D&D 5E Why don't we like 5e? Here's why!

[Savage Wombat]

Well, it's not completely unreasonable. I, personally, hate with a passion the next Twilight movie and the next Transformers movie. And I'm not going to try them to make sure.

But I think I have more to go on with those so-called films than we do on 5e. I think we should be supportive of WotC's attempt to aim for a near-perfect outcome, and hope for the best. It's not like it's costing you money to wait and see.

 

[Herschel]

You can't hate a game you've never tried. Try it, then hate it.

Even after only two years on this board you should know that's not how it works.

 

[the Jester]

I don't know if I agree with why *we* don't like 5e, but I have my concerns for a different reason. After having tasted 4e, I never want to go back to an older edition. And 5e seems to basically be killing 4e, and taking us back in time to an infusion of older D&D editions. I'd rather see someone work on 4e, and take it forward. There will be no chance of that. If Pathfinder fans don't like what they see in 5e, they will have the option to stay with Pathfinder. 4e fans who don't like 5e, are SOL.

...if you consider it SOL to have a fully functional game that isn't missing anything vital and that has multiple player splatbooks, monster books, books on the planes, mini and tile support, modules, online tools, etc.

I mean, you don't NEED new content to keep playing 4e; heck, I sometimes run 1e games without having purchased a new 1e product in, what, over 20 years?

 

[tlantl]

I look at the legends and lore polls as Monte blowing smoke while he and the others get ready for their play test.

I'm sure they are aware that their official forums are less than ideal for the serious questions to be aired but at the same time they need to keep the appearance of seeking feedback from the community, thus the meaningless questions.

The real answers will come when the game sees the light of day and thousands of play testers are given the rules, or portions of them, to include in the players normal games.

The polls are a good distraction until then. It keeps the interest in the development of the game. It also stops people from constantly probing for more details. This way they keep us guessing.

As for the stated attempt to unite the different editions of the game, I say lots of luck.

 

[WarlockLord]

What? I have no idea what you're talking about. Where did 3.5 implement "complexity dials?" As for lack of balance, the most broken class in 3E is the bog-standard Player's Handbook wizard, using spells out of the PHB (the Spell Compendium is just icing on the cake). The strongest challengers for "most broken class" are the PHB cleric and the PHB druid. The alternative caster classes from "Tome of Magic," which seem to be what you're objecting to, to were pathetically weak by comparison.




If this is the same team that made 4E, then we should be expecting very strong game balance. If it's not, then there's no reason to expect the failures of 4E to be repeated. Make up your mind.

4e had terrible game balance -recall the Blade Cascade ranger, the Orbizard, the Slumber of the Winter Court neo-orbizard, and the infinite undead army cleric.

Also, that's wizard. The more non-core stupid things you pile onto a wizard, the more broken it becomes. Wizard is bad. Anima Mage Incantatrix Wizard is super bad. Does that make sense?

All I'm saying right now is based on what we know, 5e seems to be a pile of crap based on smoke and mirrors.

 

[Sunseeker]

Even after only two years on this board you should know that's not how it works.

A man can dream....a man can dream...

 

[Plane Sailing]

All I'm saying right now is based on what we know, 5e seems to be a pile of crap based on smoke and mirrors.

Looks to me like this thread is a bad-faith attempt to start edition warring, so closed it goes.