Likes/Dislikes about 5th so far


Lot of negative posts lately as squeaky wheels trying to get the grease, but I thought I'd sum up my experiences with the edition and what I like/dislike from what I've seen so far --


Likes

* Advantage/Disadvantage is a very exciting mechanic, and the effort to establish it offers a great "meta battle" between the PCs and Monsters

* Making each ability correspond to a save.  Fantastic.  The game being reduced to "take only these attributes if you are this class" was so gimmicky, and rewarded stat dumping.  While certain stats will be more useful for certain classes, there is actually reason again to have a Paladin with some brains.

* Gaining movement before and after action.  I like that you are not taxed your turn's movement on a turn.

* Clarity of conditions.    I like that conditions like "charm" are no longer so abstract.  I'd still like a specific wording of how attempting and failing to charm is seen by NPCs/Monsters, but this is a good move.

* Elimating clutter.  Moving surprise to a penalty on initiative instead of its own "special round" is a tidy solution.  No more 5ft steps, getting up from prone being a "move action but not a move", non-lethal attacks not being their own damage but simply kicking in if the target would go below 0, etc etc.

* DC system.  I like it, its clean.  10+4 for each range of difficulty, capping out at 27 DC.  GM simply chooses one of the ranges and you go, you don't have to fiddle through the book.
 
* Death is quite plausible while giving a bigger window than the "-10 hps" of 3rd edition.

* Getting packages/kits at levels rather than just another feat (or so it seems to me).  Adds some diversity/theme and gets around that whole "feat tax" problem well.   

* Magic is actually magic again and not just "Xd6 AoE damage + 5/10/15 damage per turn".
 

Dislikes

* Rolling for HP.  A fighter with a d12 that has a series of unlucky hp rolls is going to be very far behind its power curve.  While I get that rolling adds the potential for exciting big pops, and big pops are usually fun, bad rolls that you had no choice over and render you suboptimal out of the gate are not so much.

* OTOH, crits simply being max damage instead of a multiplier.  I know in the past an unlucky crit could result in a quick death, but nothing was better than hitting that 20 and confirming it with a x3 weapon on a full power attack with a two handed axe wielding barbarian in full rage.  Big pop when those situations would occur.  I know w/advantage having that system might result in too much chaos but we're losing some fun there.

* The lack of AoOs and marking make it harder to provide legitimate help to allies.  In the abstract "theatre of the mind" play this isnt a problem as you can rule the fighter & cleric are standing between the hordes of orcs and the mage & rogue.  When playing on a drawn map, though, it requires the monsters to choose to play against their own interests rather than run to the weaker group members.
  



On the whole, I'm very positive on the system.  Please keep up the good work!

I'd trade it all for a little more! Grognard? Is that French for awesome?

I agree with pretty much everything in the OP. I think they deffinintly need optional rules (not to be confused with modular rules, which in my mind, relate to complextiy), for how ability scores and HPs are determined. I also think they should have an option to roll for random background and themes, for players who like that kind of stuff. 

Other than tweaking spells and abilities, and making sure they get more interesting things for fighters to do, the game is on a good track.  
Only thing I would add to OP is that reactions from theme seem like they would be more effective if they were free once around and didn't eat up your next turn( the guardian theme shield other and  the hold the line ability). It would also be cool if there was a way that the rogue could attack and re-hide in the same round.

Aside from that though I think they have done some awesome work, and am just waiting to see what else they will gift me with.
Likes:
1. No bonus is over +10. I was against it at first but after trying it I really think it makes the game go faster.
2. Ability modifiers as the basis for all rolls including saving throws.
3. Advantages & Disadvantages as long as they aren't overused.
4. Skill Difficulty Classes. Works nice.
5. The Dodge Action. It actually means something now. Why not add a Defend Ally Action too! Lots of potential.

