D&D 5E Player's Handbook Alpha *Spoilers*

[Ruin Explorer]

Understand, I am trying to find the threshold where you will either: 1) give up on the game and therefore stop being that guy who drops bombs on threads exaggerating every conceivable beef with 5e, derailing the thread and driving fans of that game away, or 2) decide you like the game. At some point that's got to happen right? At some point either you become more satisfied with the game and reduce the cynicism, or else you give up on it. So I am trying to drill down on one of those events where you're doing it - being the guy in the crowded theater falsely screaming fire, causing a general interruption to the movie everyone is watching.

Why do you need to know this? Is it important to your life in some way? But I will help!

Realistically, if I completely decide a game sucks, I give up on it some time after release. I might come back if it un-sucks via supplements. 3E is a good example of this. You can see I stopped posting about it after I realized that I couldn't fix it. Same with many other RPGs. Sadly for you, I like D&D in general so I give it a lot more play than a game I am not well-predisposed-to.

Unlikely to happen until after the DMG unless the PHB is spectacularly horrid, though, because who knows what wonders of optional rules that might hold! Sorry! I actually plan on running a 5E Basic one-shot shortly.

What may not be clear to you, because you focus on my criticism of 5E is that, as an RPG, I think it's a very good one with significant apparently flaws (but possibly fixable ones), rather than, say, how I eventually found 3E - a mediocre one with huge flaws - or, say Numenera, which was an interesting/good underlying system, with a good setting (overall), marred by some horrible horrible choices in class/descriptor design (and inexplicable lack of guns despite no real balance issue). Or indeed 4E, with a very good system marred by some very bland class/monster design (eventually rectified).

 

[Obryn]

These people complaining are probably the same ones that complained about the final playtests, basically the people who are not really interested in 5e to begin with.

That doesn't sound like a fair assessment, especially if you're hoping the actual releases will be an improvement.

 

[variant]

That doesn't sound like a fair assessment, especially if you're hoping the actual releases will be an improvement.

They said the overall design philosophy was set in stone with the final playtest. Expecting things to drastically change is foolish.

 

[andargor]

Hmm, I don't see an option for playing a Chaladin. Perhaps it will come in another book...

 

[the Jester]

Well, that's on you, but it's the worst kind of rules-detail-obsessed, realism/simulation-AND-drama hating ultra-gamist DMing, imho. I didn't realize you were a hardcore rules-ist.

Well, let me ask you- in 3e, would you allow a two-weapon fighting pc to draw both weapons for free (and not necessarily as part of a move, without having Quickdraw, etc)?

Would you in 4e?

Would you let a character stow his bow, draw his sword and attack, all on the same round? (EDIT: This one is intended for the 5e rules.)

I'm hardly a "hardcore rules-ist"- I'm prone to house rule things that need house ruling- but I don't give out freebies willy-nilly. What's good for the pcs is good for the npcs, and I'm pretty sure someone would bitch a whole lot if I was using a bunch evil gnoll fighters with two weapon fighting who got to draw all their weapons for free. My players would cry, "No fair!" - and rightly so.

The fact that it takes longer to draw two weapons out is part of the price you pay for wielding two weapons. Perhaps there will be a feat, a fighting style trick or who-knows-what to alleviate this; but I certainly don't think it breaks the game to play it as written. In fact, I'd say throwing in a "sure, draw everything for free" is more likely to break the game, especially given the amount of playtesting that this particular game has undergone.

I also plan to enforce the costs of copying new spells into your spellbook, the time it takes to learn a new tool proficiency, disadvantage on Stealth checks for armor, etc. I would guess that you will, too. So what makes drawing two weapons a special case, where suddenly it's a horrible offense to use the rules to adjudicate it?

I see nothing wrong with drawing two weapons requiring a character to use an action, or alternatively, to wait until round two to be fully armed (if they want to attack on round one). I don't see this particular rule as a problem; it never was in earlier editions (by which I mean 3.0, 3.5 or 4e).

