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

[Sonofapreacherman]

It's the first sign that you have an over-controlling DM. They crave power over player generation decisions. If I can handle the complexity of feats, which, let's be honest, doesn't requires a whole lot of game mastery since they became 'Super' feats, that's my business. Making feats 'optional' or 'variant' only encourages over-controlling DMs to exercise power that doesn't need to be wielded. Especially if you're trying to raise up a new generation of DMs.

 

[Mouseferatu]

It's the first sign that you have an over-controlling DM. They crave power over player generation decisions. If I can handle the complexity of feats, which, let's be honest, doesn't requires a whole of game mastery since they became 'Super' feats, that's my business. Making feats 'optional' or 'variant' only encourages over-controlling DMs to exercise power that doesn't need to be wielded. Especially if you're trying to raise up a new generation of DMs.

I've gamed with plenty of over-controlling DMs, and plenty of good one. This sort of thing? Feats being called out as optional? Makes no difference. A good DM will allow them, or explain why s/he won't, no matter whether they're called "optional" or "core." An over-controlling DM will forbid them regardless, if s/he chooses.

Bad DMs don't need permission to be bad, and nothing in any rulebook will stop them.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Besides, even if the rules could somehow force a DM to allow feats, an over-controller will still find plenty of other ways to make the game miserable. Think of it as an early warning sign that your tastes and theirs don't overlap well.

 

[Sadras]

For Feats and Ability Score Improvements: Our group's limit for Ability Score Improvements is you are allowed to take it once from levels 1-10 (we usually play in that range only), so that we encourage the taking Feats and discourage the min/maxing munchkinism of Attribute scores.

I could be wrong about 5e's mechanics, but I'm pretty sure there are two things messing with your math here:
1) you can only re-roll 1 die. so if you roll 1 and 1 on 2d6 you only get to re-roll one of those dice and...
2) you must accept the second roll. So if you re-roll your one die from the 1 and 1 on 2d6 example and get a third 1 you still end up with a total of 2.
So from the initial roll of 2 you would end up with a possible result in the range of 2 to 7.

Whereas a 1d12 weapon damage roll of 1 would be re-rolled to have a possible result of the entire range of 1 to 12!

Please let me know if my reading of the rules two days ago is wrong.

Nice catch. Even if this is not what they intended (although I come to the same conclusion you do from a strict reading of the language utilised), this is how we will play it.

 

[wedgeski]

Interesting list, I both agree and disagree. A couple of things:

Long weapon lists: Stick 'em all in there! As long as there are no traps for inexperienced players, it makes a lot of people very happy to see a page full of weapons in the PHB. Let's not deny them their fun.

Spell components: Since only expensive components need to be actually managed outside of a Component Pouch, this seems fine to me and is usually first on the agenda for house-ruling anyway. I might not do that this time, just to see what happens.

Identifying magic items: I will be house-ruling the "fondle it for a Short Rest and know what it does" rule. This is a 4E hold-out that I never liked in that edition either.

Advantage/Disadvantage not stacking: To me, as someone who has DM'd hundreds of 4E sessions, this is a direct and appropriate response to the horrible bonus-hunting sweep that would circle the table every time someone rolled a number where the result wasn't immediately apparent. Collapsing stacked bonuses into a more simple "You have a advantage here, sir" is great design. This is the basic game after all. I think it's exactly the right call.

Charge: I will wait and see on this one, as it depends on the interactions between attack ranges, movement, terrain, action economy, and other factors, plus is really only needed on a battle-mat. Since the basic game doesn't need a grid, Charge becomes less important.

Death Saves: When I read your comment about Death Saves and Con bonus, I mis-read it at first to think that you meant your Constitution *score* should be the save value instead of the normal 10. Now that I've thought of that, "Roll equal to or under your Con score to make a Death Save" seems like quite a fun house rule.

 

[amerigoV]

Identifying magic items: I will be house-ruling the "fondle it for a Short Rest and know what it does" rule. This is a 4E hold-out that I never liked in that edition either.

I really wish you had not said it that way. Very bad image.

In the background, a mumbling Dwarf "Oh yeah, I really want to find out what you can do. Where did I put my bear grease?" as he lustfully handles a magic axe taken off a foe.

Foreground, the cleric says to the others "Ummm, lets give Tordek some alone time. This is not going to be pretty."

 

[TwoSix]

I really wish you had not said it that way. Very bad image.

In the background, a mumbling Dwarf "Oh yeah, I really want to find out what you can do. Where did I put my bear grease?" as he lustfully handles a magic axe taken off a foe.

Let's just be happy it wasn't a Rod of Lordly Might.

 

[Iry]

That would be patently incorrect. (As probably the only person who has done multiple high level PvP tests of 5E here). By the third test; no one even wanted to play a caster, even assuming you get all spells back when one respawns. Casters get wrecked.

Not at all. I am not speaking about PVP, but about the variety of tools that can be used to solve non-combat problems. While we have not seen the Paladin and Ranger yet, the Fighter and Rogue appear to be even less capable of stacking non-combat bonuses than prior editions (both 3.5 and 4).

Also, is there a reason we have a giant flood of just created accounts? Not sure if this happens normally or we have a lot of secondary and tertiary accounts being made...

I picked up a 5E starter set at my local convention, then came on here to comment about it after playing for several days. I had a previous account, but the forums have changed since I last visited and required a re-register.

 

[Cybit]

Not at all. I am not speaking about PVP, but about the variety of tools that can be used to solve non-combat problems. While we have not seen the Paladin and Ranger yet, the Fighter and Rogue appear to be even less capable of stacking non-combat bonuses than prior editions (both 3.5 and 4).

So far, in terms of problem solving, the non spellcasters have oddly enough solved most of the problems. But they're also less prone to overthink the situations. That said, I'm curious as to how it continues as we hit double digit levels, but the spells "known" and spells "prepared" bit does limit spellcasters a lot in terms of given versatility at a given moment.

I picked up a 5E starter set at my local convention, then came on here to comment about it after playing for several days. I had a previous account, but the forums have changed since I last visited and required a re-register.

Oh right, the great hackening of a lil bit ago; totally forgot about that. >_< My bad!

 

[Umbran]

Identifying magic items: I will be house-ruling the "fondle it for a Short Rest and know what it does" rule. This is a 4E hold-out that I never liked in that edition either.

Identify can be cast a as a ritual by a wizard - so it takes 11 minutes, and doesn't use a spell slot, or need to be prepared for the day.