellatale

2016-12-20, 03:34 PM

Five, huh?
5) No one should be allowed to play a character whose Int is greater than 14, since your group is not likely to have a player (or GM) whose Int is greater than 14 and therefore cannot rp such a character realistically.

With that logic...why have any stats above 14? If that's the truth, certainly no one is that strong, quick, wise, charismatic, nor durable. I mean if you're putting an arbitrary line for one stat that you don't think anyone can emulate then why not do it for all of them? Just my 2 cents here.

Oramac

2016-12-20, 03:35 PM

Int 14 is smart but not that smart. Less than two standard deviations above the mean anyway. Kind of what you might expect from a group of students at an OK university. The rest seem reasonable anyway.

I don't know, I've met some university students that are pretty ****ing stupid.

MrStabby

2016-12-20, 03:44 PM

Okay, someone asked you on monks, now I'm going to ask on clerics. Why are clerics overpowered?

They always have something good to do - and often have something superb. They are at their best when you really need them to be. Turn undead is an example of the second - short rest recharging undead wrecking uber-spell that has a duration effect and doesn't need concentration. Sure, it's niche use but the cleric stacks up a lot of these with its spell selection. Bless is a level 1 spell which can be as powerful in a prolonged, tough combat as a level 4 spell.

Divination spells are awesome at the more strategic level - your princess is never in another castle. Clerics get a good selection of these. Likewise speak with dead can insta-solve a lot of mystery encounters.

Damage spells are not traditionally even a cleric's strong point but you can pull out a spirit guardians or a domain spell to wreck face almost as effectively as a dedicated blaster.

Healing is meh, but it underscores just how versatile the class is.

Clerics have perfectly serviceable at-will options. Sacred flame is solid even for those classes that don't get a boost if you are fighting high AC armoured behemoths (again with the theme of niche solution for every eventuality). Weapon user clerics are not frontline fighters but are not a slouch either - armoured and with extra punch on attacks they get to use this to conserve spell slots. Even their not at will options are often duration - so they can cast and keep getting benefits. Unlike many other casters clerics are less worried about strict conservation of casting resources.

Finally they pick their spells each day. The cleric spell list is incredibly broad, covering a wide range of spells and the cleric can chose from this whole variety every day depending on what they expect to face. Not bad for a class with solid divination abilities. Getting the domain spells on top is just extra nice.

All of this together makes the cleric both have the spell for every occasion and also the slots to cast it. Some of this can be covered by this wizard, but the cleric also has more HP and will tend to have much better armour so won't break concentration so much.

Finally wisdom is the casting stat so they get good perception and a high stat in an important save.

Socratov

2016-12-20, 04:10 PM

I don't know, I've met some university students that are pretty ****ing stupid.

Hearhear!

Anyway:

5e is not perfect and no matter how many tweaks, never. will. be.
Monks should not be a thing in a medieval-inspired DnD setting, corallary: if you think monks should be a thing in DnD, then please for the love of Odin port 3.5's Tome of Batttle into 5e and use that for monks
The Battlemaster Fighter is not a fighter, but an overglirified monk. Instead hte Battlemaster fighter should be made like 5e's Warblade
feats are fun and provide fun options for characters.
This game is alla about power progression: it's inherent in the use of experience, the growth of treasure (and in teh end magic weapons) and a freaking levelbased system! The acquisition of power by the players should be meaningful and that should show in what constitutes a threat. Now repeat after me: Grod is right in denouncing Bounded accuracy as it is.
-Yes this is more then five, the OP said that was ok. - the skillsystem in 5e does not work as it should. At all.
The D20 is a stupid die to use for randomness, especially in this current climate of bounded accuracy where it dictates a bout 65% (not counting Primal Champion, magic bonuses or expertise) of the spread of numbers.
Balance is not sacred and not every choice should be exactly as powerful as another. Choices should be meaningful and options should give at least something: the choices should be balanced between power|versatility|resources.
The EK is not a gish, nor is the Bladesinger
ribbon abilities should not be classfeatures: It;s fine for CaH to sell boxes of Bull****, but that does not mean a game developer should do so. This goes the othwer way as well: crunch should be packaged as fluff and fluff chould not be packaged as crunch.

10 is enough for now. I may return with more.

VoxRationis

2016-12-20, 04:28 PM

I don't see how strongly nature or archer-combat themed spells breaks that, but apparently it's because you have some strange preconception that spell-casting must be narrated in a specific way. Which is typical of complains about the Ranger. It always seem to me like the real problem is people getting these weird pre-conceived notions of what "Ranger" means and what "spells" are, without ever really being able to adequately spell out where they got them or why the ranger class actually breaks them.

The ranger is not and has not historically been advertised as a spellcaster. They're remarked on as being skilled archers, canny survivalists, friends of the beasts, etc. That's how they're spelled out in the player's handbooks of several editions. I've read Forgotten Realms material that acts as though rangers don't cast spells. Sure, if you squint hard enough, you could pretend that the spellcasting is something else. But you'd have to squint so hard that you ignore that the spells interact with anti-magic options the same way the wizard's spells do, that they have verbal and/or somatic components in the same way as a wizard's spells, that they occupy their own spaces in the action economy and don't mesh with attacks and skill checks seamlessly, and that they do things like cause massive instantaneous plant growth in a selected area... as if by magic. And it hurts to squint that hard constantly. It'd be a lot easier for a lot of people if the ranger just worked as advertised.

djreynolds

2016-12-20, 04:34 PM

1. Scatch standard array and point buy.
Roll well, you get your racial modifiers.
Then no ASI... only feats. Then all these half feats would really gain in popularity in order to max out stats

MeeposFire

2016-12-20, 04:47 PM

The ranger is not and has not historically been advertised as a spellcaster. They're remarked on as being skilled archers, canny survivalists, friends of the beasts, etc. That's how they're spelled out in the player's handbooks of several editions. I've read Forgotten Realms material that acts as though rangers don't cast spells. Sure, if you squint hard enough, you could pretend that the spellcasting is something else. But you'd have to squint so hard that you ignore that the spells interact with anti-magic options the same way the wizard's spells do, that they have verbal and/or somatic components in the same way as a wizard's spells, that they occupy their own spaces in the action economy and don't mesh with attacks and skill checks seamlessly, and that they do things like cause massive instantaneous plant growth in a selected area... as if by magic. And it hurts to squint that hard constantly. It'd be a lot easier for a lot of people if the ranger just worked as advertised.

I will 100% disagree. In 1e, 2e, and even in 3e one of the defining parts of the standard ranger is spell casting. It is one of the few things that carry over from every edition. In terms of combat abilities it is one of the abilities that have stuck around. It was a potent tool in the 1e rangers arsenal and was one of the reasons why the 2e ranger is so weak (only plant and animal and max of 9th level caster makes for a weak alternative to the fighter). In 3e spell casting came sooner than before though sadly not quite up to the level of 1e in general (yes there were variants that gave up casting for other things but remember those were the deviation of the norm).

4e is the only one where your argument can make any sort of sense since they decided to put it in the martial power source only and initially due to this they moved it as far as possible from the magical roots. Other than that if you look at the ranger in D&D spell casting is right up front in center as one of your core abilities that differentiate you from the fighter.

You can disagree with the designers way back in the day in trying to show many abilities by using spell casting but in terms of D&D the fact that rangers have spell casting should not be surprising in the least. If you do not think they are up front about it enough in the description then the real complain should be that they should address its mysticism more rather than trying to remove one of the few defining attributes of the classic D&D ranger.

Also note that rangers back in the day are not so good at many of the things you assert. Basic rangers in 1e and 2e were not particularly great archers. Initially neither were 3e rangers until 3.5 gave them access to archer feats.

Unless you count potential followers 1e and 2e rangers were not that great with beast companions as they did not get any until possibly after 9th level if your game was using followers. Further the way it is often described back in the day was that gaining those beast followers was due to druidic like abilities which in classic D&D terms were magic. In 3e it was explicitly done by a spell and in 3.5 they changed it to a class feature but it was really the animal friendship spell redone.

There are only a few abilities that have held true over the years for the ranger and they amount to

1. Being able to surprise better than average (this is often done by actual stealth in later editions).

2. Being better at tracking and usually surviving out in the wilderness than other warriors.

3. Having a bonus against a certain set of creatures. In 1e this is a very broad category and in 2e is very restricted (1e is a lot better in that regard).

4. Spell casting.

VoxRationis

2016-12-20, 05:08 PM

No, I get that the ranger has had spells for ages. But that's not what the class is typically sold as. There's a difference.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-12-20, 05:11 PM

This game is alla about power progression: it's inherent in the use of experience, the growth of treasure (and in teh end magic weapons) and a freaking levelbased system! The acquisition of power by the players should be meaningful and that should show in what constitutes a threat. Now repeat after me: Grod is right in denouncing Bounded accuracy as it is.
If they had to do it, I can't help but feel like they did it backwards-- goblins become less threatening not because you're more skilled at defending yourself, but because you become a bigger sack of meat. (Admittedly, the "miss-miss-miss-splat" model has its own problems, but it's still a weird choice. I'd rather have gotten a two-track stress/injury system; those always seem like the best compromise to me)

Ravinsild

2016-12-20, 05:11 PM

TBH I kind of think people think of Rangers in D&D as WoW Hunters or Guild Wars Rangers and other just bowmen with an animal or whatever.

I will make a 6th unpopular opinion: I hate normal races like Humans, Elves and Dwarves and I play for the Horde and love Orcs, Minotaurs, Gnolls and other monster races as PC races.

Oramac

2016-12-20, 05:20 PM

I'd rather have gotten a two-track stress/injury system; those always seem like the best compromise to me)

For the life of me I can't find it now, but someone had homebrewed exactly that system. I don't think it was on GITP, unfortunately. Really wish I could find it because it was a damn good system that I want to try out.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-12-20, 05:30 PM

1. Skill users don't need to be undermined.
2. Spellcasters don't need to be boosted.
3. Variant human is the only good race. It's pretty good though, so it's not a huge problem... but if you ban variant human, congrats, you just destroyed 5E. As a corollary, if you ban feats, well, boom.
4. Dwarves, elves, halflings and maybe gnomes can get to be core races for legacy reasons, the rest is out. No, screw gnomes, too.
5. Warlock should never have been more than a 3E niche prestige class, quickly forgotten forever. Alienist as a base class in 5E would make as much sense.
5. SCAG cantrips are gimmicky and should not exist.
5. Spammed combat tricks which would just be a normal part of abstracted combat if someone didn't write a specific option/ability for them tend to be gimmicky.
5. The rest mechanism, turn structure and spell parameters should not be metagamed so cavalierly as this forum indicates they commonly are.
5. Stats are abstract and do not map onto a notional scale of human capability from min to max. Str 20 doesn't mean you grew into a hulking giant while adventuring, it means you are strong and can use that strength effectively. Int 20 doesn't mean your brain rewired itself to have twice the cognitive capacity while adventuring, it means you are generally bright and good at things governed by Int, as you already were.
5. No, Int 20 doesn't make you Sherlock Holmes. For all we know Sherlock Holmes could be Int 32 with seven unique feats to back it up, and he always was.
5. Rolling for stats? You just destroyed 5E.
5. We could just go on, couldn't we?

CursedRhubarb

2016-12-20, 05:34 PM

1) A Dex bladelock is fun and perfectly fine without multiclassing.
2) If you multiclass you should only be able to do so after lvl 3 and be required to go at least 3 lvls into the new class before going back to the previous or a new one.
3) The Dagger of Venom is an amazing weapon. As are normal daggers.
4) Just because your class says "Monk" doesn't mean you have to be a stereotypical character that's either a "Ninja" or could be an extra in the lame movie "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon".
5) PAM is a boring feat and should be avoided. Also is a lubricant spray, which could explain all the butthurt over it.
6) Player AC is useless unless you get 20+ since you still seem to get hit by pretty much everything when kept level appropriate and enemy +hit always seems to be higher than PCs get.
7) There are way too many spells that require concentration. Some of those could be perfectly fine without it.
8) The Dagger should not be the only finesse simple weapon.At least make the Quarterstaff or something one too.
9) Mold Earth is the perfect way to hide all those corpses PCs tend to leave laying around.

Submortimer

2016-12-20, 05:35 PM

1. Bladelocks are the most fun kind of warlocks, and are COMPLETELY VIABLE.

2. Magic items should be part of the leveling structure, especially now that you can only attune to three.

3. Feats should be considered normal, with their exclusion being the (rare)option. I F***ING hate having to build things around the idea that a player may not ever be able to take a certain feat.

4. Wizards are dumb and boring. Warlocks are the best kind of caster.

5. The beastmaster was/is fine, people just didn't want to put in the work to figure out how to make it good.

Spellbreaker26

2016-12-20, 06:19 PM

1. Teiflings are a perfectly fine race so long as they're not played by the "edgy" one. If it's not them it'll be some flavour of elf anyway; edgelords will be edgelords and we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

2. Halflings are a completely useless race, a holdover from when DnD was a flat copy of Tolkien. With Gnomes and Dwarves, they're basically useless. They should be scrapped and their extra bits added onto Gnomes or other races to round them out.

3. Feats should be considered normal, variant human is not OP, especially after level 4. There are races that have extra spellcasting that can be just as useful as a feat if not more so.

