What is your most favorite/hated things in 5e?

[KRSW]

Hey friends, what are your least or most favorite things in 5e, why should they stay the way they are, or how would you change them to be better? I am asking mainly about mechanics, but if you REALLY love or hate a specific piece of lore or something else feel free to share that too!

My most favorite thing about 5e is how short rests work, from features that recharge on short rest to how you use hit die to heal. Coming from 3.5e where the go to for out of combat healing was a wand of cure light wounds. Short rests being in the game effectively replaced that part of the game with something that you start with for free. I think it is a great mechanic and I hope it stays for editions to come.

To be honest, I don't know what my least favorite thing is. One thing I do dislike though is that the rapier is the only one handed 1d8 finesse melee weapon. I dislike rapiers because they only poke. That being said when I DM I always make Elven Thinblades available as equivalent rapiers/shortswords and when I am a player possibly using a rapier or shortsword I ask if re-flavoring them is ok.

[Foxolicious]

favorite thing is the vairety of all the classes, subclass options, races and race variants

hated things is the writing of the PHB alot of the abilities and class features need clarification and a 2 hour argument between players and dms lol

[Eric Diaz]

Favorite: hard to choose. I love the action economy, the classes, the concept of bounded accuracy (although I'd do it a little LESS bounded)... If I had to choose one, probably the action economy.

Most hated: definitely, the weapons and the weapon list. Too short, lots of weapons that have no mechanical reason to exist (mace, morning-star, greatclub, trident, glaive/halberd), lots of weapons that are missing (slashing finesse knifes), weapons that make no sense (why carry a 18-lb pike that has the same reach as a halberd).

Other things I dislike is the huge number of spells (compare to the number of weapons...) and the sorcerer, a class that has dozens of flaws IMO. I'd also like accuracy to bit a bit LESS bounded, as I've said.... the Tarrasque looks like he could be defeated by a sufficiently prepared army of 100 1st-level fighters with bows and the sharpshooter feat.

But, mostly, I love the game, the weapon list is easy to fix, I'm writing a Manual of Arms for 5e, people seem to like lots of spells, and the sorcerer is... okay, I guess.

[Maelynn]

I love the backgrounds. They give a character some interesting fluff and help flesh out a character, sure, but they're so much more than that. They can provide some handles on either plot hooks, social interactions, or give a minor edge in the appropriate situation.

Only thing I dislike about them is that there's not enough variety, what with some of them being too specific. In one group we had 3 Outlanders, which kind of ruined the nifty aspects. I know books like SCAG have a few extra, but most of those are setting-specific and not suitable for others.

[Tanarii]

Favorite: the personality system

Least favorite: the GWM, SS, and PAM feats.

[Honest Tiefling]

Favorite: Hrm...Well, I'm inclined to say tieflings, but that seems like cheating. Actually one thing I like about this edition is the artwork for the godly symbols in the SCAG. They really feel like things that you would actually find and that people would use, instead of a set-in-stone icon with no regional variance.

Hated: Halfling art. Break the hand of the artist unless they agree to redo. Every. Single. Piece.

[BlueHydra]

Favorite: Short rest (a perfect time for second breakfast), No prestige classes, Cantrips

Hated: Goblin appearance, Less Sorcerer Bloodlines, Variant Humans, Cleric Domains (heavy armor for the nature domain?)

[Tanarii]

Hated: Goblin appearance,
Really? Is ... is it the nose? It's the nose, isn't it.

They actually look dangerous to me in this edition. So did Kobolds. At least, until the Volo's art came out for the latter.

[Pex]

Favorite:

Characters can move as much as their speed allows and do whatever it is they want to do. They may even split their movement before and after they do whatever it is they want to do.

Cantrips

Characters can make maneuver attacks (shove, disarm, grapple etc.) just because they want to as part of normal rules and have a reasonable chance of success to do so for those characters that were made with such a tactic in mind.

Hated:

Lack of benchmarks for skill use DCs making choosing proficiencies useless. I can lack proficiency in Athletics and have 10 strength in one game and swim a river or climb a tree just because I want to while in another game be proficient in Athletics and have 18 strength but only have a 65% chance to swim a river or climb a tree because I must roll an Athletics check of DC 20.

Point Buy system forbidding an 18 at first level.

Numerous vague rules in class features, feats, and spells such that combined with lack of skill benchmarks means the rules of the game to how you fundamentally play the game change depending on who is DM that day. I have to relearn how to play for each new DM, and I don't find out how until it's too late because you can't just ask every DM how every rule of the game works this time before you play.

The Concentration mechanic is fine. That you may only ever concentrate on one spell at a time is not.

All ability scores are saving throws. You get worse at saving throws as you level because the DCs increase but your non-proficient saves do not. Most characters remain non-proficient in four saves.

[Tanarii]

Hated:

Lack of benchmarks for skill use DCs making choosing proficiencies useless. I can lack proficiency in Athletics and have 10 strength in one game and swim a river or climb a tree just because I want to while in another game be proficient in Athletics and have 18 strength but only have a 65% chance to swim a river or climb a tree because I must roll an Athletics check of DC 20.
Bad example. If the DM ignore the rules benchmark that climbing/swimming generally happens without a check, they're going to ignore the rules for specific DCs anyway. There are plenty of other examples that can make your point on this without an inherent "... if the DM ignores the written benchmarks" unwritten statement. And after years of going around on this, I do think you have a point. It's just that what you hate is something I like. :smallwink:

[Knaight]

Favorite:

The drastic removal of tables, particularly in the skill section, in favor of allowing actual GM adjudication.

Most hated:

Weird scaling - that the pacing between magic, combat, and skills are so wildly out of sync with each other is just irritating. The extent to which this is due to a nominal unification process just makes it funny.

[opaopajr]

Love most: Backgrounds. You could almost play attribute-less 0-th lvl weenies with them straight outta the gate. Awesome! :smallcool:

Hate most: Full HP Heal from a Long Rest, especially if the LR is the core PHB 8 hr once-per-day. I have no use for it. Almost auto-remove per table; I just cannot abide it for long as RAW. Hit Dice healing however I do like.

(Close runner-up to most hated: at-will Cantrips.)

[hymer]

Favourite: The simplification compared to 3.5, particularly the elegance of advantage/disadvantage.

Least liked: Skill system. What you can do with a skill is very nebulous, as is how high a DC you'd need to reach to do it. It annoys me that you can't decide your character's skill by investing more or less in it. And the difference between someone skilled and someone unskilled is too small.

[Legimus]

Favorite: Accessibility. I've only ever played 5e and 4e, but I've also read a lot of the rules from 3.5. 5e has always felt the most accessible to me. I find the core building blocks—race, class, subclass—are pretty well defined and easy to play around with. With a game as complicated as D&D, making things easier to understand is golden. That also makes homebrew easier to write and incorporate, because there aren't as many variables to account for. It's definitely my favorite edition.

Least Favorite: Some of the subclasses just seem bloody useless. Berserker, Champion, Four Elements, and Wild Magic come to mind. They all have their niche, but if you want to build a truly effective character (not even fully optimized), you basically have to overlook these. The opportunity cost for choosing an under-tuned subclass can be very high. That's always left me a little sad, because I think that all of the subclasses WotC came up with in 5e are really neat thematically and can make for great characters.

[CircleOfTheRock]

Least favourite: The complete removal of tables with which to adjudicate DCs in the least instead of giving tables and explicitly allowing GM judgement.

[DeadMech]

Least favorite: Skills. Bloody awful implementation. I want to be on the same page as my DM on what my character is able to do. No tables means that if I want to know if something is possible or not I have to stop the game to ask the DM. You rarely ever get good enough at skills that a complete novice won't embarrass an expert far too often. I can't decide at what levels I want to specialize in them vs branching out. There is nothing you can purposefully do to increase the number of skills you are able to use as your character grows.

Favorite: Elimination of prestige class requirements, feat taxes, feat chains. Let's be real. Prestige classes may not exist in name but it's basically what subclasses are. Them not being locked behind a bunch of stuff that requires nearly 100% of your build resources was a step in the right direction.

[2D8HP]

For 5e:

Likes:
Backgrounds

Unified core mechanics add some needed simplicity

Harder for housecats to kill PC's

Races other than Half-Elves and Humans can be Rangers

Half-Orcs can be Paladins

Much easier for a Human to have levels in both Fighter and Thief

You can have "Swashbuckler" as a class name

My PC will probably survive to second level

You can find tables to play it!


Dislikes:
All the extra abilities are a lot to keep track of, and while they encourage more people to be players, they discourage people from being DM's

Level-ups happen at a dizzying speed

Most levels add more to keep track of (not just a small number change on the character record sheet)

That PC's are so hard to kill encourages other players to just have their PC's rush into melee a lot more often

The same with super quick healing

Faerun's Factions

[Morty]

When I played for a time, I guess my favorite and least favorite things were two sides of the same coin. On the one hand, I liked being able to play a ranged rogue without the game constantly tripping me up. On the other, the rogue class itself turned out to be boring and lacking in any real choice or exciting abilities.

[Tanarii]

My PC will probably survive to second level

(Snips)

[/INDENT]

Dislikes:
All the extra abilities are a lot to keep track of, and while they encourage more people to be players, they discourage people from being DM's

Level-ups happen at a dizzying speed

Most levels add more to keep track of (not just a small number change on the character record sheet)

That PC's are so hard to kill encourages other players to just have their PC's rush into melee a lot more often

The same with super quick healing

(Snips)


Even if someone didn't know you'd restarted D&D with 5e from oD&D or B/X, it'd be pretty obvious. This is the most grognard-y list I can imagine. :smallamused:

[2D8HP]

Even if someone didn't know...


'tis a fair cop.


:redface:

[Ixidor92]

Favorites: It seems that a lot of people take issue with this, but I love the way that spell slots and cantrips have been reworked in 5e. It allows for more flexibility with what you prepare each day, and I feel it effectively raises the starting power of low-level casters while not allowing them to ascend to the gods they were at higher levels in 3.5 (or at least not as easily).

I also really love the background system, as it encourages players to think about who their character is and what they've done. By offering a gameplay benefit for it (especially when you allow for custom backgrounds like I do) it has the somewhat ironic effect of making most people think of their character as more than just a bundle of stats.

Hated: Long rests are far too powerful in RAW. The fact that 8 hours can effectively erase any mistakes your party has made as of recent allows for too much reckless behavior. I have a DM who house-ruled that while you regain the same amount of hit dice from long rests, you still need to spend hit dice to regain HP. It makes the players think twice about their resources.

Also just the ranger class, in general. Even after the unearthed arcana fixes it doesn't feel like they've managed to find a unique identity. I could just as easily play an outlander fighter or a martial-focused druid to achieve a similar thing. They're the only ones who can get an animal companion now, but I don't feel like that's enough to be worth it, and most of the other sub-classes just feel... lacking.

[JackPhoenix]

Favorites? Ease of use and refluffing most, I'd say. Rulings, not rules leading to less paperwork. Changes to some monsters.

Hated things? Forgotten Realms all the time. 5-8 encounters adventuring day. Changes to some monsters.

[MilkmanDanimal]

Favorite: Backgrounds in general, and how they help build a backstory right out of the box. The fact there's an actual mechanical aspect means the character has to have at least some backstory, and the little flavors such as a criminal contact or fake Charlatan identify really help me as a DM build player-centric stories.

Hated: How the order in which you multiclass totally changes a build; if you're a Warlock and want to multiclass, there'd be no reason to go Rogue at that point because you wouldn't get any relevant weapons you could sneak attack with. It really reduces what you can effectively multiclass into down the road. This is not a major thing, as I really don't have many issues with 5e at all, do find it kind of annoying.

[Jerrykhor]

Favourite: Fluidity of combat (like what Pex said)

Hated: The whole 'melee weapon attack' thing, the fact that it can be done by an unarmed strike/natural weapons. Its hard to explain to first timers without getting incredulous looks from them lol

[ProseBeforeHos]

Favorite:


The general rules simplification e.g. all characters automatically having weapons finesse, or proficiency bonuses replacing fiddly skill ranks.

The whole revamp of the magic system e.g. not having to prepare individual spell slots for non-sorcerers, or removing "buff stacking" by introducing the concentration mechanic.

A lot of the fluffy/flavorful stuff, like Barbarians gaining AC from their pecs while fighting unarmored (this should have been in 3rd ed/pathfinder).

Hated:

Everything that they didn't quite fix, e.g. TWF still being fairly weak compared to other fighting styles. Or certain weapon types being essentially just downgrades over their better alternatives (greataxe vs greatsword).

Lack of class building options. Why can't I build a duel wielding, wood elf, wardancer (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nClWPKP0-e4/S2uQzfafitI/AAAAAAAABBU/JHE1PuuLyFk/s400/wardancer2.jpg) style barbarian? So many missed opportunity.

Too much stuff that just shouldn't have made it through play-testing. PhB ranger, four elements monk, berserker barbarian, beast master! Maybe healing word "bounce back up from 0 hp for the 6th times in a fight" shenanigans should go here also.

[Ixidor92]

Hated: The whole 'melee weapon attack' thing, the fact that it can be done by an unarmed strike/natural weapons. Its hard to explain to first timers without getting incredulous looks from them lol

I'm sorry I'm a little lost as to what exactly you mean here. Could anyone elaborate?

[Jerrykhor]

I'm sorry I'm a little lost as to what exactly you mean here. Could anyone elaborate?

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/09/06/what-specifically-does-melee-weapon-attack-mean/

So Divine Smite, being usable when you hit with a melee weapon attack, by the above logic can be used with an unarmed strike. But then JC also said this https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/905511898938003456

The whole thing is a mess. An exception to a rule is fine, if it makes sense. There is none here, as JC simply makes unarmed strike an exception because he likes it that way. Then there's this... exception of an exception.

