D&D 5E Just a reality check.

[Mercule]

I've only posted a couple comments about 5e, and they could probably be viewed as negative. It's very context specific, though. I was responding to others.

My actual opinion is that 5E looks amazing. The Basic rules look an awful lot like 1E channeling 3E (or vice versa). It looks to have most of the simplicity of 1E, with the consistency of 3E (which are both Good Things, IMO).

I didn't even realize that feats were missing until after my first full read -- I saw the sidebar, but it didn't sink in because it's a full game without them. Note, I definitely intend to use feats and the PHB, but that proved, to me, that the modularity thing is workable.

Based on the play tests and my read through of the Basic rules, I'm very confident that 5E will be my favorite edition.

 

[Thalionalfirin]

Despite my concerns, I do like it.

My main concern is that there are things built into Basic that I personally feel should have been options and not part of the baseline of the game (Ability score increases). It is tougher to dig them out than to add them in. Other than that, I see it as a very playable game.

I am not all that crazy about the ability score increases either (and don't want to replace them with feats). Maybe it's the old school sensibility in me.

I don't necessarily have a problem with the ability score increases. It's just that there seems to be so many of them.

Are you thinking of stripping them out?

 

[Mercule]

I am not all that crazy about the ability score increases either (and don't want to replace them with feats). Maybe it's the old school sensibility in me.

I don't necessarily have a problem with the ability score increases. It's just that there seems to be so many of them.

Are you thinking of stripping them out?

Yeah. That is one thing I didn't care for, either. Since I do intend to use feasts, I got over it, but it did cause a second look.

 

[Abstruse]

It has to do with human nature. It's hard to get into a detailed discussion of what you like because, well, what are you going to say? "I really like this thing. It's cool."

However, if you don't like something, it gives you a lot more to talk about. "Here's the math behind this mechanic and here's the math if they'd done this instead" or "This option says this about the game world and how it works and it'd be more realistic if they did this" and so on. A lot of what I'm seeing is, "I really like this edition except for one or two things that I'm going to talk about a lot!" It's just how the internet is.

If you can go through 100+ pages of rules and only find a couple of things you don't like, I think that says a lot about how solid the product is.

 

[JeffB]

So the internet has pretty much completely ripped apart the basic game and everywhere I go it's almost nothing but complaints, fix this, fix that. So I just wanted to make sure, you guys realize the fundamental sweeping game changes aren't going to happen at this point... right? The book has gone off to the printer, over and done with. I can't imagine they are going to release a book with 10 pages of errata as soon as it hits shelves. I get that some people don't understand design choices which is fine, but at this point you are simply going to have to house rule whatever you want them to change. As a side note even though I love the new system I am completely distraught from what I'm reading here and on the wizards forums. It seems as though wizard has completely failed at this release, and that really sucks because I was hoping people would like this system better after 4e, or maybe everyone does like it and the complainers are just a vocal minority or something?

I think you are overreacting, just like 99% of all gamers posting on the Internet

 

[Mistwell]

So the internet has pretty much completely ripped apart the basic game and everywhere I go it's almost nothing but complaints

Truly, this is not my experience. And I am here, at WOTC, at TheRPGSite...why do you claim it's all complaints? I am seeing mostly praise.

 

[Tortoise]

I am not all that crazy about the ability score increases either (and don't want to replace them with feats). Maybe it's the old school sensibility in me.

I don't necessarily have a problem with the ability score increases. It's just that there seems to be so many of them.

Are you thinking of stripping them out?

I am. If the monsters have the increases built into their stats it will make things a bit tougher and require figuring out where their increases were placed.

 

[DonAdam]

Most of the complaints, IME, have been nitpicking. For example, I'm a bit worried about fighting styles and don't like multiple attacks; these are minor concerns easily fixed with house rules. Overall, the general atmosphere seems to be one of excitement.

 

[Vicar In A Tutu]

My first impressions of 5E are positive and I just a get positive vibe all around (though there are some issues, mostly related to saving throws).

 

[Falling Icicle]

Most of the reactions I've seen have been positive.

I am very pleased with it. There are a few issues, but they're very minor compared to the kinds of problems I've seen in most other games in the first printing.

 

[Nebulous]

If you can go through 100+ pages of rules and only find a couple of things you don't like, I think that says a lot about how solid the product is.

True. I like reading these boards and the endless complaints...well, i take that back....i don't like the complaining. I DO like that some people take the time to pick apart the rules in a way i never would, and portray potential problems that I can then personally decide if they are an issue to me or not. 90% of the time, i don't care. Especially when it comes to high level 14+ rules, i'll never use them anyway.

 

[Mercule]

these are minor concerns easily fixed with house rules.

Actually, this is something I specifically wanted to call out: 5E looks very friendly to house rules. This is something that doesn't matter to everyone, but it does to me. In 1E, I had tons of house rules, not because the system was bad, but to flavor it for my own world and some of the lore the PCs built up. Some of those rules weren't relevant to 3E (my house weapon resistance looked a [u/]lot[/u] like 3.5, for example). Where I did want to house rule 3E, though, it generally went poorly; there were just too many interdependencies.