4. You should usually only be allowed to roll for a check if you have proficiency in it unless the circumstances are special, or the check is Stealth or Perception.

5. Bounded Accuracy is manna from heaven and improves the game immensely.

MeeposFire

2016-12-20, 06:25 PM

Talionis

2016-12-20, 06:27 PM

1. Feats are too tied to weapon type. Example: Pole Arm Mastery should work with any two handed weapon. There should be a couple more weapon feats to provide different marshal styles. I'd also like to see each weapon get its own small advantage so that weapon choice could lead to builds and using a bigger variety of weapons.

2. I wouldn't have tied ASIs to feats, nor would I have let variant human be the only character that gets a feat at level one.

3. Agonizing Blast should be available after at least fifth level maybe more like eleven.

4. I hated Intelligence being tied to skills, but 5E has made Intelligence the best dump stat. I wish it did more. I think it's obvious that Wizards made three important stats, Wisdom, Dex, and Constitution. Every class has proficiency in one no class is proficient in two. The others are potentially dumpable. It's strange the stats were tiered like that.

5. I think it's weird we haven't seen more splat books with feats, spells, invocations, etc. where is my Master Thrower?

6. Warlock casting is weird. Even if it averages out. It feels like you have less. It would be nice if invocations scaled like cantrips, so they remained useful at higher levels.

7. Familiars and Companions don't have enough survivability as they level the feature feels like it's marginalized.

8. I hate race tied prestige classes. If we decide that a prestige class was started by Elves fine but I'd like it so that over time a few non Elves are Bladesingers, etc. it just gives DMs fiat to limit creativity where there is no balance reason for it. Races are all supposedly balanced to be roughly equivalent.

9. 100% agree with whoever said that at higher levels Fighters should be able to slice through towers. I think 5E is better on this point but it would be nice to give more to mundanes.

10. I'd like to see a little more support for fire arms explosives and technology. We run a game with a strange alien setting which allows for a lot. A gunslinger, a bomber expert, etc.

11. I like 5E so my biggest complaint is I'd like more content.

Spellbreaker26

2016-12-20, 06:28 PM

I don't think I would go that far with the skills. I do think that in certain situations some checks should be considered a lower difficulty by default if you have taken that much time with a skill over and above the proficiency bonus.

Personally I would rather ditch gnomes than halflings. Halflings are fun and much cooler than gnomes to me.

However I would ditch the current artwork for halflings. It SUCKS. Go back to the 3e and 4e art types I found that much more enjoyable.

I don't like Gnomes aside from Deep Gnomes but one or the other has to go, and at least Gnomes have a fairly good niche (Wizardly types) that not a lot of other races have. The only other ones that give bonuses to intelligence are Tieflings and High Elves, neither of which does it as a primary stat. Half-lings on the other hand are fighting with all breeds of elves and half-elves and a lot of other things to be the primary dex-giver.

Plus Gnomes aren't a straight-faced Tolkein rip-off.

Astofel

2016-12-20, 07:12 PM

1. I'm sick of the Sword Coast and I LOATHE Waterdeep. Seriously, Forgotten Realms isn't the default setting anymore, it's the damn Sword Coast. Like 90% of the actual world is being ignored.
2. Humans as a race are super boring. Yes, even vumans. I'm a human in real life, why would I want to pretend to be one of them when I could pretend to be a fire-breathing dragon-man?
3. On the subject of humans, I hate that their defining trait is that they don't have one. Dwarves are always LG, elves are always CG, and orcs are always CE. Dwarves love stones, elves love forests, and orcs love murder. Humans... don't do any of that, and that's what makes them special!
4. All the iconic monster races are low CR, so it's too difficult to build a campaign featuring them at high levels. It's hard for me to picture orcs as an actual threat when most of them are merely CR 1/2
5. Bards are the best class. A bard can fill just about any role you want them to.

Adderbane

2016-12-20, 07:21 PM

I rage super hard then poke you with my walking stick....least epic moment ever. **** you quarterstaff.

You haven't read The Wheel of Time have you...

ChildofLuthic

2016-12-20, 08:47 PM

4) The back-stories we write for our PC's don't help much.

As a DM, it was so annoying to have a character to come to me with this super long backstory about how much adventure they had been on and what a badass they were. We were starting on Level 2, and they created this backstory for a level 10 character.

Honestly, I feel like their is so much pressure to give your character an "exciting" background, like I don't care about story unless I wrote a 10-page Mary Sue fanfic about them before I sit down for a game.

EDIT: fixed some formatting

MeeposFire

2016-12-20, 08:53 PM

As a DM, it was so annoying to have a character to come to me with this super long backstory about how much adventure they had been on and what a badass they were. We were starting on Level 2, and they created this backstory for a level 10 character.

Honestly, I feel like their is so much pressure to give your character an "exciting" background, like I don't care about story unless I wrote a 10-page Mary Sue fanfic about them before I sit down for a game.

I think it comes from a long line of hearing other people have such great stories of their characters not realizing that many of those characters had humble starts and they grew into those larger characters. I don't believe that the many well known D&D characters from the ages (the ones that were actually characters in a game and not done up for a novel specifically) started off fully formed and got their stories done as they played sometimes creating back story later.

I also think that some people wanting to create fully formed characters like out of a novel is another issue. Playing characters that may fit into a novel could be fun but that does not mean you have to go and have the whole story planned out.

I often advocate a comic book style in this regard. Many comic book characters start off murky on the details but the best ones have a good hook so you don't have everything known to the general audience but the character is intriguing. That I think works quite well (though I hope the character gets a story faster and more coherent than the average comic book character eventually gets).

supergoji18

2016-12-20, 09:02 PM

1) Sorcerers are underpowered at every level of gameplay. 15 spells known total is not enough for a full caster.

2) 5e's attempt to leave everything open ended ended up creating a lot of confusing problems, because there are points where there are these "half-rules" that the books sort of talk about, but not enough for players to really understand what's going on. For example: the Grappler feat's third bullet says, "creatures that are one size larger than you don't automatically succeed on checks to escape your grapple." No where else in the book is it mentioned that larger creatures could even do that in the first place, even under the Grappling section.

3) 5e's attempt at simplifying monster encounters, while succeeding in making it easier to run, ruined much of the uniqueness of some monsters. This is especially apparent with the Dragons, who lost literally everything except their breath weapons (i.e. innate spellcasting, sorcerer spellcasting, damage reduction, magic resistance, keen senses, skills, feats, and a drastic reduction to their ability scores and their survivability).

4) the attempt at closing the gap between melee and casters was a failure because they only nerfed the spellcasting, instead of buffing the melee classes.

5) Making Intelligence a dump stat was a stupid idea.

6) All feats should be relatively equal in their value, in my opinion. In reality, we have feats like Tavern Brawler that no one uses outside of roleplay (and even then it rarely comes up), and feats like Lucky that are broken on everyone. I understand not every character can use every feat optimally, and that some feats are meant for roleplay more than they are for gameplay. However, when it feels like I've actually made my character worse by taking a particular feat, even for the sake of roleplay, then there is a problem with the balance of these features.

7) Later levels for almost every class are almost completely useless except for a select few classes. When I reach 20th level with my warlock, I expect that i am able to call forth an aspect of my patron or something amazing, awesome, and flavorful like that. Instead, I can give him a phone call and ask for 4 more spell slots... Honestly, the only level 20 ability that is worth taking is the Barbarian's, Cleric's, and Druid's.

8) Ritual casting takes too long.

Sabeta

2016-12-20, 09:28 PM

Supergoji, that grappler bit that you talk about was Errata'd out. It was an early development idea that they scrapped and forgot to cut from the final draft.

Anyway, I've just got one.
1) All Sage Advice is rational, and how I had already been running my game prior to the SA coming out. Every time someone makes a post saying that SA should be ignored or is stupid, I think they're either just incapable of reading, or a powergaming munchkin who tried to bend the rules their way and are butthurt that that's not how it is.

2) Gnomes are my favorite race. Then again, I always aim for the cute small race in my games. Dwarves and Halfling by contrast are disgusting and weird to me.
http://i.imgur.com/AiQFiu4.png

3) Published adventures are boooooooooooooring. Every single one of them I've struggled to find anything redeeming about them, but the only times I've ever seen players actually pay attention to them is when they accidentally break the setting and have to start coming up with their own plans.

4) Not 5e specific, but DMing really isn't that hard.

5) Either this board or this edition is full of powergamers. People who ask for help fulfilling a cool concept are often told to refluff something optimized. There's endless debates about what's good and how to balance inconsequential class features. Likewise, Bounded Accuracy is a great system if you stop letting 8 INT Barbarians roll Arcana.

@ Socratav: Also, why aren't Monks appropriate for a D&D Setting? Martial Arts forms and/or monasteries teaching them have been around for nearly 2000 years, and how in the world does tactical maneuvering such Taunts and Fears correlate at all to ancient Buddhist monks?

CantigThimble

2016-12-20, 09:41 PM

1. Teiflings are a perfectly fine race so long as they're not played by the "edgy" one. If it's not them it'll be some flavour of elf anyway; edgelords will be edgelords and we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

As someone with multiple edgelords in my games I understand this well, and despite my earlier comments I don't disallow them when I run games (unless I'm using a specific campaign setting that disallows them). There's really no point in trying to tell an edgelord not to play an edgy character, they'll either learn it or they won't and forcing the issue with petty restrictions won't fix anything.

pwykersotz

2016-12-20, 09:52 PM

5) Making Intelligence a dump stat was a stupid idea.

Ha! :smallbiggrin:

2D8HP

2016-12-20, 10:18 PM

As a DM, it was so annoying to have a character to come to me with this super long backstory....Really?
Glad to hear it!
I've usually found that the longer the back-story I submit is, the more likely I'll be accepted as a player, which is the only reason I write them in the first place (I may have a poor memory, but I remember who my PC's are without having to take notes)!

Foxhound438

2016-12-20, 10:39 PM

5. SCAG cantrips are gimmicky and should not exist.

ever since they were released they tend to show up everywhere in optimization, and I feel that indicates poor balance.

7) Later levels for almost every class are almost completely useless except for a select few classes. When I reach 20th level with my warlock, I expect that i am able to call forth an aspect of my patron or something amazing, awesome, and flavorful like that. Instead, I can give him a phone call and ask for 4 more spell slots... Honestly, the only level 20 ability that is worth taking is the Barbarian's, Cleric's, and Druid's.

*ancients paladin's

Telwar

2016-12-20, 10:46 PM

1) Bounded Accuracy caused many more problems than it solved.

2) People who complain that magic items unbalance the game need to lighten up.

3) Most design decisions have more basis in how many billable hours it would take than really should be.

4) The balance between "quick and easy to start" and "ability to customize your character" is FAR too heavily weighted on being quick and easy to start.

5) And now for the most unpopular opinion...this edition is, by far, the worst edition of D&D I've ever played, from 2e on.

Foxhound438

2016-12-20, 10:53 PM

1) the classes aren't actually balanced that well. Sure you can play any class and have it serviceable in a party, but every time I see a moon druid I feel like a barbarian would have done better if all you care about is running up to a thing and hitting it while also not caring about getting hit back.

2) power attack shouldn't be tied to weapon type. Maybe allow better returns for 2 handing a weapon, but it really makes a lot of builds unattractive knowing I can't deal nearly as good of damage.

3) moon druids are bad and anyone who likes them should feel bad

4) 1-2 session games are better than long term campaigns in almost every way

5) the "recommended adventuring day" which involves about 6 fights of total CR = avg. party level split by 2 short rests is lame. those fights are generally painfully easy and so unrewarding that it feels like a waste of time compared to having 2 or 3 fights of significantly greater CR.

CantigThimble

2016-12-20, 11:07 PM

5) the "recommended adventuring day" which involves about 6 fights of total CR = avg. party level split by 2 short rests is lame. those fights are generally painfully easy and so unrewarding that it feels like a waste of time compared to having 2 or 3 fights of significantly greater CR.

I completely agree. This is ultimately the reason why I barely play 5e, so much of the system is built around this idea and it isn't even very fun. People try to sell it as a survival game where you're trying to keep your resources up over a tough period, which can make an interesting and compelling RPG, but 5e is a TERRIBLE implementation if that was the design goal. Survival games are most fun when they're about management of hard to come by resources, not inherent abilities that reset to max when you have a few hours to yourself. It means that the only way to ration the sparse resources to the players is by arbitrarily fixing their sleep schedule and otherwise trying to limit their agency as much as possible so that they don't break the system by having too many naps.

Potato_Priest

2016-12-20, 11:17 PM

However I would ditch the current artwork for halflings. It SUCKS. Go back to the 3e and 4e art types I found that much more enjoyable.

Darned Straight. I prefer the OOTs art, and it's a stick figure.

MeeposFire

2016-12-20, 11:29 PM

Darned Straight. I prefer the OOTs art, and it's a stick figure.

Oddly I like a lot of the art a lot that is new but the Halfling art is so bad with their giant heads and the like.

