Hyberbolic response given the tone of the thread
1.) Classes aren't all built on the same powers-skeleton with only a handful of keywords topped with an italic flavor-typed bow to differentiate them. A warlock, a ranger, a fighter, a wizard, and a rogue all play mechanically different.
A plus if these differences actually give interesting choices (the move & hit fighter has bored me for decades)
2.) Fighter's are potentially overpowered. In the HISTORY of D&D, has that sentence ever been uttered?
4e? They are good at low levels in any edition & if you look at the damage stats in Baldur's Gate & its family of CRPGs say they do lots of damage (when buffed by the casters at higher levels) - an important part of the well oiled party back then.
3.) No +X item treadmill; I can give out cool items without fear they will be cashed for the next biggest bump to saves, attacks, or AC.
Yay indeed. Though the DM letting the PCs be cool sentiment bothers me (I am sure you did not intend it this way)
4.) I get everything I need to play in three books. No waiting till next year to play a gnome, druid, or face a gold dragon.
I can do that this month let alone next month (plus a billion & one other options in either Pathfinder or 4e)
(It's a good thing really & I look forward to remaking my favourite 4e character Kandael the Eladrin Walrord)
5.) The base game de-emphasizes builds (at least for now) thanks to optional feats and multi-classing and no prestige classes. (Whether subraces/subclasses cheese out is yet to be determined).
So every fighter will look the same as will every wizard subject to the spells & magic items their DM deigns to give them. Despite the purported homogenisation of 4e I played with many varied characters for example with 3 rogues who all played very differently (Damage, Control, Movement). I did the same with Bards in 3e (though we were all terrible). This is contrary to point 1) above. Yes they may all have core mechanical differences but you are playing the game designers character not your own.
6.) Flumphs! Modrons! In the Monster Manual!
Flumphs seriously (but Modrons probably make up for it)
7.) Creatures appear interesting but simple (so far).
Promising, at least cf the playtest ones. The maths is obviously tight assuming the 3 CR2 beasties are representative. Whether any of them could be called interesting remains to be seen (Hobgoblins probably or at least terrifying). I believe the game is best with a good chunk of pretty mundane monsters anyway but the addition of Controller/Leader aspects on their leaders & support guys makes it much more varied & interesting
8.) No urgroshs, double-bladed swords, spiked chains, fullblades, or other silly weapons (so far).
Just wait. (I would be happy without any differentiation beyond 1h/2h really)
I loved blink elves. I love movement & forced movement. I will not mourn their passing though.
10.) A chance we'll be getting new Eberron, Planescape/Planar, Ravenloft, and Dragonlance stuff.
Yay! Well I hope the ones I like get stuff. I could care less about the ones I dislike/don't know.
11.) Speaking of which, GREAT WHEEL IS BACK!
Yay!
12.) Traits, Bonds,
and Flaws look awesome. So do backgrounds.
For an indygame maybe
.
If they get people to have a more interesting character than the 9 aligmnent cliches I am in. They are however a very superficial aspect of the game design.
13.) Spellcasting is a mix of flexible options and traditional vancian. Old favorites are there where they belong.
This is one of many really good bits of 5e design.
14.) Project Morningstar looks like we might get some decent electronic support.
I'm a bit of a Luddite & sceptic too so I am holding back on the excitement. Still my second biggest reason for being excited about this is that it may be D&D I can play over google+ or similar without having to learn a new bit of software (roll20 has scared me) as I will not need to do much mapping.
15.) Its D&D. Like I wasn't going to buy it.
Meh I quit D&D when I discovered Runequest in 1981. Since I have morphed from a "simulationist" into a "gamist" I
may be back, again.
Or rather I will be glad to see the back of Pathfinder & since I am in 2 4e games (one brand new) I should be covered anyway.
(Which leads to my biggest reason for buying 5e - there may be a revitalised OP scene that does not involve Pathfinder. I think PFS & Paizo are fabulous but playing Pathfinder drives me nuts.)
