- It is the first D&D since Basic D&D where the designers realized that a d20 has only 20 sides (not 40 or 60...)
- You can start with an attribute score of 10 in your main stat and can still max it out at level 20! (This means you can play any class/race combo... *any*... and the crazy struggle to determine the optimum starting ability scores is finally over.)
- It has never been so easy to customize character creation. (Backgrounds for the win!)
- Instead of stacking up insane amounts of a bazillion different bonuses or penalties you just have advantage, disadvantage or... roll just a d20...
- The armor list makes sense for the first time since... well... ever
- All the conditions fit on a single page!
- All the options in character generation make sense!
- They basically managed to compress 40 years of DM experience about managing social encounters (uh... interaction) to less than one page...
- Character generation can be done in 15 minutes again!
- And they remained true to the spirit of all the previous editions.
Maybe you have noticed that well... I do love what I've seen from 5th edition.
And this after I lost faith when the last public playtesting document was released.
I don't agree with #10 for a number of reasons, but it's a positve post so I won't say much more.
dmgorgon wrote:
Masterpeice? No, but what is? D&D 5e, IMHO, is an example of extremely good design, especially in the area of generic-fantasy systems - The primary key there being System Flexibility.
Last time I found a system this flexible, it wanted me to take 2 calculus courses and spend 14 hours just to design a sailboat (If you don't know the joke, I mean GURPS).
Yeah, I don't think I have ever been this excited for a new release. I hope its as good as the Basic D&D PDF is.
JediCass wrote:
RustedKitsune wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
strider13x wrote:
5vers? Nextsters? So what do we call ourselves? (I'm claiming Nextsters!)
ChrisCarlson wrote:
It is nice to see a positive post about D&D. I agree on all ten points and believe the feel of Basic is similar to AD&D2e (in my opinion) thats not a bad thing when you consider AD&D 1 and AD&D2 had a total life span of 20 odd years compared to 3e/3.5 lasting just around eight years and 4e which barely lasted three unless you count D&D essentuals as 4e when obviously they were more like a 4.5e or 3.9e. even if you combine 4e and essentials you get less than five years of life there.
Personally I like the changes 5e has introduced but will run my game in the spirit of AD&D so no dragonborn and no kangaroo tailed tieflings. Basic races and basic AD&D classes.
Paraxis wrote:
strider13x wrote:
I don't know about masterpiece, but I do know that I haven't had this much fun running D&D in a very, very long time (maybe early on in 3E before the bloat).
1. this is not true for the most part. DMs can requests saves be which ever attribute seems best at the time.
2. subjective.
3. subjective, I think monster damage is just fine.
4. Not at all true or true in a very rare case. Saves for half damage and dwarf warriors with starting HP 14+ make you incorrect.
5. Seeking balance caused 4e to be created, it still exists.
6. DM fiat is D&D. People who argue for "precise rules" tend to abuse those rules.
7. ??? Tool proficiencies are skills by another name and are not useless.
8. sunjective. Humans are a great option either way.
9. Not true, thieves still revover hit die and HP from short rests.
10. All from the versions of D&D that lasted more than five years...
I think this is the best version of D&D since AD&D1e. I could be wrong of course but then so could you.
Yep, there is a lot to like. There are a few things I would prefer to be different, but overall, I can't complain a bit, and this is by far the best version of D&D I've played, going back to 2E.
RustedKitsune wrote:
D&D 5e is a masterpiece, because
1. LOOK AT IT ! 
Irving wrote:
Glad to see this forum being postiive and remaining positive. 5E from what I've seen so far does what it needs to do in a simple, basic way and I'm glad it is emphasizing role playing. Background and traits are something my friends and I have done for years but it's nice to see it really showcased in 5E. Can't wait for the books to get the full experience.
A game design masterpiece? Not sure. I tend to reserve that title for the likes of Dominion.
But it still looks like a hell of an RPG, and one I'll have hours of fun playing.
Thomson wrote:
Although it is not perfect (this is really subjective anyway), 5e is an improvement over every previous edition of D&D, some more than others. The people with an laundry list of complaints really need to design their own game to their heart's content, lucky for them the DMG is going to encourage them to tailor the game to their needs. If the DMG is insufficent, you may have to chalk it up that D&D is poor fit for your gaming preferences.
Regarding the armor, different kinds would be available in different areas depending on resources and development. It might have been better to have various armor charts in the DMG based on different settings. We needed something, though, and much of the less optimal armor applies to large scale purchase for troops so it is not completely superfluous. An alternative design might be to replace the base 10 for AC with double proficiency bonus if you want to work that in to AC.
Lawolf wrote:
Thomson wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Thomson wrote:
Wow, I saw the title to this thread and was like "Oh boy. What kind of ****storm has been stirred up in here."
But other than a couple of disagreement posts, it's mostly remained on track and positive. I was floored.
Paraxis wrote:
It is great because WE PLAYTESTED it! Ya that's da ticket..
Seriously it is pretty damned good because of elegant game design, simplicity at it's core, speed of play at the table, and focus on roleplay over roll play. 5e is fast, fun and can even get leathal like in AD&D has even an old grognard like me Amped up enough to pre order the p.h. I wanted to hate it... heaven knows the sheer vitriol here during the playtest made me not want to play it.. But It is free - which for some fricking reason made me spend money! So free and good equals Gamer drops coin? Man, I already pre ordered my copy and we are doing the starter box tonight. Sneaky sneaky wotc......
Gatt wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Jenks wrote:
strider13x wrote:
I believe there is a lot of good in 5e. There are also for me some serious issues that I have to decide whether to overcome. Healing is the biggest. Practically having to replace every power on the fighter is another. If short rest is really tied tight to one hour then that too will be problematic for me.
On the good side of things, I believe character creation and play are both fast. I think skills and feats are done well. I might like a more complex skill system but what they have fits their system's approach. I think a valiant effort was made to achieve balance without loss of fun and it works for most people.
Best. Edition. Ever.
Lawolf wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Why it isn't:
1) Quite complicated.
2) Extremely unbalanced.
3) Full of traps, in the "these options are presented as valid but are in fact bad" sense.
4) Some characters gain far more abilities and versatiity than others.
kill_the_wiz_first wrote:
Zappy wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
The title does have the phrase Reasons Why I in it. So for that user this is a superb edition. Though if I had to pick the most logical explanation and reasoning in this thread it would have to be Gatt's.
You all may know that I've been playtesting (mostly DMing) the game a lot, and I've been pretty much a cheerleader throughout the entire playtest.
Tonight, I started playing the starter set adventure as a player, playing the Pregen Wizard. We only did introductions, roleplaying in Waterdeep and one encounter on the road,but man I'm charged up.
Less complexity at 1st level, with emphasis on backgrounds, traits, flaws and bonds has infused a new level of richness to the game (by design). The people at our online table were less experienced roleplayers than I am, but they started to think and act so much more like their characters than past games when we didn't focus on backgrounds, traits, flaws and bonds. It was even easier for me to interact in character because the character seemed alive right from the creation process, and I knew that everyone at the table was also focusing on developing their character's persona in game. Sure, experienced roleplayers create backgrounds for the PCs all the time, but being handed the Pre-Gens and just playing them straight was an eye-opening experience for me.
That to me is part of the brilliance that makes this the D&D version that I want to play and DM. Yippy.
I do not agree on the genius bit. But I am not here to rain on anyone's parade!
I really like the speed of play and the flavor on some of the classes. I also like the public playtesting approach to the design process. I hope and think that we will get a good game out of all this. Now to see some kick-ass adventure modules and big phat boxed campaign sets and I think we are set for success.
Cyber-Dave wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Emerikol. wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Thomson wrote:
1: I'm not really sure what you mean by this, to be honest. I've not seen any edition where they tried to assign more than 20 results to a d20 roll...
2: Fair enough.
3: Fair enough.
4: Well... not really accurate. There are still a bunch of fiddly bonuses to remember, just not *quite* as many as in previous editions (particularly, proficiency bonuses, stat bonuses, and bonuses from buff spells, not to mention feats, class features and magic items - there aren't QUITE as many situational bonuses yet, but give it time). Exactly the same thing happened with 4e and Combat Advantage. It's the problem of 'well what if I have two sources of (Combat) Advantage, why don't I get the benefit from both?'. Ad/disad doesn't go far enough, it should have just gone all the way and been a dice pool system. So this one's a major For Now at best.
5: Couldn't really comment. I haven't had a problem with previous armour lists.
6: For Now.
7: Subjective.
8: Subjective, majorly so.
9: Can't say I've tried, since the chargen options aren't actually, you know, out yet... And even then, For Now applies here, too. It'll probably be fine in the PHB, but wait a year until 5 splats and 20 classes are out, and indecisive people will spend 15 minutes just picking a class...
10 NNNNNope. Otherwise I'd be more excited about playing it. What I guess you mean here is 'the spirit of the editions I like'.
Thomson wrote:
1. Can you please elaborate this? I don't get it.
2. This is true,but i'll wait for the feats to come out. Stat increase is ok,but if feats remain as good as they were in playtest,i still think it is better to max out your primary asap and get feat or two.
So good starting scores are still kind a big thing.
3.Backgrounds are more or less kits from 2e ad&d without much of mechanical benefits. They do give some nice fluff and some minor stuff (language,skill,trait). It's nice,but i'll take good kit any day over background.
4. Advantage/disadvantage is nice. It speeds up things. But i'll wait till all core books come out to see if we get things that give you some other bonuses.
5.I never had any problem with armors. Also,i like 2ed armors more. No light,med,heavy. They have this natural flow. If you can buy them,you can use them. I see no logical reason why someone who can wear half plate (med armor) doesn't know and can't use full plate (heavy). Well,3ed legacy here.
6.For now
7.You mean,there are no trap options? Well,there are no options really. You pick race,class,background and that is it. No subclasses yet. You make all big decisions at char creation.
8.That part in basic pdf is so short and uninspiring. There is much more about social interactions and roleplay than that.
9.For now and it still depends on number of things. Making lv 20 wizard or cleric in 15 min is a challenge. Spell selection itself lasts longer than that. Non casters and low lv characters were always easy and fast to create,except maybe in 3/3.5 if you allow gazillion and one splat book. But making mid-high lv casters took some time. And this is basic,so no real options now for martials and casters only choices are which spells they have. But when phb and some splats come out,this will take longer. Much longer. I don't think we'll ever see easy and fast char gen as it was in 1/2ed ad&d.
10.Subjective,so i can't comment on that.
Thomson wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
Ok let me add my 2pennies worth...
My husband who has been playing since it appeared in Chainmail (way back when), has come to the conclusion after playing both the playtest rules and the basic DnD/starter set, that this has the potential to become the best release ever.
Rhenny wrote:
mrsrockguru wrote:
Thomson wrote:
Thomson wrote:
Thomson wrote:
Thomson wrote:
powerroleplayer wrote:
And for the rest:
powerroleplayer wrote:
I've played and enjoyed every version of D&D.
From what I've seen, they've delivered on their goal of taking the best bits of all versions - pretty astounding!
This does look to be the best version of D&D ever (I'll know for sure in a few weeks when the PHB drops) - if being the best version of the greatest rpg ever doesn't qualify you for Masterpiece, nothing does 
Any brand new player will take longer. I guarantee though that I can make any character easily in 15 minutes. I am on the other end of experience of course. I believe anyone who played before 4e won't find it all that hard. As DM if I had a truly brand new player then I'd probably bring him in early and let him take his time. Could I rush him done pretty quick? Sure but why? Let him enjoy the process.
To be fair, character-making is important stuff. You ought to devote good time and effort to it to make a good character. I do like how easy it is to roll up a character's personality traits, though.
Fralex wrote:
Keeping to the spirit of the post, I love the new edition of the game so far.
Picked up my Starter Set yesterday and found the Starter Rules a lovely and easy read. Working my way through the rest of the Basic PDF at the mo...loving that too.
It really does seem clean and simple, yet with enough potential for complexity if you need it.
The one thing I love so far is character creation is so much better than 4e. I like elements of 4e, mechanically, but used to dread rolling up a PC. Now it's more fun again, the character sheet is so much better. The addition of backgrounds etc has been a winner, I think, with plenty of room for more.
The adv/disadv and proficiency bonus, for example, tidies up so much math and messing about with additional bonuses/mods etc - yet you don't lose any of the play value.
Masterpiece? Dunno, not qualified to answer but it is a great rule system. On this basis, I'd wager the PHB will be thing of beauty though!
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Everyone knows you haven't really made a character until you finish writing his first trilogy.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
You are both right. For somebody,character is not character until it has complete 20 page long detailed backstory. For others,they just slap race,class,background,write the few lines about who he is,what he wants and it's ready to roll. Both methods are viable,there is no one true way. Personally,if i know we are playing grim&gritty low lv campaign,i would opt for method 2 since there is high chance for character death in first encounter. If we start at higher lv and i play character that is well know in world (or at least locally),he will have longer and more detailed backstory.
I still think that creating high lv caster is still long process,specially spell selection and when phb and dmg come out,all characters will get more options so no more fast char gen.
Haytam wrote:
It's looking a bit like what I wanted back in August 2000.
Brock_Landers wrote:
Well to me the most Intereting part of a character is not what's in the background, but how the player develops the character in the game. I don't want to bring a fully realized character into a game, ee sully at level 1 - I want room to grow. It's less interesting starting with "he likes saerloonian blue pipe weed " than it is to have the character visit Tethyr in the game, and discover that a fondness for Tethyr red tobacco.....
the best part of character development for me is when characters at 7th level walk into a tavern and tell stories about what they did at 2nd level. When everything is set before play starts, there is no room to improv.
JC999 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Brightmantle wrote:
Siphersh wrote:
So far its giving off a bit of a 2e vibe for me, I won't say that is a bad thing ( however 4e is still my fave ), so I can def see giving it a chance over how it really plays vs back then.
There is some fun little nostalgic things about it I will give it that, I won't say all of them are for the better though in terms of actual fun once that "nostalgia" wears off over a number of sessions.
Am I the only one who laughed out loud reading the "wretched" lifestyle entry btw ?
I just got my box today for 11 bucks the dice alone are probably worth about 5 ( allthough cheap junk made in china the 3 on my d12 was half inked in ~.^ ) I was def impressed with the neverwinter region location since I love the 4e take on it and this will def help adding already to the existing camp book that came out not long ago, so it has some uses for 4e content if desired to expand a bit of it in a "offiicial" kind of way.
Brightmantle wrote:
If not for the fighter class, I'd probably love 5e. I might still play it and enjoy it but I will have to do some work. It depends on how things are approached in the DMG.
Emerikol. wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Brightmantle wrote:
Brightmantle wrote:
Brightmantle wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Brightmantle wrote:
Brightmantle wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
1) Hm... where is it complicated? From the core it is as simple as it can be, using mainly two mechanics (d20+bonus, damage rolls). I haven't seen any amount of unnecessary complication.
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
hunterian7 wrote:
Titanium the simplicity of a system is not predicated on limited options. I could have a simple system with 8000 spell books and 8000 monster manuals and 8000 feats. It would still be simple. A simple system is easy to grasp and easy to use in practice. So if didn't allow any extra spells or feats for any given class then the game would be simple and easy to use. Character building "could" be harder if you really cared about all 8000 spells/feats but that would be your choice. The simple game is still simple.
The real test of simplicity is how often you have to consult rules to adjudicate something given an average group. Another test is how quickly can a person take his turn each combat round. Those are the kinds of things that relate to simplicity. Options are not anti-simplicity if they fit within the overall structure of the simple game.
I must agree that this edition thus far looks to be exceptional.
It blends old and new in a way that seems to appeal both to my 70s holdout players and those that were brought into the game in the current century.
Well done, WOTC!
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Not a bad start. Plenty of room for improvement.
Reasons to like the edition so far.
Exploration rules are very clear.
Stealth and hide rules are better.
Damage conditions are clear.
Death rules are acceptable.
Backgrounds are cool and add a fun element to the game.
Things that could use improvement.
Starting hit points varient.
Classes are a bit unbalanced to a fault. Best to play all Clerics and Rogues!
Monster spells are a bit weak and not the same as powerful character spells.
As long as we have errata developed by people who actually still love to play this game, it will be the best edition ever.
Chakravant wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Brightmantle wrote:
I dunno, people...I think 5e is a fine game.
But can you really call it a 'Masterpeice' when it's just (somewhat) correcting, (mostly) copying, and (definitely) continuing every edition that came before...Well, Almost every edition.
Can something be a masterpeice without any innovation aside from some shiny new marketing, packaging, and editing?
That's not rhetorical...I am actually curious as to what other educated opinions are. If that 'introduce yourself' thread has taught me anything, it has shown me that (even if I vehemently disagree with you) few who post here are uneducated, or internet trolls.