SaintRidley

2016-12-20, 11:45 PM

1. I really enjoy the slow rollout of content. It fits my budget and available time better, and I can really dig into a book before the next one comes out.
2. I have zero issues with the skill system as written - it works perfectly for me.
3. If you're dumping Int, you have no business complaining about Intellect Devourers.
4. I do wish the game was a bit more lethal at all levels; 5e is far too kind with the healing and death threshold.
5. I'm never going to care about Forgotten Realms anything. I'm just not. Nor will I care much when Eberron is dropped, outside of Warforged and Changelings. Unless it's Athas, pre-existing campaign worlds hold zero interest to me and I will continue to bypass products relating to them unless given a very compelling reason to look into them.

4) People should care more about what languages a character knows

Ditch Common and it becomes infinitely more interesting on that front.

Dalebert

2016-12-20, 11:54 PM

Five, huh?

More would be... unpopular. So go for it!

3. Feats should be considered normal, variant human is not OP, especially after level 4. There are races that have extra spellcasting that can be just as useful as a feat if not more so.

I would agree with you except your statement isn't strong enough. Variant humans are over-rated. The racial traits given up for that feat are usually much better on the whole.

Ravinsild

2016-12-20, 11:57 PM

I have another probably unpopular opinion: I wish 5e had Dark Sun campaign book out already. Dark Sun is my favorite setting. Mul race please. Also I wish Gnolls were a PC race.

ChildofLuthic

2016-12-21, 12:11 AM

Really?
Glad to hear it!
I've usually found that the longer the back-story I submit is, the more likely I'll be accepted as a player, which is the only reason I write them in the first place (I may have a poor memory, but I remember who my PC's are without having to take notes)!

I feel like there's this paradigm that if you don't have a badass, complicated backstory, then you're not a real "roleplayer," when really I'm just trying to make a character that is flexible enough to go along with whatever adventures the DM wants to throw at me, and new enough to make sense as a level 1 character.

MeeposFire

2016-12-21, 12:12 AM

More would be... unpopular. So go for it!

I would agree with you except your statement isn't strong enough. Variant humans are over-rated. The racial traits given up for that feat are usually much better on the whole.

Here is one I think a LOT of people here overrate a lot of stuff. Now if they were to say this is more powerful than this they may have a point but the way they talk about it would make you think we are talking about comparing old 3e Pun Pun to a bog standard fighter as it is so "overpowered" or similar (a slight exaggeration but I wanted to make sure the point gets across).

V humans are not so good that we should ignore all others. Dex and initiative are not so important that it invalidates the other ability scores. etc.

Not saying everything is perfect but sheesh do people go nuts bout some of this stuff confusing "better" with "overwhelming" or "overpowered".

Sigreid

2016-12-21, 12:18 AM

MeeposFire

2016-12-21, 12:20 AM

For backstory there's nothing wrong with "Blacksmith's apprentice that steps up when bandits attack the local festival". All you really need is who are you, where are you from, why in the name of all the gods would you go risk life and limb like that.

Even better in addition make up some fun defining character traits (I find a lot of people spend a lot of times on background but forget personality traits). Later on you can use those traits to create a back story for yourself that is more detailed. For instance you can make a brooding character and later you can figure out why.

CantigThimble

2016-12-21, 12:29 AM

I feel like there's this paradigm that if you don't have a badass, complicated backstory, then you're not a real "roleplayer," when really I'm just trying to make a character that is flexible enough to go along with whatever adventures the DM wants to throw at me, and new enough to make sense as a level 1 character.

I think part of the origin of this is people who will get their character killed off as soon as they find a new class or build they like the sound of. It acts as a kind of 'tax' for people who let their characters die often to try to force the player to be invested. It's also transferred from online text RPs I think, where it just serves to make sure the potential player actually paid attention to the setup at all. Though there are also people who think that writing an essay about someone is the same thing as roleplaying.

Most of my character backstories are pretty much just:
1. Here's the relatively mundane life I lived before now.
2. Here's the reason I couldn't live like that anymore.

Kane0

2016-12-21, 12:31 AM

1. Bounded accuracy is actually quite malleable

2. Prestige classes could be a useful and balanced addition to the game

3. The 'rulings, not rules' approach isn't a problem at the table 99% of the time

4. Adding depth and/or complexity to 5e doesn't turn it into 3.PF+ or 4.5 by default

5. You know, I wouldn't mind a little more weeaboo fightan magic

Socratov

2016-12-21, 02:47 AM

If they had to do it, I can't help but feel like they did it backwards-- goblins become less threatening not because you're more skilled at defending yourself, but because you become a bigger sack of meat. (Admittedly, the "miss-miss-miss-splat" model has its own problems, but it's still a weird choice. I'd rather have gotten a two-track stress/injury system; those always seem like the best compromise to me)
indeed.

snip

5) Either this board or this edition is full of powergamers. People who ask for help fulfilling a cool concept are often told to refluff something optimized. There's endless debates about what's good and how to balance inconsequential class features. Likewise, Bounded Accuracy is a great system if you stop letting 8 INT Barbarians roll Arcana.
Yes, it's this board and to be fair, usually the question is put in terms of "how can i play like my fantasy snowflake AND be the bestest at it" (a bit hyperbolic, but you get my drift). And it; sonly naturally when presented with more then 1 option (which is easy to do since you can approach a build from multiple sides the vices and virtues of the used classes are to be discussed against each other.

@ Socratav: Also, why aren't Monks appropriate for a D&D Setting? Martial Arts forms and/or monasteries teaching them have been around for nearly 2000 years, and how in the world does tactical maneuvering such Taunts and Fears correlate at all to ancient Buddhist monks?
western european medieval tactical manuevering consisted of making a shieldline and advancing. Only when the Norsemen came raiding using a skirmishing style did western europe get a sense of how tactical manuevering went. (they weren't the first, but they made it immensely popular as they disregarded the use of a battlefield and open honourable army combat and being very, very good at it). Only once we had more interaction with asia (about 16'th century and onwards: the East India Trading Co. in England, the VOC in The Netherlands and Portugal and Spain's dominion of South America did we get the notion of martial arts and eastern spritual fighting.

Martial arts seems fitting in a psionic setting (power of the mind etc.) or in an oriental style game, but not in a western medieval fantasy one.

Maxilian

2016-12-21, 09:44 AM

Willie the Duck

2016-12-21, 10:16 AM

I think a LOT of people here overrate a lot of stuff. Now if they were to say this is more powerful than this they may have a point but the way they talk about it would make you think we are talking about comparing old 3e Pun Pun to a bog standard fighter as it is so "overpowered" or similar
<snip>
Not saying everything is perfect but sheesh do people go nuts bout some of this stuff confusing "better" with "overwhelming" or "overpowered".

I think this stems from a more basic dirty little secret: perfect balance is not a fundamental game design goal which overrides all other concerns. Having one player's PC choice be able to contribute more to the party than another's is certainly not something to strive towards, but it is not something that must be avoided at all costs (especially if those costs are less overall fun for everyone, by the game system itself being less enjoyable).

Oramac

2016-12-21, 10:43 AM

5. Bounded Accuracy is manna from heaven and improves the game immensely.

Outside of the shield, I completely agree with this.

Sabeta

2016-12-21, 10:53 AM

snip

But this isn't a Western European medieval fantasy setting. The very existence of PC levels causes enough disruption to a battlefield to completely wreck classical formations. Shield Walls don't mean anything in the face of Fireballs. This is a High Fantasy setting where elves live in forests and dwarves live in dirt. Faerun also has tons of Oriental stand-in for human and elves. According to SCAG a Monk's power is the same as magic, just unlocked through a different type of training. And in a world of fairy rings and teleportation circles it's easy to see how different cultures might get smashed together at random.

If Faerun were a simple "earth, but with magic fantasy" I could see your point, but it's its own world with a history unique to itself. There's no precedence for why such a world can't have chine martial artists can or can't exist here.

MrStabby

2016-12-21, 11:12 AM

1) The Beast Master of the PHB is actually really nice (they are not your DPR class though)
2) Trickery Cleric is actually pretty cool and fun
3) You DONT need a healer (Not even if your party is full of squishy Fighters)
4) Fighters are the best Martial class (you can do whatever any other Martial Class can with a couple of Feats, and guess what... you have so many of those to spare!)

Beast master is an inelegant pain. It isn't underpowered but it's mechanics are a bit crap.

Trickery clerics are awesome. Clerics are great. Trickery domain spells are superb - the domain abilities are less good than some but still useful.

Agree you don't need a healer, but a tiny bit of healing to stabalise people can go a long way in a dangerous campaign. On the other hand any class can be a healer - even just the magic initiate feet is good for that.

Fighters? Meh. They are powerful but don't do anything that other classes don't. Even with all their feats they have a hard time being as tough as a barbarian.

Maxilian

2016-12-21, 11:17 AM

Beast master is an inelegant pain. It isn't underpowered but it's mechanics are a bit crap.

You can make many interesting concepts with them though (but i understand why people see their mechanics a little bit... meh)

Trickery clerics are awesome. Clerics are great. Trickery domain spells are superb - the domain abilities are less good than some but still useful.

Never played a full Trickery Cleric, but i played a MC one, and it was great!

Agree you don't need a healer, but a tiny bit of healing to stabalise people can go a long way in a dangerous campaign. On the other hand any class can be a healer - even just the magic initiate feet is good for that.

Yeah, it always help, i'm not going to deny that, but the lack of it, also add another mechanic (make the idea of having to go in mid of combat to retrieve a Party Member from a dangerous spot, and actual thing)

Fighters? Meh. They are powerful but don't do anything that other classes don't. Even with all their feats they have a hard time being as tough as a barbarian.

But you just need the Tought Feat and you already have more HP than most Barbarians -Excluding High lvl Barb with Maxed +20 CON (You're still more tanky, but only if you go Bear, i got way more AC than you... Unless you go Dex, but then i do more damage than you and i'm still tanky)

Ravinsild

2016-12-21, 11:17 AM

Oh yeah totally adding some to my list:
6) Backtories don't make a good character for play, it's just history. Motivations make a well defined character for play. Backstory & descriptions are just icing on the motivations cake.
7) the 5e personality system is an awesome RP tool, it focuses on PC motivations instead of focusing on backstory.

If a player comes to me with a backstory, I tell them to go back and rewrite it as a list of motivations instead. Notably, it's always tRPG veterans who make this mistake, because they've been mistakenly trained to think backstory (plus possibly funny accents) = RP part of a character.

Unless you're Matt Mercerer and constantly bring backstories to the forefront in your current campaign such as Scalan Shorthalt meeting his old band again with a new member who it turns out was someone important to him, or how Percy's backstory came back to haunt him and made an entire story arc out of it making past evils into present BBEG's. Also many encounters built around Keyleth's dumb little Avatar quest and side stories with that. Incorporate your characters backstories as present conflicts and story arcs and you basically have free content.

MrStabby

2016-12-21, 11:26 AM

But you just need the Tought Feat and you already have more HP than most Barbarians -Excluding High lvl Barb with Maxed +20 CON (You're still more tanky, but only if you go Bear, i got way more AC than you... Unless you go Dex, but then i do more damage than you and i'm still tanky)

And then all you need is a feat that can give you resistance against damage a few times per day and you are in fact as tough as a barbarian. Although not one that also takes the toughness feat.

Morphic tide

2016-12-21, 11:28 AM

1. The archetype system is too restrictive. It gives specific levels that the archetype features must go in, which removes a lot of the flexibility that makes PF archetypes so varied and easy to make (Making good or balanced PF archetypes, however, is hard)

2. The ability boosts as feats deserves to die in a fire. It sets a nasty precedent for classes by making the choice of ability score boost levels far more important to the class's function. (It also makes it so that there is a rather complicated choice for balancing feat options because those feat options are also ability score boosts)

3. The removal of PRCs makes it quite a bit more difficult to write up gish classes that aren't redundant or imbalanced, and the restrictions of archetypes makes the ability to fill in gish stuff with archetype abilities unworkable. (For example, the 3.5/PF Arcane Archer style gish requires either a new class altogether or an archetype that requires multiclassing to work properly)

4. Even with all the changes, even with all the overhauls, 5e still has casters be OP. Arguably moreso, as being able to hit in melee is much easier for casters to do now that the numbers are smaller. (My brother held down a far above level appropriate encounter in melee better than the dedicated melee characters. As a Sorcerer)

5. The lack of any sort of quantitative valuation of magic items makes very little sense, because the entire point of having pricetags on them was to give a number to have the players and DM have a framework for getting magic items in exchange for gold. Which includes the important streamlining of converting GP loot to magic item loot. (Seriously, look at how AC scales relative to to-hit bonuses. There's a bunch of scaling flaws that are solved with the assumption of the party having magic items)

Maxilian

2016-12-21, 11:38 AM

And then all you need is a feat that can give you resistance against damage a few times per day and you are in fact as tough as a barbarian. Although not one that also takes the toughness feat.

Well the Barb won't have the extra feats to take the Toughness feat (he will most likely prefer something else) but yeah, i won't have the extra resistance (but hey, i can still do everything you can and more! -Though you are better for a full STR build... kind of, if you plan on using a lot your skill checks -you should)

lonewulf

2016-12-21, 12:03 PM

3) Published adventures are boooooooooooooring. Every single one of them I've struggled to find anything redeeming about them, but the only times I've ever seen players actually pay attention to them is when they accidentally break the setting and have to start coming up with their own plans.

