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

[MoonSong]

Wizards, its wizards now not mages, can be fantastic healers with a dip in a Cleric or Bard.

Seriously Healing Word and Cure are both 1st level spells, that get more powerful when slotted in a higher slot so a 19 level wizard/ 1 level Cleric can cast 9th level Cure and Healing Word Spells.

While we are at it, Bards themselves are going to be pretty good healers, and Sorcerers are better at taking advantage of a Bard dip for healing. Merely because sorcerers are Cha-based, and they will lose nothing on qualifying for bard (which sadly requires 15 Cha), so they will be able to dip earlier and will have better survival stats. Among arcane classes only warlocks will be worse healers than wizards, if only because they will lack true slots.

--------------------------------

And speaking of petty reasons for not buying Next, I need to tell mine. Not because I have made up my mind about not buying at all, but rather because I really need to justify such an expense and I haven't received any positive signs my pet peeves will be satisfied. So here are my 15 petty reasons not to buy 5e:

1. The name, Next is a catchy name and sounds pretty elegant and cool. 5e is just yet another reminder of the edition treadmill.
2. Multiclassing.- Specifically multiclassing score requirements, the thing is already optional for crying out loud. In order for it to be useful for me I need not only to beg for it to be allowed, but also to be granted an exception once it is allowed, or in its defect take the optimal MC array every time I make a character and renounce an aspect of character uniqueness forever just to be able to enjoy organic character growth. Seriously all these requirements do for multiclassing is firmly set it as a powergaming tool that reinforces class stereotypes and nothing else.
3. Speaking of ability scores, the point buy is already insanely high and limits the kind of characters that can be made legaly, and all attempts to dial ability scores will be met with unexpected results. One of the points of modularity is to be able to move dials without it interacting in strange ways with the rest of the system. Multiclassing is already the perfect example
4. The human ability bonuses, they push up the already high point buy. using point buy it is impossible to get a human with a single 8, which is still isn't low enough.
5. The fact it is that way in part to keep demihuman penalty-free doesn't make it any better. Elves are supposed to be frail and hobbits weak.
6. And speaking of races: what will be of the Aasimar is still a mystery. (Conjecture I better forget they were once a thing, apparently they are typecast as bland goody two-shoes and nobody finds that cool)
7. And talking about typecasting, sorcerer magic= 1000 ways to fry a kobold all over again, no indications of sorcerers having any kind of utility or the ability to fight mundanely. The whole point of sorcerer is commoner with magic, they should be using magic casually!
8. The fact Wizard is still the default arcane caster, I know it is a sacred cow, but having most of the non-blasty support to sorcerers being filtered through the nerdy bookworm niche invader wizards prevents sorcerers from being as diverse as they could. LEts make knock noisy and time consuming! that will prevent wizards from stealing the rogue's niche! who cares if sorcerers want to cover that niche if it isn't good for wizards it cannot be good for anybody!
9. More on sorcerers: apparently there will be only two flavors of sorcerer: turn into a monster sorcerer and be unpredictable and silly sorcerer (ok, this one looks pretty cool, though it being considered a reincarnation of the wild mages from 2e takes away some of its sorcererness, sounds more like an homage than a honest attempt on a sorcerer). PF on the corebook alone gave us more than half a dozen flavors and 3.5 and 3.0 had potentially unlimited flavors by not codifying heritage. Apparently the number of sorcerer flavors shrinks with each edition.
10. The mage fiasco. I know it was all eventually buried down and the designers relented, but combined with all of the above it makes me feel the designers lacked any love for the sorcerers (or even understanding what they are about, where is the simple sorcerer? any chance of having a dumb sorcerer with no lore knowledge?)
11. Alignment lacking mechanical effects and paladins that cannot fall. Was it so hard to create a separate champion class for warriors of specific deities?
12. The fact all of the cool classes are now going to be behind a gate with a huge OPTIONAL label attached and the key will be in the hands of judgmental and prejudiced DMs who already get a kink out of taking away options and intruding into characters. All of the effort that used to go into building that special snowflake is now needed just to play something that isn't a big 4 class, despite being as bland and fitting the designers stereotype of the class instead of a character one can relate to. IMO it is better to have a solid and healthy array of options and allow DMs to remove what contradicts their campaign world (or offends their restricted sensibilities, it isn't as if DMs aren't already removing stuff without the rules empowering them to do so). This fostering of no standard is very bad, and it isn't as if I don't wish to compromise, when you play online with strangers or in conventions you already compromise a lot. Having to compromise even more when the only common ground is 4 classes, 4 races and no options is beyond the stretch.
13. +1 weapons need to die in a fire, I actually like the magical and quirky qualities of magic weapons, but having all of that tied to a +1 bonus makes it superfluous and an afterthought. It is about the quirkiness and the wonder, not about the math.
14. The basic game lacking a hardcopy. If anything else being equal, I was perfectly eager to buy the basic game despite everything except the fact it doesn't and won't exist.
15. And the most important reason, the community, despite every advance and improvement and roleplay enablers, for many people it is all about the math and combat, about violence and being the most optimal killer, about acting like a murder hobo and declaring badwrong fun playing any character that isn't a superpowerful badass. It is ok to pretend your character is vulnerable, pacifical and a life preserver, but dammed you if you dare to want to represent any of that in a way that doesn't average ten kills per minute.

