What i'd like to get out of 5e

[EccentricCircle]

So this was originally going to be a reply to the will 5e be successful thread, but it doesn't quite fit there. So lets open this up and create an "Optimism thread". What are you hoping to get out of the new D&D edition? What do you hope it will be able to do? What niche would you like it to fill?
I've seen some comments from people who are concerned that the new game will be too streamlined and not have enough options etc. I'd actually quite like a quick and simple D&D game. I've already got 3.5/pathfinder for long complicated games which need a lot of options, and 4th edition for tactically intensive games, But what I don't have is a good D&D game for oneshots, something where I can actually sit down and get the players to roll up characters as we start rather than having to get them to do it before arriving at the game, because otherwise it will massively eat into our time. There are a lot of games out there which are quicker to get off the ground, but that doesn't help if what you want to play happens to be D&D.

I don't know to what extent this version will actually fill this niche, there's been lots of talk about simplicity, but then again they will ultimately want it to run for years and include everything in D&D's past.

So what do you hope to get out of fifth edition?

[Lokiare]

So this was originally going to be a reply to the will 5e be successful thread, but it doesn't quite fit there. So lets open this up and create an "Optimism thread". What are you hoping to get out of the new D&D edition? What do you hope it will be able to do? What niche would you like it to fill?
I've seen some comments from people who are concerned that the new game will be too streamlined and not have enough options etc. I'd actually quite like a quick and simple D&D game. I've already got 3.5/pathfinder for long complicated games which need a lot of options, and 4th edition for tactically intensive games, But what I don't have is a good D&D game for oneshots, something where I can actually sit down and get the players to roll up characters as we start rather than having to get them to do it before arriving at the game, because otherwise it will massively eat into our time. There are a lot of games out there which are quicker to get off the ground, but that doesn't help if what you want to play happens to be D&D.

I don't know to what extent this version will actually fill this niche, there's been lots of talk about simplicity, but then again they will ultimately want it to run for years and include everything in D&D's past.

So what do you hope to get out of fifth edition?

You said optimism right? So I shouldn't post here right?

[StabbityRabbit]

A fun, new edition that plays quickly, and can be modded fairly easily.

[Madfellow]

The thing about these forums is that they're mostly populated by people who are fans of 3.5 and Pathfinder, and as such most people here have held fairly low opinions of the new edition. Myself, I've always been dissatisfied with 3.5, mostly because of its overdependence on magic and its sometimes clunky mechanics. I've played 4e a little, and I like it more than 3.5, but it's still not "the game for me."

So when I first heard about 5e and the playtest, I was psyched. And truth be told, that psychitude hasn't diminished a single bit since then! And here's why: every new bit of information I received about 5e (with some small exceptions) has addressed some problem that I've always had with 3e and 4e, and has helped to distinguish Next from its predecessors in a new and fun way. I've always wanted a simpler, streamlined, faster D&D. I've always wanted less dependence on magic and artifacts. In my opinion, 3e and 4e were kinda bloated, and the franchise was in need of a little deflating.

Best of all, though, is the dev team's focus on the storytelling aspect of the game. Throughout their press releases and columns and sneak peaks, they have emphasized again and again that in pulling focus away from number-crunching, they are putting more and more focus on making it easier to roleplay a good story and to develop good characters and gripping adventures.

THAT is why I am still psyched for 5e.

[captpike]

the game they said they were making.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

the game they said they were making.

You and Lok wouldn't be happy then, you would find something else to complain about.

Perhaps because it isn't 4e?



Sorry but a company can change goals, and if everyone is "the group that will make us money" then more power to then.WotC owes you nothing.

[obryn]

the game they said they were making.

That hypothetical game - a milquetoast mishmash of blandness dedicated to offending nobody - would have been terrible. Well, more terrible, anyway. I'm glad the design team actually picked a design philosophy; it gives it more of a chance of turning out okay.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

That hypothetical game - a milquetoast mishmash of blandness dedicated to offending nobody - would have been terrible. Well, more terrible, anyway. I'm glad the design team actually picked a design philosophy; it gives it more of a chance of turning out okay.

But hey, you can't get anywhere as a company if you are flexible and evolve your ideas to suit your market's wants .

But I guess some people will whine about it till 6e comes out.