Think of it as a masterpiece achieved through refinement. Whether this is the D&D magnum opus remains to be seen, but at a glance it seems like it could at least be in the running.
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
It's maybe more relevant to say that something doesn't have to be revolutionary to be a masterpiece, evolutionary works fine.
1eejit wrote:
seti wrote:
Gazra wrote:
seti wrote:
seti wrote:
seti wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Zappy wrote:
EMR wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
EMR wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
All of it is kosher, and can be found in any Factotum Handbook thread online, as well as explanations as to why it is both RAW and RAI.
High Five for 5vers
Where I liked the direction of 5E design was casters. With the use of at-will, encounter, rituals, spells, spell recovery, specialization, scaling spells, etc. casters are very versatile, but where 5E got stuck in a rut is with martial ability. If they modeled martial characters with the same type of versatility of casters, then it would start to ascend into something that may be considered a masterpiece, or unique.
Uchawi wrote:
If you wanted proof that D&D Next is not a "Game Design Masterpiece", go look at Mearls' tweets and count how many rules questions he answers with "DM's Call" or some houserule.
PS. As I recall it, in OD&D at 9th level, Fighters got an army of followers. So far, I haven't seen "Summon army" on the Fighter's class list. Also, at 9th level, OD&D changed gears from "loot the dungeon" to "realms management". different games, different rules, one OD&D.
Bud_the_CHUD wrote:
Cennedi - If you're actually serious regarding the "St. Gygax" bit, here's my response: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0
If they really wanted to make "DMs Call" the core of Next, okay, that could be understandable. But not like it is now. Like, make it 60 pages or so. Give each class one nice little thing they can do, make some good rules for the most common things to come up in play (combat, exploration, interaction, etc), and have the rest of it give the GM some good advice so she can properly give it a go. I mean, go to DriveThruRPG to see fully funtional rpgs that are 6 pages total, or even 4 pages!
But we're not getting that. We're getting the designer of the game going "Ehh, I dunno, you figure it out."
Chakrum - If you wanna play a good figher, you gotta wait until the PHB comes out (or along with the DMG for those mystical "Options" and "Subrules" to magically make the fighter decent), but the wizard is playable with his spell list outta the Basic box.
Bud_the_CHUD wrote:
I think it's far from a masterpiece but so far it does look like a very solid step in the right direction. I agree with most of your points, OP. Character creation in 15 minutes is being overly generous for most players but it is faster than 3.5/4e. While I like the goal behind advantage/disadvantage I don't like the mechanic. Unfortunately the alternative I came up with, while balanced, isn't viable for the mass audience cause it adds more math to the advantage/disadvantage process. The spirit thing is a matter of opinion. Not positive I agree but I don't doubt it's true for you. Lastly, it is too early to say all character customization options make sense. I think they probably will all make at least some kind of sense but until we see the PHB next month we can't know for sure.
One thing that does keep it from being a masterpiece is class balance. Nearest I can tell they still aren't. Caster supremacy returns. They've moved greatly in the right direction with this. The gap between martial and magic is significantly less than it was in 3.5. That gap still exists, though, and from what we've seen so far the classes are not perfectly balanced against each other. I highly doubt they will be in the PHB either. However, they've taken a big enough step in the right direction I think it's possible the classes could be reasonably balanced against each other within only a couple of supplemental releases.
Cennedi wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
Bud_the_CHUD wrote:
Uchawi wrote:
For me, the single best thing about 5E is the return to the circuit of description. That thing where the DM describes a situation, the player describes how they respond to the situation, you use the system to figure out the results and the DM describes the new situation. And it continues in a circuit.
I found I had to fight with both 3.x and 4E to make it do that. After you resolve things, you often don't get back to describing a new situation, but to making another decision based on the system. Which produces another result that again, mandates another decision and so on. Chaining up decisions that are made without reference to the described situation, but are instead made on a system basis. Hopefully, eventually, getting back to some narration.
5E is a masterpiece in that it returns the spotlight to this fundamental act of playing RPGs. 3.x and 4E still had it to a degree, but 5E (and 2E and earlier) have the circuit of description far more at the forefront. I want decisions to link back to narration and description as directly as possible. 3.x and 4E put in lots of detours into system-based decsion making that prvented such a direct link.
Bud_the_CHUD wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
emwasick wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
powerroleplayer wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Uchawi wrote: