First 5e session; some questions

[Zombimode]

I just came home from the first session we used the D&D 5e ruleset. I'm a D&D veteran and have played several editions, but the one I am most at home is 3.5
By reading the Players Handbook I realized that I may not be the target audience for the game, but thats fine. I think I can see what the designers were aiming for: a simpler D&D experience without being overburdened witch choices (good or bad) and simpler numbers.
But thats just my impression so far.

Still, there are some things that have left us puzzled.

1. We could not find anything about something akin to a 5-foot-step. That is a short range movement that does not provoke AoOs and leaves your set of actions otherwise intact.
That made the fights we had (admittedly only two) very "static".

2. There seems to be no "charge" option. At least we could not find anything in the combat chapter.

Are our observations correct?

[CaptAl]

They've made AoO rules such that you can move all around the enemy without provoking. You only draw the attack of opportunity when you leave the reach of an enemy without using the disengage action.

You are correct about charge, there's no way to use a charge attack except by a class ability (Battlerager) or via a feat.

[mgshamster]

3.5 is similar to Pathfinder, so try this thread:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2t6qj?5e-Advice-for-Pathfinder-Players

[Tiber]

There's no shifting in 5e. This is because 5e handles mobility differently. You can move around an enemy without provoking an AoO is long as you don't leave their reach, so reaction attacks don't seem to happen all that often unless certain feats come into play. Also note that you can attack at any point during your movement and still use the remainder. You can even break up attacks using the extra attack feature and move in the middle. So there is actually a fair bit of moving around in 5e even without the 5-foot step. You can also just have 2 levels of rogue and be able to disengage almost for free.

In one of the dumber moves, charging requires a feat. This feat is also terrible, as feats are both more expensive to acquire and more powerful, and more importantly it doesn't work with the extra attack that most martial classes get.

Overall, 5e does go for fewer choices. I really think they went too far with slimming down the number of choices, but at the same time the choices you do have are better balanced against each other. There aren't any ridiculously over or under-powered combos that I've found. Also, they mostly just wanted to cut down on having to remember a whole bunch of circumstantial bonuses or penalties. It mostly works, though it does get a bit silly at times. I kind of want called shots back, though. Streamlining isn't always bad. It does in any case make the game move faster.

[quinron]

I tend to find that the lack of a charge is mitigated by the fact that you can still make all your attacks after you move. I don't know if this happened to you, but my 3.5 games always turned into combat-locks where the frontliners charged in and then refused to leave combat for risk of opportunity attacks. Between the moving/attacking changes and Disengage allowing full movement without AoOs, I find that combat tends to be more active and exciting; opportunity attacks also aren't as dangerous as they were, since bounded accuracy means attacks aren't as guaranteed to hit a well-armored combatant.