[Trask]

Favorite

Unified mechanics
Numbers stay relatively flat
Plays relatively fast
Is easy to tweak
Archetypes are elegant and fun
No confirming critical hits
Easy to teach
Feats are optional
Multiclassing is optional
Stresses good lessons to DMs in its core principles
Is widely played, and brings a lot of old and new blood together. Really feels like it might be a sort of D&D golden age
Has strong archetypal flavor
Is relatively easy to run

Least Favorite

Ability scores matter way too much
Too many classes have magic powers
Some of the broad archetypes and powers can be hard to frame in a medieval fantasy world, they feel too "anime"
Level ups are WAY too fast
Every character is expected to reach the absolute peak of human ability in an ability score (related to how ability scores matter too much)
Mundane animals are too weak
Rogue sneak attack feels too "DPS" for me
Unlimited cantrips removes any need for light resource
Goodberry removes any need for food resources
Leomunds tiny hut as a ritual is broken
Too many useless saving throws
Magic items are boring, and apparently optional which is dumb and sad
Skill system feels really necessary
Pretty much no set DC examples and the ones they have are beyond stupid, DC 20 to break IRON chains? Really?
Too many spells, cantrips, and feats are just plain broken or useless and would have taken like 1 week of simple review to fix
Too many weird races as core
Weapon and Armor list is redundant
The language of "take the x action" just annoys me a lot
Most adventures are extremely poor
Faerun as a default setting
The art is bloodless and boring

[Beechgnome]

Like:
Advantage-Disadvantage mechanic. Complicated behind the scenes, simple and elegant for players.
Backgrounds, traits etc. Fun stuff here, a dip of the toes in the pool of character development.
Concentration: at first annoying, but a needed check on casters and one that does the job pretty well.

Dislike:
Sorcerer/Ranger spells known (self explanatory)

Intelligence having no use. I mean, why not provide following bonuses:
+1 one extra language/tool
+2 one extra skill
+3 one extra language
+4 one extra tool
+5 one extra language/tool

That way non-wizards might be tempted to pump it up to 14 for the skill but without seriously imbalancing the game.

[MeimuHakurei]

Good: -Advantage/Disadvantage is a good system for a rules-light version of handling beneficial and detrimental factors in a system.
-Upcasting mechanics. While more of a consolation price for having to use a needed spell in a higher slot, it's a good idea with a slightly flawed execution.
-Subclasses to direct your class a bit more was a fun idea.

Pending: -Bounded Accuracy. I like more scalability in content, but I personally think the number range is a bit too narrow.
-Concentration mechanic. Helps a bit with the overwhelming spell presence, but it could be a bit frustrating to support buffers.

Bad: -Summons and Polymorphs. Summoning got the asinine "DM decides" ruling because of Conjure Woodland Beings being completely broken otherwise and it still makes you spam the field with creatures more than its 3.5 counterpart (which only gave you 1d4+1 creatures max instead of 8). Being DM reliant is also a disadvantage because it prevents the player from taking an informed choice. Polymorphs are just completely overpowered with their HP shield and make it so that Moon Druids are the only ZAD (Zero Attribute Dependent) class D&D ever produced (their best spells are things that don't rely on a save/attack roll).
-People are completely unwilling to engage with any flaws 5e has. Every time I bring up a thing that bothers me about 5e, someone does an Oberoni Fallacy or just straight up tells me the rules don't matter (if so, why did you bother with 5e in the first place?). Even the devs come off as not giving a damn about their game and just push the burden of making things work on the DM instead of fixing the gaping holes in their design.

[Ignimortis]

Liked:

Concentration. Great idea, though it probably should be expanded upon - taking up a concentration slot with a level 2 spell is kinda silly at level 15, but absolutely necessary at level 7.
Archetypes as an idea. Having ways to build a certain class in different ways baked into the system is neat.
Legendary actions. So good that I backported it into 3.PF for my campaigns.

Disliked:

Bounded accuracy. It basically ensures that you're always grounded and you never outgrow your surroundings completely. Things get easier, but you never get good enough that anything that warranted a roll at level 1 doesn't need one at level 20.
Archetypes as made. Pathfinder has done this way better. They're too minor. You're always a Fighter or a Sorcerer or a Rogue first, and Champion/Dragonblooded/Thief second.
The culling of creature abilities. I understand ease of use, but most things got a signature ability and if they're lucky, legendary actions. That's kinda sad.
Lack of new content. Most GMs I know don't like homebrew and (unreleased in later books) UAs unless it's their own. Therefore, there are still as many classes as there were back in 2014, and maybe twice as many archetypes. Earlier editions since 2000 would've introduced five times more classes than there were in their PHBs in four years.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't have anything that I hate. There are rough edges, to be sure, but nothing hate-worthy.

My favorite thing isn't actually in the words of the rules, as such.

It's a change in culture and philosophy. 5e's rules have done a very good job of welcoming new people. Of accepting new ideas. Of averting the "you must buy more books" or "git gud nub" attitudes so prevalent in other areas. Of focusing on the core, which is exploring fantastic scenarios with friends, rather than playing "spreadsheets and accountants."

I especially like the core flow (which was present in other editions but reinforced in this one):

1) DM describes the scene
2) Player says what he wants his character to attempt*
3) DM decides how to resolve the attempt**
4) DM narrates the changes to the scene
5) GOTO 2.

* This does not have to involve mechanics at all--it's in-universe. "I want to duck behind that pillar and shoot that guy when he's not looking."
** This may involve the mechanics--the above could be translated (for a rogue) into "move, Cunning action hide (roll Dexterity (Stealth) vs Wisdom (Perception)), Attack Action (roll attack roll)". This step may involve negotiation/back and forth between the DM and the player until both sides fully understand what the resolution will involve and what the consequences for success or failure will be.

The rules are merely suggestions--they only bind us if we choose to be bound. That, to me, is beautiful. It's why I love the "skill system" (a misnomer)--it's adaptable and doesn't make demands about how it's used. It focuses on things that matter and lets me attempt anything that's possible. No more "you don't have the needed skill points to do your job" problem. Everyone's competent out of the box.

[ZorroGames]

I don't have anything that I hate. There are rough edges, to be sure, but nothing hate-worthy.

My favorite thing isn't actually in the words of the rules, as such.

It's a change in culture and philosophy. 5e's rules have done a very good job of welcoming new people. Of accepting new ideas. Of averting the "you must buy more books" or "git gud nub" attitudes so prevalent in other areas. Of focusing on the core, which is exploring fantastic scenarios with friends, rather than playing "spreadsheets and accountants."

I especially like the core flow (which was present in other editions but reinforced in this one):

1) DM describes the scene
2) Player says what he wants his character to attempt*
3) DM decides how to resolve the attempt**
4) DM narrates the changes to the scene
5) GOTO 2.

* This does not have to involve mechanics at all--it's in-universe. "I want to duck behind that pillar and shoot that guy when he's not looking."
** This may involve the mechanics--the above could be translated (for a rogue) into "move, Cunning action hide (roll Dexterity (Stealth) vs Wisdom (Perception)), Attack Action (roll attack roll)". This step may involve negotiation/back and forth between the DM and the player until both sides fully understand what the resolution will involve and what the consequences for success or failure will be.

The rules are merely suggestions--they only bind us if we choose to be bound. That, to me, is beautiful. It's why I love the "skill system" (a misnomer)--it's adaptable and doesn't make demands about how it's used. It focuses on things that matter and lets me attempt anything that's possible. No more "you don't have the needed skill points to do your job" problem. Everyone's competent out of the box.

This. I am a grognard that was thinks where things went off the rails was in AD&D 2nd edition. Hence I rejected the too many race specific classes, spreadsheet characters, sold off my books, and quit playing when 3.x became an evil step sister thing. I think I bought the 4e PHB and read it once then ditched it immediately.

[nickl_2000]

Most Favorite: Balance. I honestly feel that the classes are way better balanced than they were in the older versions. You can contribute as any class, race, and subclass. You don't feel like you are being completely left behind because you wanted to be a dwarf rouge and your dex stat is 1 lower.


Least Favorite: Wildshaping. It is the least explained and defined sets of rules in 5e. Can I do this while wildshaped? Ask your DM, can I do that while wildshaped? ask your DM. Does the magic item work while wildshaped? Ask you DM. Since it's one of the core features of a class I feel like they could have made a solid set of rules in the PHB.

[Pex]

Most Favorite: Balance. I honestly feel that the classes are way better balanced than they were in the older versions. You can contribute as any class, race, and subclass. You don't feel like you are being completely left behind because you wanted to be a dwarf rouge and your dex stat is 1 lower.



Did you play Lister or Kryten?

[Tanarii]

Thought of something that's my even more favorite thing.

5e is designed to play. Not for character building pr0n.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Thought of something that's my even more favorite thing.

5e is designed to play. Not for character building pr0n.

Amen. Can I get an amen? That deserves a big one IMO.

[MrStabby]

Best things: ability to pick up and play. Not only is it an easy system but it helps be able to play with a more diverse pool of players than other editions.

I love the flexibility. The scope for the DM to remould the game by setting, variant rules, different balance of enemies or different dc for checks makes it feel like 5 games in one.

Surprised to see so much agreement with my views on healing. Short rest is good and I like that more classes can heal. I dislike that it is sufficiently easy that it devalues safety and hoarding hp. Too easy to heal too much. Tactical mistakes get erased at the end of day.

Love bounded accuracy. Now a whole tribe of goblins is a threat. Sometimes there are non violent solutions that are better.

Spell balance is terrible. Classes are pretty well balanced such that even the best and worst are ok ish. Spells are not. Two wizards built to be effective will overlap on more than half of their Spells, same for a lot of other classes. I have seen rangers play at different tables with exactly the same spells known. Rolling up a new character with the desire that you find something to do that hasn't been done at the table before is a forlorn hope. Too many spells I wouldn't cast a second time.

Leading to... character choice. Two issues here, one is the way subclasses work. The other is pure content. There is less content than other games - simple enough; content is growing though so this is getting a little better but not so much... because of the subclass system.

Subclasses account for a pretty small part of a classes power. Maybe about 4 abilities in 20 levels. Releasing another 20 subclasses adds a lot less variety to the game than another 4 new classes would.

Some subclasses are less awesome than others. I warrant you are more likely to see a conquest or vengeance paladins than a redemption paladin in a game, see more swashbucklers or assassins than thieves and see more tempest clerics than trickery clerics.

Related to options, there are too few by the book options for actions you can viably take in combat (you know, as in things a PC might actually chose to do if they were fighting for their life). Cast one of a modest number of good Spells, hit something with a weapon, shove or grapple. Class abilities/choicesthat would enable different styles of fighting - like power attacks in 3rd edition or tripping attacks and so on would be great. Battlemaster and sorcerer are mistakes (to me) in this regard as their signature abilities should be accessible to more classes.

I hate that stat balance is favouring extremes. There is such little benefit to being strong and dexterous that a strong character will be better off increasing strength over dexterity and so on. One good thing about feat chains and prestige classes was that stat requirements could lead to more interesting and less mechanically one dimensional characters. Now too many non-wizard characters are too dumb to tie their own shoelaces. Parties with one genius and four educationally challenged characters.

All in all 5th edition rocks though. And it does keep getting better.

[ZorroGames]

Amen. Can I get an amen? That deserves a big one IMO.

AMEN!

Chorus of angels responding, “Amen, Amen, and Amen,”

[ZorroGames]

Addendum- what most needs work?

Slightly overstating:

Intelligence.

Trope characters;

ST based Barbarian, Fighter, alternative classes *
CH based Bard, Paladin, Sorcerer, Warlock
DE based Fighter, Monk, Ranger, Rogue
WI based Cleric, Druid
IN based Wizard
CO based (0)

* ST based Rangers, Rogues
Paladins do need ST usually but CH is their signature trait.
Many more niche builds...

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Good
-It's been said, but advantage/disadvantage is my favorite mechanic on its face. It does such a good job of rewarding and punishing players when they play well.

Bad
-I don't like the terrible rules for broader world building, such as the rules for running a business. That system is completely bogus so we've got to come up with one that makes sense. But you can't expect them to get everything right. Still, some things like that need to be smoothed over if they release a PHB/DMG 1.5 or whatever.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Bad
-I don't like the terrible rules for broader world building, such as the rules for running a business. That system is completely bogus so we've got to come up with one that makes sense. But you can't expect them to get everything right. Still, some things like that need to be smoothed over if they release a PHB/DMG 1.5 or whatever.

Those rules don't work for world building because that's not what they're designed for. They're to quickly, simply, adjudicate a) adventurers running businesses b) in their off time.

a) implies that these are not professional businessmen. NPCs don't use these rules at all (nor do they use ability checks for their day-to-day life).
b) implies that they're not a full-time job.

The goal is to keep adventurers adventuring, not grant them advancement/wealth by not adventuring. There's a name for someone who sits and minds a store all day--an NPC.

[Kurt Kurageous]

I will preface by saying I never DMed 2, 3, 3.5, or 4. I started in 1979...returned in 2015.

Favorite:
I taught myself the whole system after a 8 hour or so autosession where I created a four character party, a random dungeon, and ran encounters. I wrote a dungeon and DMed it with mush success the next week. I would never have attempted this with previous editions. And the play didn't "feel" any different from AD&D, just clearer rules and more durable low level characters.

Spellbook apps on my smartphone.

Adjudication not lawyering.

Archetypes not endless escalation of power in more and more classes/races.

Bitch all you want about OOTA/POA/EE, but the published modules are consistently improving. It's long past time for a standard format that makes it easier to DM them, though.

Levels Capped at 20th As said before, this game is about the playing, not out of game building "ultimately optimized" avatars.

Magic Items aren't what makes a character. I just wish they'd dropped Deck of Many Things That Ruin a Campaign for good.

Hated:
Class creep I don't need purposeless or overly specialized classes. Gimmie archetypes.

Race creep WTF is a feral halfling? Maybe a barbarian suffering from dwarfism, but certainly not a viable race/culture. I do a lot of thinking about ecosystems in my world design, and maybe they can and do exist in some backwater valley or rain forest in my world. But not as a playable race. A population so small and isolated as that has a culture so foreign to others that they cannot simply "fit in" with others as part of a tightly knit team (party). I'm looking at you, the entire friggin' underdark...

Simple/Martial distinction and the whole darn Weapons table is still lame It always was. I'd prefer that the class/hands/range determine the damage a weapon does instead of I dunno what. Wield whatever you want for style's sake, but you roll a d8 one handed/ranged, d10 if two handed for melee classes, d4/d6 for pure casters, d6/8 for tweens. Make feats that upgrade/modify, just like armor use now. GWM rolls 2dx one handed die or something, etc.

DM Guide is my least used core book. They did such a good job with the PHB, the DMG looks bad in comparison.

