Quote from: honesttiago;761124I'm a fan of where 5E is going, but I can tell you it had some flaws in the playtest, and plenty of things I personally don't care for. Monsters seemed incredibly underpowered. The "death save" system is not to my liking (it's still pretty hard to die in 5th--for some folks this is likely a good thing).  Fighters seemed a bit overpowered (if you can believe that).  Don't care at all for inclusion of tieflings, warforged, drow, etc. as playable races (but they're optional, so I guess I'm placated).  It also looks like higher level characters are gonna be ridiculously powerful, as HD don't cap at all, all the way to 20. And don't get me started in"damage on a miss" (ridiculous!), DEX as a meta-stat, and martial healing.  

That said, this version has been more fun, so far, than my experiences with 3E, 4E and 1E (I'm a b/x fan).  There's enough differentiation for players, and, as GM I CAN houserule things away. The ability to houserule, rather easily, I might add, is something I would think a lot of OS gamers would enjoy.

Just because some of us don't talk about everything we don't like about the game doesn't mean we're blind. Nothing wrong about being positive about the game. The worst case scenario is we might be disappointed. I can live with that, because I have several versions of microlite available. To be honest, if the free PDF doesn't measure up, that's likely what I'll play. In the meantime, fingers crossed. As mentioned here, a game that a lot of us will tolerate and playa is aa good thing. Or we actually like would be a great thing. We'll see if it happens.

• The idea of backgrounds is fine, but the default ones are mostly lame. Nothing says high adventure like a charlatan or jester.


• Still too many skills.


• Still some overpowered spells. True for all editions, but you'd think they would get this right by now.


• Turning as default cleric ability. Turning has always been a pain in the ass to adjudicate, and I much prefer Pathfinder's channel energy, which combines healing good guys & damaging undead.


• Monster AC is too low.


• Level 1-20. Just no need for uber-high levels as part of the core game.


• Default Forgotten Realms setting. Will be more of a problem with adventures than with the system.

Quote from: cranebump;761150I forgot to mention Second Wind. Looks ripe for abuse outside combat.

Quote from: Marleycat;761152I've already seen 2-3 good houserules for it without doing something nutty about short rests or allowing something stupid like the bag of rats trick. Basically say that it's only usable in and for combat damage only. But from what the devs say they're not changing it because technically it can be spammed but it's really is a table or playstyle issue.

Quote from: cranebump;761155Wow...this seems like an INCREDIBLY poor decision on the dev's part. They seem to be saying that abusing an ability outside its intended use is a matter of "playstyle." I think there's a name for that style -- munchkinism.

Quote from: Marleycat;761158...
Stuff like this is why random encounter tables were invented.

Quote from: Haffrung;761141

• Turning as default cleric ability. Turning has always been a pain in the ass to adjudicate, and I much prefer Pathfinder's channel energy, which combines healing good guys & damaging undead.

Quote from: Sommerjon;761186If memory serves me correctly, this isn't quite correct.    Feats can change this but default is as long as you are not undead the channel energy will heal you whether you are an ally or not.

Quote from: Marleycat;761187They should split it depending on the God you worship not alignment to control/turn similar to 3e. Problem solved.

Quote from: Sommerjon;761188I meant that if you are fighting orcs and the cleric channels, you will also heal the orcs as long as they are in range of the bubble, unless you have say selective channeling(which I think only excludes charisma mod creatures)

Quote from: Marleycat;761204I get you but that is way too gamist for my preferences.

Quote from: Sommerjon;761434What's 'gamist' about it?

Quote from: robiswrong;760576I always liked to think about "gross balance" and "fine balance".

"Gross balance" is stuff like "can the fighter take more of a punishment than the wizard?"  It's relatively important.  If the wizard is actually better than the fighter at what the fighter's supposed to be good at, then what's the point of playing a fighter? (note: presumption of what a fighter's supposed to be good at.  It's an example for discussion purposes.)

"Fine balance" is stuff like "oh, the fighter can take eight rounds of hits from a CL level 3 critter, when he should actually take seven."  Not super important.

I really, really, hope they don't overly focus on the "fine balance" points.