D&D 5E 5e, some thoughts.

[Tortoise]

Currently we have very little information to go on about how 5e will work. However, with what little we have heard, it sounds to me as if the designers are making an honest effort to take the best elements of the various editions and make them work together so that people liking various styles of game actually can share a table.

It may be impossible when all is said and done, but at least the designers have their hearts in the right place. They love the game as much as we do so let's cut them some slack for now and wait to see more of what they are doing.

Too many people are already declaring "deal breakers" when there is nothing set in stone and WotC has said we will have our say by being part of open playtests.

I'm curious and somewhat optomistic, with a proper dose of skepticism.

 

[Nebulous]

so far, i've heard more things i'm happy about than displeased with.

 

[RHGreen]

Deal breakers are silly.

I hate vancian, and they have said it is in, but I wouldn't call it a deal breaker (but TBH if they brought back THAC0 I'm gone) as long as I get to do magical stuff all the time (no crossbows, no slings, and no big sticks)

Most of the things that people say are dealbreakers are stupid. Those people will be in the minority - and if people say that they are probably overstating their feelings. It is the internet afterall.

Anyone who will not play a game because halflings are podgy and have hairy feet, when they can easily just say - 'In my game halflings are skinny and wear boots' can leave for all I care. Just shut the door on the way out.

 

[pauljathome]

Deal breakers are silly.

Some peoples deal breakers may be so easy to work around that they are silly.

But having deal breakers is certainly not silly.

I currently play Pathfinder. I'm happy with Pathfinder. 5th edition has to be better than Pathfinder for me to want to switch. There are definitely some things currently being talked about that would make me sufficiently unhappy that I'd prefer Pathfinder.

Now, deal breakers come in 2 categories.

The first are those things that will cause me to vote against 5th edition in my local group and will cause me to try and find Pathfinder games.

The second are those things that will cause me to refuse to play 5th edition, even if my local group decides to play it.

The idea of random character creation coupled with stats being extremely important is definitely a deal breaker for me. Its probably the first category but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that I hated it enough that it would become the second category for me (especially if I rolled up a particularly incompetent character).

 

[RHGreen]

Some peoples deal breakers may be so easy to work around that they are silly.

But having deal breakers is certainly not silly.

I currently play Pathfinder. I'm happy with Pathfinder. 5th edition has to be better than Pathfinder for me to want to switch. There are definitely some things currently being talked about that would make me sufficiently unhappy that I'd prefer Pathfinder.

Now, deal breakers come in 2 categories.

The first are those things that will cause me to vote against 5th edition in my local group and will cause me to try and find Pathfinder games.

The second are those things that will cause me to refuse to play 5th edition, even if my local group decides to play it.

The idea of random character creation coupled with stats being extremely important is definitely a deal breaker for me. Its probably the first category but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that I hated it enough that it would become the second category for me (especially if I rolled up a particularly incompetent character).

From what you say it sounds like you aren't a dealbreaker person. In the example you give, providing you don't have a bad DM, I can see you just rolling up another bunch of stats if they are too bad to enjoy.

 

[pauljathome]

From what you say it sounds like you aren't a dealbreaker person. In the example you give, providing you don't have a bad DM, I can see you just rolling up another bunch of stats if they are too bad to enjoy.

It depends .

Some GMs won't allow one to reroll. Some groups will allow it but will very strongly discourage it.

So, sometimes I'll probably go along but will like the game experience significantly less. If that is bad enough then eventually I'll either complain and either reroll or quit.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I am overall happy with waht 5E sounds like thus far and I can se myself using it, if it is how I think it is.

As for dealbreakers, I see lot of it as a thin justification ofr not playing a game. Sure, if it is too serious, I can see it, but for example rolling stats or using point buy is trivial. If that is somone's dealbreaker, I just cannot understand their way of thinking.

for other people 5E is not the game for them. So be it.

But overall, I am quite positive about the game thus far.

 

[mkill]

The thing about deal breakers is - it differs between my player hat and my DM hat.

As a player, I'm fine with pretty much any edition of any game system, because I know the DM makes the difference. He or she is the factor who decides whether I have fun or not. A DMs style easily overrides whatever the system tries to impose. This is especially true in D&D, which has always accomodated wildly differing play styles (although D&D gamers often aren't aware of it, and just assume their style as the default). Even if a deal breaker shows up, the DM is a human I can talk to, maybe we can work it out.

As a DM, I'm much more picky. I want a system that supports me and doesn't drop tons of baggage on me. Random example: If 5E tried to come back with stuff like fighting archdruids at lvl 13. WTF? What if druids in my game world have no organizational structure? What if they're in the middle of the ocean and the group has more important things to do? It's a deal breaker.

TL;DR: Players will bitch and moan, but they'll deal with most issues for the chance to play. DMs usually have their favorite system already. They won't switch unless the new edition gives them a tangible advantage.

 

[Greg K]

As a player, I'm fine with pretty much any edition of any game system, because I know the DM makes the difference. .

For myself, this is not the case. It is true that a poor DM may ruin a game that I like, mechanically. However, even a great DM is not going to make much of a difference if I dislike the mechanics of a system (unless they rewrite the game).

 

[Umbran]

What sometimes seems a bit unreasonable (or, "silly" if you will) is declaring what is or isn't a deal-breaker before seeing it in context. What seemed horrible to you in a previous game might actually work out okay when reworked, and set in the middle of a set of rules that works differently.