Dislikes:
1. Automatic hits and damage. Reducing attack bonuses from +5 to +10 means that the lowest levels will hit the highest levels more often. No need for automatic hits and damage to make a character feel useful.
2. Rolling for Hit Points. Start with the constitution score at 1st level and add at least a minimum number of hit points each level. Rolling for higher than min. is o.k.
3. Getting more than 1 action per turn at lower levels. More than 1 action per turn is o.k. but it needs to be controlled. Perhaps every 5 levels +1 standard action per turn.
4. Hit Point recovery during an extended rest. Have a believable natural healing system and then allow the party to heal rapidly by giving every class an option to have a healing kit of some kind. This will allow the party to rely on the cleric less. I'm all for recovery of full hit points during an extended rest but magic should explain why that is so.
5. Racial Weapon Bonuses
6. No Attacks of Opportunity? We need at least something that will simulate a gauntlet run and stop a character from running past an active opponent.

No Opinion Yet:
How to build characters.
How levels will progress.
How to mix themes, backgrounds,

My D&D5E JavaScript Roll Tracker http://dnd5.weebly.com/

Only thing I would add to OP is that reactions from theme seem like they would be more effective if they were free once around and didn't eat up your next turn( the guardian theme shield other and  the hold the line ability). It would also be cool if there was a way that the rogue could attack and re-hide in the same round.

Aside from that though I think they have done some awesome work, and am just waiting to see what else they will gift me with.




Yes, I agree, reactions would be better if they don't eat up your next turn. that would make both guardian theme and mirrior image and other things work better.
Since you brought it up, it's worth mentioning how silly it is for ability-score-saves to be based on modifier rather than actual score.  If the only factor in determining success or failure is one ability score then that score should be your source of +10 or -10.  

Either raise the DC for ability saves by +10 all around, and make them based on ability score rather than modifier, or calculate your save for each score at (ability score - 10) rather than (ability score - 10)/2.

The metagame is not the game.

Since you brought it up, it's worth mentioning how silly it is for ability-score-saves to be based on modifier rather than actual score.  If the only factor in determining success or failure is one ability score then that score should be your source of +10 or -10.  

Either raise the DC for ability saves by +10 all around, and make them based on ability score rather than modifier, or calculate your save for each score at (ability score - 10) rather than (ability score - 10)/2.

Heresy! Modifiers be Holy Instruments! Innocent


On a more serious note: of course, using plain old ability scores is better. At least one gets to use the actual score for once.

I liked nearly everything except for HD healing.  And easily houserule so no worries.

Special things for note:
I am liking the ability scores being the defenses very well.
I like the rogues special skill ability.
I like the minor spell concept.
I LOVE LOVE LOVE themes and backgrounds.  I'm planning my own backgrounds already.


 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

honestly very little of what they showed interest me.

1) dis/advantages i'm on the fence about since we don't know what the final math is going to be like nor how acheiving it will be possible.

2) i'm not too keen on bounded accuracy, at least not as presented by the current characters as they never seem to get better at anything, they just get more stuff.

3) a) the "each stat is a save" i dislike. i understand the concept and what they're trying to acheive, i just think it's overcomplicating things for little gain.

3) b) i dislike the fact that they're changing up who rolls what again. i would much prefer that the initiator of an action do all the rolling then split it up between sometimes the initiator/sometimes defender.

4) themes/backgrounds seem rather bland as simple pre-packaging of existing stuff, a the very least when compared to themes of 4th ed which added new options.

5) the Hit Dice healing seems rather like poor-man's substitute for a healing surge and a change done for little to no reason

6) vancian casting. i just dislike the fact that casters, as currently presented, are forced to carry around the magical revolver. the flavor doesn't fit all characters and it's one i'm tired of being forced on me.

7) "use your imagination!" i get that. the thing is, i don't need buy a $40+ ruleset to tell me to do what i've been doing since i was 5. i buy a ruleset so it can adjudicate the actions taken by the group in a consistant manner, freeing up my time to work on the story as it progresses. i can make up rules for doing stuff, but then what am i paying the devs $40+ for?

8) boring martial characters. the ones currently shown aren't really that interesting or inspiring anything in particular. 

8) b) this flows a bit into points 6 & 7 but while everyone is told to use their imagination, the casters have their magical revolver full of various effects in addition to their imagination. they simply have a much broader base to start improvising from.

