What is in your opinion the worst thing about D&D 5e (please only post things that are intrinsic to this edition of the...

>mitigated by everything being random/expected to be houseruled/handled by the DM anyway
List 5 that doesnt solve.

This, with an emphasis on how much was lost in the playtests. They had the essence of something really awesome, and then they diluted it all down and got rid of basically all traces of new ideas.

I don't hate it, but I don't think I'd ever intentionally choose it as a system. There's just nothing about it that does anything distinctive or interesting. It's just so incredibly inoffensive.

Blame Hasbro for this one. After their unsuccessful (and impossible) attempt to make D&D a MtG level earner, they've basically abandoned it, giving a small team a pittance of a budget, mostly to occupy the trademark. They're making more money of licensed games and the possibility of movies and merchandise than D&D itself.

You can't, by definition rule zero can solve everything.

But I always found it funny that quadratic wizard had been such a problem even back then that Gygax tried to put an end to all the mails complaining about it with "why do your wizards survive above level 5?".

I'm not surprised.

If anything, it is getting me more involved in fixing up mechanics and features on my own.

Bounded accuracy.
I seriously want scaling saves, AC, and at least slightly higher proficiencies
(If AC increased every 1/3rd level for martial classes and like ever 1/4th or 1/5th for casters I feel as though that would be perfect)

As it stands it really feels like your character doesn't make any progress beyond level 5.

I'm surprised they haven't released the play test versions of some classes in the unearthed arcana articles

How is 3d6 working out at your table? does it cause too many hits or how does that work? im curious about using it.

It's a tossup between bounded accuracy and the infuriatingly shitty Fighter class.

...I'm not the only one who thinks Fighter is lackluster?

The only great thing they get are the extra attacks.

Sadly, it is in my homebrew, not a houserule I use at the table, but the math behind it is solid. So no field reports of this mechanic (yet).

Why would I think Fighter isn't lackluster when their best kit is nothing but a shit version of a class I actually enjoyed and the others are outright shit on their own?

>rule zero can solve everything.
Are you suggesting that 3e+ don't have Rule 0?

I see a lot of people calling 5E bland, but what is a good system that isn't bland? I guess my question is, how do you differentiate a bland system from a bland GM?

>how do you differentiate a bland system from a bland GM?
Simple. It's a system that doesn't give you a lot of options for customization, and doesn't give you a lot to do with your abilities.
D&D5 is bland, because most of the characters in one class end up being the same. And fight will often feel the same too.

You can say all you want that a good GM will make every fight different and improvise options for you, but he could do that with a better system too.

A good system that isn't bland? Well, FFG SW Edge of the Empire is a good system that isn't bland. The bonus you get in your carrer are a bit weak, often, but that's a small flaw. You can make vastly different characters with a good variety of options. Point buy is also helping a lot.

The game is balanced around having five or six fights and a couple of short rests between long rests. It's extremely hard to justify that throughout a campaign; players will often want to take a long rest after 2 or 3 encounters and you can't give them a good reason why they shouldn't. You can mitigate this with certain circumstances (time pressure or moving through hostile territory where resting is risky) but you can't do that for six months straight.

FFG Star Wars has funky dice, GURPS has a "build anything" ethos, etc. Most games have some kind of distinguishing feature.

Forced diversity.

Where?

Bland mechanics and bland campaigns are different things. The issue is not with FR and generic fantasy fluff, or dull dungeon delving or something like that. It's that there are very few interesting mechanics. The selling point of the game becomes "a less broken and more streamlined 3.5" and that's fine for a go-to simple game to get up and running when you just want some D&D-like thing, but there's nothing interesting or compelling beyond that to make me want to go out of my way to play it. I have issues with the game, caster supremacy, bad high level stuff, and boring martials mostly, and they do contribute, but the core system just doesn't have a lot interesting going on, neither in the rules (advantage is very elegant but not enough) nor in how they play out (like how combat is quite dragged out and ends up feeling same-y after a while of playing).

Bland is fine. You can paint over bland.

5e is dry. Unpalatable. You come away hungry.

Making everything a "she" and "her" instead of "him" or "he", random sub-saharan africans that look like they came straight out of the bush and don't fit in with anything else, a word about transgenders.

>added successful 4e mechanics to it (encounter disguised as short rest, hit dice)

The funniest thing about Hit Fice is that WotC turned it into what 3aboos said Healing Surges (Free non-magical healing, which they considered unrealistic) were instead of what Surges actually are (mostly hard limits on the amount of healing a character can receive).