Stat Blocks are better but should be available in an abbreviated form to be inserted into homebrew or published without taking up 1/4 of a page or more. I personally retyped the entire MM, NPCs, Appendix A, and more just so I could do this thing. Making multipage compendiums is not cool.

[Knaight]

Thought of something that's my even more favorite thing.

5e is designed to play. Not for character building pr0n.

Maybe this is just my largely non-D&D background, but while this is nice it's also pretty unexceptional. There are very few games suitable for character building pr0n, to the point where it's just mostly not a thing - there's D&D 3-4, GURPS, everything Palladium has ever made, and that's about it.

[Pex]

Thought of something that's my even more favorite thing.

5e is designed to play. Not for character building pr0n.


Amen. Can I get an amen? That deserves a big one IMO.

You can do both.

[Demonslayer666]

Hey friends, what are your least or most favorite things in 5e, why should they stay the way they are, or how would you change them to be better? I am asking mainly about mechanics, but if you REALLY love or hate a specific piece of lore or something else feel free to share that too!

My most favorite thing about 5e is how short rests work, from features that recharge on short rest to how you use hit die to heal. Coming from 3.5e where the go to for out of combat healing was a wand of cure light wounds. Short rests being in the game effectively replaced that part of the game with something that you start with for free. I think it is a great mechanic and I hope it stays for editions to come.

To be honest, I don't know what my least favorite thing is. One thing I do dislike though is that the rapier is the only one handed 1d8 finesse melee weapon. I dislike rapiers because they only poke. That being said when I DM I always make Elven Thinblades available as equivalent rapiers/shortswords and when I am a player possibly using a rapier or shortsword I ask if re-flavoring them is ok.

Favorite thing to come out of 5th edition is by far Inspiration and the advantage disadvantage mechanic that goes along with it. A close second are character backgrounds.

Least favorite thing to come out of 5th is the long rest full heal. Witchbolt is a close second. I also miss skill points and trained only skills.

[Morty]

My previous post was pretty brief, so I'll elaborate on what I did and did not like when playing 5e for a while.

Like:


Backgrounds. It's a small thing, but they do help round off a character beyond their class.
Fewer meaningless restrictions. It's really nothing special compare to most systems, but when you compare it to previous editions of D&D, it feels less like the system trips you up at every turn. Particularly when playing a rogue.
Paladins. I didn't play one, but another person did, and they really did a decent job with the class. It was a trainwreck in 3e, and 4e classes were different, but in 5e it found a niche.
Removing cruft. Again, 5e isn't rules-light by any measure but it does remove a lot of the illusion of complexity. Not all, and it has a price, but still.


Dislike:


The Rogue class. I did play it, and it leaves a lot to be desired. It's not weak, but it's boring and uninspired. At first I was excited to be able to sneak attack with a crossbow without jumping through hoops, but I soon realized that's all I would ever do after initiative was rolled. Picking the Scout subclass certainly didn't help, since all it got me by level 6 were some proficiencies and an ability to run away better. I did have expertise and more proficiencies, but it felt more like being the only character with actual advancement than a "skill specialist". That's because...
Non-magical skills are very bare-bones. Removing the numbers bloat of 3e was good, but they didn't replace it with anything, so what we have is small numbers, random swingy rolls and players and GMs having to patch it up as they go.
Non-magical combat was likewise stripped down to essentials. There's little interesting to do without improvisation... which in my case had to be weighed against "okay, but is it better than just securing advantage and nailing someone with a Sneak Attack?".

[MilkmanDanimal]

Thought of something that's my even more favorite thing.

5e is designed to play. Not for character building pr0n.

I'll so echo this, with the addition of D&D Beyond as a toolset; I've wound up re-buying all the non-adventure books on DDB, largely because that character creation/management software is so incredibly intuitive and useful that I just start building characters when I have a few minutes and my phone in my hand and you don't want details OK I MAKE CHARACTERS WHILE ON THE TOILET I ADMIT IT.

Anyways . . . I really like how all the character classes have enough variation within the subclasses to feel different, yet still work in a similar manner and all the ludicrous work it took to optimize characters in 3.5e is gone gone gone. Blessedly. If I want to build some NPC villains or something I can take five minutes at the table and do a reasonable build and I'm good to go; I don't need to do research.

As long as I'm D&D Beyonding, least favorite and/or most favorite is the Random Character Generator on DDB, which will make some of the most laughably awful characters you can imagine. It's so dysfunctional it's awful from an actual use standpoint but great from a nerd humor point of view.

[Petrocorus]

Favorite: Balance. This edition is by far the most balanced i know. Though, to be fair, i never got into 4E. And it is very easy for new players. And it has kept a high level of consistency.

Hated:

Too many things are "up to the DM". To the point where it is more a bug than a feature. And it is not friendly to new DM because of it.

The terribly atrocious pacing of publications. The game is almost 4 years old now and we still haven't had a complete campaign setting. We're still waiting for the psionics, for a third campaign setting (*), for more variety in campaign type (most are 10 to 12 levels long, or mostly big dungeons for ToYP, i would like more stuff like LMoP).

And despite this, some stuffs are published while the should never have passed the playtests.

They never fix anything. The Berseker, the 4E Monk, the Ranger, the two weapons fighting, etc. They know the problem, but wouldn't publish a fix. Or when they do, it's by publishing something else, like the Sun Soul Monk which seems to be a 4E Monk fix.

A minor one: The fact they took 3 years to allow licensing in other languages, and when they did, the French publishers quite botched a part of the translation. Added to the fact they refuse to sell PDF.

The Eldritch Knight's spells list.

(*) I'm personally waiting for Eberron, but i know a lot of people would like Dark Sun, or more Ravenloft, maybe Dragonlance (if there are no copyright problems), or y'know, the rest of Forgotten Realms.

[Tanarii]

Maybe this is just my largely non-D&D background, but while this is nice it's also pretty unexceptional. There are very few games suitable for character building pr0n, to the point where it's just mostly not a thing - there's D&D 3-4, GURPS, everything Palladium has ever made, and that's about it.
Shadowrun
Gamma World
Runequest
Warhammer
Battletech

All of these across multiple editions where there were drastic revisions, sometimes by completely seperate companies.

I've heard the same said about WoD too, but haven't personal experience with that.

[Petrocorus]

Shadowrun
Gamma World
Runequest
Warhammer
Battletech

All of these across multiple editions where there were drastic revisions, sometimes by completely seperate companies.

I've heard the same said about WoD too, but haven't personal experience with that.

Seconded for Shadowrun.

For Vampire: The Masquerade and Mage: The Ascension, it is indeed better to plan your character ahead. But the game is more redeeming than 3.5 or SR.

For Mage, as long as you remember that every one basically needs Correspondence 2, Life 2 and Prime 1 or 2, you can focus on what you want.

Vampire:TM does have some trap options. Some Disciplines are just not that good compared to basic ones, and most of them needs specific attributes and abilities to work well, so you need to pay also attention for this.

Werewolf is the most redeeming. Mostly because, out of the box, you're really physically tough and powerful. And a lot of Gift are not as dependant on your stats as vampiric Disciplines.

Also, the experience system allows you to get new features more easily, the opportunity cost is not the same as in D&D.

[Knaight]

Shadowrun
Gamma World
Runequest
Warhammer
Battletech

All of these across multiple editions where there were drastic revisions, sometimes by completely seperate companies.

I've heard the same said about WoD too, but haven't personal experience with that.

Shadowrun for sure, and now that I think about it I'd also add Burning Wheel. Still, it seems more the exception than the rule - it's a rare feature deliberately placed for the people who love it, a group that I'm definitely not in.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Those rules don't work for world building because that's not what they're designed for. They're to quickly, simply, adjudicate a) adventurers running businesses b) in their off time.

This is what I meant. If you look at adventures running businesses in their off time, the rules are completely broken. It's always more cost effective to have a small shack in the middle of nowhere than a booming business that stretches across major cities. Whether it's a party enterprise or an individual's project, the rules simply don't add up. They punish players/DMs who want to stray off the beaten path and go on quests that are tied directly to a business and making profits. That's all I'm saying. It just shouldn't put players in crippling debt if they're successful in trying to expand a business and doing it well.

[KorvinStarmast]

5e is designed to play. Not for character building pr0n. Amen.

Favorite: it exists. Without it coming around, I don't get back into the hobby.

Least Favorite: Exhausted condition implementation, which makes Beserker Barbarian a mess;
close second least fave is that Ranger(Basic) didn't get domain spells (even as a divine caster) but the XGTE rangers did. Harrumph also on beast master; just a bit more tweaking would have been nice before going live. (Some of the UA stuff looks pretty good. )

Still grumpy about: saving throws and proficiency in them. Without feats (optional) or a few class features, you aren't proficient in any more than two. I guess it doesn't break the game .... but it feels wrong to me at higher level.

Monster Design grump: not enough monsters have vulnerabilities. Resistance and immunity runs amok. Vulnerabilities? Few and far between.

Getting annoyed at: Power Creep.

[mephnick]

Monster Design grump: not enough monsters have vulnerabilities. Resistance and immunity runs amok. Vulnerabilities? Few and far between.

I agree, but I understand why vulnerabilities are so rare. Mechanically a vulnerability is much harder to balance than a resistance despite seeming like a simple opposite. Players can get around resistances, but they can outright exploit vulnerabilities. HP are the main defense of monsters and while a few character options might be blocked by certain resistances, there's probably five other ways to at least chip away at damage, making a monster's longevity still fairly reliable to predict. Vulnerabilities, however, simply require one option to completely decimate the challenge. If you have a single Paladin in the group, that radiant vulnerable undead might as well not count towards the encounter rating it will die so fast. I think the way to do more vulnerabilities is to use it to hurt monster abilities like regen on trolls. Double damage is just too strong and needs to be used too rarely for the game to work.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I agree, but I understand why vulnerabilities are so rare. Mechanically a vulnerability is much harder to balance than a resistance despite seeming like a simple opposite. Players can get around resistances, but they can outright exploit vulnerabilities. HP are the main defense of monsters and while a few character options might be blocked by certain resistances, there's probably five other ways to at least chip away at damage, making a monster's longevity still fairly reliable to predict. Vulnerabilities, however, simply require one option to completely decimate the challenge. If you have a single Paladin in the group, that radiant vulnerable undead might as well not count towards the encounter rating it will die so fast. I think the way to do more vulnerabilities is to use it to hurt monster abilities like regen on trolls. Double damage is just too strong and needs to be used too rarely for the game to work.

I agree. Vulnerability (double damage) is bad design. Vulnerabilities (like shutting down a troll's regen) can be good, if telegraphed or if you could simply brute force it with more trouble. I'm not fond of "must have this ability to win" or "if (ability), then trivial" design, except for story-specific puzzle monsters. Things where you need the McGuffin or the Blessed Blessing of Blessingness as a gate are ok, if a bit linear in design.

[MrStabby]

Vulnerabilities are a balance nightmare.

If you have monsters vulnerable to any non physical damage type then a wizard can do double damage to them whilst a fighter cannot.

You can get random players who just luck out and have their theme damage match the vulnerability of the themed monster type of the campaign and obviate the other characters.

With resistance you can a least have mixed encounters and the player with the resisted damage type can target the non resistant enemies for little loss. When you have vulnerable enemies it isn't like they can always avoid their most dangerous adversaries in the party.

[Camman1984]

my biggest gripe is how hard it is to kill player characters. there is very little risk, ever. With 3 death throws to get through, unless the DM makes a conscious decision to try and kill a player (and that is more adversarial than most dms like) you know they will be stabilised and healed before they fail all three.

[PhoenixPhyre]

my biggest gripe is how hard it is to kill player characters. there is very little risk, ever. With 3 death throws to get through, unless the DM makes a conscious decision to try and kill a player (and that is more adversarial than most dms like) you know they will be stabilised and healed before they fail all three.

That's a conscious design choice, like it or not. Meat grinders are out of fashion these days.

[RossN]

Favourites: Cantrips. I love than a spellcaster is able to perform everyday magic without burning a finite spell slot and thematically many are a lot of fun. A '0-level' village hedge wizard or apprentice mage can do a lot with Prestidigitation and Mending.

I also love Backgrounds which bring back nostalgic memories of 2nd AD&D Kits.

Hated: Hated is too strong a phrase but I'm not a fan of Dragonborn being a core race either aesthetically (I'd much prefer dragonmen to look like Draconians than tailless, wingless scaly Orcs) or mechanically (they make weirdly poor Sorcerors.) I know that is very subjective however.

[mephnick]

unless the DM makes a conscious decision to try and kill a player (and that is more adversarial than most dms like)

It shouldn't be viewed as adversarial at all if it makes sense for the enemy. More DMs need to start cutting throats.

[UrielAwakened]

I like the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. And the effort they made to reign in spellcasters. Didn't work, but hey, they at least tried.

I hate...pretty much everything else.


The short rest/long rest class dichotomy isn't balanced and almost no DMs run enough encounters in an adventuring day to even phone in balance here.
Too many older edition holdovers for no reason but nostalgia. Ability scores are still pointless and should be replaced with straight modifiers, hit dice are still a terrible healing mechanic, vancian magic continues to be the final arbiter of power in a game, etc...
In the same vein, healing in combat is basically pointless now unless you're picking someone off the floor, which means combat is a yo-yo of up-down at barely above 0 hit points. Gone are the days of 4e Clerics that can heal and do something interesting in the same turn.
The game is supposedly built on three pillars of combat, social, and exploration, but the rules for the first take up most of the book, and the rules for the last two basically amount to, "Roll a skill check, compare it to a DC, done." There's no real depth, nuance, or really rules to two thirds of the game.
There was no reason to replace Fort/Ref/Will with ability score saves, especially when 90% of your saves are still just the Fort/Ref/Will stats.
So many weapons are pointless or useless filler.
So many items are pointless or useless filler. Why are there tables with items that cost copper pieces in a game where gold is the standard metric by which wealth is measured? Who is seriously tracking that?
Base PHB classes were horribly imbalanced. No excuses for that even so many years out.
Essentially every class that gets to do interesting things does so because of magic. Something like all but 5 subclasses already use magic or gain magic. Wizards just can't figure out how to make mundanes interesting.
There's still no incentive for a horde of monsters to not just run right past the mundanes and murder the spellcasters since the OA system is so limiting and marks are gone from 4e.
The game is meant to be played gridless but also every spell has an exact radius and range attached in feet.
Writing a game with naturalist language that's this complex is a terrible idea and the number of online arguments and twitter corrections and miscorrections shows that.
There wasn't even an effort to balance feats against each other. Why are GWM and Gourmond both things that have the same opportunity cost in a game developed by professionals?
Personalities, traits, backgrounds, etc... still have basically no mechanical benefits and are more or less just tacked on boxes that you fill out or don't, who cares.
Monsters aren't balanced by their CRs. Encounter building is not a streamlined process as it was in 4e and you're better off just throwing your hands in the air at the whole thing past level 8 or so.