The only published adventure I ever played in was Shackled City (3.5) and I thought it was spectacular. Our group never had any "break the setting" moments, and to this day we still tell horror stories about Jzadirune, lol.

AuraTwilight

2016-12-21, 01:16 PM

1. Eh, Castles & Crusades is better.
2. While the balance of 5E is so tight to the point of near perfection, it makes it really difficult to homebrew for because the window of acceptable options is narrower, unlike 3.X's tiers.
3. I have absolutely no interest in the Mystic. It's terrible.
4. The Ranger is honestly just a Fighter archetype and always has been.
5. Everyone should have an utterly broke-ass win button capstone like the Druid. It's your reward for going through all those levels.

M Placeholder

2016-12-21, 01:33 PM

I have another probably unpopular opinion: I was 5e had Dark Sun campaign book out already. Dark Sun is my favorite setting. Mul race please. Also I will Gnolls were a PC race.

Seconded. As it stands, thanks to a massive part of the setting (psionics) only being covered in one UA, and there being so many great monsters such Tembo, Thrax, Id Fiend, Pakubrazi, The Elemental Beasts (nothing like fighting a giant floating skull made out of the purest air) unique to that setting and much of the Monster Manual being unsuitable for Dark Sun, its hard to play a campaign there and have it feel like Dark Sun.

Second would be Psionics - there should have been far more than one UA, considering how key a part of the setting of two campaign worlds (Eberron - if you want to play on Sarlona - and Dark Sun)

Third - I like the Art style of this edition more than the one in 3.5 and 4e, but I do miss the style of Tony DiTerlizzi and John Dollar. which leads to....

Fourth - Thri - Kreen. I like the artwork in the MM, but they don't look much like Mantids anymore. I vastly prefer the artwork by John Dollar, which captures what I find appealing in Mantids - mostly the head.
http://m1.paperblog.com/i/180/1805634/thri-kreen-athas-L-Qf7Yym.jpeg

Fifth - the seeming insistance that the classes in the Players handbook will be all - from now on, everything else is a subclass. I would love to see a Spirit Shaman, a Gladiator (based, or a straight conversion, of the one from Dark Sun), Favored Soul (instead of being a sorcerous origin), Wu Jen and a Binder Class.

Ravinsild

2016-12-21, 02:10 PM

Seconded. As it stands, thanks to a massive part of the setting (psionics) only being covered in one UA, and there being so many great monsters such Tembo, Thrax, Id Fiend, Pakubrazi, The Elemental Beasts (nothing like fighting a giant floating skull made out of the purest air) unique to that setting and much of the Monster Manual being unsuitable for Dark Sun, its hard to play a campaign there and have it feel like Dark Sun.

Second would be Psionics - there should have been far more than one UA, considering how key a part of the setting of two campaign worlds (Eberron - if you want to play on Sarlona - and Dark Sun)

Third - I like the Art style of this edition more than the one in 3.5 and 4e, but I do miss the style of Tony DiTerlizzi and John Dollar. which leads to....

Fourth - Thri - Kreen. I like the artwork in the MM, but they don't look much like Mantids anymore. I vastly prefer the artwork by John Dollar, which captures what I find appealing in Mantids - mostly the head.
http://m1.paperblog.com/i/180/1805634/thri-kreen-athas-L-Qf7Yym.jpeg

Fifth - the seeming insistance that the classes in the Players handbook will be all - from now on, everything else is a subclass. I would love to see a Spirit Shaman, a Gladiator (based, or a straight conversion, of the one from Dark Sun), Favored Soul (instead of being a sorcerous origin), Wu Jen and a Binder Class.

Also I like Dark Sun for the...harshness. It feels like a blown out post apocalyptic world and just getting through the day is an encounter in and of itself. It's difficult and barren and alien and strange. Psionics and Muls and Thri-kreen and so much more make a really...almost "DUNE"-like atmosphere, with a touch of Mad Max.

I just love how it feels desolate, harsh and empty yet filled with danger and the idea of the Sorcerer Kings and the few bastions of pocket cities/civilization. I like the idea of being a desert wanderer just trying to make it by. I just love Dark Sun. 5e please.

Dr. Cliché

2016-12-21, 02:38 PM

1) Tieflings, Dragonborn and Drow only exist because players want to feel like their character is unique without putting the effort in to make their personality memorable.

I disagree.

Tieflings exist for people who want to play an evil-looking race that isn't stuck with all the intellect and charisma of a breeze block. :smallbiggrin:

(That said, I'm not fond of the general design of tieflings in 5th.)

Drow exist for people who think there aren't enough elf races.

Dragonborn . . . yeah, no disagreement there.

Ravinsild

2016-12-21, 02:43 PM

Drow might have become more popular as a PC race because Dunmer (Dark Elves) are popular in Elder Scrolls. Same for Lizardfolk (Argonian), Tabaxi (Khajiit) and so on. I mean Skyrim is massively popular as is Elder Scrolls Online...not to mention previous games. So it could be a factor. I mean 4e was basically "World of Warcraft on your Table Top"...

imneuromancer

2016-12-21, 03:26 PM

LordFluffy

2016-12-21, 03:34 PM

1) Tieflings, Dragonborn and Drow only exist because players want to feel like their character is unique without putting the effort in to make their personality memorable.[/rollv]
As I've played only 2 tieflings and they had very different personalities, I disagree. I have always disliked the "you're automatically a little evil" though.

[quote]3) Fighters shouldn't spend their extra ASIs on combat feats or ability scores.

Aren't those the only two things you can spend them on?

DracoKnight

2016-12-21, 03:35 PM

ever since they were released they tend to show up everywhere in optimization, and I feel that indicates poor balance.

The thing is: they're balanced against a fighter's or a monk's four attacks. At 17th level they deal 8d8+5 (booming blade, assuming a rapier or a longsword) or 7d8+5+5 (green-flame blade, again assuming a rapier or a longsword). Let's look at the averages a moment.

Booming Blade = 4.5*8 = 36 + 5 = 41. If your enemy doesn't move, you're looking at 4.5*4 = 18 + 5 = 23.

Green-flame blade = 4.5*4 = 18 + 5 = 23 + 4.5*3 = 13.5 + 5 = 18.5 + 23 = 41.5. If you don't have two adjacent allies, you're looking at 23 damage.

Fighter with four attacks = 4.5*4 = 18 + 28 = 46 (assuming rapier or longsword with Duelist Fighting Style, or 38 without the fighting style).

Monk with four attacks = 5.5*4 = 22 + 20 = 42.

Paladins with two attacks & Improved Divine Smite = 4.5*2 = 9 + 10 = 19 + 9 = 28.

--------

As far as at will options go, they're not bad. However their extra damage comes with triggers. If those triggers aren't met, then the damage doesn't go off. 23 damage is 5 points behind the Paladin not expending spell slots on Divine Smite. The only time that they're OMG THE BEST THING EVER!!! is on a character who only ever gets one attack, and even then, they're still a subpar damage option to being a Fighter or a Monk, if you do not meet the conditions to trigger the extra damage. If you meet those conditions they still lag behind a little bit.

TLDR; They're not OP, and there's nothing wrong with the way that they're balanced. You have to be a caster who's up in a monster's face...that's rarely a good idea, so they deal more damage than the ranged cantrips - that's just the tradeoff.

TheTeaMustFlow

2016-12-21, 03:39 PM

western european medieval tactical manuevering consisted of making a shieldline and advancing. Only when the Norsemen came raiding using a skirmishing style did western europe get a sense of how tactical manuevering went. (they weren't the first, but they made it immensely popular as they disregarded the use of a battlefield and open honourable army combat and being very, very good at it).

Thats... no.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-12-21, 03:54 PM

[QUOTE=CantigThimble;21509499]Aren't those the only two things you can spend them on?
The idea is utility feats, I think. Grab Ritual Caster or Magic Initiate (Wizard). Take Actor, or Dungeon Delver, or Observant, or Skilled, or... <shrug>

TLDR; They're not OP, and there's nothing wrong with the way that they're balanced. You have to be a caster who's up in a monster's face...that's rarely a good idea, so they deal more damage than the ranged cantrips - that's just the tradeoff.
They fill an odd role, balance-wise. They're significantly better than other cantrips, and offer a major improvement on a single attack, but track fairly well with a non-boosted Extra Attack. It offers a solid offense for a relatively small investment, but a comparable investment in an Extra Attack will leave you ahead. Ultimately, I think the options they open are healthy for the game*, but I get the complaints.

*Except, possibly, for Rogues, who are built around having high single-attack damage as it is. Rogues with Booming Blade are brutal.

2D8HP

2016-12-21, 04:14 PM

7) I fear new content.

While I've bought and enjoyed everything for 5e that WotC has printed so far (and some third-party stuff) I'm a slow learner, and it took nearly two years of growing familiarity before 5e became my favorite edition (and a lot of that is the realization that it's easier for me to tweak 5e to be what I like about old D&D, than it is to change old D&D to be what I like about 5e).

Yes I remember some of the cool extra content of the past (hello Scout from "Complete Adventurer"), but I also remember 1985's "Unearthed Arcana".

*shudder*

Yes I still rush out and buy the new books when they come out, but I'm not on the "More! Faster!" bandwagon.

CantigThimble

2016-12-21, 04:32 PM

Aren't those the only two things you can spend them on?

As Grod mentioned, there are a lot of utility feats. That often gets ignored and then people complain about fighters not having any out of combat class features. Rangers get all kinds of abilities for the woodlands, paladins get divine sense and health, as well as spells like zone of truth and remove curse, monks get a ton of fancy acrobatics and other abilities; but fighters get nothing except maybe a 7th level archetype feature, and I've seen a barbarian's rage get more out of combat use than those. However, with ASIs to spare fighters have the potential to take whatever utility features they want, but almost every build squanders those on getting marginally better at combat.

Waazraath

2016-12-21, 04:45 PM

[QUOTE=LordFluffy;21516972]

*Except, possibly, for Rogues, who are built around having high single-attack damage as it is. Rogues with Booming Blade are brutal.

This goes for melee clerics as well. But in general, they are ok, in my opinion as well.

DizzyWood

2016-12-21, 05:35 PM

This, so much.

5) Of the oft-spoken "three pillars", the rules seem like favoring combat the most, the other two pillars providing mainly to be distractions or excuses to go into combat anyway. See the care gone into various attacks, action economy, damage types, etc. and contrast with the simplistic shells which are Perception or Diplomacy.

You may bring the cross.

I feel like that might just be your DM. Everything I have played in 5E so far has been very story driven. Lots of encounters that are just the party talking to NPCs or trying to put together information from an old uninhabited ruin. It works well with the rules as is if your DM is willing to do a bit more more than just plan a room and slap down some monsters.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-12-21, 06:27 PM

Yes I remember some of the cool extra content of the past (hello Scout from "Complete Adventurer"), but I also remember 1985's "Unearthed Arcana".
It would be pretty easy to import the Scout to 5e. Take a Rogue, change Sneak Attack to activate whenever you move at least 10ft and you're good to go.

As Grod mentioned, there are a lot of utility feats. That often gets ignored and then people complain about fighters not having any out of combat class features. Rangers get all kinds of abilities for the woodlands, paladins get divine sense and health, as well as spells like zone of truth and remove curse, monks get a ton of fancy acrobatics and other abilities; but fighters get nothing except maybe a 7th level archetype feature, and I've seen a barbarian's rage get more out of combat use than those. However, with ASIs to spare fighters have the potential to take whatever utility features they want, but almost every build squanders those on getting marginally better at combat.
You get two extra-- they're hardly swimming in ASIs. The first doesn't come until 6th level, which is a little late to be picking up your first utility ability, and the second is at near-endgame levels. The Champion and Battlemaster could definitely use a bit of a utility boost-- the EK and UA archetypes like the Scout and Monster Hunter do much better jobs.

[QUOTE=Grod_The_Giant;21517061]

This goes for melee clerics as well. But in general, they are ok, in my opinion as well.
I'd argue that melee clerics are among the chief beneficiaries of the cantrips. They have a lot less melee presence in 5e than many players are used to, and really don't get that much to back that up.

MrStabby

2016-12-21, 06:31 PM

The SCAG cantrips are not a stupid development because the damage they do is more than D&D can cope with. The problem is that the damage comes to classes that have so much other stuff. They turn classes that have "at will damage" being about the only weak thing they can do into classes with no weak thing they can do.

furby076

2016-12-21, 10:37 PM

I say that about EVERY edition of D&D while it's out. :smallbiggrin:

Except 4 right? Cause that was trash. It was the windows 8. There to setup 5.

Ravinsild

2016-12-21, 10:44 PM

No. I loved 4th edition too. I thought it was amazingly innovative, as well as fun to play, and adopted it immediately and wholeheartedly.

The only time I've had reservations was for the two 1/2 editions: 3.5 and Essentials.

That's how I feel about 4th. If it were still supported I would still buy new books. At least they didn't burn all my copies I already have so I can still play it if I can ever convince other people to play it...(I probably can't but it's really good!)

Ravinsild

2016-12-21, 10:52 PM

I've played it out now, and I'm happy with 5e. I mostly use TotM, so it's a big change from playing heavy on battle mats since 2e Combat & Tactics.

Like I said, I've loved every edition of D&D. I happily embrace the new one as it comes out. But now I try to figure out what it's good at, what its bad at, and work within that.