Because 5E is designed for modularity, and the Basic rules look like they pulled it off, I'm upbeat about my prospects for tweaking things.

 

[Thalionalfirin]

I am. If the monsters have the increases built into their stats it will make things a bit tougher and require figuring out where their increases were placed.

Let me know how that goes. I think I'll do the same. I may leave just a few in but limit it to +1 to 2 stats only.

 

[Nebulous]

Actually, this is something I specifically wanted to call out: 5E looks very friendly to house rules. This is something that doesn't matter to everyone, but it does to me. In 1E, I had tons of house rules, not because the system was bad, but to flavor it for my own world and some of the lore the PCs built up. Some of those rules weren't relevant to 3E (my house weapon resistance looked a [u/]lot[/u] like 3.5, for example). Where I did want to house rule 3E, though, it generally went poorly; there were just too many interdependencies.

Because 5E is designed for modularity, and the Basic rules look like they pulled it off, I'm upbeat about my prospects for tweaking things.

I agree with this. 5th edition seems to support, condone, encourage and anticipate house rules, and for me i find it might be the greatest strength of the system over any of its predecessors. i love tweaking things anyway, and it's not that i feel like stuff is broken in the Basic rules, I just see ways i can make it more fun for me.

 

[Abstruse]

I agree with this. 5th edition seems to support, condone, encourage and anticipate house rules, and for me i find it might be the greatest strength of the system over any of its predecessors. i love tweaking things anyway, and it's not that i feel like stuff is broken in the Basic rules, I just see ways i can make it more fun for me.

During development, they repeatedly called this out as a core design goal, though they were speaking about rules hacking using official rules options. Based on comments from Mike Mearls and others, it looks like the DMG is going to be packed with these sort of optional rules (the "modules" talked about during playtest) and give you lots of tools to kitbash the rules on your own. I mean why bother with house rules when you've got official rules allowing you to do what you want that have already been playtested?

 

[Nebulous]

I mean why bother with house rules when you've got official rules allowing you to do what you want that have already been playtested?

a) it's fun b) i don't have to wait for someone else to tell me

Although i am more than happy to have a big fat DMG of playtested kitbashing goodness, that sounds great.

 

[RHGreen]

Judging the Negative.

Disregard if:


* It isn't their edition so they don't like it. (This goes for mechanics that aren't in a previous edition and they don't like them for purely that reason)


Probably a troll. Nobody can do anything about this and posters are just wasting everyone's time including their own.


* They don't like D&D.


Probably a troll. Nobody can do anything about this and commenters are just wasting everyone's time including their own.


* Taste Mismatch.


Person 1 likes blue, person 2 likes red. Giving them both purple will probably end up with them both hating it.
Make a good choice and stick with it. Nothing else you can do.




Not Negative, actually a good thing (these are what forums like this are made for):


* Hearty aggressive deconstruction and analysis of the system.


* Misunderstanding the rules until someone corrects them in a civil, convincing and logical manner.




Important negative criticism:


* This isn't D&D.


I haven't seen a single complaint of this yet. It looks like D&D.




* Mechanical Balance Issues.


System design errors that will need errata. Anything that breaks the game or allows bad players to easily break it through rules manipulation (but if you have a player like that you should probably ditch them anyway).
This is unavoidable and will get worse as the system gets picked apart and played more, but obviously limited by good design. I have seen some criticism in this area, but limited so far.




* Verisimilitude.


This is important to me and what makes an RPG different to a board game. RPGs shouldn't be more gamey than they need to be.
Fluff and mechanics should support each other in a logical, internally realistic (not simulation) way.
I have seen a small amount of negative opinion in this area, but half of it is based more on taste than verisimilitude.



I may have missed something, but these are my own general guidelines and as far as I've seen the general response has been positive.

 

[Hussar]

Going to dogpile in this one as well, but, [MENTION=63245]Evenglare[/MENTION], where is this negativity you are seeing for 5e? Other than a few bits and bobs, the reaction has been very positive. It's been nice. Compared to 5 years ago when 4e came out, certainly a world better, when you'd get fifteen page threads sprouting every day about how the devs were destroying D&D and killing puppies.

This time around feels a lot more like the release of 3e.

 

[Nebulous]

Going to dogpile in this one as well, but, @Evenglare, where is this negativity you are seeing for 5e? Other than a few bits and bobs, the reaction has been very positive. It's been nice. Compared to 5 years ago when 4e came out, certainly a world better, when you'd get fifteen page threads sprouting every day about how the devs were destroying D&D and killing puppies.

This time around feels a lot more like the release of 3e.

It's a world of difference. I can *feel* that people are happy for the most part, not this shocked feeling of "you just killed my baby."

 

[Morrus]

People discussing the minutia of your game is the home run. It's what you want. It's what game designers hope people will do. Because people discussing your game are people who care about your game.

Imagine if 5E came out and there was just .... deafening .... silence.

*That* would be a bad sign. This? This is what's known as "performing as intended".