9) i like the jump mechanics that allow you to consistenly jump X distance...  
 
10) i dislike the lack of built-in tactical or strategic combat... really it simply lacks interesting combat, plain and simple.

so yeah. nothing that makes me "it's an abomination and must be burnt" but nothing makes me go "gee this seems like a adequate way to pass time" 
3rd ed SRD, character sheets, errata & free modules 4th ed test drive - modules, starter rules, premade characters and character builder & character sheet, errata Free maps and portraits, dice, printable graph paper, campaign managing website, image manipulation program + token maker & zone markers

"All right, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR **** LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life RUE the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON LEMONS! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?! I'M THE MAN WHO'S GONNA BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN! WITH THE LEMONS! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that's gonna BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN!" -Cave Johnson, Portal 2
Only thing I would add to OP is that reactions from theme seem like they would be more effective if they were free once around and didn't eat up your next turn( the guardian theme shield other and  the hold the line ability). It would also be cool if there was a way that the rogue could attack and re-hide in the same round.

Aside from that though I think they have done some awesome work, and am just waiting to see what else they will gift me with.



Yes, I agree, reactions would be better if they don't eat up your next turn. that would make both guardian theme and mirrior image and other things work better.



FYI No Reactions currently eat up your next action in the Playtest yet.

Defender and Hold The Line's Reaction doesn't take up the character's next action.

It was confirmed by Mike Mearls on Twitter on June 02 13:07

Kris KoboldKris Kobold@kriskobold 23 h @mikemearls 
Dwarf cleric guardian reaction w/shield uses dwarf's next action? Y/N

Mike MearlsMike Mearls@mikemearls 19 h @kriskobold 
No. It uses his reaction for the round. You get one reaction between turns. If a reaction us your next action, it will say so.
It would also be cool if there was a way that the rogue could attack and re-hide in the same round.



I bet that (or something similar) will be coming for the rogue at higher levels.  I think the real thing to see as well is the progression of SA itself and its interaction with things like criticals (or other potential multipliers).  I always thought with the rogue that while his damage per round wouldn't be consistent or on par with a warrior type, he would have the option for that lethal surgical strike that would just 1 shot someone if he could pull it off.

I'd trade it all for a little more! Grognard? Is that French for awesome?

I dont like dis/advantages, the bonus or penalty of rolling two dice is huge and once there are clear cut rules on how t oget it players will befighting for it all the time.

I like bounded acurracy, My house ruled 4E game scrapped add half level and we basically played in a lesser version of bonded accuracy.

I hate "each stat is a save" first it makes some stats far more useful than others, and second it adds way to many variables to the game. I Like Fort, Ref and Will and think the game should keep it.

I don't like attacks and saving throws on spells. One roll to resolve an action please. and I prefer it being the attacks rolls unless the defender has a limited use special move he can use in some situations to defend himself.

Dont like hitdice healing would rather see healing surges and I'm not a fan of 4E

The fighter and the Rogue are not nearly as interesting as the 4E versions. plus the rogue is falling into I sneak attack or i'm useless routine. I'm not a fan of that. The rogue should have more tactical options than just sneak attack.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />
I hate "each stat is a save" first it makes some stats far more useful than others, and second it adds way to many variables to the game.



Post 2nd edition (when all saves keyed off of Wisdom), the most important stats have been Wisdom, Constitution and Dexterity largely because they offered so much including a save bonus.  By making all the stats relevent to saves, you balance the stats a lot more.  There is less reason to dump stats now than in any previous edition.  As to too many variables, there isn't going to be an increase in the number of times you are saving (which is the part that is actually variable), only what you are using to save in.      

I'd trade it all for a little more! Grognard? Is that French for awesome?

All stats modfiy saves apeared back in the BECMI days in the options of the Rules Cyclopedia so the idea is a little on the old side.  And when I run a BECMI game I still use this option.
You can tell people, quite explicitly, "Don't dump Charisma because it leaves you open to attacks that can only be negated by Charisma save,"  but unless there are a lot of those that jump out at you as you quickly  flip through the book, or unless there are several that show up within the first few levels of gameplay, the player is just going to shrug and dump Charisma because it still doesn't do anything... until ten levels later, when the random enemy shows up who has the obscure ability that one-shots him because he can't make a Charisma save.

When that one effect shows up, the player will feel like the DM was cheating (meta-gaming) to include the one thing that the character was weak to, and the DM may have difficulty convincing herself that she wasn't.

If every save doesn't have significant applications, then it is not going to feel right, and they probably should not be included.

The metagame is not the game.

In my current running game, all the players have dump stated charisma... when we run social interactions it is wonderful, they play thier dump stat charisma levels well, blow diplomacy situations like clockwork.  It is great fun, a DM should always present the players with some situations in each adventure that take them outside of thier comfort zones.
I hate "each stat is a save" first it makes some stats far more useful than others, and second it adds way to many variables to the game.



Post 2nd edition (when all saves keyed off of Wisdom), the most important stats have been Wisdom, Constitution and Dexterity largely because they offered so much including a save bonus.  By making all the stats relevent to saves, you balance the stats a lot more.  There is less reason to dump stats now than in any previous edition.  As to too many variables, there isn't going to be an increase in the number of times you are saving (which is the part that is actually variable), only what you are using to save in.      



That only makes gettign saddled with some basement (or sub basement) level stats all the more frustrating and problematic.  Knowing that any lo stat can spell yor doom on a failed save makes rolling for stats seem even more harsh and unfair.  I hope they take all of this into consideration in the next playtest packet.
Likes: Adv/Dsv, return to theatre of the mind, spell design (I can see the goal, but it needs more tweaking, ray of frost a Purple Worm?)

Dislikes:

3/4.x  ability modifiers. I know its a sacred cow, but it needs to feel more like a new thing.

Suggestion: Bite the bullet and jump abilty mods to ability score -10. 17 dexterity gives you a 19 AC in leather armor. Chainmail AC jumps to 20. You can still use the old mods, but they are now half your mod. This idea I think helps a system where abilities matter. Strength 18 really helps in breaking down a door.  Average DCs become, Trivial: 10 or less, Moderate: 15, Advanced: 20, Extreme: 25, Master: 30, Immortal: 35+.

This kind of goes with the above, but armor was way off in the playtest.

Suggestion: Masterwork armor modifications. Make masterwork armor a seperate advancement from the armor's magic. You buy masterwork enhancements from armorers that heavily benefit medium and heavy armor. Light armor gets light fortification (stop crit on 16-20). Medium armor gets moderate fortification (stop crit on 11-20). Heavy armor gets strong fortification (stop crit on 6-20), for example. Its okay to allow a rogue to have higher AC if the char is built with insane Dex (not EVERYONE will despite your fears), but make the penalties for heavy armor worth it. Which brings the next point.

Armor penalties are impractical. Medium and heavy armors are the same except for a speed penalty.

Suggestion: Medium armor gives disadvantage to swim and stealth. Heavy armor has dsv to climb, jump (or lessens distance), stealth. Plus, swim automatically fails and keep the speed penalty. This makes it more clear, and gives you more depth. Despite what you might think, some players will take a hit to AC if they are more mobile. If its too much about AC it doesn't matter.
Oh and I disliked there was no Touch AC. 4e had reflex which was the same thing, but will armor really help against ray of disintegrate? Shields might help, but they should be destroyed if attack misses by 1 or 2 points. These were the philosophies of 3.x that were good, not the grappling rules or runnaway vancian magic.
Suggestion: Bite the bullet and jump abilty mods to ability score -10. 17 dexterity gives you a 19 AC in leather armor. Chainmail AC jumps to 20. You can still use the old mods, but they are now half your mod. This idea I think helps a system where abilities matter. Strength 18 really helps in breaking down a door.  Average DCs become, Trivial: 10 or less, Moderate: 15, Advanced: 20, Extreme: 25, Master: 30, Immortal: 35+.



If we're going to do that, then it might as well be changed that ability scores already start -10, so, just to take the Dwarf fighter from the playtest as an example, it would have 6 STR, 2 Dex, 4 Con, -2 INT, 4 Wis and 0 Cha. This would make it so even fewer things need to be remembered. Still, I don't know how much I like it, because, I don't know whether odd ability scores will have any real impact, considering the fact that the curve is so flat, so ability score boosts will most likely be rare and/or temporary,

Suggestion: Medium armor gives disadvantage to swim and stealth. Heavy armor has dsv to climb, jump (or lessens distance), stealth. Plus, swim automatically fails and keep the speed penalty. This makes it more clear, and gives you more depth. Despite what you might think, some players will take a hit to AC if they are more mobile. If its too much about AC it doesn't matter.



I don't think I like this too much. Part of what I like about how D&DNext is going about things, is that it's simplifying things. It's easy to remember that you get a disadvantage on stealth in medium or Heavy armor, but too much more, and it gets to the point where you have to page-flip in order to know if you have disadvantage to a check. Furthermore, people are already complaining how Heavy armor doesn't seem worth it. All this would do is make it more so.

Oh and I disliked there was no Touch AC. 4e had reflex which was the same thing, but will armor really help against ray of disintegrate? Shields might help, but they should be destroyed if attack misses by 1 or 2 points. These were the philosophies of 3.x that were good, not the grappling rules or runnaway vancian magic.



I agree with Touch AC rules, except I thin that shield rule shouldn't be in there. Why should the shield be destroyed from a touch-ac attack, but be able to survive misses by 1 or 2 from regular attacks. I merely think either Shield bonus should add to Touch AC, or it shouldn't, but no special rules like that.

I am currently raising funds to run for President in 2016. Too many administrations have overlooked the international menace, that is Carmen Sandiego. I shall devote any and all necessary military resources to bring her to justice.

The shield is destroyed because it blocked a disintegrate spell. Any other spell would be okay. I like simple rules too, but what is the point of having a human being at the table allowing unlimited potential, if rules turn it into a video game. Disintegrate is special and you cannot by the laws of physics swim in chainmail. Not even Conan could do it. Exceptions have always been a part of the game, and its not hard to remember. I have remembered enough of 3.0 to play without books after years of 4th.
You can tell people, quite explicitly, "Don't dump Charisma because it leaves you open to attacks that can only be negated by Charisma save,"  but unless there are a lot of those that jump out at you as you quickly  flip through the book, or unless there are several that show up within the first few levels of gameplay, the player is just going to shrug and dump Charisma because it still doesn't do anything... until ten levels later, when the random enemy shows up who has the obscure ability that one-shots him because he can't make a Charisma save.



Pretty much yeah. A rarely used defense is sure to be dumped for more commonly used defenses.

Likes:


Advantage/disadvantage: but I am concerned that it can be manipulated so that opponents will always have disadvantage and players will always have advantage.


Stats as saves: If you want to play russian roulette with your stats you can, but know it could bite you later.


Themes and backgrounds: simple yet they open many doors


Improved magic: including at will attacks and spellbooks, no more crossbow for the wizard


Dying rules: Dramatic and interesting


DC system: Simple to use


Quick combat: Faster paced action is fun


Bounded Accuracy: keep creatures as viable opponents throughout the game without having to alter them. Removes the odd rule of meeting higher level orcs as you level up.


No grid needed for core game


Imagination works to player advantage


 


Dislikes:


Criticals are bland


I can't remember not getting back attacks or attacks of opportunity, seems like I've always used them


Healing: Physical injury not starting until you are at zero hp. Gaining all hp back after an 8 hour rest. Yech!

That only makes gettign saddled with some basement (or sub basement) level stats all the more frustrating and problematic.  Knowing that any lo stat can spell yor doom on a failed save makes rolling for stats seem even more harsh and unfair.  I hope they take all of this into consideration in the next playtest packet.




It is the tactical tradeoff you make for choosing to lowball a stat.  There is a reward for dumping - you get much more strength of the stats you will commonly use than you would otherwise be entitled to.  You can't justly say I should be able to eat chocolate cake and then complain when you get calories.

I'd trade it all for a little more! Grognard? Is that French for awesome?

Sign In to post comments