Help me know if 5e is right for me

[Verbannon]

I've been trying to figure out if I should move on to 5e for a while. Because the support for 4e has collapsed, the online tools are falling apart, you can't get the books anymore without paying out the nose and Wizards is still strangleholding PDFs. But everything I research, every person I asked, every review I read and even the core rules given for free, all send me so many mixed messages.

When I ask people I know who have tried it they either say variations of "Its boring as can be, you might as well skip combat, its got all the depth of forum rped combat. There are no tactics or challenge, its just the DM sitting by while all the players make up whatever they can to get advantage and steamroll everything. Not that its fun, unless you are a caster class you might as well watch TV during combat. Its all about just making fancy backgrounds. Though you would like the rp enforced characters."

Or they say

"Its certainly simple, but that lets everyone focus more on tactics, strategy and the rp of their character in battle and less on number crunching. Who encounters only last 15-20 minutes and you get to spend most of your time. You would like the RP aspect of it. It fits your style there."

But everyone universally says I would incapable of DMing it, as my DMing style would tpk any party twice a level every level. And that if I was a player I would well fall asleep during the encounters.

The reviews are all positive, but some say that its flexible enough to allow for even tactically oriented players to enjoy themselves. Others say it completely does away with tactics allowing everyone to focus entirely on character interactions and roleplay.

As for the core rules, a lot of it already reflects my little dm style. I like the way monsters are balanced with flat scaling, I like the way players start out from humble origins, I like the lack of apparent power creep, I love the balance of it, but I'm scared by the thought that all the cool monsters, and balance and the humble origins might actually be totally irrelevant as there is no combat system to really use it all in.

I started out in forum roleplay, which means it was all role and no roll. But left to 4e because I wanted a better balance of roll and role. And I feel that 4e has a balance when I DM it and play in games by people I mentored (But never in games I played in ran by people I hadn't mentored). I'm a personal challenge DM, thats close to a killer DM, the difference is I don't get fun out of killing the players, I get my fun by challenging myself by trying to use balanced obstacles to defeat the players. And seeing how close I can come to it. I have a secondary source of fun by being creative with items, traps,terrain. monsters and areas. And although its hard to accomplish, when I can get a good story arc that leaves an impression on my players, I get a ton of enjoyment from that. When I'm a player I do it pretty much the same way, I like thinking of an rp concept like a half-orc carpenter, then building a character around t hat concept, taking weak underpowered feats if needed for it. Then getting my challenge by using the resulting character in ensuing encounters all while doing lots of rp and character development.

I'm worried that from what I've heard that 5e monsters and stuff aren't able to be used in a way thats... like a game at all. That its all theater. That if I were to DM a game all the monsters, traps, obstacles ect are meant for me to place there not as a challenge to the players, but simply as pieces in a narrative for the players to overcome as part of the story. And if I was a player again nothing there is meant to challenge me, but just a piece of narrative that I'm guaranteed to beat. If thats the case then I do not know what to do, I don't know how much longer I can keep playing 4e, before the infrastructure completely collapses. Half my players are reliant almost entirely on a character builder for the rules. And if not for my own personal access to the books they wouldn't be able to play at all. If that character builder falls apart they won't be able to play at all anymore. And certainly no new players will come. And 4e is a unique system, so if all the 4e resources vanish and 5e turns out not to be a system I can play, then I'm at a dead end.

I have no interest in system bashing or receiving system bashing, I really just want to know if 5e is a system I can go to and enjoy or not.

Note: 2 AM when I write this, probably typo filled.

[hymer]

If your big worry is that combats will be too easy, well... Make them harder? I mean, at first you should get a feel for the system, but once you've ascertained that the players do steamroll everything, you can simply add a few more monsters, make the tactical situation harder, add a time-sensitive objective, whatever.
It sounds a little like some players coming from 4e are a little stuck in the sumo mindset. A first level character is in mortal jeopardy from a goblin encounter.

At any rate, the best advice is to try the game. Use the free rules, maybe find some people interested in running a handful or so sessions to see what it's like if your players' negative view will interfere.
Oh, and respect that view. If they really don't want to change to 5e, they probably won't enjoy it, whatever its qualities.

[steppedonad4]

There are no tactics or challenge, its just the DM sitting by while all the players make up whatever they can to get advantage and steamroll everything.

Anyone who says that, lacks the imagination to be tactical and requires the system to tell them how to play and give them everything on a silver platter.

