5E Thoughts, opinions, and ideas.

[Implayingnude]

To start off, I'd like to say that there are things that I absolutly love about this edition.

The simplicity of it is very nice for new/newer players, which allows for faster pick up of the game itself. As far as the learning curve I'd give them a 8/10.

Here's where things start to get tricky, there's so much stuff that's left out and requires you to use other sorces or homebrew stuff. This can lead to all kinds of problems, on what's "allowed" and not.
For starters, lack of weapons, feats, and misworded/interpretation can cause issues all on it's own. Then we have the race's spread all throughout two books, and not just in the PHB.

While you could easily fix all of this as a DM, should you really have too?

I'd love to hear everyone's ideas or thoughts, and possible fixes to issues in this edition.

[djreynolds]

People made weapons for a purpose

Some are made because they are cheap and therefore easier to arm warriors.

Sherman tanks vs Tiger/Panzers for example

Some are designed to deal with heavy armor, some with light, etc

I would like a more comprehensive weapon's list, why use a war pick over a spear since both are piercing?

Why use a trident over a spear?

Give each weapon something, a reason to exist

[Implayingnude]

People made weapons for a purpose

Some are made because they are cheap and therefore easier to arm warriors.

Sherman tanks vs Tiger/Panzers for example

Some are designed to deal with heavy armor, some with light, etc

I would like a more comprehensive weapon's list, why use a war pick over a spear since both are piercing?

Why use a trident over a spear?

Give each weapon something, a reason to exist

I'd have to agree here, there's no diversity at all. Majority of the same weapons are always used, because if they're not then you fall behind in damage, or feats later throughout the game.

For example, whips, slings, blowdarts. The list goes on, and I'm sure that you could make a some what effective build with these, but let's face it.. Most serve no purpose and It's nothing compared to xbows, greatswords, polearms, etc. The same weapon you see in almost every optimized build.

[GreyBlack]

I want a mechanical reason to specialize in a weapon. In all fantasy in all corners of the world, you hear stories of people who master weapons to a superhuman degree. Now, you literally cannot create this character archetype.

[8wGremlin]

I feel the problem is that the rules are exclusive not inclusive. By that I mean you can only do X with Y.

Where inclusive would be you can do X with Y.type things.

Thus when new books and rules come out they are automatically included in the previous rules due to the inclusive wording.

[DanyBallon]

I feel the problem is that the rules are exclusive not inclusive. By that I mean you can only do X with Y.

Where inclusive would be you can do X with Y.type things.

Thus when new books and rules come out they are automatically included in the previous rules due to the inclusive wording.

Can you give me some examples? I've always felt that the vague wording we currently have was way more inclusive as you could easily adjust the scale to fit your needs...

[Malifice]

I want a mechanical reason to specialize in a weapon. In all fantasy in all corners of the world, you hear stories of people who master weapons to a superhuman degree. Now, you literally cannot create this character archetype.

Kensai Monk 8, Battle master fighter 12.

[DanyBallon]

To start off, I'd like to say that there are things that I absolutly love about this edition.

The simplicity of it is very nice for new/newer players, which allows for faster pick up of the game itself. As far as the learning curve I'd give them a 8/10.

Here's where things start to get tricky, there's so much stuff that's left out and requires you to use other sorces or homebrew stuff. This can lead to all kinds of problems, on what's "allowed" and not.
For starters, lack of weapons, feats, and misworded/interpretation can cause issues all on it's own. Then we have the race's spread all throughout two books, and not just in the PHB.

While you could easily fix all of this as a DM, should you really have too?

I'd love to hear everyone's ideas or thoughts, and possible fixes to issues in this edition.


I'd have to agree here, there's no diversity at all. Majority of the same weapons are always used, because if they're not then you fall behind in damage, or feats later throughout the game.

For example, whips, slings, blowdarts. The list goes on, and I'm sure that you could make a some what effective build with these, but let's face it.. Most serve no purpose and It's nothing compared to xbows, greatswords, polearms, etc. The same weapon you see in almost every optimized build.

First, at one point you complain from the lack of weapon diversity, then you complain that the same weapons are always used for sake of optimization. I must say that you don't need to be optimized or have the most damage dealing weapon to be effective, even at high level. That's a false assumption that many try to carry over from older editions or some MMOs

Second, the races are all in the PHB, the ones in the DMG are only examples on creating a race and creating a subrace, nothing more. The SCAG and Volo's guide options came way later than the release of the PHB, and complaining about these options not being in the PHB would be like complaining that every new options that comes out should have been in the PHB from the start...

The wording is deliberately vague in order to allow the rules to fit a greater number of playstyle and put forward the "Rulings not rules" motto and move away from the too constrained framework of 3.x and 4e

As for feats, their could be more, but as they are an option, I think we have a decent amount in the PHB. There may be additional feats in further books. Remember that as for now, there haven't been many book released and none was mostly players options. SCAG was a steeing book with a few options, and Volo's is a monster book with also a few options. Xanathar's should be the first book truly geared toward players options.

[GreyBlack]

First, at one point you complain from the lack of weapon diversity, then you complain that the same weapons are always used for sake of optimization. I must say that you don't need to be optimized or have the most damage dealing weapon to be effective, even at high level. That's a false assumption that many try to carry over from older editions or some MMOs

Second, the races are all in the PHB, the ones in the DMG are only examples on creating a race and creating a subrace, nothing more. The SCAG and Volo's guide options came way later than the release of the PHB, and complaining about these options not being in the PHB would be like complaining that every new options that comes out should have been in the PHB from the start...

The wording is deliberately vague in order to allow the rules to fit a greater number of playstyle and put forward the "Rulings not rules" motto and move away from the too constrained framework of 3.x and 4e

As for feats, their could be more, but as they are an option, I think we have a decent amount in the PHB. There may be additional feats in further books. Remember that as for now, there haven't been many book released and none was mostly players options. SCAG was a steeing book with a few options, and Volo's is a monster book with also a few options. Xanathar's should be the first book truly geared toward players options.

You... make the assumption that I'm trying to break here. This was, more than anything, just showing how backstories can be used to demonstrate an absolutely monstrous amount of what could be covered. The system also penalizes players with more limited imaginations; while I'm all in favor of encouraging roleplay, one shouldn't do so to the detriment of the less skilled roleplayers.

Point being that this system may work better with a rules-light system. Alternatively, go the early DND route and completely eliminate skill checks but that's neither here nor there.

[djreynolds]

I will get hung for this.

But I think dex to hit and strength for damage would be better

Melee spell attack would use strength or dex depending

And minimums to employ heavy weapons, you need a 13 in strength (so you can still use GWM dex based but you need some strength to employ a heavy weapon) example is Lord of the Rings Elves kicking butt with big pole axes...

And minimum to employ finesse weapons, you need 15 dex, you can still use strength with finesse but you still need a higher dex

I would also tweak standard array, instead of 15/14/13/12/10/8.... 16/15/14/13/12/10

I feel when we allow an 8 to be regularly accepted and used as a dump stat.... its silly

There are no real martial artists or boxers with an 8 strength

Also crossbow no longer add an ability modifier in damage... but I would give them advantage to hit instead

[Saiga]

Dex to hit / Str to damage would be terrible. Every strength-based martial now needs Dex just to accurately hit anything, but Dex characters can afford to just use the damage without adding strength if they don't raise it.

I think it's better just to remove Dex from damage in previous editions.

But what I'd really like to see is a better way to use AC so that you don't need Heavy Armor (or being a Barbarian) to make Strength viable.

[GreyBlack]

*SNIP*
And minimums to employ heavy weapons, you need a 13 in strength (so you can still use GWM dex based but you need some strength to employ a heavy weapon) example is Lord of the Rings Elves kicking butt with big pole axes...

And minimum to employ finesse weapons, you need 15 dex, you can still use strength with finesse but you still need a higher dex
*SNIP*

Technically speaking? You already do!

If you use a finesse weapon with under a 12 dexterity, you get literally no benefit. And heavy weapons are heavier. If you have an 8 strength, good luck lugging that Greatsword around while carrying around your loot and armor.

[Throne12]

To start off, I'd like to say that there are things that I absolutly love about this edition.

The simplicity of it is very nice for new/newer players, which allows for faster pick up of the game itself. As far as the learning curve I'd give them a 8/10.

Here's where things start to get tricky, there's so much stuff that's left out and requires you to use other sorces or homebrew stuff. This can lead to all kinds of problems, on what's "allowed" and not.
For starters, lack of weapons, feats, and misworded/interpretation can cause issues all on it's own. Then we have the race's spread all throughout two books, and not just in the PHB.

While you could easily fix all of this as a DM, should you really have too?

I'd love to hear everyone's ideas or thoughts, and possible fixes to issues in this edition.

People come on here and start complaining about this and that 5e needs this but if we add this. We'll have to change that to make it balance. But balancing that make IT to overpower and not we have to balance IT. Then at the end we have a hole new game.

