Well D&D 5e Surprised me!

[Scowling Dragon]

IN A GOOD WAY!

Im actually pleasantly surprised in all the good ways D&D 5E has worked itself. Tone, wording and how the rules handle themselves are very vital for a game (Especially D&D), and this one was pretty impressive.

It has a very solid 2e feel too it, whilst being less messy then it was.

I was VERY skeptical on the onset, but after reading both the Players Guide and the GMs Guide its quite fantastic. Especially the GMS guide. Feels like one of the best I ever read. It stresses the GM in many cases but in a FAIR way. Not in a "Just hand-wave their followers away or something".

Overall massive applause. I didn't think that 3e could be improved without loosing something and I was correct and incorrect. It lost the fat and kept the good stuff.

[Eslin]

IN A GOOD WAY!

Im actually pleasantly surprised in all the good ways D&D 5E has worked itself. Tone, wording and how the rules handle themselves are very vital for a game (Especially D&D), and this one was pretty impressive.

It has a very solid 2e feel too it, whilst being less messy then it was.

I was VERY skeptical on the onset, but after reading both the Players Guide and the GMs Guide its quite fantastic. Especially the GMS guide. Feels like one of the best I ever read. It stresses the GM in many cases but in a FAIR way. Not in a "Just hand-wave their followers away or something".

Overall massive applause. I didn't think that 3e could be improved without loosing something and I was correct and incorrect. It lost the fat and kept the good stuff.

It did lose a bit, there have been a few cuts to verisimilitude and customisation, but overall we lost a lot more complexity than we did depth and got a chunk of balance as a bonus, so good trade.

[Mrmox42]

I agree. 5E is playable and fun. I have been playing D&D since 1981, and, for me, this is the best edition.

[JAL_1138]

I still kinda like 2e better, but even I have to admit it was a mess in comparison. It was my mess, though. I knew where everything was. 5th is in a very strong second-place spot for me, though--first time since TSR got bought out (before that, actually--wasn't a fan of the Player's Option splats that get called 2.5) that I've liked the direction they've gone with it.

I do kinda think we might see a 5.5 in the relatively-near future as the errata piles up over a couple of years, but I'll be happy to buy it if that happens.

[Rallicus]

Same.

I swore off D&D years ago, but my curiosity got the best of me and I had to run a 5e game. I've been extremely impressed.

[silveralen]

There are things 3e and 4e do better still, withit a doubt, but 5e seems to do everything well so far. Many of those things 5e will likely catch up in eventually, as it just needs more content to fill in the gaps. So I'm quite excited.

[Balor777]

Nothing is perfect but id say its a very polished version too.
But you will find things you dont like.Probably not many tho.

[Scowling Dragon]

I still kinda like 2e better, but even I have to admit it was a mess in comparison. It was my mess, though.

Thats me with 3.5/ 3.P

There are things I dislike. I like having the ability to have more strong influence on the world. Create Golems, Magic Items, Exetera.

However the CORE thing of 5e that Makes rather then breaks the edition, is how it stresses that its your game to change, and the very least gives you some direction.

I know that Houserules are universal in any game, and nobody is holding a gun to your head to not change things, but rules can often fight you for those sort of things.

It doesn't give rules for more in depth undead creation, however it at least gives SOME, so you have some direction to go for if you feel like it.

Overall It feels like 5e a streamlined in a good way version of everybody's favorite edition. Which instead of giving it Bard Syndrome, instead makes it a alternative option for everybody:
"I want to Play ____ but a bit more streamlined.......5e!"

Just overall this edition feels like a Joy.

[Typewriter]

The only thing I don't like (as a transition from 3.5/PF) is the skill system. I really enjoyed being able to customize my skills, being very good at some things, OK at others - all at the level I desired. Now you're either good at something (which isn't even that big of a boost) or not. It makes the skills feel a little more generic to me than in past editions. I'm OK with there being fewer skills, but wish that customizing them involved more than 'Yes/No'.

[kaoskonfety]

I was a bit middle of the road on this edition.

It does several things well.

What really caught me was in the play test backgrounds while rolling along, I was making a peasant/commoner type before reading the DM rules for the nights one shot dungeon crawl, so I read a bit further on the background.

"You own a house.... (a bunch of other stuff I completely don't remember, probably clarifying my neighbours know and trust me...)"

I had to stop and re-read it a few times till it really sunk in. I've had many PC's (dozens, hundreds?) in D&D *quite* rich, a few who held land, but only 2 with a fixed address they might reliably be found at and one of those expressly rented. Both of those were over level 10 and could have bought the kingdom had they cared to.

I spent most of the rest of the evening reading all the RP tidbits in the backgrounds, laughing and writing mini-campaign seeds around them. Couldn't be happier they inserted the storytelling in the game so clearly.

[TrollCapAmerica]

I am convinced that 5E will never be worse than everyone's second favorite edition. There may be ones people prefer more but nobody is going to have a real problem with this one.

Right now I could play 3.5 or 5th and be just as happy with either one. I think it's gonna be that if your grognard longing for Greyhawk and backstabbing if you a 3.5 master race optimizer creating Frankenstein monsters everytime you bring out a character sheet or if your 13 and have to hurry and Raid Thrall after the game

[Yagyujubei]

Thats me with 3.5/ 3.P

There are things I dislike. I like having the ability to have more strong influence on the world. Create Golems, Magic Items, Exetera.

However the CORE thing of 5e that Makes rather then breaks the edition, is how it stresses that its your game to change, and the very least gives you some direction.

I know that Houserules are universal in any game, and nobody is holding a gun to your head to not change things, but rules can often fight you for those sort of things.

It doesn't give rules for more in depth undead creation, however it at least gives SOME, so you have some direction to go for if you feel like it.

Overall It feels like 5e a streamlined in a good way version of everybody's favorite edition. Which instead of giving it Bard Syndrome, instead makes it a alternative option for everybody:
"I want to Play ____ but a bit more streamlined.......5e!"

Just overall this edition feels like a Joy.

I agree with this and it's one of the reasons im such a huge fan of 5e. Fact is that at the end of the day most everyone is going to make little tweaks to whatever rules they get no matter how detailed they get or how much they cover all the minutia.

5e just embraces that, gives you the skeleton, and just a tiny bit of the meat on top to get you started with each of it's features and then says "the rest is up to you, play it exactly how you think it should be" which I think is fantastic.

[Balor777]

The only thing I don't like (as a transition from 3.5/PF) is the skill system. I really enjoyed being able to customize my skills, being very good at some things, OK at others - all at the level I desired. Now you're either good at something (which isn't even that big of a boost) or not. It makes the skills feel a little more generic to me than in past editions. I'm OK with there being fewer skills, but wish that customizing them involved more than 'Yes/No'.

You can use this:
How many skills is the character proficient including
backround?
Lets say 3.At level 1
So he would normaly had 3x2 =6 proficient points.
Let thwm spread as they wish with maximum bomus level+3 for +4 max at level 1.
Once they get to +3 proficiensy give him another 3 points to put them were he likes.

[bokodasu]

OD&D was my mess - I refused to upgrade from '82 until '08, and then put tons of work into making the change to 3.5. Time to switch from years of weekly 3.5 with tons of houserules to 5e? Just as long as it took me to read through the basic rules.

Sure, there are things that aren't perfect, but it doesn't seem to matter so much. One of my players who started in 4th was complaining about a how a rule in 5e worked and was a little taken aback when I said, "well, it doesn't have to work that way, that rule's not the boss of me" and we changed it right there. I might be less pleased once cruft starts accumulating, but right now, I'm really happy with the balance of freedom and structure. It even encouraged my hardcore tactical wargamer to roleplay a little bit! (Not a lot, it's not a miracle worker or anything, but I was still impressed.)

[Mandragola]

I'm surprised by it too. Major advances from previous editions, as well as bringing forward the best features from them.

I love that they put backgrounds in. I'm certainly more on the optimisation/wargaming side of the community but I love that this is such an integral part of character creation now, where previously you had a much more seperate numbers game and story game, with very little interaction between the two.

[RedMage125]

The only thing I don't like (as a transition from 3.5/PF) is the skill system. I really enjoyed being able to customize my skills, being very good at some things, OK at others - all at the level I desired. Now you're either good at something (which isn't even that big of a boost) or not. It makes the skills feel a little more generic to me than in past editions. I'm OK with there being fewer skills, but wish that customizing them involved more than 'Yes/No'.

I get what you're saying, but that's one of the main reasons DCs were set so low.

A 3.5e character could expect to face DC 20+ skill DCs early on in their career. DC of 15 or so was considered "challenging but manageable" at level 1, for someone with max ranks.

Now, early DCs are in the 10-13 range. A DC 20 task is reserved for something that is very difficult, even for a trained professional. DC 10, even, is a task that is supposed to be challenging but manageable for a trained professional, whereas DC10 in 3.x was "very easy".

As all Skills are Ability Checks, your Ability Score are what reflects your ability to do something well or not. The things you are Very Good at (your trained skills) get even better. While the skills you didn't really invest in stay about the same, but with lower DCs, you could still reasonably expect to be able to make most skill checks untrained. If your stats are good enough, that is.

[NotALurker]

It did lose a bit, there have been a few cuts to verisimilitude and customisation, but overall we lost a lot more complexity than we did depth and got a chunk of balance as a bonus, so good trade.

...are you honestly saying that 5e is more balanced then 4e?

[TrollCapAmerica]

...are you honestly saying that 5e is more balanced then 4e?

He's probably talking about 3.5

Like everyone else that played D&D instead of raiding Thrall with their guild

[Eslin]

...are you honestly saying that 5e is more balanced then 4e?

What? No. Than 3.5. 4e cut a massive amount of depth, customisation and verisimilitude in order to get well balanced, interesting tactical combat. Compared to 4e, 5e lost a bit of balance and a lot of tactical nuance and in exchange reduced complexity and gained verisimilitude.

[Typewriter]

I get what you're saying, but that's one of the main reasons DCs were set so low.

A 3.5e character could expect to face DC 20+ skill DCs early on in their career. DC of 15 or so was considered "challenging but manageable" at level 1, for someone with max ranks.

Now, early DCs are in the 10-13 range. A DC 20 task is reserved for something that is very difficult, even for a trained professional. DC 10, even, is a task that is supposed to be challenging but manageable for a trained professional, whereas DC10 in 3.x was "very easy".

As all Skills are Ability Checks, your Ability Score are what reflects your ability to do something well or not. The things you are Very Good at (your trained skills) get even better. While the skills you didn't really invest in stay about the same, but with lower DCs, you could still reasonably expect to be able to make most skill checks untrained. If your stats are good enough, that is.

The skills are definitely balanced well, my problem is just with the lack of customization. In 3.5 if I wanted my character to be good at three things then I maxed those three skills. If I wanted to be good at one thing and mixed at four (or more!) others - I could. Sure, as a result I may not have been great at a lot of things but it was my choice. My character felt distinct because of the feats and skills I chose.

In 5E feats are still important, but they're fewer and farer between, meaning less customization. Same with skills - instead of 'choosing' to focus on a certain number of skills the system defines me as focusing on a certain number of skills. Sure, which skills (and how many) depends on choice, but the fact that they all just get 'proficiency' added to them rubs me the wrong way. That being said it's not a big deal, I DM most of the time and my players don't care. For those few times I do play it won't bother me that much.