D&D 5E 15 Petty Reasons I Won't Buy 5e

[billd91]

I spit on the non-empowering rules!

I, on the other hand, would like to be the first to welcome our new DM overlords.

 

[ThirdWizard]

So if they changed that to artifact only, it was after last October and represents, imho, a pretty serious change.

Yep. Like I said, big ol' grain of salt. It was a second hand, a friend of a playtester, thing. I just really hope its right, because I would love that.

 

[MoonSong]

Well, then what do you call the edition after Next? Next +1? More Nexter Than the Last One?

It was a petty reason. But to answer you, if the new edition is named Next, the one after that is named something completely different, all of your titles (Nexter, Next +1) fall prey to the same reason I don't find 5e as catchy, they are acknowledging the edition treadmill.

Yeah, all I get outta that is you like to play Aasimar Sorcerers and are worried they're gonna screw it up for you.

I think I've only ever played one aasimar sorcerer ever, maybe two, but certainly no more than three. You see I really like to play as many different possible characters, bards, clerics, rogues, paladins, sorcerers, some swashbucklers, and some characters so unique they defy reductionism to a single word. And it isn't as if 4e included Aasimar. If it had I wouldn't be worried.

Only worried, mind, because we haven't actually SEEN the Sorcerer. Maybe it will be great?
But you've got a pretty set view of what one looks like so you will quite possibly be disappointed!

I don't have a set view of what a sorcerer looks like, the problem is the designers do, and the only two options they have talked about are the monstruous over the top one and the 2e tome of magic homage, and that is ok, but when there are just two flavors and none of them is an appropriate fit for 80% of my sorcerer characters. Both are tampered by overpowering strong flavor, almost as if the designers where set on punishing you for not playing a wizard. And this is bad because they where making a lot of right decisions early on, but then wizard players began to complain that they wanted all of the good toys too and the design shifted towards pleasing them, while they eventually sidetracked and came up with an awesome framework, the whole deal was a wasted opportunity, instead of they asking the right questions "Which flavors/bloodlines you consider key to the sorcerer identity?" they kept on asking over and over "Are you sure you don't want to play a wizard with draconic flavor?". After 4e it seemed as if dragon and chaos are the only flavors needed for sorcerer players (hint they aren't), but even in 4e it was possible to play a neutral flavored sorcerer (via hybrids) but that is something the designers don't know because they never bothered to ask. In short I won't be disappointed by their sorcerer; I completely lack faith on the designers providing a good one.

Man I take so much flack around here for being hard on DM's but even I'm not this bad. Yeesh.

I'm only hard on the DMs that deserve it. I have played with awesome DMs and some terrific ones even, but I also have some horror stories to tell. I have found different rulesets and standards foster the development of certain types of DMs. Rulesets that overly empower DMs tend to attract a lot of bigoted and opinionated DMs who go control freak down to the last skillpoint of every player. Others that "entitle" players tend to bring out very open minded and sweet natured DMs that work to make room for players in their world, or short of that, allow for a good dialog when you are "entitled" to something and that something is taken away by the DM, that DM has to provide something in return out of principle, when that same DM has full control by default, it becomes "bow down with resignation or the door is that way". The so Maligned "everything is core" from 4e has actually allowed me to game with some of the best DMs out there, while other systems without a standard feature some of the most intolerant and tyranical ones.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

And it isn't as if 4e included Aasimar. If it had I wouldn't be worried.

4e DID have Aasimar. They just called them Deva. I suspect that 5e will likely go back to calling them Aasimar, with perhaps Deva being a subrace. It's consistent with what they've been doing: Make the 4e versions available, but keep them subtly "hidden" so as to attempt not to offend. It backfires sometimes when the 4e-lovers don't spot the 4e-isms, but the 4e-haters spot them like they're waving flags and jumping up and down.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I don't have a set view of what a sorcerer looks like, the problem is the designers do, and the only two options they have talked about are the monstruous over the top one and the 2e tome of magic homage

Just because that's all they've vaguely mentioned doesn't mean that's the only subclasses sorcerer has or will ever have. If you don't spot one you like on release, start a campaign asking for it. I'd be with you. Personally, I'd like to see a sorcerer subclass that is as easy (or nearly so) to play as a simple fighter subclass, but with magic. They may not go splat-happy (we all hope), but I doubt they will never expand past the original subclasses either.

They've pretty much specifically said they'd listen to feedback and try to add any elements that look to be asked for.

That said, I can understand your concern (they've been known to disappoint in the past) but I wouldn't get too overly concerned... yet. Wait a month, at least.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

And it isn't as if 4e included Aasimar.

I always took 4e's deva as a rose by any other name. Is that not the case for you?

Granted, the tiefling did offended my sense of symmetry until the deva was introduced in PHB2, but I was thereafter happy with the ease of refluffing both tieflings and devas into their more traditional counterparts.

The so Maligned "everything is core" from 4e has actually allowed me to game with some of the best DMs out there, while other systems without a standard feature some of the most intolerant and tyranical ones.

I haven't had many terrible DM experiences, but I have found that as silly as the "Everything is core" sounds, it does seem to have a positive influence on DMs. Or maybe it's 4e's relatively fine balance that makes DMs comfortable with no longer micromanaging player options. Or maybe it's a little of both.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

I, on the other hand, would like to be the first to welcome our new DM overlords.

No, I meant that as a DM, I don't care what the rules "empower" me to do or not. I do what I think is best, regardless of what the rules say.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Here's the deal: Wealth/loot guidelines basically say "PCs must have this much loot because we made the monsters assuming that loot would be on the PCs. Failure to give them the magic items they deserve and are part of the game is the wrong way to play and may end up with all your PCs dying to monsters we told you they should be able to beat easily."

But given the 5e's team's seemingly lackadaisical attitude toward magic items, and the bizarrely angry reaction to any form of wealth/loot guidance that a certain segment of the DM population have, I'm not expecting 5e to include even rough guidelines on the topic....

_________________________________________________________________

All 5e is doing is saying "The default of the game is no magic items at all. Giving them magic items means they'll be able to beat slightly harder monsters." Now, as a DM you can choose to use the same powered monsters you've always used and let them be easier for them. Or you can choose to use harder monsters and see if that challenges them better.

...After all, unhelpfully vague, misleading, or nonexistant magic item guidelines are one of D&D's long and honored traditions.

 

[ThirdWizard]

4e DID have Aasimar. They just called them Deva.

Aasimar are planetouched humanoids, with ancestry of some kind of upper planar being either directly or over generations. They're mortal creatures that are born and die like any other. They share this with tieflings and genasi, as a "half" or less ancestry with some kind of planar being.

Devas are immortal creatures that are reborn over and over again, with vague memories of past lives. When they are reborn, they appear fully grown, with some possible purpose behind their emergence into the world. When they die, they may not return for decades. If they become evil, their immortal souls are slowly corrupted and they become rakshasas in a future reincarnation.

 

[Remathilis]

I always took 4e's deva as a rose by any other name. Is that not the case for you?

Granted, the tiefling did offended my sense of symmetry until the deva was introduced in PHB2, but I was thereafter happy with the ease of refluffing both tieflings and devas into their more traditional counterparts.


I haven't had many terrible DM experiences, but I have found that as silly as the "Everything is core" sounds, it does seem to have a positive influence on DMs. Or maybe it's 4e's relatively fine balance that makes DMs comfortable with no longer micromanaging player options. Or maybe it's a little of both.

"Everything is core" is just fine and dandy until you get your first player demanding to be a warforged in your homebrew...