[Knaight]

I'm hoping that it's a game sufficiently streamlined to pull new people into the hobby, and which handles the particular D&D niche (dungeon crawling) reasonably well. Quite honestly, I'm getting optimistic about this. There are still things I dislike, but there are a few more promising mechanics (the use of double proficiency is nice to see), and it seems like 5e is getting to be a pretty coherent game. It's far from a generalized one, and I wouldn't expect it to work all that well for much other than dungeon crawling, but it looks like it will do what it should do well.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I'm hoping that it's a game sufficiently streamlined to pull new people into the hobby, and which handles the particular D&D niche (dungeon crawling) reasonably well. Quite honestly, I'm getting optimistic about this. There are still things I dislike, but there are a few more promising mechanics (the use of double proficiency is nice to see), and it seems like 5e is getting to be a pretty coherent game. It's far from a generalized one, and I wouldn't expect it to work all that well for much other than dungeon crawling, but it looks like it will do what it should do well.

I hope they stick to these rules being only for dungeon crawling. Then give me the rules for other interactions between everything in campaign guides or whatever.

I hate the idea of dungeon crawling rules = society rules.

[obryn]

dungeon crawling rules = society rules.

The 3rd edition rallying cry!

[captpike]

You and Lok wouldn't be happy then, you would find something else to complain about.

Perhaps because it isn't 4e?



Sorry but a company can change goals, and if everyone is "the group that will make us money" then more power to then.WotC owes you nothing.

But hey, you can't get anywhere as a company if you are flexible and evolve your ideas to suit your market's wants .

But I guess some people will whine about it till 6e comes out.

then they should say the goals have changed, when they say so I will change how I judge the game.

how would you judge the game? pick a goal randomly and see if it matches to the game?

they said they were trying to make a game for every major playstyle of the previous editions, and that it would be modular.

we have yet to see any evidence of it being in any way modular, and no support of any playstyle of that of a very narrow one. I talk mostly about the 4e one because that is what I know best and care about most, not because that is the only one that matters or the only one I think they should support.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

then they should say the goals have changed, when they say so I will change how I judge the game.

how would you judge the game? pick a goal randomly and see if it matches to the game?

they said they were trying to make a game for every major playstyle of the previous editions, and that it would be modular.

we have yet to see any evidence of it being in any way modular, and no support of any playstyle of that of a very narrow one. I talk mostly about the 4e one because that is what I know best and care about most, not because that is the only one that matters or the only one I think they should support.

Hear that? The world's smallest violin is playing.

They don't owe you or anyone else anything. They are a company and if their product is decent or good then it will sell. The only people that WotC owes anything to is Hasbro and their stock holders.

They don't have to have a press release just so you can have your ego satisfied. They want to change goals? Fine. They want to not tell people and assume that anyone paying attention can tell they changed their goals? Good.

Not everything has to be stated out mater of fact like. They changed their goals and they don't owe you an explanation.

Don't like it? Then tough, don't buy the game they made. But atop spreading this whiny crap about "they changed their goal and didn't tell us".

What I don't get is why you feel you have to keep saying the same garbage over and over in a forum just to try and get attention or try to antogonize people (which hey, good going you got me again). I'm pretty sure that's called trolling.

[Lokiare]

You and Lok wouldn't be happy then, you would find something else to complain about.

Perhaps because it isn't 4e?



Sorry but a company can change goals, and if everyone is "the group that will make us money" then more power to then.WotC owes you nothing.

But hey, you can't get anywhere as a company if you are flexible and evolve your ideas to suit your market's wants .

But I guess some people will whine about it till 6e comes out.

They continue to maintain that they want to support all play styles. That's still one of their goals.

Hear that? The world's smallest violin is playing.

They don't owe you or anyone else anything. They are a company and if their product is decent or good then it will sell. The only people that WotC owes anything to is Hasbro and their stock holders.

They don't have to have a press release just so you can have your ego satisfied. They want to change goals? Fine. They want to not tell people and assume that anyone paying attention can tell they changed their goals? Good.

Not everything has to be stated out mater of fact like. They changed their goals and they don't owe you an explanation.

Don't like it? Then tough, don't buy the game they made. But atop spreading this whiny crap about "they changed their goal and didn't tell us".

What I don't get is why you feel you have to keep saying the same garbage over and over in a forum just to try and get attention or try to antogonize people (which hey, good going you got me again). I'm pretty sure that's called trolling.

Your responses are just as much trolling. If you think they are trolling report them and move on. Replying is just as much against the forums rules as trolling is itself.

Also Hasbro is WotC's shareholders. WotC is a publicly traded company and Hasbro bought out all their controlling stock. That's how they replaced WotC's CEO with a Hasbro manager to get complete control of the internals of WotC after making a deal in the buyout that they would let WotC operate as a separate company.

[da_chicken]

The thing about these forums is that they're mostly populated by people who are fans of 3.5 and Pathfinder, and as such most people here have held fairly low opinions of the new edition. Myself, I've always been dissatisfied with 3.5, mostly because of its overdependence on magic and its sometimes clunky mechanics. I've played 4e a little, and I like it more than 3.5, but it's still not "the game for me."

So when I first heard about 5e and the playtest, I was psyched. And truth be told, that psychitude hasn't diminished a single bit since then! And here's why: every new bit of information I received about 5e (with some small exceptions) has addressed some problem that I've always had with 3e and 4e, and has helped to distinguish Next from its predecessors in a new and fun way. I've always wanted a simpler, streamlined, faster D&D. I've always wanted less dependence on magic and artifacts. In my opinion, 3e and 4e were kinda bloated, and the franchise was in need of a little deflating.

Best of all, though, is the dev team's focus on the storytelling aspect of the game. Throughout their press releases and columns and sneak peaks, they have emphasized again and again that in pulling focus away from number-crunching, they are putting more and more focus on making it easier to roleplay a good story and to develop good characters and gripping adventures.

THAT is why I am still psyched for 5e.

This is pretty much what I'm hoping to get. I want 1e/2e with the math turned the right way 'round, or 3e with fewer broken mechanics (even if that means just fewer mechanics period). I don't have a problem with DMs making things up on the fly, and I like the idea that you don't turn into endgame Samus Aran.

[Pex]

Right now Pathfinder is my game. I don't see 5E replacing it. What I would want is if for some hypothetical reason I did play a 5E game I can like it enough to get over it from the differences it has with 3E/Pathfinder.

[da_chicken]

Right now Pathfinder is my game. I don't see 5E replacing it. What I would want is if for some hypothetical reason I did play a 5E game I can like it enough to get over it from the differences it has with 3E/Pathfinder.

I like PF because it fixes a lot of the issues with crappy classes and wonky skills. Then it went and made spellcasters seemingly worse, and didn't do enough to curtail buffet-style multiclassing and prestige classing which I've come to absolutely loathe.

[captpike]

Hear that? The world's smallest violin is playing.

They don't owe you or anyone else anything. They are a company and if their product is decent or good then it will sell. The only people that WotC owes anything to is Hasbro and their stock holders.

They don't have to have a press release just so you can have your ego satisfied. They want to change goals? Fine. They want to not tell people and assume that anyone paying attention can tell they changed their goals? Good.

Not everything has to be stated out mater of fact like. They changed their goals and they don't owe you an explanation.

Don't like it? Then tough, don't buy the game they made. But atop spreading this whiny crap about "they changed their goal and didn't tell us".

What I don't get is why you feel you have to keep saying the same garbage over and over in a forum just to try and get attention or try to antogonize people (which hey, good going you got me again). I'm pretty sure that's called trolling.

they can certainly lie if they wish, but I will continue to judge their game they their stated goals.

again, how else would you judge a game? what is better then the goals the company itself sets?

[Envyus]

again, how else would you judge a game?

If it's fun.

[Dimers]

Well, 4e will probably continue to be my primary game system because I like the focus on tactical, team-oriented combat and I like the tight mechanics. But if a group of people I like to play with said "Hey, let's try 5e", what would I want out of it that can reasonably be expected of it?

I'd like its easy startup to continue. Very quick character creation, from what I've seen.

I'd like all sorts of builds to be able to contribute both in and out of combat.

I'd like well-written material -- the mechanics should be clear and fair (even if that takes errata to accomplish), the flavor should be evocative, the settings should make changes that really alter play for the worlds they represent, and the adventures should be easy to run and desirable to play.

I'd like material to keep coming steadily for years, not too fast but not too slow.

One thing the game definitely doesn't have now that I'd like to see is significant improvement in skill and resistance over time -- perhaps a modular addition.

I'd like a well-made online search tool.

I'd like a frank and open explanation of the meta attributes (probably in a book a few years down the road): the overall design intent, how each class works in practice, how the stats work in practice, under what circumstances different abilities matter the most, traps to avoid in character creation, what makes a group play well together, what classes are good matches for what kinds of player, how monster design and monster selection alter the expected gameplay ... Basically, I want the game to "know thyself".

