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

[Remathilis]

The way this opening post is phrased is like someone trying to convice WOTC to change the plan and make these changes before time runs out. Time has already run out. The PHB is off to the printer.

Feats, for instance. You claim that they are 'treating feats like variant rules'. Guess what? That's exactly what they are in this edition. But they'll be there in the PHB for easy and available use. Go ahead and use them. Or do you turn up your nose at them and refuse to use them because they are listed as a 'variant rule'?

I agree with a few of the listed desired changes, but most are fine by me as they are. You can play that version of D&D that you want by houseruling those changes. It's not gonna be in the PHB that way, but you can still play it that way.

That is a problem I'm seeing with the Basic Rules in PDF form: some people are treating it as another playtest packet that they can convince WotC to fix in a month or so. I just don't see that.

At most, you'll see some clarification in the form of a FAQ some time before Christmas. It won't change rules, but it might clarify ambiguity (see short rests, multiple). That said, I suspect the rules are what they are. We can't edit the PHB, the MM is 99.9% done, and the DMG is mostly going through the editing and formatting stages by now. I don't think changes to the rules are an option anymore.

To OP's list though: some of those are fine house rules. Some of those are just belly-aches. There are some choices I'd have made differently too, but it is what it is.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

That is a problem I'm seeing with the Basic Rules in PDF form: some people are treating it as another playtest packet that they can convince WotC to fix in a month or so. I just don't see that.

At most, you'll see some clarification in the form of a FAQ some time before Christmas. It won't change rules, but it might clarify ambiguity (see short rests, multiple). That said, I suspect the rules are what they are. We can't edit the PHB, the MM is 99.9% done, and the DMG is mostly going through the editing and formatting stages by now. I don't think changes to the rules are an option anymore.

To OP's list though: some of those are fine house rules. Some of those are just belly-aches. There are some choices I'd have made differently too, but it is what it is.

This game will always be subject to errata. Hence the 'Version 0.1' on page one of the free PDF. The designers have said that they will remain committed to making corrections to D&D. They would be wise to make good on that promise.

Moreover, regarding the freedom to create house rules, of course that option exists. I can always invent my own game, but then why would I pay for it? If I'm going to pay for a game, it's because it supports a wide selection of play-styles.

Feats are a good example. Instead of making them a variant rule, make them core, but preserve the choice that is being suggested now. If you want them, you can have them. If you don't, you can take an ability score bonus. That way people who want complexity can have it (without any variant rule restrictions), and people that don't can abstain. You can even have both types of people playing at the same table in the same party.

 

[Unwise]

I really like 4e, but it was such a pain to make houserules for. Something as simple as allowing a class to use a different weapon could end up in some wierd power swapping and feat combinations that end up bending/breaking the balance. I remember when I first started DMing, I said "sure, you can use a hammer for that power that says you must use a mace" and it ended up a far more significant change than I envisaged. Given the precise language of 4e, and the vast amount of feats, it was hard to see the consequences of tinkering with the system straight away.

5e just seems to have far few moving parts and far fewer interdependancies than 4e. I feel far less constrained with houseruling in this system than I have in the past. I am already running a game with a Paladin with a homebrew vow and a Bard with the Royal Society of Archeologists as his college. Before I got into 4e I think about 50% of the PCs my group ran would have some degree of homebrewing involved in their creation, I kind of miss that.

I might not agree with many of the OPs proposed changes, but I am excited again to be playing a game that holds up to that level of tinkering without requiring a great deal of system mastery to assess the impacts.

 

[unan oranis]

Between dash and being able to mix up your move and attack, isn't charge still kind of in?

Agree with many of your other points, although feats should be optional.

99% of my people wouldn't play without them, but for new players its usually a bridge too far.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Whereas I pretty much disagree with all of his points, e.g. I'm fine with some weapons being ever so slightly less than optimal, feats should be optional, banded armour is a made up D&D-ism, etc. Pretty much everything on the OPs list is an opinion, to which there is disagreement (as seen on this thread) and WotC have conducted a lot of surveying to reach a point where they feel they are pleasing the most people with the rules as released.

As to Version 0.1, that is because they have yet to add the extra stuff in from PHB, DMG and MM to make the Basic PDF a complete game. There won't be massive changes to the core rules IMO.

 

[Nikosandros]

Between dash and being able to mix up your move and attack, isn't charge still kind of in?

If you pick dash as your action for that round, you won't (normally) have an action left for attacking.

 

[SavageCole]

I really like D&D 5th edition so far. I'm excited. I'm invested. It did a lot things right. But it's not perfect.

I want D&D 5th edition to be everything that it can be. I don't want it to settle for 'good enough'. Not after this much public play-testing.

To wit...

For the first time in the history of the internet, I agree with every point Sonofapreacherman made.

 

[Nebulous]

Yeah. While I appreciate your play style and can empathize with where you are going with a lot of the changes you recommend, I don't agree with your assertion that these are universal desires/problems. I don't think there is ONE set of rules to make everyone completely happy.

The point of 5e, from my understanding, is to create a base game that addresses the majority of players desires (as determined by playtest surveys) and then encourage and support house rules.

IMO I think they have succeeded very well so far, and am willing hold off on my own houserules until I come upon issues in play.

Plus... DMG.

And I think they have mostly succeeded with this. Believe it or not, and I don't even know why, but i look *forward* to implementing house rules in 5e! Maybe it's just because i can and I know it's not going to break the game somewhere else.

 

[Essenti]

If you pick dash as your action for that round, you won't (normally) have an action left for attacking.

This does seem odd that a second level rogue can basically charge every round (using cunning action to dash as a bonus action), but the fighter can not...

 

[Nikosandros]

This does seem odd that a second level rogue can basically charge every round (using cunning action to dash as a bonus action), but the fighter can not...

It does seem odd, yes. I guess that they want the rogue as the king of mobility on the battlefield even though I'm still waiting to see if charge (or something similar) will be present in the PHB.