• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
It's true that at some point relatively soon, new threads simply bashing 5e would be edition warring, right?


It is true that, as the date approaches, there may be an uptick in extremely passionate thoughts on the matter. You can also expect that we'll start considering which of those responses are constructive, and which are disruptive. The key to edition warring is in the presentation, not in the base opinion - there's a difference between reasoned critique and bashing, and we want to encourage the former and discourage the latter.

Thus, when you yourself are looking at a thread, it would do you well to consider for yourself - is the person merely stating an opinion you don't like, or are they presenting the opinion in a truly argumentative or disruptive fashion? The former is not warring, the latter may be.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Tequila Sunrise

Adventurer
It got too little D&D in the D&D if you ask me.

My playstyle is practically the opposite of yours - going by your list - and somehow two completely different playstyles are turned off by 5E. That doesn't bode well for the game.
Indeed. So much for a D&D for everyone! :p

I find this really worrying, because I don't know that I could really run 4e without the DDI. Okay, okay, I could. But, it would be quite a bit more cumbersome. I seriously don't think it would be worth it...
Whereas I've been playing and DMing without DDI since 2008, so the possibility of losing it...well, it wouldn't be a loss at all from my end. :D

I found this and thought it was funny and appropriate:
Haha, yes, very appropriate! I get a particular kind of kick whenever I see a fan swear to never buy a WotC (or any company's) product again. :lol:
 

Tequila Sunrise

Adventurer
Having clarified that there are people involved, and remembering that people are complicated, a question comes to mind - is it actually the game and rules that turn people off, or are people having emotional reactions to other things, and then rationalizing that as being due to the rules?
I think this is a good question.

For my part, while I like to think that my perception of 5e isn't entirely petty, it's also true that I'm approaching 5e differently than I've approached any prior edition. I bought my first three editions essentially sight unseen -- even after I had been an avid forumite for a couple of years, I bought 4e without having paid much attention at all to the dev articles and gossip.

Now that I've been playing the game for twenty years, and have played three distinct editions of it, I like to think that I've developed some sense of what I like and don't like in D&D. This, combined with the fact that my wallet is still recovering from the Recession, has put me in a different frame of mind this time 'round: Rather than buying the next edition just because it's the new D&D, I'm setting two bars. If 5e had cleared either one, I'd be excited and ready to buy! The bars may be partially or entirely petty, but I don't think it's unreasonable for any given gamer to pass up yet another minor variation of a game they've been playing for this long. Some fans seem to feel an almost patriotic duty, or a compulsive collector's desire, to buy every edition of the game. But I feel no such obligation, and as Giltonio_Santos points out, 4e already plays (mostly) the way I want D&D to play. In other words, 5e's battle for my buck was uphill from the start. :eek:

Besides, there are a zillion ttrpgs that I've never played, so if I were to spend money on new rulebooks, I think that one of those would be a better use of my money. If nothing else, an entirely new game would be novel to play once or twice! This might be a kind of grognardism creeping up on me -- although I prefer to think of it as personal taste ;) -- but then again, I'm not discounting 6e+. I have a strong suspicion that the D&D pendulum will someday swing back toward experimentation and the design philosophies I value. Until then, one gamer’s support isn’t going to make or break D&D!
 
Last edited:

Majoru Oakheart

Adventurer
[*]I read a WotC article months ago saying that "Magic items will be about the story, not the math." Please, magic items are about the story and the math. Denying the importance of one just makes me think you can't design games.
It's because magic items don't GIVE math. They give a +1 to hit and also the ability to breath underwater. Or a +1 to hit and the ability to sense oranges in a 30 foot radius. When all magic weapons are adding +1 and something else, the focus then shifts to the something else. Thus, being about the story and not the math.

This is similar to the 4e philosophy, except the "extra effect" isn't always combat oriented.

[*]And speaking of +X items, are they assumed or not? Because there's no happy middle ground; they're either assumed and expected, or an extra power boost that must be accounted for.
Wait, why do they have to be accounted for? If you need a 9 to hit instead of a 10, is that suddenly game breaking and the monsters must be adjusted for? They've said there will be no magic items that add more than +2. That means an advantage to anyone who has a magic item. I say...good for them. Instead of a magic item being something everyone has, it's now an actual benefit.

[*]Mages are still the game's 'supreme magic-users,' and still can't heal. Are they even using balance as an excuse this time, or is it just one of those things that 'doesn't feel like D&D'?
Does it feel like D&D to you? It doesn't to me. They've never been able to heal before. Most of the D&D worlds that I've designed and the published ones all were built under the assumption that clerics were the ones that healed. That's part of the reason people even worship the gods. They protect and heal while the Wizards do other stuff.

Plus, it ruins niche protection. In a class based game, there should ALWAYS be things one class can do that another one can't so as to provide reasons to have both of them in a party. That's what encourages teamwork. Cleric's only real schtick is that they heal.
[*]+2 or +1/+1 or a feat: Yup, that's gonna get broke quick!
Not sure why that's going to get broke. +2 to a stat is relatively equal to the feats that have been published so far. With the cap in place, adding +2 to a stat doesn't get broken.
[*]Hard Stat Caps: A well-designed game doesn't need awkward hard caps.
Honestly, I couldn't stop laughing at this sentence. I've never, ever, ever, come across a game that wasn't broken and started to fall apart at the high end of any numbers. Most of min-maxing involves finding one thing and adding to it repeatedly until you reach a point that the game designers assumed you'd never get. At which point you dominate the game.