I like Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, 4e and 5e all equally for different reasons. I would play all simultaneously if I had the people/groups to do so.

King539

2016-12-21, 10:55 PM

I have another probably unpopular opinion: I wish 5e had Dark Sun campaign book out already. Dark Sun is my favorite setting. Mul race please.

Is that really unpopular? I really want Dark Sun too.

MeeposFire

2016-12-21, 11:35 PM

Dark Sun was popular enough to come out for 4e where it did pretty well so you never know.

Flashy

2016-12-21, 11:37 PM

Is that really unpopular? I really want Dark Sun too.

Yeah I was under the impression that basically everyone wants Dark Sun and/or Eberron material.

mephnick

2016-12-22, 12:03 AM

I think my opinion of not caring about Dark Sun or Eberron is definitely more unpopular than the reverse.

To be fair there aren't many published settings I would consider playing. I thought Midnight was kind of neat, though.

Sigreid

2016-12-22, 12:14 AM

Here's and unpopular one. I would like a Greyhawk setting. That's actually the one I liked best.

Auramis

2016-12-22, 12:27 AM

3. Healing in 5e is way too easy

Seconded. I tend to lean toward variants rules to fix this. Healer's Kit Dependency and Slow Natural Healing (p. 266-267 DMG) are your friends here. I sometimes consider Gritty Realism as well if things feel too combat focused... but that's never popular among players, so I tend to avoid it.

Petrocorus

2016-12-22, 01:24 AM

Here's and unpopular one. I would like a Greyhawk setting. That's actually the one I liked best.
I'm under the impression that all veterans of 1st Ed AD&D would agree with you.

Astofel

2016-12-22, 01:41 AM

I thought of one more: there's far too much debate over the 'right way' to play D&D, and all the dedicated RPers who look down their noses at players who multiclass and take feats and optimize their characters need to stop. I love the RP aspect myself, but I can realize that an optimized character can still make for good RP, and that some people don't like/feel comfortable with the RP and just like the hack-n-slash part. That's fine. There's only one way to tell if you're playing D&D correctly: if everyone at the table is having fun, you're doing it right.

djreynolds

2016-12-22, 02:50 AM

Knaight

2016-12-22, 03:04 AM

I don't disagree with a lot of the people who complain about various spells, vancian magic, druids as full casters + wildshape, ability scores, concentration, etc.

However, I think one has to realize that WotC had the unenviable task of making a game that a) felt like D&D and b) learned from the mistakes of previous editions.

We absolutely get it. WotC was working with the limitations of decades of games that they had to adhere to, and these limitations hurt - for instance, I will probably never like D&D because I'm not a big fan of classes and levels and consider their usage utterly opposed with other system goals. At the same time, classes and levels are one of those things that are key to D&D's identity as a game. With that said, here's my list:

1) D&D should be a niche game, and design accordingly. Attempts at being generic fantasy just cause it to be worse at its specializations.
2) The 5e skill system sucks, but that's not because it needs to be more like the skill systems of other editions of D&D.
3) The "three pillars" of D&D is marketing, and in practice 5e is hyper focused on combat and magic. It just doesn't look that way when already used to other editions.
4) Designing around particular numbers of encounters per day just makes the game frustrating, but it wouldn't if D&D stopped pretending to be generic.
5) 5e is only slightly different than any other edition of D&D, and while these slight differences are notable for people with extensive D&D experience they pale in comparison to the difference between any of them and most non D&D games.

Dr. Cliché

2016-12-22, 05:51 AM

Just one for now - Alignments for were-creatures are a steaming heap of cow droppings. This goes double for werebears:

"Oh no, I was bitten by a werebear and tonight is the night of the full moon! I can feel the change coming..."
*Horrifying transformation*
"RAAAAAWR! Must . . . punish criminals . . . to the full extent of the law."
:smallconfused:

Are all werebears in the D&D universe descended from Winnie the Poo or something?

Willie the Duck

2016-12-22, 07:21 AM

Are all werebears in the D&D universe descended from Winnie the Poo or something?

Came from Tolkein (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beorn).

Logosloki

2016-12-22, 07:29 AM

Well I know this is a mix bag but here goes:

1) Overall I think there should have been more hand holding in the DMG. The DMG should be both a tome for an experienced DM to draw inspiration and a beginner's guide to DM.
2) The PHB or the DMG should have had some indicator on DC challenges. 3) Alignments for Players and non-outsiders should have been sacrificed for more bonds/flaws/ideals. A fourth category like Nature would have been more useful.
4) What the battlemaster is what all martials should have been. Except way more maneuvers.
5) They should come out more often and say "this is now the base rule of the game". This goes back into my first opinion because it would be super helpful to new DMs or players wishing to DM if everything was a little more concrete.

mephnick

2016-12-22, 07:39 AM

1. It's too hard to die past level 1, unless the DM targets someone to kill while already making death saves. I do this but it really shifts the perceived cause of death from the player to the DM unfairly.

2. Eldritch Blast should be a class feature, not a cantrip for every multi-class to steal.

3. The designers don't seem to want anyone to use thrown weapons as a character concept.

4. Although I like that they made you choose between ASI's and Feats, it becomes nearly a certainty that flavourful feats (Keen Mind etc) will never be taken by anyone other than the most dedicated RPers.

5. One day WotC will realize they should just cut the system off at level 11 and treat anything higher as variant epic level rules. Literally everything about the game gets worse as you get closer to 20, but this isn't specific to 5e.

lonewulf

2016-12-22, 07:48 AM

No. I loved 4th edition too. I thought it was amazingly innovative, as well as fun to play, and adopted it immediately and wholeheartedly.

The only time I've had reservations was for the two 1/2 editions: 3.5 and Essentials. Edit: and I came pretty quickly. Reservations just means I didn't jump in headfirst with great gusto.

I also enjoyed 4e....but it never felt like D&D to me. I just used it as an alternative game i could play inbetween my 3.5e sessions. Ive always wanted to sit down and completely re-skin 4e to make it a table-top version of some other property (havent decided what) but then i remember how lazy i am and....yeah....

Dr. Cliché

2016-12-22, 08:06 AM

Came from Tolkein (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beorn).

But that was one character, not an entire race. :smallconfused:

Grod_The_Giant

2016-12-22, 09:07 AM

5. One day WotC will realize they should just cut the system off at level 11 and treat anything higher as variant epic level rules. Literally everything about the game gets worse as you get closer to 20, but this isn't specific to 5e.
Or they'll realize that they actually need to create content for non-spellcasters at higher levels.

DizzyWood

2016-12-22, 09:30 AM

Because there are few examples of Rangers in fiction that actually cast spells.

I sort of agree. But I totally disagree. I think they should be magical but not necessarily have spells. More spell like abilities than actual spells. I am just not sure how to actually DO that.

DizzyWood

2016-12-22, 09:50 AM

1) All the shiny PC options and abilities that make it more fun to play, than say 1977 "blue book" D&D, make it more intimidating and difficult to DM thus lessening oppurtunities to actually play the game.

2) Role-playing is stressed too much.

3) So is combat "roll-playing".

4) The back-stories we write for our PC's don't help much.

5) D&D is best when we empathize exploration and adventure, and it's more fun to play characters that don't know the history and mores of the region the adventure is set and if instead we discover them in play.

1-4 sound DM dependent to me.

1. It is MORE work for a DM but so far I feel it has resulted in BETER games.
2. I do not get this it is an RP game? How can there be to much RP?
3. It can get tedious sometimes. But the whole would my character really attack this bad guy can mix up combat and help keep it fresh.
4. Maybe it is because both of my DMs have a back ground in writing (one in queer lit and another in comic books) but those back stories we write are key. Once they are woven in the the greater story with a little spotlight time make the game so much more personal.

I think we my have had different experiences with 5e so far

dejarnjc

2016-12-22, 10:03 AM

I want D&D to get rid of all this finesse weapon silliness.

I want dex to hit and strength for damage.

I hate it when people dump strength or dex

Crossbows shouldn't add any modifier for damage, instead all give advantage to hit, or if you roll and hit, re-roll to see if you crit

I tried PAM w/ quarterstaff and shield, I used a broom stick and trash can lid and the local grammar school kids came over on recess and beat me up and made me lick old dog poop.

Ditto. Also shooting a long bow is exhausting. The thought of a below average strength person repeatedly firing off longbow shots is laughable. Change the name of the bow or have a STR requirement.

I'd also like to see more of the stats work together harmoniously. I think a high int/wis character should be just as effective as a super high int character in terms of combat.
We'll balanced heroes get screwed in D&D. I guess it's hard for a system to do but one can dream.

mephnick

2016-12-22, 11:03 AM

Or they'll realize that they actually need to create content for non-spellcasters at higher levels.

Nah, high level magic is stupid too. The game completely changes genres after mid-level and I think that's bad design. Leave the ridiculous super hero god stuff to systems that are designed for it from the ground up.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-12-22, 11:12 AM

Nah, high level magic is stupid too. The game completely changes genres after mid-level and I think that's bad design. Leave the ridiculous super hero god stuff to systems that are designed for it from the ground up.
On the contrary, I think it's cool to have that sort of progression in a single system... but it needs to be a conscious choice, recognized at all levels of design. You need to build in 4e-style tiers of play, with optional rules for halting advancement at key breakpoints for those who don't want to become demigods. You need all classes to scale properly into higher tiers of play, you need adventure-building advice to help DMs create properly challenging adventures at higher tiers, and so on, and so on.

Dr. Cliché

2016-12-22, 11:24 AM

I want D&D to get rid of all this finesse weapon silliness.

I don't mind finesse weapons per se, I just think that far more weapons should be classed as finesse (e.g. all swords - not just the very light ones).

I want dex to hit and strength for damage.

I think it should depend on the weapon. For many weapons, Dex works fine for damage.

I hate it when people dump strength or dex

Out of interest, does this include casters?

Also, what do you count as 'dumping' these stats? (As in, what's the lowest value people are allowed to put in these stats before they are considered to have dumped them?)

Crossbows shouldn't add any modifier for damage, instead all give advantage to hit, or if you roll and hit, re-roll to see if you crit

Crossbows having modifiers to damage is fine. It just shouldn't be based on the character's stats (but rather a set value).

If we're trying to be more realistic, I'd also suggest that the designers have been rather optimistic regarding the time it takes to load a crossbow. Especially a heavy crossbow (which usually necessitates a windlass).

Willie the Duck

2016-12-22, 11:25 AM

But that was one character, not an entire race. :smallconfused:

You asked where the descended from. That's the inspiration for the monster manual entry/creature. No different than the Medusa, chimera, or hydra.

Ravinsild

2016-12-22, 11:35 AM

You asked where the descended from. That's the inspiration for the monster manual entry/creature. No different than the Medusa, chimera, or hydra.

Minotaur. There was only 1. In 1 story.

Now there's at least two kinds in 5e. The Krynn Minotaur is a whole race/culture and then the MM Minotaur monster race too. Came from 1 monster from 1 story. :P

Willie the Duck

2016-12-22, 12:01 PM

Minotaur. There was only 1. In 1 story.

Now there's at least two kinds in 5e. The Krynn Minotaur is a whole race/culture and then the MM Minotaur monster race too. Came from 1 monster from 1 story. :P

Another great example.

Minotaurs are actually one of my favorites, and they weren't a species, so much as humans cursed by fell magic (in that campaign, it happened to a group of barbarian warriors who fought against the evil sorcerer king, not the single child of a king Minos).

Dr. Cliché

2016-12-22, 12:31 PM

You asked where the descended from. That's the inspiration for the monster manual entry/creature. No different than the Medusa, chimera, or hydra.

No, I asked why were-creatures are each locked into a single alignment, and why werebears are automatically lawful good.

Laurefindel

2016-12-22, 01:09 PM

You asked where the descended from. That's the inspiration for the monster manual entry/creature. No different than the Medusa, chimera, or hydra.
Beorn sired a whole line of skin-changers where most of them "were in heart like Beorn"; he could very well be the origin of a race. You could argue that "most of them" doesn't mean automatic LG alignment however (some Beornings were "grim and bad" actually)

Pex

2016-12-22, 01:41 PM

Nah, high level magic is stupid too. The game completely changes genres after mid-level and I think that's bad design. Leave the ridiculous super hero god stuff to systems that are designed for it from the ground up.

If you don't want to play high level because it's so "ridiculous" for you, that's your prerogative. End your campaigns at 11th level, but why should your loathing of it deprive me and others who like that level of play and ability from enjoying it?

Flashy

2016-12-22, 01:44 PM

If you don't want to play high level because it's so "ridiculous" for you, that's your prerogative. End your campaigns at 11th level, but why should your loathing of it deprive me and others who like that level of play and ability from enjoying it?

Yeah I agree. I've recently started playing in the 12-14 range and it's honestly some of the better D&D I've ever encountered. I would be terribly annoyed if an edition stripped the high level play out.

Dr. Cliché

2016-12-22, 02:06 PM

Wasn't there a ruleset for 3.5 based around stopping character levelling at around level 6 or 7?

Just wondering if something like that would work in 5e.