Maybe the worst thing is the expectations it sets for other roleplaying games. D&D does so many things wrong that players new to the hobby interpret as right, and as such, their expectations when trying to branch out to other RPGs are never met. So most of them don't. The most popular game in the hobby is also the single biggest reason the hobby isn't growing.

I could go on and on and on but what's the point.

[KorvinStarmast]

my biggest gripe is how hard it is to kill player characters. there is very little risk, ever. With 3 death throws to get through, unless the DM makes a conscious decision to try and kill a player (and that is more adversarial than most dms like) you know they will be stabilised and healed before they fail all three. Either you need to play more OSR games, or you've never last a character to permanent death. Our first 5e group lost two before 4th level. DM was not being a jerk. Dice sometimes do that. Fail 1 save. Next time, roll a 1. You Be Dead.

I like the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. And the effort they made to reign in spellcasters. Didn't work, but hey, they at least tried.
I hate...pretty much everything else.
So, what are you playing these days?

[2D6GREATAXE]

Favourite thing: easy, its actually gotten me and my friends together where previous versions and other RPG's have failed to hold our interest whether due to content or difficulty of rules. We now have a once a month standing appointment rule of 8 hours that all my friends stick too by and two of them have newborns.

Worst thing: I dislike the very clear difference in some classes. Comparing a champion fighter to a Paladin is laughable. It seems some classes got more love and attention than others.

Positives: Action economy and how you can break your turn up.

Gripes: Lack of magical item costs and accessibility. I understand the reasons for making them uncommon but I would have liked to have the material still in the DMG.

[UrielAwakened]

So, what are you playing these days?

A lot of 4e mostly. It has it's problems but you can mostly get through them by overhauling some math.

I have a rotating chair 5e game online that's not kidding itself and trying to be anything but a glorified combat simulator and that's okay I guess, but I'm barely invested in the sessions these days.

If I had more time I'd play more Savage Worlds. That game's neat. I spend more time designing games than playing them these days.

[mephnick]

The game is supposedly built on three pillars of combat, social, and exploration, but the rules for the first take up most of the book

The game is meant to be played gridless but also every spell has an exact radius and range attached in feet.

These are just WotC lying to themselves and marketing something that isn't there to seem more inclusive of varied gamer types, which is something I find annoying.

D&D is mostly about combat and it hasn't supported ToTM for decades.

I hope the back to 6e's book just says "This is a tactical combat game about killing monsters in dungeons and taking loot. Sometimes you talk to things to save resources instead of killing monsters. We have a few rules for that. Don't like it? Who cares? We're D&D and you'll try to shove your play style where it doesn't fit anyway. Thanks for the $70."

[UrielAwakened]

These are just WotC lying to themselves and marketing something that isn't there to seem more inclusive of varied gamer types, which is something I find annoying.

D&D is mostly about combat and it hasn't supported ToTM for decades.

I hope the back to 6e's book just says "This is a tactical combat game about killing monsters in dungeons and taking loot. Sometimes you talk to things to save resources instead of killing monsters. We have a few rules for that. Don't like it? Who cares? We're D&D and you'll try to shove your play style where it doesn't fit anyway. Thanks for the $70."

I'd actually respect the hell out of that if they just committed to it. There's nothing wrong with a tactile combat game that eschews rules for narration or social nuance. That sounds awesome.

Oh yeah I forgot about Inspiration. It's there but not integrated anywhere else.

They could have killed two birds with one stone here and given actual mechanical weight to your traits, background, flaws, ideals as well. Set up a mechanic whereby you can leverage a trait, or background, or flaw, in some way to get inspiration for later. Now you have two cohesive game mechanics that work together to facilitate combat, the part of the game your players are focused on anyway.

[Pex]

my biggest gripe is how hard it is to kill player characters. there is very little risk, ever. With 3 death throws to get through, unless the DM makes a conscious decision to try and kill a player (and that is more adversarial than most dms like) you know they will be stabilised and healed before they fail all three.

If a DM is upset a PC did not die, he needs to leave the chair.

[Petrocorus]

D&D is mostly about combat and it hasn't supported ToTM for decades.

What is ToTM?

[KorvinStarmast]

What is ToTM? Theater of the Mind.
No minis
No map
No Grid

in its furthest application.

[mephnick]

Theater of the Mind.
No minis
No map
No Grid

in its furthest application.

And it "works" in that it's possible to do, as it is with any system, but it's not "supported". You can also play Dark Souls with bongos if you're in to that kind of thing.

[WereRabbitz]

Favorite: It's easy for new players to pick up

Least Favorite: Tie between broken feats & a total lack of effort when it comes to professions.

[Doug Lampert]

Maybe this is just my largely non-D&D background, but while this is nice it's also pretty unexceptional. There are very few games suitable for character building pr0n, to the point where it's just mostly not a thing - there's D&D 3-4, GURPS, everything Palladium has ever made, and that's about it.

Hero. Seriously, Hero.

[strangebloke]

These are just WotC lying to themselves and marketing something that isn't there to seem more inclusive of varied gamer types, which is something I find annoying.

D&D is mostly about combat and it hasn't supported ToTM for decades.

I hope the back to 6e's book just says "This is a tactical combat game about killing monsters in dungeons and taking loot. Sometimes you talk to things to save resources instead of killing monsters. We have a few rules for that. Don't like it? Who cares? We're D&D and you'll try to shove your play style where it doesn't fit anyway. Thanks for the $70."

Though we've had this discussion many times, I will say again:

The "Three Pillars" thing is mostly BS, but....

There are actually plenty of exploration rules. They're in the DMG, not the PHB, which most people don't seem to read. Stuff like traps, rules for navigating underwater environments, rules for avoiding getting lost in the woods... it's all there, right next to dozens of pages of sweet loot to give your players.

There are social rules as well, but no role-play heavy group would ever use them. As someone who does DND and freeform RP and nothing in between, I've always been intrigued by 'social encounter' rules, but I've never needed them to have fun with the 'faffing about' pillar.

[Camman1984]

Either you need to play more OSR games, or you've never last a character to permanent death. Our first 5e group lost two before 4th level. DM was not being a jerk. Dice sometimes do that. Fail 1 save. Next time, roll a 1. You Be Dead.

So, what are you playing these days?

I have killed a few off myself, have reputation for killing monks, those low level guys who like to run up to monsters in the pjamas haha. once you get any kind of healing or anyone with so are the dying or equivalent, character death becomes almost impossible. (obviously rare execeptions) haven't seen a single death in the two games I am a player yet, a level 4 and 7 game respectively.

[ZorroGames]

Theater of the Mind.
No minis
No map
No Grid

in its furthest application.

💤 🧚🏼

YMMV but this isn’t what I envision, based on my OD&D start. And being a miniatures war game player long before FRPGs.

[strangebloke]

I have killed a few off myself, have reputation for killing monks, those low level guys who like to run up to monsters in the pjamas haha. once you get any kind of healing or anyone with so are the dying or equivalent, character death becomes almost impossible. (obviously rare execeptions) haven't seen a single death in the two games I am a player yet, a level 4 and 7 game respectively.

No offense, but if this is the case, you probably suck at killing your players.

And yes, your villains and monsters should be trying to kill the players.

People for some reason hear that and imagine some Snidely Whiplash kind of DM who is grinning from behind the screen, ready to inform the players that the floor is actually made out of mimics. But that's something completely different. That's a DM who is fundamentally unfair, and is trying to screw the players over because he's on a power trip.

What I'm talking about is playing your bad guys fairly, but realistically. You convey to them what kinds of things are reasonable to expect (mimics, traps, evil monsters) but the Vampire King doesn't just sit, absent of his followers, in a 20x20 foot room, waiting for the PCs to walk in and engage in a slugging match. No, he uses his spellcasting and gaseous form to harrass and hunt and taunt them, flying between numerous rooms and ambushing them every time they spread out, and throwing minions in their way.

[RossN]

💤 🧚🏼

YMMV but this isn’t what I envision, based on my OD&D start. And being a miniatures war game player long before FRPGs.

I think it is generally felt that 2e was the peak of Theater of the Mind in (A)D&D with 4e as its absolute nadir.

[Tanarii]

There are social rules as well, but no role-play heavy group would ever use them. As someone who does DND and freeform RP and nothing in between, I've always been intrigued by 'social encounter' rules, but I've never needed them to have fun with the 'faffing about' pillar.
The social rules in the DMG work great for me. What I need is guidelines on how hard it is to persuade creatures to do things for you. Usually hostile creatures in dungeons*, or indifferent or friendly NPCs outside of them that you're trying to talk into them. That's hardly faffing about. It's usually the difference between life and death for the players. More so than combat itself. (Edit: Or rather, combat is the last resort. Social is what prevents it being necessary, or stacks the odds in your favor.)

I agree that what many people think of when they think of the Social Pillar in RPGs is mostly just faffing about. Not accomplishing things. IMO that's because that's what it usually means when we talk about "Social" IRL.

*Substitute "wilderness adventuring site" for "Dungeon" as needed.

[Eric Diaz]

D&D is mostly about combat and it hasn't supported ToTM for decades.



And it "works" in that it's possible to do, as it is with any system, but it's not "supported". You can also play Dark Souls with bongos if you're in to that kind of thing.

To each their own, of course, but I find this baffling. We didn't use much of a grid in the old days, even tough some people used RULERS... Not, I didn't like 4e much, because I felt it is too tied to the grid. I have been playing 5e without needing a grid for a long while, never felt it made any difference.

Now, I don't know what is your favorite flavor of D&D (if you play 13A, I can see where you're coming from), but I think I can safely prove that 5e needs a grid way less than 4e and 3e.

http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/2017/03/does-d-require-miniatures-3e-versus-4e.html

Complaining that 5e relies on a grid while comparing it to 4e is... pretty wacky, to say the least, IMO.

[Eric Diaz]

The game is meant to be played gridless but also every spell has an exact radius and range attached in feet.

See above.

But also: 4e didn't have a "range attached in feet" IIRC. It had a ranged measured in SQUARES, while some older editions measured it in INCHES (or something). Now, when I am playing grid-less (and I always do), it is very useful to me to know if a weapon/spell has a reach of 30 feet or 120 feet...

I cannot begin to fathom why 5e the fact that you measure feet means you must use a grid.

[UrielAwakened]

The difference is 4e never pretended it was trying to be some all-encompassing RPG for every playstyle. It pretty much came out of the gates with, "Yeah you're gonna need grid paper or a battle map to play this." The tactical combat was the highlight of the edition really.

A grid adds very little depth to a 5e game but all of the spells and abilities still have very exact measurements nonetheless.

It's part of a greater complaint of 5e that it does not deliver at all in terms of its goal of universal appeal. It pretends to and hopes you don't look too closely at it to recognize just how shallow it really is.

[mephnick]

I cannot begin to fathom why 5e the fact that you measure feet means you must use a grid.

I'm not saying you must use a grid, I'm saying the system doesn't make any effort to support it. Most systems that support TotM use ranges like Engaged/Short/Long instead of specific measurements.

[ZorroGames]

I'm not saying you must use a grid, I'm saying the system doesn't make any effort to support it. Most systems that support TotM use ranges like Engaged/Short/Long instead of specific measurements.

Which is an implicit form of measurement.

[strangebloke]

The social rules in the DMG work great for me. What I need is guidelines on how hard it is to persuade creatures to do things for you. Usually hostile creatures in dungeons*, or indifferent or friendly NPCs outside of them that you're trying to talk into them. That's hardly faffing about. It's usually the difference between life and death for the players. More so than combat itself. (Edit: Or rather, combat is the last resort. Social is what prevents it being necessary, or stacks the odds in your favor.)

I agree that what many people think of when they think of the Social Pillar in RPGs is mostly just faffing about. Not accomplishing things. IMO that's because that's what it usually means when we talk about "Social" IRL.

*Substitute "wilderness adventuring site" for "Dungeon" as needed.

I joke around about faffing about, because much social interaction is that. I don't actually think it is pointless, and I'll often design a social solution to potentially very difficult encounters.

I set the DC based off of a variety of factors, and it's always different depending on the line that the PC takes in persuading someone. A cultist will be impossible to convince with anything that isn't connected to his cult, and a dragon is just going to be very hard to convince, period.

For random encounter monsters, I typically use the monster's WIS+10+InsightProf +(5 for each level of hatred the monster has to the PCs) for the DC-to-hit. Obviously only plausible arguments have a chance to work. Result of a successful checks is that the creature treats you as one category more friendly than he normally would.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm not saying you must use a grid, I'm saying the system doesn't make any effort to support it. Most systems that support TotM use ranges like Engaged/Short/Long instead of specific measurements.

That's a very particular definition of "supports".

In my opinion, 5e supports (as in "allows without significant structural changes") multiple play styles in this regard--

* TotM works just fine with measurements in feet. Requires the most mental flexibility and descriptive ability from the DM, especially for complex physical situations, but that's always the case.

* Gridless battlemaps (eg whiteboard and rulers). This is, for me, the optimum. All the flexibility of TotM with 90% of the precision of a grid.

* Grid.

Systems that use range categories mandate TotM, as they're unsuited for gridded/measured play. 4e mandated a grid, not because it measured things in squares but because so many powers relied on tactical movement options (pushes, pulls, slides, etc).

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm not saying you must use a grid, I'm saying the system doesn't make any effort to support it. Most systems that support TotM use ranges like Engaged/Short/Long instead of specific measurements. 5e ranges tend to be
touch
5'(adjacent)
30'
60'
120'

I think you can fit that into the structure you refer to.

