D&D 5E Just a reality check.

[IronWolf]

Actually, this is something I specifically wanted to call out: 5E looks very friendly to house rules.

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.

Agreed. I think The Basic Rules will serve as a base platform for my game quite well. It seems to provide a good solid foundation to work with. Much like the reason I like Swords & Wizardry. Strong foundation to tweak as I see fit with house rules. Largely because I am in the camp that thinks it is easier to add rules to a game or systems to a game than to take them away.

 

[IronWolf]

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?

Now I haven't seen or even kept in touch with what is coming in the PHB or DMG, but the Basic Rules pretty much do what I want. I only need small tweaks and adjustments. I don't feel the need for full on 'modules' at this point. But more tweaks that feel better suited for house rules (i.e. getting rid of full HP recovery for a long rest - I doubt that sees a module for it, as it is just a tweak).

 

[pickin_grinnin]

I get that some people don't understand design choices which is fine

There is a difference between not understanding a design choice and not liking it.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

I downloaded the Basic Rules, and have been going through them. So far I haven't seen anything that makes me want to add 5e to the list of games I DM or play, but I'm reserving judgement until we see the final product (PHB and DMG). I'll evaluate them at that point and see if I'm interested.

 

[Li Shenron]

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?

Mostly agree but don't forget that:

- 5e is going to have a revision every year; it's almost certain that the revision will only involve non-fundamental things, but still some gamers are already looking forward to future changes

- other publishers will certainly follow the 5e trend, copy some ideas from it, add their own and publish alternative system (or just publish "variant" supplements to 5e); they'll be receptive for the most common complaints about 5e

- some people don't necessarily hope that WotC will change anything, but they do hope their DMs are listening

The biggest value/vision of 5e is "make the game what you want". Not always the system allows to do so, because some things are too much ingrained or pervasive to be simple to change. But I think 5e is still much easier than previous editions for this purpose. So whenever we don't like something, we should first of all think about what could be the easiest way to HR that on our own.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

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?

That's no reason to stop criticizing things you think are wrong with a product. If people just ignore it and don't give feedback, nothing will ever change. Even if sales were to tank, no one would know why. Feedback is important. Without feedback, maybe some suit at Hasbro thinks, "flumphs. We didn't have enough flumphs." Then in 5.1 E flumphs are a playable class, the module, F1, Attack of the Flumphs comes out, followed by the megadungeon, Flumpan Athuk.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Then in 5.1 E flumphs are a playable class, the module, F1, Attack of the Flumphs comes out, followed by the megadungeon, Flumpan Athuk.

I'd play those adventures -- someone alert Necromancer Games!

 

[drjones]

I have not noticed more negativity than in previous editions. We were griping about D&D being broken and boring back in the 80's as well.

The only difference is now there is the internet so the tiny, tiny minority of the most invested and argumentative fans can nit-pick in public and give the impression that they are the authoritative majority.

This may or may not surprise you but a lot of people play D&D regularly and never visit any websites on the subject or share their opinions because it's just a fun thing to do now and then with their friends.

 

[Sir Hawk]

I've been getting the exact opposite impression. People seem to really like what they've seen so far. Even a lot of diehard grognards are at worst indifferent to 5e. But generally it seems like 5e is getting great reception.

 

[Xodis]

I love 5e so far and can't wait for more material. That being said I'm pretty easy to please, It's hard for me to not enjoy a game or be so disgusted with it I cant have fun.

 

[ccooke]

It's pretty clear that 5e is getting a better reception than 4e did, on release... at least, here. There are other fora I read which are much less welcoming, but even in those there are more people being positive than I remember for 4e.

It's extremely hard to compare, and I'm almost certainly wrong, but this feels a little more positive than 3e. But as I said, the internet of today is just not comparable.

 

[Uchawi]

It is too early to tell either way. Wait until the PHB and DMG are released to get a more accurate gauge on how successful 5E is at capturing the essence of D&D, while bridging that into some of the different play styles each edition has represented. I believe any type of comments in regards to basic will be hard to judge, because the basic edition is a stripped down product.

 

[Emerikol]

I would say that without question I like 5e better than 4e.

That may not mean though that 5e earns more of my money than 4e did. 4e was riding the coattails of 3e,2e,and 1e.

I am waiting on the DMG at this point. I suspect I won't be happy with it but that is based purely on past wotc performance and Mike Mearls comments. I do hope I'm wrong. Nothing will change my opinion permanently until I see the books. I probably won't buy at all until the DMG though is out.

 

[Nebulous]

It is too early to tell either way. Wait until the PHB and DMG are released to get a more accurate gauge on how successful 5E is at capturing the essence of D&D, while bridging that into some of the different play styles each edition has represented. I believe any type of comments in regards to basic will be hard to judge, because the basic edition is a stripped down product.

Personally, I can tell from Basic Rules that 5th edition has captured the essence of D&D for me again and has moved just about as far from 4th edition as it possibly could, while taking some really good ideas from 4e and implementing them.

 

[evilbob]

I can't imagine they are going to release a book with 10 pages of errata as soon as it hits shelves.

Hmmm... Actually, I can imagine exactly that. Seriously: they have a bad track record in this department.

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.

This is definitely true, though.

Also, just for the record, I'm loving the new ruleset so far! I haven't played it yet but other than a few silly details that are easily houseruled, I love the streamlined nature of it.

 

[Evenglare]

Yeah, I know they have a track record but I really do think they are trying to get the rules down, with as little errata as possible. I think they know they completely messed up doing all that revision in 4th edition.

 

[Paraxis]

Sure everyone complaining about things knows it is to late to do anything about it realy. The only hope is maybe something you want will be a rules module in the DMG. But the internet is for complaining about things, and after 2 years of playtesting to be handed this thing called Basic and we are supposed to thank them for not doing a good job is BS. I will play it because it is D&D, easy to get a game going and have members of my group that will play it for brand loyalty, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

Damage values for spells and monsters are too high, hit points for PC's too low.

Armor and weapons charts are crap.

Very little class symmetry, like the rogue should have something that recharges with a short rest.

Top three off the top of my head, but I reserve the right to complain about anything, and I don't care if it will change anything I just want to be heard.

Now do my complaints mean it is not an ok game no, I will run it and play it no game is perfect, but given the amount of time and money they had to make something amazing they served us up a reheated microwave dinner when they should have given us prime steak.

 

[evilbob]

I think they know they completely messed up doing all that revision in 4th edition.

I sincerely hope you are right!

 

[Evenglare]

S I will play it because it is D&D, easy to get a game going and have members of my group that will play it for brand loyalty, but that doesn't mean I have to like it..

Why are you playing a game you don't like? Dude, it's a hobby find something that you enjoy doing in your free time. It sounds like you are just going to be more bitter about it the more you play. Clearly the game is not for you and that's OK. Not everyone has to like everything, I hope you find a game you do like though!

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I will run it and play it no game is perfect, but given the amount of time and money they had to make something amazing they served us up a reheated microwave dinner when they should have given us prime steak.

It's funny how someone's prime steak is someone else's reheated microwave dinner...

To each its own, I guess.