Having said that, I won't ever talk about them again, I don't want to start sounding so repetitive. It is just wait and see hoping to be wrong and for the best from now on.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Multiclassing.- Specifically multiclassing score requirements, the thing is already optional for crying out loud. In order for it to be useful for me I need not only to beg for it to be allowed, but also to be granted an exception once it is allowed, or in its defect take the optimal MC array every time I make a character and renounce an aspect of character uniqueness forever just to be able to enjoy organic character growth. Seriously all these requirements do for multiclassing is firmly set it as a powergaming tool that reinforces class stereotypes and nothing else.

Good call. Of all the things to take from 4e and pre-WotC D&D...stat prereqs for MCing? Ugh!

And speaking of races: what will be of the Aasimar is still a mystery. (Conjecture I better forget they were once a thing, apparently they are typecast as bland goody two-shoes and nobody finds that cool)

Nobody wants to play aasimar because they're the inverse of the old school race-as-classes: The aasimar is the paladin-as-race. Now that's dull in all kinds of ways!

Actually, I agree that tieflings and aasimar go together. When I see one presented without the other, it offends my sense of symmetry.

Having said that, I won't ever talk about them again, I don't want to start sounding so repetitive. It is just wait and see hoping to be wrong and for the best from now on.

Still, I had fun reading your petty list, so thanks for posting it!

 

[billd91]

• The name, Next is a catchy name and sounds pretty elegant and cool. 5e is just yet another reminder of the edition treadmill.

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

Next is a good term when it's in development. We use that at the software company where I work when prioritizing enhancement projects. Does it go in Current Development or, if not important enough and resources are short, does it go in Next? But as an actual name on release? Not a good idea.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

And speaking of petty reasons for not buying Next, I need to tell mine.

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


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!

 

[Hussar]

/snip


[*]The fact all of the cool classes are now going to be behind a gate with a huge OPTIONAL label attached and the key will be in the hands of judgmental and prejudiced DMs who already get a kink out of taking away options and intruding into characters. All of the effort that used to go into building that special snowflake is now needed just to play something that isn't a big 4 class, despite being as bland and fitting the designers stereotype of the class instead of a character one can relate to. IMO it is better to have a solid and healthy array of options and allow DMs to remove what contradicts their campaign world (or offends their restricted sensibilities, it isn't as if DMs aren't already removing stuff without the rules empowering them to do so). This fostering of no standard is very bad, and it isn't as if I don't wish to compromise, when you play online with strangers or in conventions you already compromise a lot. Having to compromise even more when the only common ground is 4 classes, 4 races and no options is beyond the stretch. on.

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

 

[FitzTheRuke]

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

Oh yeah, that was another thing I got outta that post: KaiiLurker has played with some TERRIBLE DM's. Poor fellow.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

IMO it is better to have a solid and healthy array of options and allow DMs to remove what contradicts their campaign world (or offends their restricted sensibilities, it isn't as if DMs aren't already removing stuff without the rules empowering them to do so).