It's nearly impossible to give options in a game without accidentally allowing people to do this, either. Most of the broken characters in 3.5e were the ones that managed to get their stats to 40+ and had modifiers so high they didn't need a dice anymore. Most of the broken characters in 4e managed to stack static damage modifiers so high that it didn't matter what powers they activated, they won purely due to static modifiers. When your at-will power does 1d8+59, it doesn't matter that you don't have an encounter power to do 2d8+59.

I spent the time I played both editions trying to come up with a house rule to effectively cap the power gamers in my group without hindering the people who didn't do this. The ONLY real solution I ever came up with was to put hard caps on things like stats and static modifiers to damage. I never implemented them because my players would have complained and left the game(they feel if they can't power game, then what's the point).

The same thing is true of other games. Try running a Hero System(Champions) game without putting point limits on certain power or maximum damage limitations into effect. The game spirals out of control really quickly.
[*]Bounded Accuracy: Even if I liked the idea of BA, I guarantee it'll become Unbounded Accuracy quick enough.
This is at least one thing I'm worried about. So far, it appears the math will have very few things to add to it. They also appear to be making a huge commitment not to release splat books that change this either. Heck, they won't commit to releasing splat books of any kind.
[*]No standard AEDU structure: I'd rather have fun combats than a fun rulebook to read.
This isn't about a fun rulebook to read. It's about having more fun when your character does different things than other people. I'm not one of those people who says "EVERY CLASS IS THE SAME IN 4E!" I loved 4e and I played it a lot. Everyone is NOT the same. However, everyone is MORE the same than when AEDU was not in the game. You are still making the exact same decisions no matter what class you play. It's always "Do I use my Encounter power this round? Or is it time for my Daily? No? Alright, then my round has one of two choices: My 2 At-Wills." The vast majority of the rounds(at low level in particular), you ended up choosing entirely between your at-wills. And often your at-wills were different enough that only one was a valid choice in the circumstances you were in. So, turns often played themselves for you. However, you'd have a 4 page character sheet filled with information you'd need to sort through BEFORE you realized that your only real choice was one of your at-wills.

When you remove the AEDU structure, now playing a character "feels" different because you are making different choices. You are managing different resources which makes them feel different from one another.
[*]And last, but certainly not least...NO MORE LEVEL BONUS TO AC?! What, it makes too much sense? Is it too elegant? No, I guess it just 'doesn't feel like D&D.'
Level bonus to AC was one of the things I hated most about 4e. It created was too much difference between low and high level characters. It created a world where everyone felt like Superman at 30th level instead of just a really good adventurer.

Plus, it never made that much sense to me. I mean, let's say Plate Mail adds 8 to your AC. Being level 30 added 15 to your AC. Being good at dodging is all fine and dandy, but I don't think it should ever be twice as valuable as a suit of Plate Mail.

Plus, it created this weird situation where a 30th level Wizard who still doesn't know how to use a sword and has used no magic at all and is wearing 0 armor can sit there while a 1st level Fighter, trained in the use of their weapon and pretty good with it, wails away at him for minutes at a time without the Wizard getting touched by the sword once. I just can't imagine a Wizard suddenly becoming Neo from the Matrix simply because he went up some levels.

Hitpoints are already high level characters' ability to get out of the way of attacks.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
I think this is a good question.

For my part, while I like to think that my perception of 5e isn't entirely petty...

Just to be clear - the emotional reactions upon which some opinions may be based are not necessarily petty. Some may be, but others are meaningful. But if you misidentify your own reasons, conflicts become difficult to resolve: If you say the reason is X, and X gets fixed, and you still don't like it? Why is that?
 


Does it feel like D&D to you? It doesn't to me. They've never been able to heal before. Most of the D&D worlds that I've designed and the published ones all were built under the assumption that clerics were the ones that healed. That's part of the reason people even worship the gods. They protect and heal while the Wizards do other stuff.

Agreed. I like it when wizards have a weakness in a certain area of magic. I don't think it would break the game otherwise, but it feels more D&Dish to me.

Of course, the apprentice wizard I'm starting up in my friend's campaign has a strong emotional aversion to the idea and is personally convinced that arcane magic must be able to heal, regardless of what other wizards say, and he intends to discover how to do it.

Ah, role-playing. :D
 


It's because magic items don't GIVE math. They give a +1 to hit and also the ability to breath underwater. Or a +1 to hit and the ability to sense oranges in a 30 foot radius. When all magic weapons are adding +1 and something else, the focus then shifts to the something else. Thus, being about the story and not the math.

What part of +1 to hit is not mathematical? It affects the probabilities of an action succeeding, it affects how effective that action is (the damage bonus assuming they've kept it, plus affecting creatures that aren't vulnerable to normal weapons), and those are probabilistic effects. Saying that something that alters them isn't mathematics doesn't make any sense. It may be the bonus is too small to be noticeable but it's certainly there and also certainly needs some testing to see how much difference it actually makes - both through probability analysis and actual play. Remember, in theory not every table is employing magic items, and if they're writing adventures on the assumption that they're present (or for that matter absent) then it does have implications for how easy and/or hard a party of characters will find the combat.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top