EDIT: Oh, and even if I never have a group to play 5e with, even if I stick with 4e for every TTRPG ever, I would love to see a well-made 5e single-player video game. It's been too long since a good CRPG came out.

[Chaosvii7]

Oh, and even if I never have a group to play 5e with, even if I stick with 4e for every TTRPG ever, I would love to see a well-made 5e single-player video game. It's been too long since a good CRPG came out.

I don't know whereabouts in Boston you live, but my friends and I play at a FLGS north of Boston. We're gonna be doing the starter set adventure, and then when the Player's Handbook comes out we're probably going to roll out a campaign as well. We mostly play on Sundays, and if you'd like to join in just send me a PM.

----

As for what I want out of 5e - I want a rules-light system for telling a fantasy story that lets me ask at least one deep question(be it philosophical or otherwise) while exploring the answer with a party of adventurers(friends), allowing them to play larger-than-life characters and me to shape a whole world around them.

I want fantasy tropes. I want simplicity. I want theater-of-the-mind combat sometimes. I want teamwork, I want roleplaying, I want stories from every person(but not necessarily spoken ones ), and I want comradery that is forged through these adventures and lasts for many years.

Also I totally want a Blood Mage subclass, preferably for Warlocks, because blood and Warlocks are edgy, and so am I.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I like PF because it fixes a lot of the issues with crappy classes and wonky skills. Then it went and made spellcasters seemingly worse, and didn't do enough to curtail buffet-style multiclassing and prestige classing which I've come to absolutely loathe.

Wait, since when did Pathfinder fix anything? Crappy classes are still crappy, skills are still as wonky (though skill point system has been slimed down), also... Though a spell or two may have been changed (polymorph) they in no way made casters seemingly worse. Heck from a first glance they seem better but overall they are about the same within their systems.

Wizards are a god in each system and the Fighter is a bucket with wholes filled with mostly bad feats (there are some gems if you play level 11 - 20).

I play pathfinder, I'm currently playing and having fun as a fighter (the DM doesn't understand arcane or divine magic :/, best to stick with non-magical classes), but I know the problems I will face if I do certain things or try to go to far past a certain level with most builds.

Also why the hell isn't jump a strength based skill? Haha.

The notion that pathfinder fixed anything is kinda funny, not that they had to fix anything to make their own game and all... But well they didn't even fix all the polymorph spells (polymorph any object).

If 5e can build upon the mistakes of the past and make a decent game then I would be happy. I doubt they will though so I'll probably just end up playing 5e so I don't get roped into playing Pathfinder.

[da_chicken]

Wait, since when did Pathfinder fix anything? Crappy classes are still crappy, skills are still as wonky (though skill point system has been slimed down), also... Though a spell or two may have been changed (polymorph) they in no way made casters seemingly worse. Heck from a first glance they seem better but overall they are about the same within their systems.

That's exactly my point.

I first looked at the martial classes and thought, "Wow, these aren't fantastic, but this guy still has a lot more going on than this guy at least." Then I saw Monk and thought, "Well, just giving the damn class actual Fighter BAB is still the best way to do it, but I suppose this is acceptable."

Then I looked at skills and liked the streamlining. And I saw the preferred class rule and thought that was interesting incentive to remain single-classed. I liked the change to Power Attack, too, since it was just a toggle and not a dial. 4e did it that way, too, and it's the right way to do it.

Then I looked at Wizards and Clerics, and realized they didn't rebalance anything. They just raised the level across the whole game to give every class an ability at every level. That's stupid. Spellcasters didn't need any help. Then I noticed that prestige classes, if anything, got even more trivial to qualify for. There were no attempts to reign in the multiclassing stupidity of 3.x, they just give people who don't abuse it a cookie. At that point I didn't see any justification to leave 3.5, since the majority of changes were just changes and not improvements. It just felt like 5% fixes with 95% power creep. That's lame.

[obryn]

I was invited to a Pathfinder game not all too long ago. You may have heard this story before, so I'll make it brief. I was a goblin cavalier riding a dire boar. I had a friend make it for me, because Pathfinder character creation is painful like ebola.

With a character concept like that, I thought it should have been awesome. But the truth was that, if I was charging, I was insanely strong. If I wasn't charging, I was utterly useless. I had exactly one trick where I was competent. Outside that excessively narrow niche I was worthless.

