Kinneus
2015-01-08, 04:03 PM
I'm one of those people that decided to wait until all 3 core books were out, then picked them all up at once and devoured them. I was a 4e fanboy (*dodges a tomato*), but I've embraced 5e whole-heartedly. I love it, can't wait to start playing, etc. and so forth.
Let me say this again: I LOVE 5E! I'm so excited for it. However, there were some things on my initial read-through that just drove me crazy, and I absolutely had to share.
Player's Handbook:
Rangers Seem Sub-Par: Rangers really didn't grab me. I actually liked the "purely martial, purely mundane" aspect of Rangers in 4e, and while I believe the spell-casting variety of rangers has a place in the game too, I wish they would have made the former an option. It seems like an archetype that doesn't utilize spells at all would've added some interesting variety to the class. But, oh well, I guess that's what archer-focused Fighters with the Outlander background are for...
Overall, though, Rangers just seemed weak and seemed like they would be outclassed in most combat situations by Fighters and other classes. Based on what little I've read, it seems this is the general consensus as well.
Sorcerers Seem Out-Classed by Wizards: Sorcerers have long been a favorite class of mine, and when I first read them, I was excited. But then I got to the Wizard, and immediately thought, "Wow, why would I ever play a Sorcerer?" While I imagine Sorcerers might win out in sheer blasty pew-pew scariness, the versatility of Wizards seem superior without giving up much. Mostly, Wizards seemed more interesting because each specialization suggests a different character, or type of character. While Sorcerers are limited to either Dragon-flavored dude or randomness-flavored dude.
I Didn't Like the Implementation of Wild Surges: On the topic of the two "types" of Sorcerers, Dragon Sorcerers seem pretty serviceable. Wild Sorcerers, however, disappointed me. I didn't like the implementation of Wild Surges in particular. The biggest problem I saw was they lacked a specific trigger; I know one of their class abilities triggered Surges, but otherwise it just seemed to be "whenever the DM feels like it." As a DM (I'm primarily a DM), I wouldn't feel comfortable arbitrarily deciding when to ask a player to roll on the Surge table. Too often, it feels like I'm screwing them for playing their class. Too infrequently, and I'm ignoring a big part of the class.
And finally, the actual Wild Surge table just seemed silly to me. For example, the one where the player turns into a potted plant? That (might) be funny once, but if it happens more than once it just seems stupid. INFINITE POSSIBILITIES as RAW CHAOS courses through YOUR ENTIRE BODY... but a solid 2% of the time you become a potted plant because it turns out the endless churning possibilities of limbo are kind of predictable in the end.
I Liked the Mechanical Aspects of Backgrounds, Not the Personality-Building Aspects: The mechanical aspects were okay, I liked them. But the whole Bond/Flaw/Ideal thing didn't appeal to me at all... I trust my players come up with an interesting character on their own. I get what they were going for (getting players not particularly inclined to roleplay to do so), but I'm worried the list of Flaws/Bonds/Ideals will become less "here's a set of interesting quirks for your character" and more "THESE ARE THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE QUIRKS FOR YOUR CHARACTER THIS IS FUN WE ARE HAVING FUN NOW HERE ARE THE PARAMETERS OF YOUR PERSONALITY."
Monster Manual:
A (Tiny Portion) of the Writing is Eye-Rollingly Bad: Overall, I loved the flavor text. This is one thing (early) 4e fumbled very, very badly and I really enjoy all the background and flavor (the majority of) monsters get. But... anything in those little "in-character" style brownish text boxes was terrible. I mean awful. The entries for sprites, cambions and clay golems strike me as particularly bad. A few were effective, but overall they "brought me out" of the world and fiction in a really bad way. Am I alone in this?
I Kind of Really Miss Monster Roles: I know 4e is not popular, but this was one thing I loved about it. The differently-defined monster rolls let you build interesting but thematic encounters. I wish Hobgoblins, for instance, had stat blocks for a gobbo footsoldier, a gobbo archer, a gobbo siege engineer, a gobbo low-level cleric acolyte/chaplain type thing, and a gobbo commander. You know, things that would conceivably make up a hobgoblin force. Instead we have "Hobgoblin," "Stronger Hobgoblin" and "Even More Stronger-er Hobgoblin." This was a problem across the board with monster design.
