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

[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...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.