(some really long range stuff"

[PhoenixPhyre]

5e ranges tend to be
touch
5'(adjacent)
30'
60'
120'

I think you can fit that into the structure you refer to.

(some really long range stuff"

And with the base speed being 30', that's Adjacent, 1 round normal, 2 rounds or 1 round dashing, and Edge of Engagement (2 rounds dashing).

Those sound like perfect range categories that still allow for gridded play.

* Can the creature attack in melee without moving? Engaged.
* Can the creature attack you in melee in 1 turn? Close.
* Can the creature attack you in melee in 2 turns? Medium.
* Will the creature need 3 or more turns to attack you in melee? Far.

Considering the average fight lasts ~3 rounds, that's plenty. If they're 120' out and only move 30', then they're basically screwed unless they have a ranged attack.

[UrielAwakened]

And with the base speed being 30', that's Adjacent, 1 round normal, 2 rounds or 1 round dashing, and Edge of Engagement (2 rounds dashing).

Those sound like perfect range categories that still allow for gridded play.

* Can the creature attack in melee without moving? Engaged.
* Can the creature attack you in melee in 1 turn? Close.
* Can the creature attack you in melee in 2 turns? Medium.
* Will the creature need 3 or more turns to attack you in melee? Far.

Considering the average fight lasts ~3 rounds, that's plenty. If they're 120' out and only move 30', then they're basically screwed unless they have a ranged attack.

Great.

Why didn't the designers write all of that down in between the time they spent on organizing charts for items that cost less than you'd find in the average goblin's back pocket?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Great.

Why didn't the designers write all of that down in between the time they spent on organizing charts for items that cost less than you'd find in the average goblin's back pocket?

Why should they? It's completely superfluous and trivial to construct. Going backwards and getting information for grid play isn't. So they included foot based measurements, which work for both.

[UrielAwakened]

Why should they? It's completely superfluous and trivial to construct. Going backwards and getting information for grid play isn't. So they included foot based measurements, which work for both.

Except they say it facilitates ToTM and it doesn't actually do that. Homebrew does that. And again, I shouldn't have to fix a game that I paid for.

The excuses made for this edition are super unreasonable. That's another thing I hate about it. Put that on my list. Near the top really.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Except they say it facilitates ToTM and it doesn't actually do that. Homebrew does that. And again, I shouldn't have to fix a game that I paid for.

The excuses made for this edition are super unreasonable. That's another thing I hate about it. Put that on my list. Near the top really.

Wait, what? It's perfectly usable (without homebrew) for TotM. Or for grids. Or for gridless measured maps. That's a good thing.

[Pex]

The social rules in the DMG work great for me. What I need is guidelines on how hard it is to persuade creatures to do things for you. Usually hostile creatures in dungeons*, or indifferent or friendly NPCs outside of them that you're trying to talk into them. That's hardly faffing about. It's usually the difference between life and death for the players. More so than combat itself. (Edit: Or rather, combat is the last resort. Social is what prevents it being necessary, or stacks the odds in your favor.)

I agree that what many people think of when they think of the Social Pillar in RPGs is mostly just faffing about. Not accomplishing things. IMO that's because that's what it usually means when we talk about "Social" IRL.

*Substitute "wilderness adventuring site" for "Dungeon" as needed.

Like benchmarks? Example DCs? Shame on you. You know it's all what the DM thinks it should be. Pshaw on you wanting defined examples to work with.

It actually exists, though, on page 245 of the DMG. A table providing example DCs and what they mean.

If you don't follow the rules that's not the game's problem.

[Eric Diaz]

Great.

Why didn't the designers write all of that down in between the time they spent on organizing charts for items that cost less than you'd find in the average goblin's back pocket?

My bet: 5e is meant to be grid-agnostic.

This may enrage 4e players ("I'd prefer the grid was MANDATORY and the distances were SQUARES") AND 13A players ("I'd prefer the distances were ENTIRELY ABSTRACT"), but it seems to be "good enough" for a huge "middle" of players that seem to think "I want a game were I can use a grid WHEN I WANT TO"... which happens to be my case.

The same pattern can be seem in most of 4e, really: most unique "spell system" except for 4e, one of the simplest D&D except for basic, etc. 5e is very "second best", IMO.

To say 5e is "master of none" is a fair criticism, I think. But I, personally, enjoy the "jack of all trades" aspects that lets me play with people whose favorite D&D was 2e and 4e, for example (which happens to be my group).

Edit: and, again, when you say " they say it facilitates ToTM and it doesn't actually do that", I have to ask... compared to WHAT? Compared to 3e and 4e, it CERTAINLY facilitates ToTM, at the very least.

And I do completely agree with you about items... terrible design IMO.

[bobofwestgate]

Favorite

Unified mechanics
Numbers stay relatively flat
Plays relatively fast
Is easy to tweak
Archetypes are elegant and fun
No confirming critical hits
Easy to teach
Feats are optional
Multiclassing is optional
Stresses good lessons to DMs in its core principles
Is widely played, and brings a lot of old and new blood together. Really feels like it might be a sort of D&D golden age
Has strong archetypal flavor
Is relatively easy to run

Least Favorite

Ability scores matter way too much
Too many classes have magic powers
Some of the broad archetypes and powers can be hard to frame in a medieval fantasy world, they feel too "anime"
Level ups are WAY too fast
Every character is expected to reach the absolute peak of human ability in an ability score (related to how ability scores matter too much)
Mundane animals are too weak
Rogue sneak attack feels too "DPS" for me
Unlimited cantrips removes any need for light resource
Goodberry removes any need for food resources
Leomunds tiny hut as a ritual is broken
Too many useless saving throws
Magic items are boring, and apparently optional which is dumb and sad
Skill system feels really necessary
Pretty much no set DC examples and the ones they have are beyond stupid, DC 20 to break IRON chains? Really?
Too many spells, cantrips, and feats are just plain broken or useless and would have taken like 1 week of simple review to fix
Too many weird races as core
Weapon and Armor list is redundant
The language of "take the x action" just annoys me a lot
Most adventures are extremely poor
Faerun as a default setting
The art is bloodless and boring

Tiny Hut is a dome, not a sphere. Your players won't get so relaxed and dependent on it after that burrowing earth elemental pops up in the middle of their supposedly safe camp

[KOLE]

Thought of something that's my even more favorite thing.

5e is designed to play. Not for character building pr0n.

Can I sig this?

[Knaight]

If a DM is upset a PC did not die, he needs to leave the chair.

The DM isn't upset a PC didn't die. They're annoyed that the conditions of conflict have heavily mitigated that risk. It's not even slightly the same thing, as is shown by the numerous players who will praise high lethality systems and insist that the risk of death is a necessary component of their fun, and the roughly zero players talking about how they just want their DM to go out of their way to kill their character already.

[Tanarii]

Like benchmarks? Example DCs? Shame on you. You know it's all what the DM thinks it should be. Pshaw on you wanting defined examples to work with.

It actually exists, though, on page 245 of the DMG. A table providing example DCs and what they mean.

If you don't follow the rules that's not the game's problem.
:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

But yes, page 245 is what I was talking about. I was pointing out when the need for Social is more than mere faffing about, and that they already provided a detailed (for 5e) table of reference DCs for it.


Can I sig this?Knock yourself out.


The DM isn't upset a PC didn't die. They're annoyed that the conditions of conflict have heavily mitigated that risk. It's not even slightly the same thing, as is shown by the numerous players who will praise high lethality systems and insist that the risk of death is a necessary component of their fun, and the roughly zero players talking about how they just want their DM to go out of their way to kill their character already.Yeah. If players are totally aware they are sticking out their own necks and can easily die for it, they're usually much more chill about walking into a meat grinder. Not that 5e is that much of a meat grinder, even when they stick their necks fairly far out.

[Dyndrilliac]

My favorite thing about 5e D&D is simplifying the rules and math. Primarily advantage/disadvantage, but this encapsulates a bunch of different changes.

My most hated thing about 5e D&D is the lack of diversity in racial traits, and those traits that are diverse, suffer for it because they suck in mechanical comparison to the generic racial traits. All of the races fall into one of two categories for me: they're either too good and I want to use them for every class, or they suck and they don't appear to me to be particularly well-suited mechanically for any class. Examples of the first category are Mountain Dwarf (+2 STR and +2 CON is ridiculous), Variant Human, Half-Orc, and Half-Elf. Examples of the second category include Goliath. Ironically, the Goliath's problem is that they have TOO MANY unique racial traits because the unique traits they do have suck and aren't comparable to the generic traits that the core races get. For example, there is no character in the universe that can be built with Goliath where Half-Orc would not have been the more optimal choice. Simply doesn't exist!

[MrStabby]

Yeah. I get the race thing.

I dislike that something like bonuses to both intelligence and wisdom is so niche.

A couple of wizard spells that keyed in part off wisdom or charisma for example would give some more incentive for a broader range of characters and races.

[Willie the Duck]

Why didn't the designers write all of that down in between the time they spent on organizing charts for items that cost less than you'd find in the average goblin's back pocket?

Do you actually want and answer, or is this venting (because venting is fine and good)? The answer is, I believe, because this edition is not designed with core books meant for people who have played other tabletop RPGs. It is meant for starting gamers (or at best maybe that guy who gamed 10-20 years ago and is coming back because they heard that D&D is cool again). That's the market they are trying to capture. The market that is people who really liked 4e (or 13A) and wanted 5e to be another go at that concept (or the people that were driven to Pathfinder because of 4e, but might be convinced to come back) are a non-vanishingly-small body, but not a industry-sustaining number of people. They are trying to capture new blood. And this edition does it as well as some of the better-at-it editions, like 2e and BECMI.

When I picked up the B of BECMI in '83, I was a gradeschooler who had played 1-2 sessions of some Holmes-B/X-AD&D hybrid that the 'big kids' were playing. I knew you played fighters and wizards and elves, and what swords and bows and arrows were. But if the equipment list did not include a 10' pole, I would have never sussed out that you might want to poke things with an expendable pole, rather than set off the traps myself. Likewise, I knew what ropes were, but the inclusion of pitons and grappling hooks on the equipment list made me realize not just what one does with a rope, but also that oh wait, much of the time you expend your climbing equipment. Lantern oil made me realize that part of the dungeon crawling experience was managing scarce resources, and sacks made me recognize that collecting the gold was not just something that happened, but something that you had to do.

A few others are there for realism. Given the level of abstraction the game has, they could just double the weight of arrows and declare that 'cost and weight of arrow containment is included,' but then someone (perhaps the resident medieval-realism aficionado that every group accumulates) would complain about there not being quivers on the equipment list (same with whetstones).

So the trivial equipment list is there to serve the 8 y.o. starting the game. That same kid (at least if my own experience is representative) does not need page count dedicated to a write up saying 'if you are intending not to use a battle map and miniatures, you can reduce weapon ranges into band like...' The listed weapon ranges and spell radii are simply granularity in excess of my needs. I don't need a tutorial in how to ignore/simplify them.


The excuses made for this edition are super unreasonable. That's another thing I hate about it. Put that on my list. Near the top really.

The 'excuses' people make are usually the honest opinion of others about why they are not bothered by this, that, or the other thing that someone else has a problem with. You yourself said you don't care about the prices of trivial costing equipment. To the old school guy who still enjoys the penny counting, it's a problem. But you saying 'yeah, that doesn't bother me' isn't some unreasonable excuse, it's an honest estimation of your opinion on how big a deal that problem is.

[UrielAwakened]

The answer is, I believe, because this edition is not designed with core books meant for people who have played other tabletop RPGs. It is meant for starting gamers (or at best maybe that guy who gamed 10-20 years ago and is coming back because they heard that D&D is cool again). That's the market they are trying to capture. The market that is people who really liked 4e (or 13A) and wanted 5e to be another go at that concept (or the people that were driven to Pathfinder because of 4e, but might be convinced to come back) are a non-vanishingly-small body, but not a industry-sustaining number of people. They are trying to capture new blood. And this edition does it as well as some of the better-at-it editions, like 2e and BECMI.

Ooh boy here we go. I wasn't going to get into this point beyond my small note about how this game sets up bad expectations for playing other tabletop RPGs but this reminded me about how bad this edition is at introducing new players to tabletop RPGs in general. And that's because of the way it presents the DM - as a necessary evil, rather than a narrative and storytelling companion designed to enrich your enjoyment.

You see it at every stage of the game, from the way the rules are written to set them up as some final arbiter of what is and isn't allowed in the game to the fact that the DM manual itself is still separated from the core player rulebook (again, only done as some desperate plea to nostalgia).

Also the game does nothing to actually prepare and condition new players to be GMs. The GM guide has nothing in terms of advice for narrative development, story pacing, how to encourage your players to develop backstories and then incorporate them into a narrative that would become better for it. This is why so many more story-driven people opt for Dungeon World over games like this, despite it being arguably an even weaker game in many respects. Of course maybe this is Wizards' intent: If you don't give GMs the tools to make good adventurers they're forced to pay for your models to get the full mileage out of the game.

Whatever their process for adventure development is professionally? That system they use to develop products like Storm King's Thunder and whatnot? THAT should be the DM Guide. Not Wheel-Spinning: The Book.

Also they put all of the burden for solving player problems on the GM. Like he doesn't have enough to do. Why is the GM thought to be responsible for absolutely everything going right? How many lines are there in the PHB about being a responsible, active player that engages the story and the world? Nada. Just a small list of things they call player archetypes, one of which is even just casual acceptance that some players will be unengaged. I'm sorry, but what?

Also the books tell you that your job is to challenge the PCs. But only in terms of numbers. Nothing about how to challenge the beliefs of the characters or the players and their skillsets, no. Your job is purely a mechanical one. Here is a CR. Make sure when you add up these XPs they equal this number but remember that when there's multiple monsters your number needs tripled but actually you only give this much XP at the end not the newly tripled value. It's all so basic and pedestrian and leaves you utterly unprepared to run other types of games.

So the designers expect the GM to write a story and somehow allow for the players to have agency in said story which means freedom to diverge from it but there is so much absolute adherence to needing challenge that comes from numbers and mechanics rather than flaws, traits, ideals, and beliefs (those absolutely throw-away parts of your character sheet that half of you don't fill out) that it's actually more or less impossible to deliver on-the-fly improv challenges that are thematic, interesting, and perfectly balanced to scare your players but not actually endanger them because if you do kill anyone you're every bad GM that the manuals have spent 300 pages warning your players about.

That is not what being a GM is and that does nothing to introduce players to the hobby.

[ZorroGames]

Ooh boy here we go. I wasn't going to get into this point beyond my small note about how this game sets up bad expectations for playing other tabletop RPGs but this reminded me about how badly this edition is at introducing new players to tabletop RPGs in general. And that's because of the way it presents the DM - as a necessary evil, rather than a narrative and storytelling companion designed to enrich your enjoyment.

You see it at every stage of the game, from the way the rules are written to set them up as some final arbiter of what is and isn't allowed in the game to the fact that the DM manual itself is still separated from the core player rulebook (again, only done as some desperate plea to nostalgia).

Also the game does nothing to actually prepare and condition new players to be GMs. The GM guide has nothing in terms of advice for narrative development, story pacing, how to encourage your players to develop backstories and then incorporate them into a narrative that would become better for it. This is why so many more story-driven people opt for Dungeon World over games like this, despite it being arguably an even weaker game in many respects. Of course maybe this is Wizards' intent: If you don't give GMs the tools to make good adventurers they're forced to pay for your models to get the full mileage out of the game.

Whatever their process for adventure development is professionally? That system they use to develop products like Storm King's Thunder and whatnot? THAT should be the DM Guide. Not Wheel-Spinning: The Book.

Also they put all of the burden for solving player problems on the GM. Like he doesn't have enough to do. Why is the GM thought to be responsible for absolutely everything going right? How many lines are there in the PHB about being a responsible, active player that engages the story and the world? Nada. Just a small list of things they call player archetypes, one of which is even just casual acceptance that some players will be unengaged. I'm sorry, but what?

Also the books tell you that your job is to challenge the PCs. But only in terms of numbers. Nothing about how to challenge the beliefs of the characters or the players and their skillsets, no. Your job is purely a mechanical one. Here is a CR. Make sure when you add up these XPs they equal this number but remember that when there's multiple monsters your number needs tripled but actually you only give this much XP at the end not the newly tripled value. It's all so basic and pedestrian and leaves you utterly unprepared to run other types of games.

So the designers expect the GM to write a story and somehow allow for the players to have agency in said story which means freedom to diverge from it but there is so much absolute adherence to needing challenge that comes from numbers and mechanics rather than flaws, traits, ideals, and beliefs (those absolutely throw-away parts of your character sheet that half of you don't fill out) that it's actually more or less impossible to deliver on-the-fly improv challenges that are thematic, interesting, and perfectly balanced to scare your players but not actually endanger them because if you do kill anyone you're every bad GM that the manuals have spent 300 pages warning your players about.

That is not what being a GM is and that does nothing to introduce players to the hobby.

If you hate this gane that much why are you on this forum?

Go play something you like.

[UrielAwakened]

If you hate this gane that much why are you on this forum?

Go play something you like.

It's always a good sign that a community is healthy when well-structured, polite, thought-out criticism to it is met with, "Go away." Especially in a topic literally asking for criticisms.

I'm sorry but after the fifth or sixth post that basically amounted to, "There's really nothing I hate but if I have to pick something I guess the font size could be bigger" I felt obligated to give it some genuine, long-considered opinions.

[Scripten]

In the interest of trying to keep on-topic instead of re-litigating another 5E edition war, my lists.

I like:

The advantage/disadvantage system. It's both elegant and easy to explain, though it is almost too simple. Plus, it bakes the math into the die roll instead of fiddly modifiers, which I find preferable. It's still slightly swingy, but that isn't usually an issue. (One of my dislikes is where that is a problem.)
The more free-form ability check system. I like that skills are broad and dissociated from individual ability scores. Allowing for a Constitution (Athletics) or Strength (Intimidation) roll instead of rolling directly against a set list of skills feels more natural to me. I wish that they had eliminated the on-the-spot math from the system, but that's a minor flaw to me. (I and one of my players are good at math. Several of my other players are dyslexic and none of them enjoy math.)
The class balance. I appreciate that it is next to impossible to make a character that is utterly ineffectual. While there is certainly a range of optimization and you still run into the linear/quadratic warrior/wizard dichotomy, I have yet to run into a situation where any one player felt like they just couldn't participate at all. (Also, with the flexible ability check system, I've been able to get all of my players to participate in RP, including the Cha-dumping barbarian/druid. While he didn't have a bonus to Charisma, I let him add his Nature proficiency when talking to animals or outrider types. While the party faces usually handle talking, he told me after that he really appreciated being able to contribute that time and everyone else felt positively about his role.)
NPC/Monster creation and modification. The efficiency at which balanced monsters can be built allows me to create unique enemies in under five minutes. Legendary and lair actions make for more dynamic fights and further allow for customization. The lack of a constrained skill system is great here, as well, since the attack options available to NPCs further differentiate them. (Using a trip/grapple/shove-based boss with DPS-focused mooks relies only on remembering to use those actions. And when the mooks are gone, the battle dynamic shifts as the boss changes tactics organically.)
Backgrounds. I love backgrounds, both as a DM and as a player. Even disregarding Inspiration, the background system is really useful for new and old players alike and the custom background rules (and bonds) allow for backstories to affect the game mechanically. I'd love to see more of them, but even what we have is pretty great. I've had a party in which three characters shared the noble background, but each one was not only different in personality, but their different bonds and flaws naturally pushed their players to interact. (The egalitarian hero of the people would clash with the haughty fop constantly, in-game, but the players would always laugh about it afterward.)
Magic items. I love that magic items, even +1 weapons and armor, feel like something extraordinary when you get them. Even though most of my party has one to three magic items at level 7/8, they are neither overpowered by having those items nor are they desensitized to being rewarded with more. The balance of magic items feels perfect to me, though I do understand that this is a personal preference. (I do now wonder what changes would need to be made to accommodate a campaign with a high number of magic items. It's not something I've thought about up til this point.)


There are more, but these are the biggest items of note. On the other hand, there are quite a few criticisms to level at the system.

I hate/dislike:

Inspiration. It's a dongle and it very rarely gets used. It's not actively harmful to the experience of playing or DMing, but there are so many ways this could have been made to work.
Wild Magic Sorcerers. I generally avoid pointing out specific class features, spells, or whatnot as problems in a system, since they are not usually pervasive, but holy crapmuffins is Wild Magic terrible. As a DM, I hate player features that I have to babysit and as a player, I hate having to bother the DM with . Player mechanics should be handled by the player. I don't mind adjudicating on occasion, but not like this. Add in beast summoning as a more minor addendum.
Intelligence saves. Classes that get proficiency in Dexterity and Wisdom saves tend to get the most benefit out of those saves. I'm actually fine with that: the range of capability in shrugging off spell effects isn't usually a problem. (Rogues and Wizards both get one great save and one less useful one.) However, intelligence saves tend to come with really nasty effects (Intellect Devourers anyone?) and thus either a) don't feel fair and make players upset or b) don't feel fair and aren't used at all. This is one of those holdovers from the save or suck times and I don't enjoy it. I've successfully homebrewed some solutions, so it's more an enemy design flaw than something fundamental to the system. Still, it comes up a lot.
Exhaustion. This is less something I hate and more something that just feels "meh". It works alright, but it's either too little or too much. Even just a variant ruleset for more granularity would be appreciated.
Alignment. I don't hate alignment, but it's outdated and frankly disused more often than not. Almost every DM I've played with downplays it even more than 5E's default. I would prefer something like Shadow of the Demon Lord's Corruption system. (Most of the personal preference issues I have with 5E are solved by SotDL. I really like that system!)
Traps. Another item that isn't terrible, but also isn't great. I tend to go for Angry DM's "click" mechanic with some modifications. I describe the situation, tell the players everything that is visible, and if they inspect the trap possibly reveal more details. If they trigger it, I say "click" and they can take one action in response. I feel that trap rules should by default support some kind of mechanic similar to this, rather than the same "gotcha" arbitration of earlier D&D editions. Might be personal preference, though.
Fiddly modifiers. As I described earlier, I have a fairly large party that isn't generally great with math. That means that whenever several modifiers get added into a roll, it can slow the pacing of the game down as I tend to do the math for my players because it's faster. There are also several feats, class features, items, and the like that add modifiers in certain circumstances. I would prefer either more dice (adding dice together is exciting; counting up modifiers is not so much) or more utilization of the advantage system instead. Granted, overusing advantage is also bad, which does highlight one weakness of the advantage system: it's largely trinary. Either you have advantage, you roll normally, or you have disadvantage. Again, I prefer the boons/banes system from SotDL, where you have diminishing returns but still see benefits from lots of circumstances in your favor (and vice versa in terms of banes).


Lastly, I want to add one more list: things I would change about the system but don't necessarily see as negatives.


Ability scores. I know this one is massively contentious, but I would change from a straight d20 with modifiers to some variety of dice pool or dice scale system. While I recognize that D&D's identity is largely based around the d20, it would be nice to be rid of modifiers in as many situations as possible. (Considering that the remaining modifiers still in the system were in my negatives list, I'm sure you can imagine where this is coming from.)
Spell lists. I don't hate Vancian magic save for having to look up spell details for my less organized players, but it would be neat to see classes that operate off entirely unique magic systems. Again, this is an identity thing that is largely solved by moving to a different system, but I do like 5E and have large numbers of friends who share that opinion, which makes it tough to promote other systems to them at times.
Class mechanics. It wouldn't be so bad a thing to see classes (magic and mundane) that work off of entirely different mechanics from one another. Right now, most martials generally work the same way, which gives 5E a sense of cohesion, but it would be cool to see, for example, Monks (or another unarmed strike-based class, since Monk is a dated holdover IMO) that rely on multi-round move combos or a class that operates entirely outside the to-hit attack and damage paradigm entirely. Yet again, this is a system thing and also way too much to ask of the designers, but hey, that's why I made three lists. :smallwink:

[KorvinStarmast]

My favorite thing about 5e D&D is simplifying the rules and math. Primarily advantage/disadvantage, but this encapsulates a bunch of different changes.

My most hated thing about 5e D&D is the lack of diversity in racial traits, and those traits that are diverse, suffer for it because they suck in mechanical comparison to the generic racial traits. All of the races fall into one of two categories for me: they're either too good and I want to use them for every class, or they suck and they don't appear to me to be particularly well-suited mechanically for any class. Yeah, WOTC did not outdo themselves with depth in this regard ....

[ZorroGames]

It's always a good sign that a community is healthy when well-structured, polite, thought-out criticism to it is met with, "Go away." Especially in a topic literally asking for criticisms.

I'm sorry but after the fifth or sixth post that basically amounted to, "There's really nothing I hate but if I have to pick something I guess the font size could be bigger" I felt obligated to give it some genuine, long-considered opinions.

It is/was an honest question - your criticism seems to be “change darn near everything.”

[Knaight]

Ooh boy here we go. I wasn't going to get into this point beyond my small note about how this game sets up bad expectations for playing other tabletop RPGs but this reminded me about how bad this edition is at introducing new players to tabletop RPGs in general. And that's because of the way it presents the DM - as a necessary evil, rather than a narrative and storytelling companion designed to enrich your enjoyment.

You see it at every stage of the game, from the way the rules are written to set them up as some final arbiter of what is and isn't allowed in the game to the fact that the DM manual itself is still separated from the core player rulebook (again, only done as some desperate plea to nostalgia).
This picks at a few central ideas, the biggest of which is that while D&D likes to present itself as a generic fantasy game it's a game with a highly specific experience that doesn't particularly resemble most of the rest of the hobby. The way the rules are written as a central arbiter is toned down significantly compared to even 2nd edition, the comparatively antagonistic stance between players and DM traces back to the very beginning of D&D.

I'm not particularly impressed with 5e as a standard entry game, starting with how I don't particularly like the idea of a standard entry game to RPGs (at the very least it would be nice to have some high visibility examples for other genres) and continuing on to it supporting a fairly specific experience well. I'd still take it over every other edition of D&D in a heartbeat.


Also the game does nothing to actually prepare and condition new players to be GMs. The GM guide has nothing in terms of advice for narrative development, story pacing, how to encourage your players to develop backstories and then incorporate them into a narrative that would become better for it. This is why so many more story-driven people opt for Dungeon World over games like this, despite it being arguably an even weaker game in many respects. Of course maybe this is Wizards' intent: If you don't give GMs the tools to make good adventurers they're forced to pay for your models to get the full mileage out of the game.
The idea that they gave deliberately bad advice to push modules seems deeply unlikely. What's more likely is that there's a set of assumptions made about what people already know going in and how people are introduced to the game which can lead to some problems here - and said assumptions are often pretty reasonable. There's the assumption that people are already familiar with the more narrative side, and that it's the mechanics that are going to be taught; and there's the assumption that the standard entry for new players is into an existing group, where they can probably pick up on the nonmechanical side pretty easily while mechanics need to be explained.

Neither of these are unreasonable, but they can pose problems - this familiarity with fiction tends to come from other mediums, particularly literature, film, and videogames, and some advice about the specifics of how this medium works could be really useful. The assumption about new players getting pulled in also doesn't bear out as much as it seemed like it would, though that has more to do with 5e being wildly successful at rates probably much higher than expected than anything else, along with being buoyed by likely unanticipated non-WotC projects like Critical Role.


Whatever their process for adventure development is professionally? That system they use to develop products like Storm King's Thunder and whatnot? THAT should be the DM Guide. Not Wheel-Spinning: The Book.
This is almost certainly a terrible idea for a few reasons. The big two have to do with fundamental differences between module design and general GMing, and the matter of the processes built for different audiences.

Handling the latter first - these processes are there so that highly experienced people in the industry who've usually been playing RPGs for decades and publishing material for years can make stylistically compatible work. Making this into the DMG for new players is roughly comparable to handing a textbook for grad students to a highschool class. That documentation is potentially useful for veteran GMs, but it's just wrong for the new GM audience that's theoretically supposed to be here.

Moving to the former - what a module fundamentally is is a thoroughly defined generic adventure where everything has to be done in advance, individual player preferences can't be taken into account, and who the PCs are and what the campaign history is is similarly unknown. That's just not what the DM should be making for their particular players, both because it's not as good as what can be done with the knowledge the DM actually has and because there are few messages less useful to send to a GM than "So you want to run a game? Here's a hundred pages of material for you to write." The 3e DMG with its pages and pages about the value of tiny details, knowing things in advance, and obsessively detailed rules on mechanical representation was bad enough in terms of creating the perception of excessive necessary work.