I'm happy with most of the mechanics in 5e. The 'bland' thing doesn't hold much water for me... my players can make the sorts of characters they want, and the rules are consistent and simple enough that I can dictate things on the fly without feeling jarring. The rules are just there to set the odds, not flavor my campaign. If anything I feel that games like pathfinder, where you have a gorillion options, is doing it wrong - drowning in choices isn't flavor, it's just a mess.

5e isn't perfect though. There's two mechanics I don't like. The first is the skill system really paints a thin line between skilled and unskilled users. Someone with a skill should be significantly better than someone untrained, not slightly, so I've had to houserule that to broaden the gap. The other is HP inflation. Health scaling upwards forever at a linear rate feels strange given all the other bounds they put into place in hopes of keeping the numbers sane.

No, he's saying that unironically using the Oberoni fallacy is silly.

What about games that aren't about character builds or tactical combat?

Then they should be brimming with fluff

>shit for setting support.
>shortage of player options.
>shit for online tool support.
>bounded accuracy makes for a garbage skill system until endgame.
>still way too much hit point bloat.

You go through 2-3 encounters per short rest. It takes an hour.

They got rid of the best thing 4e had going for it, the monster design.

I'm really happy with it because I can finally get my players to play something other than 3.5/pf.
It has some in common with 3.5 but all of the things I hate about 3.5 are gone or changed beyond recognition.
I hated skill points and feats. Leveling up was always a chore, assigning skill points and poring through a fuckton of pages for feats just pissed me off, especially when most of the feats were terrible. I know that some of the later books in 3.5 pointed out which feats were good and better in some scenarios but be honest, how many times have you heard "3.5/pathfinder core only,"? Feats in 5e are optional and now, few in number, and are all about the same power level.

>Feats in 5e are optional and now, few in number, and are all about the same power level.
That's where you're mistaken.

It's missing huge chunks of mechanics leaving DM's to arbitrarily decide how to resolve even simple actions in game of just homebrew the system.

But it still attempts to run things like AL which steer heavily away from house ruling in favour of RAW.

I imagine this is due to them spunking their load on 4E and having nothing left to playtest 5E.

Variety/customization. I love the system to death, but after a while you've played basically every combination possible, something that the otherwise dreadful PF avoids.

>Feats in 5e are optional and now, few in number, and are all about the same power level.
>he thinks the skilled feat is on the same tier as sentinel
>he thinks fighter weapon type balance isn't critically dependent on heavy weapon master
Optional and equal if you understand nothing about the game maybe

Just roll 2d10 instead. Extreme results become unlikely, and you lose almost nothing in exchange (can't roll 1 anymore, of course, although that's hardly noticeable in practice)

Pathfinder

He's 1/3 right.

They're "optional". Goodluck finding players who will play a campaign without them.

There's a limited selection, that's true.

Theyre not even close to all the same power level.

Because they compete with your stats and your combat style "feat", you only get one before level 16 if you're variant human.

4e did that "she" and "her" thing as well, you'd think they'd figure out who their market is...

They make you "choose" between having interesting options (feats) and being effective (ASI)/GWM/PAM/SS

Can someone describe what Sorcerer and Fighter were like in playtests?

it believes that you have played the other editions of D&D, esp 3.5
also
very wordy, could be made better with flow chrts and tables.

Changing the normal pronouns to the female ones bothers the shit out of me. It's not written normally. He and him and his are both male and neutral. When you're writing about someone in and you don't know what their sex is you say he, that's how it works in English. Doing this she thing, that's what those bleeding heart publishers like White Wolf do. No wonder everyone plays women in Exalted, the pronouns are always female and lesbianism is encouraged. Maybe it's some kind of attempt to make women "feel more welcome" to play D&D? If it is I'd like to see the research on that. They must be basing it on something, they wouldn't print millions of the damn books on someone's hunch that it'll have a net positive effect.

They want their market to expand to casuals with lots of money.

Is that not obvious to you?

Their goal is to grow their business.

All fighters had superiority dice. Iirc they all had maneuvers. Additionally, you did a small amount of damage, even on a miss.

>All fighters had superiority dice. Iirc they all had maneuvers. Additionally, you did a small amount of damage, even on a miss.
This makes me think of 13th Age. Weird.

Sorcerer had transformations for one thing, and I would assume they weren't just discount wizards as they turned out to be in final.

That sounds way better for fighters. Considering how many attack rolls you're making, there should be something that mitigates how often you miss.