I spit on the non-empowering rules!

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Are you sure?

Yes.

So presumably the characters who do have them - and make no mistake, the adventures hand them out - will find the game easier. How much easier is something I'd like to know, because I like to challenge the players skills.

+1 to hit and damage? They increase the damage of one party member by about 8% or so....the math is more complicated than that, but it's a rough estimate. Which means the damage output of one party member in 5 goes up 8%. Which means the entire damage output goes up about 2%(assuming the party member is question does about 25% of the group's output). Which means that for every 100 damage the party would have done, they now do 102.

OK, but what if they've all got +1 weapons and 1 armour? Should I make the encounter harder to account for that, and how much>

I wouldn't. Reward them for finding those items. Makes the encounter slightly easier. Even if all of them have +1 weapons and armor, it increases each of their damage by about 1 per round. They'll do maybe 5 points more than they would have without them. At higher levels it might add 15 more points to the whole group per round.

The hitpoints of all monsters are going up in the final version of the game. I think the 15 points might mean that one monster dies on round 3 who would have died on round 4.

These are all estimates, of course, the exact number depends on the exact bonus needed to hit the current monster they are fighting as well as what the average damage the PC is doing per round already. Still, at the high levels we are talking about, monsters have 250+ hitpoints. The extra 15 damage is 6% of its hitpoints per round. Assuming they are fighting just one monster. I would assume they'd fight 4 or 5 at this level. My rough guess is that it does about 1% of the average encounter's total hitpoints each round. Which probably means the encounter is about 5% easier if it lasts 5 rounds.

Meanwhile the armor absorbs about 5% of the enemy's damage per round. So let's assume 5 enemies each doing 31 damage per per round. Or about 155 damage per round. The PCs will take 8 damage less than that per round. Once again, about 5% easier or so.

Let's round up and assume the encounter is about 10% easier. Which means if the chance to die in an encounter was about 20%, it's only about 10% for the group with this magic equipment.

Mine is that regardless of magic items not being about the mathematics, that's exactly what their +1 bonus affects. And I suspect that the cool effect is going to be relevant a lot less of the time.

Depends what you mean by relevant. A +1 bonus to hit has an effect about once every 20 rounds of combat. You could probably go through 5 combats without it having any effect at all. If you fight one combat a day, that's almost a full week your weapon's bonus to hit hasn't really helped you. Also, give the amount of overkill most combats have, the extra point of damage you get is negated the vast majority of the time. Hit a monster with 3 hitpoints left for 13 points of damage and you've just wasted 10 damage. Unless you make 10 more attacks that combat, you've just completely negated the effect of your weapon.

In which case, if the special effect on your weapon comes up once in that week, it just might be more relevant.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I think you've made an error in quoting. I'm pretty sure that I agree with you in this thread.

I apologize. A copy and paste error apparently. It has been corrected.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

To clarify, my point is that whether the game assumes no, some, or many magic items, it should comment on what happens when a DM's campaign ignores those assumptions. Simple enough to provide at least rough guidelines on how to treat parties where say, everyone has a +1 weapon and +1 armor vs. a +2 weapon and +2 armor vs. a +3 weapon and +3 armor.

That requires a lot of math and a lot of playtesting to even come up with guidelines for it. And, for the most part, it'll say "If the PCs are getting too powerful, add another monster". The numbers are so small, as I mention in my post above, that the difference between having a +1 item and not having one doesn't warrant any change to an encounter. +3 items might. Which is kind of why I'm hoping that there aren't any +3 items in the game at all. I'm banking on +1 and +2 being the only items in the game.

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

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."

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.

And I bet you'll see loot guidelines in the DMG. I'm almost positive there will be a section that says "We recommend you hand out X magic items per level and only Y of them should be weapons and armor. You should also hand out about Z amount of gold per level."

What you WON'T see is a list of prices for magic items and a wealth table that says "at 10th level you should have 30,000 gp. +1 swords are 1000 gold, so you can buy 30 of them."