Basically, it's all about audience awareness here, from a number of angles. There's enough differences in the audience for both layers to make the document downright unhelpful, though I'd still be interested in seeing it.


Also they put all of the burden for solving player problems on the GM. Like he doesn't have enough to do. Why is the GM thought to be responsible for absolutely everything going right? How many lines are there in the PHB about being a responsible, active player that engages the story and the world? Nada. Just a small list of things they call player archetypes, one of which is even just casual acceptance that some players will be unengaged. I'm sorry, but what?
There's a fair few lines in the PHB about being a responsible, active player, though they're generally not that explicit. The subtext is pretty full of said advice, starting with the way the text expects you to make and play an interesting character, including establishing the characterization side. That's not to say that the DM doesn't have a disproportionate share of assigned responsibility to non-game social management, but it's not as bad as you're portraying it here.


Also the books tell you that your job is to challenge the PCs. But only in terms of numbers. Nothing about how to challenge the beliefs of the characters or the players and their skillsets, no. Your job is purely a mechanical one. Here is a CR. Make sure when you add up these XPs they equal this number but remember that when there's multiple monsters your number needs tripled but actually you only give this much XP at the end not the newly tripled value. It's all so basic and pedestrian and leaves you utterly unprepared to run other types of games.

So the designers expect the GM to write a story and somehow allow for the players to have agency in said story which means freedom to diverge from it but there is so much absolute adherence to needing challenge that comes from numbers and mechanics rather than flaws, traits, ideals, and beliefs (those absolutely throw-away parts of your character sheet that half of you don't fill out) that it's actually more or less impossible to deliver on-the-fly improv challenges that are thematic, interesting, and perfectly balanced to scare your players but not actually endanger them because if you do kill anyone you're every bad GM that the manuals have spent 300 pages warning your players about..
This gets back to my commentary on the assumptions of what people already know. Character conflict regarding who the character is is assumed to be a point of familiarity, and again that's not unreasonable. The target audience have all taken literature classes, while also having done a fair amount of reading, film watching, etc. They aren't expected to know the specific mechanics of D&D, and so the specific mechanics of D&D get the page space. On top of that as a game D&D is built for dungeon crawling, the designers appear to generally favor dungeon crawling, and so that resource gets covered.

Again I have my qualms with this (they're basically the same ones as detailed), but it's not that unreasonable.

[UrielAwakened]

It is/was an honest question - your criticism seems to be “change darn near everything.”

There's a lot of stuff I'm neutral on or enjoy more than I dislike. I don't have a problem with the class-based system and subclasses are a neat idea. I wish they were supplemented with things like paragon paths, prestige classes, or epic destinies at higher levels though.

The fact that mundanes still aren't as good or versatile as casters is less of an issue for me than others since I enjoy being a caster and having a glut of options. It's a bad point from a GMing standpoint but from a player standpoint it doesn't really affect me.

I like that the good feats are really good.

Bounded accuracy is a nice idea. It's just basically halving again the "half your level to everything" bonus from 4e. Proficiency is also much better than skill points and scaling defense bonuses for each class.

I actually like the multiclassing aspect and how a lot of classes are front-loaded, which lets you build some truly devastating characters if you want to optimize to your heart's desires. 4es multiclassing was pretty terrible, to the point where most people would hybrid instead.

However none of these points are things you couldn't retain while also cleaning up the myriad of other holdovers and throwbacks and other assorted issues that creep into the system.

[KorvinStarmast]

There's a lot of stuff I'm neutral on or enjoy more than I dislike. It would appear that "hate everything else" was a bit of hyperbole. :smallbiggrin:

[ZorroGames]

There's a lot of stuff I'm neutral on or enjoy more than I dislike. I don't have a problem with the class-based system and subclasses are a neat idea. I wish they were supplemented with things like paragon paths, prestige classes, or epic destinies at higher levels though.

The fact that mundanes still aren't as good or versatile as casters is less of an issue for me than others since I enjoy being a caster and having a glut of options. It's a bad point from a GMing standpoint but from a player standpoint it doesn't really affect me.

I like that the good feats are really good.

Bounded accuracy is a nice idea. It's just basically halving again the "half your level to everything" bonus from 4e. Proficiency is also much better than skill points and scaling defense bonuses for each class.

I actually like the multiclassing aspect and how a lot of classes are front-loaded, which lets you build some truly devastating characters if you want to optimize to your heart's desires. 4es multiclassing was pretty terrible, to the point where most people would hybrid instead.

However none of these points are things you couldn't retain while also cleaning up the myriad of other holdovers and throwbacks and other assorted issues that creep into the system.

Okay, you like the most what I dislike the most. I bought the 3.x and 4e books, after finding 2e AD&D getting the joy of complicated is better than complex syndrome, only to toss them in a box 📦 and selling them to clear space when I found 5e to be what I had wanted 2e to be. I was in the verge of trashing the 3.0/3.5/4 version books when I found a collector who bought the lot at $1 a piece. I think he overpaid but YMMV.

Guess we never will agree then. I can live with that. I think I understand why you find certain parts of 5e so frustrating. I think if 5e had not come out I never would have considered returning to FRPGs because I find 99.9% of them absolute ****, worse than first person shooter video games.

[Potato_Priest]

Favorite: well, I’ve never played any other systems, so I can’t be an expert here, but explicit rules for how combat works, grappling, and the prestidigitation cantrip. Also, I love that monsters and NPCs aren’t built like PCs.

Most hated: The fact that no creatures (even the super huge ones) get AOE melee attacks, the fact that huge monsters get a ridiculous number of attacks for something of their size, the fact that armor reduces chance of getting hit rather than reducing damage taken, and the fact that some class features recharge on a short rest. (If all class features were long rest based, there wouldn’t be any balance problems with different adventuring day lengths. Some people could play the 5 minute adventuring day if they like, while others could have encounter after encounter between long rests.)

[Willie the Duck]

and the fact that some class features recharge on a short rest. (If all class features were long rest based, there wouldn’t be any balance problems with different adventuring day lengths. Some people could play the 5 minute adventuring day if they like, while others could have encounter after encounter between long rests.)

That's not actually accurate. Most editions pre-4e also had almost exclusively Long-rest-recharging abilities, and definitely suffered from 5-minute adventuring day issues (although we called it 15 minute, for whatever reason). In that situation, the likelihood that one could pull off a full recharge after a single encounter favored those classes or builds which had the best nova-capability, at the expense of those with slower discharge (or fewer expendable resources, and more 'always available' abilities. So while 5e is (to use fighters as an example) a weighting of Champions to BattleMasters to Eldritch Knights, the way you are suggesting would still have Champions vs. Eldritch Knights balance issues (although at the time it was mostly martial vs. spellcaster).

[SiCK_Boy]

definitely suffered from 5-minute adventuring day issues (although we called it 15 minute, for whatever reason)

Probably called it that because rounds used to be 1 minute long (rather than 6 seconds), so most fights lasted a few minutes (rather than 30 seconds max for most 5th edition fights).

As for favorite things in this edition, I'd say:

- the large player base making it relatively easy to find groups to play with
- the publication schedule making it much easier than in the past to own everything (if one is so inclined) and getting a chance to use some of these options before the new toy gets released

Things I'm not so fond of:

- The way NPC/monsters are built with their own set of rules different from players. This was something I really appreciated with 3rd edition: every creature in the world was built from the same foundation.
- The rest mechanics. Short rests taking 1 hour really stretches credibility in stories; and fully regaining everything after a long rest makes it too much of a stretch, I find (maybe you could have X number of recharge point - probably based on character level - and you could spend them upon finishing a long or short rest to determine what you regain - whether that be hit points, spell slots, etc.)
- Lack of support on adventure building and adjudication (especially in regards to ability checks) in the DMG. Someone suggested having the DMG showing how the game developers build their campaign books: this is something I would love to see (if not in the DMG itself, maybe in the campaign books)

[PhoenixPhyre]

- The way NPC/monsters are built with their own set of rules different from players. This was something I really appreciated with 3rd edition: every creature in the world was built from the same foundation.

- Lack of support on adventure building and adjudication (especially in regards to ability checks) in the DMG. Someone suggested having the DMG showing how the game developers build their campaign books: this is something I would love to see (if not in the DMG itself, maybe in the campaign books)

The first is one of my all-time favorite things about this edition. It allows for much more rich worldbuilding without the bloat--no more needing to be a combat capable person to be an expert blacksmith or baker. No need to stuff everything into class levels, HD, and skills.

I'm building a set of "common magics"--things that commoners use that adventurers don't (not can't, but don't). Things like a chant that while ongoing makes weeds easier to pull. Or one that, while a talisman is sealing a box, keeps meat fresh (and the talisman is specific to various types of food). Things that would be pure bloat to put in published books but make the world work without the rest of the mess.

And the second is there in the DMG. Maybe not in the form you like, but it's there. There are whole chapters about making adventures, plot developments, structure, villains, plans, map-making, etc.

[strangebloke]

- The way NPC/monsters are built with their own set of rules different from players. This was something I really appreciated with 3rd edition: every creature in the world was built from the same foundation.
- The rest mechanics. Short rests taking 1 hour really stretches credibility in stories; and fully regaining everything after a long rest makes it too much of a stretch, I find (maybe you could have X number of recharge point - probably based on character level - and you could spend them upon finishing a long or short rest to determine what you regain - whether that be hit points, spell slots, etc.)
- Lack of support on adventure building and adjudication (especially in regards to ability checks) in the DMG. Someone suggested having the DMG showing how the game developers build their campaign books: this is something I would love to see (if not in the DMG itself, maybe in the campaign books)


With respect to your first point, I think a large portion of the bloat that plagued 3.5 was due to the 'simulate everything with one set of rules' mindset. Think about how many weird NPC classes or feat chains or whatever existed completely for NPC use... but then some clever forum-goer would figure out how to get ahold of them and everything would be grody.

Serious questions regarding the latter two points (I'm really not trying to be antagonistic here)
-have you tried 'gritty realism' rules? It's a suggested variant for people struggling with narrating "You feel fully recovered from yesterday's disembowelment."
-The ability check use in published adventures is actually all over the place. At one point, I think there's a guard that you have to persuade (with a DC15 check) to accept a bribe that he asked for. Additionally, have your looked at the DMG's guidance ability checks for social and exploration challenges? It's actually pretty comprehensive, even including things like balancing on ice and navigating a swamp.

That said, I'm hopeful that even as XGtE gave us good trap guides, that future books will give us more exploration tools.

[SiCK_Boy]

I don't think the point of this thread is to start arguing over the merits of this edition, but rather to have people express their views on it, period.

I understand many people love the separation of PC vs monsters/NPC build; multiple posters listed this as a positive point. To each their own.

As for guidance regarding adventure building, I still think it would be great to hear more from module creators about their creative process. Maybe it would force them to admit (or realize) mistakes if they had to justify why they set certain DC the way they did, or why they picked one type of enemy vs another. Maybe it would be good guidance for aspiring DM/adventure builders to realize how these professionals approach encounter building, creating environments, etc. (or maybe we would realize that they all make random / gut decisions, and there is no process behind how they work - though I doubt it is the case).

The DMG has good information on world building, but is seriously lacking in many areas. Why is there not a "quick encounter sheet" template in the DMG. Maybe they just assume their is so much resources available online that DMs will find what they need by looking around, or maybe they just assume that new DMs learn from watching their old DM perform, but all in all, I still think this book is seriously lacking, with a huge chunk of the content dedicated to magic items and random dungeon features, when it could instead provide guidance on how to create balanced magic items and how to build non-random dungeons / adventuring sites / adventure plots.

The DMG is the book I consult the less as a DM, which is not "logical" in my view. A DM's guide should be the primary resource used by a DM - how many of you (us) really consult it on a regular basis?

[Scripten]

- Lack of support on adventure building and adjudication (especially in regards to ability checks) in the DMG. Someone suggested having the DMG showing how the game developers build their campaign books: this is something I would love to see (if not in the DMG itself, maybe in the campaign books)

I would actually argue that this is a good thing. The process that goes into making a campaign book is *way* different from the process by which DMs create and run content for their players. Or, at least, it should be. (That's not saying that such advice would be useless; far from it. Rather, it would help third parties create content that is useful to sell/distribute rather than actually help DMs run campaigns.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

I would actually argue that this is a good thing. The process that goes into making a campaign book is *way* different from the process by which DMs create and run content for their players. Or, at least, it should be. (That's not saying that such advice would be useless; far from it. Rather, it would help third parties create content that is useful to sell/distribute rather than actually help DMs run campaigns.)

I agree. Especially since campaign books/modules are designed around the idea of organized play. So everything has to be explicit in them. This is good for that setting, but constraining for a home DM. I find the DMG, while a bit disorganized and with a poor index, balances the specific implementation advice and the general principles involved reasonably well.

[SiCK_Boy]

The kind of advice I'd say is lacking is not related to "publishing" an adventure/campaign, but rather has to do with the kind of choices that go into "building" the adventure:

- How do you build encounters for a given level range
- What kind of abilities do you need to take in consideration so as to have encounters that present an interesting challenge to the players
- How do you settle on a given geographic area for a given adventure
- What optional rules work better with a given adventure or not (for example, how could you change an adventure to work better with different rest rules)

Anyway, good for you if you don't feel it is necessary. I would still like to get more insight into how the game designers work. If they'd rather not share this information for fear of giving away some kind of secret that their competitors could use, fine... but it is still information that would be useful for a DM.

[KRSW]

I don't think the point of this thread is to start arguing over the merits of this edition, but rather to have people express their views on it, period.

The DMG is the book I consult the less as a DM, which is not "logical" in my view. A DM's guide should be the primary resource used by a DM - how many of you (us) really consult it on a regular basis?

That is what I intended, but having people talk about WHY their opinions are what they are is always a good addition to any conversation. Its not supposed to be like an offensive or argumentative why but I like seeing peoples reasoning and their thought process for things that they like or dislike.

Also, I think a good number of DMs look at the magic items section and that's it.