Many Monsters Feel Very Mundane and Same-y, from a Crunch Perspective: This is related to my above pet peeve. A staggering number of the monsters in the book could be summed up as "Vaguely Humanoid Thing What Walks Up to You and Hits with you Claws, or Maybe a Specific Melee Weapon if You're Lucky." I found myself pining for Artillery-type or Controller-Type Monsters of 4e.
In particular, I remember pulling my hair out upon reading the entries for Salamanders and the imp-like magma things in particular ("Magmi?" Wait, I just looked it up... Magmin). It would have been so, so easy to give them a fire-based ranged attack, so they at least had some tactical options open to them and could be a little memorable. But no. They just walk up to you and hit you with claws and oh by the way happen to be on fire I guess.
The Salamander at least has a ranged option. It throws its spear. Sigh. Why can't the Fire-creatures shoot a frickin' fireball every once in a while?
The Creators Seem Almost Scared to Throw Magic-Using Monsters at You: I agree that many 4e monsters were too "high-magic," but this feels almost ridiculous. Even the monsters that do have spells don't seem to have particularly scary spells. Mind Flayers stood out in my mind as not having much they can actually do in combat, outside their Telekinesis spell-like ability and hoping their Mind Blast ability recharges. That a Mind Flayer has to wade into combat and try to eat brains with its tentacles to feel effective just doesn't seem right to me. Overall, spell-casting monsters lack the bite I'd expect from them, but luckily this easily handled by just tweaking their spell-lists, I guess.
Needs More Templates: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seemed like the only template available was the Spore Servant under the Myconoids, right? The lack of a Skeletal Template and a Zombie Template seemed like glaring oversights.
Needs Standard Humans/Elves/Dwarves as Enemies: I was disappointed in this in particular, because the current campaign I'm running has a high chance of the PCs fighting a human militia, elven scouts, dwarven guards, etc. It seemed like an oversight that such "regular joe" type creatures weren't included... I guess I'm expected to modify the NPCs in the addendum? Maybe strip the magical abilities from drow/duergar and use them instead?
Dungeon Master's Guide:
Dear God Just Give Me a Giant List of Traps: Look, I get that they have to write these from the perspective of players who have never DMed before. But I feel like they're emphasizing the whole "How Do I Even World-Build?" stuff too much. If you're the sort of person for whom DMing is appealing to you, chances are you can figure this stuff out on your lonesome. I wish they would of cut some of the "here's every possible religion/political atmosphere your made-up town can have" stuff and instead increased the size of the trap list. A measly two pages is not enough. This is something I always lacked as a DM, the imagination for a good trap, so I frankly could have used some help here (my traps always end up as either hilariously easy to bypass and toothless or else hideous overpowered death-traps). Instead I get two pages of the most boring, standard, done-to-death traps and also a sphere of annihilation, something a player can't help but meta-game because it's a D&D classic.
This was something I noticed in 4e, too. The DMG was also sorely lacking in traps, and I had to wait until the DMG2 for a reliable "build your own trap" toolkit. I would seriously pay good money for a book of traps the size of the Monster Manual, but that seems like something that should be part and parcel of the Dungeon's Master Guide.
I Wish More Space Had Been Dedicated to Building a Good Combat Encounter: As a 4e fan boy I love nothing more than a good tactical encounter that makes my players think and sweat. I wish more advice had gone to this aspect of the game, although I understand the natural shift away from that. Also the actual "build an encounter" section seemed kind of buried. Actually USING Challenge Ratings in a way that won't kill your players seems like vital advice, so I wish more time/attention had been paid to it.
And... phew. Okay. That's it. I loved literally everything else, and I'm still digesting rules, but I just had to get this off my chest. If anybody wants to prove me wrong, I'd love that. Particularly I'd like to know if I've missed Skeletal/Zombie templates anywhere, or if anybody has an impassioned defense of Wild Surge Sorcerers or Rangers. I'd love to hear it.
Let me say this again: I LOVE 5E! I'm so excited for it. However, there were some things on my initial read-through that just drove me crazy, and I absolutely had to share.
Player's Handbook:
Rangers Seem Sub-Par: Rangers really didn't grab me. I actually liked the "purely martial, purely mundane" aspect of Rangers in 4e, and while I believe the spell-casting variety of rangers has a place in the game too, I wish they would have made the former an option. It seems like an archetype that doesn't utilize spells at all would've added some interesting variety to the class. But, oh well, I guess that's what archer-focused Fighters with the Outlander background are for...
Overall, though, Rangers just seemed weak and seemed like they would be outclassed in most combat situations by Fighters and other classes. Based on what little I've read, it seems this is the general consensus as well.
Sorcerers Seem Out-Classed by Wizards: Sorcerers have long been a favorite class of mine, and when I first read them, I was excited. But then I got to the Wizard, and immediately thought, "Wow, why would I ever play a Sorcerer?" While I imagine Sorcerers might win out in sheer blasty pew-pew scariness, the versatility of Wizards seem superior without giving up much. Mostly, Wizards seemed more interesting because each specialization suggests a different character, or type of character. While Sorcerers are limited to either Dragon-flavored dude or randomness-flavored dude.
I Didn't Like the Implementation of Wild Surges: On the topic of the two "types" of Sorcerers, Dragon Sorcerers seem pretty serviceable. Wild Sorcerers, however, disappointed me. I didn't like the implementation of Wild Surges in particular. The biggest problem I saw was they lacked a specific trigger; I know one of their class abilities triggered Surges, but otherwise it just seemed to be "whenever the DM feels like it." As a DM (I'm primarily a DM), I wouldn't feel comfortable arbitrarily deciding when to ask a player to roll on the Surge table. Too often, it feels like I'm screwing them for playing their class. Too infrequently, and I'm ignoring a big part of the class.
And finally, the actual Wild Surge table just seemed silly to me. For example, the one where the player turns into a potted plant? That (might) be funny once, but if it happens more than once it just seems stupid. INFINITE POSSIBILITIES as RAW CHAOS courses through YOUR ENTIRE BODY... but a solid 2% of the time you become a potted plant because it turns out the endless churning possibilities of limbo are kind of predictable in the end.
I Liked the Mechanical Aspects of Backgrounds, Not the Personality-Building Aspects: The mechanical aspects were okay, I liked them. But the whole Bond/Flaw/Ideal thing didn't appeal to me at all... I trust my players come up with an interesting character on their own. I get what they were going for (getting players not particularly inclined to roleplay to do so), but I'm worried the list of Flaws/Bonds/Ideals will become less "here's a set of interesting quirks for your character" and more "THESE ARE THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE QUIRKS FOR YOUR CHARACTER THIS IS FUN WE ARE HAVING FUN NOW HERE ARE THE PARAMETERS OF YOUR PERSONALITY."
Monster Manual:
A (Tiny Portion) of the Writing is Eye-Rollingly Bad: Overall, I loved the flavor text. This is one thing (early) 4e fumbled very, very badly and I really enjoy all the background and flavor (the majority of) monsters get. But... anything in those little "in-character" style brownish text boxes was terrible. I mean awful. The entries for sprites, cambions and clay golems strike me as particularly bad. A few were effective, but overall they "brought me out" of the world and fiction in a really bad way. Am I alone in this?
I Kind of Really Miss Monster Roles: I know 4e is not popular, but this was one thing I loved about it. The differently-defined monster rolls let you build interesting but thematic encounters. I wish Hobgoblins, for instance, had stat blocks for a gobbo footsoldier, a gobbo archer, a gobbo siege engineer, a gobbo low-level cleric acolyte/chaplain type thing, and a gobbo commander. You know, things that would conceivably make up a hobgoblin force. Instead we have "Hobgoblin," "Stronger Hobgoblin" and "Even More Stronger-er Hobgoblin." This was a problem across the board with monster design.
Many Monsters Feel Very Mundane and Same-y, from a Crunch Perspective: This is related to my above pet peeve. A staggering number of the monsters in the book could be summed up as "Vaguely Humanoid Thing What Walks Up to You and Hits with you Claws, or Maybe a Specific Melee Weapon if You're Lucky." I found myself pining for Artillery-type or Controller-Type Monsters of 4e.
In particular, I remember pulling my hair out upon reading the entries for Salamanders and the imp-like magma things in particular ("Magmi?" Wait, I just looked it up... Magmin). It would have been so, so easy to give them a fire-based ranged attack, so they at least had some tactical options open to them and could be a little memorable. But no. They just walk up to you and hit you with claws and oh by the way happen to be on fire I guess.
The Salamander at least has a ranged option. It throws its spear. Sigh. Why can't the Fire-creatures shoot a frickin' fireball every once in a while?
The Creators Seem Almost Scared to Throw Magic-Using Monsters at You: I agree that many 4e monsters were too "high-magic," but this feels almost ridiculous. Even the monsters that do have spells don't seem to have particularly scary spells. Mind Flayers stood out in my mind as not having much they can actually do in combat, outside their Telekinesis spell-like ability and hoping their Mind Blast ability recharges. That a Mind Flayer has to wade into combat and try to eat brains with its tentacles to feel effective just doesn't seem right to me. Overall, spell-casting monsters lack the bite I'd expect from them, but luckily this easily handled by just tweaking their spell-lists, I guess.
Needs More Templates: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seemed like the only template available was the Spore Servant under the Myconoids, right? The lack of a Skeletal Template and a Zombie Template seemed like glaring oversights.
Needs Standard Humans/Elves/Dwarves as Enemies: I was disappointed in this in particular, because the current campaign I'm running has a high chance of the PCs fighting a human militia, elven scouts, dwarven guards, etc. It seemed like an oversight that such "regular joe" type creatures weren't included... I guess I'm expected to modify the NPCs in the addendum? Maybe strip the magical abilities from drow/duergar and use them instead?
Dungeon Master's Guide:
Dear God Just Give Me a Giant List of Traps: Look, I get that they have to write these from the perspective of players who have never DMed before. But I feel like they're emphasizing the whole "How Do I Even World-Build?" stuff too much. If you're the sort of person for whom DMing is appealing to you, chances are you can figure this stuff out on your lonesome. I wish they would of cut some of the "here's every possible religion/political atmosphere your made-up town can have" stuff and instead increased the size of the trap list. A measly two pages is not enough. This is something I always lacked as a DM, the imagination for a good trap, so I frankly could have used some help here (my traps always end up as either hilariously easy to bypass and toothless or else hideous overpowered death-traps). Instead I get two pages of the most boring, standard, done-to-death traps and also a sphere of annihilation, something a player can't help but meta-game because it's a D&D classic.
This was something I noticed in 4e, too. The DMG was also sorely lacking in traps, and I had to wait until the DMG2 for a reliable "build your own trap" toolkit. I would seriously pay good money for a book of traps the size of the Monster Manual, but that seems like something that should be part and parcel of the Dungeon's Master Guide.
I Wish More Space Had Been Dedicated to Building a Good Combat Encounter: As a 4e fan boy I love nothing more than a good tactical encounter that makes my players think and sweat. I wish more advice had gone to this aspect of the game, although I understand the natural shift away from that. Also the actual "build an encounter" section seemed kind of buried. Actually USING Challenge Ratings in a way that won't kill your players seems like vital advice, so I wish more time/attention had been paid to it.
And... phew. Okay. That's it. I loved literally everything else, and I'm still digesting rules, but I just had to get this off my chest. If anybody wants to prove me wrong, I'd love that. Particularly I'd like to know if I've missed Skeletal/Zombie templates anywhere, or if anybody has an impassioned defense of Wild Surge Sorcerers or Rangers. I'd love to hear it.