That's exactly the opposite thing I'd like to get out of 5e.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I was invited to a Pathfinder game not all too long ago. You may have heard this story before, so I'll make it brief. I was a goblin cavalier riding a dire boar. I had a friend make it for me, because Pathfinder character creation is painful like ebola.

With a character concept like that, I thought it should have been awesome. But the truth was that, if I was charging, I was insanely strong. If I wasn't charging, I was utterly useless. I had exactly one trick where I was competent. Outside that excessively narrow niche I was worthless.

That's exactly the opposite thing I'd like to get out of 5e.

Quite frankly, this is why 3.5 and Pathfinder are the same damn game.

Though I finally found a Non-Caster (who eventually uses Su or Sp abilities) that is interesting. You should look into the Lore Warden Fighter.

Lore Warden 16/Horizon Walker 3/Living Monolith 1 is a pretty damn fun build... However if memory serves me correctly I believe that they called this the Horizon Tripper in 3.5, the only difference is the dimensional agility feat line... And a few other high level gem feats that I'll never get to use unless its a one shot -_-...

Teleporting all over the place as a large fighter with a glaive or whatever tripping and dazing (Dazing Assault) will be fun if I get a chance to use it.

Edit:

My skill points per level with a 16 Int Human (rolled for stats) is 2 (class) + 3 (Int) + 1 (race) + 2 (Lore Warden, Int skills only). And I get all intelligence based skills as class skills. My fighter can be useful outside of combat :p

Edits:

DA_chicken

The thing is that all the classes stayed the same tier in relation to the game. Heck even paladins are argued that they are tier 4 and not tier 3.

They didn't raise anyone and they didn't lower anyone else. They didn't change the game enough to do even that. Pathfinder is more like 3.6 whereas a game like Legend is its own game.

[Chaosvii7]

Not gonna lie, after playing so much 3.x, I basically spend all of my time in-game trying to attach 9th-level casting onto everything I possibly can. I love 3.5 because it opened up my door to the world of Roleplaying and bum rushed me out into it, but really after coming to these forums and playing so much of it, I am ready for Next.

I think part of that has to do with the two different design philosophies that 3.5 and Pathfinder took. 3.5's power creep and splatbook bloat made dipping prestige classes not only easy, but basically necessary to do tricks that became very necessary as the gap that was already established between spellcasters and mundanes simply got wider and wider with every book. Helping my friends make builds is basically as easy as saying "What gimmick do you want your character to have?" or "You have one hypothetical full-round action. What do you want your character to be able to do in one turn of combat?" A build is basically a few levels of a core class followed by several dips into other classes that basically makes a finished build look like a cobbled-together statue, which often times might not even come out as optimized as a well-sculpted 20th level wizard staute. Pathfinder really brought the power levels for wizards back down into the stratosphere and helped leverage some of the huge problems with the core game, but now that they're expanding their material it's not growing enough to support the extensive number of possible playstyles that 3.5 could achieve. Prestige classes have had the immense fat trimmed from them to the point of being specializations of single-classed characters, or a class designed to support a hybrid playstyle. Archetypes fill some of the void, but the fact that a lot of the archetypes were designed to be used standalone and don't have many synergies with each other, you get the problem that either a smaller number of builds reign supreme due to the fact that there will definitely be archetypes that are superior to one another(some potentially exceeding the capabilities of the base class it's modifying) or that an extensive amount of fantasies just isn't possible.

For me, Next fulfills a good number of fantasies simply by trimming down the rules and specificity of classes and their capabilities while also leaving the door wide open with multiclassing(which I hope hasn't changed much from the final playtest) that isn't restrictive. Every class gets it's own chassis on top of adding a subclass to it, which easily trumps the design aesthetic of archetypes from Pathfinder, and the lack of prestige classes currently keeps the fidelity of tight and concise builds pretty good. Because there isn't 100 different specialized classes that you can take that, when chained properly, create devastating combinations. There's just the 12 core classes that can specialize in ways that one can combine to create something thematically similar while being a lot more rules light. Arguably every subclass is it's own class, but you usually only need a little bit of that one class to satisfy a goal, especially a hybrid class(Fighter 5/Wizard 15 in Next seems immensely powerful to me, whereas it'd only be okay in Pathfinder and laughably weak in 3.5).

I can't hate 3.x, but I am definitely entitled to like Next moreso.

[Marius]

I would like a complex game, full of options and customization but also better balanced than 3.x. So, 3.x but better, much better.