[Brown Goo Of Do]

Favorite are the downtime activities in Xanatahar's Guide to Everything, most notably Pit Fighting. Gives the martially based characters something to do when the Wizard's off studying spells, the Cleric is praying somewhere, and the Rouge is off in a dark corner like an edge-lord with his hood up ;) .

The 'rivals' and mishaps section adds more dimension to player's interaction with the world around them and can give the DM a break when the group inexplicably wants to stay in town.

[Willie the Duck]

Anyway, good for you if you don't feel it is necessary. I would still like to get more insight into how the game designers work. If they'd rather not share this information for fear of giving away some kind of secret that their competitors could use, fine... but it is still information that would be useful for a DM.

I highly doubt trade secrets is the reason.

I think there is, at least in theoretical-land, a version of each of the books, with each page bracketed in an equal amount of page count of marginalia around the text*, explaining "why we did that," or "what we think this is for, incentivizes, or prevents," or the like. And five people from here, three from TBP, a half dozen more on minmaxboards, a guy from theRPGsite, and a solid twenty on Enworld would pay upwards of $50 extra to have that added to their books.
*kind of like those old medieval copies of books preserving the knowledge of the ancient world, which had marginalia around the text explain the text, and then marginalia around that explaining the explanations, etc.

I'm being a bit silly there, but in general concept I'm serious. The old adage is 'never attribute to malice what can as easily be explained by incompetence,' but in this case the more appropriate one would be 'never attribute to secrecy what can as easily be explained by lack of incentive.' If WotC were leaving millions of dollars on the table by not doing this, I would question it (or assume something like trade secrets, etc.). In this case, I just don't think they have a reason to do so. We here on this forum of superfans (or however you want to think about people who spend their time talking about playing a game in addition to the time spent playing the game) might care about this, I doubt the average gamer in the field does.

[Amdy_vill]

attunement. i love and hate it. that is really the only thing besides content. there is just not a good set yet.

[Scripten]

I'm being a bit silly there, but in general concept I'm serious. The old adage is 'never attribute to malice what can as easily be explained by incompetence,' but in this case the more appropriate one would be 'never attribute to secrecy what can as easily be explained by lack of incentive.' If WotC were leaving millions of dollars on the table by not doing this, I would question it (or assume something like trade secrets, etc.). In this case, I just don't think they have a reason to do so. We here on this forum of superfans (or however you want to think about people who spend their time talking about playing a game in addition to the time spent playing the game) might care about this, I doubt the average gamer in the field does.

Precisely this. If a so-called "superfan" wants information on how to write up a 80-100 page campaign, they could (and would) find that information through means other than a published book. WotC's DMG is focused around a fairly different demographic, though it does incidentally supply useful (if sometimes esoteric or poorly laid-out) information across the board.

[2D8HP]

....I think there is, at least in theoretical-land, a version of each of the books, with each page bracketed in an equal amount of page count of marginalia around the text*, explaining "why we did that," or "what we think this is for, incentivizes, or prevents," or the like. And five people from here, three from TBP, a half dozen more on minmaxboards, a guy from theRPGsite, and a solid twenty on Enworld would pay upwards of $50 extra to have that added to their books.
*kind of like those old medieval copies of books preserving the knowledge of the ancient world, which had marginalia around the text explain the text, and then marginalia around that explaining the explanations, etc....


Oh by sweet Lolth's embrace I think I am enough of a chump that I would buy an "The Annotated 5e D&D" were it to come to a FLHS. :eek:

I even bought the leather bound 3e books, and I don't play 3e!

What is wrong with me? :sigh:

[bobofwestgate]

I will preface by saying I never DMed 2, 3, 3.5, or 4. I started in 1979...returned in 2015.

Favorite:
I taught myself the whole system after a 8 hour or so autosession where I created a four character party, a random dungeon, and ran encounters. I wrote a dungeon and DMed it with mush success the next week. I would never have attempted this with previous editions. And the play didn't "feel" any different from AD&D, just clearer rules and more durable low level characters.

Spellbook apps on my smartphone.

Adjudication not lawyering.

Archetypes not endless escalation of power in more and more classes/races.

Bitch all you want about OOTA/POA/EE, but the published modules are consistently improving. It's long past time for a standard format that makes it easier to DM them, though.

Levels Capped at 20th As said before, this game is about the playing, not out of game building "ultimately optimized" avatars.

Magic Items aren't what makes a character. I just wish they'd dropped Deck of Many Things That Ruin a Campaign for good.

Hated:
Class creep I don't need purposeless or overly specialized classes. Gimmie archetypes.

Race creep WTF is a feral halfling? Maybe a barbarian suffering from dwarfism, but certainly not a viable race/culture. I do a lot of thinking about ecosystems in my world design, and maybe they can and do exist in some backwater valley or rain forest in my world. But not as a playable race. A population so small and isolated as that has a culture so foreign to others that they cannot simply "fit in" with others as part of a tightly knit team (party). I'm looking at you, the entire friggin' underdark...

Simple/Martial distinction and the whole darn Weapons table is still lame It always was. I'd prefer that the class/hands/range determine the damage a weapon does instead of I dunno what. Wield whatever you want for style's sake, but you roll a d8 one handed/ranged, d10 if two handed for melee classes, d4/d6 for pure casters, d6/8 for tweens. Make feats that upgrade/modify, just like armor use now. GWM rolls 2dx one handed die or something, etc.

DM Guide is my least used core book. They did such a good job with the PHB, the DMG looks bad in comparison.

Stat Blocks are better but should be available in an abbreviated form to be inserted into homebrew or published without taking up 1/4 of a page or more. I personally retyped the entire MM, NPCs, Appendix A, and more just so I could do this thing. Making multipage compendiums is not cool.

It depends on the world. In Dark Sun, halflings are feral. They are cannibals. And no one wants to enter their lands in fear of getting caught and eaten

[Tanarii]

The DMG is the book I consult the less as a DM, which is not "logical" in my view. A DM's guide should be the primary resource used by a DM - how many of you (us) really consult it on a regular basis?I do. For starters, I often scan the advice on Running the Game again, which is something most 5e DMs could benefit from. In addition, I do scan through the world and adventure and encounter building sections periodically. Especially when I'm stuck on how to adapt content to my world. I shamelessly steal content from anywhere I can because I need so much of it, but it's not always simple to adapt.

[ZorroGames]

I do. For starters, I often scan the advice on Running the Game again, which is something most 5e DMs could benefit from. In addition, I do scan through the world and adventure and encounter building sections periodically. Especially when I'm stuck on how to adapt content to my world. I shamelessly steal content from anywhere I can because I need so much of it, but it's not always simple to adapt.

Yes, this why my wife wanted me to play and not DM again.

This also why I am both tempted to build my own world and why I dread the idea of all that “work” involved.

[ashmanonar]

my biggest gripe is how hard it is to kill player characters. there is very little risk, ever. With 3 death throws to get through, unless the DM makes a conscious decision to try and kill a player (and that is more adversarial than most dms like) you know they will be stabilised and healed before they fail all three.

I think it's safe to say that I've played a variety of characters at this point (sorcerer, barbarian, bard, wizard, rogue, etc). The number of times I've been laying, bleeding out while my allies try to figure out how to get me back on my feet is too many times. The 3 strikes rule is totally not overpowered, and players are "difficult" to kill because it's a pain in the butt to keep introducing new characters to an established party.

[Tanarii]

Yes, this why my wife wanted me to play and not DM again.

This also why I am both tempted to build my own world and why I dread the idea of all that “work” involved.It's easy if you run modules for a single group. It's a bit of work if you run modules for many groups (AL) or build your own world and adventures for your own group (most people's home brew). Adapting content for your own world for multiple groups is sometimes a little overwhelming, but only a little bit more so than either of those two.

I can't see how it could even be done with with multiple groups while creating unique content. I'm in awe that the original games (Greyhawk and Blackmoor) managed that.

[KOLE]

The kind of advice I'd say is lacking is not related to "publishing" an adventure/campaign, but rather has to do with the kind of choices that go into "building" the adventure:

No disrespect intended, but as new DM, I don’t feel the need to have everything outlined for me. The DMG is nice to give you a bare skeleton to pit the flesh of your world on, but not so conclusive to give a template that all homebrew worlds follow, which I quite like. I don’t think those questions you have can be answered by anybody but you and your table. For example, I’d never touch the gritty realism rules, though I think they’re interesting, but maybe your table would enjoy them. Same with range. If you have a party of 4 strength based martials, the ranges you might want tp set your encounter at are probably different than a table of two EB spamming warlocks, a Ranger, and a ranged Rogue. Or, maybe not, maybe you’d want to set up a long range ambush to challenge your Str Fighters and Barba whilst letting the Ranger shine, or vice versa with a close range Kobold ambush.

As for geography, its what you think is interesting. I like the idea of a desert wasteland, where wilderness adventuring requires a Druid/Ranger for water or finding it ASAP. I also love the idea of a coastal/island hopping, carribbean type adventure encouraging PCs to pick up swim speeds. That may not be your style. I dont like Urban adventures. Maybe your table does. That’s your responsibility as a DM to figure out.

Again, not trying to sound harsh. But some of the complaints about 5e in general, about its vagueness, I really like as a DM. Where you see a big question mark, I see an opportunity to for improvisation and tailoring to my table.

[MegenticPull]

Guidance.

I love that non-arcane casters have a consistently useful way to use cantrips, but I hate that every time I ask for a skill check, the cleric asks if they can cast guidance.

Changed it to have no concentration, a 10 minute casting time, and let the caster and one target both use 1d4 to one skill check, once per short rest with a 24 hour duration or until the cleric uses guidance on someone else.

And for the sake of it, I did the same to resistance. Now both are useful, neither disrupt play, and the cleric still feels useful.

[xroads]

Favorite

Bounded accuracy
Advantage/disadavantage
Concentration mechanics
At will attack cantrips

Least Favorite

The fact that wizards aren't that great at summoning in this edition.
Monks still only get a d8 hit dice despite most of their tricks requiring being in melee.
Monks don't have mobility (or something similiar) built in.
Beast masters having to sacrifice an action to allow their beasts to attack.
True strike


On a whole my complaints are relatively minor (I can just choose not to play a wizard for example). So I think this version of D&D is my favorite so far.

[Tanarii]

Guidance.

I love that non-arcane casters have a consistently useful way to use cantrips, but I hate that every time I ask for a skill check, the cleric asks if they can cast guidance. This is usually a case of DMs not using the skill check rules the right way. If there is time for the Cleric to cast Guidance before a skill check is made, very often there is also time for the person making the skill check to take ten times as long and automatically succeed.

edit: I agree about Resistance, but that'd because it conflicts with actually useful ways to use concentration in combat.

[Pex]

This is usually a case of DMs not using the skill check rules the right way. If there is time for the Cleric to cast Guidance before a skill check is made, very often there is also time for the person making the skill check to take ten times as long and automatically succeed.

edit: I agree about Resistance, but that'd because it conflicts with actually useful ways to use concentration in combat.

You would be casting Guidance precisely because you can't take ten times as long and automatically succeed.

Also, not every DM agrees something can be done by autosuccess, depends on who is DM that day, yada yada yada. They're not playing the game wrong just because they disagree with you on how an instance of skill use is to be resolved.

[Tanarii]

You would be casting Guidance precisely because you can't take ten times as long and automatically succeed.

Also, not every DM agrees something can be done by autosuccess, depends on who is DM that day, yada yada yada. They're not playing the game wrong just because they disagree with you on how an instance of skill use is to be resolved.
I agree with the former, it's exactly what the cantrip is for. But more commonly IMX (ie AL) the latter is not the case. It was usually a case of the DM calling for rolls when there was plenty of time, and no consequences for failure except time. Because they either didn't know about the DMG auto success rule, or didn't accept the idea.

Basically, it was the 3e equivalent of not using take 10 or take 20 because reasons.

[Finlam]

My least favorite thing in 5e is that a crit while unarmed deals exactly as much damage as a normal hit.

Because there are no dice rolled, nothing is doubled. It makes any fistfight downright boring unless you're a monk or have the tavern brawler feat =/

[SiCK_Boy]

My least favorite thing in 5e is that a crit while unarmed deals exactly as much damage as a normal hit.

Because there are no dice rolled, nothing is doubled. It makes any fistfight downright boring unless you're a monk or have the tavern brawler feat =/

Would it really make that much of a difference if that crit doubled your unarmed damage to 2 damage instead of 1 (plus STR modifier)?

Considering the odds of a crit (5 %), the chance to have a different crit rule make the difference between life and death in a fistfight are minimal, at best.

It's probably easier to use Athletism or plain STR checks if you want to simulate a boxing match, rather than having two characters hit each other with unarmed attacks for 50 rounds before one of them falls.

[Finlam]

Would it really make that much of a difference if that crit doubled your unarmed damage to 2 damage instead of 1 (plus STR modifier)?

Considering the odds of a crit (5 %), the chance to have a different crit rule make the difference between life and death in a fistfight are minimal, at best.

It's probably easier to use Athletism or plain STR checks if you want to simulate a boxing match, rather than having two characters hit each other with unarmed attacks for 50 rounds before one of them falls.
Nope, that would also be dull.

There's numerous non-dull solutions, but none of them have been put forward in any officially published material. In D&D 5e, the unarmed brawl is boring at best and a slog at worst.

[MegenticPull]

This is usually a case of DMs not using the skill check rules the right way. If there is time for the Cleric to cast Guidance before a skill check is made, very often there is also time for the person making the skill check to take ten times as long and automatically succeed.

Not really? Like, there's a good number of skill checks you can't reroll, like climbing a cliff, knowledge style skill checks, and so on.

So a lot of skill checks, a cleric would have no idea about. The wizard is trying to recall arcane lore? The cleric player wants to help out! In 5e, at least in the games I run and play in, you end up making a lot of skill checks, and the cleric player knows that they can give out d4s to all those rolls.

But the cleric character has no idea half these checks are being made. So either they end up spending every minute out of combat guiding the person they believe is most likely to have a skill check, which gets disruptive and represents the majority of what I dislike, or they resign themselves to being less useful than they know they could be.

So I change it in my games. They only cast guidance when they have time, and only to change the target, but they know it'll come up eventually, and they don't have to do a bunch of disruptive busywork to keep their cantrip useful.

[Ratter]

Bounded Accuracy