Note that I'm posting this only because I read that wotc will be reading the forums with interest in what we as players vs dms like and don't like. 
While I've played many rpgs, the only D&D I'm intimately familiar with is AD&D 1e. And while I signed up for the beta test, I never actually got around to reading the materials.
So, after reading through the doc, here's my thoughts.
Like:
- Roleplay things (personality, ideals, bonds, flaws, features/traits)
- Death rules
- Food/water/exhaustion rules (I've had to make these up myself before, but I like this version better)
- Limited language knowledge
- The introduction section and its all-inclusiveness of all worlds
- Lots of emphasis on 'if the DM wants'
- Advantage/Disadvantage
- The emphasis on RP as well as combat
- The ability to do combat on a grid, in your mind, or on a napkin
- Short rests, long rests, and the ability to gain some points back after a short rest (though i also reference this in my 'dislikes' below)
- The quick builds. I may never use them, but if nothing else they are good as templates.
- The built-in rules for a second trade - such as armor making, etc
- The entire "between adventures" section
- The skill training rules
- The flexible encumbrance rules (might actually lead to me using encumbrance for once...)
- The various specializations of the different classes
- Using a d6 for magic user hp instead of a d4. lol
- I like that all the classes have characteristics that clearly differentiate them. I heard bad stories about the opposite happening with 4e.
- Inspiration
- Ranged weapon rules. I like that better than subtracting points.
- Rules on improvised weapons
- The entire 'expenses' section
- The 'help' rules
- Temporary hit points
- The 'working together' and 'group check' rules
Dislike:
- Skills (should allow anything as a skill or nothing - not a limited list)
- Passive perception
- Weapon proficiencies. The 1e method is easier as you don't have to add it into every roll. Plus, it works the opposite of armor proficiency. For weapons, you add, for armor you subtract. Should be the same methodology.
- [deleted] Being able to get all your hit die of health back after a short rest is far too much. Even 1/2 of that for a 1 hour rest is too much. [deleted]
- The emphasis on ability modifiers instead of the abilities themselves
- [deleted] You get too much HP as you level up [deleted]
- Having different kinds of damage. While I can understand the logic of it, it's too 'wargamey'.
- You can have an action, free action, bonus action, readied actions, and reaction. Seriously? F!#&$ that's overkill. Just make it an 'action' for crying out loud.
- I think the description for 'component pouch' is confusing when it says 'except for those components that have a specific cost'.
- [deleted] While I like the 'reaction' concept, I don't like the implementation having a certain particular trigger. In reality, I could plan to react to one thing, but actually react to something else. that should be planned for. [deleted]
- I didn't see any rules for 'charging'
- "Controlling a mount" says "you can control a mount only if it has been trained to accept a rider". I don't think that's true. A dragon could be trained to accept a rider, but the rider still wouldn't have control of it. The rider would just be....a rider.
- [deleted] I don't recall seeing rules about hand-to-hand combat, with the exception of grappling.[deleted]
Unsure about:
- Toolkits
- Critical hits
- The thieves sneak attack as opposed to a backstab. I think I 'get it', but I'm unsure of whether it's better or not.
- Alignment. I've always disliked it. Sorry.
- Pre-build equipment packs
- Poison - it doesn't kill outright, but it only does a measly amount of damage. Seems like it should do a certain amount of damage over time until an antidote is given.
- Trinkets
- The rules for 'cover'. I think that this would be a great place for the 'disadvantage' rule.
While skills are hardcoded onto the character sheet, they aren't all that hardcoded into the game itself. I think it would be easy enough to either play without them (eg. everything is an ability check), or to expand the list of skills to include things you think belong on there.
The only place where I've seen ability modifiers emphasized over the abilties is on the pregen character sheets.
I'm curious to know how many hit points you feel PCs should get when they level up.
What's not to like about the trinkets?! They're a great way of adding a little mystery to your character and maybe even an adventure hook or two.
D-4. You don't get any Hit Die back after a short rest, and you only get half back after a long rest.
D-10. I feel like you're confusing reactions with readied actions which are completely different.
D-12. You missing the part about independent mounts like dragons that will simply act of their own accord and the rider just happens to be on their back.
D-13. Unarmed strike is listed under equipment
Slyck314 wrote:
Happy to have helped.
pukunui wrote:
Trinkets are a DM tool too. Whatever a player rolls on the trinket table immediately gives me an adventure hook, story idea, a potentially unidentified or broken magic item, or something to use later.
My favotire thing about short rests and long rests is that you can time them how you want. For me, a short rest is10-15 minutes. A long rest is still a 'night's sleep'.
Guest855761860 wrote:
Is it just me or do the classes feel extremely powerful? I've only really read through the rogue properly at this point but wow, they are not plain or ordinary in the slightest.
Guest855761860 wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
HATE: Elves once again get Long Swords instead of Rapiers. It's been ridiculous since 1E and is no less ridiculous today.
Dislike: Ability Saves. I much prefer Fortitude/Reflex/Will saves. There are a lot more holes in a character's defenses and it's a lot of extra nonsense. I actually prefer attacker always rolls, but a compromise of only the three saves would be much simpler.
Dislike: Age/Height/Weight charts in the basic rules. The baseline version adds a bunch of pointless minutia? Same with trinkets. It feels much less streamlined. I like them in the game, and I guess I'm okay with not having to purchase page count for them, it just feels clunky in what was presented as the basics game.
Indifferent: Alignments. As long as they're easy enough to ignore then it's all good.
Like: The flavor bits written in to the basic document. It adds a nice feel.
pukunui wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
I have removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
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.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
@Guest: Didn't they say that any internet/forumite comments on the game would be pretty much ignored? What I understood is that every year, we'll have a massive survey simiilar to the playtest one where you can give your opinion on the game. The result of these surveys will then be used to determine what parts of the game need to be modified. And in most cases, this will not be an errata but variant rules that you can choose to use or not.
Ramzour wrote:
Skills - something I do for the kids' group is to cross off the skills entirely and apply the proficiency bonus when they take an action related to their class or background.
When fighters do something fighter-y, they get the bonus.
When criminals do something criminal, etc.
very easy. Quite popular.
bawylie wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Likes - a place for gamers to express their opinions
Dislikes - gamer's opinions
nah, seriously will have to get back to this once I have played the rules a few ten times
Ramzour wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
I don´t like the system of adventage and disaventage when there is a opposite dice rolling. I meant when a list of bonus and penalties.. the system become too complex.
What are "opposite dice rolling" ?
I think I can get away with saying I like more things than I dislike:
Like:
- Advantage
- Disadvantange
- Humans' +1 to all stats
- Backgrounds
Dislike:
- Classes
- Combat Rules
Of course, I haven't checked out the monsters yet. The playtest ones were pretty sad. If that hasn't improved, they go under dislike, too.
kill_the_wiz_first wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
well, I guess if the only things to complain about are rapiers and random trinkets, then the game has done a pretty good job, eh? haha
Gunthar wrote:
Likes: pretty much everything about this edition, with the exception of my dislikes. If I listed everything I liked, it would be too long. But the biggest things I like are:
- Overall simplification and balancing of the mechanics
- Bounded Accuracy
- Advantage/Disadvantage
- Proficiency bonus used for everything from attacks to skills to saving throws.
- Backgrounds
- Traits, Bonds, Flaws and Inspiration
- the neo-Vancian spell casting, at-will cantrips, rituals, spells scaling in higher level slots, concentration to limit buff stacking, and other aspects of the magic system.
- Removal of alignment restrictions and mechanics (except for the annoying mention of it under necromancy, see below).
- Every class seems well balanced and fun to play, without being forced to conform to the exact same power structure.
Dislikes:
- Strength, Intelligence and Charisma saving throws aren't even used for anything, even though there are spells like Web, Silent Image and Maze that call for checks with those abilities and could have been saves instead.
- Etherealness, Antimagic Field, Astral Projection and Gate being removed from the wizard spell list, leaving them with no planar travel or summoning options in the basic game (Seriously? Clerics can open rifts to other planes and let out arch demons or other nasty things but not wizards? WTH?).
- Mention of alignment under the necromancy school, about how horribly "evil" it is to make undead. Only necromancy has a paragraph specifically calling out something it does as an evil act. So it's totally okay to dominate people and strip them of free will, melt their faces off with acid bolts and fireballs, or turn them permanently into farm animals, but make a skeleton or zombie and it's ... OMG evil! I thought they were getting rid of all the alignment restrictions in the rules. They let us play Paladins that are not LG, Monks that are not L, Barbarians that are L, but they felt that they had to go out of their way to insert an alignment restriction for necromancers? 
It's debatable whether making things like mindless undead is even evil in the first place (since it neither enslaves nor harms anyone, I think it's far less morally questionable than summoning spells or enchantments, which actually do enslave and harm other beings. A corpse, on the other hand, is just an empty, soulless shell). In any case, I think this kind of moral debate should be left up to individual DMs and players, not shoved down our throats as part of the core rules.
- Expensive material components are still required for some spells that really don't need them for balance reasons, such as Identify.
- Unbounded DCs for Concentration checks when taking damage (damage scales rapidly, while saving throws are subject to bounded accuracy).
