I think that 5E as a game isn't that bad, but I have had nothing but trouble from the local Adventurer's League (mainly because I play games other than the latest version of WotC D&D).

Quote from: Rhedyn;11070131. The skill system is bad.

• Skills are my main complaint. I tend to like a larger skill list than the current reductive trend in game design.
• I keep thinking that Advantages and Disadvantages ought to add up, so 3 Ads - 1 Dis = Advantage.
• The rogue seems to have gone from backstab, to flank-stab, to just be close to a friend -stab.
• Firing cantrips every round seems too goofy.
• AoO's are an improvement.
• I like the milestone XP system.
• Backgrounds and those alignment questions seem mostly ignored.
• Something seems off with Inspiration, but I'm not sure what.
• Do people still argue about Crossbow Expert?

Yet, I don't consider any of those things Big Problems, more like just not my cup of tea / anecdotal experiences.

Quote from: Aglondir;1107096

• Something seems off with Inspiration, but I'm not sure what.

It's tacked on without any serious integration with the rest of the system, and it shows.  Worse, as written it is too heavy for the tiny bit of whatever it may bring to the session.  Consider if you have 5 players.  By rule, the GM is somehow supposed to keep in mind 5 subjective things for each of those players that they could do that would award inspiration.  Or at least stop and think every time they do something that might qualify.  

It's only redeeming virtue is that it is so tacked on and so useless that dropping it is easy.  Kind of like 5E alignment in that respect.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1107100It's tacked on without any serious integration with the rest of the system, and it shows.  Worse, as written it is too heavy for the tiny bit of whatever it may bring to the session.  Consider if you have 5 players.  By rule, the GM is somehow supposed to keep in mind 5 subjective things for each of those players that they could do that would award inspiration.  Or at least stop and think every time they do something that might qualify.  

It's only redeeming virtue is that it is so tacked on and so useless that dropping it is easy.  Kind of like 5E alignment in that respect.

What I do to deal with it is just start each player with 1 Inspiration at the start of each session and it's up to them to invoke it before a roll dealing with one of their traits.

Quote from: S'mon;1106987Paladins and Rangers are casting more spells than old school Magic-Users.

OD&D magic-users have at least as many spell slots as a ranger or paladin in 5e at every level, and mostly more.

Quote from: Haffrung;1107040I like 5E, and have both played and DM'd in several campaigns, going all the way back to the Next playtest. When I weigh the pros and cons, it stands as my favourite edition of D&D. However, I do have several issues with the system:

1) The skills system is worse than useless. There's little difference in individual outcome between highly trained and not trained at all. Worse, there's no downside to every PC rolling for every check, rendering failure highly unlikely. We've had to houserule the shit out of the skill system to make it work.

Same experience; I do rule a lot more things impossible without proficiency than the rules contain, I houserule against group checks in many cases, and Guidance is really tiresome. There are simultaneously too many and too few skills, however they managed that.

Fourth tier (17th level and above) is not as broken as I feared it would be, but it doesn't work as well as the other tiers.

Passive perception to avoid being surprised annoys me; the perceptive character can never be surprised if a less perceptive character is not, so no chance they are looking the wrong way when trouble appears.

There are no superoptimal choices of class, race, feats or whatever, but there are some combinations that you see tiresomely often.

Quote from: rawma;1107131There are simultaneously too many and too few skills, however they managed that.

True.  I think it is because some of the skills are ill-chosen to try to make the game more open-ended and support more settings, but the list is incomplete for some of the settings where those skills would aptly apply. For example, if you want to run a classic D&D dungeon crawl, then "History" and "Religion" are not that useful.  You'd be better off with something like "Legends" and probably something else unrelated to religion or at least only barely so.  But if you are running a more naturalistic game where "History" matters, then it is a little too broad.  

It's also a case of the skills not being of roughly the same detail.  Athletics is broad.  Acrobatics is narrow.  I get that they don't want to make Swimming and Climbing separate skills, and thus make the list too long.  But once it gets broad, it needs to stay pretty broad across the full list.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1107147True.  I think it is because some of the skills are ill-chosen to try to make the game more open-ended and support more settings, but the list is incomplete for some of the settings where those skills would aptly apply. For example, if you want to run a classic D&D dungeon crawl, then "History" and "Religion" are not that useful.  You'd be better off with something like "Legends" and probably something else unrelated to religion or at least only barely so.  But if you are running a more naturalistic game where "History" matters, then it is a little too broad.  

It's also a case of the skills not being of roughly the same detail.  Athletics is broad.  Acrobatics is narrow.  I get that they don't want to make Swimming and Climbing separate skills, and thus make the list too long.  But once it gets broad, it needs to stay pretty broad across the full list.

Another issue is that there are categories of skills that I think ought to be treated differently; tools, knowledge skills, negotiation skills, sensory skills and various physical skills are rather different but all forced into the same structure. At the very least the ratio of proficiency to ability benefit would seem to vary among these, and helping let alone group checks might differ. Or maybe that's the same issue you describe, or the previously described issue that proficiency bonus that's one size fits all doesn't quite work for all skills.

Quote from: rawma;1107159Another issue is that there are categories of skills that I think ought to be treated differently; tools, knowledge skills, negotiation skills, sensory skills and various physical skills are rather different but all forced into the same structure. At the very least the ratio of proficiency to ability benefit would seem to vary among these, and helping let alone group checks might differ. Or maybe that's the same issue you describe, or the previously described issue that proficiency bonus that's one size fits all doesn't quite work for all skills.

You also get weirdness like being able to use downtime to learn tools and languages but not skills. Somehow you can study to learn the Draconic language but not Arcana. Likewise you can learn the art of being a smith, carpenter, or mason but not Animal Handling or Medicine.

Quote from: rawma;1107131OD&D magic-users have at least as many spell slots as a ranger or paladin in 5e at every level, and mostly more.

But they cast fewer spells because they have to memorise specific spells in specific slots, whereas a 5e caster burns slots to cast the desired spell. So in practice the OD&D caster casts fewer spells.

I actually appreciate 5e "flex-casting" as a concession to modern players used to video game Magic Points economy.

Skills bothers me none because it is deliberately vague so as to be GM behind-the-screen tool, so variable table by table. It's the only real way to compromise between all the editions, as it is the closest desigj saddle point I could imagine. Anything more defined, like DC "examples" (to be read like Holy Writ immediately after,) and I'd drop 5e like a hot potato and never look back. It's a total old v. new school divide. Everyone's unhappy which means it's closest to the best of all worlds. They got that design as a hole-in-one, IME.

Rest economy and Natural Recovery is about as good as one can get as a compromise between everyone (looking at you, 4e outlier :mad: ) forcing everyone to tinker to get to their happy place. Some want Adventure Paths (bowling alleys) and others want Sandbox, some want CR "balance" and others want "fuck it, let's roll!", and S/L Rest and Hit Dice economy waves away a lot of that into a MANAGEABLE abstraction. As is we are all "unhappy," but it is remarkably easy to adjust as desired.

I knew a 'baked by committee' cake was coming; it is hard to do modular given how hard WotC's games deviate from each other, let alone the rest of TSR D&D. But as is it is surprisingly restrained design on their part. I did not expect this much happiness, let alone robust flexibility, from the end product. I complain, but it is a grognard grouse for ye olden days more than utter aesthetic incompatibility.

Quote from: S'mon;1106987There's a very heavy reliance on spellcasting, with around 80% of PCs having spell slots - only Barbarians and (I think) Monks don't have a spellcasting path option, while Paladins and Rangers are casting more spells than old school Magic-Users. I don't like this as a flavour thing in lower-magic settings like Primeval Thule. Works fine for a high magic world like Golarion.

Combat runs faster than 4e and I think 3e, but much slower than old school D&D. A session can easily end up mostly combat, though it's not exhausting like 4e combat.

The 5e DMG is missing some important stuff like generic encounter tables. These are in Xanathar's; which also has better ideas for a lot of DMG systems like crafting and downtime.

It lacks a robust system for magic item crafting & purchase, which annoys some 3e/PF fans in particular.

1: I would not so much say there is a heavy reliance on spellcasting as there is at this point a class path for pretty much every class now.
(The Monk has a spellcasting path right out the gate. And Id have to look it up but Barbarians either allready do, or will soon have a minor spellcasting path, if the playtest goes through.)
The 5e Ranger does not have more spells than a MU of old. Their progression is only to level 5 spells and then cuts off there. Id have to do a comparison. But AD&D and 2e MUs by level 10 and 20 had a fair number of spells. Keep in mind too that for these two those spell slots are being likely mostly burned to fuel their class abilities that were converted into spells, smites and arrow tricks.

2: From DMing 5e and playing it since playtest I have to say its actually running pretty fast usually. Not positive but it may be going at about the same pace as AD&D combat. Not as fast as BX combat though which tended to go pretty quick due to fewer moving parts and pretty much everyone doing melee or range as spells needed to be kept in reserve more.

3 & 4: The DMG was actually interesting in that it was pushing the idea of the DM making their own encounter tables for an area. This actually harkens back to AD&D which suggests the same. 5e just dropped any tables as a fallback.

Xanithar adds all this and adds some complexity to crafting. YMMV if thats a good or bad thing. I liked the original system from the DMG a bit more as crafting magic items takes alot longer. Xanithar's rules changes vastly shorten the time requirement. But adds things like complications, rivals and having to quest for components.

Personal gripes with the system.

1: Long Rests are virtually impossible to interrupt. You'd literally have to keep the PCs in combat or very active for 600 rounds. It is just not normally going to happen by the rules just short of ever. You'd have to house rule it to something more sane.

2: PCs popping back up if they are knocked to 0 HP and then healed rather than stabalized. The DMG does have some optional systems that can be used. Or you can do something as simple as making use of the very neglected exhaustion rules and every time someone is taken to 0 HP they gain a level of exhaustion.

3: Beastmaster ranger companion. Compared to some of the other classes that can have companions, the Ranger seems to get levied with more restrictions than even the wizard familliar. And now with the Essentials sidekick rules you can have a beast companion that is autonomous and does not need an action to command, or even a bonus action. Easiest fix is to just change the ranger companion command from an action to a bonus action. Which is how some other companion or summon creatures work.

4: The Monster Manual and most of the expansion books are way way way way too demon happy. No really. Alot of monsters in 5e have been changed to be one way or another some sort of demon spawn or demon influenced transformation. There are now at least two campaign modules where hellish beings play a major role.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1107181Skills bothers me none because it is deliberately vague so as to be GM behind-the-screen tool, so variable table by table. It's the only real way to compromise between all the editions, as it is the closest desigj saddle point I could imagine. Anything more defined, like DC "examples" (to be read like Holy Writ immediately after,) and I'd drop 5e like a hot potato and never look back. It's a total old v. new school divide. Everyone's unhappy which means it's closest to the best of all worlds. They got that design as a hole-in-one, IME.

You are right that it is a middle point, as someone who likes every other version of D&D, it's a middle point without value.

For the purpose of letting people squint and see their favorite D&D, then yes it succeeded, at the cost it being a waste of page count.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1107181Skills bothers me none because it is deliberately vague so as to be GM behind-the-screen tool, so variable table by table. It's the only real way to compromise between all the editions, as it is the closest desigj saddle point I could imagine. Anything more defined, like DC "examples" (to be read like Holy Writ immediately after,) and I'd drop 5e like a hot potato and never look back. It's a total old v. new school divide. Everyone's unhappy which means it's closest to the best of all worlds. They got that design as a hole-in-one, IME.

Rest economy and Natural Recovery is about as good as one can get as a compromise between everyone (looking at you, 4e outlier :mad: ) forcing everyone to tinker to get to their happy place. Some want Adventure Paths (bowling alleys) and others want Sandbox, some want CR "balance" and others want "fuck it, let's roll!", and S/L Rest and Hit Dice economy waves away a lot of that into a MANAGEABLE abstraction. As is we are all "unhappy," but it is remarkably easy to adjust as desired.

There's one big difference between the 5E design of rests/recovery versus skills:  The recovery system is designed to change, and then well-implemented to support that change.  It's obvious how to tweak it for any GM with even half a brain and moderate proficiency with grade school math. If that isn't enough, the DMG even spells out some ideas to get the GM started.   The defaults are as you say, in the compromise spot, but the defaults are easy to change.  Whereas skills are designed to hit the default, compromise spot.  Changing them is superficially easy, but filled with land mines.  

I'm not saying you can't change the skills.  It's a list of things that interacts with the rest of the system in many places.  It can be changed the same way any other such mechanic can be changed.  However, the system doesn't help you much, and to do it well, you really need to know the system inside and out.  Or you can, of course, scattershot wing it to fit a setting, making it up as you go.  With a good GM, that will even work.  But that's because of what the GM brings to the table, not because of the system.

I don't entirely blame the design team for this problem, however.  Designing a good skill system is difficult.  Making a modular skill system even more so.  Plus, the traditional D&D chassis is not the easiest place to do it.

Well another factor in this is that D&D 5e has to meet the demands to justify its existence for a major corporation, that pretty much all other RPG's couldn't possibly muster.

It's doomed to fall into the odd design-space that it has, needing to be all things to all people while embracing whatever business strategy the beancounters determine will make it "evergreen" while placating the older edition-fans.

None of which has anything to do with what goes on at my table other than my decision of "Does it work for me?" Short answer is no. Do I hate it? Not at all. Do I like it? Not particularly.

Reasons (which I think are fixable):

1) I think the scaling is off. It doesn't play well beyond 12th lvl. It's *better* than the previous two editions, imo. But it's still off.
2) Skills - They're weird. The choices of which skills they use and *how* they're used seem inconsistent to me.
3) Encounter Design As The Game - This weird continuation from 3e, which hit its apex in 4e and seems to still be a thing for a lot of people (and I confess this could just be a byproduct of noob GM's trying to learn how to GM procedurally). Again - totally fixable.
4)Weird Class design choices - I've said this many times before - Estar and I have gone back and forth on this, I think 5e's classes in some cases exist as mini-games to justify external mechanics rather than as an expression of core-mechanics in play.
5) "Balance" - I don't believe in balance in mechanical terms alone. I want the game setting to demand balance as an expression of what the setting realities *are* and the mechanics should enforce those realities. 5e wants it both ways and produces weird results in its downstream products because there is a distinct bifurcation in what the mechanics of the books RAW imply vs. what has been established in their settings. Again easily, and necessarily fixable at the table. But I think it should be done in the books from the jump.

Most importantly - NONE of these things make 5e a *bad* game. *I* am not the targeted demographic of 5e, despite me, until recently, being a nearly lifelong D&D player. 5e helped me greatly come to that realization. My "itch" has evolved in ways that 5e is not designed to scratch - by intent, and that's fine. I've taken great solace in accepting some positive things about 5e in crystallizing some opinions about what is truly great in the OSR and 1e/2e. And for me, that alone is good enough.