Obviously YMMV, but I'm curious as to why this particular rule seems to burn you up. What is it about this that makes for "the worst kind of rules-detail-obsessed, realism/simulation-AND-drama hating ultra-gamist DMing", as you put it?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Well, let me ask you- in 3e, would you allow a two-weapon fighting pc to draw both weapons for free (and not necessarily as part of a move, without having Quickdraw, etc)?

Would you in 4e?

I wouldn't even remotely consider drawing two weapons to dual-wield as different from drawing one weapon. So any time you could draw one, with one hand, a one-handed weapon, with two hands, you could draw two one-handed weapons. It's a single action, drawing both.

Would you let a character stow his bow, draw his sword and attack, all on the same round? (EDIT: This one is intended for the 5e rules.)

Stow? No. Drop, yes. Same as any other modern edition.

I'm hardly a "hardcore rules-ist"- I'm prone to house rule things that need house ruling- but I don't give out freebies willy-nilly. What's good for the pcs is good for the npcs, and I'm pretty sure someone would bitch a whole lot if I was using a bunch evil gnoll fighters with two weapon fighting who got to draw all their weapons for free. My players would cry, "No fair!" - and rightly so.

I am skeptical that they would. Very skeptical. I think they'd be very surprised if you said "Each Gnoll draws one weapon only!" or something, then next round "Each Gnoll draws another weapon". They'd think it was weird.

The fact that it takes longer to draw two weapons out is part of the price you pay for wielding two weapons.

That seems like hardcore rules-ist approach to me! Note that "I use house rules" does NOT make you not a hardcore rules-ist, at all, just one who like replacing rules.

 

[the Jester]

I am skeptical that they would. Very skeptical. I think they'd be very surprised if you said "Each Gnoll draws one weapon only!" or something, then next round "Each Gnoll draws another weapon". They'd think it was weird.

I actually had a situation pretty much like this come up last weekend (albeit not with gnolls).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I actually had a situation pretty much like this come up last weekend (albeit not with gnolls).

Do tell! (I promise not to judge, but I love to hear about other people's games!)

 

[Mistwell]

Why do you need to know this? Is it important to your life in some way? But I will help!

Realistically, if I completely decide a game sucks, I give up on it some time after release. I might come back if it un-sucks via supplements. 3E is a good example of this. You can see I stopped posting about it after I realized that I couldn't fix it. Same with many other RPGs. Sadly for you, I like D&D in general so I give it a lot more play than a game I am not well-predisposed-to.

Unlikely to happen until after the DMG unless the PHB is spectacularly horrid, though, because who knows what wonders of optional rules that might hold! Sorry! I actually plan on running a 5E Basic one-shot shortly.

What may not be clear to you, because you focus on my criticism of 5E is that, as an RPG, I think it's a very good one with significant apparently flaws (but possibly fixable ones), rather than, say, how I eventually found 3E - a mediocre one with huge flaws - or, say Numenera, which was an interesting/good underlying system, with a good setting (overall), marred by some horrible horrible choices in class/descriptor design (and inexplicable lack of guns despite no real balance issue). Or indeed 4E, with a very good system marred by some very bland class/monster design (eventually rectified).

Perhaps I should not have spun it as a negative question. How about this: Given in general you like D&D and have a genuine desire to like 5e (though that may eventually go unrealized), what needs to happen to get more positivity and enthusiasm? Not a huge amount more, just a noticeable amount more?

 

[Umbran]

I didn't say it was "god awful". I said it was awful. You may want to read with more care!

Now you're being obtuse. You said, "Good god this is awful." If you begin with, "Good God" that modifies what comes next, which is, "this is awful". It means the modified thing is deity-exclamation-worthy in magnitude. Therefore, a fair summary of your sentence is, "You said it was God Awful". Otherwise, you're expecting me to read your mind and know which words you meant to have meaning and which you did not mean. And given you're an outlier on just about everything, I expect I would be awful at that task. So I am just going to assume you say what you mean and mean what you say.

Gentlemen. Really?

We have ignore lists. You can choose to use them at any time.

Or, you know, get married. 'Cause you two go at it like an old married couple.