This thread feels a little close to edition warring: complaining without offering constructive criticism or useful feedback.
Really, my big problem with 5e is monster math. Monsters are just not a threat and you can fight monsters of much higher level without difficulty.
We'll see if they can fix that (and fix it across all levels), which is the big test.
No sorry. I'm not comparing 5E to any edition or insulting it. I'm pointing out its flaws which IS constructive criticism.
I agree with the monster math. When a Fighter half the level of Asmodeus can kill him by going nova in 1-2 rounds, there is a problem.
I think you're looking for reasons to dislike a game before you try it. A better route would be to tell us why you don't like it, or what you think you don't like about it.
No, sorry. I looked forward to a game that would be better than all previous editions that would allow me to play the game with my play style, unfortunately everything we've seen or read points to a return to the problems of previous editions with no real improvements. If they announced tommorrow that the tactics module would allow classes to trade out class features interesting choices that could be made during level up and during play each round, I would be excited and look forward to the game. They haven't, so I'm not.
My goal here is a last ditch effort to get the developers to see the things that will make people not want to buy their game. I see that as a completely valid strategy.
That said, my D&D Next campaign is 8th level, and I've found no glaring imbalances. DDN is miles more balanced than 3.5.
But much less balanced than 4E.
This criticism can be applied to all editions of D&D, except maybe 4th. Are you looking for melee characters with a multitude of powers spelled out and hardcoded into the class? If so, I'd suggest playing 4e.
Why does everyone assume that if someone wants a balanced game that they want a 4E clone? I'd be perfectly happy with a game that was nothing like 4E, but gave the players interesting balanced choices at level up and during play, something we aren't seeing in 5E.
For me, the Improvise action covers just about everything you'd want to do as a melee character. Plus I expect fleshed out rules on the classic combat maneuvers like trip, disarm, sunder, bull rush, etc.
This is available in every edition of D&D and even has balanced rules in 4E (DMG page 42). This is not a unique feature of 5E and its certainly not done in the best way (though it is done better than 3.5E).
This is probably true in a sense, but what you call imbalance I call freedom to improvise and real feeling of unexpected chance and danger.
Sorry, no. You can improvise in every edition of D&D and 'real' danger can exist in every edition. Some editons point out what should be an easy, medium, or hard challenge for a group of players, but they never say you can't throw a Dragon that is level +10 at them.
None that leave me with a desire not to play it, but I can tell what you're fishing for here, so here's one: Wizards can indeed end an encounter quickly if they choose to expend one or more of their best spells. There is a little bit of 'Save or Lose' in D&D Next, but it's less severe and doesn't feel like a cheap 'I win' button as in editions past.
Many of the spells end up being save or die especially with the saving throw values and hit point scores in the bestiary. I mean a fireball can clear an encounter of orcs or goblins which supposedly will remain a challenge in larger numbers as you level.
I agree. It feels like a "I've decided 5e will suck because it's not 4e..." thread. If you like 4e and it's number of options for powers, feats, etc, keep playing it. Once 5e comes out and some of the tactical and other modules that are supposed to give it more of a 4e feel then give them a try if you like.
Again, don't assume my motivations or attribute things to me. I've already explained my purpose for this thread and it isn't 4.75E. The modules they talked about don't sound appealing in the least and they've shown that they don't understand what 4E fans wanted in the first place, so even if I wanted a new 4E, they wouldn't be able to deliver it based on their feedback so far.
Not true - there are now complex fighters & simple mages.
Please drop this idle speculation unless you're looking at the latest documents.
So getting 1-2 'maneuvers' compares to choosing from your level of spells each day to prepare and then choosing from those spells that are prepared to cast on any given round? I don't agree.
I'm looking at the latest documents as well as reading the latest articles and there is no indication that these things are going to be changed in the final release. So its not 'idle speculation'.
Other than a desire for a sorcerer and warlock (both arguably less complex), I have yet to see a single playtest report that complained that in actual play they found the mage or cleric too complex. Have your seen such playtest report complaints?
They are plastered all over the WotC forums asking what the rules mean for casters and how spell preparation works and things like that.
I'm in the military and very aware that fighting is incredibly complex; much more complex than the D&D can accurately model, in fact. I'm also not saying I don't want some crunchy options for combat focused PCs. The problem I have is when you start chasing the nebulous concept of balance. I don't want to end up with homogeony(sp?) in the name of equality.
Every time balance comes up someone makes the assumption that balance equals homogeneity.This is simply not true. What balance we have in 5E is not homogenous at all. I simply want the ability to play a balanced game and not have to change my DM style or put in extra time to make one or more classes play equally at my table. I really don't think its too much to ask.