The fact that it didn't fix the problems of 3e; it just put a bandaid on them

>INB4 "OP said not things intrinsic to the game itself

If you try to argue that something being intrinsic to 3e makes it intrinsic to the game I will flip this table and run us on an AD&D 2e Revised adventure to show you how wrong you are.

>Make women feel welcome.
Yes, that's why.

Personally if males me feel deliberately snubbed.

You want to argue "he" isn't neutral enough, fine. I can believe that.

'She' is no more inclusive than 'He', and it has *no* history of neutral use. It's deliberately exclusionary towards men.

And since we're peimarily the ones buying their products, they shouldn't be spitting in our faces.

Easy to houserule, no? Everyone gets ASIs at the regular levels, and 1 feat every 6/8/whatever levels.

The more attack rolls you make, the more consistent your damage is.

They is the English neutral and has been since the 19th century

>What is in your opinion the worst thing about D&D 5e
The way casters work.

Still feels bad to roll a miss desu. I personally think player enjoyment is an important part of game design, but you do you.

I took the argument the way it was going.
If you'd like to step back the discussion and take 's place without resorting to a pivot, you're welcome to.

Some feats are way better, but they are much more obvious about it this time around.

3.5 had many people complaining that toughness was shit.
Feats like Lucky and Sentinel are obviously more useful than Skilled but i think the point still stands

I guess I mispoke earlier in my post, very few feats are trap options like they were in 3.5, most are pretty good now.

Sure. But it sucks if you aren't the dm/aren't in a position to implement such a houserule.

5e is my favorite edition mechanically, and I would hesitate to play it unless the dm has a couple of very specific houserules.

Thats a big deal.

(it means I will probably only ever dm the game, unless another player in my standard group is going to dm it with the same houserules I use when I dm, which, good luck).

Short rests taking an hour. The narrow band of situations where it is safe to fuck off and do nothing productive (including travel) for a whole hour, and situations where it is safe to fuck off and do nothing productive (including travel) for 8 hours is very narrow by my reckoning, and yet the classes are built and balanced under the assumption that you get 1-3 short rests per adventuring day. The end result of this is either classes that rely on short rest abilities get fucked by an unrealistic expectation during balancing, or the DM has to constantly bend over backwards to shoehorn in yet another reason why despite the situation being peaceful enough that relaxing a whole hour in a single location is perfectly safe, there's yet another mcguffin making you unable to do it for 8 hours (which, after the third or fourth time, REEEEALY stretches the suspension of disbelief.)

The worst thing about 5E is how it handles resting and resource management. Every dungeon crawler should be like Gamma World 7E; everything's usable once per encounter and you get back all your hit points every fight. 'Daily' abilities come in the form of one-time-use magic items (or ones that have charges I suppose).

The best thing about 5E is advantage/disadvantage. It's about as useful as a +4 modifier on average and it's fun as heck to go "Oh man, I would have crit failed without that extra roll!". Showing people what might have been, if they didn't have the bonus / penalty, is more useful than a flat modifier.

'they' is always plural, officially (people do misuse it for singular though) . We don't have one standard pronoun for singular gender neutral. There's a dozen of them that have been tried, none of which ever caught on, and so now we're being told everyone gets to dictate their damn pronouns.

There is no "officially" in language. Itf people use a word a way long enough, it becomes that. They has been used in the singular for centuries. Actual, " proper" gender neutrals have failed because everyone is fine using they. If this new age the bullshit catches on, that'll be right too. Language is a shitshow and always has been

>'they' is always plural, officially (people do misuse it for singular though)
Except, unlike French and German, we don't have an official language beauro deciding what is official. We have the Oxford English Dictionary, but they do not DECIDE, they REPORT (though in practice, they do a tid of deciding, because it's impossible to be unbiased). If enough people misuse something, it ceases to be a misuse.

Of all the many "mistakes" that are going to work their way into the official language, assuming the OED remains even remotely impartial and accurate in their reporting, the use of "they" as a gender-neutral singular pronoun should be official very soon.

>There's no stacking of dis/adv.

>"core only"
"Oh nevermind. No thanks. Have fun with that".
But I game in meatspace, where players don't outnumber DMs 500:1.

Abilities are still keyed to fucking class levels rather than character levels, making multiclassing shittier than single classing. Spellcasting and "extra attack" in particular, stack like shit.

If I'm a 6th level fighter and I take a level of barbarian, I should get abilities reasonable for a 7th level character, not stuff reasonable for a 1st level character.

Rule.

Zero.

Fallacy.

That stupid fuck didn't come up with it, he doesn't get to claim ownership of it. Fuck you for propagating that.

IT HAS A RESURRECTION SPELL ON THE FUCKING CORE BOOK

A fucking resurrection spell my god. Way to destroy the immersion.

>d&d
>expecting immersion
This was your first mistake

>someone didn't read the op.

Resurrection being possible is core to the game.

Cheap and easy no, but possible.

Ever considered maybe the core game is shit?

That's not the question being asked, dumbass. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, whatever. But that's not the question being asked, as anyone over 40 IQ could understand.

Have you ever considered maybe the cost change of resurrection done in 5e is also shit?

>If I'm a 6th level fighter and I take a level of barbarian, I should get abilities reasonable for a 7th level character, not stuff reasonable for a 1st level character.

Multiclassing is variant rule for reason. Why would you multiclass if what you get is shit, anyway?

You wouldn't.

Thats why multiclassing is almost never used in 5e beyond a small dip.

You never see a 50/50 or 25/75 hybrid in 5e.

It being a variant rule is not a good reason to build it as a garbage, nigh-unusable mechanic. And frankly, it *shouldn't* be a variant mechanic. It should be a core mechanic that fucking works.

If your players can make the characters they want in 5e exactly as they want them then your players are boring as fuck.

Not everyone wants to play as Gandalf or Aragorn or Bilbo.

Maybe not, but that's kinda the intent of DnD.

If that's the intent of d&d then d&d is shit and people should stop supporting the kind of people who would come up with such an uninspired, boring, shitty game.

If I want to experience Lord of the Rings again, I'll re-read Lord of the Rings.

Have you ever tried roleplaying?

D&D is very poorly suited to middle earth. Unless you're playing, like, e6. Even in 2e, the magic was way more than you see in middle earth.

No, thank you.

Thank you for saying something that is related to the question being asked. Now discussion can happen.

And I'm sure this would look like anything else than a desperate attempt to save face if you had mentioned this at all before.

Its still D&D. It still uses D20s, which are objectively terrible for a few solid reasons. It still uses vancian casting. It restricts characters to just being whatever their class is with a few variations. It grew in rather than out, and is more D&D than any game since the original, but shows no innovation. Its more of the same, and everybody's already played that in more or less the same system. Its as inflexible as ever, and lacks the volume of content 3x, PF, and 4e had to make up for their shortcomings.

They would probably prefer to remove it entirely, the reason for it being there are fans, who would miss it dearly (and loudly).

And, frankly, i feel small dip is usually enough to give you enough of other classes flavor.

So you think it should be *easier* to resurrect people, like it was in previous editions?

>"only post things that are intrinsic to this edition of the game and not the game itself"

It's like you don't know how to read!

>lacks the volume of content 3., PF, and 4e had to make up for their shortcomings.
This is the only thing you said that has anything to do with this thread.

It hasn't been easier than 5e Mystic's restoration

Doing away with multiclassing is fine if you make that change at the same time as doing away with classes.

>Mystic Posting.
1. It's UA. That means its only a rough draft.
2. It's the UA that's widely regarded as being overpowered all over the place.

Other games try other things. My problem is that there is nothing intrinsic to 5e. Reading comp breh. 4e didnt lean so hard on vance. 3e lets you be whatever the hell you want to be.

There's no point in roleplaying if entire aspects of your character can't function mechanically within the game. I've been following 5e for a while now and homebrew comes up in almost every discussion I've seen because even some basic character concepts require homebrew to work in the first place. Why bother with something like that when you could just play 3.5e or Pathfinder where there are plenty of options to support literally any character you could imagine?

Both of those systems have their flaws, and not every option is optimal, but at least the choice is there without having to resort to extensive homebrew and refluffing.

5e feels like an unfinished project. I'd rather have too many options that I might not end up using as opposed to so few options that I have to convince my group to let me bend the rules just so I don't have to play as Conan the Barbarian or Merlin the Wizard.

other than 4e there's no edition that isn't overpowered all over the place though. There are ways to powergame in all of them.

how is this a bad thing?

the simplicity is something i really thought was a good thing

Simplicity is good for people who want to play as generic archetypal fantasy characters.

If you're not a creative person, 5e is perfect for you. If you have a lot of unique ideas, you're going to hate it.

There's powergaminginallof them, sure.

That doesn't mean you're not bitching primarily about a rough draft class that's poorly regarded anyways, and that is going to be very nerfed by the time it gets actually published.

Unless its very well tuned for a vast number of viable permutations, simple wears out its welcome quite quickly.