There are hundreds of ttrpg's out there this day in age. I sure you'll find what you want to play. If you want all the crunch were you use a Egyptian Khopesh not a longsword or a katana. Well find a system were you can .

I enjoy 5e for what it is and yes I have a few house rules. But they are nothing to game changing.

[ZorroGames]

People come on here and start complaining about this and that 5e needs this but if we add this. We'll have to change that to make it balance. But balancing that make IT to overpower and not we have to balance IT. Then at the end we have a hole new game.

There are hundreds of ttrpg's out there this day in age. I sure you'll find what you want to play. If you want all the crunch were you use a Egyptian Khopesh not a longsword or a katana. Well find a system were you can .

I enjoy 5e for what it is and yes I have a few house rules. But they are nothing to game changing.

This. Play an earlier edition - see the freaking mega-table for weapons for AD&D 2nd. It is one of the reasons I dropped D&D for so many years. Seriously, how many battles were won because some one used a gladius over a spatha?

[EvilAnagram]

This. Play an earlier edition - see the freaking mega-table for weapons for AD&D 2nd. It is one of the reasons I dropped D&D for so many years. Seriously, how many battles were won because some one used a gladius over a spatha?

I just love the way some people seem to think that the lack of specific rules to distinguish an arming sword from a bastard sword is ruining any sense of immersion.

[GreyBlack]

People come on here and start complaining about this and that 5e needs this but if we add this. We'll have to change that to make it balance. But balancing that make IT to overpower and not we have to balance IT. Then at the end we have a hole new game.

There are hundreds of ttrpg's out there this day in age. I sure you'll find what you want to play. If you want all the crunch were you use a Egyptian Khopesh not a longsword or a katana. Well find a system were you can .

I enjoy 5e for what it is and yes I have a few house rules. But they are nothing to game changing.

Have you tried getting a group together to play one of those other TTRPG?

D&D is sort of the default TTRPG setting. It's really not the optimal setting for anyone, but it's a decent enough baseline that people can enjoy themselves. I remember Spoony did a decent episode on this effect at one point but I can't be arsed to find it again.

ETA:
@evilanagram The problem comes in, again, when the weapon list doesn't do a good enough job actually describing the weapons. Regional weapon difference actually does make a difference in how they are fired. The daikyu fires differently from a longbow in my experience. A gladius doesn't function like a wakizashi. A mancatcher doesn't even exist.

[bid]

Have you tried getting a group together to play one of those other TTRPG?
Humble brag but...

Over the last 5 years, various permutations of our group have played: 4e, DCC, trails of cthulhu, lords of glossamer and shadows (amber), leverage, marvel heroic rpg, ars magica, atomic robo (fate), plus whatever I haven't taken part. I know there's a second group on the purple planet, another finishing eternal lies, and there's certainly a WoD somewhere in there.


Now, I think there's no lack of mechanics. All you need is to think outside the box and a flexible DM that lets you go where no toon has gone before.

[Asmotherion]

To start off, I'd like to say that there are things that I absolutly love about this edition.

The simplicity of it is very nice for new/newer players, which allows for faster pick up of the game itself. As far as the learning curve I'd give them a 8/10.

Here's where things start to get tricky, there's so much stuff that's left out and requires you to use other sorces or homebrew stuff. This can lead to all kinds of problems, on what's "allowed" and not.
For starters, lack of weapons, feats, and misworded/interpretation can cause issues all on it's own. Then we have the race's spread all throughout two books, and not just in the PHB.

While you could easily fix all of this as a DM, should you really have too?

I'd love to hear everyone's ideas or thoughts, and possible fixes to issues in this edition.

About Races:

I'm impressed you think this is an issue... what edition are you comparing this with? 3.5e had at least 5 books I'm aware of that included some races, and a lot of books with classes/prestige classes, that I doubt anyone has a complete count.

4e actually spread it's phb into two books because they lacked half the decent classes/races in the first one.

Unearthed Arcana on the other hand is playtest public material so that people can provide feedback about what they like and what they don't before any official material gets released into a book with balance issues, and then needing a thousand erratas to make it better/make 10 versions of the exact same thing 'till they can come up with a powerfull and enjoyable yet balanced version of the thing.

So, unless you are comparing this with some other D20 material that is not D&D, I this they are actually making very good progress in that matter. At least that's my personal oppinion.

About Weapons:

I find them actually balanced. Some are deliberatelly worse than others, because they are meant to represent exactly that; A Hunting Bow for example can't be compared to a Warrior's Bow, that is refined as a killing machine; the former is meant to hunt game wile the latter is meant to kill foes at long distances. The same goes for a Woodchuck's Axe, and a War Axe, etc.

