What mechanics would honestly make you not buy 5E?

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but over the course of life I've noticed that internet forums are prone to hyperbole. Even when it's a legitimate critique, this hyperbole can make it hard to figure out what needs tweaking, and what is a major red flag.

Case in point, I tend to play wizards. So when I find myself thinking "waaah, wizards need moar power," I can step back, notice my bias, and realize after some number crunching that it's fine. Similarly, as a DM, I used to haaaate Monks getting Wis to AC, because in high level games everybody took 1 level of monk to get that bonus. But, when I take a deep breath and think about bounded accuracy, I stop worrying. 

But when you think about the playtest packet now, what would you ragequit over? What's your hardcore, red flag, rage quit, never-play-5E-again gripes? And what's just grumbling, personal preference, and nitpicks? I don't mean to imply nitpicks don't matter. They do! But on forums, it's hard to tell the diff between red flags and yellow flags. Here, I'll start with mine. 


RAAAAGEQUIIIIT!!!


  • Sneak Attack. Nothing new to say that hasn't been said already. I'd bet this is the top of everyone's list

  • Skill Mastery. With no dice-per-round pool outside of combat, 10th level rogues can get 1/3D10 to almost every non-combat skill check.

  • 1st level spells that DON'T scale. Signature spells mean that a tactician mage's scaled-to-5th-level encounter Thunderwave is WAAAY better than the illusionist's non-scaling equivalent Color Spray. Either specify that it can't be memorized to higher levels, or make sure other 1st level spells that might get a Tradition built around them do scale. 

  • Polymorph's broken. Should be tied to hit dice, much like druids back in the day. 

  • Hold Person. 3rd level wizard spell, 2nd level cleric spell!?!?!? That's gotta be a typo. 

  • Heavy Armor at High Level. 5E's big goal has been to think about flavor first. In 3E and 4E, epic level characters rarely could be seen wearing plate, and I think something flavorful is lost because of that. 

  • Use Rope Get rid of it, please. It's entirely covered in a combination of Escape Artist, Sleight of Hand, Climb (rappelling), Ride (block n' tackle), and Profession (Sailor).  



Nitpicks 


  • Skill Bonus from levels. Is this a new skill you get? +1 to existing skills? Mostly just need more info.

  • Ability bonus to spell damage? Do they get this? The language isn't clear. My number-crunching for damage implies no, they don't. 

  • One stat classes. A really nice touch in 4E was that Wizards were rewarded for other stats; otherwise, it was the core example of dumping everything into 1 of 6 abilities. Some Wizard traditions that bring that back would be nice.

  • Give Magic Attack to martial classes. Sure, it's hard to picture them using it. But what about magic items? What if they multiclass? At least throw in an optional rule that says "if it pops up, a Fighter's crappy magic attack is equal to a wizard's crappy physical attack." 

  • Same with Save DC bonus. Sure, fighters will probably never use it, but they might. 

  • Rogue HP should use a D8. Fighter's the high end of the spectrum, wizard's the low end. If a class ain't low end, don't put 'em in the low end. 


What about you? If you have to separate your gripes into Boycott-level gripes and Nitpick-level gripes, what makes the cut? 




***EDIT: Let's be honest. If you're into D&D enough to have an active account on the forums, you won't not buy 5E; you'll buy it and make a 30 page homebrew errata. But just pretend for argument's sake that you're not a lifetime D&D junkie XD
RAGEQUIT: Advantage/Disadvantage is basically a giant flag saying "we don't care".  The math doesn't work out, and promotes counter-intuitive gameplay.

Nitpick: Quadratic progression of expertise dice.  Getting more dice and bigger dice creates an incredibly erratic (who rolls 3d10 for damage?) discrepancy between people who can and cannot fight.

The metagame is not the game.

I acknowledge that this is far from a finished product, so I have some faith that they will get it right.  Right now, the bulk of my issues concern the rogue.  The rest can be fixed with minor tweaks(or at least I believe).

Sneak attack- big issue here.  Rogue is outclassed by fighter in all but the skills department.  I think making sneak attack a class feature instead of a maneuver that does bonus damage equal to max expertise dice without spending them would greatly improve the viability of the rogue

Rogue Maneuvers:  Some of them are HIGHLY SITUATIONAL, and don't get as much use as Fighter maneuvers.  Some new maneuvers related to faking out an enemy or disabling them in some way may add some appeal 

Nitpicks:

Some underwhelming/overwhelming spells:

Polymorph: Overwhelming/need not say anymore

Cone of Cold: Underwhelming/outclassed by lower level damage spells.  It needs something...a boost in damage, a speed reduction component for affected foes, or both

Scorching ray: issues/not really liking the automatic damage...just seems odd.  Would rather involve dice rolls for damage

magic missile: has the potential of being both.  Not sure of the existing mechanic of preparing in a higher slot. 
I'm not going to point at specific mechanics; I'll go a bit higher-level.



  • Balancing classes across levels... no. That never worked, and it won't work now. It's why so many people designed campaigns to begin at level 4 and finish by about level 12.

  • Balancing classes across pillars... no. I've been in campaigns that were almost all combat, and in campaigns that were almost all social, and in campaigns that were almost all exploration. Every class should be viable as an approximately-equal partner in all three.

  • NOT balancing classes... not acceptable.

"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
I'll second Warrl's "post of infinite wisdom". For the love of gods, make the game balanced!
Are you threatening me master jedi? Dungeons & Dragons 4e Classic - The Dark Edition
I just completed my first playtest today, and here are my major and minor grievances for the most recent set:

Major Grievance:

HP: For player characters, it's too low now. I played a test campaign with a monk and a cleric, and while they both have rather high initial AC, the way the HP calculations are currently set up, they only have 10 HP each (and that's after tweaking the Constitution score to make sure they've got any kind of a modifier). This created a situation where the cleric ended up in KO'ed, and I had to talk my way out of trouble for the moment. Of course, in the second major combat encounter, this wasn't an option, and both of my characters were KO'ed in short order. This situation could have been assuaged by even as little as 5 extra HP. Taking one hit and having to pray for misses every time from then on out is not what I'd consider fun and could be a discouragement to newer players. A 5-10 HP bump to at least cleric and monk (if not all classes) is needed. Desperately.

Minor Grievances: 

Better healing system for short rests: 
Between encounters, my cleric was stabilized by the monk and had to use his Hit Dice (misnomer, but I'll get to that in a bit) to regain health. Said hit die was not enough to restore him to full, but that's not the real problem; the problem is that he only had one. So, when he desperately needed to do so again later, he was out of luck. Of course, if his HP had been higher to begin with, it would have made this less of an issue, but it's still a problem. The only alternatives given are for making healing harder, not easier. And Cure Minor Wounds was of laughably little help, because...

Cure Minor Wounds is just about useless: 1 HP to a creature that's at 3 or less? Even with the HP system as is, it's  nigh unusable. About the only time it would be useful would be to heal a stabilized person, but even then, 1 HP is not enough to really get back into a fight (believe me: I know this firsthand). So if it can't help you when you're just bloodied, and it can only buy you one or two extra turns (even accounting for clerics having it as an at-will), what use is it?

Hit Dice are misnamed: Because they don't have much to do with hitting anything. They determine your health or healing abilities. And yes, I realize they determine how many hits you can take, but that's not their sole function. Given all they do, they should be renamed Health Dice. Same initialism, more accurate name.
Unexpected Tarrasque in my pajamas:
*Expertise Dice as the default/core for all martial classes, and now justified with the "that's how you get extra damage and simulate all martial class features ever" notion.  Done.  Out. 
*Classes that can't do all the things at 1st level that they have always done at first level (Monk, Rogue).  I save vs Stun.
*Bounded accuracy without bounded damage.  I am knocked prone, save ends.
*Scruming for development.  D&D deserves a better process.  I cast teleport.  Or blink.  Or target myself with disintegrate.

Recently Wedgied Ancient Red Dragon I stole some hoard from:
*Vancian Casting (It's been 30 years.  Classic or not, I want, nay almost need, a significantly better option)
*Wildly inconsistent (and thus hard to keep straight) mechanics (particularly with spells). 
*The 3.5 (but worse) skill list (I hate you, "Use Rope".  Why can't you be more like your cousin, the absurdly greater body of knowledge "Science"?)

"Uncle Roger Drunk" Hill Giant after closing time:
*Needless complexity of simple powers like Turn Undead
*Reduction in power level of all classes at 1st level to near-Zombie Pomeranean levels...then soars to Dire Marmaduke-ian at the next level increase.
*Seemingly incoherent decisions like building a bounded accuracy system, then immediately breaking it with Skill Mastery.
*Seeming abandonment of so many nice mechanics by the roadside in favor of...much less nice mechanics meant to simulate the same thing.  (WHAT?!)
*Domains that have spells that have nothing to do with the domain.
*Random dice values for HP and stats again.  It's cute until you have to live with it for 10 levels.  Then I want to slip it a rufi and "go out for cigarettes". 

Claustrophobic Rust Monster in my outhouse:
*Loss of Channel Divinity
as a way of covering a variety of powers such as Turn Undead.  No sense at all to leaving this one on the roadside.
*Classes that feel much less like their original edition versions in an edition that is supposed to be aiming at throwback.
*Paths/Specialties/Themes/etc that (a) impart very little potency and (b) are presented as mandatory (but not really) and (c) don't lead you to the outcome promised in the title.  Great for quick start guidance, but wasted text for veteran players. 
*Backgrounds being the source for all skills.  For that matter why is there any restriction on skill choice at all?  Unlock please. 
*Background Story Factors that are (a) mislabeled as "Traits" (a shop is not a "trait"), (b) useless when not in a town (most likely your home town at that---where adventures generally NEVER are) and (c) impart imbalanced abilities relative to one another
*Feats every third level, exacerbated by the fact that feats do very little for your power level, and are presented as staplegunned to a path.
*"Card" feel to all builds (pick your race card, your class card, your specialty card, your background card, your sub-class card, your gear card(s), your spell cards).  Ugh.  On par with 4E here.
*Humans. Nuff Said.  Gotta be a better way.
*Maximum of a 4 point variance in starting AC values (12 to 16...really?), meaning only about 4 armors are available (despite a good dozen or so concepts it would be nice to see again) and freaking *ring mail* gets classified as "heavy" somehow.  Not goin' in there.
*Rituals you would never put in a slot, yet having the option to be put in one.
*Casters can't make magic items (yet).  Yes, I know 1E disallowed this until 10th level or so, but not even a scroll?  Bu-whaaa?

Hooligan Quicklings took my boots again:
*Metamagic.  Guh.
*Generic dieties.  At first I thought "yay", then I immediately missed every diety's flavor. 

A Portable Hole to hide in from all of the above:
*Advantage and Disadvantage
*Bounded Accuracy as a concept
*Simpler math
*Expedient gameplay
*Story factors as a concept
*Nice ideas for race powers in some cases
*New weapon groupings
*Less "powers" than 4E
*Rituals are still here
*Skills not needing to be attached to attributes
*Magic item origins and flavor effects
*The fact it isn't done yet


***EDIT: Let's be honest. If you're into D&D enough to have an active account on the forums, you won't not buy 5E; you'll buy it and make a 30 page homebrew errata. But just pretend for argument's sake that you're not a lifetime D&D junkie XD



I'm not. Laughing I only started up a little over a couple of months ago myself.
I was largely happy with the direction of Next until the most recent playtest packet.  Most of the problems are minor issues (why was Perception changed back to separate Listen and Spot skills, dead levels in character development, etc.).  But the only changes significant enough to make me consider not purchasing the product when it is released are the changes they made to spellcasting in the October 29 packet.  

I don't understand at all why they removed minor spells and converted them into 0-level spells; it was much simpler and far more streamlined as a series of at-will powers, and were in no way gamebreaking.

I at least understand why they reduced the number of spells per day for spellcasters.  The designers thought the casting classes needed some balance.  But instead of powering down the offending spells they gutted their spellcasting capabilities.

 
About the only thing that would upset me that badly would be to see heavy armour get screwed as badly as it had in certain previous editions.  As long as light armour-using classes can't approach the AC of a heavily-armoured warrior, then I'll be happy.  So far, I'm pleased with what they've set up for D&D Next.

If you have to resort to making offensive comments instead of making logical arguments, you deserve to be ignored.

The reasons for why my group played one session of the first packet and then never wanted to look at Next again:

*Balance of hit points and damage

In our first adventure our wizard fell down into a trap andr right after a bunch of rats ganged up on the rest of the group. The fighter would kill a rat hit or miss and the others would try to hit a rat on the turns they had. This then went on and on and on. At the same time, the rats almost killed the PCs. I had a look at the bestiarity or whatever it is called in the lates playtest packet, and still seems like the same problem. I much prefer the 4e balance of damage and hit points. Also, I much prefer the general level of AC in 4e. I think that the chance to hit was fairly good there, and I guess everyone has a larger chance to hit in Next compared to 4e.

TL;DR: I prefer HP, damage and AC as they are balanced in 4e compared to Next. Unless I find that they have fixed that I will be more likely to stop play D&D than to buy 5e (or participate in playtests). ALso, it I lose access to 4e Charbuilder, Monster builder and compendium I will most probably stop playing D&D 4e (and hence D&D at all).
For me it's simple: currently the math of nearly everything put out is wonkey in one way or another. This edition desperately needs to be fixed on a mathematical level for it to be acceptable to me.

Advantage/disadvantage is a god awful kludge if you understand stats and/or probability
Monsters can't hit, defend, take a hit but can one shot a squishy.
HP/damage out of whack for both monsters and PCs
Balancing by gold = bad
and a whole lot more.

Other no-nos
Gameplay pillar spotlight design. No more fighter goes and plays X-box when social time comes round please.
Mechanical allignment.
I for one don't want to see another game in which every class is good at everything. Some are good for exploration, some are good for social interaction, every class needs to be good at combat but some really excel at it. If every class can do all three just as well, then why not just make every party five fighters? Sure, it could be great for the individual, but where does the party balance come in? Isn't this game about teamwork? I think your class should reflect what type of character you want to play, and they all need strengths and weaknesses.
Strengths and weaknesses = fine, strengths and gaping voids =/= fine.

Being ~75% as effective as the speciliast in the pillar is fine and leaves you able to contribute but the specialise will lead the charge in the task.

Sadly the design of the past and the direction of the current characters is far closer to strenghts and gaping voids than it is to strenghts and weeknesses.

Remembe the days of the bard that sucked in combat and could talk a vestal vergin into his bed vs the fighter who could decapitate orcs in a single swing but had BO and drooled on the counts carpet so got told to stand in the back and look dangerous as thier sole contribution to negotiations with the count and his Senechel. I've been there and it sucks.
But how exactly is a Barbarian with 9 Charisma supposed to contribute to delicate negotiations? If you want to be a Fighter who can talk his way around a town like a Rogue, there's nothing stopping you from training in the relevant skills to do that, they don't need a class feature for it. If you were constantly shoved off to the side during non-combat scenes, sounds like a problem with the group, not with the rules.
But how exactly is a Barbarian with 9 Charisma supposed to contribute to delicate negotiations?

Impossible to say, because we need more information.  What are the barbarian's stats and what is his background?  What are the delicate negotiations about?

If the DM decided for some reason that the only way to contribute is through Charisma checks, then of course this character would be at a disadvantage (mitigated if they have relevant skills).  But I can't imagine ever doing that as the DM.  There are countless ways for characters to contribute during negotiations.

I worded that badly. Of course you can have low Charima and still be useful in social situations, but that's all about how you build the character. I don't believe every class should have built-in features for it. I think the game already allows you to compensate for your class's weaknesses by non-class means like skills, especially now that trained skills aren't linked to your class.
Rage Quit?



  • Alignment mechanics

  • Racial class restrictions

  • Ability score restrictions to classes

  • Lame multiclassing rules. (at least as good as 3.X, but there is a lot of room for improvement.)

  • Monsters using a different core system than the PCs for creation

  • Non-working skill challenges. (Leave them out, or include a working system, don't give a non-working system on this)

  • +X items


Annoyed?


  • Crossbows still sucking

  • heavy armor still sucking

  • 3 kinds of elves in PHB 1

  • ability scores tied to races. (Orcs get +2 strength)

  • Less than 12 classes in PHB 1

  • Core setting is still in "Totally not tolkien fantasy world".


As you can see I basically already ragequit... 

Ill still grab the core books, but doubt I'll be getting much more.  

"In a way, you are worse than Krusk"                               " As usual, Krusk comments with assuredness, but lacks the clarity and awareness of what he's talking about"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk"        "Wow, thank you very much"

"Your advice is the worst"                                                  "I'd recommend no one listed to Krusk's opinions about what games to play"



Red Flags: vancian magic in the current form, alignment mechanics, hit die


Concisely: I want a system where players don't have to pick between mechanics and roleplaying. I hope 5E fails asap so a better system can be made asap.

( I can't believe what they did to the forums. The sterile lack or color is rather depressing. )

 

I'm getting closer and closer to the "Rage quit" on Next:



  • Alignment mechanics in ANY form (if people want to have an alignment, fine... but keep the mechanics out of the game)

  • Alignment requirements of ANY kind (yes... this is a bit redunant... but I can't say it enough.)

  • VANCIAN ANYTHING!

  • Hobbit Fatlings.  Halflings were finally becoming something of their own, and now this **** is back? 



I'm sure I could list dozens, but these are the immediate items that pop into mind.  There's plenty of mechanical issues atm, and LOTs of nitpicks, but I'm not ready to throw someone threw a window over them yet.

I'll say this though... after this last article about the direction of class design, I'm about convinced the team has no idea what they're doing. 
Stay Frosty! - Shado

Ellyh:  Love the avatar.  ;)  In all seriousness, I came to this thread and I was like - WHOA!  Did I already post somehow in my sleep or something?  



OP:  What I hear you saying in most of your "red flag" list is that you don't like how skills are being handled.  I think you might be looking at things in a little too much detail.


There is honestly no single mechanic that will cause me not to buy 5.0.  That's because I know how D&D works in real life:  you houserule the crap out of whatever you don't like.    Let's say rogues never got sneak attack or something silly like that in the final product.  Who cares?  I'm just going to fix it for my own games and keep going.  In that respect, no one thing is going to make me "ragequit."


Now, I'm not saying that I will buy 5.0 no matter what.  Certainly if some systems are so effed up that I cannot reasonably work around them, then it's a wash.  Right now, I agree with you that the entire skill system is broken beyond tweaking.  It would take way too much effort for me to repair the entire system, so if this were the final product, I would not buy it.


What I mean in my first sentence is:  don't let a single detail drag you down.  "Use rope?"  Just ignore it (I sure have).  That's not a dealbreaker.  Even Vancian magic (*shakes fist*) isnt' a dealbreaker for me, so long as they give me the option to play another way.  If it's the only possible way to cast magic - then yeah, that's a dealbreaker.  What really matters are the systems, holistically - not the details.



Also, love The Tick.  

Rage Quit
Sneak Attack in its current implimtation ('nough said).  Just bring back the previous version of Sneak Attack and divorce it from the expertise system, please.

Annoyed
Two-Weapon Fighting Rules (might be better once whatever TWF feat specilization they're thinking of comes out).  Specifically, as it stands, you can never sneak attack with Two-Weapon Fighting (unless you were "flanking").
Humans.  We can do everything better than you can, we can do everything better than you.  (Seriously though, when a human rogue can have a higher dexterity than a halfling or elf rogue, in addition to plus +1 to everything else, something is wrong.)

Iffy
Rogues having the same hit points as wizards (I can see an argument for it, and honestly, don't mind that much so long as rogues have options to avoid damage to make up for it).
Non-Customizable Magic Items: Flexible item creation gives you a lot more options for loot and diversity in magic items, and it can be prevented from becoming customizable outfitting like 3.5 with strict magic item creation rules for players.

Try to guess what archetype I like and hunger for the most? :P

On the Flip Side...
I love the Word of Power spell system, as it stands for clerics at least.  The warbringer dorf cleric I played was awesome, casting bless and healing spells and still smacking things with its axe.  I think its a nice system for creating a combat cleric now that it can't stack buffs to make it more powerful than the fighter.
Expertise is also a nice system, in theory.  Just needs to have the kinks and idiocracies ironed out (seriously, Warriors start with a choice of maneuver and deadly strike for free, rogues had to use their only first level maneuver for their damage mechanic!?  How the heck did that pass whatever internal testing they use?)

The biggest piece of feedback we received was that the rogue came across as a lame fighter. This was a key test to see how much tolerance people have for varied combat strength across classes. There's some give, but it looks like people want to avoid dramatic differences.

Mike Mearls - Legends & Lore Archive | 12/3/2012
 




If this is taken too far and the classes all look and feel to similar I would continue to use older books and skip this edition;  with that said, there is still a lot of development left to go and so far I have very much enjoyed the playtest.  I hope that 5e is a system that I will enjoy playing for some time.





I haven't played 4th edition, was waiting for a video game to come out like neverwinter or something to try it, but I have played some of 3.5. Most of what I play is a mix between 1st and 2nd and one of the things I like about it is the maxes. While there is no limits on level or how powerful a character could get in game there are maxes on stats, ac, etc and I like that. In 3.5 starting a character with a 30 str and +10 to hit and only going up from there isn't something I am fond of. I would like to see some maxes on stats, ac, etc in 5E. Could have str max for size, ie huge can have more str than a Med. Otherwise you are designing monsters to hit the guy with a 78 ac every-now-and-then and wasting the rest of the group. 

2nd ed allowed characters to get to -10 ac. monsters could surpass that, yet characters could have a 24 strength and be stronger than a dragon, that also isn't good. 
My main concern is that the system remain flexible enough to house-rule to my liking, since they will inevitably do (and have already done) things I don't agree with.
While any one of the following wouldn't be enough to make me "RAGEQUIT", I would if 5e included enough of them.

* Totally unbalanced classes, and/or classes being "balanced" across pillars (i.e. fighters being allowed to dominate combat because they totally suck in the social and exploration pillars).

* Alignment restrcitions/mechanics. Alignment as anything but totally, 100% optional fluff.
 
* Humans getting +1 to all ability scores.

* Rolling for hit points. I don't care how "traditional" it is. It was stupid 4 decades ago and it's still stupid now.

* Hit points starting with single digits at level 1, making me avoid playing before level 3 at the earliest, as I had to in the past.

* Excessive HP and damage bloat. For the same reasons Bounded Accuracy is good for the game, so too is bounded damage and HP.

* Expertise Dice being used as the equivalent of BAB progression. 

* Ability modifiers, particularly Strength, not adding to damage.

* Anything resembling the 3.x skill list. If spot and listen, or move silently and hide are separate skills (instead of Perception and Stealth), or if there's a Use Rope skill, I will be very displeased.

* Players not being able to choose any of their skills, either because they're all chosen for you by your background, and/or you never gain any more from leveling, leaving all characters who share a background with the exact same skills.

* Monsters that are difficult to design or manage as the DM, particularly those with spell lists that force me to look up spells in the PHB to be able to use the monster effectively. Or, monsters that are boring blocks of stats without special abilities. Basically, if they throw away all of the amazing progress they made with monsters in 4e.
 
* Cantrips not being at-will. After 4e and Pathinder, I've come to take this for granted.

* Spells that have HP thresholds, as we saw in the first two playtest packets.
"Vancian" Magic is the top of my list.  And sadly, it's not ever going away. 
Major turn-offs

Bond accuracy - please for the love of god, no, just NO.

Expertise dice - really the designers couldn't come up with anything better. 

Specialties and backgrounds - Just allow free from feat and skill selection. Give suggested feat paths in the DM's guide if you have too, but just assume most people like feats/skills and want to choose them freely.

Too few feats - One at first and then one at every even level thereafter feels about right.

Every class/character feeling the same - Everyone's using vancian magic or expertise dice, come on mix it up, give us creative options. Heck I liked the idea of different sub systems being related to your class choice, could we go back to that.

Non-combat skills feats spells and especially class abilities - Give fighters and all classes abilities that relate to exploration and interaction.

Advantage/disadvantage - I actually don't mind the idea, but include a more specific and advanced system for people like myself, and give it equal support.

Action resolution - A specific action system, please again add more options. Combat doesn't have to be so fast, I like more then one action on my turn.

Humans - As they are currently written.

Fat halflings - I prefer them athletic.

Alignment system - Easy fix include non-aligned as an option, and make alignment a allegiance of sorts and completely optional.

Hit dice - just use some kind of second wind system.

Hit points - up everyone's hit points per level, wizard's stay at d6's, fighters move to d12's, clerics d10's and rogues d8's.

Strength and dexterity attack bonus - You want a better accuracy system give only half the bonus from high strength or dexterity adding to attack rolls, in other words a 18 in strength equals a +4 to damage but only a +2 to hit.

Ability scores caped at 20 - I want my character to feel more heroic at higher levels.

Better weapons and armor - More robust system, I like 3e weapon system in regards to critical hits and 4e system in that all weapons had special maneuvers tied to them and got a attack bonus.
 
Mostly everything, really.
I've only given it a quick scan so far, but there is one complete killer for me so far.


  • Reversion to the (IMO) retarded though traditional for D&D spell casting mechanic of memorising spells and forgetting them when they are cast. ie. Vancian magic. I rejoyced when I saw the way magic is handled in 4E.


I do, however, concur with many of the things mentioned in previous posts.


  • Capped ability scores.

  • Spherical halflings.

  • Alignment mechanics.

  • Too few feats.

  • Homogeneousness of classes.



RAGEQUIT: Advantage/Disadvantage is basically a giant flag saying "we don't care".  The math doesn't work out, and promotes counter-intuitive gameplay.

Nitpick: Quadratic progression of expertise dice.  Getting more dice and bigger dice creates an incredibly erratic (who rolls 3d10 for damage?) discrepancy between people who can and cannot fight.

WHAT?! I demand an explanation. If there's one thing I liked MOST about 5.0 its the Advantage/Disadvantage rules... its quick, (assuming you throw both at the same time.) and completely removes the boring and arbitrary minuses and pluses DM's throw at challenges. It also reduces the amount of finger-counting arithmatic. Flavor-wise it CLEARLY feels like an advantage/disadvantage! What makes you say it's counter-intuitive???
WHAT?! I demand an explanation. If there's one thing I liked MOST about 5.0 its the Advantage/Disadvantage rules... its quick, (assuming you throw both at the same time.) and completely removes the boring and arbitrary minuses and pluses DM's throw at challenges. It also reduces the amount of finger-counting arithmatic. Flavor-wise it CLEARLY feels like an advantage/disadvantage! What makes you say it's counter-intuitive???

I'll grant that it's quick, and rolling two dice clearly feels like it matters.  The math doesn't back it up, though.

Dis/advantage is the new way to model the old large modifiers, the +4 or -4 (or more!) from a really significant situation: blindness/invisibility, prone, that sort of thing.  The great thing about +4 is that it increases the chance of success by a hard +20% regardless of the base success rate.  Advantage, however, increases success rate anywhere between ~5% to ~25% depending on the base success rate.  The math which underlies the completely simple feeling system is not intuitive whatsoever.  

Without checking any references, tell me who has the better chance to succeed at climbing the DC 20 wall: the ranger with a +18 bonus, or the rogue with a +15 bonus and advantage?  Now, what if it's DC 25?  DC 30?

If you were out of your league, and needed a 19 to hit, then a +4 would increase your chance from 10% to 30%, while merely rolling twice would increase your chance from 10% to ~16%.  Even worse, since advantage doesn't stack, there's nothing more you can do.  Under the old model, you could always try to add more situational modifiers to eventually possibly succeed.

And while that should be enough to condemn the system outright, the simplicity doesn't even live up to its claims.  Because it only models large bonuses and penalties, the small bonuses still exist.  Half-cover gives a +2 to AC, rather than granting disadvantage to attackers.  When they get the grid rules in, I can guarantee that something as simple as high-ground or flanking are not going to grant advantage or disadvantage; they're too small, so also going to be a +1 or +2 to hit.

As it stands, you need advantage exactly once before it stops mattering, regardless of whether or not you have disadvantage.  If you designate one character as the trip monkey, then the rest of the party can ignore any major tactical advantages because they would be redundant and pointless; rather, they can freely jocky for as many small bonuses as possible, because a +1 or +2 does stack with advantage.  If you have the choice between blinding your foe (a major situational bonus), or getting behind half cover (a minor situational bonus), then the answer depends on what else is going on at the time - because blindness is meaningless to a target who is already prone or otherwise debilitated.

Long story short: if it's going to be a significant part of the system, then there will need to be many sources of dis/advantage; the more sources of dis/advantage that exist, however, the less valuable any of them are.

The metagame is not the game.

WHAT?! I demand an explanation. If there's one thing I liked MOST about 5.0 its the Advantage/Disadvantage rules... its quick, (assuming you throw both at the same time.) and completely removes the boring and arbitrary minuses and pluses DM's throw at challenges. It also reduces the amount of finger-counting arithmatic. Flavor-wise it CLEARLY feels like an advantage/disadvantage! What makes you say it's counter-intuitive???

I'll grant that it's quick, and rolling two dice clearly feels like it matters.  The math doesn't back it up, though.

Dis/advantage is the new way to model the old large modifiers, the +4 or -4 (or more!) from a really significant situation: blindness/invisibility, prone, that sort of thing.  The great thing about +4 is that it increases the chance of success by a hard +20% regardless of the base success rate.  Advantage, however, increases success rate anywhere between ~5% to ~25% depending on the base success rate.  The math which underlies the completely simple feeling system is not intuitive whatsoever.  

Without checking any references, tell me who has the better chance to succeed at climbing the DC 20 wall: the ranger with a +18 bonus, or the rogue with a +15 bonus and advantage?  Now, what if it's DC 25?  DC 30?

If you were out of your league, and needed a 19 to hit, then a +4 would increase your chance from 10% to 30%, while merely rolling twice would increase your chance from 10% to ~16%.  Even worse, since advantage doesn't stack, there's nothing more you can do.  Under the old model, you could always try to add more situational modifiers to eventually possibly succeed.

And while that should be enough to condemn the system outright, the simplicity doesn't even live up to its claims.  Because it only models large bonuses and penalties, the small bonuses still exist.  Half-cover gives a +2 to AC, rather than granting disadvantage to attackers.  When they get the grid rules in, I can guarantee that something as simple as high-ground or flanking are not going to grant advantage or disadvantage; they're too small, so also going to be a +1 or +2 to hit.

As it stands, you need advantage exactly once before it stops mattering, regardless of whether or not you have disadvantage.  If you designate one character as the trip monkey, then the rest of the party can ignore any major tactical advantages because they would be redundant and pointless; rather, they can freely jocky for as many small bonuses as possible, because a +1 or +2 does stack with advantage.  If you have the choice between blinding your foe (a major situational bonus), or getting behind half cover (a minor situational bonus), then the answer depends on what else is going on at the time - because blindness is meaningless to a target who is already prone or otherwise debilitated.

Long story short: if it's going to be a significant part of the system, then there will need to be many sources of dis/advantage; the more sources of dis/advantage that exist, however, the less valuable any of them are.

Saelorn... you're thinking too hard about the wrong mechanics. The math you're doing doesn't apply any more. There simply won't be DC 30 challenges, because those are ridiculous. Nearly impossible difficulties like climbing a vertical sheet of oiled glass is represented by DC 25! Which with a mere +5 there is actually a chance you could scale that sheet of glass, and and even better chance with advantage. (However, I don't know what could possibly give you that advantage... maybe a wink from god?)

A black dragon has AC 18 where in 3.5 he would have had AC 23. So with the best roll out of 2 you're upping your odds of hitting quite a bit. 

And in reference to your Grid rules comment... advantage is advantage, if you've got the high ground, you get to roll two dice. Its as simple as that. There's no +2 bonuses for attacking with the sun behind you or some crap like that. The DC's are low for a reason, and IMO it works great.


There simply won't be DC 30 challenges, because those are ridiculous. Nearly impossible difficulties like climbing a vertical sheet of oiled glass is represented by DC 25! Which with a mere +5 there is actually a chance you could scale that sheet of glass, and and even better chance with advantage. (However, I don't know what could possibly give you that advantage... maybe a wink from god?)

While I disagree that DC 30 challenges won't exist, you can see the same effect by dropping the other bonuses by 5.  If the ranger is +13, and the rogue is +10 with advantage, then their capabilities relative to each other change based on whether the DC is 15, 20, or 25.
A black dragon has AC 18 where in 3.5 he would have had AC 23. So with the best roll out of 2 you're upping your odds of hitting quite a bit.

There were level 1 PCs running around with AC 20+ in the last playtest.  The idea that everything in the game will have AC between 5 and 20 seems unlikely, especially during late-game play.  I can't foresee a world where that black dragon's angry mom isn't going to have at least AC 21.  Numbers will go up, even if it's not via some pre-scribed formula that applies to everything based on level.  Bounded Accuracy doesn't mean that objectively difficult tasks will not exist.
And in reference to your Grid rules comment... advantage is advantage, if you've got the high ground, you get to roll two dice. Its as simple as that. There's no +2 bonuses[...]

if that were the case, then cover (half cover or 3/4 cover) would grant the attacker disadvantage to attack rolls rather than granting the defender +2 or +5 AC.  Even if that was true, then we'd be playing in a world where every melee attack ever gets advantage (or at least negates disadvantage) due to something as trivial as flanking or high ground.  Blindness, tripping, spells that grant advantage - huge chunks of the game become meaningless, because advantage doesn't stack.

The metagame is not the game.

There simply won't be DC 30 challenges, because those are ridiculous. Nearly impossible difficulties like climbing a vertical sheet of oiled glass is represented by DC 25! Which with a mere +5 there is actually a chance you could scale that sheet of glass, and and even better chance with advantage. (However, I don't know what could possibly give you that advantage... maybe a wink from god?)

While I disagree that DC 30 challenges won't exist, you can see the same effect by dropping the other bonuses by 5.  If the ranger is +13, and the rogue is +10 with advantage, then their capabilities relative to each other change based on whether the DC is 15, 20, or 25.



DC 15
Ranger: 90%
Rogue: 93.75%  (+3.75)

DC 20:
Ranger: 65%
Rogue: 75%   (+5)

DC 25
Ranger: 40%
Rogue: 43.75% (+3.75)

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Thanks, mellored.

I suppose that's what I get for making up numbers on the spot, though.  See how counter-intuitive it is?  Their relative advantage gained by advantage does change (from a 3.75% difference to a 10% difference), but not quite to the point where the rogue actually falls behind the ranger.  That might just be from my specific examples, though.

If you have the time, mellored, could you see which values are that extreme?  Is there any set of bonuses for which the rogue would only pull ahead on DC 20 but fall behind for DC 15, or any such values?

The metagame is not the game.

Why does this thread proceed from the assumption that we'll buy the new edition unless given a reason not to buy it?

As it stands, Next isn't being made for me in any way whatsoever, so I won't buy it.


Totally agreed on pretty much all of the OPs nitpicks.

Although many things in DnD 5E sounds good (and I hope it will be called 5E) and I am excited about it, there are plenty of things that I'd do differently.

My dislikes are the following:

Red flags:
Too much canon flavor. It's only a playtest, but we already have things like halflings having a default deity (a lame one, at that). The 4E pantheon was way more lovable to me, choosing a deity as a flavor, matching your religion to your character instead of boxing up all halflings (and maybe others) for a single deity. Leave more to interpretation about the races. In 4E, all we had about dwarves was many of them worship Moradin, (yet this got countered right away at the first adventurer example, with a dwarf worshipping Kord, letting us know that it's okay to worship others) they live in the mountains, they use geometric shapes in decorations, and that was enough. That was a good way of going about it. Let the campaign settings set the specifics if they want it to.

Change the make your own background system - more generic and more choices. If you choose a trait from the existing backgrounds, that trait has a big neon sign on it saying which background you picked it from. It doesn't feel like you are being creative, it just looks half-assed.
Make the make-your-own-background THE default system, (with each trait having a generic name and an easy to interpret flavor, like the 4E backgrounds) and make the existing backgrounds into examples. Remember the podcast you did with the Penny Arcade guys and Scott Kurtz? They made backgrounds up on the spot, and it was WAY better.

Balance. I didn't get to play yet, but I can do math in my head and imagine in which scenarios who's good at what. Currently, it seems like you are taking the old-school route and making the players do the party setup the old-school way too: "We'll need one of each base class, fighter wizard rogue cleric, who's who?". Seems like rogues will be trap-monkeys who are way subpar unless they are sneak-attacking, clerics are (once again) walking medkits... That's tunnel vision on nostalgia and putting gameplay balance on the back burner. It's not good. 



Yellow flags: 
Subraces. You are either a Hill Dwarf or a Deep Dwarf. Can't I just be a dwarf, like I am a human in real life instead of "White Human"? It's just another useless bracket of unneeded background info and annoying canon. I liked the 4E system better where we had Dwarves and Duergar. They were different too, but their races were one word instead of three, like Dwarf (Hill Dwarf). It just bugs me. Nitpick.

Expertise dice nitpicks: On top of balance problems (which I'm sure you'll fix), there are the d4s. Everyone hates rolling d4s. Please don't make us roll d4s.

Low HP: Okay, I see that this is old-school D&D again, but first-level wizards having to tremble at every single goblin dagger is not cool. You fixed that in 4E. Now you're about to go back to the subpar system just to comfort the nostalgics. Eh.

Use Rope and their kin: Come on. These skills were useless and far-fetched even in 3.5, why return to it? Ugh.



Now, let me repeat that I did not play 5E yet, but I did play 3.5 and didn't like it as much as I did 4E. I'm just saying, please don't walk back into old mistakes just so the new game will feel old-school. 
Thanks.
There simply won't be DC 30 challenges, because those are ridiculous. Nearly impossible difficulties like climbing a vertical sheet of oiled glass is represented by DC 25! Which with a mere +5 there is actually a chance you could scale that sheet of glass, and and even better chance with advantage. (However, I don't know what could possibly give you that advantage... maybe a wink from god?)

While I disagree that DC 30 challenges won't exist, you can see the same effect by dropping the other bonuses by 5.  If the ranger is +13, and the rogue is +10 with advantage, then their capabilities relative to each other change based on whether the DC is 15, 20, or 25.
A black dragon has AC 18 where in 3.5 he would have had AC 23. So with the best roll out of 2 you're upping your odds of hitting quite a bit.

There were level 1 PCs running around with AC 20+ in the last playtest.  The idea that everything in the game will have AC between 5 and 20 seems unlikely, especially during late-game play.  I can't foresee a world where that black dragon's angry mom isn't going to have at least AC 21.  Numbers will go up, even if it's not via some pre-scribed formula that applies to everything based on level.  Bounded Accuracy doesn't mean that objectively difficult tasks will not exist.
And in reference to your Grid rules comment... advantage is advantage, if you've got the high ground, you get to roll two dice. Its as simple as that. There's no +2 bonuses[...]

if that were the case, then cover (half cover or 3/4 cover) would grant the attacker disadvantage to attack rolls rather than granting the defender +2 or +5 AC.  Even if that was true, then we'd be playing in a world where every melee attack ever gets advantage (or at least negates disadvantage) due to something as trivial as flanking or high ground.  Blindness, tripping, spells that grant advantage - huge chunks of the game become meaningless, because advantage doesn't stack.


Hmmmm, to me it sounds like you're not following the rules as given. If you're playing by the current rules, its impossible for your players to be running around with AC 20, much less 20+. If they dodge or are using cover, that doesn't count as having AC 20. Dodging and using cover are tactical choices that have serious drawbacks. (Like being stuck in one location, or not being able to attack.) So please explain how the level one characters were able to acquire +1 Plate to go with their shield?

And again, as far as the advantage/disadvantage rules go, you're confusing things and misunderstanding the purpose of advantage. Advantage is great, in that rolling two dice and picking the higher one will always be better than rolling one. It will always feel like an advantage even when you roll both of them low. It's that feeling that matters, and is the very definition of Intuitive. (Using or based on what one feels to be true even without conscious reasoning; instinctive.)  Also, it has nothing to do with cover, blindness, tripping or other things that have rules and modifiers for. 

Also, stop arguing about the DC's. It's clearly stated that they do not go above DC25. *period* The equipment, creatures and abilities are all catered for lower numbers. Complaining about what "might become" is counter-intuitive. (To use your words.)


Advantage is great, in that rolling two dice and picking the higher one will always be better than rolling one. It will always feel like an advantage even when you roll both of them low. It's that feeling that matters, and is the very definition of Intuitive.

Everything else aside, because some of it is speculation, this is still a fundamental disagreement.  The feel is not more important than the underlying system math, in my opinion, and catering to feel rather than math is a huge red flag marking this as a game I would never want to play.

The metagame is not the game.

Totally agreed on pretty much all of the OPs nitpicks.

Yellow flags: 
Subraces. You are either a Hill Dwarf or a Deep Dwarf. Can't I just be a dwarf, like I am a human in real life instead of "White Human"? It's just another useless bracket of unneeded background info and annoying canon. I liked the 4E system better where we had Dwarves and Duergar. They were different too, but their races were one word instead of three, like Dwarf (Hill Dwarf). It just bugs me. Nitpick.



Because actually making human subraces would cause cries of 'RACISM'!  Although, frankly, the idea of a 'Barbarian' human, who gets like a +2 to Strength or Constitution and then gets a free proficiency with a heavy (twp handed) weapon of choice is pretty cool to me.

But I am SICK AND TIRED of the Human Monoculture.  Living in the mountains is not going to create the same type of human as one who lives in the desert.  Or near rivers and seas.

If you don't want to worry about stats, then don't change them.  Give every human that +1 to every thing, but at least give some cultural packages.  And don't bother basing them off real life...

Expertise dice nitpicks: On top of balance problems (which I'm sure you'll fix), there are the d4s. Everyone hates rolling d4s. Please don't make us roll d4s.



I have to agree with this one, D4s are best used as weapons agains break-ins and thieves.

Low HP: Okay, I see that this is old-school D&D again, but first-level wizards having to tremble at every single goblin dagger is not cool. You fixed that in 4E. Now you're about to go back to the subpar system just to comfort the nostalgics. Eh.



The problem is that with 3 and 4e hit points were obscene, and damage didn't match.  It was more prevalent in 3.x, but it's still there at 4e.

Use Rope and their kin: Come on. These skills were useless and far-fetched even in 3.5, why return to it? Ugh.



The issue here is that some skills, which people would need don't exactly fit.  And let's face it 'Use Rope' would be a Boating and Survival skill, and when it would matter people wouldn't even know it existed, despite the fact that the tension and adventure created by needing to tie a rope can be kinda fun.



Now, let me repeat that I did not play 5E yet, but I did play 3.5 and didn't like it as much as I did 4E. I'm just saying, please don't walk back into old mistakes just so the new game will feel old-school. 
Thanks.


Maybe you should play the game before complaining about some of these things.
The human subraces comment wasn't the point, it was just an example. "The same way I don't call myself a White Human, the subrace system feels odd and unnecessary." I think cultural packages should be left up to campaign settings and not the base game.

And yeah, I can deicde whether I like something or not, I played enough games for that.
Sign In to post comments