D&D 5E Criticizing the new edition of D&D (because I like it a lot)

[Iry]

There are a lot of little things about the new edition I could grump about, but the single biggest thing which is essentially a deal breaker?

Spellcasters are going to stomp all over martial classes, just like 3.5.

 

[Phoenix8008]

The way this opening post is phrased is like someone trying to convice WOTC to change the plan and make these changes before time runs out. Time has already run out. The PHB is off to the printer.

Feats, for instance. You claim that they are 'treating feats like variant rules'. Guess what? That's exactly what they are in this edition. But they'll be there in the PHB for easy and available use. Go ahead and use them. Or do you turn up your nose at them and refuse to use them because they are listed as a 'variant rule'?

I agree with a few of the listed desired changes, but most are fine by me as they are. You can play that version of D&D that you want by houseruling those changes. It's not gonna be in the PHB that way, but you can still play it that way.

 

[Evenglare]

The way this opening post is phrased is like someone trying to convice WOTC to change the plan and make these changes before time runs out. Time has already run out. The PHB is off to the printer.

Feats, for instance. You claim that they are 'treating feats like variant rules'. Guess what? That's exactly what they are in this edition. But they'll be there in the PHB for easy and available use. Go ahead and use them. Or do you turn up your nose at them and refuse to use them because they are listed as a 'variant rule'?

I agree with a few of the listed desired changes, but most are fine by me as they are. You can play that version of D&D that you want by houseruling those changes. It's not gonna be in the PHB that way, but you can still play it that way.

Damn you sniped my post. I was also going to point out that your list of grievances are simply not going to be changed at this point in time. Core rules are pulled from PHB and the PHB is being printed as we speak. Another point that they won't be doing sweeping changes like your proposal because.... well take a look at 4th edition. From the conception of the game to now, the eratta is like 100+ pages with REALLY fundamental changes that basically make the core 3 books utterly useless. I'd bet my life on it that eratta and changes will simply be typos or something similar. In other words, if you don't like it the reality is that you are going to have to find something else or houserule it the way you want.

 

[fuzzlewump]

Another point that they won't be doing sweeping changes like your proposal because.... well take a look at 4th edition. From the conception of the game to now, the eratta is like 100+ pages with REALLY fundamental changes that basically make the core 3 books utterly useless.

I agree with this, and I actually like that about 4E. I don't ever look at the books and strictly use the online material, for an online (roll20) D&D game. By freeing themselves of the constraint of worrying about making things obsolete, they were able to make a better (albeit messier) game. I can't say I 'hope' they take a similar route with 5E and its online tools, since I would hope they get it right the first time, but realistically I think it's the best path.

 

[random.brown]

feats are ultimately what drove me away from the previous two editions, and I'm happy to ignore them.

This x 10!

 

[Nebulous]

I agree with this, and I actually like that about 4E. I don't ever look at the books and strictly use the online material, for an online (roll20) D&D game. By freeing themselves of the constraint of worrying about making things obsolete, they were able to make a better (albeit messier) game. I can't say I 'hope' they take a similar route with 5E and its online tools, since I would hope they get it right the first time, but realistically I think it's the best path.

I quit 4e a long while back and did not realize it had been changed so much internally. Interesting.

 

[Evenglare]

I think that it's pretty selfish that you should think the core game should have feats, when the core game CAN add feats (which they are) with a variant rule. In the first scenario you only have 1 game, a game with feats. In the actual situation we get to have a game without feats and a game with feats. What person would seriously want this? Completely selfish. "I don't want you to play what I don't like even though it doesn't interfere with me at all!!! "

 

[IronWolf]

But it's not perfect.

No game will be perfect. With 5e it seems they really did go with a simple foundation, so a lot of your suggestions can easily be tweaked in or out. Make it your game, you don't need the rules to tell you it is okay.

I want D&D 5th edition to be everything that it can be. I don't want it to settle for 'good enough'. Not after this much public play-testing.

Feats[/B]
Stop treating feats like variant rules. Too many people want them. Are planning for them even now. Embrace what the players clearly want, especially with the variant human being vastly more appealing than the regular human.

I don't think it is clear that people want feats. The crowds I hang out in, the fact feats are not a default assumption are a welcome thing. So each group's experiences will shape their thoughts on this one, there is not a one true way. It appears feats will easily be added on for people that do prefer that level of complexity.

Weapons
So many pointless or redundant weapons on the chart. Mace. Pick. Trident. Take your pick. There are more. Consider weapon properties for groups of weapons (Axes, Bows, Swords, etcetera) to create meaningful differences.

Mace, pick, trident are all different. People like selection, even if the damage result is the same. If you leave them out people would complain because they were left off the list. Not a big deal in my opinion.

Spells
Did we really need V, S, and M again? It was so elegant during the play-test. All spells have a few words, a few gestures, and a material component. Some have a costly material component (as noted). Done.

I guess I don't see this one as that big of deal. But, one could add it in as an option I suppose (like I advocated for feats above).

Spells
100 gp for Identify? If you say a magical item can be figured out over time, or figured out with a spell that costs 100 gp, guess how useless Identify just became?

Easy house rule - change it in your campaign. Some people want magic mysterious in their game. The price tag at lower levels keeps it that way for some DMs. The gold amount is easily changed based on the feel you want in your campaign.

Spells
100 gp for Stoneskin? Let the fact that it's a high level spell with less castings than previous editions be the cost. Remove the GP cost of this spell. Like Identify, that sacred cow is not worth preserving.

Same - change it to fit what you want for your campaign. Folks will spend more time debating the gold value than just tweaking it for your game and moving on.

Ability Scores
Bring back the ability to buy 16 as a score and raise the point buy total to 30 again. This has a very appealing secondary effect that you may have overlooked. It will encourage players to try non-traditional race/class combinations. See why? Right now, there are very clear race choices (read: ability score bonuses) for specific classes, especially if you want to be effective with a 16 or 17 in your primary ability score, instead of a 15 (the highest score players can currently buy 'without' a racial bonus). If players can buy a 16, then they are more likely to explore unconventional race/class options.

Ouch! There seems to have been a conscience effort to bring the power level down some. To some this is a good thing and to others a bad. I like the default assumption being lower. You can easily house rule to adjust the power level higher for your games.

Advantage and Disadvantage
Make the number of Advantage/Disadvantage instances count. Three Advantages? One Disadvantage? You have Advantage. People can tell the difference between a higher and lower number. Like instantly.

I suspect they did this to minimize a lot of metagaming at a table and debates about whether something causes a disadvantage or advantage and then trying to total them up. I get where you are coming from though and something easy to house rule for your campaign.

I obviously disagree with some of your changes as being written into the game. Others sound like good house rules or tweaks to make the game your own. And with the minimalist, lower power level in mind - they have made it easy to work your way up from a solid foundation.

 

[Rex Blunder]

"Great Weapon Fighting. Treat 1 and 2 as 3 instead of re-rolling 1 and 2. Otherwise the 2d6 weapon damages are vastly superior to the 1d12 weapon damages."

According to my calculations, that's not true (since 3 is close the the average roll of a d6 anyway).

I think that your proposed change would subtract .32 from 2d6 and .58 from 1d12, the opposite of your you are trying to achieve. I recommend against this house rule.

 

[RedShirtNo5.1]

I am strangely disappointed that this thread isn't about fireball . . .

Hmm. Don't you mean fire pellet?