If a DM wants to give some specific Weapon to someone, or Proficiency with a weapon based on Backround/Backstory, it is very simple, and designing a Weapon from scratch is quite simple as well, once you know your way around 5e.

[Avonar]

With regards to weapons, one thing I am trying to do more is apply some more interesting details to weapons found. If you're interested, here's one from the Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan (spoilered for obvious reasons):

You can find a +1 Longsword in the HSoT, however it is actually a length of wood fixed with sharp obsidian shards. Basically, it looks like this:

https://weaponsandwarfare.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/7437dc8bd4e52cdf776356231ac2467b.jpg

Mechanically a longsword but now it instantly feels different.

[Honest Tiefling]

Then we have the race's spread all throughout two books, and not just in the PHB.

I'm actually okay with this. Why? Because 5e, unlike 3e, is trying to specify that the races presented are going to be in most campaign settings they have published. So you could use most of the PHB for an Eberron, Planescape, or Forgotten Realms game. Less so with Dragonlance or Darksun, but still, most races are usable for most settings outside of Dragonborn/Tiefling/Gnome.

There's nothing quite like telling players 'No, you can't do that. I know it's in the PHB, but the PHB is wrong for this setting. Yes, I am glad you have read the PHB. I can see you are waving the PHB in front of my face. But this book supersedes that...YES I KNOW THAT IS THE GODDAMN PHB!'. I actually appreciate certain things are left more vague and up to the setting itself, so players don't get confused as to why THESE gnomes are different. I feel like it could have been made more clear, but that would not have been a good use of space.

It also makes settings more unique if not all races get to hop over to everything else. Warforged and Shifters are cool, but maybe we don't need them everywhere just like we don't need to put chocolate sauce on all of our meals...

[EvilAnagram]

@evilanagram The problem comes in, again, when the weapon list doesn't do a good enough job actually describing the weapons. Regional weapon difference actually does make a difference in how they are fired. The daikyu fires differently from a longbow in my experience. A gladius doesn't function like a wakizashi. A mancatcher doesn't even exist.

Does it matter, though? A wakizashi is a short sword with a curved cutting edge. How is it not perfectly fine to use a scimitar for it? Does a longbow function so completely differently from a daikyu that 1d8 piercing damage doesn't make sense?

[Asmotherion]

Does it matter, though? A wakizashi is a short sword with a curved cutting edge. How is it not perfectly fine to use a scimitar for it? Does a longbow function so completely differently from a daikyu that 1d8 piercing damage doesn't make sense?

That, plus, worse case scenario, if a DM/Player was so keen to customise specific weapons, he could give said Wakizashi some extra piece of lore and history, as well as the DM playing NPC reactions to this exotic weapon. Mechanical Changes are not necessary to make a weapon special.


In a game I'm running, we have an Undying Warlock/Oathbreaker Paladin who wanted to Wield a Scythe. He's using a Halberd by all mechanical purposes, except it is visually a scythe, and everything works just fine.

[Eric Diaz]

I want a mechanical reason to specialize in a weapon. In all fantasy in all corners of the world, you hear stories of people who master weapons to a superhuman degree. Now, you literally cannot create this character archetype.

I don't get that... What do you mean? Some of the best feats in the game are "specializing in a weapon". Or do you mean you'd like even more specialization (i.e., specializing in "halberds" instead of "pole weapons"?).

[Eric Diaz]

To start off, I'd like to say that there are things that I absolutly love about this edition.

The simplicity of it is very nice for new/newer players, which allows for faster pick up of the game itself. As far as the learning curve I'd give them a 8/10.

I could be even simpler IMO, but I love this game too.


Here's where things start to get tricky, there's so much stuff that's left out and requires you to use other sorces or homebrew stuff. This can lead to all kinds of problems, on what's "allowed" and not.

Okay, but adding more stuff would make the game more complicated... which is the opposite of you just praised.


For starters, lack of weapons, feats, and misworded/interpretation can cause issues all on it's own. Then we have the race's spread all throughout two books, and not just in the PHB.

Lack of weapons - I agree. Lack of feats - I disagree (other than a single "expertise" feat I guess). But again, you're making the game more complicated.

Misworded/interpretation can cause issues all on it's own - I agree, but you can just google this stuff. There is often an "official" answer or an obvious one. There are enough races on the PHB IMO...

What kind of weapons, feats and races do you feel the game is missing? I think we might start there.

[ZorroGames]

I just love the way some people seem to think that the lack of specific rules to distinguish an arming sword from a bastard sword is ruining any sense of immersion.