Digimike

2016-12-22, 02:16 PM

1. Concentration and Attunement are fantastic new additions as far as keeping min/maxers in check.

2. Half Orcs are hands down awesome at everything.

3. Variant Humans should lose all stat bonuses.

4. Halflings are underrated.

5. Clerics need more damage cantrips.

Ravinsild

2016-12-22, 02:20 PM

2. Half Orcs are hands down awesome at everything.

Is that unpopular? I thought Half-Orcs have been popular since 3.x? Or is that just me?

rooneg

2016-12-22, 02:25 PM

Wasn't there a ruleset for 3.5 based around stopping character levelling at around level 6 or 7?

Just wondering if something like that would work in 5e.

You're thinking of Epic 6 (or Epic 8 or Epic 10, depending on where you want to draw the line). It works by replacing all advancement after the chosen level with feats (you get one every 5000 xp or something like that, and there are special feats that let you do some limited amounts of things normally restricted to levels above yours). It wouldn't be a direct port to 5e, because 5e feats are stronger (so they'd have to be given out less often) and there's a smaller number of them (so you'd run out of reasonable stuff to do with your XP pretty quick), but you could certainly do it. A quick and dirty version is just to pick a level and stop there.

Note that this means somewhat less in 5e than it does in Epic 6, since in Epic 6 part of the point is to remove the implications of high level characters on the world. It's hard to envision a world filled with high level characters that still looks like a traditional D&D fantasy world. This is less of a big deal in 5e because NPCs don't have character levels, so you fix the problem by just arbitrarily changing what NPCs are allowed to do.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-12-22, 02:30 PM

Wasn't there a ruleset for 3.5 based around stopping character levelling at around level 6 or 7?

Just wondering if something like that would work in 5e.
E6 (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?206323-E6-The-Game-Inside-D-amp-D)? Don't see why it wouldn't. 6th level is a pretty good cut-off point for everyone but Fighters and, maybe, Paladins. You get Extra Attack, third level spells, and your second subclass feature as a capstone. Fighters should (probably) get the 7th level subclass feature instead of the ASI, and Paladins... everyone loves the 6th level aura, but I'd kind of like to swap it for the subclass-specific aura instead. After that, get an ASI every so often so there's still some sense of progress.

mephnick

2016-12-22, 03:17 PM

I do play epic11 in 5e, so there you go. It's 7th level spells that really destroy the fantasy I prefer.

Willie the Duck

2016-12-22, 03:20 PM

No, I asked why were-creatures are each locked into a single alignment, and why werebears are automatically lawful good.

Beorn sired a whole line of skin-changers where most of them "were in heart like Beorn"; he could very well be the origin of a race. You could argue that "most of them" doesn't mean automatic LG alignment however (some Beornings were "grim and bad" actually)

An explanation? It would be because the whole thing with alignments being "sometimes good," "usually good," "always good" did not exist until 2e or 3e, so there was a whole chunk in between the Beorn inspiration of the werebear, and the point where they might have been "often LG" where the only thing that would be listed is "alignment: lawful good."

Dr. Cliché

2016-12-22, 03:47 PM

An explanation? It would be because the whole thing with alignments being "sometimes good," "usually good," "always good" did not exist until 2e or 3e, so there was a whole chunk in between the Beorn inspiration of the werebear, and the point where they might have been "often LG" where the only thing that would be listed is "alignment: lawful good."

I think you're missing my point.

Having werebears often be lawful good is one thing (I think it's still nuts, but whatever).

What I don't understand is why becoming a werebear actually changes your alignment to lawful good. That just seems completely moronic.

Incidentally, I think WotC really need to look up the definition of 'curse'.

Flashy

2016-12-22, 04:03 PM

E6 (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?206323-E6-The-Game-Inside-D-amp-D)? Don't see why it wouldn't. 6th level is a pretty good cut-off point for everyone but Fighters and, maybe, Paladins. You get Extra Attack, third level spells, and your second subclass feature as a capstone. Fighters should (probably) get the 7th level subclass feature instead of the ASI, and Paladins... everyone loves the 6th level aura, but I'd kind of like to swap it for the subclass-specific aura instead. After that, get an ASI every so often so there's still some sense of progress.

I have a friend who runs 5e E6 and the only problem with it is that you spend a LOT of time camped out around the power break points for a couple of classes. Moon Druids and Warlocks shine really hard when much of the game happens in the 2-4 level range. Meanwhile there are a couple archetypes (conjurer and necromancer wizard mainly) that you have to warn people away from because they'll either never get their iconic mechanic or only get it in epic play. As long as everyone knows what the deal is going in it works fine.

rooneg

2016-12-22, 04:16 PM

I have a friend who runs 5e E6 and the only problem with it is that you spend a LOT of time camped out around the power break points for a couple of classes. Moon Druids and Warlocks shine really hard when much of the game happens in the 2-4 level range. Meanwhile there are a couple archetypes (conjurer and necromancer wizard mainly) that you have to warn people away from because they'll either never get their iconic mechanic or only get it in epic play. As long as everyone knows what the deal is going in it works fine.

It also seems like an 5e E6 fighter is sort of lacking. All the martial classes get to their second attack, but the fighter never gets to their third. I suppose in return you get an extra feat, but still, it's kind of unfortunate.

Asmotherion

2016-12-22, 04:21 PM

1) I think it's more fun to play at levels 11-20+epic boons than regular levels.
2) Bestow Curse should have a range of at least 30 feet. It's useless as a touch attack.
3) I hate the fact that only V-humans can get a bonus feat. Other races should have this as an option to prevent optimisation campains from being parties of V-Humans.
4) The Lucky feat, the Halfing's Lucky Trait and the Diviner Wizard's Portent are all over-ratted and situational. Yes, even when it's a Halfing Diviner with the Lucky feat. It's situational, and can at most be usefull 2-3 times per day, not as game-breaking as all the Hype.
5) I would be happy if the spellcasting trait between diferent classes stacked somehow, and not only for spell slots. For example "spells known" classes have a total of spells known equal to the highest spells known class they have, but can leanr spells of levels they have spell slots of wile prepared spellcasters can prepare less spells but from any level they have spell slots of.

2D8HP

2016-12-22, 04:41 PM

1-4 sound DM dependent to me.

1. It is MORE work for a DM but so far I feel it has resulted in BETER games.
I agree that it is mostly better to be a player now when you get to play the game. I just worry that the increased quality has come with a price of a decreased quantity of gameplay opportunities.

2. I do not get this it is an RP game? How can there be to much RP?
It's the stress I dislike, i.e. "how good of a method actor are you" seriousness that leeches some of the joy out.

The first version of what became D&D was the rules system inside Dave Arneson's mind.

The rules are there because players want some idea of what the odds are first, and it's easier to choose from a catalog than write on a blank page.

When D&D started there was no mention of role-playing on the box!
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/SfSTvUzCu4I/AAAAAAAAA9A/9bUyti9YmUk/s320/box1st.jpg
While the 1977 Basic set did indeed say "FANTASY ROLE-PLAYING GAME"
http://i2.wp.com/shaneplays.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/dungeons_and_dragons_dd_basic_set_1stedition_origi nal_box_holmes_edition.jpg?zoom=4&resize=312%2C386
The phrase "role-playing" was not part of the 1974 rules.
http://i2.wp.com/shaneplays.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/original_dungeons_and_dragons_dd_men_and_magic_cov er.jpg?zoom=4&resize=312%2C494
Notice that the cover says "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames", not role-playing!
I believe the first use of the term "role-playing game" was in a Tunnels & Trolls supplement that was "compatible with other Fantasy role-playing games", but early D&D didn't seem any more or less combat focused than the later RPG's I've played, (in fact considering how fragile PC''s were avoiding combat was often the goal!) so I wouldn't say it was anymore of a "Wargame". I would however say it was more an exploration game, and was less character focused.
Frankly while role-playing is alright, it's the 'enjoying a "world" where the fantastic is fact' part that is much more interesting to me.

These rules are strictly fantasy. Those wargamers who lack imagination, those who don't care for Burroughs'
Martian adventures where John Carter is groping through black pits, who feel no thrill upon reading Howard's Conan saga, who do not enjoy the de Camp & Pratt fantasies or Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser
pitting their swords against evil sorceries will not be likely to find Dungeons & Dragons to their taste. But those whose imaginations know no bounds will find that these rules are the answer to their prayers. With this last
bit of advice we invite you to read on and enjoy a "world" where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!
E. Gary Gygax
Tactical Studies Rules Editor
1 November 1973
Lake Geneva, WisconsinWhile I'm ever grateful to Holmes for his work translating the game rules into English, perhaps he (an academic psychologist) is to be blamed for mis-labelling D&D with the abominable slander of "role-playing" (a psychological treatment technique).
It's too late now to correct the misnomer, but D&D is, was, and should be a fantasy adventure game, not role-playing, a label no good has come from!

“If I want to do that,” he said, “I’ll join an amateur theater group.” (see here (http://www.believermag.com/issues/200609/?read=article_lafarge)).
While Dave Arneson later had the innovation of having his players "roll up" characters, for his "homebrew" of Chainmail:
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2016/04/the-original-dungeon-masters/

At first the players played themselves in a Fantastic medievalish world:
http://swordsandstitchery.blogspot.com/2016/10/in-celebrate-of-dave-arnesons-birthday.html?m=1

So a wargame was made into a setting exploration game, and then was later labelled a "role-playing" game.
While it's still possible to play D&D as the wargame it once was, I'm glad that the game escaped the "wargame" appellation, which makes the game more attractive to those of us with 'less of an interest in tactics, however I argue (to beat a dead horse), that the labeling of D&D as a role-playing game is hurtful ("Your not role-playing, your roll-playing! etc.).
Just label D&D an adventure game, and people can be spared all the hand-wringing, and insults when acting and writing talents don't measure up to "role-playing" standards, and instead we can have fun exploring a fantastic world together.
Please?

3. It can get tedious sometimes. But the whole would my character really attack this bad guy can mix up combat and help keep it fresh. No disagreement.

4. Maybe it is because both of my DMs have a back ground in writing (one in queer lit and another in comic books) but those back stories we write are key. Once they are woven in the the greater story with a little spotlight time make the game so much more personal.Sadly I haven't experienced that, and I've actually cried while writing a back-story because I got so emotionally involved with the tale, but other than getting me accepted by the DM as a player, the back-stories I've written have never really affected gameplay, and I'd rather be spared the homework.
I think the background ideals etc. do as good a job or better than the histories.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-12-22, 04:55 PM

It also seems like an 5e E6 fighter is sort of lacking. All the martial classes get to their second attack, but the fighter never gets to their third. I suppose in return you get an extra feat, but still, it's kind of unfortunate.
Hence why I suggested giving them their 7th level subclass feature early-- let them end up with War Magic, or Remarkable Athlete, or... Know Your Enemy, I guess.

rooneg

2016-12-22, 05:02 PM

Hence why I suggested giving them their 7th level subclass feature early-- let them end up with War Magic, or Remarkable Athlete, or... Know Your Enemy, I guess.

Yeah, that would make sense. Especially for Eldritch Knight. War Magic is sort of the whole point with that class. If you're doing the whole "feats for XP past 6th level" maybe the 7th level abilities just turn into class specific feats. That would account for the fact that sometimes that ability is awesome and you totally want it and sometimes it's Know Your Enemy ;-)

DizzyWood

2016-12-22, 05:16 PM

JD8HP

We really need to get you into a game with my current DM. I never knew my characters background as a high priced sex worker. Would tie into the sex rites of the Cult of the Raven (heavily home brewed Curse of Strahd). Our Dwarf warlock had no idea the patron she was bound too was manipulating us to attempt to take the throne from Strahd. Our halfling cleric of Sharess found out that the town Alchemist is his long lost son...we are still working out how that happened.

All our backstories have been worked into the main story in interesting ways. The NPCs have become important. When my characters boyfriend was kidnapped (and I thought dead) I literally flipped a table, it is amazing how a GOOD DM can make you feel invested.

ChildofLuthic

2016-12-22, 05:31 PM

Is that unpopular? I thought Half-Orcs have been popular since 3.x? Or is that just me?

Half Orcs are pigeonholed as melee tanks but they're saying half Orcs also make good rogues, casters, etc.

BigONotation

2016-12-22, 05:38 PM

Ravinsild

2016-12-22, 05:39 PM

Half Orcs are pigeonholed as melee tanks but they're saying half Orcs also make good rogues, casters, etc.

They do. Strength Rogue will beat you up then grab you by your ankles and shake the change out of your pockets. Gish Caster up in melee. Two-Handed Polearm Ranger. Much more. Half-Orcs are the best race :P

mephnick

2016-12-22, 05:56 PM

It also seems like an 5e E6 fighter is sort of lacking. All the martial classes get to their second attack, but the fighter never gets to their third. I suppose in return you get an extra feat, but still, it's kind of unfortunate.

E6 made more sense for 3.5 because of the massive power imbalances/cheese as you got higher. 5e is balanced enough at level 11 to stop at that power spike while still retaining all the challenge/worldbuilding of 3.5 e6.

jas61292

2016-12-22, 06:11 PM

I suppose I can give a few opinions of my own.

