I hope to start a 5e D&D campaign from first level in the next month.  I've got the three core books and have read most of each.  Been playing D&D for over thirty years, although I skipped 4e.  The more stream-lined approach of 5e really appeals to me, especially the elegance of advantage/disadvantage.

For those of you that have actually played 5e, is there a mechanic or a concept that does not work as well or as easily as it seemed?  I have a few ideas, but I don't want to start the thread by biasing it in one direction.  Thanks.

The numbers of HP are much higher in comparison to most editions of D&D, and that takes a little getting used to.

If anyone in the party is a spellcaster, you should have at least two PHBs at the table.

However, that said, my players love the fuck out of this edition and so far the campaign has gone swimingly so I can't really say anything "Isn't working".

Overall satisfied with 5e.

My biggest issue in RPG rulesets is pointless or time-wasting stuff, not abusive stuff.

Inspiration is stupid. You're either in a group where it's forgotten or everyone is trying to cheese it.

The medicine skill doesn't earn its keep as readily as many of the others do. You have to get a lot more creative to squeeze it into useful situations. I suppose that appeals to certain players, but most people will just forget about it.

The beast master ranger turns players off. Whether it is actually balanced and useful isn't the issue, I'll never find out because no one wants to test one once they see the system for it.

The Contagion spell is either purely a storytelling tool or the best big monster killer in the game depending on how you interpret it, and there is plenty of ambiguity as to how to interpret it. I'm all for broadly written rules and GMs making rulings to keep things going, but this one is a bridge too far.

NOTE: My 1000th post. Minor celebration. *Confetti*

the players


seriously, to echo above, not a fan of inspiration.  encourages metagaming, imo.  Also not a huge fan of attack rolls with half the spells.  With spell slots being the fewest of any edition, making all attack spells require a to hit roll (or save), means many miss and are thus wasted.

CR for monsters is pretty meaningless in practice.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;806919the players


seriously, to echo above, not a fan of inspiration.  encourages metagaming, imo.  Also not a huge fan of attack rolls with half the spells.  With spell slots being the fewest of any edition, making all attack spells require a to hit roll (or save), means many miss and are thus wasted.

I feel similarly.  The baseline game is too pew-pew for my tastes. I would prefer to have less frequent casting, but with each casting having a bigger impact.

That being said, I like the overall game so well that I've been able to repress my disgruntlement in that regard.

Magic is still too powerful, damagewise and there's still too much of it at low levels.

I got rid of cantrips, increased melee damage for non-spell guys and treated personality mechanics as optional.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;806926I feel similarly.  The baseline game is too pew-pew for my tastes. I would prefer to have less frequent casting, but with each casting having a bigger impact.

That being said, I like the overall game so well that I've been able to repress my disgruntlement in that regard.

well, yeah.  In spite of my complaints, I love playing it.

The low numbers to level to 1st and 2nd levels don't work for me. The ability to get back all your hit points during a long rest also doesn't work for me. The DMG has some options for that. I may keep the long rest rule and go with lingering injuries on a failed death check of 5 or less.

I've been coming around to 5th as of late.  The only quibble that I have so far is about the physical product itself- I don't care for the binding on the books.  It's pretty much perfect bound with hardcover- not sure how long it will hold up.

Quote from: misterguignol;806924CR for monsters is pretty meaningless in practice.

"CR" means ?

I'm assuming those aren't Traveller-style credits in place of gold coins.

Quote from: Matt;806941"CR" means ?

I'm assuming those aren't Traveller-style credits in place of gold coins.

Challenge Rating!!

Quote from: Zak S;806927Magic is still too powerful, damagewise and there's still too much of it at low levels.

I got rid of cantrips, increased melee damage for non-spell guys and treated personality mechanics as optional.

Wouldn't getting rid of cantrips pretty much cripple spellcasters at low levels? That's all they have outside of two spells per day.

Personal opinion: Almost all of 5e works, its more whether it works at your table/in your current campaign.

I'm cutting inspiration and also cutting features from my current campaign. Inspiration cause I just don't see a need for it, and the background features because it doesn't make sense for the campaign. Most of them make no sense for a caravan travel across 5 countries/3 continents, they are too regional.

Where are you going to find a temple to your faith to stay at in a the middle of the arctic? What good are your criminal contacts when you are in a nation halfway around the world with a wildly different culture and very little contact with your home. That being said, I'll probably bring features back in a campaign that is set in a more local area.

The good thing is that... 5e just doesn't fall apart if you take scissors and glue to it. So cut what you don't like, paste in what you do like, and roll with it.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;806946Wouldn't getting rid of cantrips pretty much cripple spellcasters at low levels? That's all they have outside of two spells per day.

When you factor in rituals (and even if you don't), that's more spells per day than wizards got in days of yore, so "crippled" isn't the word I'd use.