- The rules for Two-Weapon Fighting. I can't use TWF with non-light weapons? Not even with a penalty? I just can't do it, period? Not cool.
- A potion of flying saves you from falling when the spell ends, but the fly spell does not.
Minor Nitpicks:
- Tool Proficiencies: Don't see why these couldn't have just been skills. I see no benefit in making them separate, and it's also confusing to people and somewhat annoying to keep track of, since tools aren't listed along with the skills on the character sheet.
- Making it sound like Drizzt is the only good Drow, ever. Plus the mention of Lolth, as if she is the goddess of the Drow in every world (the Drow in Eberron would surely resent that implication). Why even mention this when Drow aren't even in the basic game?
[Edit] Updated with a few things I forgot.
FallingIcicle wrote:
kill_the_wiz_first wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Lokiron wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
Like:
Bounded Accuracy - bloody brilliant.
Most other things to a more limited extent
Dislike:
What the HELL were they thinking with damage-keyed Con-based Concentration checks for casters?
NOBODY ran the maths on this did they..?
Forget the debate about the impact on Wizards - what about the poor melee casters classes and Gishes?
Bah!
abanathie wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
I, for one, am not complaining that concentration can be broken upon taking damage. I don't have an issue with that. What I have an issue with is an unbounded DC for saving throws in a system with bounded accuracy, where the DCs quickly scale up to the point that the saving throw becomes impossible.
Brimleydower wrote:
There's a lot that I like, and I'm really too lazy to list it all out. 
As far as dislikes, thus far:
- Instant Death (especially at low levels). I've discussed this in other threads, so I won't belabor the point here.
- The armor table. I'm just going to redo it to how I want.
- Characters not gaining additional proficiences as the level. This is easy to house rule, though, thankfully.
- Training rules for Tool Proficiencies and Languages. This segues into the above complaint as well.
There may be other things that I discover that I like or dislike as I continue to read the rules and play the game, but that'll have to wait.
Azzy1974 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
I mostly like 5e a lot. So I am going to just list what I like most, and what I dislike most.
Like
Backgrounds
Concentration buffs
The new way prepared spells and spell slots work for the wizard and cleric
The math for hitting and saving and how it levels in a way that makes high level monsters dangerous, but possible opponents for lower level characters, and large numbers of lower level monsters decent opponents for higher level characters.
Dislike
The weapons list is boring and seems flawed (there is no reason for a cleric to use a mace, you can't throw a warhammer, there are no double weapons, you can't use both ends of a quarterstaff to fight with, etc.) The problem seems to be that they simplified combat so much that they lost too many weapon features to have a good, balanced variety of weapons.
Having read the rules and just played a few sessions of the finalized product here are some of my likes and dislikes
Likes:
-I like the backgrounds and the trinkets rules
-I like the return of the standard nine alignments
-I like the limited number of actions particular interrupts and reactions. I love 4E (and I started playing in 2E) but I do think the number of interrupts and immediate actions became burdensome particularly at higher levels. Besides readying and the shield spell I saw very few interrupts and besides the a few things like the fighter’s ability and a few spells to gain bonus actions pretty much everyone is limited to an action and a move. This really speeds along game play.
-I like the way in the examples of classes and spells the game draws upon iconic characters affiliated with past editions of DnD such as Artemis Entreri and Tika Waylan.
Dislikes: (again, I started in 2E but love 4E. I say this only because in my experience when people defend 4E and what it brought to the game the detractors tend to think everyone who likes 4E never played any other edition of the game or that they perhaps started in 3rd edition at the latest. Well, I am an old school gamer and some of the changes made in 4E were because of complaints that we had encountered for years. Again, I preface this not in an intent to edition war but to simply show that I have played and am familiar with every edition of DnD (even 1st edition though I didn’t start in 1st). So in no order some of my dislikes are:
-Healing or rather a lack there of. To me the base rules just are too harsh on hit points which makes the game go back to the one encounter workday style of game particularly at first level. I think that first level hit points should have been hit points plus your con score. Also, a cleric with an 18 wisdom can only heal someone twice a day (as they only get 2 spell slots). Again, to me this is just too restrictive and is a return to the party having to rely on wands, etcetera in order to keep going between encounters.
-Random ability score generation I am not a fan of and the points given to purchase stats seem very low. In 3.5 if you used point buy it could be adjusted for low, standard, or more heroic campaigns as desired and there was a chart for this in the DMG. I know DMS can house rule stuff but I am just basing it off the rules as written know and while I know the DMG for 5E is pending I feel that in the base rules (the PHB if not the basic rules) should have a way cater point buy up or down as the group desires and have a chart present for this.