1) Moon Druid is quite possibly the most overrated subclass in the entire game, and Land Druid (which is very underrated) is actually significantly better. A Druid is a full caster, first and foremost, and as many people remind us here on a daily basis, spellcasting (and especially full caster spellcasting) is the single most powerful and versatile class feature in the entire game. A Land Druid takes the wonderful Druid casting base, and makes it much better at casting, giving it a bigger spell list, more spells prepared each day, and more more spell slots to use each day. And that's in addition to a number of other, non-casting related features. On the other hand, not a single thing a Moon Druid gets is casting related. Rather, it focuses on improving a relatively minor part of the class, to an extent that lets them be mediocre at another classes role, while requiring that they sacrafice the ability to use their most important feature (spellcasting). I fully believe that the reason people love the Moon Druid so much is not because it is actually strong overall, but because of its ridiculously unbalanced nature, making it borderline broken at a small number of levels. People love to feel strong, so even though it is not top tier for most of the game, it is good enough that people find it worth it, just for those brief feelings of power. Well... that and the fact that shape-shifting is cool. But in terms of actual power level, averaged out across the entire spectrum of playable levels, they are by far the inferior subclass, in my opinion.

2) Weapon or weapon type specific feats are just a bad idea in general. I have always been of the opinion that certain feats, such as Sharpshooter and Pole Arm Master, completely destroy game balance and are better off banned. But more generally, weapon type specific feats are just a bad idea. I get the whole concept behind people wanting them. They want to feel more special and more unique and dedicated to a particular style. But with feats like these, that really doesn't happen in practice. You want to be an archer? You damn well better take Sharpshooter. Using a glaive? Not without Pole Arm Master you aren't. And don't even think about a crossbow without taking Crossbow Expert. In reality, these feats don't make you unique, because so long as they exist every single character who uses that weapon is going to take the exact same feat. The only way to actually make the feats exist and be a meaningful choice is to make there be more of them. And no, I do not mean one for every style, because they still would be mandatory for each style. I mean, more than one for every weapon type. And not just more than one, but ideally a large number for every single weapon type, so that you actually have to make meaningful choices and trade-offs, and have a chance of your style actually being unique. And the number of feats that would require is a kind of bloat that simply does not fit in 5th edition.

3) Alignment is actually a good thing to have as a defined mechanic so long as it is not too strict. While I wish it was a tiny bit more important in 5e, the fact that it can effect magic item atunement is enough for me to be happy with it. That said, most people don't understand alignment and are terrible at using it. On a related note, I am of the opinion that "Chaotic Neutral" is player speak for "Neutral Evil." And at least 90% of PCs are evil.

4) The biggest issue with 5e is that they did not go far enough with DM rulings. Specifically with regard to the Advantage system. The system itself is and incredibly simple yet elegant way of allowing the DM to give a bonus or penalty based on the circumstances. But despite clearly being designed as a DM tool, 90% of the ways the rules bring it up is through player actions, not DM actions. This leads to it being all about finding advantage, and canceling disadvantage, rather than about the players simply thinking in character and being rewarded for putting themselves in "in game" advantageous situations. The game would have been far better served if very, very few hard mechanical conditions, spells, and abilities actually gave advantage, allowing the system to be far more of the DM tool it was designed to be.

Shaofoo

2016-12-22, 06:18 PM

1) Frenzy is fine
2) Four Elements is fine
3)Skills are fine
4)Everything is fine
5)D&D is just not that good of a game... oh sorry that is a popular opinion at least the way some people seem to conduct themselves. I think D&D is fine too.

Knaight

2016-12-22, 06:24 PM

5)D&D is just not that good of a game... oh sorry that is a popular opinion at least the way some people seem to conduct themselves. I think D&D is fine too.

D&D comprises almost the entire RPG market, particularly now that White Wolf is a shadow of its former self. That some of us don't like it and are willing to criticize doesn't make liking D&D some sort of unpopular opinion.

MeeposFire

2016-12-22, 07:30 PM

I think you're missing my point.

Having werebears often be lawful good is one thing (I think it's still nuts, but whatever).

What I don't understand is why becoming a werebear actually changes your alignment to lawful good. That just seems completely moronic.

Incidentally, I think WotC really need to look up the definition of 'curse'.

I think it is to make it similar to how werewolves always switch you to evil. If the werewolf switches you to this default alignment shouldn't the werebear do the same?

Digimike

2016-12-22, 07:33 PM

Is that unpopular? I thought Half-Orcs have been popular since 3.x? Or is that just me?

As others pointed out, i was referring to the pigeon holed nature of them, theyre great at everything.

With a get out of death free card and extra crit damage in melee, those can be a boon to every class. It also introduces some nice RP elements.

rooneg

2016-12-22, 07:37 PM

E6 made more sense for 3.5 because of the massive power imbalances/cheese as you got higher. 5e is balanced enough at level 11 to stop at that power spike while still retaining all the challenge/worldbuilding of 3.5 e6.

That's a fair argument, although I do think that hitting 5th (and 6th, if you go up to character level 11) level spells has a significant impact on the way the game works. Teleportation, Raise Dead, etc. That's a big change in the party's power level. I can see a real argument for wanting to cap things at 8th level just to avoid that. Weirdly, the 6th level spells don't seem nearly as game changing, 5th level ones though, man...

mephnick

2016-12-22, 08:01 PM

That's a fair argument, although I do think that hitting 5th (and 6th, if you go up to character level 11) level spells has a significant impact on the way the game works. Teleportation, Raise Dead, etc. That's a big change in the party's power level. I can see a real argument for wanting to cap things at 8th level just to avoid that. Weirdly, the 6th level spells don't seem nearly as game changing, 5th level ones though, man...

Teleport is actually 7th level. One of the big reasons I stop at level 6 spells. Planeshift too.

rooneg

2016-12-22, 08:07 PM

Teleport is actually 7th level. One of the big reasons I stop at level 6 spells. Planeshift too.

Yeah, but Teleportation Circle is 5th level. Not as game breaking as Teleport, but still a big change. Anyway, I can see the argument. If 5th level spells are one large jump up in power, 7th level spells are another clear jump. Stopping at either point seems reasonable to me, depending on where you want your PCs to end up on the power curve.

Morphic tide

2016-12-22, 08:15 PM

Yeah, but Teleportation Circle is 5th level. Not as game breaking as Teleport, but still a big change. Anyway, I can see the argument. If 5th level spells are one large jump up in power, 7th level spells are another clear jump. Stopping at either point seems reasonable to me, depending on where you want your PCs to end up on the power curve.

5th level spells are, AFAIK, "Personally effect battles/cities" level. 7th level seem to be "Personally decide wars/politics of continents."

Teleportation Circle is actually stronger than Teleport on large military scales, because you can always cram the troops on carriages to get upwards of five times your CL in troops through. If not twenty times your CL... There's a very big reason Tippyverse uses the circles as the main inter-City travel method. Much higher rate of transit once economy of scale kicks in.

mephnick

2016-12-22, 08:30 PM

I prefer the physical limitations of teleport circles and fixed portals to Teleport and Planeshift since we mostly deal with things at the party level rather than armies and politics. The Tippyverse is a fun read but not relevant to actual play.

Pex

2016-12-22, 08:44 PM

1. A martial attack should scale in damage like cantrips do.
2. If martial attacks don't scale, cantrips shouldn't either (except Eldritch Blast, and that should only scale with Warlock levels).
3. Weapons should have fun special moves.
4. Archetypes without magic should get extra ASIs.
5. Fighter Indomitable should be changed to Legendary Resistance.

Cantrips need to scale due to the number of spell slots. Spellcasters need to conserve for several encounters a day. Also, the Concentration mechanic is inherently limited on what a spellcaster can do while maintaining concentration. Scaling cantrips give them something to do that still meaningfully contributes and keep the flavor of being a spellcaster as opposed to being like a warrior firing a crossbow.

Martial attacks scale by getting more attacks, like the Eldritch Blast you like. Fighters get more attacks and either maneuvers, spells, or crits. Paladins add on Smite and eventually an extra d8 damage. Barbarians rage.

Sans.

2016-12-22, 09:06 PM

1. Rogues and Warlocks should rely on Intelligence... somehow...
2. Paladin multiclass requirement should be 'Str or Dex 13, Cha 13'.
3. Bards are overpowered.
4. The whole thing about trading your capstone for a level 1 dip, last ASI/feat for level 2 dip, etc. is stupid. Not everyone is gonna get to level 20 ever, let alone with this particular build.
5. Barbarians should require Con 13 as well.
6. If druids can't use metal shields, they shouldn't be allowed to use metal weapons.
7. Clerics are overpowered.
8. UA sucks.
9. Paladins should all be Lawful: they follow a freaking oath.
10. Sorcerer ancestry shouldn't be limited to dragons: Celestials? Fey?

Specter

2016-12-22, 09:13 PM

1) Palasorcs aren't as good as people paint them; they take too long to become decent and end up being a jack-of-all-trades, master of none.
2) Anyone who takes more than two classes for a character is making an unnecessary character.
3) Players who optimize too much are sabotaging themselves out of the game's fun.
4) Druid Wild Shape is boring as hell (both for the player and the other people at the table).
5) Most polarized race-class combinations (elf barbarian, half-orc wizard, etc.) are not fun and not creative at all.

2D8HP

2016-12-22, 10:38 PM

I a High Elf Barbarian Sage (same stats as above but switch Int and Wis) sounds like fun to me.A pyromaniac Firebolt Cantrip using High-elf Barbarian is a lot of fun...
"You made me miss my anger management class. THAT REALLY TICKS ME OFF!".

Addaran

2016-12-22, 11:10 PM

5) Most polarized race-class combinations (elf barbarian, half-orc wizard, etc.) are not fun and not creative at all.

You might not get your uber specialization, but you normaly gain in versatility or new abilities that normally the class wouldn't have.

Like that wizard that can take a dragon's breath in the face but say: Nah, i'm not dead, still got 1hp and with my intimidation proficiency i'll tell the dragon it's just a flesh wound. :smallcool:

That barbarian can have both the bear totem and advantage against charm effects. He also have a cantrip for utility or to damage that thing immune to physical damage.

MeeposFire

2016-12-23, 01:52 AM

Yea people make way too big a deal about which race to choose. Yes in most ways picking a half orc for a barbarian is better but you can make a barbarian that works quite well with an elf or any other race. Most games are not competitive enough to need to care about the extra oomph that the more optimized race may be.

Specter

2016-12-23, 05:50 AM

Yeah, hence the 'unpopular'. Every time I see a guy making something like that, I wonder how original he thinks he is because he's the ultimate unserdog swimming against the current.

Dr. Cliché

2016-12-23, 06:10 AM

I think it is to make it similar to how werewolves always switch you to evil. If the werewolf switches you to this default alignment shouldn't the werebear do the same?

No. Neither should work like that.

Although, before I get into an explanation, I'll first say that a big part of the problem is with D&D meshing together Hollywood werewolves with LotR werebears (which seem far closer to semi-Druids).

Here's the problem - Chaotic Evil was, I think, supposed to represent the werewolves being phychotic killing machines when transformed (exactly like wolves aren't, but whatever). But, the whole point is that the character isn't in control of himself when this happens. Hence, his alignment shouldn't change to reflect actions he had no control over.

Furthermore, the underlying idea of the werewolf curse is a mix of 'nature is savage' and 'the beast within us'. So, with that in mind, why should bears be different? Or tigers, for that matter? They both use the exact same mechanics and it is still supposed to be a curse, so why aren't they savage and bloodthirsty when they transform?

It's even weirder when you remember that bears and tigers pose far more of a danger to humans than an entire pack of wolves. :smallconfused:

Also, largely unrelated, but a pet peeve of mine - 'Lycanthrope' is not a catch-all term for any were-creature. It specifically means 'werewolf' ('lycan' comes from the Greek 'Lykanos' meaning 'wolf'). There is a word for people who turn into animals (not just wolves) - Therianthrope.

Oramac

2016-12-23, 10:02 AM

1. A martial attack should scale in damage like cantrips do.
2. If martial attacks don't scale, cantrips shouldn't either (except Eldritch Blast, and that should only scale with Warlock levels).

Martial attacks do scale, via Extra Attack and other class features (such as Sneak Attack).

The difference is, the scaling is part of the class, not the weapon.

Potato_Priest

2016-12-23, 02:09 PM

I don't mind finesse weapons per se, I just think that far more weapons should be classed as finesse (e.g. all swords - not just the very light ones).

If we're trying to be more realistic, I'd also suggest that the designers have been rather optimistic regarding the time it takes to load a crossbow. Especially a heavy crossbow (which usually necessitates a windlass).

I can't really see a justification for wielding a greatsword dextrously. I always assume that strength to hit makes sense because it represents how much force you can put into punching through the other guy's armor, or how fast you can swing a heavy weapon, making it harder to dodge. The crossbow thing is a little unrealistic, yeah, but it makes for better balance than a crossbow that you can shoot every 2 turns.

Potato_Priest

2016-12-23, 02:14 PM

.
4) Druid Wild Shape is boring as hell (both for the player and the other people at the table).

Wild shape is interesting and fun when not used in combat. If you don't go for the moon druid, then some interesting scenarios can arise, wherein you can turn into a horse to ride a wounded companion to safety, or into a rat to sneak around.

Dr. Cliché

2016-12-23, 02:22 PM

I can't really see a justification for wielding a greatsword dextrously. I always assume that strength to hit makes sense because it represents how much force you can put into punching through the other guy's armor

That's the thing - you really don't want to be trying to punch through armour with a sword (including a greatsword). Use a mace for that sort of thing.

If you're wielding a sword against a heavily-armoured opponent, then you have two options:

1) Hold it by the blade and use the guard as an improvised warhammer to try and puncture your opponent's armour (this would be the strength option).

2) Put one hand on the blade to give you more control, ans try to stab through the weak spots in your opponent's armour (this would be the finesse option). This technique is called 'half-swording', if you're interested.

or how fast you can swing a heavy weapon, making it harder to dodge.

In most cases, you don't actually want to swing your weapon too hard, as it is much more likely to throw you off balance and/or leave you badly positioned to block your opponent.

Oramac

2016-12-23, 03:10 PM

That's the thing - you really don't want to be trying to punch through armour with a sword (including a greatsword). Use a mace for that sort of thing.

If you're wielding a sword against a heavily-armoured opponent, then you have two options:

1) Hold it by the blade and use the guard as an improvised warhammer to try and puncture your opponent's armour (this would be the strength option).

2) Put one hand on the blade to give you more control, ans try to stab through the weak spots in your opponent's armour (this would be the finesse option). This technique is called 'half-swording', if you're interested.

Indeed. Historically, there's definitely precedent for wielding a greatsword with Dexterity. The reason you can't in D&D (I think) is because a finesse greatsword with sneak attack would be ridiculously good.

Shaofoo

2016-12-23, 04:27 PM

D&D comprises almost the entire RPG market, particularly now that White Wolf is a shadow of its former self. That some of us don't like it and are willing to criticize doesn't make liking D&D some sort of unpopular opinion.

So you find other alternatives if you don't like it. Just because other choices aren't as popular doesn't mean that they are suddenly invalid.

One thing is criticizing and another is just complaining and doing nothing about it. If you don't like something you either change it or talk to someone to see if they can change it, a big thing in D&D is to houserule (of course some people like to style themselves as big game designers when all they did is just change some text and numbers on an established system, it is like saying that Doom modders should share a similar position to John Romero).

Though I think most people who actually do have a problem do actually take steps to resolve said problem and don't impotently type in random internet forums on their problems, even if said solution is to just accept the problem (it might not be as bad as you think, most "problems" aren't really problems anyway).

You have a problem with the system, so do I. But if the only thing that you can say are the problems of the system then I think you just like to hate.

DrDinocrusher

2016-12-23, 04:40 PM

Indeed. Historically, there's definitely precedent for wielding a greatsword with Dexterity. The reason you can't in D&D (I think) is because a finesse greatsword with sneak attack would be ridiculously good.

Pretty sure this is the major reason. It's to keep rogues, monks, and to a lesser extent dex fighters in check and on the same power curve as everyone else. Otherwise everyone would be rolling around with a half orc rogue dropping 4d6+dex hits every round at level 5, and every fighter and barbarian in the world would dip rogue 1 for free damage.

Socratov

2016-12-23, 04:52 PM

Pretty sure this is the major reason. It's to keep rogues, monks, and to a lesser extent dex fighters in check and on the same power curve as everyone else. Otherwise everyone would be rolling around with a half orc rogue dropping 4d6+dex hits every round at level 5, and every fighter and barbarian in the world would dip rogue 1 for free damage.

And nobody would use strength because why settle for a stat that does 2 things (melee attacks and Athletics) when you can get a stat that does melee attacks, ranged attacks, skills, AC and Initiative... Seems clear to me...

Grod_The_Giant

2016-12-23, 04:56 PM

One thing is criticizing and another is just complaining and doing nothing about it. If you don't like something you either change it or talk to someone to see if they can change it, a big thing in D&D is to houserule
Oh! That reminds me of another unpopular opinion I strongly believe!

6. 5e's simple math and solid class balance make it an excellent candidate for homebrewing and hacking

Petrocorus

2016-12-23, 05:13 PM

I will make my input about the things that irks me. But most of it is not unpopular, i think.

1) I don't like the fact that some monsters stats don't really match their fluff any more. This is notably glaring for the dragons who are really not as powerful as they were. Additionally, the fact that they don't have spellcasting any more and the metallic dragons still don't have Change Shape make the very existence of creatures from other race with metallic draconic bloodlines quite weird. We get the problem also with the Oni who is now barely smarter than the average human, weird IMHO.

2) I don't like the change of fluff of some monsters and races. Notably the Dragonborn, their fluff in 3.5 were so good, why did they change it? The reproduction methods of the Doppelgänger make the existence of Changelings quite impossible. The name Eladrin is now the name of a sub-races of elves instead of a races of celestials, and they look like Star Elves from FR but are not.

3) I don't like the 5E take on the familiar and even more that they are not smart any more. I really preferred the 3.5 ones. The Sorcerers cannot really have familiar any more because it take one of their few and precious spells known.

4) I don't like the Eldritch Knight spells list. Why Evocation? They did the same mistake in 3.5 with the Duskblade. The writers seems to believe that the point of a gish is to be a fighter who shoot some blast spells when he can't strike, but to me, the point of a gish is to use magic to improve your strike and to by-pass what impede you to strike. You need Transmutation and some Conjuration (tactical teleport) instead of Evocation. This is one of the reasons some people prefer a Warlock dip over going full EK.

5) I don't like the PHB Ranger, it fails at being what it's supposed to be. The UA revised ranger is much better but still has some real issues.

6) I like that WotC has published big well done campaigns, but i would really like some smaller campaigns, and not just for level 1 to 4.

7) Where is my Eberron? And Dark Sun?

And my two main contentions with 5E.

8) Why the F does WotC refuse to sell its product in PDF? That would be so much easier.

9) Why the F does WotC refuse to licence foreign languages translation? Many editor in many countries are eager to do it. So not only WotC expect me to buy books which are overpriced because they are imported (shipped twice in my case, actually), and without the convenience to have PDF copies to carry on my tablet, but additionally, they want me to do this while half of my players will not be able to actually read the said books. This is completely dumb commercially. We're in 2016, for Banjo's sake.

D&D comprises almost the entire RPG market, particularly now that White Wolf is a shadow of its former self. That some of us don't like it and are willing to criticize doesn't make liking D&D some sort of unpopular opinion.

I still can't understand what happened to White Wolf.

MeeposFire

2016-12-23, 05:16 PM

Indeed. Historically, there's definitely precedent for wielding a greatsword with Dexterity. The reason you can't in D&D (I think) is because a finesse greatsword with sneak attack would be ridiculously good.

Not really the difference between using a great sword and a rapier is not much on only one attack. Great sword averages at 7 damage a rapier at 4.5. 2.5 damage is not enough to call out for balance reasons. It is also not the GWM feat as its attack penalty does not work nicely with a ready source of large bonus damage like sneak attack (the math starts to work against it).

Also people put way too much of a premium on dex. It is better than say strength on the whole but it is not that much better especially since most str based classes get heavy armor which makes the AC part of dex not really pertinent to the conversation (and in fact unless you get more dex then the cap then dex actually has less AC than a heavy armor user).

The real reason is that this version of D&D puts a premium on things that are either historical in D&D or fits the flavor of what they have in mind and enforcing it. The first is why longswords are weapons for rogues and the second is why long swords are not finnessable (because somebody decided a while ago that they were not and that plays into the 1st reason).

2D8HP

2016-12-23, 05:18 PM

Indeed. Historically, there's definitely precedent for wielding a greatsword with Dexterity. The reason you can't in D&D (I think) is because a finesse greatsword with sneak attack would be ridiculously good.And historically physical strength mattered a lot for longbows.

Oh! That reminds me of another unpopular opinion I strongly believe!

6. 5e's simple math and solid class balance make it an excellent candidate for homebrewing and hackingIt's so good that you can change it?

That's very counter-intuitive... but I think your right.

I've found that it's less work to make 5e closer to what I like about 1970's rules D&D than it is to make '70's D&D closer to what I like about 5e (or maybe I'm just liking 5e more as I get familiar with it).

pwykersotz

2016-12-23, 06:25 PM

Oh! That reminds me of another unpopular opinion I strongly believe!

6. 5e's simple math and solid class balance make it an excellent candidate for homebrewing and hacking

I think this is a more popular opinion than you believe. There's a few vocal people on the boards who oppose heavy tweaks, but I don't think it even comes close to a majority. Also, if I recall your threads right, you went after some pretty big changes right out of the gate. Those tend to be polarizing.

But yeah, I completely agree.

Dr. Cliché

2016-12-23, 06:29 PM

1) I don't like the fact that some monsters stats don't really match their fluff any more. This is notably glaring for the dragons who are really not as powerful as they were. Additionally, the fact that they don't have spellcasting any more and the metallic dragons still don't have Change Shape make the very existence of creatures from other race with metallic draconic bloodlines quite weird. We get the problem also with the Oni who is now barely smarter than the average human, weird IMHO.

Also, I find that the lack of casting on many creatures makes them feel a bit dull. e.g. demons used to have a ton of stuff they could do in combat, now most of them are stuck with just basic attacks and even the high level ones get maybe one fire spell.

3) I don't like the 5E take on the familiar and even more that they are not smart any more. I really preferred the 3.5 ones. The Sorcerers cannot really have familiar any more because it take one of their few and precious spells known.

I sort of like that losing a Familiar isn't crippling anymore, but otherwise I agree.

Potato_Priest

2016-12-23, 06:49 PM

(and in fact unless you get more dex then the cap then dex actually has less AC than a heavy armor user).

Quite true, if you never fight rust monsters, anything with heat metal, or oozes, never take your armor off or have it removed, and never wake up in prison without your equipment.

MeeposFire

2016-12-23, 07:04 PM

Quite true, if you never fight rust monsters, anything with heat metal, or oozes, never take your armor off or have it removed, and never wake up in prison without your equipment.

Oh please you do that all the time? That is like not having a weapon or your spellbook. These things happen every once in a while but are not the sort of thing you balance around. Should the dex character complain because they have no weapon to use and fists require str for the typical character?

Potato_Priest

2016-12-23, 08:44 PM

Oh please you do that all the time? That is like not having a weapon or your spellbook. These things happen every once in a while but are not the sort of thing you balance around. Should the dex character complain because they have no weapon to use and fists require str for the typical character?

These do seem to happen to me with alarming frequency when I wear heavy armor. Perhaps it's my DM. Also, good point about the fists.

MeeposFire

2016-12-23, 08:47 PM

These do seem to happen to me with alarming frequency when I wear heavy armor. Perhaps it's my DM. Also, good point about the fists.

If it is frequent then yea it is more your DM but I will say that with the right hand putting you in a vulnerable position can be exciting though doing it often will reduce the impact.

Ronnocius

2016-12-23, 09:20 PM

4) Not 5e specific, but DMing really isn't that hard.

I know these are unpopular opinions but everyone DMs differently and just because you don't find it hard doesn't mean nobody else does.

Knaight

2016-12-23, 09:20 PM

I can't really see a justification for wielding a greatsword dextrously. I always assume that strength to hit makes sense because it represents how much force you can put into punching through the other guy's armor, or how fast you can swing a heavy weapon, making it harder to dodge. The crossbow thing is a little unrealistic, yeah, but it makes for better balance than a crossbow that you can shoot every 2 turns.
Strength makes sense for all melee weapons because of the matter of them feeling lighter if stronger and thus being more manueverable. Dexterity make sense for all melee weapons, because aim matters as do reflexes. Heck, Wisdom makes sense for all melee weapons because perception is explicitly included within it and reading opponents in a fight is critical. That includes the greatsword - which really isn't that heavy as long as you consistently use both hands.

I still can't understand what happened to White Wolf.
A combination of bad management and some really sloppy design work. That White Wolf basically collapsed and a lot of former White Wolf designers left to do their own thing was the best thing to happen to them in terms of the quality of games produced by these designers. Greg Stolze could continue to be wasted on White Wolf products, instead we got the ORE games.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-12-23, 10:08 PM

Also, I find that the lack of casting on many creatures makes them feel a bit dull. e.g. demons used to have a ton of stuff they could do in combat, now most of them are stuck with just basic attacks and even the high level ones get maybe one fire spell.
God, yes. 5e monsters are horrifically designed. With few exceptions, they have no skills, no spells, no special attacks or unique tactics... they're generally just sacks of meat. Very frustrating.

Pex

2016-12-23, 10:34 PM

#6 for me: Dice rolling is acceptable as a means of generating ability scores. The game does not fall apart into uselessness when used. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a 1st level character having an 18. The game will function just fine. Players who like to use dice rolling are not min/max powergaming rollplaying munchkins or whatever other pejorative one wants to use who desire all stats be 18 or 20 just killing monsters for the loot.

#7: 5E is not absolutely perfect in every way to be immune to criticism. Players have legitimate issues against the game just like players have issues against the previous editions. (Maybe this is "political").

#8: Spare The Dying is not a waste of Cantrip knowledge space. It's nice that a Healer's Kit does the job just as well. Hip hip hooray for the Healer's Kit. It's good for the game that anyone can use one to do the job instead of only the Cleric who happens to have the spell. It's also nice that a Cleric doesn't have to use the kit to use the spell as an option even if just for flavor to feel like being a Cleric.