The problem with D&D 5e

 

Why 5e DnD Is Not My Thing

Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition (5e) is the world's most popular role-playing game. As often happens to somebody that prefers something different from the majority, I  tend  to think that it is lack of knowledge that makes people prefer 5e.

But there were people with whom I played for years other systems, who were sighing at every session because I wouldn't run D&D. Some people feel a deep attraction for D&D.  It seems to be particularly popular with players that like combat tactics and/or character (stat) building.

On the other hand, being a good RPG for combat and “build” is clearly not enough, or 4e would have been much more popular than it was. In fact, I think part of the attraction of D&D is that it offers a system that caters to many different players.

Nonetheless, I believe that 5e is fundamentally broken. And it’s not because it “tries to do everything and isn’t good at anything.” in fact, trying to everything is the saving grace of D&D.

No. For me, the issue with 5e is that it’s a system heavily designed for combat, but most of that combat feels… pointless.

Combat Without Stakes

5e is packed with combat options, an endless list of spells, powers, and mechanics that all revolve around fighting. But the fights tare often trivial. Most encounters are designed to make the players feel powerful, ensuring easy wins with little risk. Even the so-called “boss fights” are rarely more than “somewhat challenging.” The result? If you like meaningful, high-stakes confrontations, 5e actively fights against that preference.

A reason for this is how the Challenge Rating (CR) system works—or, more accurately, how it doesn't. CR is supposed to help DMs create balanced encounters, but in practice, it's a deeply flawed metric that often underestimates how strong a well-coordinated party is. A fight labeled as “Deadly” is usually just a speed bump, while lower-difficulty fights offer no real threat. This results in combat that looks like a challenge on paper but almost never feels like one at the table.

This problem leads to two outcomes:

1. DMs who follow the CR system get predictable, unthreatening encounters.
2. DMs who want real challenge must manually tweak encounters, but in doing so, they are working against the system.

This means that difficulty in 5e isn’t built into the mechanics—it has to be artificially imposed by the DM, usually by adding more enemies, increasing monster HP, or throwing out CR guidelines entirely. If a system requires you to ignore its own balancing rules to create tension, that’s a fundamental design flaw. Furthermore, even this will not fully solve the problem, because the system is so unbalanced towards the players. I literally had a fight where a dragon reduced to 0 HP all the members of the party except one, and through a combination of healing powers and recovery mechanics, the whole party was up and fighting again after just one round! 

Combat as the Default Solution

Another issue is how 5e presents conflict resolution. In a great RPG, combat should be one of many tools available to solve problems. In 5e, though, the system tilts everything toward combat as the primary option.

Yes, a good GM can work around this, but let’s be honest: if the game spends the bulk of its mechanics on combat—if it showers players with combat abilities, tactics, and optimisations—then it implicitly encourages combat as the go-to approach. It’s not that non-combat solutions don’t exist, but they’re often mechanically underdeveloped compared to the depth of combat mechanics. If you add to that that CR balancing almost guarantees that every combat is winnable, you end up with a game where combat is by far the most popular approach to conflict resolution.

I can understand that combat options need to be more developed from the mechanical perspective than other in-fiction activities. After all, I can easily roleplay social interactions without rules, and I don't need rules to build and solve in-fiction puzzles, and combat is something that I would rather not exercise real life abilities to resolve. So, physical activities like combat will typically require more mechanics than social and mental activities, but D&D goes completely overboard in this.

Long, long Battles

Even if you accept that 5e is combat-focused, and that most fights are low stakes, there’s another major flaw: fights take too long. Not only are they lengthy, but they often continue long past the point where the outcome is obvious. This is the same issue that plagues some old board games like classic Monopoly or Risk—when you know who’s going to win, but you still have to go through the motions for another hour before it’s over.

Now, in theory, a GM can cut fights short once the outcome is obvious. But doing so removes one of the few real strategic/tacticsl elements that 5e combat has—the decision of whether to conserve limited resources and save time, or spend them to minimise damage.

Normally, when a fight is technically won but still playing out, players still have to decide:

• Do we spend our high-level spells or abilities to finish this quickly?
• Or do we risk taking some wounds and save our resources for later?

If the GM just handwaves the final stretch of battle, then this entire risk-reward decision disappears. The game’s built-in challenge of managing limited-use abilities gets nullified, leaving behind an even emptier tactical experience. This means that the very thing making fights drag—the need to weigh whether using resources is worth it—is also the only thing that gives them any strategic value at all.

So, either you let combat drag and pretend the outcome is uncertain, or you cut fights short and remove what little tactical challenge the system actually provides. That’s not a great design trade-off. In practical time, I go for not letting the combat drag. And I try to design confrontations always assuming that the characters have full access to all their abilities. But again, it is not how the game wants to be played.

The Illusion of Depth

This is what frustrates me most about 5e: it presents itself as a tactical combat system, but in reality, it isn’t.

On the surface, 5e offers spells to optimise, feats to choose, combat synergies to plan, and tactical positioning to manage—all things that should create deep and meaningful combat. But , as we have seen, combat is rarely a real challenge. Players have so many powerful tools at their disposal, and enemies rarely have the resilience or tactics to pose a serious threat.

This creates an illusion of depth. The sheer number of combat mechanics makes it feel like you’re making important decisions, but in reality, the game is designed to make sure you win. The rules don’t exist to provide real challenge, but to fake meaningful choice—to make you believe you fought hard for victory, even if the fight was always going to go your way.

Classes, Levels, and Ludonarrative Dissonance

Beyond combat, I’ve always struggled with RPG systems that rely on classes and levels. They introduce a kind of artificial progression that often feels at odds with the story. For example, why does every town the party visits conveniently have city guards that scale in power to match the adventurers? It’s an unspoken expectation in level-based systems, but in practice, it creates bizarre world-building inconsistencies.

This is part of a bigger issue: ludonarrative dissonance—when the mechanics and the story don’t line up.

D&D 5e presents itself as a game where players start as scrappy adventurers, growing in strength over the course of an epic journey. But in reality, leveling happens so fast that characters go from nobodies to reality-warping demigods in what, in-world, is often just a few months. This makes most stories feel completely incoherent unless the DM actively slows progression or reworks the world to justify it.

Another source of dissonance is combat itself. The story might say this is a life-or-death struggle, but the game’s rules tell a different story: you’re probably going to win, it’s just going to take a while. HP don't relate to physical damage, yet curing cures physical damage, characters are heroes, but due to the combat focused gameplay, always live a long trail of bodies behind them. Characters are supposed to be made of flesh and bone, but contrarily to people made of flesh and bone. They can be knife many times with no change of being mortally wounded... combat exists in a world that is parallel to the narrative.

The Bottom Line

I get why people love 5e. It’s accessible, it’s flexible, and it gives players the satisfaction of feeling powerful. But for me, a great RPG is about meaningful choices, hard dilemmas, high-stakes encounters, and a world that feels cohesive. 5e doesn’t give me that. It gives me a lot of combat, but not the kind of combat I find compelling.

That being said, I do think 5e’s greatest strength is being the “big tent” RPG—the system that can accommodate nearly any playstyle. However, that’s only because it pretends to do what you want, rather than actually doing it. It gives the appearance of tactical depth, the illusion of balanced combat, and the suggestion of strong non-combat systems—when, in reality, it often relies on GM fiat to fill in the gaps.

And to finish this article on a positive note: the first rpg my children ever played was 5e D&D. And it was a great experience that I will never forget. And if it was told to me that I had to choose between 5e and not playing rpgs, I would still be playing 5e four or five times a week. Because in the end, roleplaying is still great. And D&D is a serviceable system... if you know how to tame it.