Let's take my battlemaster as a for instance. He's currently 9th-level. He has Commander’s Strike, Goading Attack, Lunging Attack & Riposte. In one combat, we had creatures that would explode on death and a PC who would die outright if he got hit with the AoE (he was already unconscious and only had one death save left). There was an open hole (where the creatures came out of) so I shouted to a fellow PC whose turn it was after mine to grab a large stone (he was a goliath so picking up a massive rock wasn't a problem for him) and close it. On my turn I used a shield bash (bonus action from Shield Master), and two Shoves to push three of them into the hole, and then the goliath closed it up, thus saving the party member and defeating the creatures.

In another combat I shoved one target into a stinking cloud with one attack, right next to the goliath (who was having trouble in the stinking cloud to find any targets), moved to another target that was on a downed PC (actually, now that I think about it it was the same one as the last example), shield bashed him towards an area where a wizard was causing havoc on the group, moved up to both of them thus provoking from another enemy who I knew was near to dropping and so Riposted him (he missed, I have a 22 AC) and killed him, action surged and attacked the wizard, causing it to lose concentration on the stinking cloud and run away on his turn.

Not tactical? HAH!

[Ninja_Prawn]

It sounds like you enjoy the 'tactical combat simulation' aspect of 4e and your main fears about 5e stem from TotM.

The first thing to note is that TotM is completely optional. The game is built to accommodate it, but high-complexity combat situations still work better on a grid. Given all the conical, spherical & cylindrical AoEs, hex grids are good for 5e.

The suggestion that you can't create challenging combats in 5e is obviously laughable - especially when you say yourself that you'd TPK your party regularly. Challenge can be set anywhere the DM likes, and you have plenty of levers to pull if things aren't working.

Overall, I would say that 5e is an elegant, flexible system that captures the 'feel' of AD&D, while being much more balanced and easier to run. You should try it, for sure. Keep your 4e books though. They still work, don't they?

[Lalliman]

5e is very elegant, a hell of a lot more than the cluster**** that is 3.5. I appreciate elegance a lot, but... I can't really get myself to like it. The mechanical character customization, or rather the lack thereof, bothers me. Feats don't really customize your character, because for every fighting style there's 2 or 3 that you'd be a fool not to take, so you're at mid-high level by the time you get any choice. Ability scores are the same: because all finesse weapons grant dex to damage automatically and heavy armour allows no dexterity bonus to defence at all, you essentially pick one, raise it as high as possible, and don't touch the other. Raising both is practically pointless.

Now, that kind of restriction (yes, I consider it a restriction) doesn't mean you can't have awesome scenes like the one Mr Flumph described, but you can have those in just about any system. I just don't like the fact that 5e doesn't allow you to put a whole lot of thought into your build. It makes me feel like I'm playing a pre-made character instead of one I made. Is it better than 3.5's system, where even the most mundane things have feat costs and you need to specialize in anything you wanna be remotely good at? That's for you to decide. I've found myself kind of dissatisfied with either, which is why I've started the far-too-ambitious project of creating my own. But that's a different story.

All in all, you won't know until you try. It's a BIG step from 4e though.

[Tenmujiin]

If you want complex tactical simulation play 4e. If you want fast paced, roleplay heavy combat play 5e.

That isn't to say that you can't have tactical combat in 5e, just that 4e does it better. 5e plays much more like the D&D of yore but carrying over much of the balance from 4e (enough that no PC will be overshadowed easily but spellcasters still get more versatility late game without DM fiat).

From what you've said of your DMing style I'd say go with 4e. 5e is more about cooperative storytelling and a DM trying to "beat" the PCs (regardless of method and motive) will probably make the games flaws stand out. 5e requires the DM to define may of the PC's abilities (particularly for martials) while 4e is crunch heavy with the rules defining PC's abilities to the letter.

[Madeiner]

I'm a personal challenge DM, thats close to a killer DM, the difference is I don't get fun out of killing the players, I get my fun by challenging myself by trying to use balanced obstacles to defeat the players. And seeing how close I can come to it. I have a secondary source of fun by being creative with items, traps,terrain. monsters and areas.

Well, it seems you DM exactly as i do, and get your fun exactly from the same things (when speaking about combat).
I was worried about the same thing, even if i played pathfinder and never 4e.