-Lack of control spells: This one is kind of big for me. I have always enjoyed playing arcane casters and even going back to 2E I preferred the “controller” style caster over the blaster caster mage. DnD Next does seem to favor the blaster caster. Yes, there are control spells in the game but looking through the rules from an offensive standpoint the blaster caster takes center stage despite sleep being a really strong spell. When I look at the cantrips I see no control cantrips whatsoever. Yes, there is ray of frost which slows 10 ft but that is single target and minimal. I don’t think it would have been that hard to include a cantrip like say a Freezing Burst which does d3 damage in a 10 ft radius and slides each creature hit 5ft or something to that effect. Likewise just looking at the spell list “control” spells are really just not present at some levels. For example, there is absolutely NO control spell present at 3rd level, where as in 3.5 you had spells in the PHB like Slow, Sleet Storm, Stinking Cloud, etc. In Next all the 3rd level spells are all straight damage i.e., fireball, lightning bolt, etc. Even at 8th and 9th level from 3.5 (which wasn’t my favorite edition but I’m using it as an example because Next seems to draw strongly from it) there were 8th and 9th level spells that I recall like Sunburst, Prismatic Wall, or even summon spells that really did bring about a good amount of battle field control for arcane casters who wanted to go that route. In the rules so far I have not seen that.
-Training and crafting: The time it takes to train and craft is just too long.
-Short rest being 1 hour. I think short rest should be just that short. 5 to 10 minutes at most. Even in 4E I hated the concept of a short rest being 5 minutes long. To me a short rest is just that time enough to catch your breath and recoup which should be up to five minutes but on more. In other words I feel a short rest can be something that can’t be interrupted BUT can be something that for whatever reasons PCs can’t start. So a short rest can be denied but not interrupted.
-Gray areas: It seems that this edition more so than 3.5 leaves a lot to DM adjudication which I do not like as I think it makes it too easy for new GMs to feel overwhelmed and it makes it too easy for experienced GMs some of whom maybe bad to hose down the PCs without a rule precedent saying otherwise thus making the players feel overwhelmed.
-Spell Saves DC also seem a bit low. I think the default should have been 10+mods vs. 8+ mods. I know this is supposedly offset by characters having 6 saves now as each ability score has a save but to me this is bogus. From what I have seen vs. 90% of spells the stats that really matter for saves are still Con, Dex, and Wis which is pretty much how it has always been for every version of DnD except 4E which was innovative enough to have 2 ability scores connected with each of the 3 save categories (i.e, Charisma or Wisdom helped with will saves). vs just one single ability score linked to a particular save.
MechaPilot wrote:
I've gotta say that Backgrounds are one of my favorite additions to the game. I also love Subclasses.
Azzy1974 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Like: the disengage rules are slick and clean. I love subracial ability modifiers on top of racial ability modifiers. I like the archetypes for the classes. I love BOUNDED ACCURACY. Bounded accuracy is the sole reason why I'm giving 5th edition a chance. 4th edition will always be my favorite edition (BECMI is a close second) but bounded accuracy is just king.
Dislike: more than just mentioning of the grid. No samples on a game session. For newcomers it can be a confusing mess for them to figure out how exactly to do things. There will be videos showing a sample of a game session. As long in the end they provide a link to the example video in the basic rules it should make it easier for newbies. But to keep the two separate from each other would be a hot mess.
hunterian7 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
hunterian7 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
hunterian7 wrote:
And the sections in an adventure where the difficult terrain is 6 feet in length, 3 feet wide? 12 feet of movement is not easily transferred over to a grid.
hunterian7 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
hunterian7 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
I mostly dislike that intimidation isn't optionally tied to Strength score.
I think that more spells should have the ritual tag: for instance Spider Climb and Knock.
I really really really dislike distances and weights expressed in Feet and Pounds. I don't understand them at all. But i guess i will adapt.
And some other minor things:
- You shouldn't need 1000 ball bearings to make a 10 foot square area covered, unless they're very very little.
- vials of Acid deals too much damage for 25 gold. Alchemist fire deals too little damage, since the save DC is easy.
- There should be more options for flaws and traits.
- I don't think that Finger of Death should deal less damage than Disintegrate, even with the extra bonus of the zombie. Especially if necrotic damage works in 4e.
- Inflict Wounds shouldn't deal necrotic damage, imho.
I'm not meaning to sound like a jerk, just trying to see if maybe I might show you a way for a minor dislike to no longer be an issue for you
Nausicaa wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Nausicaa wrote:
Nausicaa wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Lokiron wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Nausicaa wrote:
ivstin wrote:
ivstin wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
pend_collective wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
Oh, right, just about evil necromancy. Another thing i don't really like is the lack of alignment based keywords. Imho they should be added in the full game.
Lokiron wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote: