D&D 5E Just a reality check.

[Nebulous]

If you can go through 100+ pages of rules and only find a couple of things you don't like, I think that says a lot about how solid the product is.

True. I like reading these boards and the endless complaints...well, i take that back....i don't like the complaining. I DO like that some people take the time to pick apart the rules in a way i never would, and portray potential problems that I can then personally decide if they are an issue to me or not. 90% of the time, i don't care. Especially when it comes to high level 14+ rules, i'll never use them anyway.

 

[Mercule]

these are minor concerns easily fixed with house rules.

Actually, this is something I specifically wanted to call out: 5E looks very friendly to house rules. This is something that doesn't matter to everyone, but it does to me. In 1E, I had tons of house rules, not because the system was bad, but to flavor it for my own world and some of the lore the PCs built up. Some of those rules weren't relevant to 3E (my house weapon resistance looked a [u/]lot[/u] like 3.5, for example). Where I did want to house rule 3E, though, it generally went poorly; there were just too many interdependencies.

Because 5E is designed for modularity, and the Basic rules look like they pulled it off, I'm upbeat about my prospects for tweaking things.

 

[Thalionalfirin]

I am. If the monsters have the increases built into their stats it will make things a bit tougher and require figuring out where their increases were placed.

Let me know how that goes. I think I'll do the same. I may leave just a few in but limit it to +1 to 2 stats only.

 

[Nebulous]

Actually, this is something I specifically wanted to call out: 5E looks very friendly to house rules. This is something that doesn't matter to everyone, but it does to me. In 1E, I had tons of house rules, not because the system was bad, but to flavor it for my own world and some of the lore the PCs built up. Some of those rules weren't relevant to 3E (my house weapon resistance looked a [u/]lot[/u] like 3.5, for example). Where I did want to house rule 3E, though, it generally went poorly; there were just too many interdependencies.

Because 5E is designed for modularity, and the Basic rules look like they pulled it off, I'm upbeat about my prospects for tweaking things.

I agree with this. 5th edition seems to support, condone, encourage and anticipate house rules, and for me i find it might be the greatest strength of the system over any of its predecessors. i love tweaking things anyway, and it's not that i feel like stuff is broken in the Basic rules, I just see ways i can make it more fun for me.

 

[Abstruse]

I agree with this. 5th edition seems to support, condone, encourage and anticipate house rules, and for me i find it might be the greatest strength of the system over any of its predecessors. i love tweaking things anyway, and it's not that i feel like stuff is broken in the Basic rules, I just see ways i can make it more fun for me.

During development, they repeatedly called this out as a core design goal, though they were speaking about rules hacking using official rules options. Based on comments from Mike Mearls and others, it looks like the DMG is going to be packed with these sort of optional rules (the "modules" talked about during playtest) and give you lots of tools to kitbash the rules on your own. I mean why bother with house rules when you've got official rules allowing you to do what you want that have already been playtested?

 

[Nebulous]

I mean why bother with house rules when you've got official rules allowing you to do what you want that have already been playtested?

a) it's fun b) i don't have to wait for someone else to tell me

Although i am more than happy to have a big fat DMG of playtested kitbashing goodness, that sounds great.

 

[RHGreen]

Judging the Negative.

Disregard if:


* It isn't their edition so they don't like it. (This goes for mechanics that aren't in a previous edition and they don't like them for purely that reason)


Probably a troll. Nobody can do anything about this and posters are just wasting everyone's time including their own.


* They don't like D&D.


Probably a troll. Nobody can do anything about this and commenters are just wasting everyone's time including their own.


* Taste Mismatch.


Person 1 likes blue, person 2 likes red. Giving them both purple will probably end up with them both hating it.
Make a good choice and stick with it. Nothing else you can do.




Not Negative, actually a good thing (these are what forums like this are made for):


* Hearty aggressive deconstruction and analysis of the system.


* Misunderstanding the rules until someone corrects them in a civil, convincing and logical manner.




Important negative criticism:


* This isn't D&D.


I haven't seen a single complaint of this yet. It looks like D&D.




* Mechanical Balance Issues.


System design errors that will need errata. Anything that breaks the game or allows bad players to easily break it through rules manipulation (but if you have a player like that you should probably ditch them anyway).
This is unavoidable and will get worse as the system gets picked apart and played more, but obviously limited by good design. I have seen some criticism in this area, but limited so far.




* Verisimilitude.


This is important to me and what makes an RPG different to a board game. RPGs shouldn't be more gamey than they need to be.
Fluff and mechanics should support each other in a logical, internally realistic (not simulation) way.
I have seen a small amount of negative opinion in this area, but half of it is based more on taste than verisimilitude.



I may have missed something, but these are my own general guidelines and as far as I've seen the general response has been positive.

 

[Hussar]

Going to dogpile in this one as well, but, [MENTION=63245]Evenglare[/MENTION], where is this negativity you are seeing for 5e? Other than a few bits and bobs, the reaction has been very positive. It's been nice. Compared to 5 years ago when 4e came out, certainly a world better, when you'd get fifteen page threads sprouting every day about how the devs were destroying D&D and killing puppies.

This time around feels a lot more like the release of 3e.

 

[Nebulous]

Going to dogpile in this one as well, but, @Evenglare, where is this negativity you are seeing for 5e? Other than a few bits and bobs, the reaction has been very positive. It's been nice. Compared to 5 years ago when 4e came out, certainly a world better, when you'd get fifteen page threads sprouting every day about how the devs were destroying D&D and killing puppies.

This time around feels a lot more like the release of 3e.

It's a world of difference. I can *feel* that people are happy for the most part, not this shocked feeling of "you just killed my baby."

 

[Morrus]

People discussing the minutia of your game is the home run. It's what you want. It's what game designers hope people will do. Because people discussing your game are people who care about your game.

Imagine if 5E came out and there was just .... deafening .... silence.

*That* would be a bad sign. This? This is what's known as "performing as intended".