Here's your answer: No, the monsters as written do not allow you to do what you want. The combat system is solid, but the monsters (and to a certain extent, the PCs) are way too simplistic, as written, to provide any sort of serious tactical considerations. Most monsters have only a single or a couple of different attacks, and sometimes a few spells.
You don't get any of the control that 4e monsters/abilities gave you.

However: the system is a lot, a lot faster and slimmer than 4e and pathfinder. Even in pathfinder, where the monsters had a little better tactical options, i ended up modyfing them to provide more of a challenge (without raising damage numbers). You can still modify monsters in 5e, and it's easier than ever. I was worried about that at the beginning, but now it's easier and faster, thanks to the slimmer combat system.

In the end, i'm glad i switched to 5e. Combats take way, way less time than other edition. I am still modifying and customizing every monsters to provide an interesting challenge. It's now even easier to do that, so that's another plus.
In the beginning, it might seem daunting if you don't know the system. I kept standard monsters for the first 2-3 sessions. Then i started customizing them a little, changing a few numbers, adding one ability. After 6 months, i'm back to my pathfinder way of "think of tactical concept, find base monsters, customize the hell out of it" and i'm doing quite fine, and i'm doing it quite faster.

[Mara]

It sounds like you delight far more in the game aspect of DnD. "Tactical" is a misleading word. Some mean it as combat tactics others mean it as the number of crunchy options available to your character. 5e character crunchy options are few even for casters compared to 4e. Tactically each character has infinite options and so does the DM.

Where you will either like or hate 5e is the skill system which doubles as how ad hoc combat actions are taken. There are very few explicit mechanics. The DM is asked to set a DC for a task 5 very easy, 10 easy, 15 medium, 20 hard, 25 very hard, 30 nearly impossible. It's up to the DM if a task's DC is a universal difficulty or the difficulty for the character performing it.

I have a friend who also enjoys the gamist side far more. He appreciates how 5e at least tells the DM that they need to make rulings rather than the system pretending it has rules for everything but countless rulings are required to handle interactions that weren't planned for like his frustration with PF.

If you would view any action preformed with a skill as "mother may I" then 5e is most likely not for you.

[Theodoxus]

I just don't like the fact that 5e doesn't allow you to put a whole lot of thought into your build. It makes me feel like I'm playing a pre-made character instead of one I made.

I just want to say that I have the exact opposite viewpoint. I agonize over ever character build. I'm currently working on a Rogue build. I'm definitely going Thief, but I'd like to get a modicum of magic, for fluff/flavor primarily. I have options, but they all have opportunity costs. Since I don't know how common magic items (specifically scrolls) will be, grabbing something like Ritual Caster might not be worth it. Likewise, if I'm maximizing Dex and concentrating on Con, then my mental attributes (aka caster stats) will be middling, making attack rolls and save DCs low (and thus not worth the cost, when I could just shank someone instead), so Magic Initiate might not be worth it either.

I could MC into a caster class, grab a level of Wizard or Cleric for increased utility, but then my Rogue progression is hindered (on top of the fact that my current character did that, and I don't want to simply play a similar build). So, maybe I drop magic all together and hope my party mates compensate...

Then there's the question, do I go TWF or ranged - both have their appeal, and I know at least one other player will be an Arcane Trickster (another reason I'm going Thief) so I'll have at least one party member we could go melee together with, gaining Sneak Attack on the same critter... But if there's a melee combatant in the group, it might be better to grab XBX and SS and both use hand crossbows (granted, we're halflings, so we'll have 4 levels to figure out what the first feat will be - so that's less of a concern - but if I'm going a magic route, I need to use SPBI to prioritize one of the caster stats at the start...)

Which reminds me, what stats do I use? If I tank strength (as I had originally planned) then Second Story Work is worth less, as it limits my jump distance. I can probably tank charisma, though the character concept is one of quick wit and jocularity - sure, that doesn't have to be represented by charisma, but it helps. I can definitely tank intelligence, though I tend to play the 'lore guy' (why my current rogue is MC with Knowledge cleric - but again, maybe this time I'll skip that, just to be different).

So yeah, there's choices. Lots of choices. And that's just one character. Some builds come easy: a Polearm using half orc barbarian? practically writes itself; a ranger with a longbow? Easy choices there too... But all too often, without knowing the exact details of a new campaign, without knowing the party composition to plan around - the character build is far more complex than you're letting on.

Does it have 3.P complexity? Of course not, it doesn't have the book bloat of those systems (yet). But it's starting. SCAG already has the players of our current campaign asking the DM if they can tweak their characters a bit... He's been adamant so far, but the Rogue I'm building will have SCAG available - if I knew he'd be a lone wolf type, I'd of gone Swashbuckler, but knowing there will be two Rogues in the party, figured Thief is better... but that might change as we talk tactics... maybe I go Swash and run in while my friend goes full ranged and we nuke the same target...

[Ninja_Prawn]

-snip-

While I generally agree with you (that there are enough customisation options in 5e), the other camp does have a point. I once heard someone say that building a party in 4e was like building a set of MTG decks so that they all combined and synergised with each other perfectly. 5e doesn't give you that, and some people will surely miss it.

[KorvinStarmast]

Combat:
Our group uses a grid.
It works.

Battles are as tactical as you want them to be.

Good tools.

Theater of the Mind is not required. If your group likes it, the rules are a good fit for it.

Use of abilities and skills: simple resolution.

The mind numbing bookkeeping of some previous editions is gone.

I came back to D&D after quite an absence and having gotten rid of my 3.0 and 3.5 books.

It's got a good feel.

[Shining Wrath]

The game is much simpler than 3.5 and lacks the chess game battles of 4e.

That's both good and bad. The twin ideas of "legendary actions" and "Lair Actions" can be added to monsters at will to make them more interesting. Battles take about half as long as a 4e equivalent so you can add more combatants without slowing things to a crawl.

Balance between character classes is much better than 3.5, and party composition correspondingly more important.

[eastmabl]

I can't really add anything to what the previous posters said about the differences between 4e and 5e.

However, if you're looking for a d20 game that's actively supported and has a lot of the feel of 4e, I'd suggest 13th Age (http://www.13thagesrd.com/). It was written by Jonathan Tweet and Rob Heinsoo, who wrote 3.x and 4e D&D. It has a lot of the neat powers and tricks that people liked from 4e. Dice rolls are almost always important for players and monsters, and depending upon the result of the d20, cool things often happen.

The only downside is that the game uses TotM, eschewing grid- and numerical-distance-based mechanics in favor of simplified range mechanics of engaged (in melee), nearby (within a move away) and far away (more than one move away). I've run the game on a grid, and it still works, but the game doesn't have all of the ranges baked into the rules.

I'd suggest checking it out. As a DM, it's a blast to run.

[Verbannon]

This has given me a lot to think about.

@Hymer: Easy and hard probably weren't the right words, what I meant is by the sounds of it, the encounter balance isn't 'baked in'. There is some suggested xp and crs, but in actual play I as DM am expected to use restraint. I'm not good with restraint.

Example in 4e, for a basic encounter example, if I were to run say a level 1 encounter with goblins, basic set up from the monster manual are 2 warriors, 2 fire beetles and a blackblade. The warriors avoid the party defender like the plague, as they have a requirement though to move 4 squares every turn for maximum damage. So send one fire beetle with its high hp to try and pin the defender while the black blade and the other fire beetle find someone to flank and the two skirmishers move around. Against non defenders, they are close to impossible to pin down because they can move 3 squares before they attack with their standard action. So a 5 footstep+this is enough to get them their bonus damage. The two Aces in a hole in this encounter are the fire beetle's area attack, which acts as a control ability preventing the party from surrounding a skirmisher or anyone else and bringing numbers to bear without suffering for it hard. And the black blade's sneaky ability, which allows it to 'rescue' one of the warriors if it gets pinned by the defender anyway. Shifting into its square and trading places with it. A large spots of difficult terrain, maybe a stand of trees, and I can have a second layer of defense for the skirmishers, letting them run from cover to cover protecting them from ranged attacks as well. Potentially creating a little chase that lets me isolate any pcs that decide to chase after the skirms. Get the pc out of healing range and there is another threat. Lots of ways this fight could unfold and each giving me more options to try and hurt the party just a little bit more. Even if it goes bad for me, there are always things I can do to maximize the damage anyway. If I play this standard encounter with all my skill and as hard as I can, and the party fails to stop the skirmishers, then the party will suffer badly. They aren't likely to be TPKed from this one encounter but they'll likely lose half their surges. A couple dailies and have 1 - 2 people koed by the fight's end. With a chance of death if they fail their saves. Anyway point is, if the party doesn't recognize the tactical situation and adjust accordingly, I'll happily mess them up.

With 5e from what I heard, a situation like this would kill the party every time and the DM is expected not to do things like that at all and instead is expected to make sure every encounter is tailored to the party so they can defeat it without trouble. Thats what I meant.

Setting up a practice session to test it out will require a good deal of time commitment on my part, thats why I wanted to get others opinions.

@Steppedon

Well that sounds promising.

@Ninja

Well thats also mostly comorting. Knowing that the tactical grid is still useful and not just a vestigial option. Setting the challenge where the DM likes though, is less comforting.

@Lalliman.
Sounds like essentials, to be honest I kind of liked the essentials classes to a large degree, in my own 4e campaign I request everyone not go too much stronger or too much lower than the essentials classes.

@Tenmujin

Thats what I was worried about. :(

@Madeiner

Well thats promising, I don't mind customizing monsters.

@Mara

I didn't mean character options, I meant well actual tactics. I suppose whether or not I like the ad hoc system depends on if it results in that "The party always as advantage like all the time so flanking and maneuvering is irrelevant" or not.

@Kevin

I admit I hate book keeping, except with food and water. And hirelings. I like it when the party has to consider the attrition aspect of the game.

@Eastmabl

I'll keep that in mind. I like D&D's point of light setting though.

[Mr.Moron]

If you're looking for an in-depth tactical boardgame/wargame embedded in the same way 4e was you won't like 5e. Anyone talking about it being limited from a tactical depth sense is certainly not too far off the mark. You can do a lot with combat scenes in terms of building an resolving interesting situations but it won't feel like you're winning a combat a real combat game in the same sense.

[Yorrin]

Everyone has address your questions better than I could have, but I'd like to point out that if you're looking to move on from 4e then 5e isn't your only option. 5e is certainly fun, and a good choice, but I might also direct you toward, for example 13th Age. It's more of a direct hybrid of 3e and 4e than 5e is, with 5e incorporating 2e as well. Just something you might want to look into.

[randomodo]

This has given me a lot to think about.


With 5e from what I heard, a situation like this would kill the party every time and the DM is expected not to do things like that at all and instead is expected to make sure every encounter is tailored to the party so they can defeat it without trouble. Thats what I meant.
.

Howdy. I don't know who told you that, but whoever did so does NOT have the same ethos of DMing that I've seen from my gaming history.

In 5e, or in any edition, you can tailor any encounter to whatever difficulty level you want (it's easier to tailor it in 5e than in 3.5 due to the variance in system complexity).

Likewise, in any edition you can pick terrain, combat circumstances, and monster tactics as you see fit. A group of, say, smartly-played 5e goblins with any kind of notable terrain/bushes/etc can be quite dangerous to parties well above first level.

Overall, though (and forgive me if this sounds kinda edition wars-ish), it sounds like 4e suits your preferred playstyle more. It is, at root, a tactical wargame with RP options bolted onto it. 5e isn't.

But in 5e (or 4e), you can DEFINITELY craft a variety of challenging encounters for players, encounters that will keep them on their toes and be potentially deadly if they're stupid or unlucky.

I'd say, give 5e a shot (I'm sure the basic rules are still readily available online for free) and see what you think. I suspect ultimately it is not your cup of tea, but give it a try and see what you think.

Take care,

[eastmabl]

@Eastmabl

I'll keep that in mind. I like D&D's point of light setting though.

For the setting, you can use whatever you would like. There are settings other than the core setting of the Dragon Empire, like Midgard, Primeval Thule and Parsantium.

To adapt Nentir Vale, the only real thing you need to create are icons (http://www.13thagesrd.com/icons - note that the icons listed there are not the core icons from 13A, which are not part of the OGL). Icons are the 13 movers and shakers in a given world. Since I'm not so familiar with Nentir Vale, I can't make recommendations, but you could choose 13 high level NPCs/NPC groups who get involved in Nentir Vale/Points of Light.

Alternatively, this is a simple way to create 13 Icons for Points of Light - use the servants of the gods.

Choose four good deities (Avandra, Bahamut, Mordain, Pelor), four unaligned deities (Corellon, Erathis, Ioun, the Raven Queen), and four evil deities (Asmodeus, Bane, Gruumsh, Tharizdun). The churches and cults of these deities are twelve of your thirteen icons. The last icon is a group that represents creation's relationship with Mother Nature.

Admittedly, this makes all of your icons be related to the gods, and that's not everyone's play style. If you want to try the game out, however, it's a pretty easy thing.

PS - I have a friend who slowly converted his group from 4E to 13th Age without telling them, and he might be able to make suggestions. PM me if you're interested.

[Icewraith]

I'd say that 5e doesn't have 4e's massive suite of player powers, but isn't necessarily lacking in tactical depth. What 5e did was remove a lot of the choice paralysis and bookkeeping from 4e play.

A lot of the play does revolve around advantage and disadvantage, but the only class that can reliably get advantage against any opponent is the Barbarian, who does so by granting all opponents advantage against the Barbarian in return. Tripping usually only works against large or smaller monsters and you still need to win your strength check, and you can only trip so many monsters in a round. The classes work differently and have different resource systems, which adds a bit more strategic depth to gameplay, especially for casters.

Movement and positioning are still big deals, because opportunity attacks are still a thing and ranged attackers have disadvantage if they're in melee with an opponent. There's a ring around each opponent that you can move freely within, but once two opponents have you in their reach you can't move without provoking from one or the other. IIRC most healing spells are touch range, and in-combat healing is suboptimal but sometimes necessary. If combats aren't interesting and potentially deadly, the issue is with the DM or the module, not the system. Combats on a blank grid aren't much better than combats in ToTM, if you're using a grid you should be adding some interesting terrain to the encounter. Walls or pillars to obstruct/control movement or grant cover or hide. Stairs. Difficult terrain. Traps. Ledges. Pits. Beehives that if disturbed release 1d3+1 wasp swarms.

One thing I will say is if tactical play is that big a deal for you, start everyone at third level minimum. Levels 1-3 are sort of "trainee" levels for people who haven't really played before. The combat options at those levels are very stripped down so people learn where things are on their sheets, when to make attacks, when to make saves, how basic abilities work, etc. Level 3 is really the minimum level at which most characters have their full basic toolkit, and then the first ASI/feat is at 4 (if you want to give players more options, give them a free feat at first and ban variant human). The PCs tend to graduate to being very effective combatants at level 5, where most physical classes are getting second attacks and casters get third level spells.

Additionally, to get some of the 4e feel back, you can play around with short rest timings.

[Verbannon]

Thank you for all the replies, I'll have to think on it.

[Mara]

Thank you for all the replies, I'll have to think on it.

I've been disappointed in how players have approached the ad hoc system. I was playing a rogue and suggested to paladin buddy to jump on the swarm with his shield to squish as many as possible and his response was "I don't have anything that allows me to do that" which is very much ingrained in him from more wargame like 3.5 and PF. Eventually he figured out that he didn't need a feat to tie his shoes. The DM had him roll an athletics check then the DM referenced the table in the DMG and chose reasonable damage to a swarm for that action.

It can take awhile for players to use the skill system in a way that isn't "hmmmm let me get advantage since that is the only readily crunchy consequence I understand for non damage options".

[Safety Sword]

I've been disappointed in how players have approached the ad hoc system. I was playing a rogue and suggested to paladin buddy to jump on the swarm with his shield to squish as many as possible and his response was "I don't have anything that allows me to do that" which is very much ingrained in him from more wargame like 3.5 and PF. Eventually he figured out that he didn't need a feat to tie his shoes. The DM had him roll an athletics check then the DM referenced the table in the DMG and chose reasonable damage to a swarm for that action.

It can take awhile for players to use the skill system in a way that isn't "hmmmm let me get advantage since that is the only readily crunchy consequence I understand for non damage options".

You mean... people in your group are... role playing? And not building cookie cutter min/max combat destroying characters?

YOU'RE DOING D&D WRONG!

[Madeiner]

Example in 4e, for a basic encounter example,

No, you absolutely cannot reach this level of tactical play in 5e standard.
You'll definately have to customize the monsters to allow for that.
The upside is that you can do it easily.
The downside is that you are making things up, if your players don't like it.

For an example of how i customize my monsters, here's a very simple one made in 5 minutes:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20032736&postcount=38

[djreynolds]

You have to play, really.

What I miss is the buffs? Everything is concentration it seems and so you can't just go buff crazy. You can only have one concentration spell up at a time. No meta magic for all.

But spells are more powerful now, and you have unlimited scaling cantrips. Feats are very powerful, by via for ASI. And stats have a ceiling. So players are kept close and equal, though some disagree.

Its still D&D, I can say that much. Still fun to play. I liked 3.5. But this game requires no real optimization, though its present you "don't" need it.

Just as fun as the other editions, just different.