Not my point at all. Have you seen the hot mess weapons became in AD&D/1st?

[Klorox]

Hanks everybody.

I’m thinking of creating a character based on Manolo from the movie “The Book of Life”

He’s a matador who refuses to kill the bull. I’m thinking this sparks a divine influence towards OotA. I think that’ll work.

[Pex]

5e went for simplicity where it can. You want more complexity than 5E provides. Minutiae of detail of differences and reasons for each weapon got lost in the shuffle. Why then does the weapon list have as many different weapons as it has I can guess is to allow the different weapons be used to represent different cultures or circumstances. When encountering a group of people who wield warpicks why they wield warpicks could mean something, such as campaign flavor or a clue for an important Persuasion roll that will be needed later.

There has been talk that not every weapon gets an associated feat to improve their use. Maybe the new Xanathar book will address that. Until then or even if not, for now as DM if this bothers you you'll have to come up with feats of your own using the existing feats as inspiration on what's appropriate. Alternatively you can assign weapon qualities on your own without needing a feat, saying this weapon gives Advantage to Disarm and that weapon gives Advantage to Trip, and so forth. If Advantage is too much a +2 will suffice. 5E hasn't totally eliminated +# bonuses.

[Potato_Priest]

Big monsters are poorly designed in 5th edition.

Point 1: Big monsters should not have loads of attacks in a round. The tarrasque being able to attack twice as fast as a 20th level monk is not only unrealistic, it looks silly.

Point 2: Big monsters should have AOE melee attacks. The tarrasque should be able to step on multiple people at once, or whip several fighters with a lash of its tail. This also partially solves the action economy problems presented by preventing big monsters from making zillions of attacks.

[Squiddish]

Big monsters are poorly designed in 5th edition.

Point 1: Big monsters should not have loads of attacks in a round. The tarrasque being able to attack twice as fast as a 20th level monk is not only unrealistic, it looks silly.

Point 2: Big monsters should have AOE melee attacks. The tarrasque should be able to step on multiple people at once, or whip several fighters with a lash of its tail. This also partially solves the action economy problems presented by preventing big monsters from making zillions of attacks.

I agree with point 2, but the second sentence of point one is where I have my beef. For one thing, the tarrasque is a 50 foot tall, 70 foot long monster with spell-reflecting scales which has been known to eat towns. If anything about it is realistic, I would be terrified. It acting faster than incredibly fast humans isn't silly, it's terrifying. In addition to raw strength, heavy armor, immense durability, and magic resistance, it also moves deceptively fast.

[Potato_Priest]

I agree with point 2, but the second sentence of point one is where I have my beef. For one thing, the tarrasque is a 50 foot tall, 70 foot long monster with spell-reflecting scales which has been known to eat towns. If anything about it is realistic, I would be terrified. It acting faster than incredibly fast humans isn't silly, it's terrifying. In addition to raw strength, heavy armor, immense durability, and magic resistance, it also moves deceptively fast.

Well, it actually moves rather slowly for something of that size (move speed 40) but apparently has ridiculous agility. In theory, I prefer my uber-monsters to be slow but devastating hulks, since it makes for a more fun and interesting-looking combat where the PCs are trying to dodge its limbs rather than getting ground-pounded 5 times in a row by a ridiculously limber foe.

[Eric Diaz]

Big monsters are poorly designed in 5th edition.

Point 1: Big monsters should not have loads of attacks in a round. The tarrasque being able to attack twice as fast as a 20th level monk is not only unrealistic, it looks silly.

Point 2: Big monsters should have AOE melee attacks. The tarrasque should be able to step on multiple people at once, or whip several fighters with a lash of its tail. This also partially solves the action economy problems presented by preventing big monsters from making zillions of attacks.


Well, it actually moves rather slowly for something of that size (move speed 40) but apparently has ridiculous agility. In theory, I prefer my uber-monsters to be slow but devastating hulks, since it makes for a more fun and interesting-looking combat where the PCs are trying to dodge its limbs rather than getting ground-pounded 5 times in a row by a ridiculously limber foe.

I get what you're saying, but seems to be an easy re-fluff or fix IMO, since the attacks are limited to range ... you can call them AoE and just avoid using them all on the same target (although it might cause trouble in some cases).

EDIT: with that said, I agree with what you're saying - some AoE effects would make some monsters more interesting, tarrasque included.

"Actually moves rather slowly for something of that size" I don't get - should big animals be faster than slow ones? An elephant is a lot slower than a tiger or some types of dogs, not to mention birds.