D&D 5E Whats your dealbreaker for 5E?

[Sound of Azure]

Bingo. Until 4e, my attitude was "Ooh, I can't wait to see what the new rules look like!"

But I'm a bit older now, so my attitude has become "This has to be better than what I already have for me to even consider buying it."

Yeah, this fits my experience too. I'm starting to understand how some of the older gamers at the gaming club I started at felt at the release of 3E, when I was getting deeper into RPGs (and had enough income to afford more than 1 or 2 books).

 

[seti]

I actually love 4e, lol. And 13th Age seems like a good addition/successor to 4e.

My main beefs with (what I've seen, the playtests) 5e, in no particular order:
1) Humans being +1 to all ability scores.
2) Bringing back ranger spell casting.
3) Nothing new or innovative; 5e looks and plays like a 2e/3e cross or clone.
4) Money. Why should I buy a new game, when I have a few already to play?
5) Getting rid of 4e defenses (FORT, REF, WILL) for just having AC again.
6) Bringing back imbalance, caster superiority, and game-breaking spells like 'Wish'.
7) Speaking of spells, I really dislike the 40 year old and confusing (especially to newbies) system of learning a level 3 spell at level 5. Having 20 character 'levels' and 9 spell 'levels' is a semantic mess.
8) It looks like all the focus at WotC is on the Forgotten Realms setting; my least favorite setting.
9) It's the first time a new D&D edition came along that didn't build on the previous edition; making it better.
10) Returning the fighter (and other non-casters) to "I swing my <blank> at the <blank>" as the only combat option every round.
11) Retro clones exist, and in some cases are free. Old, nostalgic D&D can be easily found and played, if I ever want to. And I don't really want to.

 

[Mistwell]

I actually love 4e, lol. And 13th Age seems like a good addition/successor to 4e.

3) Nothing new or innovative; 5e looks and plays like a 2e/3e cross or clone.

You say "and plays", but given a couple of your other answers I am curious. Have you played it?

5) Getting rid of 4e defenses (FORT, REF, WILL) for just having AC again.

This is inaccurate, which is the first reason I asked about playing it. You have all three of those. They are called Con save, Dex save, and Wis save. You have saves, not just AC.

9) Returning the fighter (and other non-casters) to "I swing my <blank> at the <blank>" as the only combat option every round.

This is also not accurate. So...played it, and just missed the saves and other options, or didn't play it?

 

[Celebrim]

1) It would force me to learn and adapt a new rule set for which I have no need.

So really, it was doomed from the start. I might have jumped on to 4e had I seen it as a cleaner version of 3.X which invalidated my house rules in the same way that I saw 3e to be a cleaner version of 1e that invalidated my house rules for that edition. But 4e took the game in an entirely unwanted direction, forcing me to continue refining my 3.X house rules. By this point, I'm now pretty happy with my house rules and don't see the need to change. Not only are the working for me, but they are largely compatible with 3.X and Pathfinder with minimal adaptation, so the rules set is entirely suited to my tastes and somewhat novel but at the same time fully supported by professional products. What possible interest could I have in a rules set that is neither of these things.

Additionally, they alienated me when they shut down Dragon and Dungeon, which for years had been some of my primary connection to the game even through the dark years when we had parted ways. It was an entirely boneheaded move, because not only did it alienate their fanbase but launched there biggest possible competitor and one which, quite honestly, had more talented people working for it than WoTC had then or now. My only solace on this is that I fully suspect that in two years or five, Pathfinder is going to be Dungeons and Dragons.

 

[Greg K]

Too many to list beginning with
1. The classes in their current forms
2. The multi-classing rules
3. lack of skills and 3e skill points
4. Humans +1 bonus to ability scores
5. lack of OGL
6. Not being better, in my opinion, than 3e (my preferred edition with my usual caveats), 4e (which I would rather play to heroic before playing Next as presented in the packets) or several non D&D games that I prefer to use for fantasy or am wanting to try (the latter includes FATE Core, Cortex Plus, Warrior Rogue and Mage (Scholar option), Dungeon World and Barbarians of Lemuria).

 

[seti]

You say "and plays", but given a couple of your other answers I am curious. Have you played it?



This is inaccurate, which is the first reason I asked about playing it. You have all three of those. They are called Con save, Dex save, and Wis save. You have saves, not just AC.



This is also not accurate. So...played it, and just missed the saves and other options, or didn't play it?

Yes, I have DMed and played a few (not all) of the playtest packets.

A save is not a defense. The target rolls a 'save'; I prefer the attacker to have to roll 'to hit' against a 'defense' target number, like an AC (or FORT, REF, and WILL).

How is "I swing my <blank> at the <blank>" not accurate? Did your playtest packet have at-will, encounter, daily, and utility options for fighters?

 

[Raith5]

There are things I like about DDN (in my limited experience) but I prefer 4th ed at this stage.

The biggest mechanical issues for me:

1) I prefer a unified system of attacker always rolls - rather than a mixture of saves and rolling physical attacks
2) I prefer multiple defenses - I like martial attacks against reflex etc.
3) I prefer utility powers for all classes
4) action points
5) Out of turn attacks
6) More Dynamic monsters

Of course, some of these could still yet make an appearance in future modules and/or in legendary type of monsters.

 

[steenan]

It's not about "dealbreakers" for me. It's just that buying a new edition of D&D is not the default option for me. Has never been, honestly. It's on the game and its authors to sell me on it.



So it is the other way around. It's not that Next has something I find unacceptable. It just doesn't have anything good enough to persuade me to buy it. And nothing I read this far suggests that it will change enough before it is released.

It isn't as good at supporting narrative, character-driven and character-focused play as Fate Core.
It isn't as good at supporting fast, rules-light dungeon adventure as Dungeon World.
It isn't as good at supporting wilderness exploration as Mouse Guard.
It isn't as good at supporting balanced, tactical play as 4e.

When I see a class that's overshadowed in every niche by another one, I call it underpowered and boring. When I see a game overshadowed in every niche by another one, I call it not worth my money.



No single part of Next is a dealbreaker for me. Each could work well in a game with appropriate focus. But as the whole, it has nothing to offer me.

 

[Li Shenron]

Is it a specific mechanic/thing or just being happy with the games you have and 5E not being a good enough upgrade to consider buying it?

I am generally positive about buying and playing 5e. But I do have my dealbreakers!

It's not about specific issues. I have them too (the Human race, skewed saving throws, way too many +1 magic weapons, dishomogeneous level placement of subclasses...) but there's nothing that individually would be a deal-breaker.

These can be the real dealbreakers for me:

- a general feeling that the game is half-finished (all those specific issues above left unsolved would contribute to this, because each of them divides people into a group that hates them like that, and another group that doesn't care or is merely OK; no action against those issue means the designers don't care about the gamers who care)

- too high complexity even when choosing all the lowest-complexity option; the edition must be casual-gamers friendly or I just won't have a group to play it with

- bad editing and publishing work, meaning that the books are full of errata or have abysmal organization, making them a pain to play with

- wrong choice of artwork style (e.g. manga, splatter, sexist, pulp or too violent): I really need to be inspired to spend my time DMing, and artwork is what can really inspire me or turn me down

 

[gweinel]

It is the feel and the atmosphere of the game. It must have something that would attract me. And most important it must have all the elements in order to create and play my game as i like. As it stands right now it doesn't attract me so much and it doesn't have all these features that i want in order to create my game. Of course i know that this is an alpha playtest, so i still have some hopes.

I have also two things that i look when i download every package. These two things never fixed during the open playtesting.
a) Rest - healing issue. I find it more than generous and it doesn't suit to my (and my groups gamestyle). It is a great issue for us.

b) Spellcasting: A system that supports my gaming style and that is something that resembles vancian. I have issue actually with the at will damage spell cantrips. I would prefer anyway to have the "power" of the cantrips to be tranfered to the dailies spells.

I suspect that both features are core to the game mechanics and changing them would take to much time and energy which i am not willing to spend (i have tried unsuccesfully to do the same at 4th edtion and i don't want to have this issue again).