Doesn't seem like I'm going to get it but I'll wait until all the books are out and try to give them the benefit of doubt for the time being. Although it's not a good omen that we still haven't seen any modules. The basic game seems fine for one-shots but it's not what I would use for a full-blown campaign.

[Fwiffo86]

then they should say the goals have changed, when they say so I will change how I judge the game.

how would you judge the game? pick a goal randomly and see if it matches to the game?

they said they were trying to make a game for every major playstyle of the previous editions, and that it would be modular.

we have yet to see any evidence of it being in any way modular, and no support of any playstyle of that of a very narrow one. I talk mostly about the 4e one because that is what I know best and care about most, not because that is the only one that matters or the only one I think they should support.

What consistently amazes me, is how absolutely narrow your perception of this is. As you said - Every major playstyle have you even considered that you are not part of the every major playstyle? Has that even come up in your thought process? No definitive proof has been supplied to indicate that you are in the Major playstyle group. In all honestly, my opinion is that you are a war game player trying to play D&D. Which means, all you appear to care about are combat number crunching. The reality of the situation is that is only a small part of the game. Yes, it typically eats up the most time, but its only a small part of the game.

Modules can do nothing for roleplaying. It is still a roleplaying game, not a Roll playing game. Typically, players don't need a series of things to tell them how their character reacts to something. Which is why I think the "your views, your beliefs, how you attain your goals" hogwash will be dropped in my games.

Role playing is acting. Acting is assuming the identity of someone other than yourself. Instead of wandering into a field and beating each other with sticks, we use dice.

5e gives us the quick and easy to use rules so we can get through combat (when it crops up) quickly, efficiently, and properly so we can get back to the rest of the game. If your game is political intrigue, start interacting with your pcs, if its dungeoneering, make sure the rogue is healthy and set them back to task, if its high fantasy, get back to locating that spell that re-establishes the magical tranquility and saftey of the elven homeland before the meteor hits it. Which none of these require modular bits.

[Marius]

What consistently amazes me, is how absolutely narrow your perception of this is. As you said - Every major playstyle have you even considered that you are not part of the every major playstyle? Has that even come up in your thought process? No definitive proof has been supplied to indicate that you are in the Major playstyle group. In all honestly, my opinion is that you are a war game player trying to play D&D. Which means, all you appear to care about are combat number crunching. The reality of the situation is that is only a small part of the game. Yes, it typically eats up the most time, but its only a small part of the game.

Modules can do nothing for roleplaying. It is still a roleplaying game, not a Roll playing game. Typically, players don't need a series of things to tell them how their character reacts to something. Which is why I think the "your views, your beliefs, how you attain your goals" hogwash will be dropped in my games.

Role playing is acting. Acting is assuming the identity of someone other than yourself. Instead of wandering into a field and beating each other with sticks, we use dice.

5e gives us the quick and easy to use rules so we can get through combat (when it crops up) quickly, efficiently, and properly so we can get back to the rest of the game. If your game is political intrigue, start interacting with your pcs, if its dungeoneering, make sure the rogue is healthy and set them back to task, if its high fantasy, get back to locating that spell that re-establishes the magical tranquility and saftey of the elven homeland before the meteor hits it. Which none of these require modular bits.

I'm not mad a WotC for making a game that doesn't suit me, but I think that they were biting more than they can chew when they said that 5e would be liked by fans of every playstyle. They also said that it would be done using modules.

So, for example, they said that the basic game wouldn't use skills only abilities. And that there would be a skills module for people that like using them. For what we now know of basic, the skill system is integrated in the game but is also very streamlined and simple. That's ok but that's not what they said they would do. It won't satisfy players who don't like having any skill system or players who want a complete skill system. And there won't be any module to fix that because it would break that math of the game.

And yes, you can roleplay anything, you don't even need rules! But this is a roleplaying game and games do need rules. How many rules and for what are those rules for depends on what each of us like. I don't get why people feel the need to tell other "the right way" to roleplay. Some like really simple games like 1e, some like complex things like Burning Wheel or pathfinder. Some like balance some don't and that's ok.

[Chaosvii7]

Some like balance some don't and that's ok.

Balance might not be necessary, but it is definitely important. Any game worth it's salt that wants players to have fun with every aspect of gameplay that players can and will be subjected to should make at least a passable effort to keep the power levels of any definite rules constructs(race and classes in this case) balanced to the point where it doesn't invalidate a particular player's choices.