D&D 5E What are the things in D&D Next you don't like?

[GreyLord]

I actually like that they are giving people a reason to play humans instead of humans with pointy ears and super powers, or stocky short humans with beards with super powers...and humans get hosed like they did in 3e.

What I don't like is that a Wizard has the same base probability to hit as a fighter. It's like...ah...I'm a fighter...I've spent years training how to kill people by hitting them...but this weakling over here that has spent years in a book and never hit someone in their life...they are just as good at their base chance of hitting as long as they use their staff instead of a sword.

That's absolutely stupid to me...but Hey...that's MY OPINION...and this thread is asking what we don't like.

 

[Derren]

and humans get hosed like they did in 3e.

How got they hosed in 3E where they were among the strongest races as a feat was more powerful than a +2/-2?

 

[Derren]

The fact that the designers still haven't learned that mechanical dice wankery for every aspect of the game is a big turnoff for those who prefer to let players actually play instead of serving as mobile die rollers.

Thats because those players like to role play instead of "myself with funny voice" play.

 

[Kinak]

It wasn't always that way. The first open playtest was pretty much a freeform roleplaying storytelling system with some combat rules.

Those were the days!

*grumble grumble* /5e grognard

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[JRRNeiklot]

It would be easier to list what I *like* about it, which isn't very much.

 

[MJS]

I also don't like the whole "hit dice" = "healing surges" thing and wish it would take a hike.

Oh for christ sake. Yeah, add that to my list too. Healing surges. I've got one in my pants.

I've yet to see a 5E specific rule I like. Maybe cantrips at will, IF they were actually cantrips.

 

[landovers]

(Hi, long time lurker here)

What I dislike from the playtest packets:
-The already mentioned Hit Dice mechanic and racial attributes are high up there.
-Going back to using the english unit system and always referring to time in terms of minutes instead of turns when it is more convenient.
-Saving against spells instead of rolling to hit (why is this nonsense back?).
-Some classes are severely limited. Backgrounds and feats are cool, but you shouldn't need to rely on them to make your character remotely fun to play.

I don't see a design philosophy like I see in games such as 13th Age, D&D 4e and Dungeon World. I think they got lost trying to cater to many different kinds of audiences (fans of 4e, Pathfinder, old-school). Am I supposed to play TotM? Then why does Thunderwave push 10 feet? When does that come into play if we're not tracking distances? "Can I or can I not push the goblin into the pit?". If the DM has to make up these calls on the fly, this is not the game I want to play. Either small distances matter and we track them (4e) or they don't matter (13th Age).

I do like "bounded accuracy" and overall lack of scaling except for HP and damage, but I think it's a fair concern that these two may scale too quickly for that to allow multiple levels to coexist.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

But we really don't know what the game is going to look like, do we? Seems a bit premature to call things out before we see what they decide to keep.

PS

Well here's the thing. If the final product is nothing like like the final playtest, then it would seem that the playtest was for nothing. I'm pretty sure the final product is going to closely resemble the final playtest packet.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Apologies for derailing the thread a little, but I'm just interested why you do not like the "apprentice tier" ?

I don't like having to wait until level 3 to get any real choices within my class. I feel that if I'm going to be an assassin rogue, necromancer wizard, or priest of light, I should be one from level 1. Especially in the case of clerics, it makes little sense to me that they don't pick their deity/ethos until level 3. Where are they getting spells from that whole time?

I also dislike how they designed levels 1 and 2 to be over in a session or two. Why even have them then? If it's to help new players get used to the rules, that doesn't really give them any time to do so. And what are experienced players supposed to do? Just skip levels 1 and 2? I don't like the idea of 1/10th of the game being set aside as an "intro" to the game for new players. You're only a new player once.

Of course, we all know the biggest reason they did this. It's a Band-Aid fix for the multi-classing rules. They're afraid of giving too much stuff at level 1 because it would make it too easy to "dip". The thing is, the multiclass rules are a balance wreck anyway, and the apprentice tier thing didn't really help. It's not being a cleric of light from level 1 that would make dipping unbalanced. It's all the free weapon, armor, saving throw, skill, and tool proficiencies you get, for starters. It's like they're worried only about the drop instead of the bucket.

Would you prefer to have the "apprentice tier" fall between level 0 and level 1?

I wouldn't have any objection to optional level 0 apprentice rules.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm really not a fan of the story information they've been using.

One Cosmology To Rule Them All, and basically 2/3rds of the Wandering Monster column every week just keep reminding me that it seems more important for them at the moment to tell people how they OUGHT to view a creature or a world, rather than letting individual interpretation and variety shine through.

It's disheartening. I hear this each week and feel suddenly un-motivated to invest in 5e (which I'm generally positive about). With all the talk of uniting and not excluding, they're still pursuing a path of "This is what the creature/cosmology IS in 5e, and if you don't like it, we don't care much." Even the classes have been victims of this at various points. I just see this and can't get excited about playing my game in 5eD&D. WotC seems more interested in me playing their game. And their game doesn't seem to be offering me much that any other Fantasy Heartbreaker offers.

I suppose we'll see how tenacious and wide-reaching this is when we see the final books -- it's possible they're going to do more than a token "you can do what you want!" There's been occasional flashes of that. And if I can make 4e sit up and beg, I imagine I can do the same for 5e at some point, if the rest of it offers me something viable.

But when I hear how important it is for them to, say, get one story that combines all iterations of dragonborn and dragon-like humanoids into one master race of scaly humanoids, I'm like: "Why the heck would I want that? What does it offer me that's beneficial?" I love the variety and diversity of D&D's years of cruft. Getting rid of that doesn't have much appeal. It is disappointing. De-motivating. It deflates my sails and takes the air out of my balloons. It makes me not really care about 5e. I want a game where I can play with all these dragonoids, next to each other if need be, and I don't need an over-arching meta-narrative to link them and homogenize them.

It's not uniting as much as it is making them generic, eliding the true differences to make them all basically the same thing when they have their own reasons for existing.

Bleh. I'm done with chucking out the interesting complexity. One True D&D holds no interest for me, and actively erases some of the things I love about this game. So screw that.