D&D 5E (2014) 15 Petty Reasons I Won't Buy 5e

[BoldItalic]

Here comes the pettiest reason ever.

Long time on-and-off player of mine. "Nah, 5e sucks because what they did to the paladin. A paladin has to be lawful good and follow a strict set of divine rules."

Confused stare from the rest of us. "But we houseruled in NG and CG paladins a long time ago."

"Yeah but those are houserules! Now it's going to be official!"

Communal facepalm from everyone else in the shop, not only my group.

Oh and that player recently played a CG paladin. For about 5 month.

5e has paladins? That's scary. Next thing you know, they'll have gnomes and druids and barbarians and all kinds of options. Options are scary. Suppose I choose wrong? And I suppose there'll be people rolling dice and shouting and having fun 'n stuff? Like in the WotC videos with that guy Chris in the funny hat? That's scary. Suppose I don't like the hats that come in the starter set? And what about the dice? You have to use blue dice. It's in the rules. I don't like blue dice. They're unlucky. You get goblins if you roll blue dice.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Sure. I'm not spitting on the notion of a guide, if such a guide helps Ruin Explorer, so much the better. (I'll ignore the guide, but I live dangerously like that)

No-one uses the guide all the time. The point is, if you are not sure, if you would like to be sure, you use it. That's hardly unreasonable, and it would help a lot of people. I'd bet it'd even help you once in a blue moon.

Case in point: 3e was designed around the characters getting magic items at a certain rate. Someone made the case the guidelines didn't help him when he wanted to run a magic free game and then include monsters which explicitly require magic to help defeat.

He was digging for sand that wasn't in the box. That's what I'm not understanding; the need for the guidelines to cover everything conceivable.

You're getting into Straw Man territory, dude, with that last bit.

No-one has said they have to cover everything conceivable except you. So that's a non-issue. Magic items are a mainstay of D&D, but vary a lot, so putting in guidelines for them is not in any way a ridiculous request (especially as WotC themselves suggested it!!!).

3E's guidelines were terrible. I think everyone agrees with that. No-one is holding them up as an example to be followed, rather a mistake to be learned from. You highlight a very serious problem with 3E in the bolded bit. 3E was designed around that. But that was never made explicit. We were given gold/level and told that it would mostly be used on magic items. But the DESIGNERS were not operating that way - they were expecting SPECIFIC magic items at SPECIFIC values at SPECIFIC levels. This was never explained in an official book, afaik, only admitted later. The prime example was the Cloak of Resistance +X, or whatever it was called, that directly added to saves. It was ASSUMED by the designers that ALL PCs would have such an item, and the save math in 3E reflects that, and monster design.

But they never bothered to tell DMs.

They didn't give guidance.

So we got a very wonky situation with saves in 3E. As a result of making assumptions but not giving guidance. I'm arguing for guidance. Your point supports mine.

(Also, asking for a game to support "no magic items required" as an optional rule isn't unreasonable, I'd say - I've seen optional rules for that since very early 2E)

I didn't want to hear them complain. That's why I used the recommendations in the book. We had some conversations where even the hint that someone might have given out the wrong amount of gold of the suggestion that someone starts a campaign with low gold was met with loud arguments about how "Those guidelines were there for a reason, that choosing not to use them means you are choosing to kill us off when we fight a monster that has too high AC that we can't hit without bonuses. You sure you want to do that to us? Because we might as well end the campaign now, it's going to end in a TPK anyways."

Followed by whoever suggested it saying "You make a good point, we'll use the normal wealth guidelines."

It really sounds like the problem here is your players, not anything else. From what you're saying, they sound like awful, narrow-minded bossy-boots, and I'm not sure why you're gaming with them...

 

[jbear]

*Big Shrug*

I have to agree with Umbran in wondering if the process of talking about the minutia of a new game system before the actual game is released leads to entrenched opinions/reactions to the game, both positive and negative, when it is released, and whether this can lead to a certain bias rather than objectivity when actually playing the game.

I have my doubts that I will buy 5e myself. I don't really have any petty reasons for that position that I can think of. I just can't imagine it being more fun than the game I have and enjoy playing (4e). My home game has been on hold for close to 3 years going on now, but may begin again in the near future. We left the game (which was incredibly fun, memorable, and epic) having just hit paragon level. I can't think that 5e will scratch the itch that me and my players enjoy.

But I haven't decided yet. I do think that WotC have done a really good job in at least keeping my curiosity alive in the new edition. I am going to hold off on having any opinion until I get a good understanding of what the PHB contains, what the DMG contains, what the MM contains and see if the elements I look for in a game are able to be added. If they are, and elements of design that are jarring in 4e (e.g. magic items) have been improved, then I may reconsider my position. If not, I am okay with that and wish them all the best. I will see what I can pinch and steal to make my game better and carry on.

If I ever get to play 5e because someone else is running it, and for whatever reasn I am invited I'll play more than happily. But I could say that about probably any edition or RPG game, all of which remain at heart about going on an exciting adventure and doing cool things.

 

[Emerikol]

Good Post JBear.

I'm equally perplexed. In some ways they left the 4e people out in the cold, and yet now they are failing to seal the deal with those on the opposite end of the spectrum. Who are they going after again?

At this point I'm pretty sure I'm not buying 5e. I just don't feel like supporting a company that pretty much ignores the martial healing concern. I don't want that company to thrive. I'm not even going to buy minis from them. It's total Wotc boycott. All because they couldn't include one or two options to avoid martial healing. Yet on the other hand, we do have optional rules for Thac0. Wow.

I think there was a heavy confirmation bias at Wotc. They had their theories and they used the survey data to confirm those theories.

When I compare C&C to D&D 5e, here is how I see it.
1. Vancian casting - Point to C&C
2. No Martial Healing - Point to C&C
3. No Dissociative Mechanics - Point to C&C
4. Big Feats - Point to D&D 5e.
5. Fast Play - Tie. Both are fast.
6. Skill/Proficiencies System - 5e is not to my liking and C&C doesn't have one. TIE
7. Backgrounds, Bonds, Flaws, etc.. - Point to 5e

While it appears close I believe the fact 5e is trying to extinguish my playstyle tips the balance to C&C.

I've toyed with writing my own game. Maybe that ultimately is the way to go.

 

[SavageCole]

My sympathies to everyone for whom D&D is your second (or third, or fourth) best friend! I gamed with such a guy once, and he ran his favorite scifi rpg for us when his turn to GM came up, but when we ran our D&D campaigns...yeah, I could tell he was in the group because fans of his game are so scarce.

Nah, no need for sympathies. Mint chocolate chip is my 3rd or 4th favorite ice cream, but sometimes it hits the spot perfectly.

 

[billd91]

3E's guidelines were terrible. I think everyone agrees with that. No-one is holding them up as an example to be followed, rather a mistake to be learned from. You highlight a very serious problem with 3E in the bolded bit. 3E was designed around that. But that was never made explicit. We were given gold/level and told that it would mostly be used on magic items. But the DESIGNERS were not operating that way - they were expecting SPECIFIC magic items at SPECIFIC values at SPECIFIC levels. This was never explained in an official book, afaik, only admitted later. The prime example was the Cloak of Resistance +X, or whatever it was called, that directly added to saves. It was ASSUMED by the designers that ALL PCs would have such an item, and the save math in 3E reflects that, and monster design.

But they never bothered to tell DMs.

They didn't give guidance.

You got a citation for that? That's a pretty bold charge.

 

[Ahnehnois]

3E's guidelines were terrible. I think everyone agrees with that. No-one is holding them up as an example to be followed, rather a mistake to be learned from. You highlight a very serious problem with 3E in the bolded bit. 3E was designed around that. But that was never made explicit. We were given gold/level and told that it would mostly be used on magic items. But the DESIGNERS were not operating that way - they were expecting SPECIFIC magic items at SPECIFIC values at SPECIFIC levels. This was never explained in an official book, afaik, only admitted later. The prime example was the Cloak of Resistance +X, or whatever it was called, that directly added to saves. It was ASSUMED by the designers that ALL PCs would have such an item, and the save math in 3E reflects that, and monster design.

Yes, this is a rather enormous problem. The Christmas Tree effect, and the sense of treating magic items as an assumed part of character abilities.

It's also a problem with regards to the distribution of magic items. One of the first assumptions I made (and I think I'm not the only one) is that if the things that are now called the "big six" are core to the character, they should progress from minimum to maximum over twenty levels. That is to say, a level 20 fighter should have a +10 sword and armor and shield, +6 ability enhancements to all abilities, and maxed deflection, natural armor, and resistance. As a basic starting point. Then you'd have consumables and fill the other available slots and have some spare change (plus an accounting for all the losses you incurred by selling things on the market over the years). And then take that a prorate it over the previous 19 levels.

Which does not comport with what they call "expected wealth by level", not by a long shot. So the problem is a contradiction in guidelines.

(Also, asking for a game to support "no magic items required" as an optional rule isn't unreasonable, I'd say - I've seen optional rules for that since very early 2E)

It would certainly be nice.

However, that is a big ask. The 4e solution was, as I understand it, to make magic items not particularly useful and to create this weird kind of fudging with the inherent bonuses.

You go back to the old school conception of a belt of giant strength, it gave you the strength of the specified giant, regardless of where you started. This had enormous balance implications; it created a huge swing in character power and an incentive for certain types of min/maxing cheese. In 3e, you move to +X ability items. This nerfs them to some extent and makes the character's base stats more relevant, but they're still fundamentally useful. A fighter with a belt of strength is simply better than one without such an item. On some level, the solution must be to either make that statement false or remove the availability of that bonuses altogether. Given how much D&D players enjoy accumulating genuinely powerful magic items, that's a tall order.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Mint chocolate chip is my 3rd or 4th favorite ice cream, but sometimes it hits the spot perfectly.

Whoa, I'm crying foul on that. What could possibly be better than mint chip?

 

[Nagol]

Whoa, I'm crying foul on that. What could possibly be better than mint chip/

Anything with more chocolate and less mint?

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'm equally perplexed. In some ways they left the 4e people out in the cold, and yet now they are failing to seal the deal with those on the opposite end of the spectrum. Who are they going after again?

People who like buying things that say "D&D" on the cover.

I think there was a heavy confirmation bias at Wotc. They had their theories and they used the survey data to confirm those theories.

That's definitely the case. They sent out all those playtest surveys, but there wasn't any opportunity within them to express any really meaningful opinions, only to confirm or deny their opinions (with a heavy slant towards confirm).

I've toyed with writing my own game. Maybe that ultimately is the way to go.

I suspect that most ENWorlders could probably write a better game than 4e for a while; the same may end up being true of 5e as well. It's a big time investment, but not necessarily a bad one, especially if you copy existing elements you like and keep things light. Why let the market constrain you?